Sitting of 2 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  ATTENDANCE
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have to report that Her Majesty, having been waited upon, pursuant to the Order of 25 April, humbly to know Her Majesty's Pleasure when she will be attended by this House, has been pleased to appoint to be attended on Friday 5 May at Twelve noon in Westminster Hall.
NEW WRIT
For the county constituency of Perth and Kinross, in the room of the hon. Sir Nicholas Hardwick Fairbairn, QC, deceased.—[Mr. Wood.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in each standard planning region in the last year for which figures are available. [20076]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): Data on Ministry of Defence equipment expenditure with companies in each of the standard economic planning regions of the United Kingdom are contained in "UK Defence Statistics 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We do not compile regional figures for other aspects of defence expenditure.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is it not about time that the Ministry of Defence did so, because its spending figures highly in any debate on public expenditure in the United Kingdom? From information that is available, it is clear that nations such as Wales are very badly disadvantaged in public expenditure by the Department. Will he undertake a review to ensure that there is a better share of that spending throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government believe that that is precisely the wrong way to allocate scarce defence resources. It must be done on the basis of value for money, and that means placing contracts with United Kingdom companies—which win 90 per cent. of all
    154
    competitions for our procurement—where it represents best value for money for the taxpayer, and not on the basis of some political fix.
    Mr. Devlin: Would it not be best, from the points of view of value for money and the happiness of the troops and contractors who serve the Ministry of Defence, if more of them were moved out of the south-east of England and up to the north-east of England and Scotland, where the best recruiting areas are?
    Mr. Freeman: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. He will know—indeed, the whole House will know—that we have moved out of the Ministry of Defence in London, to different locations around the country, the command headquarters for many aspects of service for the armed forces. That is good for employment and for representation around the country.
    Mr. Martlew: I am sure that the Minister will agree that all areas of the country have suffered because of a reduction in defence expenditure, but does he further agree that the areas that have had Ministry of Defence bases have suffered more than most? Is it not a fact that local authorities in those areas are suffering because the MOD cannot respond quickly enough to ensure that the land is put back into efficient use for the community? Will he confirm that the only criterion being used by the MOD for the sale of land is that it should go to those who pay the highest price? Is that not what happened to RAF Bentwaters, where the base was sold to the Maharishi Foundation because it paid the highest fee, despite the fact that the local authority and community were against it?
    Mr. Freeman: We believe that faster progress could be made on the disposal of Ministry of Defence land. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have given commitments to a number of local authorities that we will move faster and begin the process of disposal and co-operation with the local authority as soon as we know when a change has to be made. I think that local authorities will appreciate that. It is not always the case that the sale is made to the highest bidder. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to suggest that the Bentwaters sale was to the disadvantage of the taxpayer, the House would be interested to learn about it. As a general rule, the highest price should prevail, but not in every circumstance.
    Mr. Salmond: As a point of fact in answer to the main question, will the Minister confirm that per capita spending on defence procurement in the north of England and in the nations of Scotland and Wales is far lower than expenditure in the south of England? Is the Minister aware that that single aspect of policy has far greater impact than the Government's total remaining regional policy?
    Mr. Freeman: The job of the Ministry of Defence and of the armed forces is not only to defend the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom but to fulfil our other defence commitments. We must deploy our forces—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—where that best suits our strategic interests. The Labour party's view on defence procurement is that it would wish to have a defence review within the first six months of any Parliament in which it happened to form a majority. That would be bad for defence expenditure because there would be confusion and, inevitably, the Labour party would reduce defence expenditure.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Bosnia. [20077]
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British troops in former Yugoslavia. [20083]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We remain concerned at the escalation in the level of fighting and call on all sides to show restraint, to co-operate fully with UNPROFOR and to participate in the search for a lasting political solution. British forces will remain in Bosnia for as long as UNPROFOR can continue to carry out its mandate at an acceptable level of risk.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be more than aware of the great pride felt by the House and the country in the humanitarian work of our forces in Bosnia. In light of the deteriorating situation, what does he think will be the point at which their humanitarian contribution will no longer be possible and the requirement for the safety of our service men will be such that we should withdraw them?
    Mr. Rifkind: The contribution by British and other UNPROFOR forces has been humanitarian, but they have served to prevent an extension of the conflict outside Bosnia and Croatia to Macedonia, Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans which could have even more terrifying consequences. We shall continue to judge the British presence in Bosnia on the basis of whether the forces can carry out the mandate without unacceptable risk to their safety. One can never entirely avoid risk in a war zone, but they must be there on the basis that they are contributors to the United Nations mandate and not taking part in the war.
    Mr. Winnick: What military action will be taken to ensure that the designated United Nations safe areas in Bosnia are safe from Serbian aggression? Is it not the case that, time and again, Serbian commanders have teased and threatened UN forces in Bosnia because they do not fear any sharp military response? That is basically the reason why Serbian aggression continues in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: The proper response must be determined by the UN commanders on the ground, who must take into account both the need to demonstrate to the Serbs or whomsoever may threaten the safe areas the unacceptability of such behaviour and the paramount obligation to ensure the safety of their own forces. Only on the basis of both those criteria being met is it appropriate to contemplate the sort of action at which I think that the hon. Gentleman was hinting.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a responsibility to not only the troops in Bosnia but the aid convoys which are organised by the Crown Agents from Sutton in my constituency? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the aid convoy drivers would be determined to continue their vital work regardless of whether they have the escorts?
    Mr. Rifkind: I pay unqualified tribute to not only the UN forces but the civilians who, without exception, are exceptionally brave individuals, and who have carried out
    156
    important tasks that have saved many lives. Clearly, it is for them as individuals to decide their continuing presence in Bosnia, but it is part of UNPROFOR's task to give them the protection to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the question of whether British forces can continue to fulfil their responsibilities without undue risk in former Yugoslavia will be one for the commanders on the ground? Does he further agree that any withdrawal will be so complicated and hazardous that it is inconceivable that UK forces will be withdrawn unilaterally?
    Mr. Rifkind: The question of the continuing presence of UN forces must ultimately be a matter for the UN Security Council and for national Governments. Important political questions are involved and we cannot avoid the responsibility in that sphere, but the recommendation on any specific military action should be based on the professional advice of UN commanders on the ground. On the final part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I do not envisage any unilateral action by the UK to withdraw from Bosnia. It is important that the UN should act as a single entity with regard to that matter.
    Dr. David Clark: The House has repeatedly acknowledged the bravery and professionalism of British troops in Bosnia and it acknowledges the increasing dangers as the ceasefire is broken, but does the Secretary of State agree that having confidence in a plan to withdraw troops is the essential prerequisite to having the confidence to keep troops there? Will he assure the House that NATO has a well devised plan to extract troops if that proves necessary?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have always recognised that it is possible that the UN force might have to be withdrawn, and NATO has already agreed to provide the cover that would be necessary in such a situation. It is an important part of any NATO plan that the Government of the United States of America have said that their forces would be available on the ground, along with other NATO forces, to help supervise such a plan. On that basis, one can say with confidence that there would be single command and control of any such arrangement, which would give the degree of confidence that is necessary to ensure its success, if withdrawal should prove necessary. I repeat that we hope that such a withdrawal would not be necessary, but that it is vital to have such a plan available in case it is required.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all the evidence is that warring factions seem to be determined to escalate the war, and that, as he has said, our first duty and responsibility is to ensure that the UN force can carry out its assigned task? It was never realistic to expect the UN force to be an invasion force or a force to prevent war. A withdrawal could and probably will be dangerous. It must be properly planned for and managed, which will not be easy. Those who were calling for UN intervention should remember that when we have to withdraw.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a number of valid points. At this moment, the main concern is inevitably with the Croatian offensive against the Krajina Serbs, and with certain reports that we have received that fixed-wing aircraft may have been used by Bosnian Serbs against the

    157
    Bihac enclave. It is important that those incidents should cease forthwith if the overall position is not to deteriorate in a dangerous way.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals to put existing British nuclear weapons into disarmament negotiations have been made at the United Nations conference on the non-proliferation treaty in New York. [20078]
    Mr. Rifkind: The UK has made significant reductions in its nuclear arsenal and maintains only the minimum deterrent required to guarantee our security. A world in which the nuclear forces of the United States of America and Russia were counted in hundreds rather than thousands of strategic nuclear warheads would be one in which we would respond further to the challenge of the global reduction of nuclear arms.
    Mr. Smith: Can the Minister explain why the Government do not fulfil their obligations under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty and put all British nuclear weapons, including Trident, into the nuclear disarmament negotiations?
    Mr. Rifkind: First, that is not a commitment under the non-proliferation treaty and, secondly, it would be a remarkably foolish initiative, which would weaken our essential defence. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, even if they fulfil all their obligations under the strategic arms reduction talks treaties, in 10 years' time Russia and the United States will each still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads. Trident will have a maximum of about 300. That is a suitable answer to his question.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, besides the considerable dangers that he has outlined from the ex-Soviet states, there is also the problem of proliferation in the third world? At least three more states have become nuclear powers in the past 10 years and several other states, including North Korea and a number of the middle eastern countries which form the market for its arms, are close to doing so. Does he further agree that, for Britain to get rid of her remaining minimum nuclear deterrent in the face of potential threats from the third world as well as the possible resuscitation of the Russian threat would be extraordinarily foolish?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The non-proliferation treaty, which came into force in the early 1970s, has been successful in influencing the level of nuclear weapons possession around the world. There have been relatively few suspected nuclear power states but the world remains a dangerous place. It is impossible to disinvent nuclear weapons technology and that is an important factor to bear in mind as we aspire to a safer world.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear that, on this issue, the Government have not normally offered a positive agenda? They have talked in terms of yesterday's agenda and have mostly indulged in personal attacks on Opposition Members. It is encouraging on this occasion to see the Secretary of State taking a more positive approach. Is it not time for him to tell the country why the Government refuse to limit the number of warheads on Trident? Why
    158
    have they gone to the negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty in New York without a positive agenda and left the running on this issue, as on so many others, to other countries? Again, Britain has not had a voice. The only voice for Britain on this issue is that of the Labour party, which has put forward a positive programme for nuclear disarmament.
    Mr. Rifkind: I note with relish the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity on the fact that when Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and the Leader of the Opposition are reminded of their Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament past they describe it as a personal attack. I should have thought that they would be proud of their past identity rather than so obviously ashamed of it. The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of having an agenda from the past. It is significant that the Labour party is pronouncing its belief in "no first use" of nuclear weapons just at the time when the Russians have abandoned such a belief. The Labour party and the People's Republic of China are the only two arguing that philosophy.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the possession of nuclear weapons is in itself no guarantee of safety unless the Government concerned have the necessary ultimate will to use them should the occasion arise? Does he further agree that it is one thing for a party to say that it now agrees with possession and another for it to say that it would use them?
    Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, and that is a relevant point. In an interview, the Opposition spokesman on defence was quoted as saying:
    "I am not saying that we will use Trident, I don't think we would. We just need it there as a standing reminder."
    I do not think that that will terrify a potential nuclear enemy, but it certainly terrifies me.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what concrete evidence he has had of Gulf war syndrome. [20079]
    Mr. Freeman: To date, we have found no convincing scientific or medical evidence from our investigations, or elsewhere, to suggest the existence of a Gulf war syndrome. However, despite the lack of evidence, my Department keeps an open mind and these investigations will continue.
    Mr. Dalyell: From the admittedly circumstantial material that I sent to the Ministry of Defence a fortnight ago, is there any evidence that Gulf war syndrome could at least be related to precautionary medicine?
    Mr. Freeman: No. I am aware of the work at Duke university and the Department of Defense in the United States, but at both places it is at a very preliminary stage and no conclusions may yet be drawn. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I put in the Library—I shall send a copy to the hon. Gentleman—a report recently issued by the US Department of Defense, dated April 1995. It reviews progress to date on clinical evaluation of—from memory—some 15,000 American service men who have been subject to investigation, compared with about 200 in the United Kingdom. The report says that there remains no clinical evidence for a single or unique agent causing a Gulf war syndrome.
    Dr. David Clark: While veterans of the second world war are very much in our thoughts, should we not also consider veterans of more recent conflicts such as the Gulf war? Why do the Government treat the Gulf war veterans who are suffering from Gulf war syndrome so shabbily? Will the Minister confirm that Colonel Johnson has been withdrawn from the medical examinations of our veterans and that only one doctor is involved in examining the several hundred veterans who claim that they are suffering from that syndrome?
    Mr. Freeman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should accept, on behalf of the Labour party, the existence of Gulf war syndrome before he has seen the evidence and the facts. The plain fact is that some 500 service men and women from our forces who served in the Gulf have expressed a claim or concern as to their health to the Ministry of Defence. About 200 of them have had a medical examination by a wing commander who is a medical expert and consultant and we have ensured that a report has been put in the British Medical Journal to reflect the results of examinations so far. It is still far too early to tell, but there is no clinical or medical evidence to suggest the existence of the syndrome. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and send him a copy of the British Medical Journal article.

    Ex-service Organisations
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet representatives of (a) the War Widows Association and (b) the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations to discuss the interests of ex-service people and their dependants. [20080]
    Mr. Freeman: We continue to have a close interest in the views of all associations representing service widows and ex-service men and women in all matters affecting the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Minister see that, although the chairwoman of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, Mrs. Irene Bloor, last week welcomed the Government's decision to accept the Lords amendments, she expressed grave concern about the younger war and service widows? Is he aware of the continuing anomaly and disparity between local authorities over the disregard in relation to housing benefit and council tax as applied to war widows? Is it not time that, in conjunction with the War Widows Association and other ex-service organisations, the Minister called a conference with a view to presenting a Bill to remedy the anomalies relating to war widows and war pensions, so that the matter may be put to rest in this very important anniversary year?
    Mr. Freeman: During an excellent debate, the hon. Gentleman spoke at length on a previous occasion about war widows. He will realise, however, that when one deals with an occupational pension scheme—I am referring not to the Department of Social Security's war pension scheme, but to the Ministry of Defence's own armed forces pension scheme—there will always be so-called anomalies. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a fundamental tenet of any occupational pension scheme that advances are for those beneficiaries and their
    160
    successors. On the narrower point about housing benefit, I shall certainly reflect the concern to my fellow Minister and ensure that it is followed up.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.].
    Madam Speaker: Old soldiers never fade away. [Laughter.] I welcome the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) back to the House.
    Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) still has a long way to go.
    Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in recent times, the best interests of war widows and ex-service men have been served by Back-Bench Members of Parliament? I refer of course to an amendment on war pensions moved by one of my noble Friends in the other place and to my own and other representations in this place in respect of pre-1973 war widows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that a single Minister dealt with such matters on behalf of war widows and ex-service personnel, to enable us to do our job better and to make it easier for those people?
    Mr. Freeman: For the record, I am pleased to say that war widows receive about £7,000 a year tax free from the Department of Social Security. In addition, some may qualify for the armed forces pension scheme. That is a creditable record in comparison with that of many other countries. As for the narrower question about a single sub-department to deal with veterans, I have never known the hon. Gentleman to be abashed at having to deal with more than one Minister at a time. The plain facts are that a sub-department would be bureaucratic, and that the present system works well. The hon. Gentleman suggests a new organisation, but that would cost money and remove resources from the very people whom we want to help.
    Mr. Jamieson: At a time when we are celebrating the gallantry and selfless bravery of our armed services, what measures does the Minister intend to take to compensate sailors who were exposed to the known risk of asbestos while serving in His and Her Majesties' ships in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and who are now dying in pain and poverty?
    Mr. Freeman: Obviously any illness or death that, regrettably, is due to an incident connected with service will be reflected in the appropriate payments made by the Ministry of Defence. As for the merchant marine, if a condition can be classified as an industrial injury, the appropriate measures—
    Mr. Jamieson: What about the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Freeman: I have already said that if a condition is directly connected with service in the Royal Navy, the appropriate measures will apply. I am not aware of individual details, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me I shall certainly pursue the matter.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of Britain's nuclear weaponry requirements for the next decade. [20082]
    Mr. Rifkind: In current and foreseeable international circumstances we believe that the United Kingdom will continue to require a minimum nuclear deterrent throughout the next decade. I am confident that the Trident system, within its ceiling of 96 warheads per boat, will provide the necessary force level after the WE177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn from service.
    Mr. Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State tell us for what possible purpose this country is developing and maintaining nuclear weapons, and against whom they are directed? Does he agree that the holding of nuclear weapons is expensive, immoral and unjustifiable, and that, in the year in which the non-proliferation treaty is up for renegotiation, Britain could look the rest of the world in the eye only if we had a programme of removing all nuclear weapons and bases from this country and taking all nuclear weapons out of service, as our contribution to a peaceful nuclear-free world?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views, which I know carefully reflect those that the Leader of the Opposition held 15 years ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition to find out to what extent he and his right hon. Friend share those views, and to ask why the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench now seek to dissociate themselves from them.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House by telling us that the sub-strategic version of Trident will come into service as soon as the free-fall WE177 is phased out in the Royal Air Force'? The French maintain a proper graduated deterrence, with air-launched systems. If we cannot do that, can we at least make sure that there is no hiatus, or deterrent gap, in the British armed forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have concluded that it is desirable to maintain a sub-strategic capability, which can be achieved through Trident at virtually no additional cost. That makes it an infinitely less expensive way of meeting the need than developing a new air-launched capability. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no gap in the existence of the capability.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has to reduce or withdraw the British military presence in former Yugoslavia. [20084]
    Mr. Rifkind: We intend to maintain a major contribution to UNPROFOR in Bosnia so long as our forces can continue to carry out the UN mandate at an acceptable level of risk. The size of our contribution is kept under close review.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Secretary of State go beyond simply urging restraint on the parties in the conflict, and condemn the Croatian Government for the attack on the Serb-populated Krajina area? Will he also condemn the Serbs for taking UN Nepalese forces hostage? Will he make it clear that as soon as the military commanders on the ground recommend it, we will make immediate preparations for a withdrawal to stop loss of life among our troops?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Security Council has made clear its condemnation of the Croatian action, which appears to go
    162
    beyond the immediate objective of controlling a road and may threaten the position of the whole enclave. Any question of a total withdrawal of UNPROFOR from Bosnia would not just be a matter on which the UN commanders express a view—important though that would be—and would clearly have far wider implications which would have to be addressed by the Security Council.
    Sir Jim Spicer: I do not suppose that my right hon. and learned Friend had time yesterday to listen to the Jimmy Young show. Had he done so, he would have heard the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), assert that when he last went to Bosnia, he was determined that British forces would withdraw unilaterally but—thank goodness—he was overruled by the military commanders on the ground. In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to an earlier question, will he deny that that is possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: The leader of the Liberal Democrats may wish to explain to the House his regular contortions of policy. I can only express our satisfaction that, on this occasion, he accepted the advice of the UN commanders whom he met.
    Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition supported the Government's decision to send British troops into Bosnia for the limited and specific purpose of humanitarian aid and with clear rules of engagement which provided no undue risk to our troops. Can I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that—in keeping the position under review, both with our commanders on the spot and with our allies—were the Government to decide that the tasks for which the troops had been sent out could no longer be accomplished or that the risk to their lives had become an undue risk, the Opposition would not treat that in any partisan or narrow fashion?
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks his question. When British troops are carrying out a difficult task in any part of the world, anything that is required for their safety and their safe return to this country should have the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that elements of the Royal Anglian regiment have recently served in former Yugoslavia. Following the presentation of new colours to the Royal Anglian regiment last Saturday by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will continue to maintain the front-line capability of that proud and ancient regiment?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can say to my hon. and learned Friend that we acknowledge the splendid contribution which that fine regiment makes to the UN and to Her Majesty's forces.

    Sea Dumping
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had concerning the potential dangers of ordnance, chemicals and other materials dumped in the sea between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland. [20085]
    Mr. Freeman: The licensing procedure for the dump site between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland involved the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office. My Department keeps closely in touch with other Government Departments on these issues.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm the information obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the MOD has dumped 1 million tonnes of munitions, plus bombs and chemical weapons—including arsenic and nerve gas—in sites at sea including the Clyde and the North channel? Will he announce a monitoring scheme to ensure the safety of fishing boats, submarines and those of us who live around the coast in that area from harm from those highly dangerous substances?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right about the North channel. After the war, in 1945 and 1946, rockets with phosgene were dumped in the channel, as has been publicly disclosed for many years. As part of their routine monitoring of coastal waters, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office marine laboratory will be conducting standard water sampling tests in the North channel.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Northern Ireland Office been consulted on that issue, bearing in mind the plans for gas pipe connections and electric connectors, and the movement of the sea bed?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall ensure that the Northern Ireland Office is consulted.

    Hydrographic Office
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of his policy on the Hydrographic Office. [20086]
    Mr. Freeman: The Government attach great importance to a specialist hydrographic capability to provide effective support to Royal Navy operations.
    Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend will understand that it is not simply because my brother-in-law is an officer in the hydrographic service that I attach such importance to its role in protecting this country's vital national interests. What reassurance can my right hon Friend give me that the service will have adequate ships to enable it to continue to defend those vital national interests into its third century?
    Mr. Freeman: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that we have ordered a new ocean survey vessel, which is to be named HMS Scott, after Scott of the Antarctic. The ship will fly the white ensign, have a royal naval crew and be of great help to the hydrographic service.

    Deaths (Active Duty)
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces died on active service during 1994. [20087]
    Mr. Freeman: Nine members of Her Majesty's armed forces died last year as a result of hostile and enemy
    164
    action. A further four service men died following road traffic accidents while serving with United Nations forces in Bosnia.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not it instructive to contrast those figures with the number of women who qualified as war widows during the calendar year 1994—more than 1,600—and to recognise, at this time when we are celebrating and commemorating the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe, that so-called war widows are not solely by any means the widows of men killed in action during the second world war?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is useful to remember that 48,500 war widows have recently benefited from the decision to ensure that their war widows pension is restored on the death or loss of a second husband, that the numbers are being added to at the rate of 1,600 per annum and that the death of husbands who have died recently can be traced back to service in the British armed forces. About 66,000 widows receive benefit from the armed forces parliamentary pension scheme since the loss of their husbands was due to natural causes, not to service.

    Trident
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the current ceiling of warheads per Trident submarine meets the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent needs. [20088]
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have said that each Trident boat will carry not more than 96 warheads. What we actually deploy at any particular time, to provide a minimum deterrent and to ensure the same quality of deterrence as we required from Polaris, may be considerably less and will depend on our current assessment of a range of factors.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he do some lateral thinking and tell us the implications if Britain announced that it would deploy no more warheads on Trident than it deploys on Polaris, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) advocated in the New Statesman this month?
    Mr. Rifkind: The option to which my hon. Friend refers, which is the official view of the Labour party I understand, suggests a simplistic misunderstanding, based on an inability to compare Polaris with Trident. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his colleagues appear to he unaware that they have not taken into account the sub-strategic role of Trident. They seem to be unaware of the lower yield of each Trident warhead compared with that of Polaris, and of the need to take into account the military capabilities and defensive systems of a potential nuclear adversary. That is why their policy is unsound and should not be supported.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State welcome the statement by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. that it no longer manufactures or processes any fissile material for use in nuclear weapons on any of its sites in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United Kingdom Government themselves have

    165
    announced a cessation of the production of fissile material for explosives purposes. That shows our commitment to a cut-off convention.

    United States Air Force
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the role of the United States Air Force in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [20089]
    Mr. Freeman: The USAF presence in the United Kingdom forms an important part of the United States' continuing commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the security of Europe. Her Majesty's Government welcome the contribution that those forces also provide to United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two USAF bases in my constituency, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, are expanding in numbers and importance at this time? Will my right hon. Friend join me, at this historic time, in saluting the USAF presence in this country, which helped to see off the forces of tyranny 50 years ago and helped to preserve democracy in Europe during the long and bitter years of the cold war?
    Mr. Freeman: It is fitting, as we approach victory in Europe day, to pay tribute to the United States Air Force, based largely in this country—the Third Air Force today—which helped win freedom and victory for the allies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20106]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Flynn: Does not the letter from my constituent, Mr. W. D. Knight, express the opinions of millions of people in this country when he says that he will never again buy a national lottery ticket? How, he asks, can the nation—[interruption.]—gain £14 million of value by buying papers without copyright, many of which papers we already own? Will the Prime Minister guarantee today that, in future, in that instance and all others, national lottery moneys will go to genuine good causes of health, education and crime prevention, not to the rich and the greedy?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituent feels like that, because the proceeds of lottery money do go to very good causes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is, of course, wrong in the assertion that the lottery money was used to purchase papers already owned by the state. That is not the case. What were purchased were the non-state papers, as I told the House last week.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend, in determining Government policy, sometimes receive advice from advisers who one year suggest one thing and
    166
    another year suggest something else? If they do that, does he take much notice of them, and does he consider that that is what the Labour party is doing?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we receive advice from many sources, some of which I take, much of which I do not. When advisers behave as my hon. Friend proposes, I tend to give less credence to their advice.
    Mr. Blair: On the Government's policy, revealed this morning, to tax the mortgage insurance payments of sick and unemployed people, will the Prime Minister confirm that, at 10 o'clock this morning, the chairman of the Tory party said that there was no such policy; at 11 o'clock this morning, Downing street said that there was a policy but they were reviewing it; at 12.3 pm, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described the policy as lunacy; and at 12.42 pm the Chancellor issued a statement, saying that he had now completed the review and was ditching the policy? [Interruption.] Does not that show the utterly chaotic shambles that is his Government?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that that is extremely amusing and I can see that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed it, as did everyone else. The reality is that he is wrong. I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend has been reviewing the tax treatment of mortgage protection policies for some months. In light of the misguided reports that appeared this morning, he has removed the uncertainty that would otherwise have been removed in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Blair: It is strange that the chairman of the Conservative party did not know about that—or perhaps it is not so strange. Has not the situation arisen because the Government are cutting mortgage help to the unemployed and therefore forcing all new home owners from 1 October to pay for mortgage insurance, as well as the new insurance tax? Rather than climbing down from the consequences of a mistaken policy, would it not be better to drop the policy that is penalising home owners?
    The Prime Minister: Finance Bill matters are generally withheld by the Treasury for reasons that even the right hon. Gentleman should understand. We give very generous help to people who are unemployed and in receipt of mortgages. We have provided such help for a long time and no one can question the growth in home ownership that has occurred under this Government. There is only one party in this country that truly supports home ownership and it is sitting on the Government Benches.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will recall, I hope with pleasure, the very successful visit that he paid to Taunton last month. Is he aware that the local Liberal Democrats have produced, as an estimate of the policing costs for that visit, the wholly spurious and fantastic figure of £500,000; whereas the Avon and Somerset constabulary has said that it cost £2,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is typical of the dishonesty and the bogus statistics being used by both Opposition parties in the local election campaign?
    The Prime Minister: There does seem to be some slight difference between the two estimates of the cost of my visit to Taunton. As to the substantive underlying

    167
    point that my hon. Friend raises, it is the case—and it has been so for many years—that public figures, particularly those who are answerable to the public, must and do travel around the country. If the Liberal party is suggesting that public figures should not travel around the country because public disorder results from such visits from time to time, I do not think that the people of this country would accept that proposition.
    Mr. Ashdown: When it comes to bogus statistics I suspect that the people of this country know very well where they are coming from.
    I welcome the very clear statement that the Secretary of State for Defence made just a few moments ago that, whatever action Britain might take in Bosnia, we would not act unilaterally. Does the Prime Minister agree that the situation now developing in Bosnia and Croatia must give cause for grave concern and that, if the conflict is not to spread disastrously, it is vital and urgent that the international community makes every effort to ensure that the second front of confrontation that has now opened in Croatia is closed as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I hoped for a second that the right hon. Gentleman was about to clear up the dispute about the cost of my visit to Taunton. Perhaps he will do that on another occasion.
    As to the main part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about Croatia, there is no doubt that yesterday's Croatian attack, in which some United Nations peacekeepers were wounded, and the retaliation today by the Serbs, have created a very serious situation, as has the Bosnian parties' decision not to extend the cessation of hostilities agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the UN Security Council has called on the Croatians to halt their offensive in west Slavonia and I hope that the Serbs will also stop retaliating against Croatian towns and cities. It is a serious and a grave situation; no one can have any doubt about that. Over many months the United Nations forces, both in Croatia and in Bosnia, have helped to limit the scale and the extent of the conflict. That has been the case for two years. I warned more than a month ago that returning to all-out war could make the position of the United Nations protection forces absolutely untenable. I repeat that warning today. Neither in Croatia nor in Bosnia will renewed fighting produce a satisfactory settlement—or a settlement of any sort.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a seminar about expediting his deregulation plans for the Ministers he has appointed with responsibility for deregulation in all Departments. [20107]
    The Prime Minister: From time to time I hold meetings with colleagues to take stock of progress on deregulation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade most recently met the appropriate Ministers on 27 April and discussed progress on deregulation measures and steps to improve enforcement procedures.
    Mr. Steen: The Prime Minister's personal crusade to rid the country of red tape is greatly welcomed by Conservative Members, but is not the real problem at operational level, where officials are more zealous in
    168
    enforcing regulations than in trying to reduce the impact of regulations that affect our industries' competitiveness with European countries which do not have all those rules? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, take a fresh initiative that will get to the root of the problem?
    The Prime Minister: We are looking at the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. My hon. Friend is right. At national and local levels, over-zealous enforcement of regulations, particularly those affecting small businesses, causes a great deal of distress and worry. He is equally right that deregulation is central to our economic policy. He may be reassured to know that we now have a programme whereby more than 1,000 regulations are earmarked for amendment or repeal and we expect to have dealt with about half of them by the end of the year.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20108]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Now that the Prime Minister has finally plucked up the courage to allow the voters of Perth and Kinross to take their democratic decision, is it his intention to endorse the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland that any reference to Scotland as a region is merely a matter of geographical error, or will he state clearly that Scotland is indeed a nation and not a region, and, therefore, we should have the right to self-determination? When he is in Scotland this weekend, will he launch an educational project to tell his Back Benchers the difference between a region and a nation?
    The Prime Minister: There are four nations within the United Kingdom. Scotland is one of them. I look to see it remaining in the United Kingdom and I very much regret that the hon. Lady and her parliamentary colleagues seek to make it independent and outside the United Kingdom.
    Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to compare his current gas and electricity bills with the size of those bills only a few years ago? Will he reflect on the success of the Government's policy in producing real reductions in the charge for energy? Will he join me in wondering how local government candidates representing the new, clean Labour party can produce leaflets which say that the Government are bleeding us dry through privatised gas and electricity companies? Does he agree that the new, clean Labour party is using the same dirty tactics of the old, discredited Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts the matter exceedingly clearly and well and I entirely agree with him. There is no doubt that in general prices have fallen in the privatised industries, though that is not remotely what Opposition Members expected. The right hon. Gentleman, now the leader of the Labour party, once said of electricity privatisation:
    "it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 684.]
    He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20109]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will be aware from the latest economic figures that a large proportion of the 0.8 per cent. growth in the first quarter was attributed not to manufacturing but to sales of national lottery tickets. Is not the Prime Minister concerned that using the proceeds of the lottery to enrich one or perhaps two Tory Members will put the faltering recovery in further jeopardy? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the hon. Member for davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and ask him to pay the money back?
    The Prime Minister: I am inclined to say to the hon. Lady, come off it. The growth in the economy was 4 per cent. last year, and is estimated at 3 per cent. this year and 3 per cent. next year. When did the Labour party in government ever produce such growth figures? The answer is that it never did. The hon. Lady knows that growth has primarily been built on exports. When was there an export record similar to that which British industry has enjoyed over the past 14 months? Nine or 10 months out of the last 13 or 14 months, there has been a new record in exports as our competitiveness and capacity to penetrate markets in Europe and the rest of the world increase. That is what is happening with economic growth at the moment, and it has never been matched by the Labour party.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise me of the implications for the procedure of the House of research published today indicating that Ministers appointed by the present Prime Minister or the previous Prime Minister hold a total of 125 directorships and 30 consultancies?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman ought to table a question to seek information of that nature.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance, because I believe that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that the rate of growth under the last Labour Government was lower than under this Conservative Government. While the Conservatives have been in office, growth—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The House must get accustomed to what points of order are all about. If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct the Prime Minister, the Order Paper is available for him to do so.

Forensic Testing (Road Deaths)
3.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the forensic testing of those alleged to be involved in causing death as a result of road traffic incidents.
I do so following representations made to me by the family of Thomas Wellman, many of whose members live in my constituency. Mr. Wellman died after being hit by a driver who was over the limit and whose punishment was in the same league as that given to Eric Cantona—community service. My Bill would take a small step towards dealing with the horrific issues arising from drink-driving.
Throughout the European Union, 50,000 people are killed every year on the roads, which is the equivalent of an A320 airbus crashing every day of the week. The latest provisional figures for the United Kingdom suggest that 3,651 people died on our roads in 1994, which is the equivalent of an A320 airbus crashing every week that Parliament sits. If we saw road deaths in those terms, the House might take the issue much more seriously.
From time to time, the House deals with the causes of that carnage. For example, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has just piloted a Bill through Committee covering the testing of new drivers. Such measures are important. Christopher Brown of the statistics directorate of the Department of Transport states:
"We cannot prevent people aging but we could prevent all road deaths if only, as road users, we took more care."
On 22 March, I received an interesting answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department after tabling a number of parliamentary questions about the role of coroners:
"The available information collected on deaths reported to coroners is published in an annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin.
The latest bulletin, 'Statistics of Death Reported to Coroners: England and Wales, 1993', issue 7/94, was published on 21 April 1994 and is available in the Library. Specific information on road deaths is not collected separately".—[Official Report, 22 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 201.]
That really is not good enough. I would ask the Minister to speak to his colleagues and treat this as a matter of urgency. Coroners, police and magistrates must be required to maintain statistics properly, so that some of these issues can be dealt with in a less haphazard way.
The Bill deals with two aspects: first, testing for blood alcohol levels at the scene of an incident. The latest figures available, for 1993, show that 25 of the 52 police authorities now routinely test after all incidents; a further five test after fatalities or serious injuries; and one tests after all fatalities. In other words, 21 police authorities leave it to the discretion of the officers.
My Bill would make blood alcohol testing mandatory at the incident, except when officers were otherwise committed to the safety and well-being of others. In such cases, tests would have to be done at the earliest practical time. That changes the emphasis in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to one of compulsion, by changing section 6 to read that a constable
"will require him to provide a specimen",

173
instead of the current wording, which is "may". Similarly, the Bill would change section 6 to require the person allegedly causing a death to give a sample, by changing "may" to "will" in the relevant subsections.
The second category concerns a person who allegedly caused a crash but was himself hospitalised. Section 9 of the 1988 Act covers that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) sought to improve its wording in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, but was told by the Minister that blood samples could be taken only by registered medical practitioners. The BMA, he said, would be very unhappy about samples being taken from someone who was unconscious and had not given his consent. Although the Minister was sympathetic to the point, he said that the Government could not move towards such a policy, because our law fundamentally depends on the consent of the person involved. I understand the BMA's position, but I cannot say that I agree with it. There is always a broader social aspect to be considered.
I believe, however, that I can now present the House with a mechanism which overcomes this ethical argument. My discussions with the BMA suggest that it would regard it as acceptable, too. The changes that I propose to section 9 would have the effect of a sample being taken and provided for analysis at the earliest possible time, provided that the sampling does not have a detrimental effect on the health of the patient.
My provision would not allow the prosecuting authority access to the information until the patient was well enough to give consent. If he subsequently refused consent, the courts would be empowered to interpret his refusal against the background of other information available to them. I believe that refusal without medical cause should always be interpreted thus, and be subject to interpretation by the courts.
There are huge technical difficulties in testing for intoxicants other than alcohol, except under laboratory conditions. Section 10 of the 1988 Act must be enforced to ensure that drug abusers as well as drinkers cannot avoid prosecution. Consistent with my earlier reference to people alleged to have caused a death who are themselves hospitalised, I think that any refusal to provide a sample under section 10 should be subject to interpretation by the courts.
Following all these changes, enforcement should take place at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that forensic samples have the maximum value.
These are small changes to the law, and, when the Bill is published, I should like some sign from the Government that they will give me clear support to enable our common objective to be achieved. The
174
families of victims killed on the roads deserve the maximum support from society, which the law fails to give them at present.
Cases like that of Thomas Wellman regularly occur throughout the country—many hon. Members have had them brought to their attention—but they could and should be avoided. This House should make it absolutely clear in the strongest possible terms that we will not defend the drink-driver.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Stephen Byers, Dr. Michael Clark, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mr. Ian Pearson.

Forensic Testing (Road Deaths)

  FORENSIC TESTING (ROAD DEATHS)
  Mr. Andrew Miller accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the forensic testing of those alleged to be involved in causing death as a result of road traffic incidents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
  Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is fairly widely known that, on Thursday of this week, arrangements have been made for Mr. Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein to launch in the House of Commons a book that he has apparently written. I do not know what the rules are or what guidance is given on such matters, but presumably an hon. Member has sponsored a room for Mr. Adams, who wishes the part of the United Kingdom that he inhabits to be removed from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
  Is there any guidance to be given? Are there any relevant rules? Perhaps you could suggest to the hon. Member who has done this that it might have been ill-advised.
  Madam Speaker: Accommodation in the House of Commons may not be used for commercial purposes. [Interruption.] Order. This is a very important point of order, and a genuine one too, I may say.
  As I was saying, the accommodation in the House of Commons may not be used for commercial purposes such as launching books, especially those written by persons who are not Members of the House. The hon. Member who booked the Jubilee Room for that purpose will have to make alternative arrangements elsewhere.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December]:
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 5th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 9th May.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Atomic Energy Authority Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 and 8, Schedule 3, Clause 9, Schedule 4, Clauses 10 to 14, New Schedules.—[Mr. Page.]

  Atomic Energy Authority Bill
    New clause 1

      ACCESS TO POLICE NATIONAL COMPUTER
      '(1) Nothing in this Act shall entitle any person or persons to whom anything is transferred by a transfer scheme under this Act to have access to any criminal record information held on the police national computer, notwithstanding that any such access was held by the Authority at the time of transfer.

      (2) In this section, "criminal record information" and "police national computer" shall have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by Order made by statutory instrument provide.'.— [Mr. Cohen.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.42 pm
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 1 is designed as a probe to try to get some answers from the Government on this issue. Serious implications arise from extending access to the police national computer to the Atomic Energy Authority. New clause 1 seeks to stop such access.
      According to official crime statistics, about one in three males in this country and one in 10 females have a criminal record and that excludes most motoring offences. Some of those convictions are minor, some happened a long time ago and some are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That is sensitive information, which should not automatically preclude someone from getting a job. Such status should not constantly be used against the individual by the state, employers, would-be employers or other individuals.
      There is a danger of unauthorised access to and use of the police national computer data and widening direct access to it broadens the scope for malpractice.
      On 22 March, in a parliamentary written answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Government agreed to widen direct access to the police national computer to include the Atomic Energy Authority on behalf of the whole nuclear industry. There are many implications, and I shall deal with some of them.
      In 1986, the Police Complaints Authority investigated a misuse of personal data on the PNC, and a report was made to Parliament—HC 425—in July 1986. The report suggested that the following recommendations should form the basis of instructions to each police force. It said that
      "access to personal data held on the PNC must be permitted only for purposes necessary for the efficient discharge of bona fide police duties, and personal and private use must be strictly forbidden… It is essential to secure the integrity of the PNC. To achieve this, relevant transactions must be subject to monitoring and validation by random sampling; validation must reach the actual reason for a transaction being originated."
      176
      Will the same rules, guidelines and recommendations apply to the AEA when it has access, as the Government are allowing?
      3.45 pm
      The report continues:
      "accurate records of transactions must be made which identify the persons responsible for initiating and handling a request for information … all officers who may have cause to access the PNC must be directed and reminded from time to time that PNC records are confidential, that such information must not be disclosed to unauthorised persons and that abuse of the system will render them liable to disciplinary or statutory sanctions."
      Again, will that be the case once the AEA has such powers?
      The report then says:
      "since originators may be called upon to justify their transactions possibly weeks or months after the event, they should make a record of sufficient detail to refresh their memories in order to avoid unwarranted suspicion of malpractice… officers who receive requests for information from any person which would necessitate access to the PNC must satisfy themselves that the purpose can properly be regarded as a genuine police matter before responding to such requests."
      Those were the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority in 1986. Can the Under-Secretary of State give a firm guarantee that similar recommendations will be met by those to whom the functions are being transferred—in this case, the AEA, if it obtains access to police records as proposed in the parliamentary answer on 22 March?
      It is worth noting that the 1990 annual report of the Police Complaints Authority said:
      "over the past year there has been a noticeable increase in the number of complaints about police officers making use of the PNC or force intelligence records for other than official purposes".
      The 1990 report also drew attention to the fact that the PCA had used its powers
      "on several occasions to recommend disciplinary charges to be preferred against officers who break the rules… this seems to have upset a few of the chief officers (of police) who do not consider it serious enough to warrant taking formal disciplinary action."
      What will be the view of the AEA in this respect? Will disciplinary action be taken against those who breach the rules, whatever the rules are? That is one of the questions I am asking the Government.
      In 1992, the PCA emphasised that the guidelines
      "are still relevant and we commend them to forces."
      That is a gentle reminder that the recommendations of the 1986 report are still required for the police. They should therefore apply to the AEA and others who will get access to PNC records.
      The 10th report of the Data Protection Registrar, in 1994, noted:
      "there is something special about criminal convictions."
      This suggests that the body responsible for the protection of individuals is hinting that criminal record data should be afforded statutory protection. There should be statutory protection for those records across the board before handing out access powers to Government Departments and agencies such as the AEA.
      The implication of all of that is that, nine years after the publication of HC 425, the PCA's recommendations have not been adequately implemented by all police forces, and personal data held on the PNC are not safe. If the police are having difficulty getting their house in order, how can private sector organisations that receive transferred rights be expected to do so?

      177
      On 15 December 1994, the Prime Minister revised the vetting procedure, and steps were taken to widen access to the PNC. Government Departments now have some direct access to the PNC, but there has been little discussion of the safeguards that are required to protect those who are vetted and to protect individuals from misuse of wider access to the PNC.
      Was the Data Protection Registrar consulted on giving the AEA and others that access to police records? What did she recommend, if she was consulted? That is a question that the Minister should answer. For instance, what instructions has the Minister issued about access to the PNC by the AEA? Perhaps he can place that information on the record.
      When I asked the Department of Trade and Industry about its access to PNC records, it said that it would be confined to a small number of personnel within the DTI security section, and that similar levels of operational, technical and physical security would be applied to information obtained from the PNC as would apply at the PNC itself. In addition, compliance audits would be undertaken by representatives of the police service and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. That is all very well for the DTI. Will the same conditions apply to the AEA?
      My new clause does not prohibit access to the PNC for all time. The existing arrangements could apply: the AEA police could liaise with the official police who control the PNC for information. The Minister must be aware that the Home Office is about to outline its own action following its consultation paper "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Purposes", Cm 2319. That paper explored the option that official vetting should be sanctioned by legislation.
      The envisaged circumstances in which vetting is, or might be, appropriate included national security; maintaining probity in the administration of the law; protecting the vulnerable—for example, children and the elderly; national treasures—for example, museums; licensing "fit and proper" persons—for example, taxi drivers and school inspectors; investigation of crime by prosecuting agencies other than the police—for example, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; and crime prevention, if there was a clear public interest at stake and evidence of serious risk to members of the public.
      Will those categories, or perhaps other specific categories, be extended to the AEA—by stealth, perhaps—for obtaining direct access to the PNC information?
      Clearly, the effect of my new clause can be changed by Home Office legislation once Parliament has established a vetting agency. We should not really be making this change before the procedure is looked at as a whole. Parliament would have to approve the vetting procedures; unlike the current Bill. under which the Secretary of State can transfer the ability to vet without recourse to Parliament. In my view, that should be unacceptable in a democracy.
      There is no need for an automatic transfer of vetting powers. Private organisations that need to vet against police records will be authorised by the Home Office legislation, which establishes a vetting agency, so I do not think that there is a case for extending that now.
      Those are the most general points in relation to the new clause, but I shall make some wider points as well.
      178
      This Bill is about preparing for the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority. Various parts will be privatised—perhaps AEA Technology or schemes involving various companies, sections or individuals. The disposal of those parts of the AEA can take place without any further reference to Parliament. Clause 7 allows the AEA to sell off the companies established, as long as it has the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.
      Where does that leave security vetting and PNC access by the AEA as a whole? Will the powers pass to those parts that have been privatised? That would be a major extension of the powers. It would mean giving privatised firms access to state records—people's criminal records—on the PNC. Will the access be allowed just to the Government division of the AEA? If so, will it be only for its own purposes, or will there be extensions, so that it will be able to use that access for all sorts of other purposes? We need answers.
      As well as being in the nuclear business, the AEA covers many other areas, such as the environment, energy, engineering and research and consultancy services. Will access to the records relate to those parts of its work? On the environment, could it mean that someone who had a criminal record as a result of taking part in an anti-road demonstration—we have seen many of those recently—would be automatically banned from a job once the AEA gained access to those records?
      What about access to the PNC for the research and consultancy services in which the AEA now participates? That potentially involves a huge widening of the powers. At the far end of that, the AEA could make a business out of its access to PNC records. What are the limitations?
      What are the role and the scope of the AEA police? The Bill is about the Atomic Energy Authority, and there are huge implications for the AEA police. Despite that, they are not even mentioned in the Bill. That is incredible Government neglect, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what their role will be, particularly in relation to the would-be privatised sectors. Will they receive the information from the police national computer, which they could then hand to the privatised companies? I hope that we will have a statement about that.
      According to the parliamentary answer of 22 March, the AEA gains access to PNC records on behalf of the entire nuclear industry—Nirex, British Nuclear Fuels and so on. What governs the transfer of the data obtained by the AEA to the rest of the nuclear industry? What governs the subsequent use of that information by the rest of the industry?
      We need answers about that before the Government continue to give access in the way specified in the parliamentary answer of 22 March. That answer was the thin end of the wedge. It implies security vetting for employees, potential employees and contractors—that is allegedly its purpose—but it does not lay that out specifically. Access might be obtained for other purposes as well.
      The parliamentary answer talks of limited access to the PNC, simply to find out whether an individual has a criminal record. That is only one step away from direct access to the entire record. It is only one step from extending access, which, according to one parliamentary answer is "solely for security vetting" of employees, potential employees and contractors, to other purposes about which we have not been told. Those extensions

      179
      could easily come about by just another written parliamentary answer, as happened in relation to access to the PNC. We should know those points. That is the thin end of the wedge.
      Access acknowledges the extraordinary and excessive power of the nuclear industry. No other industry in the country has, or is being given, access to the PNC. Why is the nuclear industry singled out? Why is it so special that it must have that access to the PNC? If it is so special, why is it being privatised? Surely, if it is so important that it must be carefully controlled by, for example, the AEA police, it should not be in private hands. We need an answer to that.
      4 pm
      The nuclear industry is almost like a state within a state, with its own police force. Its powers could easily be extended, so that it has its own self-determined powers. Access to PNC records is a step along that path. I do not want this point to be over-emphasised, but I remind the House of the murder of Hilda Murrell in the 1980s. No one knows for sure why that came about, but it has been talked about that she was murdered because of her anti-nuclear campaigning. That point must be borne in mind. That is why we should not give direct access to organisations such as the nuclear industry.
      One wonders whether the nuclear industry, after gaining a taste for power exercised in secret, and perhaps after it is privatised, will be restricted purely to security vetting of employees, potential employees and contractors, or whether it might seek to extend its powers and its use of the records to which it gains access.
      It is the police's computer. In effect, they are the owners on behalf of the state. They have overall responsibility for its security and safe running. If access is extended, their control is undermined. I wonder whether the Government, when they extended access to the AEA and others, consulted the police? If so, what was their view? The Minister owes it to the House to tell us.
      I have spelt out a number of implications. A number of questions arise and need a response from the Minister. I await that response.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The new clause would introduce a specific clause in the Bill to prevent AEA Technology from gaining access to criminal record information held on the police national computer. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that access to the computer should be strictly limited, although, in this case, I assure him that his concerns are misplaced and his new clause unnecessary. Having said that, I welcome the opportunity to give a response for the record, which he has requested.
      Where required, the UK Atomic Energy Authority directorate of civil nuclear security carries out vetting of authority staff. As its work has nothing to do with AEA Technology's business, it will not be one of those activities that it assumes after vesting. AEA Technology will not therefore have access to the computer either as
      180
      an incorporated, publicly owned company or as a privatised company. I hope that that goes a long way towards setting the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
      Discussions in Committee took a different tack in that hon. Members on both sides were so concerned to ensure that AEA Technology staff working in sensitive areas continued to be carefully vetted. As I explained then, it would be a prior condition that all employees of AEA Technology, of a successor company or companies, or, for that matter, of any company working on UKAEA sites that deal with special nuclear material, meet the authority's vetting requirements.
      Where AEA Technology undertakes work for other Government customers, it will also have to meet any vetting requirements that they may specify. That means that it will operate on exactly the same basis, and will be subject to exactly the same requirements, as any other private sector contractor undertaking work for Government customers.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not going down the enticing byways and highways which he opened up, which go well beyond the scope of the Bill. I am quite sure that you, Madam Speaker, would call me to order if I went down those routes. I hope that my reassurances to the hon. Gentleman will enable him to withdraw his new clause.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: I support the new clause. In his lucid presentation, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) put his finger on one of the Bill's problems—the fact that it leaves far too much unsaid. It would be left to Ministers to come to the Committee or to the House and give assurances on matters which would be far better dealt with by a clause or subsection in the Bill.
      In Committee, we spoke at great length about nuclear proliferation and special nuclear materials, and were given many assurances. This year, we are seeking to renew the non-proliferation treaty, but there is nothing specific in the Bill about that, or about the Atomic Energy Authority police force and its continuing role. If AEA Technology must be privatised, the powers of that force must be spelled out again if possible.
      I hope that the Department will seriously consider the matters that we raised in Committee and that we will raise today on Report. They are not intended to frustrate in any way the Government's efforts. We have made it perfectly clear that we are opposed in principle to selling AEA Technology, but the new clause has nothing to do with the form or structure of privatisation. It is about the genuine concern over the way in which security matters will continue to be handled. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will propose changes in another place that will go some way towards meeting our concerns.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. My speech was longer than his and contained many points, none of which he addressed. I am prepared to withdraw the new clause, but perhaps I could ask him to read my speech and write to me, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) suggested, address some of those issues when the Bill is in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      TRANSFER SCHEMES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 10, leave out lines 34 to 42.
      No. 24, in page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14.
      No. 3, in page 11, line 33, at end insert—

      '(1A) The Authority and any person to whom anything has been transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme may issue a joint certificate stating that any liability specified in the certificate is a liability which was intended to be, and was, vested by virtue of the scheme in such one of them as may be so specified.

      (1B) Any certificate under sub-paragraph (1A) above—

      (a) shall, if given with the concurrence of every person who is entitled to enforce the liability at the time of the giving of the certificate, be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the fact referred to in that sub-paragraph, and

      (b) shall, in any other case, be conclusive evidence of that fact as between the persons giving or concurring in the giving of the certificate.'.

      No. 4, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'such a joint certificate' and insert
      'a joint certificate under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above'.
      No. 5, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'or right' and insert 'right or liability'.—[Mr. Page.]

    Clause 2

      POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) No direction under subsection (1) above shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by members of each House.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
      '(9) The Secretary of State shall not direct the Authority to make more than one scheme unless such a direction in his opinion will promote the national interest.'.
      Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for selecting my amendment for debate. It reflects the concern that I expressed on Second Reading. I should have liked to take part in the debate in Committee on an Opposition amendment which raised the same issue. Unfortunately, as the record of the proceedings in Standing Committee will show, I was prevented from serving on it by the intervention of a Government Whip. Therefore, I was unable to take part in that debate and to represent my constituents, among whom are numbered almost a third of the Atomic Energy Authority's employees. The amendment reflects their interests, and, I believe, the national interest.
      The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to consider the structure of AEA Technology as it will be when it is privatised. I should say at the outset that it is obvious that the amendment gives considerable discretion to the Government as to the form and timing of the parliamentary debate which it envisages.
      In Committee, the Minister and a number of my hon. Friends chose to interpret a similar amendment as requiring the Government to seek the authorisation of Parliament for specific details of the sale, in circumstances which would be commercially disruptive. I do not believe that that was a proper interpretation of the Opposition amendment, nor do I accept that it would be a proper interpretation of the amendment which I am moving.
      182
      For the avoidance of doubt, this amendment is drafted to enable the Government to fulfil their terms by making an early statement of their broad scheme of privatisation at a time of their choosing and not at all at a time which would be commercially disruptive. The Opposition spokesman tried to make that point in Committee, but I am afraid that he was brushed aside. I am sure that he would confirm now that he understands the matter in the same way.
      Dr. Moonie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, which gives us another opportunity to consider the whole question of parliamentary accountability. I can confirm—I shall be speaking at more length later—that we shall indeed be supporting the amendment. If anything, the amendment is a much better way of handling the issue than the way in which we chose to debate it in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will be given consideration.
      Mr. Jackson: Why do I believe that the amendment is necessary? The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on Second Reading showed that he at least recognised the sensitivity of whether AEA Technology was to be privatised as an entity or to be broken up for disposal. During that debate, he sought to give me some assurances on the matter. Specifically, he said:
      "the Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole".
      My purpose in moving the amendment is to ensure that this House and another place are given an opportunity to see that this commitment is met or that we are given an explanation, if it cannot be met, of why that should be so.
      I fully accepted what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in that debate about the inevitability of a degree of uncertainty. He was justified in saying:
      "Decisions about the method and timing of the sale can similarly be taken only in the light of market circumstances at the time",
      and that final decisions on the form of privatisation must
      "depend on AEA Technology's performance in the months ahead, on the needs and requirements of customers and on confirmation from the market that a unitary sale will secure best overall value for money for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 14 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 707.]
      If the Government cannot for those good reasons make a clear statement about the form of privatisation, in line with their commitment to AEA Technology as a "single, integrated whole", they should be prepared to make a statement to Parliament when they are able to do so. The purpose of my amendment is to provide such an opportunity for the Government.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy argued in Committee—I dare say that he will try to argue again today—that the amendment was not necessary, because the privatisation measure simply conformed to standard-form privatisation provisions that the House has approved on previous occasions. That point was made in the Department of Trade and Industry's press release, published on the same day as the Atomic Energy Authority Bill. I must tell my hon. Friend that I cannot accept that argument.
      I have looked at the other cases of privatisation, and it is quite clear that there is a much more fundamental question mark hanging over the structure of AEA Technology and privatisation than there was in respect of the structure of other industries when they were privatised.

      183
      For example, in the case of the electricity industry, there was a restructuring before privatisation, enabled by the Electricity Act 1989, which made it clear that the industry was to be sold as 12 supply companies and two generating companies. Similarly, the Water Act 1989 created 10 water and sewerage companies, successor companies to the regional water boards. In short, Parliament was fully apprised of the basic form of the proposed privatisation in those important instances, even before publication of the Bills to privatise those industries.
      With regard to AEA Technology, there is, however, a fundamental ambiguity of approach on the part of the Government. It is public knowledge that Barclays de Zoete Wedd consultants recommended the break-up of AEA Technology. We may deduce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy rejected that advice on behalf of the Government when he said that the company should be managed as a "single, integrated whole", although it has never been explained to the House why the BZW recommendations have been rejected.
      On the other hand, my right hon. Friend qualified that commitment by reference to "market circumstances", and what the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy said in Committee represents further confirmation of that ambiguity.
      4.15 pm
      For example, on 23 March, the Under-Secretary said that a "unitary sale" was possibly "achievable", but then told the Committee:
      "we cannot be certain that that is the best way forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 March 1995; c. 16–17.]
      In the light of that comment, what price the Minister of State's remark on Second Reading about the Government's preference for a "single, integrated whole"?
      The truth is that the Government have allowed a major question mark to form over the future structure of AEA Technology at the time of privatisation, which means that the House has none of the assurances about structure that it had at the time of earlier privatisations.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: In view of the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of such matters relating to his constituency, does he know anything about the disposal of the facility services division? I understand that that consisted of 950 people, yet it seems to have mysteriously disappeared during the Committee stage.
      Mr. Jackson: That was simply an exercise, which would have been perfectly possible under the existing arrangements, whereby the Atomic Energy Authority is contracting out the provision of facility services. It is a matter for the management of AEA Technology. I happen to support what is being done in that instance, and it affects neither the structure of the Bill nor the point that I seek to make about the future structure of AEA Technology at the point of privatisation.
      I am saying that the Government have allowed a question mark to form over the issue, so that the House does not have the assurances about the structure of AEAT that it had about the structure of other organisations at the time of earlier privatisations. It is therefore appropriate to vary the standard-
      184
      form privatisation provisions—which are not carved on tablets of stone—to make possible the parliamentary debate and vote envisaged by my amendment.
      I shall not repeat any of the eight arguments that I advanced on Second Reading on 14 March—they are recorded at columns 732–33 of the Official Report of that debate—as to why it is not only in the interests of my constituents who work at AEA Technology but in the national interest that AEAT should be privatised as a single entity. It would seem from the remarks of the Minister of State that he at least has found those arguments persuasive.
      The purpose of my amendment is simply to give the Government an opportunity, in presenting a broad scheme of privatisation, either to say that they accept those arguments or to provide an explanation of why, in view of possible future "market circumstances", they have not been found valid. I believe that the Government have a duty to do that. AEA Technology is not the Government's property but public property. The Government have a duty to the House and to another place to explain and justify their policy in such an important matter.
      It may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that I shall certainly press the amendment to a Division unless the Government are prepared to accept it. I may well lose the vote, but I hope that the proceedings will be noticed in another place.
      The Government sometimes behave as though they regarded the House, its Standing Committees and its elected Members as a dignified rather than a working part of the constitution. The record suggests that their unelected Lordships are not only more dignified but can also be more effective than we in this House are allowed to be. I hope that, on this occasion, it will not once again fall to them to ensure that the Government are held to account for their actions.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the purpose of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and I shall adopt his reasoning. I need not retract a word of it, nor need I add much.
      I believe that the whole House has recognised that if AEA Technology is to be privatised, it is proper, and in the national interest, that it should be privatised as an integral whole, with the advantages of synergy arising from the different operations carried out by the company at present. The Government themselves, in the person of the Minister of State, have said that that is their preference. Doubt was cast upon that by the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, who has said that it may be neither possible nor desirable in the commercial circumstances to proceed in the manner that the Minister of State thought appropriate.
      That being so, it would be totally wrong for the House to agree to the passage of a provision which would allow the Government to do what they like by way of a scheme or schemes without any proper parliamentary scrutiny of the structure that the Government have in mind. In other contexts, such sweeping powers have been referred to as Henry VIII clauses. The other place has drawn attention to the undesirability of such dispensing powers being given to Ministers to do as they choose on the back of a general provision of law.
      The case for integral privatisation is clear, and has been voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It need not he repeated. The amendment tabled by the hon.

      185
      Member for Wantage is strongly supported by his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who spoke in Committee on a number of matters affecting the interests of the industry. The arguments have commended themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it would be extremely foolish of the Minister to ignore the collective wisdom of the House of Commons on the matter. I hope that he will not do so, and that he will tell the House that the Government intend to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) for reasons of tactics. We are sent here as Back-Bench Members to look after the interests of our constituents, but it is appalling that the Whips are able to organise matters in such a way that proper argument cannot be made in Committee. You will well know, Madam Speaker, as the great guardian of Back Benchers' rights, how matters must be organised in such a way as to try to allow the Government to get their business.
      It might be helpful for the House to know that when the Bill was going into Committee, both my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and I—as the Members representing the majority of people who would be affected by the privatisation—spoke individually to the Whips. We acknowledged that, with a small Government majority, it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect that both of us should sit on the Committee, as we would both be in a position to push our own individual constituency views against the majority view of the House.
      I said to the Whips that, while I was keen to serve on the Committee, clearly my hon. Friend—having the larger number of constituents involved and more questions about the Bill—would be more suitable for selection. The Whips smiled, said that that was a good idea and thanked me kindly. Imagine my surprise when I found out that my hon. Friend had not been selected for the Committee. When he got another member of the Committee to stand aside in his favour, he found that the Whips rapidly ensured that he did not get on to that Committee.
      When I vote against the Government tonight—for the first time—to support my colleague, it will be to say that the House must be allowed to discuss matters that are of great concern to individual constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is no maverick and would have discussed the matters sensibly in Committee, which would have been that much stronger for having the benefit of his knowledge.
      I shall support my hon. Friend if the Minister does not accept the amendment. The Minister, along with many of his ministerial colleagues, may well scratch his head and wonder why the Whips should use those tactics to try to keep trouble at bay and to deliver the vote without getting the very best deal and making sure that we look at the legislation properly. I regret to have to say that I shall vote against the Government if they do not accept the amendment.
      Mr. Miller: I shall add briefly to the comments that have already been made.
      In my intervention on the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), I asked about one subsidiary. I understand his logic in saying that it is not within the science base, so it can be hived off without damage to the important science base in the heart of his constituency, although I do not agree.
      186
      My worry is that there are consistent and persistent rumours about the sale of other subsidiaries. Harwell Dosimeters has been sold to EMS Medical Group Ltd. of Stonehouse, Gloucestershire for an undisclosed sum and seven business areas have been identified for sale—Conforma in Risley, Cheshire, which is close to my home and my constituency, is among them. I am worried that, with that gradual fragmentation, there will be cracks in the strength of the science base of the operation.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about that one subsidiary, but it cannot hold true for all the parts about which there are persistent rumours. It is time that the Government came clean about what they are doing.
      Dr. Moonie: I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and amendment No. 10, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
      When I realised that the hon. Member for Wantage was going to table the amendment, I made it clear that the Opposition parties would be very likely to support it. I am pleased that he is determined to push his amendment to a vote because we shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. One always gets wild notions when a Government rebellion is on the cards, but alas it is a very small rebellion—only two Conservative Members are present, but we can always hope that others may be lurking in the wings, waiting to come into the Lobby with us.
      I wondered why the Report stage had been brought forward to this week—a week that is traditionally very light because of the local elections—especially as the Government must have had adequate notice that they would have a rebellion on their hands. I then realised, however, that Conservative Members would not be in their constituencies to help local government candidates. They would all be here, giving them the best service that they could possibly give in the circumstances—by not appearing in their constituencies—with the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Wantage and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), of course.
      Amendment No. 1 states:
      "No direction under subsection (1) above shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by members of each House."
      There is an important distinction between the form of this amendment and the amendments that we discussed in Committee. This amendment is much superior.
      In Committee, we were considering securing parliamentary approval for any disposal scheme that the Government produced for AEA Technology. The Minister was able to say that such approval would be difficult, that information might be commercially sensitive and that time pressures would be placed on us, which would preclude any such resolution of the House being sought. Perhaps there is justification for that view, but the Minister has no justification for refusing to give the very reasonable assurances that his hon. Friends have requested this afternoon.
      Amendment No. 1 says:
      "No direction … shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and"
      so approved. That consideration by both Houses of Parliament therefore takes place much earlier, which gives Members of the House a chance to put the seal of approval on that deal.

      187
      An important point of principle is at stake, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is fundamentally wrong of the Government to take into the hands of the Executive powers that should legitimately be left in hon. Members' hands. They are entitled to make such decisions.
      4.30 pm
      We are currently in the disgraceful position in which our entire atomic energy generating capacity, with the exception of Magnox reactors, can be sold off without further reference to the House of Commons. Regardless of who is in power, that abuse of the Executive's prerogative is wrong and should be resisted. One hopes that it will be resisted by hon. Members on both sides of the House today.
      Amendment No. 10 says:
      "The Secretary of State shall not direct the Authority to make more than one scheme unless such a direction in his opinion will promote the national interest."
      A great deal of anxiety was expressed in Committee and on Second Reading about the form that a putative sale would take. It is obvious that the management and work force of AEA Technology would much prefer the company to be sold off as a going concern—a single entity. As we discussed the matter in Committee, we must consider it in a slightly different form on Report; hence the wording of our amendment No. 10, which would allow the Secretary of State to draw up more than one scheme of transfer only if he believed that to be in "the national interest".
      There appears to have been confusion in Ministers' minds about the way in which the AEA should be sold. On Second Reading, the Minister for Industry and Energy said:
      "the Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole".—[Official Report, 14 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 707.]
      That is great; none of us could find fault with that.
      However, in Committee, there were signs of rapid back-pedalling by the new Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, who contradicted his senior colleague, saying that it is far too early to make irrevocable decisions about the shape and form of a privatised AEA Technology. One hopes that today the Minister will clear up the obvious problems that have arisen between him and his colleague.
      Parliament should decide the form of the sale. Separate sales might well be the only way of disposing of AEA Technology, but if so, those sales should be made only when they are demonstrably in the national interest.
      The Minister may intend to tell us that it is impossible to define what is in the national interest. However, the Government have already made a perfectly adequate stab at defining what is in the national interest in the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981. We shall refer to that definition in a future debate, because one of our amendments restores that power, which the Government have deleted in clause 7 so that national interest may not apply.
      188
      Section 1(4) of the 1981 Act provides:
      "Where a disposal by the Authority would not in their opinion be consistent with the exercise or performance of their functions, the disposal may only be made—

      (a) if in the Secretary of State's opinion it will promote the national interest; and

      (b) under and in accordance with directions given by him under the said section 3."

      Subsection (5) provides:
      "Where a disposal by the Secretary of State would in his opinion be inconsistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy, the disposal may only be made if in his opinion it will promote the national interest."
      So that has already been part of an Act. In case there might be any dubiety, or problems with future studies of the Act, a helpful footnote was provided, which said exactly what the national interest was:
      "National interest. It was suggested by Mackinnon J. in Consett Iron Co Ltd v. Clavering Trustees (1934) … that 'national interest' may be considered as something which is to be distinguished from the private interest of individuals; that the expression is akin to the economic doctrine of 'the greatest good of the greatest number'."
      We appear to be widening things substantially, Madam Speaker. It is not my fault that the Government have chosen to delete those powers in that Act.
      "It is submitted that the expression is synonymous with 'public benefit'"
      and that
      "'public benefit' must involve a direct benefit."
      It continues:
      "The question whether a particular thing is in the national interest is a question of the times and is a question of fact… It is to be decided in the light of all the circumstances and conditions as they exist at the present time notwithstanding that they would probably not have been specifically envisaged by the legislature when this Act was passed".
      There are adequate precedents for considering the national interest in any disposal. The Labour party contends that it would be commercially detrimental to AEA Technology to split up the company and that it would ultimately cause problems for our country by reducing the volume of research that takes place in that very important area.
      AEA Technology is a successful company. Whether it is in the public or the private sector, it must be encouraged and allowed to remain a successful company. Through our amendment, we give the Government a chance to ensure that their actions are in the national interest by retaining that provision within the Bill.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I shall make a few comments in support of amendment Nos. 1 and 10. I echo the comments of the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), about why the Atomic Energy Authority, if it is to be privatised, should be retained intact. I was a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Electricity Bill in 1989. The intention of that legislation was to privatise the nuclear industry, but one can see why the company would operate much more effectively and efficiently as one entity rather than being split into parts.
      I was interested to hear the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) say that they had been excluded from serving on the Committee by the Whips. I ask the Minister to address that point. I have known both hon. Gentlemen across the Floor of the House over the years. As well as having a constituency interest, the hon. Member for South Dorset has terrific

      189
      expertise in the area of nuclear energy. The hon. Member for Wantage was a Science Minister. The expertise of both hon. Gentlemen could have been put to good use by the Committee. It is a sad day for democracy and for the quality of debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the Whips Office intervenes in such matters. I ask the Minister to address that point in his remarks.
      Mr. Page: I fully appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in this matter. I can also understand his views, as I understand those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I assure them both—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage—that, while they were not physically present during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, they were there in spirit. My hon. Friends' views were very much in my mind when I made the appropriate comments in Committee.
      I would like to adjust, through a little shading, the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage made about the BZW report. BZW did not recommend breaking up the company, but it said that that option should be considered. I believe that any responsible consultancy firm should consider all the options and not close any automatically without giving them some thought.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) tried to make a mystery out of standard commercial practice and activities by implying that somehow the disposals were going ahead according to a peculiar and unknown game plan. AEA management made it perfectly clear all along that, privatised or not, the business would be rationalised and that it should focus on core activities. It does not help if the company operates through a series of fragmented activities—interesting as they may be.
      Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his enthusiasm, I shall give way in a moment. The House may be interested to know that one employee performs the task of book drying. That is a very important and a necessary skill, but it is hardly the basis upon which to build an international business.
      Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister, first, for recognising my enthusiasm and, secondly, for giving way. Will the Minister define the core business of the enterprise? He was unable to do that in Committee and he has just disposed of a small task because he says that it is not a part of the company's core business. Is not the design of hip joints core business? How can the Minister define the core business in a science enterprise?
      Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an unreconstructed member of the Labour party. When will the Labour party learn that it cannot run businesses better than people who have dedicated their lives to particular skills and techniques? Although the hon. Gentleman might like to dictate to the management of the new company of AEA Technology what it should or should not do, we believe that its skills and management should
      190
      be given the opportunity to prove themselves in the international marketplace. We shall certainly not try to tell AEA Technology what it can and cannot do.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I take it from what my hon. Friend says that it is now clear that the Government will no longer give instructions to AEA management as to the disposal policy.
      Mr. Page: AEA Technology is still part of Government schemes, but decisions as to what is to be privatised and what is to be disposed of are a matter for the management of AEA Technology. As to the form in which it will enter the private sector, we shall be looking to the management of AEA Technology to lead the way and provide guidance on the way ahead.
      Mr. Adam Ingram: As a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, will the hon. Gentleman extend that argument and tell us what the Department has in mind in respect of the privatisation of the nuclear industry generally? The management of Scottish Nuclear Ltd., which has shown expertise in bringing down unit costs and making the company productive, is opposed to the merger with Nuclear Electric. Will the Government listen to the management in those circumstances?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the Minister answers any questions, let me make it clear that the Bill is specific and that we should remain within the confines of the Bill.
      Mr. Page: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall abide by what you say, but I was not about to be tempted by the hon. Gentleman's inducements. If he is a little patient, all will be revealed in due course, and will no doubt be a tremendous boost and advancement for the nuclear industry in Britain.
      I return to the amendments. Their effect would be to prevent the Secretary of State from directing the authority to make a transfer scheme unless that direction had been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament. They would also prevent him from directing the authority to make more than one scheme unless, in his opinion, that would promote the national interest.
      I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage for his constituents and for the future of AEA Technology as a business. I also understand the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in support of the amendments. However, I must also have concern for the interests of the taxpayer in securing better value for the sale of AEA Technology, not just in the narrow sense of seeking and getting the best available price, but in terms of privatising the business on the basis that best enables it to exploit the opportunities that are open to it and maximise its contribution to the national economy.
      Therefore, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the amendments because I do not believe them to be consistent with that wider public interest or in the best interests of AEA Technology and its staff.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister seems to be making a perfectly extraordinary proposition that the House of Commons, in reaching a decision on the deliberations on the scheme prepared by the Government, is not capable

      191
      of taking into account exactly the same considerations that Ministers will have to examine. Why should he consider that the House cannot bear in mind what is in the commercial interest of the organisation and what is in the national interest?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Page: I was on exactly that point and I shall explain.
      First, it is entirely possible and normal that a transfer scheme would not be made until the point of sale. In such circumstances, the direction to the authority to draft a transfer scheme would of necessity be extremely detailed and might well include the name of and information relating to the proposed purchaser or purchasers.
      There is a real danger that potential purchasers—whether they are financial institutions backing a sale to management and employees or trade purchasers—would be deterred from bidding if they knew that their bids would be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny even before the formal preparation of any sale had started. Even if bidders were not deterred, it might be possible to explain a preference for one bidder over another only by revealing information that the bidder might not be prepared to disclose for good commercial reasons. Equally, it might not be in the interests of the taxpayer to disclose details of competing bids as that may cause the lead bidder to reduce the value of his offer or back out of the purchase.
      Dr. Moonie: The Minister appears to have failed to understand exactly what the amendment means. The whole point is for the Atomic Energy Authority to examine all the possibilities, and when it has decided its line of approach to the sell-off, and only that, to seek the approval of Parliament. It is nonsense to suggest that that would inhibit it in any way.
      The Minister of State said on Second Reading that he would prefer the authority to be sold off as one organisation. Every observer has expressed a preference for the organisation to be sold to the management and work force. If that option turns out to be possible, there is no question but that it is the preferable option for sale and it could easily be subjected to scrutiny by the House. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Page: We cantered over those subjects in Committee and nothing much has changed today.
      I return to the point that I was making. In addition, the amendment would inevitably delay the sale process and that in itself could cause a sale to fall through or reduce proceeds.
      In respect of amendment No. 10, I am hurt by the implication that the Secretary of State would contemplate acting in anything other than the national interest. I am also somewhat puzzled that Opposition Members should imply by the amendment that they would be content for the Secretary of State to act against the national interest so long as he made only one scheme.
      I assure the House that, when we consider the future of AEA Technology, all the Government's decisions will be driven by their concern to promote the national interest,
      192
      to ensure that particular needs and requirements of Government customers are met and to maximise AEA Technology's contribution to the national economy.
      Dr. Moonie: If the Government intend to act in the national interest, why are they withdrawing the national interest provisions in the Bill?
      Mr. Page: We are looking at the national interest as regards the definition that I gave at the beginning of the debate. We are aiming to achieve not only the best price, but the best future for AEA Technology. The name of the game is to combine those two objectives harmoniously.
      Let me refer briefly to the form of privatisation. Much has been made of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy told the House on Second Reading. He made a powerful speech and I support what he said, but there is no ambiguity in what is happening. He did not say that there would be only one method of privatisation. In respect of the form and method of privatisation, he told the House that we attach a great deal of importance to the views of AEA Technology's management and staff. They know the business and their commitment is crucial to realising its full potential. They have made it clear that the best way forward for AEA Technology is for it to be privatised as a single whole.
      I have taken note of the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and others. It is a desire with which I fully sympathise—to see the business kept together.
      The Government have already made it clear that for the time being AEA Technology will continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole, focused on the goal of building an increasingly competitive and successful international business. On the assumption that the Bill reaches Third Reading, I will mention some of the successes that AEA Technology has already enjoyed. A sale in that form may be the way of achieving our objectives and ensuring successful privatisation. Realistically, it is probably the only basis on which the business can be offered in the medium term, given the inevitable dislocation and uncertainty that a break-up would involve. However, I cannot say now—I cannot say definitely—that it will be sold as a single whole or that the sale will take any particular form. Those matters must depend on AEA Technology's performance over the next few months, the requirements of customers and market confirmation that a unitary sale would secure best overall value for money for the taxpayer.
      In the light of my remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage will withdraw his amendment and that Opposition Members will not press theirs.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 266.

      Division No. 142]

      [4.50 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainger, Nick

      Battle, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Alton, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bell, Stuart

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Austin-Walker, John

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bradley, Keith

      Barnes, Harry

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      193

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hoey, Kate

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

      Burden, Richard

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Byers, Stephen

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Caborn, Richard

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoyle, Doug

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hutton, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Cam, Jamie

      Ingram, Adam

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Church, Judith

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Janner, Greville

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Connarty, Michael

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Keen, Alan

      Corston, Jean

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Cousins, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cox, Tom

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cummings, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Litherland, Robert

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Darling, Alistair

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Denham, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Dewar, Donald

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dixon, Don

      McFall, John

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McMaster, Gordon

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Enright, Derek

      Mahon, Alice

      Etherington, Bill

      Marek, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Rynn, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Maxton, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Meacher, Michael

      Foulkes, George

      Meale, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michael, Alun

      Galbraith, Sam

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Galloway, George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Gapes, Mike

      Milburn, Alan

      Garrett, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Morley, Elliot

      Godsiff, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Graham, Thomas

      Mudie, George

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Hain, Peter

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hall, Mike

      Olner, Bill

      Hanson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hardy, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Patchett, Terry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Pearson, Ian

      Henderson, Doug

      Pendry, Tom

      Heppell, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Pike, Peter L

      194

      Pope, Greg

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Stevenson, George

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stott, Roger

      Purchase, Ken

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Straw, Jack

      Randall, Stuart

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Redmond, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Dr John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rendel, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Touhig, Don

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dennis

      Rogers, Allan

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Rooney, Terry

      Wallace, James

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Watson, Mike

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Clare

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Peter Mandelson and

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Joe Benton.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Congdon, David

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ancram, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Couchman, James

      Ashby, David

      Cran, James

      Atkins, Robert

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

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baldry, Tony

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Devlin, Tim

      Bates, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dover, Den

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      Booth, Hartley

      Dunn, Bob

      Boswell, Tim

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Elletson, Harold

      Bowis, John

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Butcher, John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      French, Douglas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Cash, William

      Gallie, Phil

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Chapman, Sydney

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Clappison, James

      Garnier, Edward

      195

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charies

      Mates, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hague, William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Hawksley, Warren

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heald, Oliver

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Pickles, Eric

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jack, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sackville, Tom

      Knapman, Roger

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knox, Sir David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sims, Roger

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Legg, Barry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Stephen, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Stewart, Allan

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Streeter, Gary

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sweeney, Walter

      Maclean, David

      Sykes, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Thomason, Roy

      Malone, Gerald

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marland, Paul

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Marlow, Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      196

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Whittingdale, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Trend, Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Trotter, Neville

      Wilkinson, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Willetts, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wilshire, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waller, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watts, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 2

      SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
      Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
      '(7) The Secretary of State shall seek to ensure that any disposal of securities issued to him under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in such a manner as to prevent more than one half of those securities passing to any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are wholly based outside the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 12, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
      '(7) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of more than one half of the securities issued to him under sub-paragraph (1) above until a period of three years has elapsed from the date of their initial allotment.'.
      No. 13, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 11 to 16.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) The Authority shall not dispose of more than one half of the securities issued to it under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act until a period of three years has elapsed from the date of their initial allotment.'.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) The Authority shall seek to ensure that any disposal of securities issued to it under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall be in such a manner as to prevent more than one half of those securities passing to any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Authority, are wholly based outside the United Kingdom.'.
      Dr. Moonie: Amendment No. 13 returns to a principle that we have already discussed: an insistence that the national interest remain a consideration before any disposal. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are consequential.
      The amendments have three purposes. Nos. 12 and 14 provide in effect for golden shares, time-limited to the first three years of operation of any new company. The idea of an indefinite 50 per cent. shareholding by the Government was tabled in Committee and discussed at great length, but in the debate the Minister offered no opinion on the merit of that idea and concentrated on another amendment. We did not get the opportunity to discuss the golden share properly—hence our attempt to redress the balance this afternoon.
      A provision such as this would help to secure the best deal for the work force and management who may wish to be involved in a buy-out. Golden share provisions have been included in a number of other privatisations carried out by the Government, so there is nothing particularly contentious in what we are trying to do. I say that this would

      197
      be in the interests of a management-workers buy-out because, if the Government retained 50 per cent. of the value of the company, the management and work force would not have to put up the full capital sum to purchase the company in the first instance. The extra three years that we are allowing would give them a bit more time to raise the capital that they might need to complete their purchase of AEA Technology from the Atomic Energy Authority.
      I suggest that it would be well worth the Government's considering this motion. They must, like us, be interested in securing the best deal. To ensure that the morale of management and staff remains high, it is greatly in the Government's interest that the management and work force should be successful in any attempt at a buy-out. The golden share provision will also ensure that any predator company will be prevented from taking over AEA Technology, at least in the early stages of its life in the private sector. That will ensure that it has the best chance of surviving once it is moved to the private sector.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 15, on the other hand, would prevent the sale of the Atomic Energy Authority to companies or other bodies based outside the United Kingdom. The Opposition fervently believe that there are still considerable questions of national interest relating to the work of the AEA that are being overlooked by the Government in the present scheme. We seek some reassurances that the Government are aware that the national interest is involved and that they intend to ensure that it is properly managed and taken into account in any sale.
      It is worth noting that the AEA has recently divested itself, outside the provisions of the Bill, of its facilities services division, which employs no fewer than 950 staff, to Procord Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson Controls Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
      I have already discussed the national interest clause. I do not propose to speak any longer on amendment No. 13 but I trust that the Government will provide us with some assurances on the amendments and I hope that we will not have to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Page: The amendments attempt to restrict the freedom of the Secretary of State and the authority to dispose of securities in AEA Technology after vesting. I would like to explain what I consider to be one or two of the practical effects of the amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 raise the substantive issue of foreign ownership. I will deal with that in a moment, but let me deal first with the much less substantive amendments, Nos. 12, 13 and 14. They seek to restrict the sale of securities in successor companies to less than 50 per cent. within three years of vesting. Their purpose is transparent and doomed to disappointment.
      Opposition Members tabled an amendment in Committee with the aim of delaying privatisation. That amendment attempted to hold up the proceedings for 12 months. I remember teasing the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that he was seeking to make the privatisation of AEA Technology part of an integrated Labour party policy. He assured me, no doubt in jest, that had he sought to delay the sale until a Labour Government were elected, he would have erred on the safe side and made it two years rather than one. I see that his confidence is starting to ebb away and that he now seeks to delay the sale by some three years, to be absolutely certain, as he thinks. That is not going to be long enough for him to succeed in his purpose.
      198
      Amendment No. 13 attempts to restrict the freedom of the Secretary of State and the authority to dispose of securities in a successor company by deleting clause 7(1). That clause expressly disapplies certain conditions of the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981 in relation to the sale of shares in any successor company. It also prohibits the authority from disposing of any securities in a successor company except with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. It is purely an avoidance of doubt provision and its removal would not serve any useful purpose.
      5.15 pm
      Dr. Moonie: Is the Minister embarrassed to say that the content of that clause is the national interest provision; if not, would he like to put it on record that it is the Government's intention with this provision to delete national interest from the Bill?
      Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman did not act in such a crude and unsubtle fashion during all the time we were in Committee. He had a gentleness that commended itself to me, but the sort of approach that he adopts today will not obtain the response for which he hopes. Obviously, in everything that the Government do, the national interest must be there. I believe that the word is "paramount".
      Clause 7(1) is necessary because, if not expressly disapplied, it is possible that the restrictions in the 1981 Act will be viewed as limiting the powers of sale under the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are an attempt to prevent foreign ownership or control of AEA Technology. There is nothing between us on that. We have made it perfectly clear that the Government will act in the national interest in making decisions about the form and method of any privatisation.
      I recognise the concerns that have led to the amendments being tabled. We all agree that AEA Technology is a valuable and important national asset and that, in deciding its future, we must aim to maximise its returns to the United Kingdom.
      Let me set out two general points in responding to the amendments. First, the Government welcome overseas investment. If Opposition Members would care to come to hear me winding up the debate tomorrow night, they will hear me say how much we appreciate the huge investments that have been made in this country by companies that have provided jobs, exports and, I think, a valuable injection of new ideas and technology. However, that is for tomorrow night and, having given that trailer of what is to come, I am sure that hon. Members will not be going canvassing for the local elections in their constituencies but will stay here to contribute to that important debate.
      Although we welcome such investment, potential buyers of privatised companies, or shareholders in them, must meet all the criteria that are attached to sales. There is no reason why they should be discouraged simply on the ground of nationality.
      Secondly, the scope for restrictions and controls is strictly limited by European Union rules and other international obligations.

      199
      In the case of AEA Technology, as I have already said, the Government's thinking is driven by our concern to ensure that the particular needs of Government customers are met and to maximise AEA Technology's contribution to the national economy.
      The House can rest assured that all appropriate action to that end will be taken. A special share would be a possible line of approach, but I shall not speculate on that any further at present. It would be wrong to restrict ourselves in the way that the amendments seek. Statutory limitation as to when and to whom a successor company might or might not be sold would not be in the best interests of the taxpayer or the business.
      I ask the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Maclennan: In view of the judicial decision of the House of Lords on interpretation of ambiguities by reference to Ministers' speeches, I think that it would be helpful to know whether the Minister is saying that, although the Government are deleting the words that deal with national interest, he believes that those words will still be imported into the construction of the Bill. If it is simply a tidying-up operation to the effect that it is no longer necessary to import the language that was used in the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981 because it is implicit, it will avoid a great deal of doubt and be very helpful.
      However, I suspect that the Minister is really saying that the Government's action is quite deliberate. He is taking the provision out because a Government decision that is not put before the House in a form that hon. Members might have an opportunity to consider will not be so readily challenged by judicial review if he has taken the words out. I think that that is a most unattractive and sinister development, especially as it has not been made explicit. It has been implied that nothing is changing. The reality is that significant change in the law is being imported into the Bill. That is a very powerful reason for suspecting that the Government are up to no good.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: Clause 7 is a result of the hurried and unthinking way in which the Government have introduced the Bill. It is widely understood that the value of AEA Technology is based on its intellectual capital. The questions of securities within the company and of ownership should have been dealt with comprehensively and in a way that ensured that the ownership and direction of the company were wholly in the interests of the United Kingdom. The possibility of the company offering services overseas is another matter. Its control, its central direction and its understanding of its task should have been implicit in the Bill.
      In Committee, I mentioned the possibility of a hybrid formation for the company which would ensure that it remained wholly and properly controlled within this country so that it could carry out the purposes for which it was set up in the first place and its increasingly important role of supervising the disposal of waste and the decommissioning of plant. I suggested that a hybrid formation might be an appropriate way to proceed. Such a hybrid should be based on the company's shares being wholly in the hands of the people who work in the company. I also suggested that there should be a form of
      200
      supervisory board whose clear duty would be to ensure that at all times, the national interest was protected and served by the new company. Such a hybrid would meet all the concerns expressed by Conservative Members.
      The Minister has said that he shares our concerns and that he believes that the national interest will be protected because the Government always act in the interests of this country. That is fine. We will not dwell on the Government's record and their understanding of what is in the national interest. That is a debate for another time which you would not welcome now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      If we had a hybrid formation in which the company was owned by the people who worked in it, it would be a recognition that the value of the company was almost wholly based on the intellectual capital in it and on the ability of the workers to deliver the service that was wanted. Such a formation would ensure, through the supervisory board mechanism, that the company always acted in the interests of the nation and that it served the nation as was originally intended.
      In the disposal of the company, it should have been implicit that it could be disposed of only with the encumbrance of a supervisory board with the duties that I have described. In that way, we could, in perpetuity, have ensured some consensus between the two parties. As it is, we know that the privatisation of the company is being used as nothing more than a substitute for the fact that the Government were unable to introduce a Bill to privatise the Post Office. As a result, this Bill has been hurried and it will not serve us as it should do. At the very least, the Government should consider our amendments.
      Dr. Moonie: Let me get this clear. The Minister is not prepared to accept our amendments on retention of a certain proportion of ownership, but he is sympathetic towards the idea that the Government should prevent disposal in the wrong way. I suppose that one has to accept the Minister's good will, so I shall try to do so. He is not prepared to introduce a provision to prevent foreign ownership of the company, but he is prepared to say that the Government would consider the prevention of such ownership. He is certainly not prepared to own up to the fact that the Government intend to delete the provision on national interest. He is quite prepared to talk about clause 7, but he has not said exactly what is being deleted—the national interest as a condition of sale. Nor is he prepared to justify the deletion, because he knows only too well that there is no justification.
      It may be more appropriate to attempt to amend the Bill in another place, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 17, line 7, leave out from second 'the' to 'in' in line 8 and insert
      'statements of account prepared by the Authority under section 4(3) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954'.
      No. 7, in page 18, line 2, after 'accounting', insert 'reference'.
      No. 8, in page 18, line 25, leave out from 'be)' to first 'the' in line 27 and insert
      'amount determined by or under the transfer scheme or (if there is no such determination)'.
      No. 9, in page 18, line 28, leave out from first 'the' to 'in' and insert
      'statements of account prepared by the Authority under section 4(3) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954'.—[Mr. Page.]

    Schedule 4

      PENSIONS
      Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 30, line 22, after 'transfer scheme', insert
      'or other transfer of an undertaking'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 19, in page 30, line 50, after 'transfer scheme', insert
      'or transfer of an undertaking'.
      No. 20, in page 31, line 13, after 'transfer schemes', insert 'or transfers of undertakings'.
      No. 21, in page 31, line 13, at end insert—
      '(7) This paragraph shall have effect for transfers of undertakings other than by transfer scheme, that occur on or after I March 1995.'.
      Dr. Moonie: We now come to the first of two groups of amendments on the pension rights of employees within AEA Technology. In fact, the first group of amendments concerns employees who are no longer employees of AEA Technology. The amendments would allow some rights of pension transfer for people in other parts of AEA that have already been sold off, in particular the services division. While we were debating the Bill in Committee, the services division was sold off to Procord without the employees being given the pension guarantees included in the Bill for the scientific employees of AEA Technology.
      We should be clear what the distinction means. The largely manual work force who make up the facilities services division—the support services—have been sold off into the private sector without the pension guarantees given to the professional and scientific staff who will largely be involved in selling off AEA Technology. I consider that the distinction is disgraceful. Amendment No. 16 would restore—it is retrospective—to members of the facilities services division and others the rights that have been given to the employees of AEA Technology.
      Mr. Maclennan: I support the amendment. I have a substantial number of constituents at Dounreay, employed formerly by the facilities services division, but now by Procord. It is extremely unsatisfactory that their pension rights were not preserved by the Government when the transfer was made by UKAEA. If it is necessary to legislate for this purpose, it is open to the Government to do so through the Bill. I hope that they will remedy the defect even now. It is not satisfactory to make such changes without due and proper consultation and consideration of those affected. Those who have been consulted about the transfer of responsibilities have expressed, from the beginning, the strongest opposition to what is proposed. Their complaints are entirely justified and I hope that Parliament will now remedy the wrong that has been done to them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Mitchell.
      Mr. Miller: I worry when that mistake is made from time to time.
      Mr. Timothy Wood (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): So you should.
      Mr. Miller: I understand the hon. Gentleman's words.
      The amendments would give equal pension rights to employees who are divested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has just explained.
      202
      He has already cited examples to explain why there should be an element of retrospection. In Committee, some reference was made to the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981. At that time, in the context of the disposal of Harwell—I mean Amersham International; I am not trying to give the Minister ideas—the Government said that they accepted that the employees of Radiochemical Centre Ltd. should remain in the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme. We were told in Committee—repeatedly—that that was the point at which the Government changed their position, and all subsequent privatisations were dealt with in the way that is before us today.
      I wonder whether the Minister has accidentally misled us, because there is a contradiction. In Committee, during the consideration of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), when pressed on the question of pensions in that particular case, said:
      "The amendments relate to guaranteed terms and conditions … including redundancy and pension provisions, and to the payment of redundancy money on transfer to the contractor. I have already given repeated assurances during the passage of the Bill that arrangements will be set up that provide benefits at least as good as those that staff presently enjoy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1991; c. 216.]
      5.30 pm
      Let us assume that the word "staff' could mean singular or plural. On 24 April 1991, the Minister was very specific. He said:
      "No one will be made to suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation."—[Official Report, 24 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1108.]
      What we have here, as I tried to illustrate in Committee, is an exercise that can potentially, and will actuarily, present disadvantage to some individuals.
      The Minister was gracious enough, at the end of the Committee's sittings, to comment on people who were terminally ill, and I am grateful for that, but there are still answers that must be given. I am even more concerned when I look at our exchanges in relation to the Government Actuary. On 27 March this year, the Government Actuary's Department, in a letter to the central staff side, made it clear that
      "Comparability assessments have been commissioned in the context of a compulsory transfer of employment requiring a specific group of employees to cease to be members of the UKAEA Schemes, but providing them with the opportunity to join their new employer's scheme."
      Again, there is a contradiction. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly stressed the independence of the Government Actuary. On 4 April this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy said:
      "The role of the GAD is crucial. It has a well-proven record of independence and it will decide whether there is a fair balance of benefit."
      Later, in response to a question that I raised, he said:
      "The definitions are from the Government Actuary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 April 1995; c. 123–24.]
      It seems to me that the independence of the GAD is being put in jeopardy, because it is clear from the text of the letter to which I have referred that the GAD was asked to act under specific circumstances, to provide a briefing for the Government under the terms that they have dictated as being the best mechanism for the disposal of this particular

      203
      business. It was not asked to examine and compare the benefits to the individuals or the collective population in the context of the various ways in which the pension scheme could be dealt with. The text of the letter is quite specific. The GAD was not even asked to look at the option of the benefit to individual employees if the earlier options that were available in 1981 were brought into play.
      It seems to me that we clearly have evidence of interference by the Treasury in the manipulation of the pension arrangements around the point of sale. There is no clear logical basis in pension terms for the way in which the Government have reached their conclusions. Labour Members are seeking to make the best of a bad job by building in some protection in the amendments for the people who have already been disposed of, so to speak, in the context of the subsidiary to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy referred, and to build in the maximum protection within the disappointingly limited framework that the Government have provided us.
      Mr. Page: As the House knows, the Bill is primarily designed to permit the privatisation of AEA Technology and it creates a successor company, or companies, by transfer scheme prior to the point of sale or the transfer of assets directly to the private sector.
      The amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition have been presented as a model of reasonableness, but we had all of those methods in Committee. I would like to think that we dealt with them adequately, but, obviously Opposition Members have been driven by forces beyond their control to come again to the House and give it another run. I have no objection to that. I must tell the House, however, that the amendments would add a completely new dimension to the Bill by bringing within its scope any divestment, however, small, which the authority, for example, AEA Technology or the Government division, might wish to make in the normal course of business. Just to put the cap on it, the amendments would not just encompass future divestments but would go back to those that have taken place since 1 March this year.
      We have to keep some form of proportion, because, with the exception of the facilities services division, the transfers involve a small number of employees. We have already had the debate on whether a company such as AEA Technology should worry about how the support systems should be run and whether that should be a separate operation. The authority has had wide experience of such transfers and existing law does provide adequate protection for employees. The amendments would mean that a panoply of provision designed for a specific purpose—the major transfer of AEA Technology—would come into play for a divestment which may, in fact, be just one employee.
      Amendment No. 21 is slightly curious. I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. He is trying to open the basis on which recent sales by the authority, particularly the sale of the FSD, have taken place.
      Mr. Miller: The problem is that the Government are looking at the global interest. The whole structure of pensions is about how within that global picture one protects the best interests of the individual who is a member of that collective scheme. The Minister, by his own
      204
      admission, is prepared to isolate an individual. It might be that individual who needs the greatest protection from the scheme. It seems to me that the Government are standing on their heads some of the ideas that they have promoted in terms of the importance of occupational pensions.
      Mr. Page: As I suspected, if the hon. Gentleman had restrained himself for a moment I would have come to that point.
      Amendment No. 21 endeavours to reopen the basis of the recent sales by the authority, in particular the facilities services division. The amendment is defective, but is no less important because of that. It seeks to impose a duty to do something in relation to an event that is already taking place. Even if the amendment were not obviously defective, it would be wrong in principle. Purchasers have bought the divested operations in good faith and it would be wrong to try, retrospectively, to change the basis on which the transaction took place.
      I wonder whether Opposition Members have consulted not just the unions but the employees, because I am not certain that the employees would be pleased with what they are advocating today. In the case of the facilities services division, I know that the unions, in all their circumstances, recommended the transfer to Procord to their members. The new pension schemes include some significant improvements in benefit.
      I thought that hon. Members raised genuine and valid concerns in Committee and I believe that the way in which I reacted to those concerns showed that I acknowledge what was said. In Committee, we debated the death-in-service benefit and it is much better than under the authority's scheme. I have a long list—
      Mr. Miller rose—
      Mr. Page: Hang on. The hon. Gentleman should not get so excited.
      I have a long list of the various benefits offered by the UKAEA scheme and the scheme offered by Procord. For example, on pension benefits, the UKAEA scheme offers one eightieth for every year of service. The FSD scheme—Procord—offers one sixtieth for every year of service. There is one difference in inflation protection. Under UKAEA there is full inflation proofing and under the Procord scheme protection is guaranteed up to 5 per cent., with provision for discretionary increases beyond 5 per cent. Contribution levels depend on whether the person is industrial or non-industrial. There is a flat rate of 5.75 per cent. for Procord. Under UKAEA it is 7.5 per cent. in the case of the principal non-industrial superannuation scheme category and 5.75 per cent. in the industrial superannuation scheme category. The UKAEA staff under PNISS are talking about an extra 2 per cent. in their contribution levels. The Procord death-in-service lump sum benefit is three times the salary while the UKAEA benefit is twice the salary. Under the Procord scheme, benefits are payable to spouses or, at the discretion of the trustees, to other dependants. There is service enhancement to normal retirement age.
      The general benefit is so much greater and I understand why the unions recommended full transfer.
      Dr. Moonie: Just for the record, may I say that the Minister is misquoting us to some extent? We are interested in preserving choice for individuals, not for pension companies or pension schemes. We are trying to

      205
      ensure that the Bill allows an individual, not the company making up the scheme, to decide whether to stay in the old scheme or to move to the new one.
      Mr. Page: I understand that, but at the moment those people in the UKAEA scheme are staying in that scheme. I do not feel that it is necessary to provide that sort of choice. When people move out of the UKAEA scheme, they move into the next scheme. I want to make it clear to the House that the scheme to which they will move is very good. The assessment of relative benefits shows that the Procord scheme is superior.
      When divesting activities, including those recent examples, the authority has ensured, and will continue to ensure, that employees are able to join a pension scheme that is broadly comparable. It means that, as a whole, the mix of the benefits will have broadly the same value as in the authority's scheme. Employees will not lose out. There can be no question of there being a scheme that is not broadly comparable, otherwise employees may have grounds for constructive dismissal.
      In each case, the schemes are certified by the Government Actuary as being broadly comparable. The Government Actuary is independent and I believe that his integrity is beyond question. I know that we have gone over this matter in Committee, but I believe that the Government Actuary is well recognised for his independence of thought. He reaches his conclusions only after careful consideration of all the features, including entitlement under the schemes being compared. Therefore, employees can have every confidence that their interests are being looked after. I urge the House to reject the amendments.
      5.45 pm
      Dr. Moonie: Just for the record, I want to make it clear that we are not questioning the integrity of the Government Actuary's Department. We are raising some questions about competence. We are not questioning the integrity of Procord, the company that bought the facilities services division. We are questioning the competence of the decision that transferred pensioners from the AEA to Procord without leaving them the choice of remaining in the previous scheme.
      I do not intend to pursue this matter to a Division and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 30, line 35, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 30, line 36, leave out 'other benefits' and insert
      'entitlements to injury benefits and redundancy benefits'.
      No. 22, in page 31, line 26, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.
      No. 23, in page 31, line 27, leave out 'other benefits' and insert
      'entitlements to injury benefits and redundancy benefits'.
      Dr. Moonie: During the previous debate we strayed into the subjects covered by these amendments. I suppose that was inevitable. I congratulate the staff of the House and Madam Speaker on their exceptional generosity in providing us with a chance for two debates on pensions.
      206
      There was a clear division between them in my mind when I started the first debate, but it is much less clear now having concluded that debate.
      The amendments deal with the comparability of the AEA pension scheme and any future pension scheme provided by a new company. At present the Bill considers comparability to include all employment benefits, not just pensions. That is not considered to be acceptable by staff trade unions. For the benefit of the Minister who appears to be hard of hearing, I shall repeat that it is not considered acceptable by staff trade unions.
      In Committee it was argued that the present AEA scheme includes injury and redundancy benefits and that they could not be reproduced in any new scheme for tax reasons. Our amendments return to the issue more precisely and, I hope, avoid that problem. We are doing our best to be helpful to the Minister.
      We are not questioning the integrity of anybody involved in this process. We are questioning the competence of the decisions that have been made and we are giving the Government a chance to make amends for what we consider to be a mistake in the Bill's drafting. It will enable them to improve the Bill to the benefit of individual employees. We are trying to achieve full choice for individual members. They should be able to choose which pension scheme is most advantageous for them, depending on their circumstances. The Government are, ostensibly, in favour of choice and I can see no reason for them to reject these amendments.
      Mr. Miller: I shall be brief because I made some of my intended comments during the previous debate. The amendments seek to deal with comparability between the AEA scheme and any future scheme provided by a new company. At present, the Bill considers comparability to include all employment benefits, not just the pensions. That is not acceptable. In the Government's infamous booklet, "The Government's Guide to Market Testing", there is a peculiar clause on pensions, including injury benefits. It says:
      "Civil servants whose jobs transfer under TUPE cannot continue to belong to the PCSPS. Their accrued pension rights are fully protected by social security legislation and they have the option of preserving them in the PCSPS for payment at age 60 (provided they have two or more years qualifying service), or transferring them to the new employer's pension scheme or to a personal pension arrangement. In the latter two cases a transfer value will be paid by PCSPS."
      The paragraph starts by referring to pensions, including industrial injury benefits, but that is then conveniently omitted. This is where we get into complications.
      The Government Actuary's Department letter, to which I referred earlier, makes it clear that some individuals may be disadvantaged. That is the effect of this sort of block transfer into a scheme. The Minister set out, dare I say, a lucid argument—I might incur the wrath of my hon. Friends for saying that—as to why the services division scheme is better. He should refer to the Government Actuary's letter before he jumps to that conclusion. One of the problems with making such a comparison actuarially is that, in this life, people do not get more than they pay for, unless the Minister has invented some sort of perpetual motion machine in his visits to the AEA.
      The letter says:
      "The purpose of the GAD assessment is to ensure that, for the group of staff who are affected, the new pension scheme offers a package which is broadly speaking no worse in value than that which they presently enjoy."

      207
      The method of measuring that value is by calculating the sum total of all the benefits. Of course, they can be up or down on the comparable figures in different schemes. The Government Actuary continues:
      "This is not to say that some individuals may not be better or worse off in certain circumstances but that, overall, there is no significant detriment to any identifiable individual or group of individuals within the body of staff being transferred."
      Broadly speaking, the Minister is presenting an accurate picture. The problem comes back to the fact that the Government Actuary cannot give him a guarantee that no individual will be worse off.
      Against that background, in any sale or transfer, whether it affects the provisions of the Bill or, indeed, the sale of one private sector company to another, protection must be brought down to the lowest common denominator: the interests of the individual. No hon. Member can predict the individual needs of people in such circumstances. If a company is sold, there needs at the very least to be a period of grace, during which people can determine whether, in their own personal interest, they should transfer into the new scheme.
      That is precisely what the Government did in 1981 in relation to the Amersham sale. It made a lot of sense then. In Committee, the Minister made clear, and was right to say, that the majority of people in Amersham have transferred into the new scheme, first, because starters have no choice—they can join only the new scheme—but, secondly, because a part of the population would actuarially be advantaged by such a move at particular times in their lives. Inevitably, therefore, over time the problem that the Government perceive in presenting employees with that option will be phased out.
      Sometimes, in some of the subsidiary operations of the industry under discussion, we are talking about a half life of thousands of years, but the transition from the pension position that existed in 1981 to the one that the Government seem to be satisfied with in relation to Amersham today, took a handful of years. The Government should not worry about that.
      If the Government are serious when they say, as we hear from time to time, that the Conservative party is the party of choice and of freedom of the individual, let us see them act on that and revert to the provisions that existed in 1981. Such clauses would therefore not be necessary because individuals would determine whether, against all the risks that exist in their place of work, their family circumstances, and their own personal health, they could make a judgment based on the best available professional advice as to what scheme they should be in and when they should transfer. If the Government are serious about the Conservative party being a party of choice, let us see them deliver on the amendment.
      Mr. Page: I start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that the two blocks of amendments have in many ways blurred and merged, but a fairly fine line existed between the two and, if his side will, I plead guilty to merging them. The amendments continue the debate that took place in Committee. Opposition Members are trying with considerable ingenuity to tie down a new employer to provide a pension scheme that, as a minimum, provides benefits that mirror those in the authority scheme. I understand the
      208
      point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) but I cannot accept his argument or that the amendment can be translated into the Bill.
      Every privatisation is different and the pension provisions have been tailored to the particular circumstances that apply. We have designed the pension provisions that we believe to be the most appropriate to this privatisation.
      In the case of AEA Technology, under our proposals, employees transferring who participate in an authority scheme will be given access to another pension scheme—either a new or existing scheme—operated by their new employer. The Bill provides the protection that, taken as a whole, it must be no less favourable than the authority scheme. Employee representatives must be consulted before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the authority can be satisfied that a new scheme meets those requirements.
      The new scheme must offer benefits that are at least equivalent to the authority scheme, although the benefit mix may be different. The Secretary of State or the authority would ask the Government Actuary to verify that the new scheme meets the requirements of the schedule.
      I repeat what I said in Committee; the Government Actuary is impartial, has wide experience of these matters, and his opinion has been taken as authoritative on many such previous occasions. The proposed amendments would restrict the ability of the vendor to decide that a new scheme is comparable when the provisions of the scheme are taken as a whole. They would effectively require each benefit to be as good as the present one. As I have said, the new employer would be hamstrung into providing a pension scheme whose benefits, as a minimum, mirror the authority scheme. That would be unduly restrictive and could work against the interests of employees.
      Let us take one example. [Interruption.] May I move on a little before the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston returns to his arguments, which he has advanced on more than one occasion? Let us take the example of a new employer whose pension scheme is superior to the authority scheme but has a different mix of benefits. One or more of those benefits, which in the overall scheme may be minor, may be less favourable than the comparable benefit in the authority scheme. Agreeing to the amendments would prevent that scheme from meeting the terms of the legislation.
      When similar amendments were discussed in Committee, I noted that they may have meant that new pension schemes could not be tax exempt. I am afraid that the current amendments suffer from a similar problem. In Committee, I gave two examples of benefits that prevented the authority scheme from being tax exempt. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has reflected those in amendments Nos. 18 and 23. Removing injury and redundancy benefits would not mean that the scheme would be tax exempt. Those are only some examples of benefits in the authority scheme that would prevent schemes from attaining tax-exempt status. Employees would not thank the Labour party for preventing their pension scheme from being tax-exempt. It would mean paying tax on their own and on their employer's contributions on their lump sums. People would not thank the Opposition for preventing the overall mix of benefits from being rearranged so as to increase them.

      209
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston seemed to start from the basis that the authority schemes are the best things since sliced bread and that everything else is completely and utterly inferior. I am glad to say that there was a shift of view in Committee. Some 90 per cent. of the Amersham employees who remained in the authority's scheme have now transferred to Amersham's scheme. In that case the mix of benefit was very different from that in the authority's scheme. I shall not waste time by reading through the benefits of the Amersham scheme compared with the authority's scheme. However, if I had to make a choice of pension scheme I should choose the Amersham scheme.
      6 pm
      Mr. Miller: The Minister puts great store on the Government Actuary's words and accepts them as accurate. Does he accept the sentence which reads:
      "That is not to say that some individuals may not be better or worse off"?
      Does he not realise that we are discussing the interests of individuals?
      Mr. Page: I understand that; the hon. Gentleman has made the point on more than one occasion. We are debating the transfer of group schemes. At this stage I cannot say what terms an employer may wish to propose, but whatever happens the overall terms must be no less favourable. Before coming to a view about that, employees' representatives would have to be consulted and I have no doubt that at that time they would make their views well and truly known.
      The Bill as it stands represents the right approach and I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will withdraw his amendment.
      Dr. Moonie: It is clear that we shall not manage to persuade the Minister about the merits of our case and I do not propose to go on flogging a dead horse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Page: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I shall start on a note of discord. I have been called many things in my life, but being called a dead horse is hurtful and wounding. I hope that when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) responds to the debate, he will have the grace to withdraw that remark.
      Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will respond to the debate. I was of course referring to the issue and not to the unfortunate Minister.
      Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
      We had our disagreements in Committee and in the House, but we have had a useful discussion on the substance of the Bill and have clarified many issues. I pay tribute to the Opposition's constructive attitude. By and large, they did not set out to wreck the Bill, but tabled amendments that were designed to probe the thinking behind it and procure further information about the
      210
      Government's intentions. Time will tell whether that is symptomatic of new Labour. Labour Members may have an immediate chance to test the new thinking that is sweeping through the Labour movement by not opposing Third Reading. I like to think that I have striven to encourage the process of conversion that is creeping across to the Opposition.
      I have not been able to accept any Opposition amendments, but in my humble way I hope that I have provided clarification where it was necessary and given a number of assurances on key issues in the privatisation process. In particular, I have made it clear that the sale will involve only the commercial activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The Bill specifically prohibits the transfer of nuclear site licences and freehold interests in land that is subject to such licences.
      UKAEA Government division will retain ownership of the authority's nuclear sites as well as responsibility for the safe management of the authority's nuclear liabilities and nuclear facilities, such as the fuel reprocessing plants at Dounreay, which still have operational life in them. It will also retain responsibility for fusion research, for the constabulary and for the authority's other non-commercial activities. I have made it clear that when AEA Technology operates nuclear facilities or works with special nuclear material, the highest possible safety standards will apply and existing security and regulatory requirements will be maintained.
      Given the recognition that the future success of AEA Technology depends on its employees—I think that the House is united on that—I have given assurances that I would be prepared to consider seriously any bids from management and employees. Whatever the form and method of sale, I shall look to achieve substantial employee participation. The profile of AEA Technology is such that without its staff, it has little future. Therefore, I want to do everything possible to encourage the staff to feel committed to making AEA Technology grow in the international marketplace.
      For the same reason, I have made it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention whatever of selling employees short. Their terms and conditions and pension rights will be fully protected. I think that the Opposition and I agree about the future of AEA Technology. We want to see it grow, thrive and prosper and, more importantly, we want it to achieve its full potential and contribute to the United Kingdom economy. The only difference between us is that I still do not believe in the conversion that is allegedly taking place within the Labour party. Labour believes that such achievements can be brought about in some shape or form in the public sector. But I believe that AEA Technology can be successful only in the private sector. Its privatisation will add to Britain's international competitive position in the scientific and engineering services market and strengthen our international reputation for scientific excellence.
      AEA Technology has come a long way in a remarkably short time. It is becoming more focused both in terms of what it does and in serving the specific needs of its customers. It recognises the many economic opportunities that are available to it and is organising itself to exploit them. Even in the few short weeks that have elapsed between Second Reading and today, AEA Technology has won a multi-million pound contract from British Telecom for recycling the tritium from the old trimphone dials for medical purposes such as in cancer research. It has won

      211
      contracts worth £6 million for supplying offshore services, and has won a new three-year contract worth £16 million to supply scientific services to Nirex. There will be many more such successes, but it will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities that will be open to it if it has the freedom and flexibility that I know that the private sector can supply.
      Privatisation encourages efficiency and improves competitiveness. Companies flourish when they are removed from state control. They perform better and respond better to their customers. We believe that privatisation is the only way forward and that it is the best way forward for the business and the staff. I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.8 pm
      Mr. John Battle: After all our deliberations in Committee and in the House, the Bill simply gives the Secretary of State outline permission to privatise AEA Technology, to do with it whatever he wants on his own terms. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) plainly spelt out, it gives him power without having to rely on a vote in the House.
      Despite our questions on Second Reading and in Committee, we are still left without an answer to that great unknown question: how exactly do the Government envisage the privatisation of AEA Technology? We are left absolutely unclear about the form of the sale. The problem is that, as always, the devil is in the detail. We are entitled to ask—indeed, we insist on asking, even at this late stage—whether privatisation will be en bloc; will the authority he sold as a single entity?
      I got a hint from the Minister, when he was put under pressure on Report, that the Government were changing the position and leaving the sale rather more open than was suggested on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary's instincts are that the authority should be sold as a single entity, but he then falls behind the phrase that it ought to be left to the market—the ultimate mantra of this Government; their classic refrain. We say that that is not good enough. The Government ought to play a positive role.
      All the evidence suggests that it is unlikely that AEA Technology will be bought lock, stock and barrel. The only alternative is a piecemeal, stripping-out, cherry-picking exercise, during which the best bits will be sold off, leaving vital gaps in research. Current research will not be continued as a result of the Bill. In future, vital expertise and experience will be lost. The Government look to privatisation to bring in better services and lower prices. In this case, privatisation of AEA Technology will simply lead to the breaking up of a critical mass of scientific expertise, which is vital to the United Kingdom's scientific research and development and, indeed, its scientific contribution internationally.
      It is important to emphasise that we are still to this day waiting for the Government's promised nuclear review. It has been promised since November 1989, when a Government statement announced a moratorium on the construction of further nuclear power stations up to 1994, when, we were told, the Government would review the situation. We are now in May 1995 and we are still
      212
      awaiting the results of that review. All that has squeaked out are the Government's intentions to privatise Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. Coincidentally, the staff of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. lobbied the House—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, the hon. Gentleman really cannot discuss matters outside the province of the Bill.
      Mr. Battle: I accept your ruling of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems rather surprising to be discussing the privatisation of AEA Technology operations when we are waiting for a nuclear review. I simply make the point, as Labour Members have said throughout the passage of the Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Life is full of surprises.
      Mr. Battle: Clearly, it is the Government's intention not to put the Bill in the broader context of an energy policy, as referred to in the scientific foresight report that they commissioned into the future of energy. Even in that report, surprise was expressed at the Government ploughing ahead with privatising such operations of UKAEA.
      UKAEA was formed in 1954 with a wide remit to advance a whole range of nuclear technologies. In 1965, UKAEA was empowered by the Science and Technology Act to undertake research on non-nuclear topics. The result has been a successful business. At present, the forecast turnover for the whole of UKAEA in 1994–95 is £370 million. AEA Technology's contribution is about £250 million and its profits in 1994 were £10 million. AEA Technology services to private sector industries increased by 37 per cent. to £92 million, compared with £67 million in 1993–94. The Minister referred to the contracts that AEA Technology has recently won to supply BT, and the winning of £6 million worth of offshore services.
      If AEA Technology is so successful, why on earth have the Government introduced a Bill that will set in train the dismantling of a successful British and international business? Indeed, the business is expanding, with offices in America, the Netherlands and Belgium. It is established in eastern Europe, providing assistance in decommissioning and cleaning up nuclear power stations. Its expertise is recognised and purchased worldwide. AEA Technology has a highly skilled work force. Recent research at Oxford, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council, emphasised the importance of retaining key scientific and engineering staff as a contribution to a composite scientific effort. Why, if it is so successful, smash it up and sell it off in bits? The Bill is preparing the way for that to happen.
      Spin-off technologies for industry outside the nuclear arena have been developed within AEA Technology directly as a result of that scientific interaction across a wide range of engineering and scientific disciplines. That has led to the transfer of non-destructive testing skills to the oil, gas and aerospace industries, to the application of fluid dynamics modelling to the oil and gas sectors and to the setting up of the heat transfer and fluid flow service; an international research development club with some 250 members worldwide and an annual turnover of £3 million.
      AEA Technology has set up the National Centre for Tribology, which handles £3 million worth annually of industrial problem-solving in areas concerned with

      213
      friction, lubrication and wear. In addition, clean-up technologies have been developed to world-class levels of expertise.
      The expertise of AEA Technology is precisely what the Office of Science and Technology energy foresight report recommended should be supported and enhanced. That report—the Government's scientific inquiry—was published in the past few weeks. Yet the Bill could lead to an irrevocable loss of scientific and engineering expertise, which the UK ought to be maintaining and enhancing, not dismantling.
      Despite the debate on Second Reading and the questions that we asked during the weeks in which the Committee sat, it is fair to say that a whole range of issues are still outstanding. For example, questions on managing the safe decommissioning of nuclear liabilities and the custody and maintenance of radiation dose records have not been answered. The nuclear installations inspectorate recently expressed concern about the safety implications of fragmentation. The inspectorate warned that it would want assurances that Scottish Nuclear Ltd. would have access—timely indeed—to the wider body of technical information residing with Nuclear Electric and the Atomic Energy Authority. Yet with the break-up of UKAEA and the dispersal of its nuclear expertise, how on earth can the Government assure us on those questions?
      We have also asked questions about medical supervision of employees in subsidiary companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said on Report, the whole question about national interest relating to the work of AEA Technology, if parts are sold abroad, is still outstanding. Our questions were not satisfactorily answered when we moved amendments on Report. Already we have heard that the facilities service division is moving abroad because American companies have bought it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked again about pension rights of employees whose departments are to be sold off or transferred. Those rights have not been guaranteed. Our amendments for equal pension rights for employees were voted against. All that we have been given are vague assurances. Those caught up in transfer have no legislative cover whatever under the Bill. Their rights ought to have been included in a Bill of this nature—they are not. It is disappointing perhaps, but not surprising that the Government regularly vote against all our reasonable amendments. They are perhaps just making a crude attempt to protect the new power to be given to the Secretary of State to be able to privatise industry.
      All AEA Technology's achievements have been built on maintaining an integrated business. AEA acknowledges that its commercial success derives from the capability to consider process, plant and environmental matters in relation to each other. That has been its dynamic and the engine behind the success of the whole enterprise.
      As privatisation erects artificial barriers between commercial and non-commercial activities, key synergies will be jeopardised and lost. AEA Technology will work best if it remains intact. As a smaller dismantled organisation, it will lose precisely what is considered its major trading asset—the synergy of its component parts.
      Breaking up AEA Technology by privatising it will not allow its combined skills, expertise and knowledge to be directed to exploring the best and safest methods of
      214
      decommissioning nuclear power stations. As usual, the Government's priority is to get the cheapest, quickest short-term deal. In this case, that will prejudice a whole area of valuable United Kingdom scientific research.
      We should maintain an integrated research facility rather than atomising it, especially when the Government have thrown the whole future of the nuclear energy industry up in the air. Parliament should decide the precise form of the sale. That is why we must oppose the Bill. The Bill leaves far too much unsaid; it is a "Leave it to me," or rather, a "Leave it to the Secretary of State" Bill, which will simply create more uncertainty and insecurity for everyone involved. It is a dismantling Bill that does not deserve a Third Reading. Hon. Members should vote against it.
      6.20 pm
      Mr. Miller: On Third Reading I shall not re-run the pensions argument; I simply tell the Minister that whatever skills he may have—I realise that he must have some, as he has found himself on the Government Front Bench—they are not those of a pensions actuary. I urge him to revisit some of the arguments advanced during the debate, because it is clear that he has failed to recognise that the building of a pensions scheme is about how to protect the best interests of individuals within a collective arrangement. The suggested scheme fails to do that.
      I asked the Minister earlier what the core business of the enterprise was. He failed to understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has just listed some of the extraordinarily diverse scientific skills that exist in the enterprise, and the dispersal of those elements into a fragmented group of companies will work to the disadvantage of British science.
      It is crucial that if it is to be sold off at all the science base should be dealt with as one entity. I can do no more than urge the Government again to consider the greater good of British science, and to acknowledge the fact that the operation can continue to deliver the enormous contribution that it has made over the years to an extremely diverse group of scientific disciplines only if it is kept together.
      I shall not stray into the subject of the nuclear review, but I am deeply concerned about our failure during the proceedings on the Bill to get answers from the Government about the relationship between the parts of the Atomic Energy Authority that overlap with the Berkeley technology centre, which is part of Nuclear Electric. Because of the uncertainty about the Government's intentions—one day the railways are top of their list, the next day it is the nuclear industry—it is difficult to assess where AEA will fit in and what the interplay with Berkeley will be in the future structure of the company. Again, the Government would be wise at least to defer any action until the outcome of the nuclear review is known and has been debated in this place.
      The final question is: what benefit will there be for the taxpayer? We do not yet know. There is no obvious financial gain, although I suppose that there is a long-term gain for the public sector borrowing requirement in the disposal of the long-term pension liabilities. However, we do not even know how much will be gained there. There is at least a possibility that the Government's overall financial gain will be extremely small. We have not yet

      215
      been told how much money is likely to be transferred for the contingent liabilities of the pension fund, and we could find ourselves making no money at all from the sale.
      The taxpayer's interests have not been taken into account, nor have those of British science, and the interests of the employees have certainly not been taken into account. Yet the Government say that it is perfectly okay to give the Secretary of State all the responsibility without his having to come back to the House with any detailed measures stemming from the Bill. We have a most unsatisfactory measure before us and I cannot do other than concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West in opposing it.
      6.26 pm
      Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked what benefit there would be for the nation. The answer is that the Government do not know, for they have made no assessment—no benefit, no cost, no analysis. They have simply brought here a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, is a loosely worded piece of paper designed to do nothing more than to dismantle a company which has served Britain well.
      That company was formed under an earlier and wiser Conservative Administration, and it is now being dismantled by a completely foolish Administration. There is a story about virgins and lamps, and it applies to the present Government compared with the earlier Government who had the wisdom and foresight to understand the importance of the nuclear industry, how it needed to be regulated and how it would serve the needs of this country for many years. Now all that is to be lost.
      To understand the way in which the Government have brought the Bill to the House, we need look no further than the politics of the past 15 years. The measure is a simple crude privatisation of an industry for which they have no further use or purpose, for they are not the slightest bit interested in the future of British technology or science. They believe implicitly that the market will sort it all out.
      That is crazy and inappropriate, and the loose structure of the Bill is positively dangerous. There may be a case for all-encompassing clauses in certain circumstances, when what we are dealing with is certain and can be seen and understood, but it is in the nature of scientific endeavour that one cannot call the shots for the future. Yet we are being asked to give the Secretary of State all the power to determine what form the future ownership of the company will take, and how it might be transferred, with securities and shares, in the future.
      The Bill before. us is not one that we can gladly embrace, and it should be voted down.
      Let us look at some previous privatisations and draw a comparison with what the Government are doing in this instance. Following almost every privatisation, we have seen boardroom share options blossoming and people ripping off public funds like there was no tomorrow. Those involved have ensured that their back pockets are filled, and it will be no different following this privatisation.
      216
      The Minister has said that he will ensure that there is the full and proper participation of the employees. I shall believe that when it happens. The Government's purpose is simple. They know that the value of the company is low, at around £200 million. If this privatisation follows the pattern of others, the company will be massively undervalued and in a short time will be trading at a much higher price.
      That is the history of all of the privatisations, and the history of the Government's uncaring and silly attitude towards our national assets. In the Government's opinion, it is always better for a company to be in the private sector rather than the public sector, but this is unquestionably an exception that we ought to be looking at much more carefully than we are.
      Let us consider the matter of ownership, and how it could have been better structured if more thought had been given to the company. The Government ought to have thought as Ernest Bader did at Scott Bader in the 1950s. He determined that the company that he owned would be given to the workers in trust. In so doing, he ensured that the company would continue to grow and succeed and that it would remain in the ownership of the people in that company. He believed implicitly that labour should employ capital, not the other way round.
      Here is another opportunity in which the real value of a company is the intellectual capital on which it has been built. Here was a golden opportunity for the Government to privatise, if they must, but to do so in such a way that the interests of Britain were served for as long as we could see into the future. The Government claim that companies cannot grow in the public sector because of Treasury rules, but they could change those rules. The Post Office has shown that the Government can help provide for a successful business by dealing in a different way with such matters. The Government need not be hamstrung by Treasury rules, which they can change. It is within the gift of the Government so to do. But they have done as they always do and disposed of the company.
      In the area of scientific endeavour and monitoring, we can be sure that the Government will say that it is nothing to do with them if anything goes wrong. They will say that it is a private company, and it is not their responsibility. The Government take their hand off everything that they ought to have their hand upon.
      Mr. Page: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make reference to the fact that the nationalised companies which are now in the private sector were dipping their hands into the taxpayer's pockets to the tune of £50 million a week before privatisation. They are now contributing £50 million a week to the Exchequer.
      Mr. Purchase: What an intervention to make at this stage of the debate. I tell you, the Government make no assessment whatever of the benefit of important companies to the British economy. All that they can see is the balance sheets and the share options. They never see the benefit of having companies within the public sector, providing vital services to industry to enable it to expand and improve the economy. It is always a matter of how to get a penny today and never mind what happens tomorrow. That is the truth. That is the Government's philosophy; it never changes and it never will.
      On this occasion, we are dealing with a very dangerous subject—the proper supervision and monitoring of the development of nuclear technology in this country. I tell

      217
      you, when it goes wrong—I am sorry to say that it almost inevitably will—the Government wil be the first to say, "Don't blame us; it has nothing to do with us—it is for the private sector to determine how best to deal with these matters." That is not the way any Government should deal with these matters. I tell you—
      Mr. Barry Porter: Tell us.
      Mr. Purchase: I can tell the hon. Gentleman a great deal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he keeps blaming me. This has nothing to do with me at all.
      Mr. Purchase: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I unreservedly apologise. I am blaming the Government, of course, and not your good self.
      The Government have presented us with an untenable measure and a Bill so loosely worded and structured that it can mean anything to anybody. The Bill in no way preserves the integrity of ownership that is necessary for the proper development, supervision and monitoring of the nuclear industry. It in no way attempts to make a proper financial appraisal or a cost-benefit analysis of what is good for this country and what is not.
      The Government have made no effort to do that because the Bill has been brought to this House for the simple reason that they failed to convince the House and the country that the Post Office ought to be privatised. This Bill is a substitute. It is a failure, and we should vote against it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 246.

      Division No. 143]

      [6.35 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Brazier, Julian

      Alexander, Richard

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Amess, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Butcher, John

      Ashby, David

      Butler, Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Cash, William

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bates, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coe, Sebastian

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Congdon, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Conway, Derek

      Boswell, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bowis, John

      Couchman, James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Cran, James

      218

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

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Knox, Sir David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Faber, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      LiIley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lord, Michael

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (String)

      Luff, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fry, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, Sir David

      Gallie, Phil

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Malone, Gerald

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Garnier, Edward

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Norris, Steve

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hendry, Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Page, Richard

      Horam, John

      Paice, James

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rathbone, Tim

      219

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Richards, Rod

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thomason, Roy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Thumham, Peter

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Tom

      Trend, Michael

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Shersby, Michael

      Walker, Bit (N Tayside)

      Sims, Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sproat, Iain

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Stephen, Michael

      Wolfson,Mark

      Stem, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan

      Yeo,Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sumberg, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sykes, John

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. David Willetts.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Adams, Mis Irene

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ainger, Nick

      Caravan, Dennis

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Allen, Graham

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Church, Judith

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clapnam, Michael

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clarke, Eric (Midothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      Battle, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cousins, Jim

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cox, Tom

      Beggs, Roy

      Cummings, John

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darling, Alistair

      Berry, Roger

      Davidson, Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Donald

      Bradley, Keith

      Dixon, Don

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dobson, Frank

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Donohoe, BrianH

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

      Dowd, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Callaghan, Jim

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eastham, Ken

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Enright, Derek

      220

      Etherington, Bill

      McNamara, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Madden, Max

      Fatcnett, Derek

      Maddock, Diana

      Fisher, Mark

      Mahon, Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Mandelson, Peter

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Foulkes, George

      Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

      Fraser, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Fyfe, Maria

      Maxton, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Meacher, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Meale, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Michael, Alun

      Garrett, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Milburn, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Miller, Andrew

      Godsitf, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Graham, Thomas

      Morley, Elliot

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Ftt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Gunnell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hain, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Hall, Mike

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hanson, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Olner, Bill

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Henderson, Doug

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Heppell, John

      Patehett, Terry

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoey, Kate

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prentice, Gordon (Pende)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hutton,John

      Raynsford, Nick

      Illsley, Eric

      Redmond, Martin

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jamieson, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Janner, Greville

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Keen, Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Salmond, Alex

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Litherland, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Simpson, Alan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McCartney, Ian

      Snape, Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Soley, Clive

      McFall, John

      Spellar, John

      McKelvey, William

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfeimline W)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McLeish, Henry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stevenson, George

      McMaster, Gordon

      Stott, Roger

      221

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Welsh, Andrew

      Straw, Jack

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wise, Audrey

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Worthington, Tony

      Timms, Stephen

      Wray, Jimmy

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Turner, Dennis

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. Stephen Byers.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      CIVIL AVIATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
      That the draft Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
      That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13th December 1994, relating to the accession of new members to the European Union; and welcomes the fact that agreement was reached on these adjustments enabling Austria, Finland and Sweden to accede to the European Union on 1st January 1995.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.

Mrs. Donna Tutton
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
6.51 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: It is with some reluctance that I bring this case to the attention of the House this evening. I do so only as a result of my complete inability to establish the facts in this case or, having established what facts I could, to obtain some action on the matter.
The best way for me to place the case in context is to read a letter that was sent to me by my constituent, Mrs. Donna Tutton, which I received on 1 November 1994. I shall paraphrase parts of it, but I read it substantially as it is, for accuracy.
Mrs. Tutton writes:
"On the 29th April 1990 I was attacked in my own Home by my ex-husband, his father and his brother-in-law, resulting in me having an operation at the Heath"
hospital in
"Cardiff. They had to shave my head, saw my skull open to remove blood clots"
and
"I had 36 staples in my skull. If they hadn't operated I would have been dead by morning.
I had repeated visits to the hospital by them to"
tell her that she and her baby son, who was 10 months old, would be killed and that the son would be sent to a country overseas and would be bled to death to cleanse his soul.
"I ended up having a nervous breakdown. The doctor was very good and thanks to her help I managed to report this to the police and they were arrested.
I was told they were let off as I was the only witness to the attack. I was told by them that they could kill me as I didn't count and no-one would believe me anyway, they knew someone in the"
Crown Prosecution Service.
"My solicitor wrote to the CPS. He was very shocked that they weren't being taken to court … the only reply we got was the decision was theirs and they didn't wish to discuss it …
Since all this happened I have"
had to move my home
"four times and my son has needed to move school three times. They've always found me. I have now re-married a boy from Porth"—
the village where I live in the Rhondda—
"and am now living"
in the Rhondda valleys, but
"they've found me again and we're going to have to sell up."
The letter describes some other matters, but Mrs. Tutton finishes as follows:
"Why are myself and my son being punished? We've never hurt anyone in our lives yet we're on the run.
It seems I don't count as I am just a silly girl. It's not what you do, it seems, it's who you know.
They could kill me and probably get away with it"
and no one would say anything.
"They'll just say it was a domestic.
Please, please could I come to talk with you?"

223
I was so distressed by the contents of that letter that I immediately wrote, on 1 November 1994, to the Crown Prosecution Service, although first I wrote to the police, asking them if they would immediately look after my constituent. I wrote:
"I would be grateful if you could do something so that my constituent can be protected from this harassment"—
because Mrs. Tutton told me that at the same time her assailants were coming to her home and standing outside it, because they wanted to take the son back to be brought up in their religion—
"especially in view of the previous vicious assault by these men, a Mr. Zahad Amin, a Mr. Ray Bashk and a Mr. Sherez Khan."
Finally, on 1 February 1995, I received a letter from the chief constable, saying:
"As you know, Mrs. Tutton's former husband, Mr. Zahad Amin, lives in the Cardiff area and she has seen him a number of times in the general area of her home and the local school and is understandably apprehensive about his motives. There is little that the police can do, but an officer has spoken to Mr. Amin and warned him about his future conduct. It may be in Mrs. Tutton's interest to seek legal advice about the possibility of taking out an injunction against her former husband, although I should mention here that the last sighting of Mr. Amin"
in the Ynyshir area was October 1994, which was when she wrote to me in such a distressed condition.
At the same time, I wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service, because I could not understand why that case had not proceeded. Then a farce started that would be funny if the context were not so tragic. I could not believe it. It was almost comic. When I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions—excuse me handling some documents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to get it right for the record—and asked her whether she would
"reconsider prosecuting and inform me why you did not proceed in the first instance"
I received a letter in reply, after some time and a couple of reminders, saying:
"Mrs. Tutton, in April 1990, reported to the police that she had been assaulted by her ex-husband and his father. The police prepared a file and submitted it to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice, but on their test of what they would consider a reasonable prospect of conviction"—
I shall return to that issue later—
"they decided not to proceed."
The file did not pass the evidential test and it was sent back to the police. However, it was subsequently lost. The excuse offered then was: "We cannot give you any reasons for not prosecuting the case because we have lost the file; it is not available." The Director of Public Prosecutions said:
"Enquiries have been made with the police to see whether this file is still in existence. Regrettably, the police have not retained a copy of the papers. Without these papers, it would obviously be impossible for me to comment on the Crown Prosecution Service's decision, or to explain the reasons for taking no further action in this case.
I realise that my reply will be a disappointment to Mrs. Tutton".
That fairly gratuitous remark at the end of the letter did not please me.
224
I wrote back immediately and said:
"I must confess that I'm amazed and appalled at your reply which is summed up in your penultimate paragraph. You really must do better than this—I am not going to have my constituent's complaint brushed aside in this cavalier and high-handed way.
My constituent was savagely beaten, hospitalized with a fractured skull and yet you have taken no action. What on earth do you require as evidence? If Mrs. Tutton had been murdered"—
if her attackers had proceeded a little further and kicked her a little more she would have died—
"there would have been no witness so according to your criteria no-one would have been prosecuted.
I am enclosing some further documents which might stimulate a more intelligent response".
After a reasonable period—not immediately—I received another letter from the Crown Prosecution Service. I sent medical evidence in relation to Mrs. Tutton's case, together with her initial police statement. I received a letter from the CPS which stated:
"As I explained in my letter of 24 November 1994, papers relating to this matter have not been retained by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service".
The letter goes on to say that there was lack of corroborative evidence as there was only one witness.
It is a pathetic and a sinister reply, because only the skill of the surgeon saved Mrs. Tutton. If she had died, there would have been no witnesses and, according to the CPS criteria, no prosecution could have taken place.
I would like the Solicitor-General to examine that question. If the Crown Prosecution Service intends to apply those criteria in all cases, it would mean that there would never be a prosecution in a rape case. Most rapes are not committed in public; there are usually only two witnesses—the rapist and the victim of the rape. According to the criteria that the CPS has evolved in Mrs. Tutton's case, if there is only one witness there can be no corroborative evidence. Does that mean that justice is to be dispensed in this country only when there is a gaggle of witnesses? Will not forensic, circumstantial and other corroborative evidence be accumulated in order to prosecute cases?
The letter raises another equally appalling issue—I am sure that you will find it incredible, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said earlier, I submitted copies of Mrs. Tutton's original police statement and medical evidence to the CPS. The CPS letter states:
"Mrs. Tutton provides documents"—
it was I who provided them—
"confirming that she suffered injuries. However, these documents rely a great deal on what Mrs. Tutton told the medical practitioners and, in themselves, do not take matters any further".
That is an absolutely incredible and contemptuous statement, which is highly insulting to the neurosurgeon who wrote the medical report.
The neurosurgeon's letter states:
"Skull X-rays demonstrated a right parietal skull fracture and a CT scan demonstrated a right sided, extradural haematoma, ie a blood clot between the inner surface of the skull and the tough membrane (dura) which surrounds the brain. There was bruising around her left eye and right arm".
There is further evidence that Mrs. Tutton still suffers not only as a result of the nervous breakdown but also from epileptic fits.
The Crown Prosecution Service said that the documents that I submitted relied on what Mrs. Tutton had told the medical practitioners. Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you

225
imagine Mrs. Tutton walking into the hospital and saying, "Hiya fellas, I've got a right parietal skull fracture, a blood clot and bruising all over me. I've been battered against the wall, rammed against the door and kicked on the floor."? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the documents rely on what Mrs. Tutton told the medical practitioners. Would a neurosurgeon write a report based on such evidence? The facts are there for all to see.
I have tried to pursue the case through every avenue. The Home Secretary said, "It has nothing to do with me." When I went to the ombudsman on the basis that the case had been administered badly, he said, "It has nothing to do with me; I can't deal with matters of justice." My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General suggested that the ombudsman for legal services might be able to help. However, he could not provide assistance, because he can deal only with complaints against solicitors, barristers and licensed conveyors. How do we deal with complaints against the Director of Public Prosecutions and her Department?
I did not want to bring the matter before the House; I did not want to expose the problems in an Adjournment debate. I have copies of the copious letters that I have sent to all sorts of Government Departments in an attempt to receive an answer and to resolve the matter through the normal channels. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the chief constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the ombudsman, but I came up against a brick wall.
What is the present position? I do not wish to be critical of the Solicitor-General. I genuinely want to elicit solutions to the problems that I have raised—if not for Mrs. Tutton's sake, for the benefit of others in the future. Will the Solicitor-General establish an inquiry into the matter? Will he promise this evening that he will examine the issue and give me an answer? Is there a precedent for the course of action to be taken when files are lost? I am sure that files must have been lost before—there are thousands of files circulating in the CPS and in police departments. Surely we can look to some form of precedent in this matter.
This raises a fundamental issue: what is the Crown Prosecution Service about? I accept that there must be some filtering of evidence before cases come to court. It used to be done primarily by chief superintendents who decided whether to process matters, probably in consultation with others, but it now appears that the Crown Prosecution Service is the judge and jury. A relatively young solicitor in the Crown Prosecution Service can take the evidence and decide that it will not go through, and that is that.
I thought that the basis of our law was that evidence could be presented to a court, and examined by a judge who would direct and consult a jury, who would then hand down a verdict. I know that all cases cannot go to court. They would clog up the whole system, but I would rather a system that is clogged than for such cases not to go before a court and be tested.
I feel that there is insufficient evidence to convince people. My argument against not going to court is that any woman in this country is vulnerable within her own home. It means that anyone can get away with viciously attacking his wife or children. There are very sinister overtones for such vulnerable people as old-age pensioners, a wife in the family home and people out on the streets who are the victims of crimes committed in
226
dark and secret places. If there are no other witnesses and if one witness who is the victim is not enough, our society has taken a step backwards.
If the answer is that we cannot clog up the legal system by prosecuting any of those cases, I would prefer a clogged-up system. However, if the money is not available because the Government are not making resources available for the system of justice to be prosecuted properly, the Solicitor-General must say so. If the decisions are based on financial grounds, I believe that it is very sad.
I take no pleasure at all in coming here tonight and exposing one of my constituents to the glare of publicity. I was amazed at the response of the media to tonight's Adjournment debate. They came to me almost in droves today because they see some of the elements I have outlined. It gives me no pleasure to be here, but if the Solicitor-General can give answers, I shall be extremely grateful.
7.12 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on obtaining the debate, which raises an important subject, not only for his constituent, but for the public at large. Although I have listened with sympathy and interest to the points that he has raised, I am afraid that I cannot adopt the epithets which he has used to describe the events surrounding Donna Tutton's case. It is not accepted that she has given an accurate account of the reasons why proceedings were not instituted, still less that anyone acted in a cavalier or high-handed manner; nor is there anything prophetic or sinister in how the case was handled. There are 1.4 million cases handled annually by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the case was handled in just the same way as all the others.
The debate gives me the opportunity first, to explain how the Crown Prosecution Service approaches the decision to prosecute—an issue which is frequently misunderstood and tends to be surrounded in myth and misconception. Secondly, I shall set out how that general approach was applied by professional lawyers to the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Rogers: The Solicitor-General said that there were millions of cases. Are the files lost in all 1.4 million cases?
The Solicitor-General: No files were lost in this case, and if the hon. Gentleman will bide his time, I shall explain to him what happened.
The decision to prosecute an individual is a very serious step. Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order. No doubt all hon. Members will agree with that. In every case, the prosecution has serious implications for everybody involved—on one hand the victim, and on the other hand the witnesses.
Each case is normally started by the police. The first stage involves the police charging a suspect. The file is then sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, which applies the tests which are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. About 50,000 copies of that were published a short time ago, in a plain English version and a plain Welsh version. They were circulated to other prosecuting authorities within the Crown Prosecution Service, to the police and to other law enforcement authorities.

227
The first stage that the Crown Prosecution Service applies is what is called the evidential test. All cases must pass that to be considered as qualifying for prosecution. No matter how important or serious a case is, it must pass that evidential test before it can go any further. For a case to pass the test, the Crown prosecutor must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect—not a reasonable prospect, as the hon. Gentleman said—of conviction against each defendant on each charge.
Those tests are applied by trained barristers and solicitors, upholding their professional standards. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prosecution case.
A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means, as it says in the code, that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. That is the test that applies, and on reflection the hon. Gentleman may agree that it is a fair test.
To put a rhetorical question, what is the point of conducting litigation involving the liberty of the subject on a "wait and see" basis, by saying, "Let us wait and see if the magistrates find there is a case to answer," or, "Let us wait and see if the judge thinks there is a case to answer."? That surely would be unfair to the suspect, the victims and the public.
It is quite wrong to regard the function carried out by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers as acting as judge and jury. That is not their function. As I have said, their function is to ascertain whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
In no case is that decision based on financial considerations. The lawyer who takes the decision has no idea what the state of the branch budget is. Whether it has spent a little or a lot is of no concern to the lawyer taking the decision. It cannot be stated too often that financial considerations do not enter into the decision.
The first stage is reached when the police charge the suspect in the custody suite at the police station. If the hon. Gentleman has not been to his local police station to see that procedure, I invite him to do so, because it illustrates the pressures to which the police are subject—noise, interference, drunks, hysterical witnesses and so on. Against that background, the custody officer must make a decision, on the evidence known to him, as to the appropriate charge.
Mr. Rogers: A member of my family is a policeman, so of course I have visited the local nick on more than one occasion. I accept that policemen are subject to stress. Perhaps the Solicitor-General ought to know that I was a policeman while doing my Army service.
The Solicitor-General: In that case, my point is already made—but many people do not realise it, and the hon. Gentleman cannot blame me for taking advantage of the occasion to give wider publicity to that which the hon. Gentleman knows from personal experience.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is often necessary later to amend or add to the charge, or even on occasions to withdraw proceedings, for a number of
228
reasons. The principal reason is that the police are not always in possession of the full facts when they initially charge the defendant.
The second stage is when the file arrives with the Crown Prosecution Service—the first time that the mind of the trained lawyer is brought to bear on the case. The police are not lawyers.
The hon. Gentleman took us back to the days when the local superintendent decided whether a case should be brought. If I may trade experience for experience, in my early days at the Bar, many were the occasions in Norfolk and Suffolk that I entered the court at quarter sessions or assizes briefed by just such police officers. I am as familiar with that procedure as the hon. Gentleman. As a result of the Philips royal commission, the House decided that that procedure was no longer satisfactory.
In the light of experience, and of a number of miscarriages of justice such as the Confait case, it was thought necessary to divide the investigative process and the prosecutorial process—to continue to vest the investigative process in the police, but to vest the prosecutorial process in a new body, the Crown Prosecution Service.
As I go around the country asking police officers of all ranks whether they want to return to the days when they fulfilled the prosecutorial function as well as the investigative one, precious few of them want to turn the clock back. Their view almost to a man and woman is: "Our job as police officers is to police, to prevent and detect crime, and to investigate. The job of prosecuting is properly that of the CPS."
By the time that the mind of the trained CPS lawyer is brought to bear on the case, the investigation will be either complete or well advanced. The charges preferred by the police may need to be amended, substituted, or in rare cases withdrawn. When it is decided to withdraw a prosecution by discontinuance, the invariable practice where possible—and it is in virtually all cases—is to consult the police and to ask for their views, then discontinue in the light of any additional submissions or evidence that the police may offer.
At that second stage, the evidence is closely examined by the CPS lawyer. Sometimes, it is suggested by uninformed persons that there is reluctance on the part of the CPS to prosecute. Why should there be? I do not know the supposed motivation, but that suggestion is absolute nonsense.
If the hon. Gentleman has not visited his local CPS branch, I invite him to do so. He will see how the lawyers deal with their work, and learn their attitudes. He will discover whether they are frightened of bringing prosecutions, as some people suggest, or whether—as is the fact—they apply their trained, professional and impartial judgment to the facts of the case before them.
Mr. Rogers: The Solicitor-General completely misunderstands. In spending his time trying to defend the indefensible, he does not grasp the nettle. The problem is not whether the CPS took the decision that it did rightly or wrongly. When I asked for its reasons, the CPS could not find the files. Mrs. Mills stated:
"If the original file of evidence had still been available, I would be able to give a detailed reply. However, I regret that without access to the original file of evidence supplied in 1990, I am unable to comment on the circumstances which lay behind the decision".

229
I am not necessarily questioning the CPS decision per se, although I have expressed my views. The Solicitor-General should have listened to the end of my speech, when I asked whether he could do something now.
The Solicitor-General: I listened to the beginning, middle and end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope to answer all aspects of his questions before I finish.
I described the general process that is followed in all cases, so that it might be made plain and to draw any suggestions in various quarters that some sinister process is undergone by CPS lawyers, which is not so. They approach cases in the way that I have described. Their sole purpose is to ensure that the right defendants are brought before the courts, prosecuted fairly and punished on the basis of charges that accurately reflect the seriousness of the offending, and which enable the court to impose adequate punishment.
That is the generality. I come to the particular case that concerns the hon. Gentleman. I begin by briefly explaining the facts as they are now known. There is no dispute that, on 29 April 1990, Donna Tutton suffered a serious head injury. On 4 May, when admitted to East Glamorgan general hospital, she was found to be suffering from a fractured skull, with a blood clot immediately underneath the skull. She needed immediate surgery, and there is clear and incontrovertible evidence from medical men of standing that that was her condition.
Shortly afterwards, Donna Tutton made a complaint to the police, and provided them with a witness statement containing her account of the events of 29 April, in which she said that she had been attacked by a named man. However, shortly after making that initial statement, Mrs. Tutton made a further statement withdrawing her complaint. She told police that she no longer wanted to support any criminal proceedings. Accordingly, at that stage no proceedings were instituted.
There matters rested until October 1991. The complaint made in May 1990 was withdrawn. Nothing more happened for more than a year, until October 1991. At that time, the lady found herself prosecuted for a serious assault. She went back to the police and told them that she wished to pursue the case in respect of which she had made the complaint 18 months before. On 18 October 1991, some 18 months after being assaulted, she made a further witness statement, in which she gave an account of events on 29 April 1990 and named the person who she said was responsible for attacking her and causing her serious injuries.
The police arrested that person and interviewed him. He flatly denied being at the house at the time, and maintained on a number of occasions that he was completely innocent of the attack on Donna Tutton. He was nevertheless charged by the police and bailed to attend a magistrates court on 20 January 1992. On that day, the case was adjourned until 20 February for a committal to take place so that the proceedings might be transferred to the Crown court.
Mr. Rogers rose—
The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly give way, but I am just coming to what I see as the guts of the case: in the light of the foregoing, why did the case not proceed? I shall explain.
230
The evidence that the lawyer at the CPS had to consider at this stage had to be looked at against the criteria that I have outlined. Was there a realistic prospect of conviction; if so, was a prosecution in the public interest? As it was a serious matter, it boiled down to just the first question—was there a realistic prospect of conviction? There was no comedy or farce. This was a serious professional exercise, to be carried out by a professional person.
The main issue that the lawyer had to determine concerned whether there was a realistic prospect of convicting a named person of the admitted assault. There was plenty of evidence of the assault; the real issue was whether the named man could be proved to be the attacker.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the evidence for the identity of the attacker was only Donna Tutton herself. That in itself is not fatal. The courts are concerned with the quality of evidence, not with the numbers of witnesses. All of us at the Bar have from time to time been involved in cases where the word of one witness has prevailed against that of many, because courts have determined, on all the evidence including the witness's demeanour, that he or she was telling the truth. The fact remained that Donna Tutton was the only witness, however.
Next, the lawyer had to take into account the fact that she made a complaint shortly after the original assault, which she then withdrew. Thirdly, about 18 months had passed since the original complaint, during which time she had been content for no proceedings to be initiated. Fourthly—and most importantly—the timing of her second complaint and any motive that she might have had that might have affected her credibility had to be considered—in particular, the possibility that she was making the complaint as a counter-allegation in response to an allegation against her of committing a serious crime. As a matter of common sense, that is a potent element undermining someone's credibility, which any rational person would have to take into account.
Weighing all these four matters in the balance, the Crown prosecutor concluded that the evidence did not afford a realistic prospect of conviction. In the light of that, the case could not proceed. But consistent with the proper procedure, the police were consulted and asked whether they wished to add anything or argue to the contrary. They agreed with the decision; accordingly, a notice of discontinuance was issued, and the proceedings were terminated.
There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that the case was not dealt with properly because any file was lost by the CPS. Any files that were lost were lost well after the event, as I shall go on to explain.
Mr. Rogers: I find the Solicitor-General's response appalling. He has given four reasons why he says the case did not proceed. I accept those reasons, but when I wrote to ask Mrs. Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions, for reasons, she replied that she could not comment on the circumstances that lay behind the decision, because the file was not available. Is it not strange that the information has suddenly surfaced now? Certainly no one knew about it until tonight.
The Solicitor-General: I am not a conjuror: I am not going to pull a rabbit out of a hat. But I am going to be able to explain, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, how it is that, unlike the DPP, I can now explain the reasons. The hon. Gentleman can take credit; his

231
persistence led to the coming to light of some further material. He has performed a signal service for his constituent by pursuing the matter.
The decision having been taken to terminate the case, matters remained there—until the hon. Gentleman wrote to the DPP on 1 November last year, enclosing his constituent's correspondence complaining about the decision. By then it was almost three years since the proceedings had been discontinued, and in order to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, it was necessary to try to retrieve the file.
This is where the problem began. A member of staff spoke to Donna Tutton to find out more details of the case. As a result, the local office made a search of its records. The file was not there, for good reasons that will shortly become apparent. Because of the time that had elapsed since the proceedings were discontinued, in accordance with ordinary procedures for destroying files, the file had been destroyed.
The CPS wrote to the police asking whether they still had a file. At that stage, no information was received from the police, and despite a further request from the hon. Gentleman, no file could then be found—in the hands of the police or of the CPS. It was not until last week that the police, not the CPS, were able to locate in their archives a copy of part of the file. It was not complete, but it threw light on the reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service had originally discontinued the case.
Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the Solicitor-General is smiling; he must have a better sense of humour than I have. Was the copy found before or after I put in the request for this Adjournment debate?
The Solicitor-General: It was found only last week; I imagine that it was found after the hon. Gentleman's request. I am smiling because I have, I hope, an appreciation of a sense of theatre. This is the answer to the long search that the hon. Gentleman has made for the truth.
As I said, the copy is not complete, but it contains sufficient information for me to be able to provide now such detail as I have about the case and to reassure the hon. Gentleman that all relevant matters were properly taken into account by the Crown prosecutor when the decision was taken to discontinue the proceedings in February 1992.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the original file in the hands of the CPS cannot be found, and that, necessarily, all possible information about the case is not available. I shall explain the procedures for retaining and destroying files, so that I can satisfy him that there has been no skulduggery in that area.
The CPS receives approximately 2 million files a year from the police. 'To store them indefinitely would obviously be a huge and unnecessary burden on taxpayers' funds. The retention of files even for a shorter period has a significant cost, and the CPS fulfils its statutory obligations to retain documents placed with it under the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. This means that the minimum retention period for cases tried in a magistrates court is 12 months, and that the minimum retention period for cases tried in the Crown court is three years.
232
CPS files are not, of course, an official record of court proceedings. Files are retained only for as long as the department considers that they are required for its own purpose, unless they have a wider administrative, precedent, historical or research interest.
This means that, although a few files may be retained for long periods, or even permanently if they are of historical interest, in which case they are kept in the Public Record Office, the majority of files relating to the large number of cases received by the CPS are destroyed after a relatively short time. The CPS must balance the likely usefulness of files against the burden on the taxpayer of retaining large quantities of files containing material of little or no significant public interest.
In a case such as this, where proceedings were discontinued in the magistrates court, the local arrangements for the storage and retention of files were such that the destruction date for files relating to cases tried in the magistrates court was two years and one month, unless there was some good reason for keeping them longer.
Therefore, the CPS file in relation to this case would have been destroyed in March 1994, some two years and one month after the proceedings were discontinued. If the hon. Gentleman's inquiries had been made during that time, the CPS would have had the file to hand, and the DPP would have been able to refer to it and give him a full reply along the lines that I have given him. For the reasons I have described, she was, most unfortunately, unable to do so.
Mr. Rogers: I must confess that there are some differences between the replies given by the DPP and the Solicitor-General. He says that, if I had raised the case in March 1994, the file would have been available. Unfortunately for the Solicitor-General and for Mrs. Mills, she wrote me a letter on 24 November 1994 saying that, at the end of a retention period of one year, the papers were not destroyed by the CPS, but returned to the police. They were returned within a year, yet the Solicitor-General says that they were available four and a half years later. What is the truth of the matter?
The Solicitor-General: The truth is that more than one copy is retained. The police have their version, and the CPS has its version. The destruction procedures I have outlined relate to the copy kept by the CPS.
Mr. Rogers: With all due respect to the Solicitor-General, Mrs. Mills says in the same letter that the file is not in existence. She says that she cannot comment because she does not have a file. The Solicitor-General is now saying that there were two files.
The Solicitor-General: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman what the position is. I thought that I had made it crystal clear.
To complete the story, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the DPP on 1 November and on 7 December last year, although the enclosures to the second letter were not sent until 31 January. She replied on 24 November and 9 February, explaining that, as far as could be established at that time, the case involving Donna Tutton had been the subject of an advice file from the police to the CPS. Advice had been given to the police, and at the end of the file retention period, the papers were returned to the police, who unfortunately had not retained a copy. It is only now that the police have located a copy of the file that the true picture is known.

233
The hon. Gentleman began by pleading for an inquiry to be held. Such an inquiry as is called for by the case has now been held. I have explained in full detail to the hon. Gentleman what has occurred. I assure him that the CPS dealt with this case properly and carefully. I have explained that it has proper systems in place for the retention and storage of files.
I know that Donna. Tutton unfortunately continues to suffer from her injuries. She recently received an award in her favour from the Criminal Injuries Compensation
234
Board. The only issue in front of that body was whether she had suffered injuries as a result of a criminal assault; there was no need to identify the attacker. There is therefore no inconsistency between an award of compensation from the board and the CPS declining to prosecute. I hope, however, that the award goes some way towards compensating Donna Tutton for her pain and suffering as a result of this unfortunate incident.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dog Breeders
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to require dog breeding establishments to incorporate RSPCA guidelines and to be registered with the Kennel Club. [22057]

  (2) what representations he has received about the conditions and welfare of dogs at breeding establishments, and if he will make a statement. [22056]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for extending the current legal controls over dog breeding establishments.

  All domestic and captive animals are protected against ill treatment by the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Additionally, establishments where dogs are bred for sale are subject to the controls of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, which requires dog breeders to be licensed by the local authority. It is for local authorities, which have extensive powers to check on the standards of health, welfare and accommodation of the dogs, to enforce the legislation. These powers were strengthened by the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991, which allows local authorities to enter under warrant any premises other than domestic dwellings, where it is believed that a dog breeding business is carried out.

  The Department has received 11 letters from Members of Parliament following an article on dog breeding establishments published by the News of the World on 16 April 1995.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22084]

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not readily available.

  Anti-Semitic Material
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has made to the Irish Government about anti-Semitic material being distributed within or from the Republic; and if he will make a statement. [22303]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. The distribution of any such material within the Irish Republic is a matter for the Irish Government. I am not aware of any specific concerns regarding its possible distribution to the United Kingdom.
  122

  Prison Service Plans
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Prison Service's plans for the period 1995 to 1998. [22402]

  Mr. Howard
  The Prison Service's corporate plan for 1995 to 1998, together with its business plan setting out its detailed programme of work for 1995–96, are being published today. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  The business plan sets as the service's top priority for 1995–96 improvement in performance on security. The other priorities are implementing incentives for good behaviour by prisoners; implementing the controls on temporary release I announced on 18 November 1994, and ensuring that every prison has an effective strategy for detecting and dealing with drug abuse.

  The business plan also sets out the service's key targets for 1995–96, which are:

  1. To ensure that no category A prisoners escape.

  2. To ensure that the total numbers of escapes from prison establishments and from escorts, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population, is at least 25 per cent. lower than in 1994–95.

  3. To ensure that the rate of assaults on staff, prisoners and others, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population, is lower than in 1994–95.

  4. To ensure that no prisoners are held three to a cell in accommodation intended for one prisoner, subject to ensuring that no prisoners are held in police cells unless this is absolutely unavoidable.

  5. To ensure that all prisoners have access to sanitation at all times by the end of February 1996, provided that the prison population does not increase significantly above current projections and there is no major unplanned loss of accommodation.

  6. To ensure that prisoners spend, on average, at least 25.5 hours per week in purposeful activity.

  7. To ensure that by 31 March 1996 at least 38 per cent. of prisoners are held in establishments where prisoners are unlocked on weekdays for at least 12 hours, provided this can be supported by an active and constructive regime.

  8. To ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to exceed minimum visiting entitlements, subject to qualifying under earned incentive schemes.

  9. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £24,600.

  Drugs Control
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when was the last time that he met Dr. Lee Brown, director of the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy; and what was the purpose of the meeting. [22403]

  Mr. Howard
  I last met Dr. Brown on 24 April to sign a memorandum of understanding on counter-drug technologies. The memorandum of understanding will promote co-operation between my Department and his on the development of technologies to assist the fight against drugs. Four key areas will initially be covered by the programme of cooperation. These are information technology, treatment and prevention of drug misuse, police communications and surveillance technologies, and systems for detecting illicit goods. The signing of the memorandum of understanding is another example of this country's determination to work with others to tackle the international menace of drugs misuse.

  Deportees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many pregnant women given refusal notices or deported have(a) given birth or (b) had medical difficulties on the aircraft in each of the last five years; [21983]

  (2) how many women, pregnant over 30 weeks, were given refusal notices in each of the last five years and returned to the country from which they departed for the United Kingdom. [21984]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and without any charges or criminal convictions against them have been deported on grounds of national security in the past five years; and what was their average length of lawful residence in the United Kingdom. [21891]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: One person without a charge or criminal conviction against him has been removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process on grounds of national security in the last five years. He had been resident in the United Kingdom for nearly three years at the time of removal. This excludes persons who departed voluntarily after being issued with a notice of intention to deport.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many residents, lawfully in the United Kingdom and without any charges or criminal convictions against them, have been the subject of deportation orders in the last five years; [21591]

  (2) how many people, lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for more than 10 years and without any charges or criminal convictions, have been subject to deportation orders in the last 10 years. [21592]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: The available information relates to all persons issued with a notice of intention to deport on national security grounds. Identifying and excluding those with a charge or criminal conviction against them would involve disproportionate cost. Some 202 such notices have been issued since 1990, including 176 at the time of the Gulf war. Six persons who have lived in the United Kingdom for more than 10 years have been issued with such a notice since 1985.

TREASURY

  Investment Companies
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the Treasury's plans for legislation to enable the formation of open-ended investment companies in the United Kingdom. [22401]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has today published a consultation document containing draft regulations to be made, subject to the approval of both Houses, under the European Communities Act 1972. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.
  124
  The regulations will permit a new investment vehicle which will be a type of collective investment scheme, like the familiar authorised unit trust, but constituted as a corporate body. Its shareholders will pool their investment funds and thus gain the advantage of access to expert investment management with the ability to spread their investment risks. The open-ended investment company has been formulated deliberately to offer the same standard of investor protection as the unit trust but using a more modern and flexible approach.

  The draft ECA regulations will establish a special purpose corporate code which delineates the basic structure of the open ended investment company. Each company will have a board, including a designated corporate director charged with day-to-day responsibility for managing the invested assets of the company, which will be held in trust by a depositary. The company will have annual general meetings at which the directors will account to the company's shareholders for their stewardship of the company and its assets.

  To complete the regulatory framework for the open ended investment company, the Securities and Investments Board will issue product regulations, about which it will also consult shortly. These regulations will specify that shares in open-ended investment companies are to be bought and sold at a single price on each trading day, in contrast to the spread between the prices at which units in unit trusts are bought and sold now. SIB will also regulate the different classes of shares which open-ended investment companies may have. These regulations will allow umbrella companies with a number of subfunds each allotted to a different category of investments.

  In due course there will also be regulations made under the Finance Act 1995 to define the tax treatment of open ended investment companies. The new regime will be equivalent to the taxation arrangements for authorised unit trusts.

  Because the proposed regulations are to be made under the ECA, they will permit only open ended investment companies which satisfy the UCITS—undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—directive. Subject to further consultation, the Treasury is also exploring the scope for widening the investment and borrowing powers available to open ended investment companies by means of an order made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not held by my Department in a readily accessible form. The information which the hon. Member has requested is being collated and I will provide him with a substantive answer shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many import permits for the convention on international trade in endangered species appendix I species of cranes his Department has issued in 1994 and 1995. [21831]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994 my Department issued nine permits allowing the import of specimens of crane listed in appendix I of CITES. So far, in 1995, one permit has been issued.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the population of(a) pine martens (b) peregrine falcons, (c) hen harriers and (d) sparrowhawks in each year since 1980; and what is his estimate of the amount of damage each species does to game birds. [21850]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's statutory advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, advise that annual population estimates are not available for these species. Specific surveys have been undertaken for each species since 1980 and the most up-to-date figures for England are as follows:

  Year

  Species

  Population

  1987–88

  Pine marten

  100 individuals

  1991

  Peregrine falcons

  308 pairs

  1993

  Hen harriers

  16 pairs

  1986

  Sparrowhawks

  There is no separate figure for England, but the population in Great Britain was last estimated at 32,000 pairs.

  There is no reliable information available on whether pine marten, peregrine falcons, hen harriers and sparrowhawks affect game bird populations.

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (rate pa) £

  Superannuation lump sum £

  Lump sum Compensation payment £

  compensation in lieu of notice (if any) £

  1990–91 Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  Not available in the time

  Flexible

  8,212

  24,935

  Nil

  given

  1991–92 Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  Not available in the time

  Flexible

  10,515

  31,543

  Nil

  given

  1992–93 Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  Not available in the time

  Flexible

  10,138

  27,288

  Nil

  given

  1993–94 Compulsory

  10,590

  30,801

  15,103

  Not available in the time

  Flexible

  26,888

  80,665

  16,611

  given

  1994–95 Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  Not available in the time

  Flexible

  None

  None

  None

  given

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce a timetable for the review of metropolitan authority boundaries with

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on public relations and publicity by the Leeds development corporation in each financial year of its existence. [21610]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Leeds development corporation's expenditure on public relations and publicity, which includes the corporation's promotional and marketing activity was £223,000 in 1988–89, £324,000 in 1989–90, £480,000 in 1990–91, £499,000 in 1991–92, £300,000 in 1992–93, £250,000 in 1993–94 and £228,000 in 1994–95. These payments constitute about 3 per cent. of the corporation's expenditure, which has attracted a total of £357 millions of private sector investment—a public to private leverage ratio of 1 to 6.4.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the assets transferred from' the Leeds development corporation to Leeds city council, together with their value. [21612]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Amenity and highway land with a nil market value were transferred from Leeds development corporation's ownership to Leeds city council prior to the winding up of the corporation. In addition, an endowment of £200,001 has been paid to the city council to cover maintenance in perpetuity of landscaping works undertaken by the corporation.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22087]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. Details of limited efficiency early retirements for each of the last five financial years are as follows:

  particular reference to Southport, Merseyside and Lancashire. [22001]

  Mr. Curry
  We are considering whether to direct the Local Government Commission to conduct boundary reviews of certain metropolitan areas, and will make an
  127
  announcement in due course. We expect that any reviews of metropolitan areas will be conducted after the commission has completed the shire district structural reviews, which we hope will be by early 1996.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make an announcement in response to the final recommendation of the Local Government Commission concerning the move of Billericay from Basildon district council to form Brentwood and Billericay district council. [22002]

  Mr. Curry
  Basildon district is to be referred to the Local Government Commission for a further review which will examine the structure of local government in the area. No decision on boundaries can sensibly be taken until the commission has made its recommendations on the wider question of structure.

  Cammell Laird Site, Birkenhead
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report the progress which has been made since last summer with his attempts to use the offices of English Partnership to set up a venture with English Partnerships and VSEL on the Lairds site in Birkenhead. [22213]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships and VSEL have been working closely together on proposals for the redevelopment of the Cammell Laird site. One important objective, the continued use of the northern part of the site for ship repair activity, has been secured following the announcement today of the sale of that part of the site to the newly named Cammell Laird Industries. This follows closely on the decision of Mackie Automotive Systems to establish themselves in one of the existing buildings on the southern part of the site.

  VSEL and English Partnerships intend to continue to work together within a broad framework to achieve development of the rest of the site and build on the increased industrial interest that is being shown; they are discussing the form that arrangement might take.

  Housing Benefit (Reversionary Interest)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change the housing benefit regulations to adopt the definition of reversionary interest in use in Northern Ireland. [20346]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  A recent Court of Appeal judgment has held that property in England or Wales which the claimant owns but which is let to tenants is a reversionary interest. This means that in all cases the value of such property has to be disregarded as a capital resource when entitlement to housing benefit is assessed. We propose to bring forward amending regulations to rectify this situation. We are currently considering the form that this amendment should take.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20380]
  128
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May 1995. [20379]

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

  Barings Bank
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with directors or executives of Barings bank since 1990. [21130]

  The Prime Minister
  None. However, directors and executives of Barings bank have been present at a number of functions that I have attended since 1990.

  Crown Copyright
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the ownership of(a) top copies of his speeches, (b) treaty agreements signed by him in his capacity as Prime Minister, (c) original copies of letters received by him from her Majesty, (d) original copies of correspondence or other communications received by him from the heads of Government and (e) original copies of correspondence, minutes, records of meetings or other documents and communications with or in relation to or from ministers or public bodies. [22216]

  The Prime Minister
  Papers in all the categories listed belong to the Crown, with the exception of top copies of speeches made in a personal capacity or as a constituency Member of Parliament, and correspondence of a purely personal nature.

  Churchill Documents
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 April to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown),Official Report, column 97, if he will place in the Library details of those papers of Sir Winston Churchill being purchased by the national heritage memorial fund. [22215]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for the national heritage memorial fund. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member, placing a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters; [21512]

  (2) what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report; [21514]

  (3) if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department; [21513]

  (4) which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21511]
  129
  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21392]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 1 May Official Report, column 77.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21381]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 1 May Official Report, column 76.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditors Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the third annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [22600]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received the third annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library of the House. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies.

  Film Distribution Industry
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to promote competition in the film distribution industry in the United Kingdom. [21989]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas in the UK, published on 6 October 1994, the Director General of Fair Trading is currently, at my request, seeking undertakings from nine distributors and six exhibitors named as monopolists in the report to cease the practice of alignment and to restrict minimum exhibition periods. The DOFF will report to me on the outcome of his negotiations by 10 July 1995.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the gross tonnage of merchant ships built in UK yards in each year since 1965; and if he will make a statement. [21868]

  Mr. Page
  The information is in the table:

  Merchant ships built in UK yards

  Year

  1,000 gross tonnes

  1965

  1,204

  1966

  1,130

  1967

  1,192

  1968

  1,046

  1969

  814

  1970

  1,297

  1971

  1,259

  1972

  1,208

  1973

  1,069

  1974

  1,189

  1975

  1,203

  1976

  1,460

  1977

  1,007

  1978

  1,135

  1979

  707

  1980

  431

  1981

  217

  1982

  453

  1983

  540

  1984

  411

  1985

  225

  1986

  106

  1987

  247

  1988

  31

  1989

  106

  1990

  134

  1991

  110

  1992

  229

  1993

  288

  1994

  224

  Source:

  CSO—Annual Abstract of Statistics

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to lay before Parliament a draft enabling order for contracting out work of the Insolvency Service agency. [21809]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A draft order to enable the contracting out of certain of the Official Receivers' functions was laid before Parliament for the approval of both Houses on Friday 28 April 1995.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions he has had with the nuclear installations inspectorate over the possible awarding of licences for operators; [22062]

  (2) what discussions he has had recently with Her Majesty's chief inspector of nuclear installations. [22064]

  Mr. Page
  I have had no recent discussions with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate although my officials have frequent discussions with it on issues relating to its nuclear regulatory activities.

  Telephone Services, Northern Ireland
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when competition will be introduced to the supply of telephone services in Northern Ireland. [21124]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Competition has existed in the supply of telecommunications services in Northern Ireland for some years, in the form of Mercury and mobile cellular services. Further competition will be introduced by the issue of a local delivery operator licence for cable. Applications for the Northern Ireland LDO franchise are currently under consideration and a franchise will be awarded in due course.

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (rate pa)

  Superannuation lump sum

  Lump sum compensation payment

  Compensation in lieu of notice (if any)

  1990–91

  Flexible

  0

  43,455

  0

  0

  Public Records
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and post those who have responsibility for deciding which internal documents held by his Department should be considered for archiving by the Public Record Office. [21991]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department follows the Public Record Office's recommended practice of reviewing papers when they are 10 years old and, if retained at that stage, again at 25 years old in order to reach a decision as to whether they are worthy of permanent preservation at the Public Record Office.

  This two-stage review is carried out by a team of two higher executive officers and 10 executive officers.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the DTI inspectors' report into the share dealing activities of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare will be passed to the Public Record Office. [21992]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department follows the Public Record Office's recommended practice of reviewing papers when they are 10 years old and, if retained at that stage, again at 25 years old in order to reach a decision as to whether they are worthy of permanent preservation at the Public Record Office.

  The report by inspectors appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc will be treated in accordance with the above policy.

  The disclosure of information obtained by inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act is prohibited by virtue of section 179 of that Act. Section 5(3) of the Public Records Act 1958 provides for public access to records except when the disclosure of those records is subject to a statutory bar on disclosure such as section 179 of the Financial Services Act.

  Small Businesses (Financial Advice)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for developing the range and diversity of financial advice for small and medium enterprises. [21824]

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President to the Board of Trade if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22077]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. The Department has had only one such retirement in the last five years. The details are as follows:

  Mr. Page
  The emerging network of business links across England has a vital role to play in advising businesses on the range of financing options open to them, and in advising the providers of finance and finance services of the needs of growing businesses. A task force of senior members of the financial community has made recommendations to me on the specific services which business links should be offering to their customers in this important area. The implementation of those recommendations is currently being discussed with the business link network with the aim of these services being available across the network from early next year.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what quantities of plutonium fuel rods have been manufactured at AWE Aldermaston for the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay; when these rods were manufactured; and what safeguards arrangements applied to their production and storage. [22031]

  Mr. Page
  A total of 29 clusters of experimental PFR fuel were made in a special facility at Aldermaston between 1962 and 1972. The PFR production fuel elements were later manufactured at Windscale. At the time of this campaign Aldermaston was run by UKAEA. The campaign took place before Euratom safeguards or the UK-Euratrom-IAEA agreement came into effect. The UKAEA exercised stringent nuclear material accountancy controls on all materials, including those in question. The plutonium used was part of a stock assigned to the fast reactor programme. The programme had no links to weapons work at Aldermaston.

  Iraq
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what investigations he has carried out into the activities of Mr. Riad Al Taher; [21693]

  (2) what representations he has received from Mr. Riad Al Taher about sanctions against Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [21694]
  133
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answers 28 April 1995]: We have not had any representations from Mr. Riad Al Taher and have not carried out any investigations into his activities.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assistance his Department will give to the Iraqi-British Interests Group on its forthcoming visit to Iraq; [21701]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes; [21692]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the forthcoming visit by the Iraqi-British Interests Group to Iraq; [21700]

  (4) what requests for assistance his Department has received from the Iraqi-British Interests Group for its forthcoming visit to Iraq; [21702]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch. [21691]

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answers 28 April 1995]: The Iraqi-British Interests Group is an independent lobby group which has no official standing. My Department has no details of any specific visit to Iraq to be made by it. It has not made any requests for assistance in connection with such a visit; nor would we be prepared to provide organisational support for it to visit Iraq. Acts calculated to promote the supply of goods to or from Iraq would require a licence from my Department. Applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis but licences are normally issued only for exports or discussions relating to goods permitted under sanctions—that is, humanitarian goods. Any contacts with Mr. Edmund Sykes and Mr. Stephen Crouch have been those necessary for the exercise of my Department's responsibilities.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his departmental estimates for the liability for payment by Lloyd's names during the years(a) 1995 and (b) 1996; and what are his estimates of how much can be met without recourse to Lloyd's central funds. [22071]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer I May 1995]: The Department neither needs nor is required to make such estimates in the exercise of its responsibilities under sections 83 to 86 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Any estimate of the amounts to be called from Lloyd's names would be speculative as the cash calls on names have yet to be declared during 1995, and the results to be declared during 1996 cannot be predicted with any precision.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what supervision his Department will make of those Lloyd's names who have become insolvent and whose calls cannot be supported by Lloyd's funds supervised by his Department. [22072]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Any Lloyd's name who failed to meet the solvency requirement prescribed in section 83 (4) and (5) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 would become subject to the Secretary of State's supervisory powers contained in part II of the Act. The particular use of those powers would depend on the circumstances of the case, but would include imposition of such requirements as may be desirable to protect policyholders against the risk that the name's underwriting liabilities would not be met.
  134
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates have been made by his Department for Lloyd's losses (a) for 1992 and (b) for 1993 which are (i) called but unpaid, (ii) declared losses but uncalled and (iii) potential losses expected but as yet undeclared; and what impact these estimates would have on determining the solvency of Lloyd's. [22099]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The Department neither needs nor is required to make estimates of the specific figures cited in the question in the exercise of its responsibilities under sections 83 to 86 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. But in the compilation of the solvency returns all losses, whether or not called and/or paid, will have been brought properly into account in determining the liabilities for solvency purposes, and prudent provision will have been made for losses which have been incurred but not reported.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of Lloyd's names who could potentially be unable to meet calls on their assets if Lloyd's were unable to stand behind a call. [22073]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The Department neither needs nor is required to make such an estimate in the exercise of its responsibilities under sections 83 to 86 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Since all the auditors' certificates required under section 83 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 were furnished in the most recent solvency test, the question did not arise.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21398]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Each senior official and special adviser is required to make declaration of their financial interests. This enables the Department to prevent potential conflicts of interest arising. In the case of other officials, conflicts of interest are dealt with by their line management. Records are not kept centrally.

  Privatisation (EC Funding)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European social fund support since privatisation indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21299]

  (2) if he will list those public projects which received European social fund support and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21298]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: European social fund grant applications from the following privatised companies within my Department's area of responsibility have been approved. The grants were for vocational training, guidance and counselling, and

  135
  employment support projects. The information relate to projects approved from 1990. Data for the years before 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Grant approved £

  Year

  Jaguar cars

  217,708

  1990

  British Aerospace Dynamics Ltd.

  175,341

  1990

  British Aerospace (Military Aircraft) Ltd.

  23,353

  1990

  Rolls Royce plc

  241,725

  1990

WALES

  Consultants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what work he has commissioned from consultants Mason, Pittendrigh; what fees he has agreed in respect of this work; and if he will make a statement on the progress of work to date and the fees paid to date to these consultants. [21253]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has not commissioned any work from Mason Pittendrigh.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities matters. [21470]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have overall responsibility for the whole Department which includes equal opportunities issues which are integral to many policies. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has responsibility for equality issues and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), has special responsibility for women's issues and issues relating to disability.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21473]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department, in line with other Departments, is committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  Local Authority

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Percentage change 1993–94 over 1992–93

  1994–951 £

  Percentage change 1994–95 over 1993–94 (provisional)

  Aberconwy

  1,584,274

  1,515,817

  -4.32

  1,524,838

  0.60

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,520,527

  2,719,472

  7.89

  2,751,136

  1.16

  Arfon

  2,942,801

  3,116,312

  5.90

  2,825,706

  -9.33

  Blaenau Gwent

  10,775,958

  11,272,511

  4.61

  11,286,414

  0.12

  136
  The progress of women, ethnic minority and disabled employees through the management grades towards senior posts, along with overall representation and examples of particular initiatives being taken, will be covered in the Welsh Office departmental report for 1996 onwards.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have put the work of their direct labour organisations out to external competitive tenders; how many and which have not done so; and if he will make a statement. [21573]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All 45 principal authorities in Wales have put out to competitive tender work carried out by their direct labour/service organisations.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) each health authority in Wales and (b) Wales as a whole the total number of asthma cases treated in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [20547]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of individuals treated for asthma in Wales is not available centrally. However, for those treated as in-patients or day cases, the number of completed consultant episodes where asthma was recorded as the principal diagnosis in each of the last three years is given in the following table:

  Completed consultant episodes—asthma ICD 9 (493)

  Health authority area of treatment

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  895

  796

  872

  East Dyfed

  397

  496

  542

  Gwent

  967

  1,099

  1,003

  Gwynedd

  446

  316

  516

  Mid Glamorgan

  982

  1,138

  1,154

  Pembrokeshire

  265

  258

  277

  Powys

  135

  139

  117

  South Glamorgan

  1,442

  1,213

  1,421

  West Glamorgan

  762

  718

  296

  Wales

  6,291

  6,173

  6,198

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of housing revenue account subsidy for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95 for each district council in Wales and for Wales as a whole, in each case showing the percentage change. [21049]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the amount of housing revenue account subsidy paid is as follows:
  137

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  Local Authority

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Percentage change 1993–94 over 1992–93

  1994–951 £

  Percentage change 1994–95 over 1993–94 (provisional)

  Brecknock

  714,469

  749,124

  4.85

  774,012

  3.32

  Cardiff

  19,410,690

  19,496,006

  0.44

  21,358,039

  9.55

  Carmarthen

  2,513,450

  2,160,557

  -14.04

  2,100,450

  -2.78

  Ceredigion

  1,884,669

  1,786,023

  -5.23

  1,719,132

  -3.75

  Colwyn

  2,109,823

  2,176,710

  3.17

  2,223,516

  2.15

  Cynon Valley

  4,947,233

  5,065,626

  2.39

  4,752,984

  -6.17

  Delyn

  3,620,231

  3,143,508

  -13.17

  2,877,939

  -8.45

  Dinefwr

  1,246,634

  1,189,524

  -4.58

  1,281,196

  7.71

  Dwyfor

  840,681

  796,444

  -5.26

  908,360

  14.05

  Glyndwr

  827,842

  860,859

  3.99

  667,859

  -22.42

  Islwyn

  5,369,027

  5,281,749

  -1.63

  5,620,094

  6.41

  Llanelli

  7,044,582

  7,774,394

  10.36

  8,105,862

  4.26

  Lliw Valley

  4,308,923

  4,136,117

  -4.01

  4,086,333

  -1.20

  Meirionnydd

  1,061,048

  1,022,707

  -3.61

  967,774

  -5.37

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,872,508

  7,523,287

  9.47

  7,976,148

  6.02

  Monmouth

  3,789,654

  3,611,159

  4.71

  3,503,236

  -2.99

  Montgomeryshire

  666,527

  474,913

  -28.75

  295,577

  -37.76

  Neath

  4,776,019

  4,765,055

  -0.23

  5,269,282

  10.58

  Newport

  11,244,594

  10,794,066

  -4.01

  10,937,908

  1.33

  Ogwr

  7,692,875

  7,532,193

  -2.09

  7,381,391

  -2.00

  Port Talbot

  4,749,752

  4,811,834

  1.31

  5,215,911

  8.40

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,755,958

  2,806,607

  1.84

  3,035,119

  8.14

  Radnorshire

  555,486

  440,980

  -20.61

  432,229

  -1.98

  Rhondda

  8,623,018

  8,361,896

  -3.03

  8,229,454

  -1.58

  Rhuddlan

  1,324,330

  1,453,067

  9.72

  1,603,312

  10.34

  Rhymney Valley

  10,884,002

  10,823,491

  -0.56

  11,702,169

  8.12

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,642,291

  1,351,363

  -17.71

  1,457,527

  7.86

  Swansea

  16,023,302

  16,633,469

  3.81

  18,370,320

  10.44

  Taff Ely

  6,938,835

  6,735,632

  -2.93

  6,754,749

  0.28

  Torfaen

  13,117,637

  12,842,923

  -2.09

  12,438,124

  -3.15

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,750,776

  3,807,767

  1.52

  3,487,123

  -8.42

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,998,218

  7,417,009

  5.98

  7,463,257

  0.62

  Ynys Môn

  4,311,793

  4,309,403

  -0.06

  4,473,262

  3.80

  Wales

  190,440,437

  190,759,574

  0.17

  195,857,742

  2.67

  On-accounts payments subject to audit.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of notional rent set by his Department for the purpose of calculating housing subsidy for each district council in Wales and for Wales as a whole for(a) 1994–95 and (b), 1995–96. [21050]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Authorities calculate notional rents for subsidy according to a formula in the main housing revenue account subsidy determination for the relevant year, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The notional rents calculated by each authority for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are given in the following table. The figures shown for Wales have been derived from these figures.

  Notional Weekly Rent per Dwelling

  Local Authority

  1994–95 £ p

  1995–96 £ p

  Aberconwy

  29.06

  31.88

  Alyn and Deeside

  29.46

  32.29

  Arfon

  30,71

  33.69

  Blaenau Gwent

  31.13

  32.96

  Brecknock

  31.23

  33.81

  Cardiff

  36.13

  38.96

  Carmarthen

  32.04

  33.87

  Ceredigion

  31.69

  33.87

  Colwyn

  28.60

  31.42

  Cynon Valley

  29.67

  31.50

  Delyn

  30.27

  33.10

  Dinefwr

  28.33

  30.54

  Dwyfor

  28.88

  30.71

  138

  Notional Weekly Rent per Dwelling

  Local Authority

  1994–95 £ p

  1995–96 £p

  Glyndwr

  29.67

  32.50

  Islwyn

  30.85

  32.83

  Llanelli

  27.37

  29.19

  Lliw Valley

  29.67

  31.88

  Meirionnydd

  28.12

  30.02

  Merthyr Tydfil

  27.40

  29.23

  Monmouth

  37.83

  40.65

  Montgomeryshire

  33.75

  36.58

  Neath

  28.02

  30.85

  Newport

  36.31

  38.33

  Ogwr

  31.81

  33.63

  Port Talbot

  29.44

  31.42

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  30.17

  32.71

  Radnorshire

  32.75

  35.58

  Rhondda

  32.56

  34.38

  Rhuddlan

  29.48

  32.31

  Rhymney Valley

  31.44

  33.27

  South Pembrokeshire

  34.06

  36.08

  Swansea

  28.75

  30.58

  Taff Ely

  28.67

  31.12

  Torfaen

  35.04

  36.87

  Vale of Glamorgan

  34.87

  37.69

  Wrexham Maelor

  27.87

  30.69

  Ynys Mön

  28.81

  30.94

  Wales

  31.32

  33.50

  Source:

  Local authorities' housing revenue account subsidy claim forms, which will be subject to audit.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22074]

  Mr. Redwood
  There were no early retirements on grounds of limited efficiency for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  There were two early retirements on grounds of limited efficiency in 1994–95, both on flexible terms. Compensation payments are age, salary and service related. Details are as follows:

  Annual compensation payments to age 60 (rate pa) £

  Enhancement of superannuation lump sum £

  14,396

  7,334

  7,450

  3,725

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the population of(a) pine martens, (b) peregrine falcon, (c) hen harrier and (d) sparrowhawk in each year since 1980; and what is his estimate of the amount of damage each species does to game birds. [21849]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Annual population estimates are not available for pine martens, hen harriers, peregrine falcons and sparrowhawks. However, specific surveys have been undertaken for these species since 1980 and the most up to date figures for Wales are as follows:

  (a) Pine martens—less than 50 individuals (1987–88).

  (b) Peregrines—263 (1991).

  (c) Hen Harriers—16 (1993).

  (d) Sparrowhawks—no estimate.

  There is no reliable information currently available relating to the effect of these species on game birds.

  Health Service Research Director
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further progress he has to report on the appointment of a director for research and development for the NHS in Wales; and if the post will be established as a civil service or as an academic post. [22333]

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the University of Wales college of medicine will shortly be advertising the post of director of research and development for health and social care in Wales. This is a university post and not a civil service appointment.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to have available the full set of data on waiting list figures for those waiting more than six months for their first out-patient appointment and 18 months or more for in-patient treatment for each health authority. [22332]
  140
  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available information relates to waiting lists at 31 December 1994 and is shown in the following table. Similar information will be available in June for waiting lists at 30 March 1995.

  Health authority area1

  Number waiting more than six months for out-patient appointment

  Number waiting more than 18 months for in-patient or day case treatment

  Clwyd

  2,234

  128

  Dyfed

  2,968

  337

  Gwent

  4,840

  255

  Gwynedd

  1,222

  66

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,475

  347

  Powys

  636

  18

  South Glamorgan

  9,258

  363

  West Glamorgan

  5,747

  145

  Wales

  32,380

  1,659

  1Including patients of GP fundholders.

  Source:

  Welsh Office core performance indicators.

  Dredging
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the scientific considerations behind his approval of the extraction of an extra 0.36 million tonnes of sand and other materials from the Nash bank before commencement of the Bristol channel study on the impact of dredging on the coastal environment. [22186]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The favourable Government view to extract an additional 360,000 tonnes from the Nash bank was based on an independent scientific analysis of the environmental monitoring data available as a condition of the current licence. This comprises regular bathymetric surveys of the bank and inspections of 12 local beaches to ensure that there are no adverse effects on beach sediment regimes. The assessment indicated that there was no significant risk to the coastline from the extraction proposed. A study which is expected to commence this year will examine the availability of marine aggregate resources in the Bristol channel, and the environmental consequences of and constraints on, their utilisation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will pay the first instalment of the special grants to new principal councils in Wales. [22519]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department will make these payments on or as soon as reasonably practicable after 4 May 1995, in accordance with the provisions of the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995, approved by the House on 8 February 1995.

  Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure is being sought in the 1995–96 main supply estimate for the local government, Wales vote, class XV vote 6. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £5.85 million on the first instalments of grant to the new principal councils will be met by a repayable advance form the Contingencies Fund.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Afghan Refugees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking(a) directly, (b) through the EU and(c) through other organisations, to supply wheat to be sown by Afghan refugees of displaced persons wishing to return to Afghanistan; and how much wheat is to be supplied to such persons over each of the next three years.[22305]

  Mr. Baldry
  A joint World Food Programme UNHCR/donors food assessment mission to Pakistan and Afghanistan is reviewing food aid needs. Donors, including the EU, will be briefed on their findings in Islamabad on 8 May. On 27 April 1995 the EU approved provision through the WFP of 20,000 tonnes of cereals, 1,000 tonnes of vegetable oil, 1,900 tonnes of sugar and 2,000 tonnes of pulses for resettling Afghan refugees and displaced persons.

  We have recently provided wheat supplies at a cost of £1.25 million through CARE for relief programmes inside Afghanistan and will consider further contributions of food aid when needs arise, in consultation with other aid agencies, including the EU.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 330, what are the minimum and maximum ages of Afghan refugee children in Pakistan who will receive primary education in future; what is the maximum age of Afghan refugee children who have received secondary education hitherto; and if he will make a statement.[22331]

  Mr. Baldry
  The minimum age for primary education is five years and children tend to leave at the age of 11 or 12. There is no strict leaving age as some children start school older than five. Secondary school education is divided into two levels. Children leave lower secondary or middle school at 14 or 15—that is, after three years—and most leave higher secondary around 16 or 17, although at both levels some graduate at an older age. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Pakistan encourage all children to remain at school as long as possible.

  Pakistan's Cotton Crop
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the causes of the reduction of Pakistan's cotton crop with particular reference to viral infection; what assistance Her Majesty's Government will give in(a) research and (b) direct assistance to combat them; and if he will make a statement.[22326]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received reports from both our high commission and scientific staff at the Natural Resources Institute, who are currently working in Pakistan, on all factors affecting the cotton crop in Pakistan. This includes the current problem of leaf curl virus.

  Through the NRI, ODA has supported a research project on cotton pest management in Pakistan since 1985. The latest phase of this project started in 1992 and is due to end in March 1996. ODA is also funding a study to determine the scope for further assistance in tackling this problem.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years.[22083]

  The Attorney-General
  Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. In the last five financial years, there have been no compulsory early retirements in the departments for which I am responsible. The only case of flexible early retirement was in January 1991 when the officer concerned received a lump sum payment of £15,339.39 and an annual compensation payment of £6,343.87.

EMPLOYMENT

  Building Societies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs in the United Kingdom are in building societies. [21910]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the number of jobs held in building societies is not separately available. However, there were 171,000 employees in Great Britain in financial institutions other then banking and bill discounting in December 1994.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will investigate the extent to which ageism and age discrimination is acting as a barrier to the 40-plus age group in accessing(a) retraining schemes and (b) United Kingdom and European funding to set up 40-plus employment initiatives; [22054]

  (2) what further steps he is taking to counter ageism and age discrimination in the workplace; and if he will make a statement; [22048]

  (3) if he will investigate the extent to which ageism and age discrimination are contributing towards long-term unemployment among the 40-plus age group; and if he will make a statement; [22050]

  (4) what steps his Department is taking to discourage employers from placing employment advertisements in the national press which specifically request applicants for supervisory, managerial, technical and professional employment from the specific age group 25 to 35 years; and if he will make a statement; [22052]

  (5) which laws in the United Kingdom protect people from ageism in the workplace; and what assessment has he made as to the scope for those persons who feel they have been victims of age discrimination to seek legal redress at appropriate levels; [22053]
  143
  (6) what assessment he has made of the extent to which long term unemployment among the 40-plus age group is directly attributable to the prevalence of age discrimination; and if he will make a statement; [22049]

  (7) what is the total annual cost to his Department of initiatives designed to investigate or tackle the incidence of age discrimination in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [22051]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are conducting a vigorous campaign, which I lead, urging employers to recruit, train and retain workers on merit, regardless of age. The "Getting On" booklet, published in March 1994, is aimed specifically at employers. We published a further booklet, "Too Old…who says?", in January this year, which offers help and advice to older people seeking work or training. The campaign is supported by an advisory group, which I chair, consisting of people with a wide experience of industry and with the problems of age discrimination in employment.

  Surveys suggest that ageist practices in recruitment and retention are contributing to the difficulties of older workers. However, there are no barriers preventing the 40-plus age group accessing retraining schemes. The proportion of people aged 51 and over on adult training programmes has steadily increased over the last four years. Training for work, the main training programme, is open to unemployed people up to the age of 63, making it possible for older workers to enhance their skills and make best use of their potential. Access to funding in the UK and through the European social fund for employment initiatives is open to people of all ages with selection on merit. There are several instances where funding has been granted to older workers to set up their own initiatives.

  My campaign specifically encourages employers to drop the use of age limits in all advertisements and recruitment. Indeed, it is the first step outlined in the

  ILO unemployed by age, gender and duration of unemployment

  Great Britain

  Autumn 1994 Thousands

  Age

  All ILO unemployed

  Less than 6 months

  6 months to 1 year

  1–2 years

  More than 2 years

  All persons

  35–39

  235

  85

  42

  35

  74

  40–49

  408

  140

  62

  78

  128

  50–59

  329

  90

  48

  63

  128

  60–65

  88

  17

  1—

  22

  40

  Males

  35–39

  156

  43

  29

  26

  58

  40–49

  255

  74

  35

  50

  95

  50–59

  230

  58

  34

  41

  96

  60–65

  74

  13

  1—

  19

  34

  Females

  35–39

  79

  42

  13

  8

  15

  40–49

  153

  66

  27

  27

  33

  50–59

  100

  32

  14

  22

  32

  60–65

  13

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Notes:

  1 Estimates below 10,000.

  Source:

  labour force survey—not seasonally adjusted.
  144
  "Getting On" booklet. Staff in Employment Service jobcentres have been given clear guidance to challenge the need for age limits on any vacancies they receive and to try to persuade employers to consider jobseekers only on their merits.

  As for the legal position, employees who believe their dismissal or selection for redundancy was solely on grounds of age can already bring a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, subject to the normal two-year qualifying period. However, the Government do not believe that more general legislation is the solution. Indeed, this would be as ineffective as it has been shown to be in other countries and would also increase burdens on business, possibly hampering the creation of new jobs. The way forward is through persuasion and voluntary means.

  Finally, in 1994–95 the cost to the Employment Department of activities related to the campaign, including the booklets and research undertaken but excluding internal staff costs, was just over £300,000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have been unemployed for (i) less than six months, (ii) more than six months, (iii) more than one year, (iv) more than 18 months and (v) more than two years: and if he will provide a breakdown by the age categories (a) 35 to 40, (b) 40 to 50, (c) 50 to 60 and (D) 60 to 65 years. [22055]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest information available from the labour force survey for Great Britain is given in the following table. Information on levels of claimant unemployment by age and duration of unemployment can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library for the following age bands: 35 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 and over.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on the grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22088]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has no record of any such payments having been made.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Central London training and enterprise council will pay the debts of South Thames TEC. [22220]

  Mr. Paice
  The debts incurred by South Thames training and enterprise council are a matter for the receiver. It is my understanding that there is no obligation whatsoever upon CENTEC to pay the debts.

  Stapro Insecticide
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 57, if he will set out the manufacturer's instructions for the application of Stapro insecticide. [21170]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 2 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the manufacturer's instructions for the application of Stapro Insecticide.
  The contractor employed to undertake the spraying at Grays Unemployment Benefit Office on 8 October 1991 has now advised us orally that the chemical used was not a Stapro Insecticide, as he originally told us. He has further advised that any enquiries relation to this operation should be directed to his solicitor, Mr. Michael Wright of Thompson, Smith and Poxon, 4/5 North Hill, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1EB.
  You will understand that, given these circumstances, the information relating to Stapro would be inappropriate.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of convictions in each region under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Asbestos (Licensing Regulations) 1983 in each year since their inception, indicating the penalty in each case. [21286]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: I have arranged for the information on the number of convictions in each region under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 and the penalties for each conviction to be placed in the Library. The information relates to prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive. It does not include prosecutions by local authority inspectors who have powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to enforce the regulations. Statistics on the number of convictions under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 are available only from 1986 onwards.

  Cleveland Rural Development Area
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of(a) the number of unemployed and (b) the rate of unemployment in the Cleveland rural development area in each of the last 10 years and at the latest available date. [21433]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Information is available only on the numbers of claimant unemployed people in rural development areas and this can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Manufacturing Employees
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the number and percentage of employees who are employed in manufacturing, in each region of the United Kingdom in(a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available. [21796]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industry and as a percentage of all employees in employment

  (Thousands)

  December 1979

  December 1994

  Level

  Percentage

  Level

  Percentage

  South East (excluding Greater London)

  1,8701

  24.8

  666

  17.5

  Greater London

  n/a

  n/a

  332

  10.6

  East Anglia

  210

  29.6

  161

  20.0

  South West

  440

  27.7

  308

  18.1

  West Midlands

  977

  43.3

  572

  28.3

  East Midlands

  605

  38.7

  454

  29.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  699

  34.8

  430

  23.4

  North West

  955

  35.7

  517

  22.4

  North

  404

  32.5

  250

  22.9

  Wales

  314

  30.4

  226

  23.3

  Scotland

  596

  28.5

  354

  18.0

  Northern Ireland

  143

  26.6

  103

  18.3

  1 Employment figures available only for the whole of the south-east region as Greater London was not separately identifiable. n/a = Not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of answering the questions to his Department tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) since the beginning of the current Session. [18572]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: According to our records, the hon. Member for Makerfield has tabled 180 parliamentary questions to this Department since the beginning of the current parliamentary Session until 4 April 1995. We estimate the total cost of preparing these answers was £17,460.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for the refusal of temporary visas to Mrs. Rasoul Bibi, Ref. V94/20662, and Miss Riffat Sultana, Ref. V94/20668. [21862]
  147
  Mr. Baldry
  The reasons for refusal were given in the migration and visa correspondence unit's letters of 28 July 1994 and 18 October 1994 to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the request for temporary visas by Mrs. Rasoul Bibi, Ref. V94/20662, and Miss Riffat Sultana, Ref. V94/20668; and if he will make a statement.[21863]

  Mr. Baldry
  Representations have been received from a number of people, including my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom presentation to main committee II of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York. [22022]

  Mr. David Davis
  Yes.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the European Union have indicated at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference in New York that they seek both an indefinite and unconditional extension to the treaty. [22018]

  Mr. David Davis
  All of them.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by the United Kingdom delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York, to the proposal advanced by Germany that fissionable material from dismantled weaponry should not be used to build new warheads. [22019]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK maintains only a minimum deterrent and has no surplus fissile material for explosive purposes. Recycling fissile materials allows us to keep our stockpile of fissile material at the minimum level necessary to meet our operational requirements.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on decisions taken at the meeting of the non-aligned movement member states held in Bandung, Indonesia, on 25 to 27 April in regard to the non-proliferation treaty. [22058]

  Mr. David Davis
  At the end of their meeting in Bandung, the Ministers of the non-aligned states issued a statement. They expressed a number of concerns about the non-proliferation treaty, but accepted that it had played a part in promoting international peace and security. The statement made clear that the NPT will be extended in accordance with article X.2.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the adoption by states parties to the non-proliferation treaty, during the treaty's review and extension conference, of a programme of action for achieving complete nuclear disarmament. [21352]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Nuclear disarmament is already under way, in particular through agreements between the United States and Russia. It will not be advanced by attempting to impose artificial deadlines or linkages on the negotiating process.

  Caroline Beale
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in the case of Caroline Beale, detained in New York; and what continuing action representatives of his Department are taking in her case. [21836]

  Mr. Baldry
  A further hearing of Miss Beale's case is set for 15 May. Our consular staff visit her regularly and are in frequent contact with her lawyer, the prison authorities and her family.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 375, concerning civil servants in Hong Kong, if the figures given include judges and police officers. [21912]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The figures of £40 million includes compensation payments for judges and police officers who are members of Her Majesty's overseas civil service in Hong Kong.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis
  The following meetings are planned:

  May 17:Health

  May 22: ECOFIN

  May 29: FAC

  Agriculture

  May 30: FAC

  Agriculture

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  May 17: Health

  No formal agenda is available.

  The following subjects may be discussed.

  —Europe Against Cancer Programme

  —Health Promotion Programme

  —Europe Against Aids Programme

  —Drugs Programme

  May 22: ECOFIN

  Provisional agenda:

  — Regulations in the statistical field (consumer price index, revision of systems of national and regional accounts, Community action in the statistical field)

  — Cross-border payments directive

  —Trans-European Networks financing

  The meeting will be followed by a Joint Council with CEE Finance Ministers.

  May 29, 30: FAC

  Agenda not yet available

  May 29, 30: Agriculture

  —Agrimonetary (possible)

  —Extraordinary set-aside penalties

  —Price fixing

  —Set-aside bio-mass (possible)

  —Banana quotas for new member states

  —Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime (possible)

  —Animal welfare (possible)

  Diplomats (Offences)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions in London during 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  During 1994, the London diplomatic missions incurred a total of 3,613 unpaid parking fines, which is almost double the 1993 figure of 1,941. This increase, the first since 1986, occurred mainly in the second half of the year when parking in London was decriminalised and responsibility—with the exception of main thoroughfares—was transferred from the Metropolitan police to the 33 London boroughs. This change also coincided with a campaign to reduce the amount of illegal parking in London, which resulted in an increase in the numbers of parking tickets issued to the public, including the diplomatic corps. The table shows only missions which have 11 or more fines outstanding.

  Unpaid Parking Fines

  Diplomatic mission

  1994

  1993

  United Arab Emirates

  470

  51

  Angola

  404

  30

  Qatar

  353

  28

  Saudi Arabia

  125

  60

  Nigeria

  118

  91

  India

  79

  71

  Ghana

  76

  35

  Bulgaria

  66

  34

  Oman

  63

  45

  Pakistan

  61

  54

  France

  58

  25

  Sudan

  56

  39

  Gabon

  55

  23

  Jordan

  52

  50

  Egypt

  50

  35

  Bangladesh

  49

  59

  Hungary

  47

  50

  Bahrain

  46

  29

  Kuwait

  45

  21

  Cote D'lvoire

  40

  21

  Indonesia

  37

  9

  Malaysia

  37

  15

  Brunei

  35

  22

  Poland

  35

  27

  Morocco

  34

  31

  Israel

  33

  27

  Greece

  32

  46

  Thailand

  32

  32

  Spain

  31

  48

  Cuba

  31

  20

  Russia

  31

  20

  Romania

  30

  25

  Cyprus

  29

  21

  Tanzania

  28

  40

  Turkey

  27

  13

  South Africa

  24

  2

  Algeria

  24

  17

  Uganda

  24

  25

  Malawi

  24

  18

  Italy

  23

  21

  United States

  22

  3

  Germany

  22

  51

  Zimbabwe

  21

  15

  Zambia

  20

  45

  Tunisia

  20

  28

  Cameroon

  20

  35

  Philippines

  19

  17

  Portugal

  19

  12

  Afghanistan

  19

  11

  Zaire

  18

  8

  150

  Unpaid Parking Fines

  Diplomatic mission

  1994

  1993

  Sierra Leone

  17

  8

  Lesotho

  14

  11

  Japan

  14

  5

  China

  13

  14

  Syria

  13

  9

  Croatia

  13

  0

  Barbados

  13

  19

  Kenya

  13

  7

  Fiji

  12

  5

  Iran

  12

  7

  Iceland

  12

  3

  Botswana

  12

  6

  Uruguay

  12

  23

  Ethiopia

  11

  2

  Peru

  11

  11

  Czech Rep

  11

  6

  International organizations

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

  19

  11

  International Maritime Organisation

  18

  0

  International Cocoa Organisation

  15

  12

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  11

  17

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were allegedly committed in 1994 by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and how many foreign diplomats or members of their families were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in the past year as a result of alleged offences.

  Mr. Baldry
  Twenty-five alleged serious offences by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1994. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the report to the Foreign Affairs Committee, "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (1985)", as offences which fall into the category which in certain circumstances attract a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment or more: the majority involved drinking and driving or shoplifting.

  Six diplomats or members of their families were withdrawn from post in Britain as a result of alleged offences, compared with one the previous year.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22086]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. In the Overseas Development Association no early retirements on grounds of limited efficiency have been made during the last five years. The relevant information for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Brazil (Killing of Indians)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with President
  151
  Carposa of Brazil when he visits the United Kingdom the killing of Ticuna Indians on 28 March 1990 in Boca de Capacete and urge that those responsible be brought to trial. [22185]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Brazilian authorities are well aware of concern in Britain that the rights and interests of the indigenous peoples of Brazil should be observed. Fourteen Ticuna Indians were killed on 28 March 1988 in the town of Benjamin Constant. The trial has been transferred from the state to the federal courts. It is expected to take place within a year.

  Drugs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking(a) directly, (b) through the EU and (c) through other organisations to assist the Government of Pakistan in combating drug trafficking; what assistance is being given to the supply of equipment to combat drug trafficking with particular reference to helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [22306]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have given considerable narcotics-related assistance to Pakistan, both bilaterally and through multilateral channels. Last financial year, bilateral assistance included the provision of law enforcement training by Her Majesty Customs and Excise. Multilaterally we have pledged over £8 million since 1985 to projects administered by the United Nations drug control programme to strengthen law enforcement control of the Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan border area and to reduce the supply of opium through rural development.

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 rate pa

  Superannuation lump sum

  Lump sum compensation payment

  Total in £

  Year 1990–91

  Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  —

  Flexible

  9674

  29022

  n/a

  38,696

  3564

  1085

  n/a

  4,649

  3332

  9093

  n/a

  12,425

  Year 1991–92

  Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  —

  Flexible

  6088

  16225

  n/a

  22,313

  FSSU scheme member

  —

  6034

  6,034

  1628

  4261

  n/a

  5,889

  Year 1992–93

  Compulsory

  8206

  21551

  8154

  29,757

  Flexible

  3591

  10382

  n/a

  13,973

  4094

  10656

  n/a

  14,750

  4199

  12169

  n/a

  16,368

  10876

  31865

  n/a

  42,741

  Year 1993–94

  Compulsory

  None

  None

  None

  —

  Flexible

  8685

  23422

  n/a

  32,107

  4418

  13178

  n/a

  17,596

  n/a

  n/a

  3033

  3,033

  4950

  12987

  n/a

  17,937

  152
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of financial inducements to people in Afghanistan to persuade them to cease growing poppies used in the production of drugs. [22304]

  Mr. Baldry
  Afghanistan is now believed by the United Nations drug control programme and others to be the largest producer of illicit opium in the world. Much of the production is trafficked in the form of heroin to western Europe, including the UK.

  In present circumstances, action by UNDCP is likely to be more effective in combating illicit drug production in Afghanistan than that by individual countries. The Government have therefore recently contributed £100,000 to preparation by UNCP of a strategy to reduce illicit opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, and will consider further financial support in the light of the result.

TRANSPORT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22076]

  Mr. Norris
  Compensation payments for early retirement on ground of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. Details of limited efficiency early retirements for the last five financial years are as follows:

  Ministerial Visits Overseas
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the visits he has made abroad in the last 12 months; how long he spent in each location; and what was the purpose of each visit. [21422]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In addition to those listed in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 20 February,Official Report, column 4, I have also undertaken the following visits:

  Country

  Duration

  Purpose

  Switzerland

  24 hours

  Visit to the Swiss Transport Minister

  Brussels

  2 days

  European Transport Council

  Japan

  4 days

  Visits to the Japanese Transport Minister, various railway companies in Tokyo and Nagoya and to banks and leasing companies interested in the sale of British Rail ROSCOs.

  Korea

  4 days

  Wreath laying ceremony Gloster Valley. Visits to the Korean Minister of Transport and Construction, the mayor of Seoul and various Korean companies with potential investments in the UK. Addressed regional British chambers of commerce; Korean Institute of Transport joint UK/Korean seminar; and Korean Ministry of Political Affairs seminar on local government.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines Report
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the 1993 report from the appraisal panel for human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines has now been published. [22403]

  Mrs. Browning
  The report is being published this week and is available free of charge from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving her Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22089]

  Mr. Boswell
  There have been no instances of compulsory early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency in the Department.
  154
  There has been one instance of flexible early retirement on limited efficiency grounds during the last five financial years, as follows:

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (rate pa)

  Superannuation lump sum

  1994–95

  £4996.67

  £14,155.07

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the numbers of staff and the administrative costs incurred by each education authority in England for the year ended 31 March; and what are the projected costs for 1995–96. [21791]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows, for each LEA in England, staffing expenditure and total expenditure on service strategy and regulation, management and administration and the inspection and advisory service in 1993–94, the latest year for which outturn figures are available. Figures for 25 LEAs are not included as they have yet to be finalised. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function. Statistics on LEA administrative staff numbers, broken down by individual authorities, are not available centrally. Cost projections for 1995–96 are unavailable in these areas.

  LEAs administration and inspection expenditure 1993–94

  Staffing cost (cash terms) £000

  Gross expenditure (cash terms) £000

  Corporation of London

  208

  632

  Camden

  n/a

  n/a

  Greenwich

  4,250

  10,969

  Hackney

  n/a

  n/a

  Hammersmith

  n/a

  n/a

  Islington

  n/a

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,996

  4,509

  Lambeth

  5,382

  12,322

  Lewisham

  n/a

  n/a

  Southwark

  3,806

  8,771

  Tower Hamlets

  7,273

  17,193

  Wandsworth

  3,179

  5,533

  Westminster

  2,049

  7,476

  Barking

  n/a

  n/a

  Barnet

  2,406

  4,523

  Bexley

  2,568

  4,806

  Brent

  3,420

  7,233

  Bromley

  2,876

  5,073

  Croydon

  4,495

  8,087

  Ealing

  4,043

  8,714

  Enfield

  n/a

  n/a

  Haringey

  4,918

  5,429

  Harrow

  n/a

  n/a

  Havering

  2,030

  3,998

  Hillingdon

  2,871

  5,184

  Hounslow

  1,867

  3,596

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,865

  2,963

  Merton

  n/a

  n/a

  Newham

  3,189

  5,248

  Redbridge

  1,505

  2,806

  Richmond upon Thames

  n/a

  n/a

  Sutton

  4,609

  5,788

  Waltham Forest

  4,409

  8,178

  Birmingham

  10,012

  19,298

  155

  LEAs administration and inspection expenditure 1993–94

  Staffing cost (cash terms) £000

  Gross expenditure (cash terms) £000

  Coventry

  6,428

  11,206

  Dudley

  n/a

  n/a

  Sandwell

  3,860

  4,893

  Solihull

  1,167

  2,245

  Walsall

  2,574

  6,048

  Wolverhampton

  n/a

  n/a

  Knowsley

  n/a

  n/a

  Liverpool

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens

  1,598

  3,137

  Sefton

  n/a

  n/a

  Wirral

  n/a

  n/a

  Bolton

  3,025

  5,976

  Bury

  n/a

  n/a

  Manchester

  4,531

  8,622

  Oldham

  2,673

  5,307

  Rochdale

  1,511

  3,021

  Salford

  n/a

  n/a

  Stockport

  2,143

  4,236

  Tameside

  1,382

  2,729

  Trafford

  n/a

  n/a

  Wigan

  2,036

  4,209

  Barnsley

  2,707

  5,297

  Doncaster

  2,915

  5,004

  Rotherham

  3,590

  4,852

  Sheffield

  3,933

  7,249

  Bradford

  6,452

  8,328

  Calderdale

  1,320

  3,344

  Kirklees

  n/a

  n/a

  Leeds

  7,320

  12,790

  Wakefield

  2,835

  5,592

  Gateshead

  1,886

  4,534

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  n/a

  n/a

  North Tyneside

  991

  1,948

  South Tyneside

  2,883

  5,501

  Sunderland

  1,874

  3,844

  Isles of Scilly

  40

  42

  Avon

  5,248

  15,893

  Bedfordshire

  4,843

  7,791

  Berkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  5,553

  14,651

  Cambridgeshire

  3,860

  9,222

  Cheshire

  10,185

  21,479

  Cleveland

  3,814

  5,477

  Cornwall

  3,449

  10,526

  Cumbria

  3,468

  7,357

  Derbyshire

  5,579

  7,878

  Devon

  7,687

  14,207

  Dorset

  4,376

  11,559

  Durham

  3,681

  8,329

  East Sussex

  4,678

  11,230

  Essex

  342

  8,021

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire

  n/a

  n/a

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,825

  4,410

  Hertfordshire

  5,239

  12,604

  Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  1,205

  4,064

  Kent

  5,142

  12,170

  Lancashire

  9,448

  23,197

  Leicestershire

  6,642

  14,764

  Lincolnshire

  2,848

  8,880

  Norfolk

  2,358

  7,837

  North Yorkshire

  3,980

  10,756

  Northamptonshire

  1,679

  9,148

  Northumberland

  2,917

  7,739

  Nottinghamshire

  8,222

  22,719

  Oxfordshire

  4,528

  9,313

  Shropshire

  3,480

  5,135

  Somerset

  6,495

  12,355

  Staffordshire

  1,660

  4,669

  Suffolk

  4,519

  8,957

  156

  LEAs administration and inspection expenditure 1993–94

  Staffing cost (cash terms) £000

  Gross expenditure (cash terms) £000

  Surrey

  6,222

  16,427

  Warwickshire

  4,875

  11,874

  West Sussex

  4,544

  11,124

  Wiltshire

  4,271

  11,430

  n/a = Not yet available.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a list of education authorities in England and Northern Ireland with the total number of pupils for which each education authority was responsible in the year ended 31 March. [21805]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of pupils in schools maintained by local education authorities in England in January 1994 is shown in the table. Pupil numbers in Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  All pupils in LEA-maintained Nursery. Primary, Secondary and Special schools(1) in England

  Local Education Authority

  1Pupils

  Corporation of London

  214

  Camden

  19,610

  Greenwich

  36,441

  Hackney

  25,049

  Hammersmith

  14,753

  Islington

  23,517

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,967

  Lambeth

  21,864

  Lewisham

  32,007

  Southwark

  28,775

  Tower Hamlets

  33,954

  Wandsworth

  20,241

  Westminster

  17,033

  Barking

  26,030

  Barnet

  33,906

  Bexley

  31,055

  Brent

  26,718

  Bromley

  28,160

  Croydon

  38,213

  Ealing

  32,664

  Enfield

  36,327

  Haringey

  29,608

  Harrow

  27,374

  Havering

  31,341

  Hillingdon

  20,043

  Hounslow

  32,403

  Kingston upon Thames

  15,863

  Merton

  23,232

  Newham

  40,255

  Redbridge

  34,393

  Richmond upon Thames

  19,038

  Sutton

  17,750

  Waltham Forest

  30,642

  Birmingham

  1,63,079

  Coventry

  49,913

  Dudley

  43,366

  Sandwell

  511,108

  Solihull

  33,368

  Walsall

  43,020

  Wolverhampton

  40,552

  Knowsley

  27,992

  Liverpool

  81,934

  St. Helens

  29,946

  Sefton

  47,168

  Wirral

  51,857

  157

  All pupils in LEA-maintained Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special shools(1) in England

  Local Education Authority

  1Pupils

  Bolton

  42,429

  Bury

  27,81'4

  Manchester

  70,796

  Oldham

  41,653

  Rochdale

  34,020

  Salford

  35,883

  Stockport

  42,970

  Tameside

  35,107

  Trafford

  29,833

  Wigan

  50,621

  Barnsley

  34,578

  Doncaster

  52,032

  Rotherham

  44,190

  Sheffield

  70,775

  Bradford

  83,406

  Calderdale

  28,728

  Kirklees

  62,567

  Leeds

  113,062

  Wakefield

  51,922

  Gateshead

  30,558

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  40,749

  North Tyneside

  31,660

  South Tyneside

  26,397

  Sunderland

  51,321

  Isles of Scilly

  291

  Avon

  1,37,357

  Bedfordshire

  81,360

  Berkshire

  1,03,502

  Buckinghamshire

  90,109

  Cambridgeshire

  84,515

  Cheshire

  1,53,008

  Cleveland

  1,03,146

  Cornwall

  69,977

  Cumbria

  65,372

  Derbyshire

  1,28,591

  Devon

  1,36,651

  Dorset

  78,626

  Durham

  97,711

  East Sussex

  88,025

  Essex

  1,46,390

  Gloucestershire

  56,666

  Hampshire

  2,01,345

  Hereford and Worcester

  94,445

  Hertfordshire

  1,37,829

  Humberside

  1,43,600

  Isle of Wight

  17,955

  Kent

  1,83,670

  Lancashire

  2,14,486

  Leicestershire

  1,38,347

  Lincolnshire

  66,722

  Norfolk

  93,702

  North Yorkshire

  1,04,727

  Northamptonshrie

  85,417

  Northumberland

  51,019

  Nottinghamshire

  1,56,816

  Oxfordshire

  78,400

  Shropshire

  57,984

  Somerset

  64,487

  Staffordshire

  1,63,143

  Suffolk

  93,282

  Surrey

  1.07,933

  Warwickshire

  68,726

  West Sussex

  94,854

  Wiltshire

  70,552

  England

  6,764,552

  1 This is the total of all full-time and part-time pupils of all ages.

  University and Private Sector Co-operation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new initiatives she is discussing with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principles to encourage senior private sector managers to spend time in university departments. [21826]

  Mr. Boswell
  No such discussions are taking place. These are matters for the CVCP and its member institutions to arrange in collaboration with companies. The Government welcome opportunities that enable industrial and university personnel to share their experiences for the benefit of the economy.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what programmes she supports to encourage the release of university staff to spend time in manufacturing industry. [21825]

  Mr. Boswell
  We support all initiatives that provide academic and industrial staff with opportunities to collaborate. Responsibility for developing links with business, of all kinds, rests with individual institutions. Many are conscious of the need to do so, and participate in the range of programmes promoted by the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry and the Office for Science and Technology.

  Nursery Places
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many places she will need to find to meet the Prime Minister's commitment to nursery places for all four-year-olds. [22014]

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1994, the size of the four-year-old cohort in England was estimated at 645,000. Latest available data suggest that at that time an estimated 498,000 four-year-olds were attending maintained schools. We estimate that approximately 120,000 more were in some form of private or voluntary provision.

  Distance Learning
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the use of new technologies for distance learning. [21822]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in order to discuss the use of new technologies for distance learning. She has, however, recently issued a consultation document on the future of broadband communications in education, and would welcome the committee's comments on it.

  Pupils and Teachers, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are currently in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary/high schools in Ealing in (i) local education authority and (ii) grant-maintained schools; how many teachers are currently employed to teach them in whatever capacity; and if she will make a statement. [22011]
  159
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table.

  Full-time equivalent of pupils and qualified teachers in maintained schools in Ealing Local Education Authority area January 1994

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant-maintained schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Pupils1

  22,836

  7,369

  1,201

  6,111

  Teachers2

  1,076

  456

  55

  374

  1 Each part-time pupil counts as 0.5 full-time equivalents.2 Includes the FTE of part-time qualified teachers.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made within her Department on equal opportunities matters. [21456]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is committed to achieving equality of opportunity for all staff. To that end, programmes for action for staff with disabilities, women and staff from ethnic minorities are in place, and progress has been made in all areas.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which Minister in her Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21455]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have responsibility for equal opportunities issues in the Department.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish the gender assessment being prepared by her Department. [21457]

  Mr. Boswell
  Equal opportunities issues are under continuous scrutiny within the Department. My right hon. Friend has drawn attention in recent speeches to the remarkable progress which has been made by girls and women in education over the last 15 years. No additional gender assessment is being prepared.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when competition will be introduced to the supply of electricity services in Northern Ireland. [21123]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland has responsibility for the development of competition in the supply of electricity. Following the publication of his plans for this on 16 December 1993 the director general intends to publish formal consultation documents in June 1995. A copy of his 1993 report can be obtained from Offer (Northern Ireland).

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of vesicular stomatitis occurred in each year since 1985. [21138]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.
  160
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of a cattle blood test for TB; and if a fully substantiated case can be made to the European Union to obtain agreement to its use. [21715]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland recently undertook a major field trial on the development of a blood test for TB and the results of the trial are currently being evaluated. If these show that the development of a blood test is viable, a case will be made to the European Union to have the test approved for use in Northern Ireland.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21476]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Progress on equal opportunities matters in relation to staff in the Northern Ireland civil service is detailed in regularly published reports of the service's equal opportunities unit. The home civil service cadre of the Northern Ireland Office is included in regular reports on equal opportunities published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of the reports are placed in the Library.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21475]

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton has the lead role for equal opportunities issues in Northern Ireland and represents Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office at the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has lead responsibility for equal opportunity matters within the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21477]

  Mr. Ancram
  Revised Government guidelines on policy appraisal fair treatment, which came into effect on 1 January 1994, aim to ensure that in the development or review of policies and programmes Departments and agencies do not unfairly or unnecessarily discriminate against specified sections of the community, including people of different gender. Annual reports on the implementation of the policy appraisal and fair treatment initiative will be published. The first of these is being prepared.

  Stevens Report
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the report from Mr. John Stevens into the shoot to kill inquiry; and if he plans to make an oral statement thereon to the House. [21737]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 11 January 1995 to the hon. Member for Islington, North Official Report, columns 147–48. In addition, a further report was submitted on 24 January 1995. A direction of no prosecutions was issued on 17 February 1995. I do not propose to make a statement.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his latest estimate of the
  161
  number of suspensions of increased invalidity benefit awarded as a result of Commissioner Skinner's decision, case C 527/91; and of those women who have experienced suspension, how many have applied to have the suspension of payment lifted on the basis of hardship; how many of these appeals were successful; what has been the cost of the lifting of such suspensions; and if he will make a statement; [21042]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of women who will be entitled (a) to enhanced invalidity benefit payments and (b) to back payment if the Department of Social Security's appeal against Commissioner Skinner's decision in the case of Mrs. Rose Graham fails; what estimate he has made of the additional cost to be met by the Northern Ireland Office in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, and (iii) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [21043]

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

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 28 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to both your recent Parliamentary Questions on the position relating to the payment of increased Invalidity Benefit as a result of the Commissioner's decision in the Rose Graham case.
  The latest estimate of the number of suspensions of increased Invalidity Benefit awarded as a result of the Commissioner's decision is 600. No records are kept on the number of women who asked to have their suspension lifted on the grounds of hardship but I can confirm that a total of 8 such requests were successful, the cost of which to date is £27,936.
  It is estimated that 4,000 women will be entitled to enhanced Invalidity Benefit and back payment if the Department of Social Security's appeal against the Commissioner's decision fails. The additional cost of these cases is estimated at £2.1 million for 1995/96 and £2.2 million for each of the years 1996/97 and 1997/98.
  I hope you will find this information helpful.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Alan Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22080]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are based on age, salary and service length of the civil servant concerned.

  No civil servant who left the Northern Ireland Office or any other Northern Ireland Department in the period 1

  Statutory requirement to

  Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  publish their advice to the Government

  publish an annual report before Parliament

  Lay an annual report before Parliament

  Statutory base

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Boundary Commission

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Central Dental Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Central Medical Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  162
  April 1990 to 31 March 1995 qualified for flexible early retirement benefits on grounds of limited efficiency.

  Unfortunately, due to the large number of officers who left under compulsory early retirement terms in the same period, the number and details of those who left on grounds of limited efficiency could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the population of(a) pine martens, (b) peregrine falcons, (c) hen harriers and (d) sparrowhawks in each year since 1980; and what is his estimate of the amount of damage each species does to game birds. [21847]

  Mr. Moss
  Figures are not available for the population of pine martens.

  A census of peregrine falcons took place in 1981 and again in 1991, when there were 53 and 99 pairs respectively. Precise information is not available for hen harriers or sparrowhawks, but it is estimated that currently there are fewer than 20 pairs of hen harriers and between 9,000 and 10,000 pairs of sparrowhawks. No information is available on the amount of damage each species does to game birds.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21391]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: For the Department and agencies for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible, any conflict of interest involving a civil servant would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally.

  In the last five years, no special advisers have declared a conflict of interest.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21158]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: The information requested is as follows:
  163

  Statutory requirement to

  Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  publish their advice to the Government

  publish an annual report before Parliament

  Lay an annual report before Parliament

  Statutory base

  Central Nursing Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Charities Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Disability Living Allowances Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Laboratory Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Poisons Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Water Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Building Regulation Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Historic Buildings Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Historic Monuments Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Industrial Development Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Training and Employment Agency

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Health and Safety Agency

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Committees for the Employment of Disabled People

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  In respect of all other advisory non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland, the answer is nil.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the individuals who are members of more than one Northern Ireland quango and the names of those quangos. [20649]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The information in respect of non-departmental public bodies has been placed in the Library. This does not include details of membership of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, other than for the chairman.

  Extradition (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been or are being taken to secure the extradition from the Irish Republic of Eamon Collins, Len Hardy, Kiernan McBride, Mickey Collins and David Ewins for the IRA terrorist murders and attempted murders described in the Central TV programme "Network First: Confession." [20331]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Following the broadcast of the programme "Network First: Confession" on 18 April 1995, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has directed that the programme be examined in detail by the serious crime squad. When investigations are complete, a file will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern
  164
  Ireland, who will consider the matter. The question of extradition does not arise until the DPP(NI) has decided whether or not to prosecute the person concerned.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Refugees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what studies he has made to examine the effect of reductions in benefits on refugees; [19459]

  (2) what recent representations he has received regarding reduced benefits for refugees while their status is being investigated by the Home Office; [19457]

  (3) what proposals he has to take remedial action in respect of the reductions of benefits for genuine refugees. [19458]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None. There is no reduction in the amount of benefits paid to genuine refugees who have been granted asylum by the Secretary of State.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much housing benefit he estimates is paid to claimants who own property which is let but in which they do not live; [20345]
  165
  (2) if he will bring forward amendments to the housing benefit regulations to prevent people who own dwellings for which they receive a rent from receiving housing benefit in respect of a dwelling they occupy and which is rented from a housing association. [20347]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information regarding the amount of housing benefit paid to claimants who own property which is let but in which they do not live is not available. Housing benefit is payable in such cases provided there is a liability to pay rent on the dwelling which is occupied as the home and that liability has not been contrived to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to exclude sheltered accommodation for the elderly and special accommodation for other special needs groups provided by housing associations from the proposed changes to housing benefit based on a calculation of an average area rent. [22218]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We await the report from the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation exercise on our proposals for housing benefit changes from October. We shall consider the report, together with representations received, including those from our own consultation with the local authority associations, carefully before reaching final decisions.

  Pensions Bill
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1224, on what basis he estimates that the amendment to the Pensions Bill [Lords] which would base the calculation of entitlement to benefits under the state earnings-related pension scheme on the best 44 years of earnings would cost £2.5 billion per year by the middle of the 21st century. [21719]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimate assumed that a best 44 years rule would apply in a manner similar to the original best 20 years rule. In particular, it was assumed that the selection of the best 44 years would include earnings factors derived from contracted-out as well as not contracted-out earnings, so that the proposal would cover all class 1 contributors.

  The estimate took account of the extent to which the average surplus earnings factor increases as a result of removing the lowest earnings factors from the calculation for new awards for 2023–24 and later years once contributors can have more than 44 years of contributions from 1978–79 onwards.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22078]

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

  War Widows Pensions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a war widow living abroad will not be eligible for the war widows pension under the provisions announced in his oral statement on 24 April,Official Report, column 532. [21852]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The legal provisions for war widows and war disablement pensions apply equally wherever the pensioner happens to live.

  Young People
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual savings to the Exchequer from removing the entitlement to income support for young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years. [22273]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Young people aged 18 years are entitled to income support under the normal rules; 16 and 17-year-olds not required to be available for work are similarly entitled.

  Since 1988, unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds have had the more positive option of youth training in place of dependence on benefit. Reliable estimates of the number of claims that would have been made by this group under the previous arrangements are not practicable. They would be dependent on a variety of economic and other assumptions.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of raising the level of child benefit by £5 per week for the first child only. [22296]

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that the net cost would be £1.4 billion at 1995–96 prices.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21502]

  Mr. Horam
  Substantial progress both within the Department and in promoting equal opportunities throughout the civil service.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forwards the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21504]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN world conference on women. They have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.
  167
  The Government White Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", published in response to a report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, recommended that Departments and agencies publish their individual actions and progress on equal opportunities in their annual reports. The Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible will be taking this forward.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21503]

  Mr. Horam
  The Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—has a policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people with disabilities, older people or ex-offenders. Policy advice to Ministers is continuously and routinely scrutinised in these respects.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21501]

  Mr. Horam
  I do.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21485]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Minister with responsibility for equal opportunities issues in my Department is the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat).

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19558]

  Mr. Dorrell
  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 for travel and subsistence—it is not possible to disaggregate the two—is shown in the following table:

  Summary of grants for aerial archaeology

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  Reconnaissance

  19,225

  26,577

  23,170

  23,307

  14,800

  Mapping

  34,650

  115,354

  106,044

  63,410

  43,000

  Total

  53,875

  141,931

  129,214

  86,717

  57,800

  1 Provisional.

  168

  Travel and subsistence within the UK £

  Travel and subsistence outside the UK £

  DNH central department

  1992–931

  Figures not available

  Figures not available

  1993–94

  105,215.03

  87,016.56

  1994–952

  100,062.59

  156,896.27

  RPA

  1992–93

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  1993–94

  37,867.26

  Nil

  1994–952

  21,192.74

  Nil

  HRPA3

  1992–93

  25,500.00

  1993–94

  20,400.00

  1993–952

  31,326.82

  Notes:

  1 DNH did not have its own financial and management accounting arrangements in place until August 1992; for the year 1992–93, the information is therefore not available in the format requested.

  2 The 1994–95 figures, for year ending 31 March 1995, may change slightly as year-end accounts are finalised.

  3 For HRPA expenditure, separate totals for UK and overseas travel and subsistence are not available.

  Aerial Archaeology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list for(a) each of the last four years and (b) this year to date the grant issued in respect of aerial archaeology, indicating the name and locations of the recipients; and if he will make a statement. [20715]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Annual figures for grants for aerial archaeology in England made available through the Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England are set out in the table. Details of all grants are published in the commission's annual report. The national library of air photographs is held by the commission at its headquarters in Swindon, and copies of all photographs funded by grants are readily available for consultation.

  Aerial archaeology plays an important part in identifying archaeological remains. However, the grants made for flying costs depend partly on the availability of funds from other sources to meet associated costs; and there will be yearly fluctuations in view of its dependence on weather conditions. Post reconnaissance mapping to a high standard is important if the evidence derived from aerial photography is to be fully utilised, and the increased funding for mapping during 1992–93 and 1993–94 reflected the aim of establishing a national programme of mapping the information obtained from this source.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22081]

  Mr. Dorrell
  No early retirements on the ground of limited efficiency have been made since the Department was created in April 1992.

  September 1993

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  DNH

  AOs

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  AAs

  4

  5

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  9

  RPA

  AOs

  nil

  1

  nil

  1

  nil

  3

  1

  AAs

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  HRPA

  AOs

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2

  1

  nil

  AAs

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Blue Plaques
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what are the current planning instructions issued to local authorities in respect of blue plaque schemes denoting historical places of interest; and if he will make a statement; [20708]

  (2) what representations he has received in respect of the blue plaque placed by Calderdale district council on the Old Bridge inn at Ripponden, West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [20713]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have not received any representations about the plaque on the Old Bridge inn. No instructions have been issued to local authorities by my Department in respect of plaques which they or others choose to affix to buildings to mark their historical interest. Apart from the blue plaque scheme for London, which is administered by English Heritage, it is the responsibility of those who wish to place commemorative plaques on buildings to ensure their historical accuracy and to obtain any necessary listed building consents.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the name of foreign organisations or individuals who are(a) bidding for and (b) negotiating with the trustees for the purchase of the Churchill Trust papers. [22302]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no foreign bidders negotiating with the Churchill trustees; the papers have already been secured for the nation.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the Churchill Trust owned the copyright in the Churchill archives; and if Her Majesty's Government have purchased all copyright in these documents. [22301]
  170
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21763]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The Department of National Heritage and its two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces agency and Royal Parks agency have made the following appointments at the administrative assistant and administrative officer grades since September 1993. The figures exclude short-term casual appointments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Copyright in the non-state papers remains with whoever owned it prior to the sale of the documents to Churchill college. The Crown has retained its copyright in the state papers which it has given to the college.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will specify the amounts of inheritance tax or its equivalent satisfied in connection with the acceptance of objects and property which have been covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the reserve in respect of each of the last 10 financial years; and what was the average annual figure of resort to the reserve for that purpose over the 10-year period in question. [20246]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount of tax satisfied in accepting works of art or land and buildings in lieu of tax through the public expenditure reserve over the last 10 years is as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  1,367,600

  1986–87

  1,745,500

  1987–88

  7,338,444

  1988–89

  5,584,674

  1989–90

  9,977,898

  1990–91

  —

  1991–92

  2,144,172

  1992–93

  4,324,875

  1993–94

  1,114,660

  1994–95

  3,759,616

  The average annual resort to the reserve over this 10-year period was £3,735,744.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21373]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Since it was established in April 1992, my Department and its two agencies have to date spent approximately £66,000 on consultancy relating to market testing. Most of this sum was in connection with a scoping study on the strategic contracting out of central services.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21205]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Department of National Heritage £

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency £

  Royal Parks Agency £

  1994–95

  14,967

  16,313

  23,862

  Advisory Council on Libraries
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if all the councillor members of the Advisory Council on Libraries are elected members of local authorities with responsibilities for library provision. [21564]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Five members of the advisory council are elected members of local authorities and were appointed after consultation with the relevant local authority associations. Four are members of local authorities with current responsibilities for public library provision. The fifth is a member of Bath district council and was appointed in recognition of the fact that certain districts, including Bath, will from 1 April 1996 form all or part of new unitary authorities which will take on responsibility for public libraries.

  Mar Lodge Estate
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will make it his policy that any grant to the National Trust for Scotland for the purchase of the Mar Lodge estate carries as a condition that public access is not restricted because of hunting and shooting; [21995]

  (2) if he will ensure that any grant to the National Trust for Scotland for the purchase of the Mar Lodge estate carries as a condition the protection of nesting birds from hunting and shooting parties. [21996]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Directions have been issued under section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 concerning the conditions to he applied to grants made from lottery funds by the national heritage memorial fund in order to secure their proper management and control. The application of other conditions is a matter for the NHMF.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish titles of projects rejected by the millennium fund. [21932]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I understand that information on proposals and applications received by the Millennium Commission will be made available by the end of May, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21159]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art publishes an annual report which includes any advice given by the committee to Government on matters connected with the export of cultural goods. Reports from the Advisory Council on Libraries may also include details of its advice to Government.

  The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the Advisory Council on Libraries are the only advisory bodies for which my Department is responsible which are required to report annually and whose reports are laid in Parliament. The committee's report is presented as a Command Paper and the council's report forms part of the Secretary of State's annual report on the public library service, published as a House of Commons Paper. Reports from the Royal Fine Art Commission are also presented to Parliament as Command Papers, although there is no requirement for it to report annually.

  On 4 April 1995, the Advisory Council on Libraries took over from the Library and Information Services Council (England) the statutory responsibilities established under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The Theatres Trust was established under the Theatres Trust Act 1976.

HEALTH

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures her Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20191]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20190]

  Mr. Sackville
  The departmental report for the Department of Health has been produced by existing staff as part of their normal duties each year since its first publication in 1991. Production of the report is coordinated by approximately 0.6 whole-time equivalent staff, at a total cost of £14,100 at 1994–95 prices. It is not
  173
  possible to quantify the total input of those other staff across the Department who contribute material for the report.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if undischarged bankrupts are eligible for appointment as chairmen, chief executives or directors of NHS authorities or trusts. [20688]

  Mr. Malone
  A person is disqualified for appointment as a chairman or member of a national health service authority or as a chairman or non-executive director of an NHS trust if he or she has within the preceding five years been adjudged bankrupt. The disqualification ceases on the date of discharge. Executive directors of NHS trusts and chief officers of health authorities are not subject to the same disqualification, but NHS boards are accountable for the proper appointment, appraisal and remuneration of senior executives. As in all their functions, the board must have regard to the public service values of accountability, probity and openness.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if persons with criminal records are eligible for appointment as chief executives or directors to NHS trusts. [20699]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trust boards are accountable for the proper appointment, appraisal and remuneration of their senior executives and, as in all their functions, boards must have regard to the public service values of accountability, probity and openness. Executive directors of NHS trusts are not subject to the conditions of disqualification set out in the NHS Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990, which preclude the appointment as chairmen and non-executive directors of anyone who has within the preceding five years been convicted in the United Kingdom of any offence resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of not less than three months.

  Local Pay Support Programme
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the NHS executive support programme for the introduction of local pay. [21776]

  Mr. Malone
  The programme referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 20 February,Official Report, column 27, was undertaken at an estimated cost of £500,000 in the financial year 1994–95.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private companies have contacted the NHS executive information desk about market testing of NHS services; and how many such companies are entered on the database in total and by (i) clinical and (ii) non-clinical category. [21757]

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive's market-testing information desk was established in its present form on 7 April 1995. Since that time, three private companies have contacted the information desk. The market-testing database contains data on approximately 1,100 private companies which have successfully competed for one or more NHS service contracts. While the vast majority would have non-clinical 174
  contracts, information grouped into a clinical or non-clinical category could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of market testing in the NHS on staff numbers; and what strategies she proposes to meet any changes. [21758]

  Mr. Sackville
  The market testing of national health service services has proved to be valuable in improving efficiency and value for money so that more can be made available for patient care. It can affect staffing numbers for any specified service in a wide variety of ways, but, whatever the outcome, the employment rights of staff are protected by both European Community and United Kingdom employment regulations and legislation. Handling the staffing issues that arise from market testing is a matter for local NHS management in accordance with their legal obligations and their assessment of local circumstances and needs.

  Single Antigen Acellular Pertussis
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of the single antigen acellular pertussis vaccine have been given to children in this country since 1 May 1994; and what reports on the vaccine have been submitted to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [21443]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on how many children have received single antigen acellular pertussis vaccine during the period in question is not available. However, the number of doses of this vaccine issued to the national health service during the period was 9,827. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has since 1 May 1994 received a single suspected adverse reaction report in relation to the vaccine, a severe screaming attack.

  Weighted Capitation Formula
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the new weighted capitation formula and in what respects it differs from that proposed by the York report; and if she will make a statement on how much the formula is determined by the factor of deprivation. [21753]

  Mr. Sackville
  The modified weighted capitation formula adjusts populations for age, need—over and above age—and relative costs. This formula has been developed in the light of new information sources and advances in statistical techniques.

  There is no index of deprivation in the formula. Instead, it uses two needs indices—one for acute services and the other for psychiatric services—which take account of health and socio-economic factors.

  The York report did not propose a weighted capitation formula.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in each health district in Lancashire are employed by family health services authorities to carry out urgent dental treatment. [21668]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the number of dentists working in the emergency dental service is not available centrally.
  175
  General dental practitioners, who are independent contractors, have an obligation under their terms of service to provide emergency cover for their registered patients. They may also offer emergency treatment to unregistered patients. Any unregistered patient who needs urgent treatment should seek the help of his or her family health services authority which can make arrangements for emergency treatment for them.

  Two salaried dentists are employed by Lancashire family health services authority.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which Minister in her Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues; [21450]

  (2) what progress has been made within her Department on equal opportunities matters. [21451]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have responsibility for equal opportunities issues in the Department.

  The information requested is contained in the Department's 1993–94 equal opportunities progress report, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the gender assessment being prepared by the Department. [21452]

  Mr. Sackville
  Such assessment is part of a continuous and routine process of ensuring that the Department's policy proposals are not unlawful or unjustifiable on sex or race discrimination grounds and that similar principles apply to other groups.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she hopes to achieve in her Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if she will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in her Department's annual report. [21453]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth United Nations world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  A statement about equal opportunities is already included in the Department's annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the expenditure on(a) establishment and running of the private finance unit, (b) private finance specialists in the regional offices, including the total number so far employed, (c) publishing and distributing the booklets "Public Service, Private Finance" and "Private Finance Guide" in the "Capital Investment Manual", and (d) engaging Newchurch and Company to set up a database and inquiry point in each of the last five years; what is the expenditure in the current year; and what is planned to be spent in each of the next two financial years; [21744]

  (2) how many people are employed by each NHS executive office and health authority who are involved in the management and promotion of the private finance initiative; [21999]
  176
  (3) what is the total cost of promoting the private finance initiative for the NHS; [21998]

  (4) what are the total man hours involved in the management and promotion of the private finance initiative by each NHS executive office and health authority. [22000]

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been undertaken to secure private finance for her Department's projects. [22325]

  Mr. Sackville
  The private finance initiative will develop further the national health service's excellent record of co-operation with the private sector and ensure new hospitals are provided promptly and run efficiently for the benefit of all national health service patients. An increasing number of support services such as catering, cleaning and maintenance have been contracted out to private firms. This has cut waste and allowed large savings to be used for treating patients—as well as improving the services provided. The PFI increases the scope for savings on capital projects.

  Expenditure on the establishment and running of the NHS executive private finance unit was about £55,000 in 1993–94 and about £260,000 in 1994–95—however, detailed expenditure figures are not available at this level. Expenditure in 1995–96 is expected to be about £146,000 plus about £300,000 for consultants who will provide added support for regional offices and the NHS. Expenditure in 1996–97 is likely to he around £150,000.

  The number of staff employed by regional offices has not been increased because of the PFI. In 1994–95 private finance specialists in regional offices amounted to about one quarter of a whole-time equivalent post per region with expenditure of approximately £10,000 per region. In 1995–96 this is expected to increase to about one whole-time equivalent with expenditure of approximately £40,000 per region. This will be reviewed for 1996–97.

  Expenditure on publishing the information pack "Public Service, Private Finance" was £7,896 plus £1,381.80 VAT. Expenditure by HMSO on publishing the "Private Finance Guide" as part of the "Capital Investment Manual" was £1,865. Itemised costs of distribution are not held centrally.

  For information on expenditure on the PFI database run by Newchurch and Company, I refer the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 27 March, Official Report, column 421. Expenditure agreed for the period April 1995 to September 1995 will be £9,000 plus £1,575 VAT. After this, the contract may be renegotiated and it is not possible to give further expenditure figures.

  The NHS executive headquarters will employ five staff—four whole-time equivalent staff.—in 1995–96 in the private finance unit. Each regional office has one contact point for the PFI, but there are no additional staff employed to manage and promote the PFI. In each regional office several staff are involved with ensuring that NHS capital projects are as cost-effective as possible and exploration of private finance is essential in seeking the most cost-effective solutions to NHS needs.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of her Department's budget is allocated
  177
  to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for her Department's projects. [22324]

  Mr. Sackville
  The answer is 0.16 per cent.

  Private Patients
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions about the number of private patients being seen in NHS trust hospitals informed her estimate of charges and receipts in table 5 of the departmental report for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [21752]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department(a) has conducted and (b) intends to conduct into possible adverse side effects of hormone replacement therapy; and if she will make a statement. [21669]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not conduct research itself, but has funded projects on hormone replacement therapy, most recently a project entitled HRT in the menopause: a cost-effective analysis, which ended in December 1994. The Health Departments are currently discussing further work with the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the Office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  October 1991

  October 1992

  October 1993

  April 1994

  Inner London

  0.57

  0.58

  0.58

  0.58

  Outer London

  0.54

  0.54

  0.54

  0.54

  Newcastle

  0.58

  0.61

  0.59

  0.61

  Manchester

  0.58

  0.60

  0.62

  0.62

  Birmingham

  0.56

  0.56

  0.55

  0.56

  Liverpool

  0.51

  0.50

  0.52

  0.55

  Notes:

  1. Family health services authorities included in inner London are:

  i. Brent and Harrow,

  ii. Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster,

  iii. Camden and Islington,

  iv. City and East London,

  v. Enfield and Haringey,

  vi. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, and

  vii. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth.

  2. Family health services authorities included in outer London are:

  i. Barnet,

  ii. Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow,

  iii. Hillingdon,

  iv. Redbridge and Waltham Forest,

  v. Greenwich and Bexley,

  vi. Bromley, and

  vii. Kingston and Richmond.

  3. Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool each have their own FHSAs.

  4. Calculations based on Office of Population Censuses and Surveys resident population estimates from 1991 population census and projections for subsequent years.

  Guy's Accident and Emergency Department
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the City of London police about the closure of Guy's accident and emergency department; and if she will make a statement. [21923]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many jobs are on offer under the eight-point plan to increase the number of managers in the NHS from the ethnic minorities; and what has been the take-up and distribution of the opportunities under the programme. [21495]

  Mr. Malone
  The programme referred to, "Ethnic minority staff in the NHS: a programme of action", aims to ensure that the national health service makes full use of the abilities of all its staff. It provides a framework within which trusts and health authorities set employment equality objectives as part of their mainstream business planning. Selection remains on merit alone: there are no quotas or jobs "on offer". A copy of the programme is available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs were available per 1,000 population in London, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool in each year since 1991. [21915]

  Mr. Malone
  The numbers of general practitioners—unrestzricted principles—per 1,000 of the population for the areas in question at 1 October 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1 April 1994 are as shown in the table.

  Mental Health Staff
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on training mental health staff to deal with supervision registers for the mentally ill. [21922]

  Mr. Bowis
  Training on supervision registers is primarily a matter for national health service provider units and information on spending is not available
  179
  centrally. Staff who receive training in the care programme approach will now be informed about supervision registers. We have provided financial support for a number of national conferences designed to improve training in the care programme approach and have made a grant of £50,000 to the Open university for the production of a training pack for social services staff.

  Nurses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are applied to nursing staff from EU countries working in the United Kingdom; and what tests are applied to British trained nurses working in other EU countries. [22008]

  Mr. Sackville
  Council directive 77/452/EEC requires countries of the European Economic Area to recognise, on the terms it specifies, which may include proof of good character, the qualifications of nurses responsible for general care awarded by other EEA countries to EEA nationals. European Council directive 77/453/EEC requires EEA countries to guarantee that such qualifications meet the minimum training requirements that it specifies. The operation of the directives is a matter for the competent authorities of the EEA countries. The competent authority in the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities are using their discretion to allow a spouse to receive part of the occupational pension of a married person in local authority provided residential and nursing home care. [22277]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected. We have not received reports of any individual local authorities which are refusing to make sensible use of the discretion they have to help the spouses of occupational pensioners who enter residential accommodation.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving her Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22085]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information on reasons for awarding different types of early retirement is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many occasions each family health services authority failed to provide a list of doctors within two working days to patients wishing to change general practitioners in each of the last eight quarters; [22095]

  (2) on how many occasions each family health services authority failed to send a patient's medical records to his or her new general practitioner (a) within two working days for urgent cases and (b) within six weeks for all other cases in each of the last eight quarters. [22094]
  180
  Mr. Malone
  Nationally, there has been a considerable improvement in meeting the patients charter standard for transfer of urgent and routine medical records. The percentage of patient records not transferred within two working days has fallen from 52 per cent. at 30 June 1993 to 16 per cent. at 31 December 1994. Those not transferred within six weeks has fallen from 34 per cent. to 19 per cent. for the same period.

  At 30 June 1993, 2 per cent. of patients were not allocated to a general practitioner within two days and at 31 December 1994 the patients charter was fully met for the third successive quarter.

  The information will be placed in the Library showing the performance of individual family health services authorities in meeting each of the patients charter standards for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1994. Data to 31 March 1995 are not yet available.

  "Environments for Quality Care"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost for the production and distribution of the NHS executive booklet "Environments for Quality Care: Health Buildings in the Community" first published in 1994. [22003]

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost for production of the national health service executive booklet "Environments for Quality Care: Health Buildings in the Community" was £60,000. The cost of distribution cannot be quantified. Copies were mainly sent in bulk to family health services authorities which in turn forwarded the booklet to all general practitioner practices in England.

  Young Alzheimer's Disease
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were suffering from(a) young Alzheimer's disease and (b) severe brain injury (i) nationally and (ii) in Merseyside, broken down by health authority area for each of the last five years. [22334]

  Mr. Bowls
  It is estimated that 17,000 younger people below the age of 65 suffer from dementia in the United Kingdom. No figures are available for severe brain injury as it is not a recognised medical term.

  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has received the draft regulations that the General Medical Council expects to implement consequent to the coming into force of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill; and if she will place them in the Library. [22212]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The rules cannot he made until the Bill has been enacted. The rules will be made in the form of statutory instruments, subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statements of the Minister for Health in the Special Standing Committee on 25 April,Official Report, columns 748–49; if she will list the names of professional and patient organisations consulted in relation to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill and place copies of their responses in the Library. [22214]
  181
  Mr. Malone
  The names of the professional and patient organisations which were consulted by the General Medical Council are already in the public domain. They were listed in appendix A of the General Medical Council's consultation paper "Proposals for new Performance Procedures", published in May 1992. Copies of the document are available in the Library.

  Availability of the responses are a matter for the General Medical Council or the individual organisations to decide on.

  Fostering Regulations
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library copies of the responses to her consultations with organisations on the proposed changes to fostering regulations; and when she expects these consultations to he complete. [22219]

  Mr. Bowis
  Responses are due by 19 May and I shall consider placing a summary of them in the Library after this date.

  NHS External Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount of money in real terms spent by each health authority, outside the NHS in(a) 1991–92, (b)1992–93, (c) 1993–94 and the same figures for each trust. [19809]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Spending outside the national health service has been defined for the purpose of this parliamentary question as non-pay revenue expenditure plus agency staff costs. Non-pay expenditure includes such items as clinical and general supplies and services, establishment expenses, transport and moveable plant, premises and fixed plant, capital, purchase of health care from the non-NHS bodies, external contract staffing and consultancy services and miscellaneous expenses, for example, net bank charges.

  This information will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Tourist Board (Membership)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the nominees for the Argyll and the Islands, Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs tourist board; and if he will make a statement on when elections will take place for this body, whether an individual has to reside in the area covered by the board and if an individual can be a member of more than one board simultaneously. [20520]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will appoint the first members of the controlling body of the board on the basis of nominations from the existing area tourist boards and from local authorities. Nominations will be sought shortly. Thereafter the controlling body will be appointed by the new board itself from within its own membership.

  We are at present consulting on the terms of the statutory scheme which will establish the new board. It is likely, however, that the requirements for membership will follow current practice whereby residence within the
  182
  area covered by a board is not essential and whereby bodies or individuals may also be members of more than one board.

  Geese, Islay
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of(a) barnacle and (b) Greenland white-fronted geese killed under licence on Islay to prevent agricultural damage in each winter since 1985–86; and how many returns in respect of each of the licences issued were incomplete. [21180]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Barnacles reported shot

  White-fronts reported shot

  1985–86

  541

  0

  1986–87

  791

  0

  1987–88

  505

  76

  1988–89

  752

  6

  1989–90

  915

  45

  1990–91

  1365

  62

  1991–92

  914

  37

  1992–93

  0

  0

  1993–94

  13

  8

  Returns, including supplementary information provided at the request of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, are generally satisfactory.

  Out-patient Waiting Times
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average waiting time for an ear, nose and throat appointment in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in each of the last five years. [21089]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The requested information for 1993 and 1994 is shown in the table below. Corresponding information for earlier years is not available centrally.

  New Out-patient Referrals Average waiting times (days) for ENT clinics in Inverclyde Strathclyde and Scotland

  1993

  1994

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Inverclyde

  45

  37

  48

  44

  Strathclyde1

  63

  51

  56

  45

  Scotland

  58

  49

  54

  46

  1Clinics held within Greater Glasgow, Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran and Lanarkshire health board areas.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average waiting time for a hearing aid clinic in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in each of the last five years. [21090]

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

  Class Sizes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of adopting a policy which ensures that no class size in schools exceeds 30 pupils in number. [21091]
  183
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current class size limits are incorporated in the scheme of salaries and conditions of service determined by the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. As these matters are therefore primarily for local authorities to determine, my right hon. Friend has made no estimate of the cost of variation in existing class size limits.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number and percentage of pupils

  Pupils in subject classes of under 30 at September

  Education Authority

  Number

  Per cent

  11979

  21991

  21993

  11979

  21991

  21993

  Scotland

  327,328

  3,176,473

  3,360,688

  83.4

  95.6

  94.6

  Borders

  5,849

  66,505

  73,002

  85.5

  99.6

  99.3

  Central

  17,611

  187,216

  201,246

  82.4

  92.7

  97.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,008

  103,674

  110,950

  81.0

  98.3

  99.3

  Fife

  20,395

  223,259

  240,205

  81.9

  97.5

  95.9

  Grampian

  29,684

  335,079

  341,418

  89.3

  95.4

  95.8

  Highland

  13,037

  154,612

  171,172

  85.8

  97.1

  95.7

  Lothian

  43,657

  394,441

  412,359

  87.9

  97.5

  94.9

  Strathclyde

  159,342

  1,415,974

  1,504,629

  81.5

  94.1

  92.6

  Tayside

  24.139

  237,774

  245,017

  83.9

  97.9

  96.9

  Orkney

  1,286

  15,172

  15,501

  89.1

  100.0

  100.0

  Shetland

  1,416

  17,685

  19,316

  92.0

  99.5

  99.8

  Western Isles

  1.904

  25,082

  25,873

  82.8

  99.6

  100.0

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  4,331

  43,852

  45,838

  90.9

  94.6

  98.3

  Ayr

  23,457

  246,170

  268,932

  77.6

  97.0

  96.4

  Dunbarton

  22,875

  233,262

  240,707

  85.3

  95.7

  92.7

  Glasgow

  48,645

  324,023

  348,905

  82.2

  93.3

  92.8

  Lanark

  36,877

  336,679

  367,221

  80.1

  92.8

  92.2

  Renfrew

  23,157

  231,988

  233,026

  79.2

  92.3

  87.9

  1 Subject classes at a single timetable period in census week.

  2 All subject classes running at census week; pupils are counted once for each subject taken. The figures for 1993 exclude two schools for which information is not available

  Pupils in subject classes of 40 over at September

  Education Authority

  Number

  Per cent

  11979

  21991

  21993

  11979

  21991

  21993

  Scotland

  1,032

  369

  6,209

  0.3

  0.0

  0.2

  Borders

  0

  0

  185

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  Central

  0

  119

  0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  40

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Grampian

  53

  0

  1,634

  0.2

  0.0

  0.5

  Highland

  220

  0

  94

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Lothian

  99

  0

  657

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  Strathclyde

  95

  250

  2,907

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Tayside

  481

  0

  692

  1.7

  0.0

  0.3

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Western Isles

  44

  0

  0

  1.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Ayr

  40

  0

  1,737

  0.1

  0.0

  0.6

  Dunbarton

  0

  0

  136

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Glasgow

  0

  46

  157

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Lanark

  55

  0

  0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Renfrew

  0

  204

  877

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  1 Virtually all classes of more involve some form of team teaching.

  2 Subject classes running at a single timetable period in census week.

  Note:

  All subject classes running at census week: pupils are counted once for each subject taken.

  The figures for 1993 exclude two schools for which information is not available.
  184
  in secondary schools in (a) January 1980, (b) January 1991, (c) January 1992, (d) January 1993, (e) January 1994 and (f) January 1995 being taught in classes of (i) under 30 and (ii) 40 or more in each local education authority. [21845]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the tables. This is derived from returns made by education authority secondary schools in the September 1979, September 1991 and September 1993 school censuses. From 1983, information on class size was collected biennially in the school census.

  Cervical Smear Programme, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of inquiry into the maladministration of the cervical smear programme at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, have been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [21615]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report of the inquiry into Cytopathology at Inverclyde Royal hospital recommended action by Argyll and Clyde health board local management and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  I am advised that all of the recommendations which applied to local management have been implemented by Argyll and Clyde health board.

  The Common Services Agency, which has responsibility for the national breast screening co-ordinating unit, was instructed to develop and maintain quality assurance, performance monitoring and evaluation of the cervical screening programme. The unit continues to develop appropriate standards. A key appointment in this new structure is a national co-ordinator for both breast and cervical screening programmes. On the first advertisement, no suitable candidate was found and an interim co-ordinator was appointed. The permanent post will be re-advertised shortly.

  A working group to formulate the policy for implementation of internal quality control in all laboratories carrying out cervical cytopathology was set up in February 1994 under the chairmanship of one of the Department's medical officers, and comprises members from the Royal College of Pathologists, the British Society of Clinical Cytology, the Institute of Biomedical Science and representatives from each of the three other UK Departments of Health. The working group has now submitted its report to the four territorial chief medical officers.

  Other recommendations which have been implemented or are in the course of implementation are as follows:
  In March 1994, a promotional leaflet encouraging women to attend for screening was distributed to all GPs and clinics.
  In August 1994, booklets and videos on the current best practice in taking cervical smears produced by the British Society for Clinical Cytology were distributed to all GPs, practice nurses and other health professionals.
  In March 1995, guidelines on failsafe actions for the follow-up of women with abnormal cervical smear histories were distributed to health boards, NHS trusts, GPs, practice nurses and laboratories providing a cervical cytology service.
  By June 1995, revised guidance should be issued to health boards on purchasing, management and organisation of the cervical cytology service including staffing and appropriate levels of training.

  I am copying this answer to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for information.

  Residential Homes for Elderly Citizens
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the terms of reference given to his working party which is reviewing the ownership, management and monitoring of privately owned residential homes for elderly citizens; and if he will list the members of the aforesaid committee. [21844)
  186
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following is the remit of the Scottish Office working group on residential care home registration procedures:

  Purpose

  (a) To review, in the light of recent incidents, current registration and inspection procedures and local authority powers under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended by the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987.

  (b) To review current Scottish Office guidance and practice guidance on these issues.

  (c) To have regard to the financial and operational implications of regulatory control for independent sector providers.

  (d) To have regard to the parallel exercise relating to the registration and inspection of nursing homes.

  (e) To recommend to Ministers such changes as may he necessary concerning (a) to (c).

  Objective
  To provide local authorities with the necessary framework to achieve effective and equitable regulation of independent sector establishments in order to protect the welfare and interests of residents.

  The members of the working group represent the main interest groups as follows:

  The Scottish Office

  Mr. G. Anderson (Chair)

  Ms P. McCaw

  Mr. H. MacKenzie

  Mr. A. McNaughton

  Mrs. J. McNeill

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Mr. A. Robb, Director, Grampian Regional Council Social Work Department

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  Miss M. Hartnoll, Director, Strathclyde Regional Council Social Work Department (alternative Mr. R. Winter, Deputy Director)

  Social Work Department Registration and Inspection Units

  Mr. I Middleton, Head of Unit, Lothian Regional Council Social Work Department

  Local Authority Law and Administration

  Mr. R. Marr, Assistant Chief Executive, Borders Regional Council

  British Federation of Care Home Proprietors

  Mr. H. Ross

  Scottish Association of Care Home Owners

  Mr. C. Cowie

  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

  Mr. D. Bookbinder

  Voluntary Sector

  Mr. I. Baillie, Director of Social Work, Church of Scotland

  Users Advocacy

  Mr. J. Jackson, Executive Director, Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia

  Ravenscraig Hospital, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has engaged in about the proposed closure of the Ravenscraig hospital, Greenock; and if he will make a statement. [21846]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Argyll and Clyde health board is considering the role of Ravenscraig hospital as part of the review of community care services for the area. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the board's final view, or the outcome of any future consultation exercise.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the population of (a) pine martens, (b) peregrine falcons, (c) hen-harriers and (d) sparrowhawks in each year since 1980; and what is his estimate of the amount of damage each species does to game birds. [21848]

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no annual population estimates for any of these species in Scotland. The most recent population estimates are as follows:

  Number

  Pine Marten

  3,500 (1993)

  Peregrine Falcon

  639 pairs (1991)

  Hen Harrier

  570 pairs (1989)

  Sparrowhawk

  No estimate

  Estimates of the effect of these species on game bird populations are not available, but damage certainly takes place.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the chairs and non-executive directors of each NHS trust board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21356]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: As the information requested is lengthy, I shall arrange for it to be placed in the House Library.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an up-to-date list by region of all the chairs and non-executive members of each health board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21359]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The information requested in respect of the 15 health boards in Scotland is as follows:

  Ocupation

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. Malcolm Jones

  Company director

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. Elizabeth Lander

  Company director

  Mr. John Mullin

  Voluntary sector administrator/regional councilor

  Miss Moira Leitch

  Retired medical social worker

  Mr. Robert Anderson

  Retired banker

  Mr. Ian Macdonald

  Air traffic controller

  Mrs. Sheenah Nelson

  Primary school teacher

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. James Donaldson

  Electrical engineer

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Gerald Curran

  Company director

  Dr. Kenneth Fegan

  General medical practitioner

  Mr. John Greene

  Solicitor

  Miss Katherine Paterson

  Retired nursing officer

  Mrs. Elizabeth Reid

  Health carer

  Mr. William Young

  Company director

  188

  Ocupation

  Borders Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. David Kilshaw

  Solicitor

  Non-Executive Members:

  Miss Margaret Marshall

  Chartered secretary

  Mr. Derek Deans

  Chartered accountant

  Rev. Alistair Bennett

  Minister of religion

  Dr. Alistair Paton

  Retired general medical practitioner

  Lady Sanderson

  Business consultant

  Mr. Hamish Steven

  NFU secretary

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Jean Tulloch

  Partner in farming business

  Non-Executive Members:

  Dr. Robert Mack

  General medical practitioner

  Mr. Frank Manson

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. Hugh McFadzean

  Farmer

  Mrs. Victoria Jardine-Paterson

  Housewife

  Dr. John Stubbs

  Retired anaesthetist

  Mrs. Margery Thomson

  Housewife

  Fife Health Board Chairman:

  Chairman

  Mr. Raymond Baker

  Director, GEC Scotland Ltd.

  Non-Executive Members:

  Dr. Alan Alexander

  General medical practitioner

  Miss Joyce Smith

  Regional councillor

  Mr. Gordon Thomson

  Assistant Director,ICAS

  Mrs. Avril Campbell

  Company director

  Mrs. Mary Dunsmore

  Company director

  Mrs. Martha Steedman

  Retired headmistress

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Jane lsbister

  Former school teacher

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Ewan Bell-Scott

  Solicitor

  Rev. Jean Gallagher

  Minister of religion

  Mrs. Kristeen Smith

  Vice-chairman Scotland and emergency services organizer, WRVS

  Mr. Keith Harding

  Retialer/district councillor

  Mr. Peter Joynson

  Chartered surveyor

  Mr. Colin Stroyan

  Solicitor

  Grampian Health Board

  Chairman:

  Dr. Calum MacLeod

  Company chairman

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. Carroll Ferguson

  Housewife/farmer

  Dr. Jean Stringer

  University dean

  Professor Derek Ogston

  Professor of clinical medicine

  Mr. Keith Arbuthnott

  Estate owner/manager

  Mr. Gordon McLellan

  Senior executive

  Mrs. Elizabeth Park

  Assistant solicitor

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Chairman:

  Sir Robert Calderwood

  Retired local authority chief executive

  Non-Executive Members:

  Professor Gordon Dickson

  University dean

  Mr. William McCreath

  Solicitor

  Mr. Andrew Scobbie

  Retired managing director

  Dr. Fiona Marshall

  General medical practitioner

  Rev. Roderick Campbell

  Minister of religion

  Mrs. Joan MacKenzie

  Housewife

  Professor Brian Whiting

  Professor of clinical pharmacology

  189

  Ocupation

  Highland Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. John Robertson

  Company director

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. John Ligertwood

  Retired bank manager

  Mrs. Angela Macpherson

  Housewife/farm partner

  Mrs. Caroline Thomson

  Housewife/company director

  Mrs. Lorraine Mann

  Principal, research analyst

  Mr. Colin Neilson

  Retailer

  Dr. John MacDonald

  Retired general medical practitioner

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. Ian Livingstone

  Solicitor

  Non-Executive Members:

  Dr. Angus Cameron

  General medical practitioner

  Mrs. Linda McDowall

  Chief executive, East Kilbride

  business centre

  Mr. James Robertson

  Former regional councillor

  Mrs. Magdalene Melvin

  Teacher

  Mr. John Martindale

  Retired police officer

  Mr. John Thomson

  Voluntary sector director

  Lothian Health Board

  Chairman:

  Dr. John Baynham

  Company director

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. John Campbell

  Chartered surveyor

  Mr. Richard Findlay

  Deputy chairman and chief

  executive of Radio Forth Group

  Mrs. Vanessa Gaskell

  Former GP practice manager

  Mrs. Gertrude Barton

  Former nurse

  Professor David Carter

  Regius professor of surgery

  Mrs. Lorna Smith

  Solicitor

  Orkney Health Board

  Chairman

  Mr. Eoin Leslie

  Retired pharmacist

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs Phyllis Brown

  Training administrator

  Mrs. Edgar Gibson

  Retired assistant head teacher

  Captain Marcus Gunn

  Ships master

  Mrs. Elizabeth Kerr

  Housewife

  Mr. Jim Rendall

  Sub-postmaster/postman

  Dr. James Walker

  General medical practitioner

  Shetland Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Florence Grains

  Housewife/islands councillor

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. Mary Colligan

  Retired teacher

  Mr. Brian Gregson

  Retired RAF squadron leader

  Dr. Michael Hunter

  General medical practitioner

  Mr. Robert Johnson

  Retired business man

  Mrs. Thelma Leslie

  Teaching auxiliary

  Mr. John Telford

  Chartered accountant

  Tayside Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. James Macfarlane

  Company director

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Malcolm May

  Chief officer, council for

  voluntary services

  Mrs. Vera Joiner

  Managing director

  Mr. Harry Nicoll

  Retired local authority director

  of finance

  Professor Richard Olver

  Professor of child health

  Mr. Ian Sandison

  Retired company director

  Vacancy

  Western Isles Health Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. Andrew Matheson

  Pharmacist

  190

  Ocupation

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mr. Jeffrey Sedgley

  Head teacher

  Mr. John Harrison

  Deputy head teacher

  Mrs. Christina MacAskill

  Housewife/seasonal tourist officer

  Mrs. Fiona MacDonald

  Solicitor

  Mr. Murdo MacLennan

  Building society manager

  Dr. Marten Walker

  General medical practitioner

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European social fund support since privatisation indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received.[21297]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: My right hon. Friend took over responsibility for ESF under objectives 1, 2 and 5b in Scotland from 1 January 1994. No European social fund support has been given to projects in privatised companies since then.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those public projects which received European social fund support and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21296]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Since my right hon. Friend took responsibility for ESF in Scotland from 1 January 1994, no European social fund support has been given to public projects which were subsequently privatised.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21396]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 may 1995]: In my Department and agencies for which I am responsible, any conflict of interest involving a civil servant would have been dealt with in accordance with established guidance. Records of the numbers of cases are not held centrally.

  In the last five years, however, no special advisers have declared a conflict of interest.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21375]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1995, the cost of employing external consultants to give support to the "Competing for Quality" programme of the Scottish Office has been £1.4 million.
  191
  This total includes the cost of assisting clients in the development of outline specifications, developing general guidance, supporting the preparation of bids by some in-house teams and ensuring that skills were transferred to Scottish Office staff so that future programmes could largely be supported by in-house staff.

  NHS Provider Units
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total annual cost improvement programme in the national health service provider units in each of the last four years. [21331]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether this in each case is (i) under statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20503]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The information which is requested is as follows:

  (a) Those executive NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts are required to publish annual reports and some other bodies are also required by the statute creating them to publish annual reports.
  These bodies are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  River Purification Boards

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Educational Council.

  In a number of other cases, the body is required by statute to produce an annual report on the exercise and performance of its functions for the Secretary of State which he is obliged to lay before Parliament. These bodies are:

  Crofters Commission

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland (required by statute at least every three years, but voluntarily produces an annual report) National Galleries of Scotland (required by statute every 3 years, but voluntarily produces an annual report)

  New Town Development Corporations

  Red Deer Commission

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (as part of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department Annual Report which is a Command Paper)

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish HomesScottish Legal Aid Board Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Tourist Board

  Some bodies publish reports on a non-statutory basis. They are:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee

  National Library of Scotland

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Scottish Film Council

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish Sports Council

  (b) Those bodies which are required to publish their annual accounts under the terms of the Companies Acts, the Friendly Societies Acts or other legislation are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  River Purification Boards

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Educational Council.

  Some bodies are required by statute to submit annual accounts to the Secretary of State who is obliged to pass them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is then obliged to lay copies of them before Parliament. These bodies are:

  Accounts Commission Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  New Town Development Corporations

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  192

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Tourist Board.

  The Scottish Sports Council makes its accounts available on a voluntary basis.

  (c) No executive NDPB sponsored by my Department is required to publish the minutes of its meetings on a statutory basis. The minutes of the General Teaching Council for Scotland are published on a voluntary basis; Livingston development corporation voluntarily makes available for public inspection the minutes of those parts of its meetings which it opens to members of the public

  (d) No executive NDPB sponsored by my Department is required to publish the agenda of its meetings and none does so.

  193

  (e) Information about members' interests is available from Companies House in relation to executive NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts and the Friendly Societies Acts. These bodies are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Moredum Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  194

  Scottish Vocational Education Council

  Although registers of members' interests are held by a number of other executive NPDBs, none is required to publish them. Following the publication last year of the code of best practice for board members of public bodies, the Scottish version of which was published in September 1994 and a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, a number of executive NDPBs are considering publication of their register of members' interests on an annual basis, although none has yet done so.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit Bosnia to inspect the work of the UN peacekeeping force. [20081]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I hope to be able to visit British forces in Bosnia before the summer recess.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the allocation of aircraft fuel to the RAF detachments enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Bosnia. [20098]

  Mr. Freeman
  The RAF detachments helping to enforce the UN no-fly zone over Bosnia draw fuel as required to meet their operational commitments. This arrangement works well and there are no plans to change it.

  Royal Anglian Regiment
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to pay an official visit to units of the Royal Anglian Regiment to discuss its future deployment. [20090]

  Mr. Freeman
  I look forward to paying an early visit to my local regiment, the Royal Anglians.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in United Kingdom defence industries. [20091]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to section 1.10 of "UK Defence Statistics", 1994 edition, which gives details of defence-related employment, published by the Government statistical service. The 1995 edition of this document will be published in July.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment have appealed against their discharge from the regiment in the last two years. [20092]

  Mr. Freeman
  Seven soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment have appealed against discharge from the regiment in the last two years.

  Service Personnel (Disablement)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were disabled as a result of injury in the armed forces in the last three years for which he has records. [20094]

  Mr. Freeman
  Although statistics for the number of service personnel disabled as a result of injury in the armed services are not held, the numbers of personnel discharged on medical grounds are as follows:

  1991–92: 842

  1992–93: 772

  1993–94: 809

  Defence Attaches
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations he has had to reform the system of appointment of defence attaches. [20095]
  196
  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent review of attaches was the Goddard study, which considered the tasks of the corps, its long-term role and deployment, and its management and operation and reported in July 1993.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land is currently owned or leased by his Department. [20096]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department owns some 242,000 hectares of land including foreshore, of which 226,700 hectares are freehold and 15,300 hectares are leasehold. These figures are at 1 April last year, the latest date for which records are available, and relate to freehold and leasehold landholdings, including foreshore, for which deeds or lease agreements were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred, or agreements not formally signed or determined by that date, are not included in these figures.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on new helicopter orders for the armed forces. [20097]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is evaluating tenders to meet the Army's requirement for an attack helicopter. We hope to announce a decision on the purchase of that equipment before the summer recess. We do not expect to make any other announcements on new major helicopter orders in the near future.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the Eurocopter Helicopter Group in the near future to discuss procurement policy. [20103]

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall be visiting Bonn on 19 May and hope to see the Eurocopter Tiger during my visit. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit Eurocopter in the near future to discuss procurement policy.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, columns 586–87, if he will place in the Library a summary of the six reports on the cost and operational effectiveness investment appraisal of the EH101 helicopter. [22330]

  Mr. Freeman
  No summary exists, and one could be prepared only at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, the material on which it would be based is both classified and commercially confidential. It would not be appropriate to place such material in the Library.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take steps to increase the representations of women and of people from ethnic minorities in senior ranks in the armed forces. [20099]

  Mr. Freeman
  Promotion in the armed forces is on merit and positive discrimination would be unlawful. Opportunities for promotion to the most senior ranks exist for service personnel irrespective of their ethnic origin. Although some areas of employment remain closed to women on grounds of operational effectiveness, many
  197
  new employment opportunities have been opened to them in recent years.

  Polaris
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how soon he expects to he able to withdraw the last Polaris submarine. [20100]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 20 April,Official Report, column 224.

  Northern Ireland (Troops)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the number of troops in Northern Ireland. [20101]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently some 17,500 armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland. In addition, the units which have recently been relocated from Northern Ireland remain available to the general officer commanding and can return at short notice if required. Force levels are kept under review to ensure that they remain appropriate to the security situation.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's position on the non-proliferation treaty negotiations. [20102]

  Mr. Freeman
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are committed to securing its unconditional and indefinite extension at the current NPT review and extension conference of states parties in New York.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what portion of his budget in cash and as a percentage is spent on(a) service pay and (b) the pay of ancillary staff; what were the equivalent figures 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [20104]

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1995–96 my Department has budgeted for a service pay bill inclusive of associated allowances and expenses of £6,065 million which represents 26.9 per cent. of its budget. The pay bill inclusive of associated allowances and expenses for the civilian staff of the Department has been budgeted for at £2,485 million which equates to 11 per cent. of the Department's total budget.

  Comparable figures for money actually spent in financial year 1975–76 are some £1,304 million for service pay which amounted to 24.6 per cent. of the total budget that year and £988 million for civilian staff which represented 18.6 per cent.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about future use of the historic buildings at Greenwich currently occupied by the Royal Naval college. [20105]

  Mr. Freeman
  As we have previously made clear, we do not intend to reach any firm conclusions on the future 198
  of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich at this stage, but will shortly be seeking expressions of interest in the site from organisations able to propose uses sympathetic to the character of the buildings.

  A campaign will be launched in the next few weeks, about which we are consulting English Heritage and the local planning authorities, with a view to defining suitable alternative uses and maintenance arrangements. We shall consult further with these bodies later in the year when we come to evaluate the expressions of interest submitted as a result of the campaign.

  We hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the future of Greenwich by the end of the year.

  US Airlines (Contracts)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much will be spent by his Department in contracts with US airlines in the current financial year. [20093]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has spent an estimated £775,000 with US airlines in the financial year 1994–95 and I would expect this level of expenditure to continue within the current financial year. This expenditure was in respect of duty travel on internal schedules and not associated with any specific contracts.

  My Department is in the process of completing an open competition to privatise the UK to north America route. This will replace the existing VC10 schedule which operates between RAF Brize Norton and Dulles airport and will commence 1 September 1995. The contracts will be for both international flights from the UK—USA and Canada and provide the facility to book intercontinental internal travel for the MOD traveller at substantial discounts to the normal fares. Responses from the airlines sector were not limited to UK-registered operators.

  Until the contracts are awarded I cannot be precise about the cost to my Department for this financial year which will be offset in part by the savings arising from the reassignment of the RAF VC 10 aircraft on more essential operational tasks, such as air-to-air refuelling.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom security of the failure to reach agreement in respect of the pay award to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. [21057]

  Mr. Soames
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary officers have already reached agreement on last year's pay award, and we hope that ratings will also vote for acceptance in their present ballot. If agreement is not reached, however, the security implications would depend on the nature and extent of any industrial action taken.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to privatise the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; and if he will make a statement. [21058]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary service operates in direct support of our front-line forces.

  Tornado
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of keeping a Tornado airborne for one hour. [21827]
  199
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 24 October 1994,Official Report, columns 499–500.

  Bank Disposal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all locations which have required clearance by bomb disposal teams since 1965 for each county council area in Wales indicating the year of clearance; and if he will make a statement. [20670]

  Mr. Soames
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now set up an independent medical assessment to examine the long-term health effects upon individual service men who participated in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. [21611]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence to suggest that any of the service volunteers—approximately 6,900 in number—who have participated in studies at Porton Down over the past 40 years have suffered any harm to their health. I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to set up an independent medical assessment to examine any of the individuals concerned.

  VE Day (Merchant Navy)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the activities designed to recognise the role of Merchant Navy personnel included in the national programme to commemorate VE day; and if he will make a statement. [21712]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I have to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 28 April 1995,Official Report, column 772.

  Empty Accommodation, Dorset
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of empty dwellings owned by his Department in the constituencies of Dorset, North; Dorset, South; and Dorset, West. [21713]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 March, my Department owned the following number of empty dwellings in the constituencies in question:

  Dorset, North: 152

  Dorset, South: 175

  Dorset, West: 0

  The vacant properties in Dorset, North are being held for a unit deployment from the north of England. Of the vacant properties in Dorset, South, 86 are in the process of being sold. The remainder are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, already allotted to service families due to move in shortly or form part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families.

  RNAS Portland
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the benefits to be achieved by moving the RAF Osprey Squad from 200
  Portland to Yeovilton before the Lynx is replaced by the Merlin in 2005. [21714]

  Mr. Soames
  As explained in my Department's consultative document on the proposed closure of the royal naval air station at Portland, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, it will be possible to collocate the remaining Royal Navy Lynx helicopters at Yeovilton from 1999. The closure of RNAS Portland would result in significant savings to the defence budget.

  Railings, Devonport
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the materials being used recently to refurbish the railings around the royal naval base along Saltash road. [21718]

  Mr. Soames
  These railings form part of the east side of HM naval base, Devonport and were last partly refurbished in 1964. The materials used for the recent refurbishment were paint, including primer and undercoat, galvanised steel, lime stone, lime mortar and timber boarding.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22090]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department does not keep central records of early retirement awards made on grounds of limited efficiency and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of individuals released on such terms is as follows:

  1990–91: 10

  1991–92: 4

  1992–93: 2

  1993–94: 3

  1994–95: 1

  RAF Chicksands
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals his Department is considering with regard to the future of RAF Chicksands, Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [22328]

  Mr. Soames
  With the US withdrawal from RAF Chicksands due to be completed by 30 September 1995, we are at present considering alternative defence uses for the site. Should no alternative defence uses be identified, we would consider the future of the site in consultation with the local authority.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Bedford community retirement group with regard to the future of RAF Chicksands, Bedfordshire. [22329]

  Mr. Soames
  The Bedford community retirement group wrote to my Department in March enclosing a copy of its proposals for the future use of RAF Chicksands. The proposals are a matter for the local authority, however, and this was made clear in my Department's response of 11 April.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart concerning the renegotiation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty; what consideration he has given to the renegotiation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty; and if he will make a statement. [22297]

  Mr. Soames
  We maintain a dialogue with the Russians at all levels about issues which might affect their compliance with the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Renegotiation of the treaty is not a subject which has been discussed. The treaty is widely recognised as the cornerstone of European security and it is in everyone's interest to see it fully implemented. To that end, we continue to urge all states parties, including Russia, to meet their obligations under the treaty, as only by doing so will the basis be created for a constructive review of the treaty's operation at the May 1996 treaty review conference.

  Information to Members
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which right hon. and hon. Members his special adviser, Mr. Crispin Blunt, has written to inform them of the placing of contracts by his Department in their constituency; what are the values of these contracts; which contracts were involved; what assistance the civil service provides in order to ensure the efficiency of this system of informing hon. Members; when this system was first introduced; and if he will make a statement. [22298]

  Mr. Rifkind
  In October 1993, my special adviser began writing to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties about MOD contracts awarded to firms in their constituencies which, while of local significance, were too small to merit individual announcements.

  Since 1993, the practice has become more systematic, and standard letters are now sent about all contracts worth more than £1 million notified to the special adviser by the responsible contracts branch.

  Since October 1993, more than 300 letters have been sent to right hon. and hon. Members.

  Commercial Exploitation Levies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify how much money his Department received in each of the last 10 years from commercial exploitation levies in cases where it has funded the development of the exported equipment in question. [22299]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87: 29.2

  1987–88: 27.9

  1988–89: 44.0

  1989–90: 24.8

  1990–91: 16.7

  1991–92: 35.0

  1992–93: 15.3

  1993–94: 39.8

  Details for 1984–85 and 1985–86 are not available. Final figures for 1994–95 have not been calculated.

  Land Mines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 306, what types of anti-personnel mines other than Ranger mines his Department possesses; when they were purchased; from whom they were purchased; what was the total cost of the order; when they will need to be replaced; and if he will make a statement. [22300]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department possesses the following anti-personnel mines, other than Rangers:

  (a) Mine anti-personnel C3 (Elsie)

  (b) Mine anti-personnel M18A1 (Claymore)

  (c) Projector Area Defence L1E1 (PJRAD)

  These mines were purchased as follows:

  (a) C3 Elsie between 1965 and 1968 from Canadian Arsenals Ltd.

  (b) MI8A1 Claymore between 1965 and 1968, and in 1989 from the US Department of Defence.

  (c) L1E1 PJRAD in 1986 from Royal Ordnance.

  We no longer retain a record of the costs of these procurements, and there are currently no plans for their replacement.

  Mines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those British companies which (i) have stockpiles of, (ii) are producing, (iii) have produced since 1965 and (iv) manufacture components for(a) anti-personnel mines, (b) area denial mines, (c) self-destruct mines and (d) other forms of mines; and in the case of (iii) if he will give the year in which production ceased.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: These matters are the responsibility of the companies concerned. However, I am advised that the following information can be provided from my Department's records.

  My Department classifies land mines by their effect, for example, anti-tank or anti-personnel. Any type of land mine can be self-destructing. We therefore do not recognise area denial mines or self-destructing mines as separate categories.

  My Department is not aware of any British company holding stockpiles of land mines.

  The "Defence Manufacturers' Handbook" lists British Aerospace Defence, British Aerospace (Royal Ordnance), Hunting Engineering, and Plalite as having land mines among their products. My Department is not aware that any of these companies is currently producing land mines and I can confirm that there are no current MOD orders for land mines, nor are there any current export licence applications.

  My Department believes that Thorn EMI Electronics, Royal Ordnance and Hunting Engineering are the only British companies to have produced land mines since 1965.

  Production of conventional anti-personnel land mines for the MOD ceased in 1983, and of anti-tank land mines in 1991.

  In 1986 the Royal Ordnance factories produced a small number of projector area defence weapons for my Department. Previously, these were classified not as anti-personnel land mines, but as command-detonated point defence weapons. However, further research has now established that these weapons fall within the

  203
  standard NATO definition of a land mine. Consequently, previous statements that
  "the UK has not produced anti-personnel mines for over a decade"
  are not accurate in relation to the PJRAD.

  My Department is not aware of any British companies which currently manufacture components for land mines.

  RAF Burtonwood
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current weekly running costs of Burtonwood air base. [22183]

  Mr. Soames
  The running costs of RAF Burtonwood are estimated at some £8,000 per week, exclusive of any contribution in lieu of rates.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current weekly income from the lorry and trailer park and associated activities on Burtonwood air base. [22184]

  Mr. Soames
  The income from the present commercial use of RAF Burtonwood is commercial-in-confidence between my Department and the occupiers.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 498, if he will list those activities in his Department which have been market-tested; and if he will specify in each case if in-house bids were permitted. [22338]

  Mr. Freeman
  In the three-year period since April 1992, a total of 101 defence support activities have been exposed to the "Competing for Quality" process as part of the drive to deliver, through the increased use of competition and private sector involvement, high-quality and more cost-effective support to the armed forces. Of these, 23 have been exposed to competition from external contractors, with an in-house bid in each case, ie market-tested, to ensure that the service is delivered in a204
  way which gives best value for money. The market tests involved, and the results of each, are as follows:
  Gardening at RM units Poole, CTCRM Lympstone and COMMACHIO group—all three won by in-house bid team.
  Mechanical handling equipment, repair and maintenance, Devonport—won by in-house team.
  18 base workshop, army base repair organisation, Bovington—won by in-house team.
  RAOC print section, Northern Ireland—won by in-house team.
  Air weapon range, RAF Cowden—won by in-house team.
  Support services, Gateway house, RAF Brize Norton—won by in-house team.
  Aircraft support services, Boscombe Down—won by in-house team.
  Elements of experimental flying programme, Bedford/Boscombe Down—won by in-house team.
  Second line engineering support, flag officer naval aviation, Yeovilton—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Industrial mess (catering and stewardship function), defence postal and courier service, Mill Hill, London—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Ration delivery service, Northern Ireland—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Tailoring, Northern Ireland—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Air weapon range, RAF Holbeach—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Flight checking, 115 Squadron, RAF Benson—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Inspectorate of recruitment exhibition production flight, RAF Henlow—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Nimrod major servicing unit, RAF Kinloss—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Airfield services, RAF Gibraltar—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  IT processing DIGITS operations west, Devizes—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Property Management, Central London—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Mess catering, Boscombe Down—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.
  Trident in-service support—activity contractorised following a market test with in-house bid.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Atlantic Tuna Fishery
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the latest international decisions on phasing out the use of drift nets will have upon the continuation by British fishermen of the Atlantic tuna fishery.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, in accordance with EU regulations, which themselves reflect United Nations resolutions on high seas drift nets, British fishermen may use drift nets up to 2.5 kilometres in length. No decisions have been taken which would lead to the phasing out of drift nets in the Atlantic tuna fishery.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does that mean that the EU Commission's proposal to bring this drift netting to an end is nonetheless still on the table? When the Atlantic tuna season reopens this summer, will arrangements be in place to avoid clashes, recognising the incompatibility of two methods of catching these fish—drift nets, used by British fishermen, and pole and line, used by the Spanish—if used in the same area?
Earl Howe: My Lords, technically the Commission's proposal remains on the table, although a number of aspects of it are now somewhat out of date. The Government are well aware that the conflict in the north-east Atlantic albacore tuna fishery is claimed to be one of gear incompatibility. The Spanish pole and line vessels mainly fish their gear during the daytime whereas drift-net fleets from the UK, Ireland and France generally shoot their gear at dusk and haul it in at first light. As a result of that separation in time, conflict of the kind my noble friend envisages, namely gear spoiling each other, need not occur. That point was examined by the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries in February this year. The committee reported that in principle there should be no reason why the different fleets should not operate in the same fishery.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government allow drift netting in the North Sea which every year takes thousands of salmon which are searching for their spawning grounds in North Yorkshire and Scottish rivers, a practice which is contrary to salmon conservation? Is he aware that the North
1320
Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and the Anglers' Conservation Association all condemn that practice? Why do the Government allow it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is somewhat wide of that on the Order Paper. However, I say to him that to end the use of drift nets to catch salmon would impose considerable hardship on fishermen. It is not justified by any threat to stocks. The use of such nets in UK waters is strictly regulated, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. There is no evidence that they pose a threat to stocks. That view is supported by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, which also noted that effort in salmon drift net fisheries in coastal waters is likely to decrease further and that one effect of a ban on the use of drift nets is likely to be increased pressure on other fish stocks which may already be fully or over exploited.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his perspicacity in foreseeing the question from the noble Lord. However, perhaps we may now return to tuna. Is it not a fact that in this case we are in the wrong and the Spaniards are in the right? Does the Minister agree that the pole and line fishing method is far more likely to catch good fish and to preserve stocks than sweeping fish into a drift net miles long, pushing them all together, squashing them and damaging them so that the fish cannot possibly be put back? Does he agree that the Spanish method is one of conservation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot agree that the UK is in the wrong in this.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Howe: My Lords, the number of vessels from the UK operating drift nets in the tuna fishery is only some 16 whereas the Spaniards have roughly four times as many. Indeed, Spanish vessels account for a vastly larger percentage of the total catch. If we are considering conservation measures, it is important to look at the matter in the round. There is no doubt that the Spanish effort is very efficient indeed.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although the damage done by drift netting is quantifiable, long-lining—which can mean hooks tearing the mouths out of tuna which escape and die thereafter—is not a system of catching fish which has no problems?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the use of pole and line is not self-evidently more humane.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what independent scientific research has been undertaken to show the effects of drift netting on fish stocks?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries met in February to assess the scientific justification for the Commission's proposal of last year. It identified no case for cutting back on the length of drift nets or for banning them. It concluded that the tuna stock is not over-exploited

1321
although fishing effort should not increase, and it determined that drift nets account for only 30 per cent. of tuna fishing mortality. The remainder is the result of French pelagic trawling and Spanish pole and line fishing.
The tuna stocks are managed by the international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tuna. I shall make inquiries as to the methods that are used for determining stocks. I am aware that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge on the subject.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I understand that the Commission's proposals are lying on the table—whatever that may mean. Does the noble Earl consider that it might be better for the Commission to make its proposals after it receives the advice of the scientific and technical committee rather than before?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We shall make sure that the force of the scientific committee's report is not lost either on the Commission or on the Council of Ministers when the matter is next debated.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with the abandonment of drift netting at sea in the Pacific as a result of Japanese over-exploitation of stocks, the general impression given by the Government is that drift netting at sea should be abandoned in due course in every part of the world?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the United Nation resolution to which I referred in my original Written Answer was a response to the wholly unacceptable practices in the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere involving net lengths of great size. However, we see no scientific justification for a ban on drift netting, to which the Question refers, or a ban on salmon drift netting.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while my noble friend's statement about the separation of the methods used by night and day is welcome, is not special understanding needed, and monitoring required, since most if not all of the Atlantic tuna fishery takes place in the high seas beyond any country's fishery limits or economic zone?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why it is essential that the authorities of each member state co-operate satisfactorily to ensure efficient policing of the fishery on the high seas.

Marine Nature Reserves
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards designation of further marine nature reserves.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently considering a draft order made by the Countryside Council for Wales proposing the designation of the Menai Straits. He will announce his decision at the
1322
earliest opportunity. Objectors to the proposed marine nature reserve at Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, were heard on 25th April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will announce his decision at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, has not the discussion (if that is the right word) been continuing since 1988? So far as I can ascertain, the Welsh Office has been sitting on the result for the past year without coming to a conclusion.
Is the noble Viscount aware that, of the seven sites identified in 1981, only two have so far been designated as marine nature reserves? In the interval a great deal of damage is being done to what are almost irreplaceable sites. Can he give any assurance that the process is to be speeded up?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Two sites have been designated, at Lundy and Skomer. However, the Government consider that marine nature reserves should be established only after full consultation. Before designation, efforts should be made to ensure that there is agreement with those with a legitimate interest in the area concerned. As the noble Baroness indicated, that process can take longer than many of us would wish. But we remain of the view that time spent in gaining local support is worth while.
Of the list proposed, a number of voluntary reserves are operating successfully, including St. Abb's Head; and others are being considered for that voluntary status, including the Isles of Scilly and Loch Sween in Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the most important action that the Government can take towards restoring the marine flora and fauna around our coasts is further steps for the prevention of pollution, which still takes place on too large a scale?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is a problem about which we are indeed concerned. My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside, Mr. Atkins, announced four coastal policy initiatives in July 1994. Those included a standing forum on coastal zone management. I believe that that will go some way towards dealing with that problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the people of Gwynedd are baffled and dismayed by the failure of the Government to reach a conclusion on this important issue? A delay of seven years or more is unforgiveable. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could tell the House the reason for it, especially as a clear promise was given that a conclusion would be reached by 1st April last. People in North Wales are wondering whether the Government are waiting for the Menai Straits to run dry before they reach a conclusion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must repeat that some objections are still outstanding and those objections from interested parties are now being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

1323
A decision on them will be made shortly. I understand that there will be a form of non-statutory public inquiry and that a decision on the timing will be taken soon.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the main objection?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that it comes partly from the yachting community.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is it not in keeping with your Lordships' wishes during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that interested parties should be kept informed and their views listened to before a marine nature reserve is created? If the Menai Straits are made a marine nature reserve, is it not also a fact that further regulations could be added, with no right for anyone to appeal or even be consulted about the further regulations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. When the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was passing through another place, undertakings were given that marine nature reserves would be designated only after important differences of opinion had been resolved. However, that does not mean that everyone must agree with the proposal. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will obviously take account of the views of all those who expressed an interest. I believe that in due course all marine nature reserves will be designated as special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister agree that several types of sea bird which have been common around our shores for centuries are under threat? They are in particular the guillemot, the puffin and the gannet. The most important is the Manx shearwater; 90 per cent. of the world's breeding grounds for that bird are within British waters and the species is severely threatened.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations which have just been enacted, such areas will be taken into account. A number of areas have been identified as possible special areas of conservation and the list published for consultation.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister mentioned Loch Sween. Can he tell us whether Scottish Natural Heritage is making efforts to hurry the process along?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, indeed, it is on the basis of recommendations by Scottish Natural Heritage that the proposal was put forward. Also, the concept that it should be run on a voluntary basis is being considered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. Are we now to assume that all marine nature reserves are to be subsumed under that rubric of "special areas of conservation"? If so, is the noble Viscount aware that the Menai Straits are not a proposed SAC? Is he further aware that the Welsh Office publication The Environment in Wales—Third Report included a commitment to reach a decision on the Menai
1324
Straits, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn mentioned, in the financial year 1994–95? Is the noble Viscount therefore saying that the Welsh Office wishes to push the whole matter into touch until special areas of conservation have been decided?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I do not believe that to be an entirely correct interpretation. Some 36 marine sites have been included in the recently published list of possible SACs. The noble Lord is quite right that the Menai Straits is not one of those; it is being pursued under the marine nature reserve policy. At the moment it is subject to a draft order, subject to a non-statutory inquiry. A decision will be taken very soon.

English Language Book Scheme
2.55 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to terminate the English Language Book Scheme through which the Overseas Development Administration provides subsidies to British publishers to enable them to produce textbooks at low prices for sale in designated third world countries; and, if so, whether they will urgently reconsider this decision.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the subsidy to British publishers under the Educational Low-Priced Books Scheme will be phased out over the next two years. During that time, in consultation with publishers and other interested parties, we will be developing new strategies to achieve improved access to key textbooks and other essential learning materials for the poorer students in the poorest countries in pursuit of our developmental objectives.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must declare an interest, as two of the medical textbooks which I wrote were once included in the scheme. The Minister referred to the difficulty of reaching the poorer students, but does he agree that the department's review concluded that the scheme's merits outweighed its minor limitations and that it should be retained, with some modifications? Is it not a precisely targeted scheme meeting an essential need among students who cannot afford textbooks at developed world prices? As such, it makes a contribution to Britain's influence and reputation abroad out of all proportion to its modest cost of £1.5 million a year.
Does the Minister further agree that 78.5 per cent. of books in the scheme are sold in low income and very low income countries? Does he also agree that the ELBS is much admired by USAID, which might well step in and publish American books with a similar scheme at the cost of British influence?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the Government agree with the noble Lord that the achievements of the scheme and the value of British books in developing countries are great. The problem, as we see it, is that this scheme has not been appropriately focused on the poorer students in the poorest countries.

1325
Since the review in 1988, it was determined that the scheme should be focused on countries which had a per capita income of less than 1,000 dollars per head per year. In fact, currently 22 of the 54 countries to which the scheme applies are now outside those guidelines. We are not satisfied that, taking the scheme as a whole, we are satisfactorily targeting the poorer students in the poorest countries. Some are less poor students in richer countries and in some of the poorest countries the price of the hooks is probably such that the poorest students will not be able to buy them anyway.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a deplorable decision? Is he further aware that it was a Conservative Government who in 1960 initiated the scheme, which has given some of the most effective kinds of aid to the poorest countries of the Commonwealth and engendered good will towards Britain in the best possible way? Does the noble Lord know that his colleague, the Minister for Overseas Development, has agreed to meet a deputation? When that deputation is heard, will the Government seriously reconsider one of the best pieces of British aid towards the Commonwealth?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we do not accept the noble Lord's criticisms. But we are concerned to ensure that the benefits of the scheme as provided in the past will be more closely focused and carried forward into the future.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, while it is certainly true that the ODA review of last year drew attention to grave defects in the ELBS, and while it is good to know that alternative means will be found to get British books into the hands of those in the poorest countries, will the Minister agree that one of the main achievements of the ELBS has been not just to allow poor students to read books in libraries but also to be encouraged and enabled to buy their own copies?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords, but the problem is that the poorest of all seem to have been excluded. That is one of the matters that we want to try to address.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister explain how he proposes to help the poorest of all students?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the scheme will be phased out over the next two years. We are currently seeking advice from the Chief Education Adviser. Research will be put in place leading to pilot schemes. Secondly, we are discussing the matter with the publishers of the books concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in that case, will my noble friend and his department consider the use of a
1326
non-governmental organisation, which would by definition have its focus much more narrowly drawn in the way that the Government currently intend?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We shall endeavour to use whatever instruments give us the best result at the end of the day.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 78.5 per cent. went to low-income and very low-income countries, which does not fit in with some of the remarks that he has just made? Can he guarantee that the same level of benefit will go to the user in any new scheme that is proposed? Will care be taken to ensure that the structure of geographical desks at the ODA will not create a bottleneck preventing the proper uptake of the books?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we shall endeavour to ensure that the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness referred in the last part of her question do not arise. We shall endeavour to focus the resources that we shall use for this purpose in the best possible manner. I cannot guarantee that everything will work out, but I can guarantee that that is our intention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the highly cost-effective short and long-term benefits of this scheme, both to this country and to the developing world, using only 0.08 percent. of the ODA's budget, will the Minister agree to further talks with International Book Development, the administrators of the scheme, to discuss how best to take it forward?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that the company is being consulted as part of the wider consultation exercise.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have one more Question to go and only six minutes, or rather less, in which to discuss it. Perhaps we should proceed to the next Question.

BBC Charter
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that when Parliament debates the new BBC Charter and associated Agreement neither will have been finalised, and in particular that the Charter will not have been presented to Her Majesty for approval.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Royal Charter of the BBC will be laid in draft and will not be presented to Her Majesty for approval until after debate in both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most satisfactory Answer. Can he give an assurance that the Bill amending Parts V and VI of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to merge the existing

1327
Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be passed before we have the debate on the new Charter and Agreement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the merger of the two bodies that my noble friend mentions, the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, will require an Act of Parliament. I cannot bind the next Parliament to when that will be.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the new Charter, before it is debated, be published so that we can study and examine it and have a very useful debate in this House?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, it will be published before we debate it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether his Answer about the submission of the Charter in draft means that it will be open to this House to amend it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC is not a creation of statute; its Royal Charter is granted under the Royal Prerogative and is not subject to parliamentary approval. The agreement will be laid as a signed document. However, that document will specify that it is not binding until it has been approved by resolution in another place. I expect that noble Lords will wish to take the opportunity for a debate before the agreement is debated in another place. That will enable the Government to consider any views expressed by this House before the agreement is finalised.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, have the Government closed their mind on the whole question of whether the BBC should have a Royal Charter, when everybody else has to put up with an Act of Parliament?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that the BBC should be governed by Royal Charter. Indeed, that was the recommendation of the Select Committee in another place, with which we agree.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Agreement, and the Minister himself, will receive the warmest support from this side of the House provided that the Charter contains a few simple and sensible obligations? Is he further aware that by "simple and sensible" I mean: a commitment to public service broadcasting as a supreme priority; obligations to continue full coverage of the arts, education and parliamentary proceedings; and obligations to due impartiality, freedom of expression and the highest taste in programmes? Given those few simple commitments, the Charter will be in no bad form to go before Her Majesty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, documents and Bills laid by the Government
1328
before this House are always simple and sensible. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to agree with that when we bring forward the Charter and the Agreement.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend give some indication of whether this matter is likely to come before this House before we rise for the Summer Recess or afterwards?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a matter for the usual channels. I shall make sure that my noble friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the Chief Whip.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did my noble friend notice an omission in the list of admirable characteristics that were read out—or rather spoken from memory—by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue; namely, a strict regard for the truth? In answering, will my noble friend also clarify what he said about the procedures for making the document binding in law, which, as I heard him say, depends only on the views of the other place and not on the views of this House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, another place has the ability to vote on the agreement under Standing Order 55. There is no such Standing Order in this House. That is why there is a vote in another place and not in your Lordships' House. That deals with the arrangements for communications overseas.
As regards the other part of my noble friend's question, perhaps it might help him if I say that the BBC, in common with other broadcasters, is required to observe due impartiality in dealing with issues of public controversy. We intend to include specific and clear obligations along these lines in the new BBC agreement. We have taken full account of the genuine and understandable concerns expressed by noble Lords. The guidelines will be very similar to the ones that are currently used by the ITC.

Human Tissue (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require a person lawfully in possession of the body of a deceased person to authorise the donation of the body or any specified part of the body for therapeutic or medical purposes if the deceased person had requested such a donation. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison Committee Report
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps noble Lords will permit me to observe that the Liaison Committee met shortly before the Easter Recess. The report before the House today sets out the recommendations that were reached at that meeting.

1329
In particular, the committee recommends that the next ad hoc committee to follow that on sustainable development under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, which will report shortly, should consider relations between central and local government. In the usual way, the House will have the opportunity to consider and agree terms of reference for the proposed committee, and indeed its membership. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to [HL Paper 49].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT

1. The Liaison Committee has given further consideration to a proposal for a select committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights. The committee does not recommend that the House should conduct the form of scrutiny proposed at the present time. We will invite the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the proposal when the impact of deregulation orders on its workload has become clearer.

2. The committee has considered several proposals for inquiries by ad hoc select committees which were submitted following the notice to Peers of 12 December 1994. We recommend the appointment of an ad hoc committee on relations between local and central government; this committee should be appointed after the ad hoc Committee on Sustainable Development has made its report to the House soon after the Easter Recess. We will recommend appropriate terms of reference for the committee in due course.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill makes simple and logical reforms to our liquor licensing laws. It will relax Sunday licensing hours so that pubs and clubs may open during Sunday afternoons in the way that they already can on weekday afternoons. Off-licensed shops, including large stores such as supermarkets, will be able to sell alcohol for longer hours which fit in sensibly with their Sunday opening times. That, in a nutshell, is what the Bill provides. Our present restrictions on the times at which alcohol can be sold and drunk in public houses stem from the First World War. Successive governments have considered that there are valid reasons to limit the times at which public houses may open. Nevertheless, there has been a gradual easing of the restrictions over the years as working patterns, leisure activities and social attitudes have changed.
The most recent changes in the licensing hours were made in the Licensing Act 1988. The requirement that public houses must close during weekday afternoons was abolished and the normal licensing hours were standardised at 11 in the morning until 11 at night. There were some who predicted at that time that afternoon opening would give rise to more excessive drinking and disorder. Those predictions have not been fulfilled. What has happened is that licensees have had greater freedom
1330
to decide when to offer their services to their customers, and customers have had greater freedom to choose when they take advantage of those services. Some public houses have chosen to open throughout weekday afternoons. Others continue to close, as they did before the 1988 relaxations. In short, the abolition of the weekday afternoon break nearly seven years ago has given the licensed trade much greater flexibility to give their customers what they want when they want it. It has not given rise to any appreciable increase in drunkenness or disorder.
What the 1988 Act did not do was to alter significantly the times at which pubs may open on Sundays. An hour was added to the lunchtime opening session so that it ends at three rather than two in the afternoon. Otherwise, the Sunday licensing hours remained as they were. In other fields, there have been significant changes since 1988 in what people may do, and want to do, on Sundays. Sunday shopping, which was put on a rational footing last year by the Sunday Trading Act and has proved popular with a great many people, is the obvious example. More recently, in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, Parliament relaxed the restrictions on betting and sporting activities on Sunday. It is now time to bring the Sunday licensing hours into line with people's current likes and expectations, and to remove unnecessary government interference in this area.
Clause 1 of the Bill will bring that about. At present, the Sunday licensing hours for on-licensed premises such as public houses and hotels are from midday until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and from 7 o'clock until half past 10 in the evening. Clause I will remove the requirement to close between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
Pubs will, therefore, he able to open continuously on Sundays from midday until half past 10 in the evening. They will no longer have to close during the afternoon. We regard that as a sensible change, which I am sure will be welcomed by those who run pubs and those who frequent them. Many pubs have for some time been tailoring their services to meet the needs and wishes of families—for example by providing family rooms. In addition, we took the opportunity presented by last year's Deregulation and Contracting Out Act to introduce children's certificates. Since the beginning of this year, licensees who wish to do so have been able to apply for a children's certificate. These permit children under 14 who are accompanied by an adult to be admitted to the bar, if the licensing justices consider that it provides a suitable environment for children of that age, and meals and non-alcoholic drinks are available there. Our aim, which I believe the licensed trade warmly supports, is to enable pubs which wish to do so to become more family orientated. But if that is to happen, it does not make sense for pubs offering facilities for families with young children to have to close on Sunday afternoon—the very time that many families are able to get out and spend their leisure time together. More generally, there is no good reason why people should be denied the pleasure of popping into the pub for a drink while taking a stroll on Sunday afternoon.
Clause 1 also extends and rationalises off-licence hours. At present, off-licensed premises may sell alcohol on Sundays from noon until 3 o'clock in the afternoon and

1331
from 7 until half past 10 in the evening—the same hours as pubs. The effect of Clause 1 is that, subject to the restrictions in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, off-licensed shops will be able to sell alcohol on Sundays from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10.30 in the evening. Large shops whose business consists exclusively or mainly of selling alcoholic drinks and small shops with off-licences, which are not subject to the Sunday Trading Act, will be able to sell alcohol throughout these longer hours. But like pubs, there is no obligation for off-licensed shops to stay open for the whole of the licensing hours. It is for businesses to decide the times within those hours which suit them and their customers best.
The change in the hours will, I know, be particularly welcomed by large stores which have off-licences, such as supermarkets; and I am sure that it will be equally welcome to their customers. Since August last year, large shops have been permitted under the Sunday Trading Act to open for any continuous period of six hours between 10 in the morning and 6 o'clock in the afternoon. Some have chosen from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4, others from 11 o'clock until 5, and yet others from midday until 6 p.m. But the present off-licence hours mean that whatever time those stores choose to open there is always part of their opening hours —before midday or after 3 o'clock—when they may not sell alcohol. So they have to cordon off their stocks of drink and make sure that no one takes a bottle of wine or some other alcoholic drink through the tills except between 12 and 3 o'clock.
That makes life unnecessarily complicated for the stores, and is undoubtedly a source of irritation to customers. People shopping on Sunday morning, perhaps for their Sunday lunch, can buy all the food they want. But they cannot buy a bottle of wine to accompany their meal. That really is absurd. The Bill will sweep away that petty and unnecessary restriction, and enable people to buy alcohol in supermarkets and other large off-licensed stores throughout the time that they can buy other goods in the store.
The Bill also deals, in Clause 2, with the hours during which alcohol may be sold on Sundays in clubs. A club may sell alcohol to its members or their guests in accordance with the club rules, if it is registered for that purpose with the magistrates' court. The hours during which alcohol may be sold on Sunday must be fixed in the club rules and can vary from club to club. However, as in the case of pubs, club hours may not exceed 6½ hours and may not begin before midday or end after half past 10 in the evening. But clubs may have a shorter afternoon break so that one might open, for example, from midday till 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. until 8.30 p.m., while another might open in line with the pub hours of midday until 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to half past 10 in the evening.
Clause 2, therefore, will simplify these arrangements. In future, registered clubs will be able to sell alcohol throughout the period from midday until 10.30 in the evening, without an afternoon break, The Sunday hours for clubs will therefore be identical to those for pubs.
I referred earlier to the abolition in 1988 of the afternoon break in weekday licensing hours. There is no evidence of any appreciable increase in problems of drunkenness, nuisance and disorder as a result. However, there was some understandable apprehension at the time
1332
the change was made that things might not work out as well as they have. A power was taken, therefore, for licensing justices to make a restriction order which would effectively reimpose all or part of the old afternoon break at a particular pub if afternoon opening had led to annoyance, disturbance or disorder. The power also enabled magistrates' courts to make a restriction order to reimpose the old afternoon break at registered clubs in the same circumstances.
In the event, the power to make a restriction order has been needed only very infrequently. Nevertheless, it is a valuable safeguard. We therefore intend to extend it so that it is also available to reimpose the current Sunday afternoon break at pubs or clubs where afternoon opening gives rise to problems.
That is the effect of Clause 3. It will enable the licensing justices, in response to an application by the police or someone who lives or works close to a pub, to consider making a restriction order which would prevent that pub from selling alcohol for part or the whole of the time between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday afternoons. The licensing justices would, of course, have to be satisfied that this course was justified in order to reduce or avoid annoyance, disturbance or disorder. Clause 3 also extends the existing power of magistrates' courts so that they too will be able to make a restriction order prohibiting Sunday afternoon opening if serious grounds for complaint arise about registered clubs.
The licensing hours for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises on Christmas Day and Good Friday have traditionally been the same as for Sundays; and that is the position at present. The extended Sunday hours in the Bill, and the power to make a restriction order, will also apply to Good Friday. However, they will not extend to Christmas Day. In deference to views expressed during debate in another place, the Government moved an amendment which removed Christmas Day from the ambit of the Bill. Opening hours for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises on Christmas Day will, therefore, remain as they are now.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are of less substance. Clause 4 makes amendments to the Licensing Acts 1964 and 1988 which are consequential to the changes which Clauses 1 to 3 make to Sunday opening hours and to the arrangements for restriction orders. Clause 5 provides that, following enactment, the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill will come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State. This flexibility is needed to enable the Home Office to inform the licensing justices, magistrates' courts and the police upon Royal Assent about the changes that the Bill will make. We do not envisage that this will take long, and so there should be no need for any significant interval between Royal Assent and the Act coming into effect.
Those are the effects of the Bill. I am sure that they will be popular with both the licensed trade and their customers. The Bill will allow pubs and clubs to get on with their business without unnecessary interference from government. That is what deregulation is all about. It will also, I am convinced, benefit tourism, and perhaps make our licensing hours a little more intelligible to visitors from abroad. For off-licensed premises too, there will be obvious benefits. In supermarkets, in particular, the

1333
visible evidence of outdated regulation—the cordoned-off drinks area before midday and after three on Sundays—will rightly become a thing of the past. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I open my remarks, as always on matters of this kind, by saying that as far as the Opposition are concerned, this is a matter for a free vote and we do not in any way impose the Whip. I take some comfort, in view of the different views expressed by Members of my party last year on the Sunday Trading Bill, that none of my noble friends has chosen to speak on this occasion. I am sure that that will not inhibit them from taking part in the Committee and later stages if they feel strongly enough on the matter and, indeed, if they disagree with me, as they are fully entitled to do.
Let me state my position clearly from the outset. I support the Bill. I support the reduction, as far as is possible, in artificial restrictions on the right of people to do what they want so long as they do not harm other people. Having said that, the Government have not fully grasped the opportunity available to them to remove some remaining anomalies in relation to licensing laws. A number of anomalies, which, we are told by Mr. Forsyth, are to be covered in the consultation paper, could well have been covered in the Bill if the Government had shown firmness of intention.
The law in relation to late night opening of licensed premises is still very unclear. There is a formal closing time and a formal drinking-up time, but there are still considerable and varyingly used powers for magistrates to give extensions. I should have thought that it would be desirable to codify the basis on which magistrates ought to be able to consider extensions of that kind in order to satisfy any demand that may exist—I am not convinced there is such a demand—for wider late night opening.
Magistrates do not appear to be subject to any guidance, let alone statutory restrictions. They are perfectly capable, when considering licences, of saying, "This licence is not needed because there is no economic need for it". Surely the basis on which magistrates express local needs should be on local planning grounds rather than on making moral or economic judgments about the desirability of licensed premises being opened in any specific place.
We still have a quite unnecessary and damaging division between what is called a "pub" and what is called a "cafe". We should be more flexible, as are most European countries, in allowing alcohol to be sold either in conjunction with meals or not in conjunction with meals. We no longer have the dried-up sandwich, but anomalies still exist in that part of our licensing laws and the Government should take the opportunity to deal with them as well.
I was interested in what the Minister said regarding the experience of the new provisions for children in licensed premises. I am sure she would agree that these provisions
1334
are still finding their feet. There is no doubt that different magistrates in different parts of the country are interpreting the needs of families to enjoy themselves in licensed premises in a different and sometimes anomalous way.
I say all that in the firm knowledge that survey work by the Consumers' Association found by a majority of two to one not only that the people of this country want pubs to be open on a Sunday afternoon—after all, that is the prime purpose of the Bill—but also that, by a similar majority, people want publicans to make their own decisions about when licensed premises should be open. That is fundamentally my view. This is not an area in which the law should be engaged any further than is necessary for the protection of those who wish and need peace and quiet around where they live and where they need to be. The kind of liberal licensing provisions for the sale of alcohol in public places that exist in most parts of the Continent could perfectly well apply to this country without any of the paraphernalia which exists here.
In general, therefore, although I welcome the Bill, there are still anomalies in relation to our licensing laws and I look forward with interest to seeing what the Government propose to do about them. I almost forgot one small anomaly which is not provided for in the Bill. The Minister rightly said that it is an absurdity that parts of supermarkets are cordoned off and not allowed to sell alcohol except between 12 and 3 when the shops are open between 10 and 4 or between 11 and 5. Has she considered that cordoning-off will still apply on Good Friday mornings when supermarkets open at 8.30 or 9 o'clock and that they will have to retain whatever devices they have to stop people taking things off the shelf for one day a year? It would be more desirable to rationalise Good Friday while we are rationalising the rest of the licensing law.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I understood from my noble friend's opening remarks that precisely what the noble Lord is asking for is included in the Bill in relation to Sunday but not Christmas Day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, and also not Good Friday. The provision for off-licences is that they should be able to open at 10 o'clock. Christmas Day is not affected by the Bill at all, but supermarkets which have off-licences and which open on Good Friday before 10 o'clock would still have to cordon off their shelves until that time. It is a small anomaly which only happens once a year but the opportunity should be taken to deal with it.
My major proviso in relation to the Bill—and it follows a problem we had with the Sunday trading legislation last year —is the protection of those who work in licensed premises. That applies both to staff in supermarkets and, above all, to the staff and managers in licensed premises. I give notice now that my noble friends and I will be tabling amendments comparable to those we tabled last year to protect the quality of life and the interests of those who work in licensed premises.
The principles of the amendments will be similar to those proposed last year. If staff are not working now on Sundays, then any extension to Sunday working should be voluntary. If staff are working on Sundays, then any

1335
extension of their Sunday working hours should be voluntary. If there are volunteers—and the experience is that quite a high proportion do volunteer—then they should be entitled to enhanced pay. We argued last year on a sound basis that that kind of pay should involve double time. Such enhanced pay should apply not only to those who are working on a full-time basis but also to part-time workers, including Sunday only workers. Finally, in order to ensure that the legislation providing for workers on licensed premises is consistent with other employment protection legislation we would wish it to be included in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act.
There is a particular and even more serious problem for licensed house managers, which I hope your Lordships will consider sympathetically. They are not employees in the ordinary sense but they work at least 70 hours a week at the moment and have work to do before the pub opens and after the pub closes. They do not have the freedom which a tenant or a sole proprietor would have of saying, "I do not wish to open these extra hours." It is the owners who will decide when the premises will be open. They often have contracts which say that they will work as and when required rather than having defined hours. I am sure that noble Lords will have heard of the real difficulties they have and the threat that is posed to their family life by the situation in which they find themselves. I am very sympathetic to that and I should like to explore with other noble Lords what can be done to deal with the particular problems they face.
However, subject to my doubts about the adequacy of the law to deal with the anomalies which still exist, and subject in particular to the points I have made about the protection of the workers concerned, I, without in any way imposing a Whip, would urge my noble friends to support the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I resolve the Good Friday point. Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier. The extended Sunday hours in the Bill and the power to make a restriction will also apply to Good Friday. The exception to the rule is Christmas Day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry. It is my fault. I have not made myself clear. The legislation for Sundays and Good Friday proposed in the Bill is very clear. It says that off-licences can be open from 10 a.m. My point is that on Good Friday, though not on Sundays, supermarkets with off-licences open before 10 a.m. and they will therefore have to keep their cordons between 8.30 or 9 a.m. when they open and 10 a.m. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is an anomaly.
3.33 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I accept the Bill, and I agree with most of what the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks. Perhaps I should declare my interest. I am the deputy chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I think I am speaking for most of my colleagues in that group when I say that it is not when people drink that is important; it is what they drink, where they drink and how they drink.
1336
We have quite grave problems in this country with the misuse of alcohol which lead to a good deal of harm and injury to persons and the break-up of families. Our total consumption of alcohol compared with other developed countries is relatively low. We can fairly confidently point to the main area of concern, which is drinking among young men between the ages of 16 and 24. Licensing hours in the 75 years or so during which they have been in existence have not been of enormous help. Some of my colleagues may disagree. The culture of drinking in this country over hundreds of years has been identified with a certain amount of rowdiness, damage and disorder and has largely been focused on the same group that I mentioned.
We have recently taken evidence from magistrates, probation officers and police officers with the intention of issuing a report which I hope will be published. The picture to emerge from the evidence given to us—particularly by the police and the magistrates—is fairly alarming. The amount of underlying alcohol misuse which goes relatively unnoticed by the public at large needs to be looked at. The difficulty is that alcohol is socially acceptable. It is usually a pleasurable activity to take drink in moderation. Most of the attention with regard to substances is concentrated upon those which are illegal. In an area where there has been a cultural change—I refer to drink-driving —the recently published figure of 500 people killed on the roads last year by drivers under the influence of drink shows that there is still a great deal to be done.
I therefore say that when the hours have been changed—I shall not enter into the debate between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench—there will need to be greater emphasis on the training of magistrates so that they are able to assess who is fit to be a licensee. It is also necessary to ensure that when licensees do not behave according to the standards we expect of them, proper sanctions are taken against them. I am thinking in particular of under-age drinking and of disorder, not only within public houses and places where drink is consumed—there is a great deal of it, particularly at weekends—but also outside public houses. Magistrates granting licences to establishments need to be very much better informed about the kind of environment involved and the likelihood of disorder taking place outside. Licensees have to take responsibility for what happens outside their premises when they know full well that disturbances may take place. That is the kind of area which our group is looking at.
Most important of all are the options in sentencing which need to be given to magistrates in dealing with people who, clearly, because of their repeated offending, have a drink problem. That applies not only to drink-drivers but to those who are constantly involved in brawls, assaults, sexual misbehaviour, and so on.
Perhaps I may refer to the general attitude in this country towards drinking alcohol. The recent decision by United Distillers to break with a 40 year-old convention that spirits are not advertised on television is disappointing. It has declared quite openly that it is now pushing drinks of this kind—the stronger drinks such as spirits and strong beers—as drinks for young people. That is a retrograde step and needs to be watched. I understand

1337
the pressure on those who purvey alcohol and the difficulties of competition and so on but a public responsibility falls on large groups, particularly those who have the power to advertise on television, to be especially wary where young people may be affected.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill, but there remains a great deal to be done in the whole area of alcohol misuse.
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I am most grateful for the retention of the break for Christmas Day. My reason for being grateful is the family life of licensees on Christmas Day, which is an important family day. I am also grateful for the provisions under Clause 3. But the question presents itself to me of my attitude to the removal of the mandatory break on Sundays.
I far prefer to be allied myself and in the office I hold with progress rather than to be obscurantist. But I find that there is a problem in that progress can sometimes be judged to be progress only if subsequent history—and sometimes considerably subsequent history—tells us that it was progress. Therefore, I feel bound to express some regret. There are many in this country who regret that under the Bill the Sunday break in public houses is no longer to be mandatory. One of my main reasons is again the family life of licensees. I was most interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the points that he said he would be making at Committee stage in this regard.
It may be that the majority of licensees are not clamouring for the retention of the mandatory break, but I am bound to wonder whether this was not an occasion for far-sightedness —an opportunity for a legislature to question the desire to buy alcoholic drink at any time of day on a Sunday in licensed premises—and whether that desire will turn out to be appropriate for humanity in the long run.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this Bill. I do not see why certain restrictions on the sale of alcohol are still being preserved. I welcome the relaxation of those restrictions for which the Bill provides. That of itself is a very sound argument for letting the Bill go through. However, it retains a number of restrictions which seem to be rather questionable. One has only to compare our situation with that of our friends in Europe. Even if this Bill goes through, we will still restrict the sale of alcohol at times when the purchaser wants to buy it to a far greater extent than our European friends.
As regards the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, I would point out that the Sunday break, while it may be very convenient for the licensee, is probably very inconvenient for a great many members of the public. On Sunday most people who are in work have the opportunity to go out with their wives and families. It may well be that it is just at the time of the Sunday break on Sunday afternoon that they would particularly like to go into a pub and have a drink themselves, give their wives a drink and
1338
introduce their older children to sensible and moderate drinking. Although it is natural to sympathise with the licensee, I do not believe that maintaining the Sunday break of itself is going to be of any great benefit to him. We are doing away with a great many other restrictions during the week. I do not believe that the life of the licensee is going to be particularly improved if a compulsory break is imposed on Sunday afternoon, whereas I am perfectly certain that a great many members of the public will be unduly interfered with.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I wonder why in this day and age it is now thought necessary to maintain any restrictions at all. As I have said, these restrictions are not maintained by highly civilised neighbouring countries. They are not regarded worldwide as being of essential importance. It seems a little strange that we should still be maintaining, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, quite complicated provisions restricting people who want to buy a drink from doing so and also restricting those who want to sell it.
Therefore, while I very much welcome the Bill and the improvement that it makes, I regard it as only an instalment in the right direction. I very much hope that the reception that this Bill receives, and the reaction of the public to it, will encourage the Government to a final Bill clearing up all the restrictions and putting us in the same position as our European friends.
I know that there are certain fanatics on the subject—I do not suppose that there are necessarily any of them in this House—who want to interfere with people having a drink. That is a mentally confused approach, because if one limits the hours one still does not prevent people from drinking too much if that is the intention. They can certainly do it quite effectively within the limited times. All that one is doing is confining their excesses, if they are going to drink to excess, to certain hours to the inconvenience of everybody else. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to take a robust line on this matter and to say that the Government are giving consideration not only to making the good changes being made by the Bill but taking the matter further and putting ourselves in the same position as many of our European friends.
I know that there are still fanatics, prohibitionists and fanatical teetotallers. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships a few lines of very entertaining verse which has been written about them:
"We zealots, made up of stiff clay, The sour-looking children of sorrow, While not over jolly today, Resolve to be wretched tomorrow. We can't for a certainty tell What mirth may molest us on Monday; But, at least, to begin the week well, Let us all be unhappy on Sunday".
3.49 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it was about this time last year that we debated the merits of Sunday trading in the Sunday Trading Bill. When I spoke on that Bill, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I made my position clear as a total deregulator. When Parliament seeks to interfere with what is a healthy free market, it cannot avoid making anomalies, placing unnecessary

1339
restrictions on retailers and so causing dissatisfaction among consumers. Unfortunately, your Lordships chose not to agree with me on that occasion although what we now have in place is a lot better than the discredited Shops Act 1950. There are issues which I am sure are not subject to this Bill; but, for example, the opening of garden centres on Easter Sunday caused amazement among the public when they found that those garden centres were not open.
I mention the Sunday trading debate and the Act that followed for two reasons: first, because by liberalising Sunday trading it was inevitable that attention would soon have to turn to the country's archaic licensing laws and, secondly, because unless we deregulate licensing laws with vigour, we shall be perpetuating anomalies similar to those that I mentioned earlier.
On 1st November 1994, I asked Her Majesty's Government:
"Whether they will reform the licensing laws to bring the hours during which alcohol is allowed to be sold in large shops and supermarkets on Sundays into line with those during which those shops may open under the terms of the Sunday Trading Act 1994."
My noble friend who replied to that Question said that the Government were,
"considering whether to consult publicly about further reforms of the liquor licensing laws21/11/2549".—[Official Report, 1/11/94: col. 761.]
Therefore, I am delighted that the Government have come forward so soon with this Bill which does just that. My Question received widespread support from noble Lords of all parties. In fact, no noble Lord spoke against it.
I am sure that all of us have anecdotal evidence of the inconvenience which the Sunday licensing laws can cause. Indeed, that is why I tabled my Question last year. I had been caught out on more than one occasion either when trying to buy a bottle of wine on Sunday morning before midday or when entering a pub on a Sunday afternoon at 3 p.m. only to hear the cry "Last orders". Frustration is the overwhelming feeling, and in some cases that frustration can boil over into anger towards the very staff whom the law is presumably designed to protect. Forget the alleged damage that liberalisation has wrought on the British Sunday; it is the damage that the current law does to the traditional British sense of tolerance that alarms me.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I should like the Government to go further and to remove licensing hours restrictions altogether. Why shops, supermarkets and off-licences should have any restrictions on the hours during which they may sell alcohol, I fail to understand. I appreciate that local residents may have objections to pubs and clubs having extended hours; but surely that is a local issue and can be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested, as a planning matter.
I cannot accept the suggestion that longer opening hours would be an unwelcome imposition on landlords. A survey by Publican magazine showed that 57 per cent. of licensees thought that they would benefit from the freedom to open on a Sunday afternoon—more than twice as many as those who did not. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to a survey by the Consumers' Association which showed similar results. Anyway, as
1340
has been said, there is nothing in the Bill which requires pubs to open on Sunday afternoons. Whether they do so is entirely a matter for them.
I suspect that the real reason for the restrictions that exist today is religion, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. The reason why pubs do not open until midday on Sunday and then close for the afternoon break from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. is so that we cannot nip off early and fail to show at communion or evensong. It strikes me that a great religion like Christianity was built on rather more secure foundations than whether, in the late 20th century, it can prevent people going to a pub on Sunday afternoons.
That argument holds true on one religious day in particular, Good Friday, when the licensing hours mirror those for Sundays despite, as honourable Members pointed out in another place, Good Friday being an ordinary working day in certain parts of the country. Pubs cannot open until 12 p. m.; neither can off-licences— although I accept that the Bill will bring that forward to 10 a.m. I fear that, given the amendments tabled by my right honourable friend in another place which have the effect of reversing the Bill's original intention of liberalising pub licensing hours on Christmas Day, I shall make little headway in seeking even more liberal hours for pubs on Good Friday than already envisaged.
However, so far as concerns off-licences, the Bill creates an anomaly to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. As the Bill stands, large supermarkets will be able to sell alcohol throughout their six permitted hours of opening on a Sunday. The Government are to be commended for that. However, those hours are then applied to Good Friday as well, but supermarkets typically open at 8 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. on Good Friday—they have been able to do so for years—so there will still be a two-hour period until 10 a.m. during which sales of alcohol will be prohibited. I believe that licensing hours on that day should be pushed back to the normal weekday time of 8 a.m. That would remove one anomaly for supermarkets and make matters considerably easier for customers. It would not be onerous for employees because whether or not they are selling alcohol, they are already at work. Therefore, such provisions would not make any difference to them. I intend to return to that issue at Committee stage when I shall table an amendment to that effect.
I finish where I began. I am against interference in the market, against anomalies and for deregulation. That is my ideal, but I accept that one often falls far short of one's ideals. I accept that a year ago the mood of your Lordships' House was not in favour of total deregulation on Sundays; and it may not be for total deregulation of the licensing hours now. However, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I believe that this is an issue to which we shall have to return before too long. I think that we should reject the views of the ever-present doom-mongers and put our trust in the good sense of the British public. I warmly support the Bill.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I rise to thank my noble friend who introduced the Bill to your Lordships. Following the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord Brabazon, I shall refer to a third element in the argument. My noble friend mentioned alcohol and religion. I should like to refer to what appears to be an anomaly in Clause 2 which refers to casinos, of all things.
I understand that gambling does indeed take place on Sundays, and I understand that under the Gaming Act 1968 some licensed casinos provide meals as well as liquid refreshment, but not adjacent to the gaming area. That happens throughout the year. I wonder whether such establishments, which are licensed under the Gaming Act 1968, are classified as "registered clubs" for the purposes of Clause 2 of this Bill. If they are so classified, I understand that they are already entitled to provide alcoholic beverages for their patrons until 10.30 p.m. I would imagine that that applies even on Good Friday. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm, either today or later, whether I am right in thinking that the Bill, and particularly Clause 2, will not have any restrictive effect on casinos that are licensed under the Gaming Act 1968.
One anomaly was addressed by the Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in 1978, which specifically recommended that casinos should be permitted to supply liquor on the same basis as other types of club. It is my understanding that the point that I have raised is covered by Clause 2. If I am wrong, perhaps my noble friend will advise me. If I am right, perhaps we can discuss the matter on another day. I give my warm support to the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have been involved in consideration of all licensing reform measures. Indeed, I introduced one such measure myself some years ago. I therefore welcome the Bill which was so effectively introduced by my noble friend Lady Blatch. On such occasions, I am always happy to declare an interest—albeit an honorary one—in that I am a former President, now Patron, of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain.
In that context, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there are still anomalies in our licensing legislation as a whole. I should like to mention one specific anomaly. Restaurants and cafés cannot serve alcoholic drinks unless they also serve food. That is not the case in pubs, most of which sell food and drink indiscriminately. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Bradford who I believe may speak later. He is much more knowledgeable about that aspect of the matter than am I, but it is an important point.
My noble friend the Minister said that much of the licensing legislation was an unnecessary interference in consumers' lives. That point was reinforced strongly by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Surely the time has come for us to consider the total abolition of all licensing legislation so that consumers and dispensers of food and drink to the public have freedom of choice. That is important, and it is a point to which other noble Lords
1342
have referred. This modest Bill is a most welcome measure. I hope that it will have a speedy passage onto the statute book and an early implementation.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill which in the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will do away with an absurd, old-fashioned, out-of-date and patronising regulation that distinguishes Sunday from the rest of the week. The abolition in 1988 of the afternoon break on weekdays did not bring the problems that some people foresaw. I am sure that allowing the pubs to stay open all afternoon on Sundays will have no further adverse effects.
I should like to point out one glaring omission from the Bill—glaring, at any rate, for the people of Wales, who still suffer total prohibition on Sundays in one area and are now threatened with the possibility of a complete ban next year throughout the Principality by virtue of Sections 66 and 67 of the Licensing Act 1964. Those two sections impose a referendum on the Welsh every seven years. While in the last referendum only one area elected to stay dry, the turnout was so low that the prospect of a maverick poll cannot be ruled out. In Cardiff in 1989 just 9 per cent. of the electorate voted.
I am aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has indicated that he proposes to introduce legislation after the next poll which will cast in stone the result of that referendum. I do not agree that that is what we should be doing. If in the Bill we are doing away with absurd, old-fashioned, out-of-date and patronising legislation, surely we should consider the repeal of Sections 66 and 67 which fit those criteria to a tee. Old-fashioned they certainly are. They date back to the Sunday Closing Act 1881 and a later Act of 1915 when Monmouthshire was included by the Central Liquor Control Board as a wartime emergency measure.
Next week we shall be celebrating the 50th anniversary of VE Day. Is it not time we got rid of an outdated measure that precedes that day by more than 50 years? It does not even stop there in its absurdity, because in 1921 another Licensing Act allowed licensed clubs to sell alcohol on Sundays while the pubs were kept shut. Today any club can be opened on a Sunday but a pub cannot. So while a local person can join a club to enjoy his freedom to have a drink, a visitor or a tourist cannot. I am sorry to say it goes even further than that, because a hotel can serve drinks to residents on Sundays but not to casual customers. Your Lordships do not need me to paint the picture of a hotel dining-room at lunchtime on a Sunday: one table of resident tourists allowed to have their bottle of wine and anything else they want, while beside them a table of non-resident tourists having to make do with the finest bottle of Welsh water.
When I use the example of tourists I do so deliberately, because the only area in Wales that is presently dry is Gwyfor, which includes one of the most important tourist areas of North Wales—the Lleyn Peninsula and the resorts of Caerphilly, Abersoch and Portmadoc.
The Bill's Long Title is specific:
"to amend the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964 relating to permitted hours in licensed premises and clubs on Sundays".

1343
Even within that narrow scope, it would be possible, if the will were there, to include measures to bring Wales into line with the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, instead of increasing the gulf between them, merely by repealing Sections 66 and 67, together with Schedule 8, of the 1964 Act. That would save my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales the trouble of having to find time in the future to introduce a further Bill, when I am sure that there are more pressing matters to be dealt with. It would also save the new unitary authorities the expense and effort that will be required to hold the referendum at a time when their efforts will be much better directed elsewhere.
The Government are committed to deregulation. Here is a ridiculous anachronism, together with a golden opportunity to put it in the dustbin of history where it belongs. I sincerely hope that they will seize this chance while they can.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery has referred to me as a bit of a restaurant busybody, I should declare one or two interests before making my point. I am president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain; chairman of the Westminster Considerate Restaurateurs Association; I sit on the committee of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain and the British Tourist Authority's Great Britain Great Food working party; and, finally, and very much not least, I have my own 200-seater restaurant (Porters) in Covent Garden.
I lend my support to the Bill, which should increase customers' choice but should not increase total drink sales. However, various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery, have referred to certain anomalies. The Bill will enable pubs to compete effectively with restaurants. However, it does nothing to help restaurants to cope with the increased competition that they will face from pubs in the future because they will not be able to serve a drink to a customer who does not wish to eat. It causes confusion to tourists and customers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will encourage the Government to look again at that point. It is an area that harms our tourist trade, and as pubs will now be allowed to compete more freely with restaurants, it will undoubtedly harm restaurants.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall speak for just two or three minutes in the gap. There are two or three points I should like to make. I support what the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, has just said. I speak as one who for 22 years was the licence holder of the largest club in Manchester. One must not assume that all licensees operate under the same system. In registered clubs the licence is not held by the person who runs the bar, as is the case with a pub. The licence is usually vested in the secretary. It is not the same type of licence. It is known as a permission to supply people with liquor. So there is some difference.
1344
I am not an anachronism. I still like a drink. Having run a club for that many years, I am reluctant that a group of people should be able to tell a man and his wife who have historically worked in the club—the steward and his wife —that they have to work two or three extra hours on a Sunday whether they like it or not. Such matters must be taken into consideration.
Has there been any consultation with people representing licensees or managers? Sadly, over the past two or three years literally thousands of licensees have been driven out of existence by Grand Met's policies and the way in which it has applied them. It is not a subject to go into today, but those are the facts. That company has been criticised severely for ruthlessly making people bankrupt.
One of the earlier speakers referred to drinking and driving. I maintain that people who go drinking and then drive a car know full well that when they get into that car they are in charge of a lethal machine. It saddens me when people are killed because of that. When the matters go before the courts the sentences are almost trivial. In my opinion, they are insufficiently severe to deter some people.
A few weeks ago I was astounded to see a television programme shown in the North West about a number of pubs in the Salford area that are fully licensed but whose landlords dare not open them because of the activities of gangs running protection rackets in the area. At first, I could not believe that that happens in this country today.
I understand that it occurs in other big cities. Gangs move in on pubs and if the landlord does not cough up a certain amount of money, they organise a battle in the pub between the local gangs, and the pub is wrecked. In fact, guns were discharged in a pub in Salford and that has now closed down. I know that that has nothing to do with the Bill but it is a fact of life and it is happening in licensed premises in this country. I hope that the Government will issue guidelines to the police authorities to crack down on such behaviour in the severest way possible.
I believe that as the Bill goes into Committee certain issues need to be discussed and I have drawn attention to one or two. I have never been keen on the introduction of children to licensed premises unless specific areas are provided for them. In some licensed premises they sit with their families at tables or at the bar. The provision is not as simple as some people say; it can lead to most unfortunate practices. Indeed, the stage can almost be reached when some children become alcoholics. And please do not laugh; that is happening in France, whether one likes it or not.
I believe that in Committee certain matters should be considered. I am pleased to have been able to enter the debate for three or four minutes in order to make those few points.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude the debate. As I expected, we have had an interesting discussion and a number of important points have been made. With your Lordships'

1345
indulgence, I hope to address as many as I can, but I promise to write to my noble friends and colleagues on those that I miss.
Perhaps I may first pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He was anxious about licensing committees which refuse licences on the grounds of the lack of need for the premises. We are considering whether the grounds on which licence applications can be refused should be set out in statute and, if so, whether the grounds should include lack of need for the premises. Of course, that raises complex and important questions on which views differ markedly. There is, for example, the possibility of an over-concentration of premises leading to nuisance and disorder. While these complex reforms are under consideration, we should not delay in the simpler and more valuable task of deregulating Sunday licensing hours. I was taken in particular by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which has some force. It is that perhaps the decisions should be planning decisions as opposed to blanket permit by statute.
My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the Bill was a first chapter in the story of reform and whether we envisage proposing the removal of all controls on the sale and purchase of alcohol. I can assure all noble Lords on the first point; that it is a step on the road. However, I am afraid that I cannot give an assurance on the second point. We are considering whether to consult publicly on other possible reforms, including possible consultation on longer opening hours on some weekdays. However, we do not envisage proposing to remove all controls on the public sale and public consumption of alcohol which, if not properly controlled, can lead to local nuisance disorder and sometimes to other crime.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was anxious about other changes which he mentioned. We accept that there are other areas in the licensing system where changes have been advocated, and an extension of weekday hours is one such area. However, the purpose of the present Bill is to rationalise Sunday licensing hours in the light of the legislation in the last Session which deregulated Sunday trading. We are considering the different issues arising out of later evening opening. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place on 20th April, we hope to reach a conclusion on this shortly. Any changes that we might propose to weekday licensing hours would be subject to public consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Good Friday. Perhaps I misunderstood the point, which accounted for my intervention. The noble Lord referred to Good Friday as an anomaly. That is, in fact, a matter of judgment. For many years the licensing law has treated Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday as the same for the purpose of permitted hours. When the Bill was introduced in another place it therefore proposed to deregulate the licensing hours in precisely the same way for all three days. However, the pressure in Committee in another place was to keep the present limited hours on Christmas Day and Good Friday. The Government decided to accept the former but not the latter. Good
1346
Friday is, of course, a major religious festival. While some people, such as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like even longer hours for off-licences, others would like them to be shorter. Therefore, the Bill strikes a balance which at this stage we believe is the correct one.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was anxious about alcohol abuse. When the afternoon break in weekday hours was abolished in 1988 there was considerable concern that it could lead to increased alcohol consumption, drink driving and alcohol-related disorder. Experience has shown that those fears were unfounded. Research conducted in 1990, some two years after the afternoon break in weekday licensing hours was abolished, revealed that nearly half of the pubs surveyed—that is 44 per cent—had not extended their afternoon hours as a result of the relaxations. That does not suggest that weekday afternoon opening opened the floodgates to excessive drinking. Nor is there any research evidence to suggest that afternoon opening on weekdays has led to any appreciable increase in disorder.
While pubs may be more likely to take advantage of the opportunity to open on Sunday afternoons than they were on weekday afternoons, there seems no reason to believe that Sunday opening will create such problems. However, the noble Viscount made the point that we must be vigilant in ensuring that all that is monitored.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter was concerned about the effect of these measures on Sunday as a special day. I accept that some people believe that Sunday should not be like any other day and I respect their right to hold that view. Indeed, I am personally committed to that view. However, the Government believe that it is important that people should be able to choose how to spend their leisure time and that they should not be prevented from doing so by unnecessary government interference. The changes that we are proposing to the Sunday licensing hours will not enable pubs to open earlier in the day or to close later in the evening. Off-licences will be able to open from 10 o'clock in the morning, which is no earlier than the time at which large shops and supermarkets are permitted to open under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
Furthermore, we have recently introduced a system of children's certificates, which allow accompanied children into suitable bars. We expect that system to help pubs to become more family-oriented. It would seem illogical not to allow pubs to open on Sunday afternoons when families with young children are most likely to benefit from the new arrangements for children's certificates.
In response to suggestions that some licensing committees are too restrictive in granting children's certificates, we are aware of reports that some licensing committees are setting very demanding conditions for children's certificates. In some ways that is no bad thing, but Home Office officials are monitoring the situation. If it is found that in some areas the system of children's certificates is not working as we intend, we shall consider what action needs to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was concerned that there was no consultation and wondered whether that was an oversight or needed to be remedied. I accept that we would normally consult publicly on proposals for licensing hour reform, but we decided to go ahead with

1347
these relaxations on Sunday licensing hours without formal consultation because we believe that they are sensible. I am sure that they will prove to be popular.
As regards the rationalisation of the present Sunday licensing arrangements, the noble Lord will have gathered from this debate that the anxiety which he raised is one justification for making a relatively modest change to fill that particular lacuna. Some of the other changes that have been mentioned in the debate must be subject to consultation. The point which the noble Lord makes is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly expressed his concern about employment protection. Under the law, employees are already protected against being forced to accept unwelcome changes in their hours of work. Terms and conditions of employment arc binding on both parties and cannot be varied without agreement although, as with any other type of contract, it is always open to either party to seek to renegotiate the terms. Licensing house managers are in the same position as other employers.
The Government do not accept that special protection should be introduced for people who work in public houses, although we did so for retail employees in relation to Sunday trading and for betting employees in relation to Sunday betting. That was in specific recognition of the fact that those groups of people would have entered employment believing that there was no prospect of them ever being lawfully required to work on a Sunday. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
The position is quite different in relation to pubs. Sunday working is a long-established feature of that industry. Employees would have been aware that at some point they might be asked to take on such work. In any event, some pubs may choose to remain closed on Sunday afternoons in the future and employees there will be required to work no longer than usual. No doubt we shall return to that topic at a later stage.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Lyell will allow me to take away the matter which he raised. I shall consider it more carefully. I shall both meet with my noble friend and write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, raised the subject of Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has, after consultation, decided that the next Welsh polls in 1996 will be the last. The provision in the Licensing Act 1964 for polls every seven years will therefore need to be repealed. But the Government do not see the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill as a means of effecting that repeal, especially as the final polls are not due to take place until the autumn of next year.
My noble friend Lord Bradford complained that a restaurant may not sell drink without food to a customer. Freedom to sell drinks only comes with an on-licence and a restaurant proprietor is entirely free to apply for such a licence.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the Government feel that the measures in the Bill to relax the hours when pubs, clubs and off-licences may open on Sundays are sensible and responsible and will, I am sure, prove popular with business and consumers alike. There are
1348
good reasons for introducing them quickly, rather than attempting to deal with a wider range of more complex, and perhaps more controversial licensing matters.
Relaxation of Sunday hours comes as one of a series of deregulatory measures introduced by the Home Office in the recent past. The Sunday Trading Act, which came into force last August, is a major example. Since then there have been various other measures. Following enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act last November, provisions for children's certificates were introduced on 3rd January. Sunday betting was permitted under the deregulation Act, also from 3rd January, and at the same time restrictions on charging for admission to sporting events and activities were removed. Other measures are in the pipeline. The Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill is part of our programme of deregulation. We have moved quickly to introduce other deregulatory measures. I hope that it will be possible to continue to move quickly on this particular measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 40 as first printed by the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 27, leave out "before the grant of the tenancy" and insert "on or before the relevant day".
  2 Page 2, line 2, after "the" insert "tenancy or".
  3 Page 2, line 4, after second "the" insert "tenancy or".
  4 Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
  "( ) In subsection (4) above 'the relevant day' means whichever is the earlier of the following—

  (a) the day on which the parties enter into any instrument creating the tenancy, other than an agreement to enter into a tenancy on a future date, or

  (b) the beginning of the tenancy.

  ( ) The written notice referred to in subsection (4) above must not be included in any instrument creating the tenancy.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc.
  On Report and at Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, drew the attention of the House to a possible trap. As the Bill was drafted, any tenancy granted before 1st September would have been subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, That would be the case even if the tenancy did not begin until on or after 1st September and the parties had intended it to be a farm business tenancy. The noble Lord tabled an amendment to Clause 36 which I could not accept, but I undertook to

  1349
  consider the issues which he had raised. He could hardly have anticipated the number of amendments which were needed to address his point!
  The first group of amendments relates to Clause 1 and will assist parties wishing to comply with the notice conditions. Under the Bill as drafted notices had to be exchanged before the tenancy was granted. An oral agreement to enter into a farm business tenancy might be held to be a contract of tenancy, in which case the tenancy would have been granted when this initial agreement was entered into. It would already he too late to exchange notices.
  The amendment allows notices to be exchanged at any time on or before the day on which the lease, that is the instrument creating the tenancy, is signed. Where there is no written tenancy, notices must be exchanged before the beginning of the tenancy. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining this matter. We warned him that that point might arise. We are glad that the Minister has explained that it is the date of signing the lease which is important rather than the date at the beginning of the tenancy.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  5 Clause 2, page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning to "or" and insert "the tenancy begins before 1st September 1995".
  6 Page 2, line 26, leave out "granted after that commencement" and insert "beginning on or after that date".
  7 Clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out "granted after the commencement of this Act" and insert "beginning on or after 1st September 1995".
  8 Page 3, line 14, leave out "entered into after that commencement" and insert "beginning on or after that date".
  9 Page 3, line 15, at end insert:
  "( ) is granted by a written contract of tenancy entered into before 1st September 1995 and indicating (in whatever terms) that the 1986 Act is to apply in relation to the tenancy,".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 en bloc. With the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 28 and 29.
  This group of amendments also concerns the beginning of the tenancy and addresses the specific point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. We recognise that if farm business tenancies are to come into operation this autumn, people need to be able to plan ahead. The amendments to Clause 2 will make it clear that the date on which a tenancy begins will normally determine whether it is a farm business tenancy or 1986 Act tenancies. No farm business tenancies can begin before 1st September 1995. From that date the only new 1986 Act tenancies will be those permitted by Clause 4.
  The first two amendments to Clause 4 bring this clause into line with Clause 2. The third amendment is important. It will enable a 1986 Act tenancy to begin on or after 1st September provided it was granted by a written contract
  1350
  of tenancy, entered into before that date, which indicated that the 1986 Act is to apply to the tenancy. This provision is necessary to prevent the Bill having a retrospective effect on contracts entered into before 1st September where the parties intended the 1986 Act to apply.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 5 to 9 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I imagine that it will be rare in the run-up to 1st September for anyone to set up a new tenancy under the 1986 Act. Will this provision apply to a succession tenancy which comes into effect before 1st September or will that follow automatically as a result of the 1986 Act?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that any tenancies which come into effect prior to 1st September will legally have to be 1986 Act tenancies because the Bill comes into force only on 1st September. This provision addresses the possibility that parties may wish a 1986 Act tenancy to apply after 1st September and the contract is entered into prior to 1st September.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we need to be clear about the point. As I understand it, the parties will not be able to use the 1986 Act after 1st September. However, can the Minister confirm that it is only if the parties want to do so after 1st September, having made the decision before that date, that that would be the case? Is that correct?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, that is indeed the case, other than those specific exceptions allowed for in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 4, page 3, line 22, after "tenancy," insert,
  "( ) is created by the acceptance of a tenant in accordance with the provisions as to compensation known as the 'Evesham custom' and set out in subsections.(3) to (5) of section 80 of the 1986 Act on the terms and conditions of the previous tenancy,".
  4.30 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
  The amendment safeguards the position of existing tenants who took over their market gardens by making use of the Evesham custom. Noble Lords may be unfamiliar with the Evesham custom. The custom grew up last century in the Evesham area where there was a considerable number of very small market garden holdings, and enables an outgoing tenant, in effect, to sell a new tenancy if the landlord is willing to accept the new tenant. The payment made by the new tenant covers all compensation for past improvements that is due to the outgoing tenant and also generally includes a premium in return for receiving a tenancy conferring life-time security.
  Under the Bill as it left your Lordships' House, any new tenancy would be a farm business tenancy and would not really be,
  "on the same terms and conditions as the previous tenancy",
  which is what the Evesham custom requires. Tenants to whom the Evesham custom applies could suffer an immediate loss as their holding would become much less valuable as an asset if, for example, they needed a loan.

  1351
  The amendment ensures that where the custom applies and is used to create a new tenancy, that new tenancy will remain subject to the 1986 Act. That will resolve the problems in relation to this small group of market garden tenants whom we would not want to see suffering financial loss by reason of an unintended effect of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we have all been intrigued by the Evesham custom; indeed, we all had to read up about it to find out exactly what it was. However, can the Minister say whether it applies in the Evesham area only or are there agreements outside of Evesham that use the custom?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, my understanding is that it applies only in the Evesham area. However, I shall take advice on that point and, if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  11 Clause 10, page 6, line 41, after "rent," insert,
  "( ) any date as from which there took effect a previous determination as to the amount of the rent made, otherwise than as arbitrator, by a person appointed under an agreement between the landlord and the tenant,".
  12 Clause 11, page 7, line 20, after "direction", insert ", determination".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 en bloc. These are technical amendments. Under the Bill, the parties may agree to the appointment of a person to determine rent "otherwise than as arbitrator". The amendment to Clause 10 is necessary so that the rent review cycle takes account of any such rent determination in the same way as if an arbitrator had determined the rent at a rent review. The amendment to Clause 11 is consequential.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Clause 13, page 8, line 5, leave out "the grant" and insert "or before the beginning".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13, to which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  14 Clause 19, page 9, line 43, leave out "the proposed provision of a" and insert "any".
  15 Page 9, line 44, leave out from "improvement" to "is" in line 45 and insert "the tenant under a farm business tenancy".
  16 Page 10, line 8, at end insert "but this subsection has effect subject to subsections (1A) and (2) below.
  (1A) No notice under subsection (1) above may be given
  1352
  in relation to any tenant's improvement which the tenant has already provided or begun to provide, unless that improvement is a routine improvement.".
  17 Page 10, line 21, after "RICS", insert "subject to subsection (7A) below".
  18 Page 10, line 25, leave out "proposed".
  19 Page 10, line 26, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7A) below".
  20 Page 10, line 27, leave out "proposed".
  21 Page 10, line 35, at end insert:
  "(7A) Where, at any time after giving a notice under subsection (1) above in relation to any tenant's improvement which is not a routine improvement, the tenant begins to provide the improvement—

  (a) no application may be made under subsection (3) above after that time,

  (b) where such an application has been made but no arbitrator has been appointed before that time, the application shall be ineffective, and

  (c) no award may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above after that time except as to the costs of the reference and award in a case where the arbitrator was appointed before that time.

  () For the purposes of this section—
  'fixed equipment' includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity;
  'routine improvement', in relation to a farm business tenancy, means any tenant's improvement which—

  (a) is a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding or any part of the holding, and

  (b) does not consist of fixed equipment or an improvement to fixed equipment,

  but does not include any improvement whose provision is prohibited by the terms of the tenancy.".
  22 Clause 22, page 11, line 47, at end insert:
  "( ) Where—

  (a) an application under subsection (3) above relates wholly or partly to compensation in respect of a routine improvement (within the meaning of section 19 of this Act) which the tenant has provided or has begun to provide, and

  (b) that application is made at the same time as an application under section 19(3) of this Act relating to the provision of that improvement,

  the President of the RICS shall appoint the same arbitrator on both applications and, if both applications are made by the same person, only one fee shall be payable by virtue of section 30(1) of this Act in respect of them.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 en bloc.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised the subject of compensation for tenant-right matters during Committee, Report stage and at Third Reading. Similar concerns were also expressed in another place. The above group of amendments responds to those concerns.
  Under the Bill all improvements require landlord's consent in order to be eligible for compensation. In cases where consent is refused, the tenant has the right to go to arbitration (except in the case of planning permission). The concern was that some tenants, being used to the different approach in the 1986 Act, might not realise that

  1353
  they needed landlord's consent for certain routine operations for which they later intended to claim compensation. That point has now been addressed.
  The Government have reflected carefully and come up with an approach which can cover tenant-right matters such as growing crops, applying fertiliser and other individual routine acts of husbandry which add value to the holding, including those which add only a small amount of value compared with the overall value of the holding. The amendments to Clause 19 will ensure that a tenant can carry out "routine improvements" of that kind without losing the right to arbitration if for any reason the landlord withholds consent for them. This approach has the support of the Industry Group.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I have absolutely no locus in the debate as I farm in Scotland, to which the Bill does not apply, but, nevertheless, I have been a practical farmer for many years. I have studied the drafting of Amendment No. 21 as regards "fixed equipment". I congratulate the draftsmen on producing it, but wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will be kind enough to tell me exactly what it means.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that there is an explanation in the Marshalled List regarding the meaning of the term. It says that "fixed equipment",
  "includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity".
  While the draftsmen are most certainly to be complimented on their phraseology, I would not wish to elaborate on such excellent wording. However, if my noble friend is still in doubt, I shall he glad to elucidate the matter further after today's proceedings.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I shall be most obliged if my noble friend will do so.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, in fact, I was about to ask the same question. When I looked at the definition of "fixed equipment", I could not for the life of me think of anything that would not be caught by the description of,
  "anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption … its produce, or amenity".
  What is left? I just cannot think of anything else that would be "fixed equipment" under that definition. However, while I am making other points on the group of amendments it is possible that the answer may suddenly appear.
  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for referring to the approval of the Industry Group. Indeed, I should have been most disappointed if we had got through the Commons amendments without having the blessing of that group. However, when the Minister says that the amendments respond to the arguments that were made, that is a pretty cool statement bearing in mind all the arguments that we were given in the House during the Bill's passage as to why compensation for tenant right could not be paid. We are pleased that the Government have now accepted the argument.
  1354
  I also congratulate the draftsmen on the idea of the "routine improvement" which I believe catches the sort of things that we discussed. Obviously the basis of the valuation will be left to the parties to determine. That is clear. Moreover, in the case of what we used to call tenant right, it will now be the incoming tenant who pays, and again it will be up to the parties to determine that between themselves. As I said, it is clear and it meets the points that have been made, as I understand it, for those things which the tenant thought he would be compensated for in the normal course of business. But if such things have been forgotten, the new provision will cover the situation. We are all waiting with baited breath for the explanation of "fixed equipment".
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  23 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
  ".—(1) Section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leasing powers of mortgagor and mortgagee in possession) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
  (2) At the beginning of subsection (13), there shall be inserted 'Subject to subsection (13A) below:.
  (3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
  '(13A) Subsection (13) of this section—

  (a) shall not enable the application of any provision of this section to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made after 1st March 1948 but before 1st September 1995, and

  (b) shall not enable the power to grant a lease of an agricultural holding to which, by virtue of section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply, to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made on or after 1st September 1995.

  (13B) In subsection (13A) of this section—
  "agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
  "agricultural land" has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.'
  (4) Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which excludes the application of subsection (13) of section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to a mortgage of agricultural land and is superseded by the amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above) shall cease to have effect.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. This is a rather technical amendment, but the effect is quite simple. Since 1948 the agricultural holdings legislation has effectively prevented mortgage lenders from putting restrictions on the letting of agricultural land by landowners who have mortgaged the land. The banks have now suggested, and the main industry organisations have agreed, that there would he advantages in treating agricultural land like any other land or property which is mortgaged and enabling mortgage lenders to control lettings if they so wish. Subsection (4) of the new clause achieves that objective.
  A substantive amendment to the Law of Property Act 1925 is also needed to avoid retrospection. As we made clear throughout the discussions on the tenancy law reform, the new legislation is not to be retrospective. The new clause adds a new subsection to Section 99 of the

  1355
  Law of Property Act 1925 to safeguard the interests of existing borrowers and people who are entitled to a new 1986 Act tenancy.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a technical point. In order to be absolutely clear, I should be grateful for confirmation that this amendment applies to new tenancies under the 1986 Act and any tenancies which fall under this Bill but not to existing 1986 Act tenancies, so that there is no element of retrospection to protect the mortgagor of land which is presently let under the 1986 Act. Is that understanding correct?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the essential point is certainly that there is no element of retrospection. The amendment will restore the right to contract out of Section 99 of the Law of Property Act in relation to agricultural land, but the new clause will retain the existing restriction on contracting out in the case of all loans made before the Bill comes into force and in the case of loans made subsequently which are secured on a mortgage of a tenanted holding which is still governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1986.
  I am now in a position to shed a little further light on the question posed by my noble friend Lord Stodart. The definition of fixed equipment is very similar to that used in the 1986 Act. Fences, dry stone walls, hedges and so on fall within the definition. In relation to the amendments which we have just approved, we did not favour the idea that improvements should be listed, as proposed by the Opposition. We have now dealt with the problem by another method, as my noble friend will appreciate.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  24 Clause 34, page 16, line 17, leave out from beginning to "after" in line 18 and insert:
  ".—( ) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.
  ( ) In subsection (2),".
  25 Page 16, line 20, leave out from "any" to "drawing" in line 21 and insert "accredited person".
  26 Page 16, line 28, at end insert:
  "((In subsection (3A), immediately before the definition of 'registered trade mark agent' there shall be inserted—
  accredited person" means any person who is—

  (a) a Full Member of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers,

  (b) an Associate or Fellow of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, or

  (c) an Associate or Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors:'.".

  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 en bloc.
  This group of three government amendments responds to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, at the Third Reading of the Bill. Noble Lords may recollect that at that time we had not completed consultations with the CAAV and ISVA about possible further amendments to the Solicitors Act. I am pleased to confirm that
  1356
  appropriately qualified members of the CAAV and ISVA, as well as the RICS, will be able to draw up tenancy agreements of more than three years' duration.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This was a point that we pressed and which the Government said they would take away. The Minister will know that the amendment has met with considerable agreement among the members of the organisations which are mentioned.
  As we approach the end of the Commons amendments, I wonder when there will be a concession in response to an amendment that I moved. So far every concession has been in respect of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gallacher. That draws attention to his considerable powers of persuasion.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope that members of those organisations will he properly qualified. I was anxious about that aspect of the amendment. It will not be the most simple of jobs to draw up these agreements.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley. The CAAV and the ISVA have provided full details of their examinations and internal professional standards. Both bodies require practitioners to have professional indemnity insurance. I emphasise that this provision will apply to appropriately qualified members of those bodies. We feel that there is no good reason to restrict the scope of the amendment to the Solicitors Act in favour solely of RICS members.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Clause 35, page 16, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert:
  "(cc) it is given to him in a manner authorised by a written agreement made, at any time before the giving of the notice, between him and the person giving the notice.
  ( ) A notice or other document to which this section applies is not duly given to a person if its text is transmitted to him by facsimile or other electronic means otherwise than by virtue of subsection (2) (cc) above.".
  4.45 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.
  During the earlier stages of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, introduced a number of amendments to Clause 35 (which was then Clause 34) and was particularly concerned that the position regarding service of notice by fax should be made clear. At Third Reading I assured your Lordships that we were working on an amendment to that clause but it was a complex area. The amendment is the result of our deliberations.
  The first part of the amendment deletes the specific provision relating to the sending of notices by any delivery service where the delivery is recorded. That means that if there is a dispute, the onus will always be on the sender to prove that the notice was delivered.

  1357
  Two new provisions are inserted. The first will give parties extra flexibility to agree other methods of serving written notice which may be used in addition to those listed in the Bill. The second new provision makes it clear that fax and other electronic methods can be used only if the parties have agreed in writing to their use. That will avoid confusion and will give landlords and tenants the opportunity to use the latest technology if they so wish.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.27.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we welcome the amendment because it will add to the flexibility of the system. A problem may arise. The Government may find over time that, having specified "facsimile—although I understand why they have done so —as other means of transmission develop such as Internet or e-mail (although that is a poor example) it may be necessary to amend the Bill. Otherwise those means of transmission will be excluded. Nevertheless, I understand the reasons behind the amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  28 Clause 37, page 19, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Act a tenancy begins on the day on which, under the terms of the tenancy, the tenant is entitled to possession under that tenancy; and references in this Act to the beginning of the tenancy are references to that day.".
  29 Clause 38, page 19, line 14, column I, leave out "beginning (of a tenancy)" and insert "begins, beginning (in relation to a tenancy)".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 en bloc, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30 Clause 40, page 19, line 44, at end insert ", except that paragraph 9 of the Schedule does not extend to Northern Ireland.".
  31 In the schedule, page 21, line 10, at end insert:
  "The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c. 65)
  —(1) Section 27 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (renewal of tenancy expiring during period of service or within two months thereafter) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from are an agricultural holding' onwards there shall be substituted—

  '(a) are an agricultural holding (within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986) held under a tenancy in relation to which that Act applies,

  (b) are a holding (other than a holding excepted from this provision) held under a farm business tenancy, or

  (c) consist of or comprise premises (other than premises excepted from this provision) licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises.'.

  (3) In subsection (5), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  1358
  '(bb) the expressions "farm business tenancy" and "holding", in relation to such a tenancy, have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995;'.
  (4) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
  '(5A) In paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section the reference to a holding excepted from the provision is a reference to a holding held under a farm business tenancy in which there is comprised a dwelling-house occupied by the person responsible for the control (whether as tenant or servant or agent of the tenant) of the management of the holding.'
  (5) In subsection (6), for the words from the beginning to 'liquor' there shall be substituted 'In paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section, the reference to premises excepted from the provision'.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 en bloc.
  The amendment to the schedule provides protection for reservists who have been called up or recalled for service around the time their tenancy would have ended. It applies to farm business tenancies which include a dwelling house occupied by the person responsible for the management of the holding. That is analogous to the provisions in Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act. It allows the tenant, in certain circumstances specified in the 1951 Act, if the landlord does not extend or renew the tenancy voluntarily, to apply to the courts for a renewal of the tenancy on terms set by the court.
  As noble Lords may be aware, the Government's draft legislation for the reserve forces has just been published and comments are invited by 15th June. While it would have been possible to await that Bill and make provision for this contingency in that context, it seemed preferable to put a framework of protection in place from the start for reservists who are farm business tenants.
  The amendment to Clause 40 makes clear that the position in Northern Ireland is not affected, since the rest of the Bill does not apply there.
  With the leave of the House, I shall clarify one point which arose earlier in relation to the Evesham custom. I am advised that that custom applies mainly in the Evesham area, but it is available, in principle, to market gardens anywhere in England and Wales. However, in practice, it is very localised.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we accept this group of amendments and understand the reason for the amendments. However, as this is the last chance that we shall have to discuss the Bill, perhaps I may move a little outside the rules of procedure to thank the Minister for the way in which he has explained the Commons amendments and to take the chance to wish the Bill well.
  Perhaps I may repeat the undertaken given in another place by my honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang. We know that the Labour Party has been pressed hard to state its actions regarding the Bill. We explained that when the Bill completed its course through both Houses we would make our position clear. We have stated that the next Labour Government will not seek to overturn any of the contracts entered into under the Bill after 1st September

  1359
  1995 and before we change the legislation, if we do so. There will be no attempt to amend retrospectively any of the agreements reached.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for what he said; in particular for his repetition of the undertaking made by his honourable friend in another place. I am sure that that undertaking will be welcomed by the agricultural community at large.
  Perhaps I may thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, for the part that they have played in the passage of the Bill. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing the Bill well.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
4.51 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 13 [Exclusion of defamation claims from Part III]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved the amendment:
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("libel, slander,") and insert ("libel or slander or for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 13 provides for the exclusion of defamation from Part III of the Bill. The definition of defamation in Clause 13(2) (a) is:
"any claim under the law or any part of the United Kingdom for libel, slander, slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood".
At Report stage, I ventured to wonder whether it was accurate to give the impression that slander and libel were of necessity malicious falsehoods. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, said that he would consider whether the matter was misleading. I then suggested that the way round it was to delete the word "other".
With further courtesy, the noble and learned Lord wrote to me and said that he took the point as to the possible misleading nature of the words "or other malicious falsehod" but suggested that, instead of deleting "other", a provision such as the amendment which now appears on the Marshalled List might be clearer. I accepted the improvement of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, for my part, I am extremely happy to agree to the amendment. I believe that it removes an infelicity which crept into the drafting because of the way in which two clauses which had previously been a little more distant had come rather close together, with the influence of the word "other" going back further than the draft had originally intended.
The noble Lord has resolved that infelicity in an extremely felicitous way. Therefore I am very happy personally to agree the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, before the Bill leaves the House, I should like to offer some general observations. It is a tripartite Bill on three separate subjects. As regards Part I and Part II, reactions can only be favourable. They introduce some modest reforms which should have been made long ago. There is no difficulty about them.
On the other hand, Part III is in a quite different dimension. It deals with a complex subject in a complicated way. I—and I do not believe that I am alone in this—have serious misgivings about it. I spoke as to those misgivings on Second Reading. I do not propose to go over the arguments I then made. However, much has happened since Second Reading and it is only fair to the large number of people who have contributed to the discussion on the Bill and who have provided evidence to review the situation.
Just to recapitulate, what we are concerned with in Part III is the double actionability rule—that is to say, a judge-made rule of law which requires that, when you are suing in a UK court in respect of a civil wrong committed abroad, you have to show not only that the wrong was against the law of the place where the act took place but that it was contrary to UK law. That double actionability rule has been criticised by academics as illogical, chauvinistic, anomalous and capable of creating injustice. I underline "capable" because there is a singular lack of evidence that it has produced any injustice whatsoever.
My position has been, and is, that this subject—torts with a foreign element—is not one which calls for legislative intervention or codification. It is much better to leave it to the judges, who have by two recent decisions —one as recently as July 1994—given themselves sufficient liberty of action to deal with the variety of cases.
As your Lordships know, the Bill was committed to a special Public Bill Committee. In passing, let me say that that procedure has shown itself very successful in saving the time of the House and in permitting extensive discussion. I might have a small reservation about the method of calling and dealing with evidence, but this is not the place to discuss that. Basically the procedure has shown itself to be very useful.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute both to the Law Commission, including its past members who put in a great deal of work on this Bill in Committee, and, respectfully, to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the trouble that he personally has taken over the Bill in Committee and for the open-minded attitude that he took to individual questions. I was a member of the Committee and, though critical of the whole of the Bill in Part III, thought it right to contribute as best I could to the effort to improve it.
The Committee decided, as it could do, to receive evidence, and over 50 representations were made. The Committee heard also oral evidence—almost entirely from those supporting the Bill. It is printed in the very valuable report. I shall not go into the evidence in detail. I believe that it is fair to say—it does not overstate the case from my point of view—that the Scottish evidence was

1361
almost uniformly in favour of the Bill. I shall return to that point. The English evidence—academic, judicial and other —was pretty evenly balanced, with strong and well argued contributions each way.
The Government basically have two arguments. First, legislation is necessary for Scotland, and therefore we ought to bring it in for the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, this is a Law Commission Bill and there is a strong presumption in favour of such legislation.
Briefly, the reply is as follows. Scotland, it is true, is tied by a seven-judge decision which prevents their courts and their judges, from taking the flexible attitude open to English judges. My answer to that argument is that if—and only if—Scotland desires legislation, desires the position to be changed, that could be done much more simply than by this elaborate Bill. It could be done, for example, by enacting a clause similar to the ruling in Dicey's Conflict of Laws, Rule 203. In any case, the local difficulty in Scotland is not a good reason for imposing a statute over the Border where no such difficulty arises. There is here an argument, no doubt, for the Bill, but surely not a strong one.
Then, as to the Law Commission: I hope that by now the House realises that the Law Commission has no stronger supporter in this House than myself. I have advocated its cause in general and in relation to particular Bills many, many times. I agree in general that Law Commission Bills ought to go through easily; but this is rather a different case. In the form in which your Lordships are dealing with it, this is hardly a Law Commission Bill. It has been radically redrafted and radically changed. Leaving aside purely drafting points which are quite important, the Government have rejected the whole of the Law Commission's Clause 3—that is about one-quarter of the Bill—which contains at least two important provisions. One deals with torts committed in the United Kingdom, but with effects abroad, and the other deals with defamation.
I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, but I must say something about defamation. It is a very important and sensitive subject, in the light of modern information technology. Broadcasts from the United Kingdom may reach any part of the world. Newspapers are widely distributed and may be printed abroad, as is the Financial Times. The question arises: are they to be exposed in United Kingdom courts to actions based on foreign libel laws which may be very different from our own?
The subject is a very actual one, as your Lordships may appreciate. I give two examples. A noble Lord, who sits on these Benches and was at one time closely connected with a broadsheet newspaper, wrote an interesting article a few weeks ago about the heads of governments of various European countries. The theme which he advocated was this: "We may not be too happy about our own Prime Minister, but goodness! just look at the others". In a wide-ranging way, he went right over the countries of Europe, making pungent comments about this, that or the other heads of government: one is inefficient; one is corrupt; one is immoral, and so on. It was a well written and entertaining piece, if I may respectfully say so.
1362
That is all right as regards English law—fair comment, a matter of public interest and no question of malice. But if one brings in foreign law in respect of a foreign publication, one might be in a different position. There, it may be suable in the courts to attack the head of a government, an organ of government, to make disparaging remarks about the reputation of public figures. If that were to be the case, if foreign law were to be applied by the English court, the author might find himself in great difficulty.
A second example is that Mr. Bernard Levin wrote an article only last week which started off by saying: "Everybody knows or ought to know that all Cabinet Ministers"—in a certain country which perhaps I had better not name—"are crooked". Again, in this country there would be no problem, everyone is used to Mr. Bernard Levin's exuberant language. There would be no difficulty and it would hardly be worth bringing the matter to court. But think if that were published in the country concerned: it would be injurious to an organ of government; very injurious to the head of government; an attack on reputation. If one were to apply the law of that country in respect of a publication in that country, there would be serious trouble.
So something must be done. The Law Commission gave very careful consideration to the problem. It considered a number of options and finally proposed that defamation actions in the United Kingdom courts should be based on United Kingdom law, wherever there had been publication in the United Kingdom prior to or simultaneous with the foreign publication. I am sorry that the proposal is slightly complicated, but that is how it was phrased. It would have dealt adequately with both the examples I gave.
However, the interesting point is that the Government rejected the suggestion, They would not have it in their Bill. Nothing in the Government's original Bill said anything about defamation at all, so that the general rules in the Bill allowing actions based on foreign law would have applied. Both of the cases would have been suable in the English courts.
For some time there was silence because the subject of private international law (miscellaneous provisions) is not one which grips the media's attention. Then I suppose someone alerted a prominent newspaper and in one day there were three pieces in The Times. On that, the Government decided appropriately to invite evidence. So the committee heard evidence from the legal manager of The Times newspaper and from a lady representing the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. Having heard the evidence, the Government ran up the white flag. They put in a clause taking defamation actions right out of the Bill. Noble Lords will find that in Clause 13, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just adverted.
I do not quarrel with the solution, it is probably as good as that of the Law Commission. But it rather raises a question of principle. There is the double actionability rule, the illogical, nationalistic, potentially unjust rule which, under the Bill, is to continue to apply to defamation, widely defined as it is in Clause 13. Surely, that destroys whatever logical or academic appeal the Bill

1363
may have. It disentitles the Government to shelter behind Law Commission infallibility. If double actionability is good enough for defamation, why not for other torts?
Of course, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may say, as he did in Committee, that defamation is unique, quite different from other torts; it is so widespread, it goes all over the world; one cannot give it a location and it is concerned with freedom of speech and fundamental rights. But the same argument may apply to other matters. There are a number of other torts with implications that are difficult to locate. Think of pollution; acid rain; a situation like Chernobyl. They are just as widespread; they may come anywhere. Think of investment negligence: it may affect investors all over the world, whoever happened to hear the broadcast or happened to read the newspaper.
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not in his place. As he pointed out in his evidence, many other torts are concerned with civil rights and liberties other than defamation. Thus if defamation is unique—as it may be—one suspects that it is in the strength of the interests behind it rather than anything else.
So this is the bottom line, the 64,000 deutschmark question: is it a good Bill? It is supposed to provide certainty as contrasted with judicial muddle. I invite your Lordships to look at Clause 12 which is riddled with words and clauses requiring interpretation and inviting legalistic arguments. The Bill lacks logical coherence. It deals anomalously with defamation, it does not deal at all with United Kingdom torts. It does not deal at all with torts unknown to United Kingdom law, as to which both the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the firm of solicitors, Norton Rose, made powerful comments, leaving the situation to be disposed of by the doubtful provisions in the Bill as to characterisation and public policy. In three words, the Bill is complex, uncertain and incomplete. Could not the judges do as well as that?
Lest noble Lords think that this is a matter of personal eccentricity or some idée fixe, perhaps I may quote some opinions on the Bill. First, there is the evidence on page 53 of the Red Book, of Mr. W. E. Peel of Oxford University. It is rather complicated, but it is very well put:
"The change is from a general rule of double actionability supplemented by a flexible exception of uncertain scope and application"—
that is the judicial position as it is now—
"to a general rule of lex loci delicti"
(the law of the place where the tort takes place)
"supplemented by an exception of equally uncertain scope and application… there seems little merit in exchanging one uncertain rule for another… particularly one restricted by a statute".
My second quotation is from Mr. P. B. Carter of Oxford, writing in the March 1995 issue of the Cambridge Law Journal. He writes to the same effect about exchanging one uncertainty for another, and continues,
"any statutory interference, let alone interference of the root-and-branch type proposed in Part III, could scarcely be less appropriate".
Finally, Mr. Briggs, also of Oxford, writing in January 1995 in the Law Quarterly Review, which as noble Lords will know is our leading legal publication, states:
"Many would agree that undertaking reform by making a cautious addition to the common law"—
1364
that would be by the judges—
"is greatly to be preferred to erecting the monstrous carbuncle of the Law Commission's draft Bill".
My own final comment might be more parliamentary in language, even though the word "carbuncle" carries the Royal Warrant. However, I see Part III of the Bill passed with some sadness, tempered only by the hope that another place may put its wisdom to work upon it.
5.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had the benefit, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, of very detailed discussion of these matters in Committee. I am grateful for what my noble and learned friend said about my part. I thank him and all the members of the Committee, some of whom are able to be here today and a number of whom are not, for the time and effort that they put into this difficult matter.
As my noble and learned friend said, Parts I and II of the Bill, which are based on Law Commission reports, have been comparatively uncontroversial. The whole Bill has been uncontroversial in any kind of party political terms, but has been quite controversial so far as Part III is concerned between lawyers. My noble and learned friend made wise selections from the evidence of those who are opposed to the Bill. I could inform noble Lords with some examples selected by myself in support of the other side of the case, which, as my noble and learned friend accepted, was very balanced as between the legal and judicial communities, including the academic community, on these matters.
Considerable expertise has been devoted to trying to get a workable system. The present law, as I believe my noble and learned friend accepted, contains very flexible exceptions to the general rule, the precise import of which no one can readily tell.
The Bill substitutes for that a method of approach to the problem which in my submission is logical, although of course it contains words that are capable of interpretation and application to individual circumstances. Part III of the Bill contains a logical approach to the problems and provides a way forward for development which is in accordance with the policy of the Law Commission to make this general area of the law subject to statutory enactment.
So far as defamation is concerned, I took the view, which was shared by the majority of the Committee, that the correct answer to the defamation problem was the one which now appears in the Bill. I agree that it is an exception to the underlying logic of the Bill. On the other hand, I believe that it is an exception that is justified by the particular circumstances of defamation. The illustrations that my noble and learned friend gave of two distinguished contributors to the newspapers of this country might have been affected if it had been left in the way that the Law Commission had left it, and certainly if the Bill had not contained an exception in respect of defamation. As is implicit in my noble and learned friend's analysis of the situation, the present Bill gives a very considerable width of judicial application to the

1365
judges as to the way in which they take the logical structure forward. As noble Lords would expect, there is protection for the public policy of our law.
This is certainly a difficult issue. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it in Committee and on Report —and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—for their contributions. I regret that my noble and learned friend remains sad so far as Part III is concerned. I have great respect for his sadness, as well as for the very considerable contribution that he made to the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. Here, as in few other places, no one is more authoritative in this area of the law in the light of a long judicial experience than is my noble and learned friend. Since he has played so distinguished a part in developing the law as a judicial creation, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that it is with an element of sadness that he sees that going from the exclusive control of the judges to a statutory framework under which, if the Bill passes in its present form, the judges will in future be called upon to operate.
1366
I hope that noble Lords will pass this Bill, and that it will receive favourable consideration when it arrives in the other place. I am grateful to the Opposition parties for the co-operation that they have shown in the procedures by which this Bill has been considered, enabling us to take it forward in a way which, without that co-operation, we might have found a good deal more difficult.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [H.L.]
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Succession) Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.

  Chinese Population Policy
  Chinese Population Policy
  The Palestinians: UK Aid
  The Palestinians: UK Aid
  Israeli Blockade of Southern Lebanon Ports
  Israeli Blockade of Southern Lebanon Ports
  Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  Diplomats: Withdrawal from Post
  Diplomats: Withdrawal from Post
  European Council: Forthcoming Meetings
  European Council: Forthcoming Meetings
  Post-Abortion Stress
  Post-Abortion Stress
  Abortion by Dilation and Extraction
  Abortion by Dilation and Extraction
  Aircraft Movements
  Aircraft Movements
  Banking and Finance Industry: Employee Numbers
  Banking and Finance Industry: Employee Numbers
  Veterinary Medicines: Human Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Veterinary Medicines: Human Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Armed Forces: Cazalet Report on Official Entertainment
  Armed Forces: Cazalet Report on Official Entertainment
  Subordinate Legislation: House of Lords Powers
  Subordinate Legislation: House of Lords Powers
  Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  Human Rights Report: Discrimination
  Human Rights Report: Discrimination
  Mr. Salman Rushdie: Cost of Protetion
  Mr. Salman Rushdie: Cost of Protetion
  Life Prisoners
  Life Prisoners