Sitting of 18 May 1995

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 25 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding delays in assessing the cases of asylum seekers. [23546]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 has reduced significantly the average time taken to decide applications made since the Act came into force, but delays persist as a result of a large and continuing increase in the number of asylum applications. Earlier this year, I announced substantial additional resources to speed up asylum determination and the appeal system. I hope to announce shortly proposals for further improvement.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) last November, we were told that some 129 people had been imprisoned or kept in detention centres or police stations for more than six months. Does he agree that that is scarcely consistent with the country's best traditions in dealing with asylum seekers, that it does not reflect well on the Government or, more important, on the nation and that he should try to do better?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. More than 90 per cent. of people who have been detained for the period to which he refers have already had their asylum applications refused. The proportion of asylum seekers who are detained is a tiny proportion of the people who apply for asylum. Only those who cannot be trusted not to melt away into the general population, never to be seen again, are so detained. I entirely reject the basis of his question.
    Mr. Congdon: It appears that a sizeable number of people claim asylum some time after they have been in
    454
    this country to avoid our immigration controls. Under the 1993 Act, how long after they have been here can they still apply for asylum?
    Mr. Howard: There is no time limit, but that is one of the matters that we are considering. It is clear, from the questions of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), that, while the Government are determined to take the necessary measures to deal with bogus asylum seeking, Labour would run away from the problem and not take any action to deal with it were it ever in a position to do so.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Secretary of State explain why, at the culmination of 16 years of Tory Home Office administration, hundreds of people are being detained at centres such as Campsfield, at enormous cost to the British taxpayer—tens of millions of pounds every year—and why Group 4 is having to train a riot squad because conditions at Campsfield have become so miserable and dangerous? Is not that the most vivid indictment of this squalid regime?
    Mr. Howard: Conditions are Campsfield are neither dangerous nor miserable, but we will take whatever action is necessary to deal with bogus asylum seeking, which has become a problem that needs firm and effective action. All that we get from Labour is criticism without any idea of what it would do, should it ever find itself in government. See no policies, hear no policies, speak no policies—that is what we get from the Opposition.

    Public Houses (Closing Hours)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has made of the incidence of crime arising from uniform night public house closing hours; and if he will make a statement. [23547]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A number of studies show that violent and disorderly offences occur near pubs and clubs at closing time, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings.
    Mr. Fabricant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the changes that he has made to the licensing laws, permitting drinking in the afternoons and introducing the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill, which is currently proceeding in the other place and which will allow drinking on Sunday afternoons. Does he not think, however, that it is about time that we considered evening closing times?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that people living in towns and cities such as Lichfield are terrified to go out late at night on Fridays and Saturdays, when drinkers all pour on to the streets at the same time because all the pubs close at the same time—11 pm? Should it not be left to the local licensing justices to decide when pubs should close?
    Mr. Forsyth: We are currently considering whether pubs should be allowed to remain open later on Friday and Saturday evenings. I agree with my hon. Friend that there may be merit in allowing magistrates discretion, but he is making the case for staggered hours, which is not the same as the case for extended hours.

    Active Citizenship
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations he has had to promote the concept of active citizenship. [23549]
    Mr. Howard: I am determined to do all that I can to encourage active citizenship, including volunteering. In March 1994 I launched the Government's "Make a Difference" volunteering initiative. The "Make a Difference" team, which includes representatives of key volunteering organisations, has been developing a United Kingdom-wide strategy for volunteering.
    In addition, in September 1994 I launched the "Partners Against Crime" initiative, which encourages partnership against crime in the field of crime prevention.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I acknowledge the merit of that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise, however, that the promotion of active citizenship has perhaps lacked momentum? At a time when we seem preoccupied with material matters, will he take this opportunity to commend the enormous amount of good work done by the voluntary sector in all our constituencies, on an entirely unpaid basis? Will he reinvigorate the initiative, on the basis that the state is not the universal provider?
    Mr. Howard: I am certainly happy to commend those who engage in voluntary activity, in accordance with my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not entirely accept the first part of his question. There has, in fact, been a substantial growth in volunteering in recent years—an increase of about 15 per cent. between 1981 and 1991—and about 17 million people engage in the kind of voluntary activity to which my hon. Friend and I attach such importance.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I ask the Home Secretary about two very active citizens—the Fayed brothers? Why has their application for British citizenship been turned down, with no reasons being given? Has it not been rejected for crude and base political reasons? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was within the scope of the question.
    Mr. David Nicholson: In accordance with the concept of volunteering, will my right hon. and learned Friend give all the backing that he can to those of our citizens who volunteer, either regularly or occasionally, to combat crime? Will he ensure that citizens who see a crime taking place in the street and "have a go" are given all possible support, and are not penalised?
    Mr. Howard: I am extremely keen to encourage citizens to help the police in a number of ways—through neighbourhood watch and street watch schemes, and by becoming special constables. I do not think that it is necessarily wise for them to "have a go", however. They can play a very active part in combating and preventing crime by helping the police without "having a go" themselves. Increasing numbers of people are taking part in one or other of those schemes, and I am sure that their numbers will continue to rise.

    Stolen Vehicles
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on United Kingdom stolen vehicle recovery rates. [23550]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): In England and Wales 62 per cent. of stolen vehicles were recovered in 1994–3 per cent. more than in 1993—and vehicle thefts were down 11 per cent. last year. I congratulate the police on those excellent achievements.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Having treated us to the usual nauseating trumpeting of a one-year drop in vehicle crime, will the Minister tell us where he gets his figures from? I believe that there has been a consistent drop in the vehicle recovery rate, from 69 per cent. in 1989 to 55 per cent. last year, and that we suffer the worst vehicle crime in the western world. Is he not thoroughly ashamed of that after 16 years of stewardship of policy and what on earth is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Maclean: I get these figures from the police service in England and Wales and I shall ensure that the police service in England and Wales has its attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's comments because they seemed to betray some of the attitudes of other Labour Members. The crime figures, which showed the biggest drop in 40 years, have not been changed one iota in their calculation by the Government in 15 years. They are exactly the same figures as the Labour party used to trumpet every minute they were going up and about which it is deeply embarrassed now that they are going down.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the very sound part that closed circuit television cameras have played in deterring vehicle theft and vehicle crime? Will he call on British Rail, in particular, to install such devices in its stations?
    Mr. Maclean: I encourage all organisations and individuals, towns, car parks, and British Rail to take advantage of the tremendous benefits of CCTV. In doing so, they could complement the £5 million that we gave to special schemes last year, levering in £13.8 million from other quarters. The net result of that Government initiative should be about 1,000 extra cameras. That could mean many, many fewer victims of crime, a safer society and a greatly reduced fear of crime.

    Chain Gangs
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he will have with the Governor of the state of Alabama on the recently introduced policy of prison inmates working in chain gangs; and if he will make a statement. [23551]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have no plans at present to meet the Governor of Alabama to discuss his policy of reintroducing chain gangs.
    Mr. Cox: In view of that reply and as the Home Office is increasingly introducing American penal systems such as boot camps and tougher prison regimes—none of which has succeeded in the states where they are used—does the Minister's reply assure us that under no circumstances will the penal systems of the state of Alabama be introduced in Britain?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. There are many examples in the United States of very successful regimes that have ensured that youngsters are less likely to re-offend. Although those regimes cannot be translated exactly to our system, the Government are open-minded and prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to make prisons more effective.
    On the issue of work gangs, I see no difficulty whatsoever in having prisoners engaged in work that is useful to the community. The need to chain them together is a security consideration. I understand that the state of Alabama believes that it is cheaper to chain prisoners together from the point of view of supervision. We do not anticipate a need for chains, but I do anticipate the scope for gangs of prisoners doing useful work in the community, which I am sure most sensible people would welcome.
    Mr. Batiste: If my right hon. Friend should have the opportunity of discussing prison policy with the Governor of Alabama, will he reflect on the fact that there, as in Britain, prison officers often have to perform acts of conspicuous bravery well beyond the call of duty? Would it make sense to consider introducing a medal similar to the police medal to reward those acts of bravery and to recognise the very brave men who perform them?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion that I am happy to consider further. I entirely agree that the service that our prison officers give to the country is much under-recognised. Every day, they have to deal with some 51,000 of the most difficult people in our country and they do so with great courage and determination. That is one of the reasons why yesterday we increased the powers available to governors to take disciplinary action to maintain order in our prisons. I very much hope that where prison officers are attacked, the Crown Prosecution Service will take action and that the courts will impose substantial penalties, because our prison officers deserve to be supported and protected.
    Mr. Beith: Before the Minister even thinks about ordering the chains and fetters, will he devote some attention to ensuring that a higher proportion of prisoners have more work to do more of the time? Does he recognise that part of the problem is that not enough work is being organised in prisons and that far too many prisoners spend far too long banged up in cells when they should be being prepared for constructive work when they get out—something that many prison officers seek to do every day?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree that there need to be more opportunities for constructive work in prison. I should tell the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) that one of the very good things that I saw in the United States last month was a prison that, in partnership with the private sector, was able to produce goods that were being sold in the marketplace, thus providing revenue towards the cost of running the prison. That meant that prisoners were doing
    458
    a day's work and were able to earn wages that they could use to look after their families rather than expecting, as many do, the taxpayer to take on that task. I hope that the Director General of the Prison Service will seek to involve the private sector to a greater extent in providing opportunities for real work in prisons. That task is now in hand.

    Juvenile Offenders
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to help the police and courts to deal with the most persistent juvenile offenders. [23552]
    Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains important new measures to deal with juvenile criminals. The secure training order will provide a vigorous regime based on education and discipline for persistent juvenile offenders. Invitations to tender for the first two secure training centres were issued at the end of March.
    Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the recent success in tackling juvenile crime has resulted from the implementation of our policies, following sensible advice from the police that we should target the young lads most likely to commit crime? If the Labour party had been in power, we would not have achieved such success, not least because, time after time, it votes against our sensible reforms.
    Mr. Maclean: That is absolutely true. Last week I visited a police service where, in one division alone, there had been 946 burglaries in 1993 but only eight last year. That was due to the policy of targeting the individuals involved and the imprisonment of four persistent burglars responsible. However, we all remember the howls of outrage from the Labour party when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that prison works. It certainly worked by taking those persistent burglars out of circulation.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister set aside his complacency and accept that it is about time that he did something to cut juvenile crime by providing the legal framework for an active partnership involving the police, local authorities and local communities to tackle crime, by accepting our proposals to nip problems in the bud in respect of young offenders and by providing the secure places that we were promised in February 1991 but which have still not been provided?
    Mr. Maclean: It is no wonder that the whole country understands what is meant when we say that the Labour party is a policy-free zone. If someone were to interpret what the hon. Gentleman just said, I might like some of it. He fails to tell the House that the Opposition have consistently voted against all the key laws that we have passed to tackle crime and offending. In the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we took the powers to deal with offending on bail and to do drug tests in prison while the Labour party, which says that it wants to be tough on crime and the causes of crime, abstained on Second Reading and toughly abstained on Third Reading.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that bad families and bad peer influence has a considerable effect on juvenile delinquency and that the success in

    459
    dealing with juvenile delinquents in the United States has required taking youngsters away from their bad backgrounds for rather longer than is contemplated in the secure training orders? Will he keep an open mind about the effectiveness of that course of action and keep a close watch on the successes that are appearing in some parts of the United States?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. and learned Friend may be absolutely right. I seem to recall that when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was going through the House we were under pressure from some quarters to have much shorter periods of secure detention. We rightly made the point that if the period was too short it would not be possible to achieve anything with a youngster, to educate him or her or to rehabilitate youngsters. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. and learned Friend has said. If we can take persistent troublemakers out of circulation and keep them out for long enough, not only will the public get respite from their awful offending but there will be a chance to make something of them.

    Combat 18
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the activities of Combat 18. [23553]
    Mr. Howard: Combat 18 is the name adopted by a loose collection of violent activists with extreme right-wing views, a small number of whom have been convicted of public order offences and crimes involving violence. The Government deplore the activities of Combat 18, and any other group that advocates racism, violence or intimidation.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the Government deplore this activity but what do they intend to do about it? For example, does the Home Secretary know that members of this violent organisation or of that ilk recently made three attacks on the newly opened office of the immigration advisory service in Cardiff, smashing windows with bullets and abusing staff? Surely the time has come for the Home Secretary to rally his Ministers and the police to take vigorous action against these people to prevent them from doing what we all deplore so much.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we amended the law under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 so as to deal more effectively with serious cases of incitement to racial hatred and deliberate racial harassment. Of course, he will know that the activities to which he refers are already criminal offences. Inquiries are being vigorously pursued by the police and I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's hope that those responsible can be brought to justice.
    Sir Donald Thompson: As my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, Combat 18 is a very evil group, but will he tell hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists that one cannot pick and choose with violence?
    Mr. Howard: I agree that the law is indivisible and invisible and that it must apply equally to those who
    460
    commit offences. That is why we made changes under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act to deal with the abuses to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Oklahoma bombing served as an awful reminder that some seemingly insignificant extreme right-wing groups can indeed have deadly intent? Does he accept the need to maintain the highest vigilance against Combat 18 in this country and against similar groups? Does he agree that politicians of all parties have a heavy duty not in any circumstances to play the race card in politics and so give encouragement, however indirect, to groups such as Combat 18?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the dangers arising from organisations of that kind and about the supreme importance of maintaining our vigilance. As I have said, we have taken steps to make the law more effective. His comments about the race card are absolutely right. Conservatives have always set their faces against anything of that kind. We accept that to keep race relations as good as they have been in this country for a long time we must also have firm and fair immigration policies. We shall continue to have both.

    Policing Costs (Football Matches)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has of the annual cost of policing football matches. [23554]
    Mr. Maclean: This information is not held centrally and individual police forces could provide it only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend will know that the major cost to the police of looking after football matches lies outside the ground and that it is increased by the somewhat arbitrary way in which fixtures are now frequently moved to Sundays at the behest of television companies, which pay extra fees to clubs for moving matches. Will my hon. Friend ensure that some of the extra profit that goes to football clubs is used to offset the increased cost to police forces of providing security outside grounds on Sundays?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right in asserting that the bulk of cost arises from policing outside the ground. I understand that it arises from policing inside the ground, depending on the type of match, for which the football clubs pay. It has been a long-standing practice that the police do not charge for policing outside football grounds, where their duty is to maintain law and order. I do not wish to depart from that practice. It is up to the police service, in discussion with football clubs, to arrange policing inside the ground and reach an accommodation on cost to cover the bulk of the policing costs.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as he said, most football clubs come to sensible arrangements for policing and stewarding inside their grounds to minimise problems? We should recognise that only a handful of

    461
    clubs make massive profits and we should ensure that in protecting spectators we do not destroy the sport of football.
    Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely, and nowhere is that more true than in Burnley—I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the relegation that his club has suffered. I generally accept the thrust of his point. If I were deeply concerned about the costs of policing football matches, I would wish to take more action. The present arrangements are generally satisfactory, but if a time comes when the police wish to make representations to me, I shall be happy to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective means of combating football violence, committed by those who are not remotely interested in the sport and who just go to major matches to cause trouble, is the work of the football intelligence unit of the national criminal intelligence service? In that connection, would my hon. Friend have a careful look at a transcript of this morning's "Inside Out" programme on Radio 4 so that he may read views expressed by people who have committed such crimes? They regard the facilities in our prisons as being sufficiently attractive to represent no deterrent against committing further offences. Will he ensure that, in future policy, the view of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, which the public support, that prisons should be fair but austere, is followed through?
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard the comments of my hon. Friend and no doubt he will organise suitable punishment in the community for gangs of football hooligans should the need arise. I shall certainly pay attention to the transcript, but first, more importantly, I pass on my high regard and the thanks of the whole House to the football unit at NCIS for the tremendous work that it does. It is quite noticeable than when other foreign countries wholeheartedly participate with NCIS, problems have been reduced. We would encourage many other countries in the world where our football supporters or hooligans may go to co-operate with NCIS and to sign bilateral agreements with us. Then, much more can be done.

    Football Violence
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently subject to restriction orders made under legislation introduced to combat football violence. [23556]
    Mr. Maclean: Two.
    Mr. Madden: Is that not an extraordinary situation? The figure has not changed since the middle of February, when the riot occurred in Dublin before, during and after the England v. Ireland match? Does it not show that the courts treat the legislation with contempt? What are the Government doing in the face of mounting evidence that British Nazis are co-operating with European Nazis to turn the forthcoming European football championships into an orgy of violence and serious public disorder?
    Mr. Maclean: Although only two restriction orders are currently in force, the courts have made use of thousands of exclusion orders. I do not agree that the courts are treating the matter with contempt, but I think that they do
    462
    not fully understand the powers available and how they could use them much more—and better perhaps. We therefore intend to send out a reminder in the next few weeks of how the powers can be used. More generally, we are looking at the whole question of exclusion and restriction orders to see whether we can bring about further tightening and simplification of the law and make it easier for the courts to use them.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of football violence has dropped considerably in this country because of the various measures adopted, with some courage, by the Government, including the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? Does he also agree that the situation has not been helped by the soft community order issued to Mr. Eric Cantona, probably the biggest football hooligan of the lot, who has become something of a folk hero among young people because he is now mixing with them in a rather pleasant way?
    Mr. Maclean: I cannot comment on an individual sentence imposed by the courts, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has considerably toughened community sentences in general with the new national guidance that has been issued to ensure that community punishments are genuinely punishments in the community, and are tough. That is what my hon. Friends and the whole House want.

    "In the Line of Fire"
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the Audit Commission report "In the Line of Fire". [23557]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The Government welcome the report as an important and challenging document, which provides an admirable basis upon which future change in the fire service can be considered and planned.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Minister aware of a specific problem highlighted by the report concerning the firefighters pension fund, which is directing resources away from firefighting? How does he propose to deal with that problem?
    Mr. Baker: The Audit Commission report gives further guidance to brigades on the scope for potential savings which will be very helpful to them. As for the specific question about pensions, we recognise the concern about the increasing net costs of the firefighters pension scheme which, like most schemes in the public service, does not have a pension fund. Its provisions are under review, but even if it were changed the savings would not become available for many years.
    Mr. Sykes: As the Minister will know, almost a year has passed since the Richmond hotel in my constituency caught fire, yet, even as we speak, there is a proposal on his desk to cut the number of fire engines in Scarborough and Whitby. "In the Line of Fire" recognises the life-threatening inadequacies of the present minimum standards. Will the Minister promise today to prevent the ridiculous suggestion that we cut the number of fire engines in Scarborough and Whitby from going ahead?
    Mr. Baker: The management of the fire service in my hon. Friend's constituency is a matter for his local fire service authority, but I point out to him and to the fire authority that since 1988 the number of emergency calls handled has increased by 24 per cent. while the number of firefighters in post has increased by only 1 per cent. The Audit Commission report shows many ways in which savings and greater efficiency can be achieved.
    Mr. George Howarth: Can the Minister confirm that, as the Audit Commission report highlighted, there are serious problems with the finances of fire authorities, which will get worse between now and the end of the century? Will he give an undertaking to move quickly to consult the fire authorities on how to deal with those problems, and will he assure the House that that vital emergency service will not be starved of resources to the point where its effectiveness is compromised?
    Mr. Baker: There is no question of that important emergency service being starved of resources. As I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, the Audit Commission report is an in-depth study of value for money in the fire service. That is the whole point of it, and it should help brigades to carry out their responsibilities with no diminution of standards in the most cost-effective manner possible.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the police regarding the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [23558]
    Mr. Howard: The representations we have received from the police have warmly welcomed the Act. The chief constable of West Mercia, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee, has said:
    "the provisions … in the Act are balanced, rational and fair and they are welcome by the police service."
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that despite the gloomy picture of the Police Federation presented by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) this morning, in fact the federation has warmly welcomed the Act? Yesterday Mr. Fred Broughton described it as the first Act for years to turn the tide. Is it not then astonishing that the Labour party did not have the guts to back the legislation when it was before the House as a Bill?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is also astonishing that the hon. Member for Blackburn went to the Police Federation this morning and pretended to be tough on crime. He did not tell the federation that Labour tried to wreck the bail provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. He talked about the courts being soft on sentences, but did not tell the federation that Labour consistently voted against legislation that gave the Attorney-General the right to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the federation about Labour's attempts to vote against changes to right to silence.
    Mr. Michael: Untrue.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says, "Untrue," from a sedentary position, but his gesticulations are untrue. It is about time the Opposition started owning up, and they should tell the truth about their attempts to wreck our efforts to fight crime.
    Mr. Straw: No, Madam Speaker, I did not tell the Police Federation any of those things, because most of them are not true. I told the Police Federation the truth—that crime in this country has more than doubled under this Government, but that the number of convictions and cautions has dropped in absolute terms by 7 per cent. That is a scandal. I also told them that the number—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I also told them that the number of cases discontinued and dropped—[Interruption.] That is scarcely a laughing matter for constituents. I said that the number of cases discontinued and dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service has risen by nearly 50 per cent. in eight years, and that the acquittal rate in the Crown courts—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State widened the question, and the hon. Gentleman has the right to a defence.
    Mr. Straw: I repeat the point, because the public need to know. Crime has doubled in the past 15 years, while the number of convictions and cautions has gone down by 7 per cent. The number of cases dropped by the CPS has risen by nearly 50 per cent., and the acquittal rate has risen by 60 per cent. Does that not show that there is a serious crisis of confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service, and that reform of that service is urgently needed?
    Mr. Howard: What the public understand only too well is that criminals are increasingly exploiting loopholes in the criminal justice system. The public also understand that the Government have acted to block the loopholes, and that the Opposition have consistently tried to wreck our efforts to do so.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents are grateful that the number of police officers in my constituency has gone up and the amount of crime has gone down? Will he support the all-party application—which is supported by the local police—for an exclusion zone around Stonehenge, so that my constituents can go about their lawful duty unhindered and in peace?
    Mr. Howard: I will, of course, look at the proposal for an exclusion zone around Stonehenge. The first part of my hon. Friend's question shows that he is in touch with what is happening in the fight against crime, and that the Opposition are posturing in a way that deceives no one.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further resources are being made available to allow more CCTV to be installed in inner-city areas. [23559]
    Mr. Maclean: The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. The

    465
    possibility of further competitions in the future has not been ruled out, but it is too early to give a firm commitment.
    Ms Hoey: Does the Minister think that the scheme should be funded by a form of competition? My borough has a high level of crime, and also a high level of fear of crime, and there is full support among the three party leaders in the borough of Lambeth, the police and the community for CCTV to be used more in the area. Will the Minister meet a delegation from my borough and give some support to inner-city areas? Will he make sure that that money does not just go to areas that are seen as slightly safer?
    Mr. Maclean: There is nothing to stop the hon. Lady's authority pushing ahead with CCTV. The CCTV challenge scheme was successful because £5 million of taxpayers' money levered in almost £14 million of other money. Inner cities have received generous funding from the Government and will continue to do so. Over the next three years, almost £4 billion will be spent on the single regeneration budget, all going to inner cities. It is right that this time we spread the CCTV money around the whole country so that smaller towns and cities can benefit from it.
    Mr. David Atkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his CCTV initiative, which has matched pound for pound the sum raised by businesses in my constituency, which has now rendered Boscombe high street much safer for shoppers and shop staff alike. Can he make a clearer commitment to extend that scheme to residential and business areas throughout the country to places that the police believe will benefit from it?
    Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that the whole country benefits from CCTV. I want to make it clear that the police service totally supports CCTV schemes, which supplement and help police efforts rather than diminish them, and that police numbers will be reduced by not a single policeman because of CCTV. I cannot at present give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks. We have noted the tremendous benefit of CCTV and I shall look carefully at whether we can fund future schemes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23576]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain's unemployment rate compare with those in
    466
    France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month—the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?
    The Prime Minister: I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.
    On the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, we must wait to see what the House has to say about that. That is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. We wish to hear the views of the House and take those into account before we reach final decisions on those matters.
    On matters related to the Government, we made it clear that we broadly accept those recommendations, and my right hon. Friends will elaborate on that this afternoon.
    Mr. Blair: What is the Prime Minister's own view about that recommendation?
    The Prime Minister: The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.
    Mr. Blair: Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?
    The Prime Minister: As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.
    As for matters relating to Back-Bench Members, I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. It is right to listen to the views of the House before reaching a conclusion on the House. If, after such a brief period of

    467
    Front-Bench authority, the right hon. Gentleman is so arrogant that he no longer wishes to hear the views of the House, he will live to regret that.
    Mr. Cash: Given my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission's White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible—before the summer recess—we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23577]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept—perhaps he does not—that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23578]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy,
    468
    not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, "Any silly fool knows that." There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today's developments with some interest.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23579]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Given that the Prime Minister's objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?
    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23580]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.
    The House might recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying—[Interruption.] I do not know why they laugh at the deputy leader of the Labour party. We are rather fond of him. He said:
    "Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful".

    469
    I wonder who the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?
    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe—far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million—but the number in work has increased.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury. [23581]
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe's
    470
    future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.
    I look to see the European Union succeed, but on the basis of close co-operation between independent sovereign states. I do not believe that, in the long term, the European Union could or would succeed on any other basis. I believe that the proposition for a substantial amount of further centralisation in Europe would do great damage to Europe. It would split it asunder and it should be resisted.

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23582]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person's war service, they cannot inherit their spouse's pension.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 22 May—Remaining stages of the Child Support Bill.
TUESDAY 23 MAY—Second reading of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 May—Until 2.30 pm there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which will be the three-hour replacement of the old recess Adjournment motion.
Opposition Day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Social Division and Low Pay" on an Opposition motion.
Motion in the name of the honourable Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) relating to disclosure of specified Select Committee papers.
THURSDAY 25 May—Motion on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order.
Motion on the Pneumoconiosis etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY 26 May—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Tuesday 23 May and Wednesday 24 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
[Tuesday 23 May:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 5489/95 Reform of the Community Document; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-xii (1994–95) and HC 70-xv (1994–95).
Wednesday 17 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8693/94 and 8943/94 Relations with Central and Eastern Europe; 5928/95 Industrial Co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-iv (1994–95) and HC 70-xiv (1994–95).]
The House will return, following the Whitsun recess, on 6 June and I expect to give full details of business for that week when I make a statement this time next week. I anticipate a possible need to take Government business until 7 pm on Thursday 8 June. On Friday 9 June, which is a Government Friday, I anticipate a debate on a motion for the Adjournment.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. I wish to press him on two points that I raised last week: future economic debates in Government time; and whether he has reconsidered the answer that he gave last week about the appropriateness of a debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The answer that he gave last week was uncharacteristically unsympathetic and I wonder whether the Leader of the House has reconsidered the matter.
472
With what degree of seriousness should we treat the rather petulant remarks of the Minister for Health about scrapping the nurses' pay review board? Is that the Government's intention, or is it just another example of the yah-boo school of politics that we have come to expect? If there are proposals of that kind, will there be a statement in the House?
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House about the confusion that the Government have created surrounding the Jobseekers Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the points of order raised on the Floor this week, and of the fact that the jobseeker's allowance is to be delayed for six months, from April 1996 to October 1996. As the Government have said in written answers that benefit cuts will still be implemented in April 1996, considerable confusion that needs clearing up remains. We must press the Minister on why there has not been a statement in the House by the Secretary of State for Employment or the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Bill cannot go any further unless and until this matter is fully clarified.
Mr. Newton: I cannot at the moment give the hon. Lady further information about economic debates in Government time later this year, but I shall seek to do so as soon as possible.
If my remarks last week about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act sounded unsympathetic, it was entirely unintentional. No one who listened to my speech at the opening of the exhibition to mark the anniversary on Monday would have thought that I was unsympathetic. Of course I shall continue to bear the hon. Lady's request in mind.
Had the hon. Lady read the letter from the Minister for Health—I suspect that she may not have done—she would have seen that it makes it clear that the Government value the independent review body, value the professional job nurses do, and want nurses to be fairly paid. He certainly did not say—nor would I—that we wanted the body to be disbanded.
I believe that the jobseeker's allowance was handled in exactly the right way. A statement was made in another place, because it was considering the Bill at the time and it was clearly right that their Lordships should have the information. The same information was conveyed to this House in a written answer, at roughly the same time and in an entirely proper way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) the courtesy—having been made aware in advance—of attending to listen to his points of order. I am sure that any further clarification requested will be provided.
Sir Dudley Smith: I note that my right hon. Friend did not mention the implementation of the Boundary Commission proposals. When are we likely to get the relevant legislation?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but I am aware that there is concern in the House to see the matter resolved and clarified as soon as possible.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Now that the Northern Ireland initiative has proceeded to the stage of talks across all sectors of the community—I realise that there will be no debate next week—after the recess may we have an opportunity in Government time

473
to debate the state of the process in Northern Ireland, to ensure that it goes ahead with the widest possible support in the House and to maximise the chances of a conclusion as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tone, which makes me all the more inclined to give consideration, without commitment, to his request.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an early and urgent debate on the public conduct of Labour-dominated Kent county council, which earlier today used a procedural motion to stifle a Conservative debate on the need to fund in full the teachers' pay settlement from an underspend of £17 million? Will my right hon. Friend condemn this sort of practice by the Labour-Liberal Democrat-dominated council, conducted against free speech in Kent and elsewhere?
Mr. Newton: I very much take note of my hon. Friend's comments. Education questions next Tuesday may give him an opportunity to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House make a strong effort to get a Minister from the Foreign Office or the Department of Health to make a statement next week on exactly how much emergency aid is being sent from the United Kingdom directly to Zaire? We have all the products that could aid barrier nursing and protect not only doctors and nurses but volunteers, who are at direct risk. Those products could be on the next aeroplane if the Government would make the effort. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a clear statement that that is what the Government intend to do?
Mr. Newton: If I am right in interpreting the hon. Lady's question as a strong representation, I undertake to bring that representation to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Some sad decisions have been taken by the Royal College of Nursing this week in Harrogate. Would it be possible to have a debate on nursing and the national health service? It seems desperately sad that the independent pay review body structure, which has done so much for nursing, should be in jeopardy, despite what my right hon. Friend has said. It appears that the Government will gain little from local pay bargaining. If we are to have a national system for doctors and consultants, let it be recognised that nurses are just as professional and essential to the health service. Why does not the House have an opportunity to discuss the matter?
Mr. Newton: I should make it clear that I do not wholly share my hon. Friend's views in quite the way in which he put them. There has been a fair number of opportunities for the matter to be raised in the House, and I am certain that there will be more.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Leader of the House will be aware that in 1989 the Government appointed the then chief constable of Cambridge, John Stevens, to inquire into allegations of collusion between members of the security services and loyalist terrorist groupings. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available to enable the Government to assure the House that the investigations undertaken by Chief Constable Stevens
474
resulted in cases being brought to the Director of Public Prosecutions against four members of the security services, to give us an opportunity of being updated on the progress of those cases and to give the Government an opportunity to put before the House the findings of the latter stages of the Stevens inquiry, which have not yet been made public?
Mr. Newton: All that I can do now is to take note of the hon. Gentleman's request and to bring it, and the representations implicit in his question, to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that fairly soon the House will be debating the annual order relating to the assisted places scheme, the terms of which are somewhat limited? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a wider debate on the scheme, so that we can debate its value to hundreds of pupils in my constituency from lower-income families, and to thousands throughout the country? A wider debate would enable us also to examine the consequences of abolishing the scheme, as the Opposition would do if in government. Its abolition would deprive future generations of children of a similar opportunity, including the brothers and sisters of those who are already on the scheme, who would be deprived of the opportunity to go to the same schools.
Mr. Newton: The idea of providing time for the arguments so effectively advanced by my hon. Friend to be more fully deployed is attractive and I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House will be aware that earlier this week the Western European Union Council of Ministers issued the Lisbon declaration. The proposals may be perfectly adequate, but the declaration may involve significant additional commitments from the United Kingdom. Would it not therefore be highly appropriate for the House to consider the recommendations at an early date?
Mr. Newton: As always, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request. I would not wish to encourage too high hopes.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call for a debate on the funding of education in Kent? It is an urgent matter because due to the incompetence of management of the county council there is a surplus of £17 million as a result of underspend last year, and as little as £3.8 million of this would fully fund the schools this year. Thanks to the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition putting off such funding into the future, the schools now strapped for cash may have to make economies, including getting rid of some of the teachers who are educating our children. We are witnessing cynical political opportunism on the part of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and we need an early debate about the matter in the House.
Mr. Newton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), my hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, I cannot find time for a debate next week, or the week after, given that that is a recess, but there will be an opportunity in Education questions next week.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Following the welcome statement of the Leader of the House last week that the Government are to consider banning the gel formulation of Temazepam, will the Leader of the House find time next week to make a statement on whether the Government will accept the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to reschedule Temazepam from schedule 4 to schedule 3?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the statement that I made when I launched the Government's White Paper on drugs, but I cannot add to what I then said about continuing consideration being given to the recommendations of the advisory council. I also said last week that I had it in mind to seek to provide time for a debate on drugs when a suitable opportunity arises.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend has announced Government business for Thursday 8 June. Will he allow the House to debate civil air transport on a substantive motion calling for Her Majesty's Government to insist that the negotiation of civil air transport agreements between countries remains a national responsibility, against the wishes of Transport Commissioner Kinnock and the European Union who want to arrogate to themselves a function which is properly ours and ours alone?
Mr. Newton: That was not quite the business that I had in mind for the first half of that Thursday, and a Government substantive motion may not be overwhelmingly popular on the second half of a Thursday. But the subject that my hon. Friend raises is undoubtedly important. I shall bear his request in mind and he need have no doubt of the firmness of the Government's own position.
Ms Angela Eagle: As we shall be debating the Nolan report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House today, will the Leader of the House provide time to debate resolutions that will begin to put the recommendations of that report into practice? As Nolan wishes us to have entirely new systems up and running by November, we will have little parliamentary time between now and the summer to get the business through the House.
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions, the purpose of today's debate is to gauge feeling in the House in order to assist decisions about how best to proceed. Clearly, that implies further discussion following today's debate, but shaped in the light of today's debate.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I rise more in sorrow than in anger. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Reflections Group of the European Union considering the forthcoming intergovernmental conference is meeting on 2 June and, notwithstanding my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's consideration of publication of our contribution to that group, will he confirm that the position at present is that the Government will be tabling a secret document to that Reflections Group meeting and there will be no debate in the House in advance of that meeting on what the Government may be doing? Does not that sit rather uneasily with the Government's determination to strengthen the role of national Parliaments?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, of whose interest in these matters I am very much aware, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions and I am not in a position to add to that.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an early debate on Members' interests? I am talking not about the financial interests that we will be considering when we debate the Nolan report later, but the far more interesting juicier interests that Government Whips apparently record in a book in their office about which I have been reading in the newspapers. How thick is the book? Is it true that it has now gone into a second volume and the Whips are contemplating a loose-leaf format? In the interests of open government, that book should be published so that we can all see it and have a good laugh.
Mr. Newton: As a former Whip myself, I am more than well aware of the dangers that I would face were I to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, so I shall not.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on Chiltern Railways' proposals for west London's summer service, so that I may bring to the House's attention the cut of the 5.18 train to Northolt Park in my constituency, the cut of other highly popular trains at important periods, and the deteriorating service to my constituents? The House should know about it and something should be done.
Mr. Newton: I can best point my hon. Friend to the fact that it is Transport questions on Monday.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to consider early-day motion 1143, which relates to yesterday's Ministry of Defence raid on Greenpeace offices, and a similar motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)?
[That this House deplores the raid on Greenpeace offices as an infringement of their right to campaign against nuclear weapons and the dangers from nuclear power; and notes that this comes after the conclusion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty negotiations and demonstrates the paranoia of the Ministry of Defence about peace organisations.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is important that the matter be fully debated and discussed in the House? Had that raid occurred in any other part of world, with a Government sending their MOD police force into the offices of an organisation that had been openly critical of nuclear proliferation and the development of the THORP fast breeder reactor system, our Government would have been the first to condemn that Government for their action. Does it not smack of something very nasty when a Government try to shut down an organisation that is dedicated to peace and openness, rather than accept the arguments that it is putting forward?
Mr. Newton: As I understand it, criminal damage had been committed, and a search was being conducted for evidence related to that criminal damage. Of course, the Government always defend the rights of peaceful protesters, whatever their cause, but they will also defend the position that demonstrators who commit a criminal act should be dealt with under the law.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May we have a debate as early as possible on employment creation in the

477
UK as so much good news is occurring in that sector that it is unlikely that the Opposition will choose one of their Opposition days to discuss that matter? We could consider the successive drops in unemployment, today's good news that Iceland Foods has announced the creation of 5,000 jobs, 1,000 of which will be created this year, and the announcement by Whitbread, which has a brewery close to my constituency and where some of my constituents work, that it is to create 5,000 extra jobs, 1,000 of which will be created in the north-west, with an investment of £15 million.
Mr. Newton: I am delighted to hear that further practical evidence of good news on the employment front, not least in my hon. Friend's constituency. He will have heard the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst).
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply both to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and grant time for a debate on the injustice being meted out to nurses? I have read the intimidatory letter sent by the Minister for Health, and nurses will never abandon their patients in the way that this Government have abandoned the national health service. Is it not time that nurses received the 3 per cent. pay rise, that they got justice and that fewer threats were made against them?
Mr. Newton: When one looks at the figures that are frequently given about the increased resources going to the NHS, and the huge capital building programme that is under way, it is absurd to suggest that, in some sense, the NHS has been abandoned.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) in calling for a debate on local government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in relation to education, local government in Derbyshire holds back £720 per pupil? If we had a national education funding formula, that money could go straight into the schools.
Mr. Newton: That was another good point. It sounds to me as if the entire period of Education questions next Tuesday can be fruitfully employed.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on new housing policies in Britain, given the report published by the National House-Building Council, which points out that, in the past month, applications by house builders for new housing starts were 16 per cent. down on the previous year and, in the preceding three months, they were 17 per cent. down on the previous year? If he could arrange for such a debate in Government time, it would give the House the chance to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his Adjournment debate yesterday criticising the Treasury-led damage caused by undermining the confidence of the British housing market.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, will continue with their efforts, among other things, to encourage greater private investment in the social housing sector.
Mr. John Marshall: If I show a certain lack of practice in asking business questions, I apologise.
478
Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, it is possible for the House to vote annually on the distribution of the proceeds of the lottery. Many of us are concerned about the fact that only 6p in the pound goes to charity; can my right hon. Friend tell us when it is likely that we can engage in such a vote?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that, notwithstanding all the good will that I bear my hon. Friend, I cannot give him a date for a debate of that kind. I shall certainly consider the point that he has raised, however.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When the Leader of the House opened an exhibition in the main Committee Corridor marking the anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1979, he will have noticed a reference to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which is currently going through the House. If he had popped along the Corridor, he might also have noted that the Bill's progress back to the Floor of the House is being considerably delayed. The same applies to other Bills, such as the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which has not yet gone into Committee to be duly considered. Will the Leader of the House examine the problems currently affecting private Members' Bills?
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman heard the speech that I made upstairs, he will know that I went to some lengths to avoid becoming embroiled in current controversies, as distinct from marking the achievements of the past 25 years. I shall stay in that mode now. My concern is to ensure that we make further progress by means of the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill.
Mr. Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend is aware of Conservative concern about the Opposition's policy in regard to a statutory minimum wage, and the huge job losses that would result from its implementation. Will he assure us that the scope of next Wednesday's debate will be wide enough for Conservative Members to express their concern, and also to point out that the cynical deal that seems to have been put together with the unions does not fool anyone? We all know what the level of the statutory minimum wage will be: it will be what the unions want. They pay for all Opposition Front Benchers, they pay for all their offices and they pay for their party.
Mr. Newton: So far we have seen only the title of next Wednesday's debate, not the wording of the motion; but the title certainly seems wide enough to embrace the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Given the Prime Minister's stated determination to drive out sleaze from public life, is it not about time that we had a debate on the use of private management consultants by Government Departments—particularly Prowess Management, which I understand has been used by Departments to find appointees to quangos without having to resort to

479
competitive tender? There has been a strong recommendation to that effect from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to all Departments.
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is visibly sitting next to me, I shall merely say that those representations have already been drawn to his attention.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the House have an opportunity next week to consider the proposition that an Opposition Leader who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, and whose private office is funded by the Industrial Research Trust—which is partly funded by the TGWU—could ever, in office, resist the demands of the TGWU for a minimum wage of £4.10, which would throw millions of people on to the scrap heap?
Mr. Newton: Again, Madam Speaker, I am invited slightly to take over your role in judging what will and will not be in order during a debate. I think, however, that my hon. Friend has a good chance of being in order if he makes that point.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study the points of order that were raised yesterday, in particular the one that drew attention to a possible manipulation of our procedures by Ministers for their own party advantage? The example given was the way in which, on Monday and yesterday, they had linked questions in one case and not in another, to the great advantage of Conservative Back Benchers and to the disadvantage of Opposition Back Benchers.
As the House cannot intervene in such matters—although it is always said that questions are linked with the permission of the House—will my right hon. Friend ensure that the practice, which constitutes an abuse of democracy and our parliamentary procedures, is ended?
Mr. Newton: I was present when the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order. If I may say so, Madam Speaker, I thought that you dealt with it admirably.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if we had a debate on education, as proposed by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), we would be able to point out that Derbyshire local education authority does not have the spare money that was suggested? That money is held back to pay for school meals because, unlike some other local education authorities in which schools administer and pay for school meals and other administrative overheads, in Derbyshire the schools decided to have the money kept centrally. There is no spare money. I have a suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman. If all the 200 Tory Members who have six, seven, eight and nine jobs gave all the money that they get from moonlighting, we could make up the pay shortfalls, not just for teachers but for nurses, too.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's contribution is intended as an advance on today's debate or on next Tuesday's Education questions. I will leave him to make up his mind.
Mr. John Evans: Does the Leader of the House agree that because the Nolan committee did
480
not deal with the funding of political parties, if hon. Members seek to raise that subject in today's debate, they are likely to be ruled out of order? In view of the widespread concern about the matter, especially as expressed by the hon. Members for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate about the funding of political parties immediately on our return from the recess? Does he accept that, as someone who was chair of the Labour party's finance committee for five years, I will be prepared to ensure that every aspect of the Labour party's finances is presented in the House, if the right hon. Gentleman will guarantee that the appropriate person in the Tory party presents all their figures in the House?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps as a gesture of good will in this context, the hon. Gentleman might care to pick up my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Labour party could start by conforming with the rules suggested by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Leader of the House aware that the application of the Hague convention could lead in my constituency to a case whereby a child of 14 months, Lucia Johnson, could be taken from her mother by sheriff officers, placed in custody and put on a plane to Spain without anybody from her family being in her company? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that happens, it would run counter to the principles of the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Bill, which is being discussed by Parliament, which rightly assert that the future of the child is paramount? Will he therefore insist that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a statement to the House or, at least, introduce a debate so that we can decide whether there is a conflict between our perceived international obligations and the clear will of the House on child welfare?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has understandably raised a point of importance, not least to the individuals concerned. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, without being more fully aware of the circumstances, I could not properly comment, beyond saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is due to answer questions next Wednesday and I will bring that point to his attention.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Leader of the House allow in the near future a debate on the vindictive decision of ScotRail to withdraw the dedicated sleeper service to my constituency? That is despite an assurance given to me in January that if the Fort William sleeper service was not withdrawn, the Carlisle service would continue. Yesterday, official figures showed that the subsidy to the Carlisle service was far less than that to any other sleeper destination. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?
Mr. Newton: It sounds to me as if the hon. Gentleman's point would be an appropriate subject for representations in relation to the recently issued proposals for passenger service requirements. I am sure that he will make his representations.

Committee on Standards in Public Life
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I have to inform the House that because of the number of Members who wish to speak in the debate, I have had to limit speeches between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm to 10 minutes.
4.3 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I am sure, welcome this early opportunity to debate the first report of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Thursday. I commend the committee for the openness of its approach, the unanimity of its conclusions and recommendations and the speed with which it produced its report.
The central reason for setting up the Nolan committee was, of course, the growing public concern about standards in public life. Right hon. and hon. Members will therefore be reassured by the key conclusion of the committee, which states that
"much of the public anxiety about standards of conduct in public life is based on perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts. Taking the evidence as a whole, we believe that the great majority of men and women in British public life are honest and hard-working and observe high ethical standards".
I very much welcome that finding and so, I believe, will the vast majority of people, especially those who serve the public and who know that they are working to the highest standards of efficiency, effectiveness and, above all, integrity, whether they are elected, appointed or employed in the public sector.
The report's recommendations aim to reinforce public confidence in the holders of public office. Wherever existing guidelines may have seemed open to varying interpretation, they seek to restore clarity of direction. Above all, we must ensure that that objective is secured. The Government fully support those aims and welcome the broad thrust of the recommendations in so far as they affect the Government and are ready to take early action on them.
The House will, however, recognise that the report raises many complex matters of detail and many difficult issues. We must ensure, therefore, that the recommendations would achieve their aims. We shall have to examine these issues carefully and resolve any difficulties before we move to implement those recommendations.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Like my right hon. Friend, I warmly welcome the Nolan report. I am interested in the point that he is making about clarity. Does he agree that, if the House were governed by statute and we were to seek to introduce a Bill to implement the report's recommendations, the drafting of that Bill would be a lengthy and rather complex procedure?
There is one particular aspect of the report about which I have some doubt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to refer these matters to a senior Committee of the House to "build on the foundation" provided by Lord Nolan? In order to restore public confidence and assist
482
hon. Members, we must have rules that are clear and that the public and hon. Members understand. It is absolutely crucial that that is done with clarity and care.
Mr. Hunt: In responding to my right hon. Friend, let me reiterate the fact that the committee examined a number of matters, and three in particular: first, hon. Members; secondly, Ministers and civil servants; and thirdly, non-departmental public bodies. In opening this debate, I am primarily concerned to give the Government's response to the recommendations affecting Ministers and civil servants and non-departmental public bodies.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the first set of recommendations affects right hon. and hon. Members and the procedures of the House and the report does indeed make a number of proposals. Some are straightforward and do not require clarification, such as the restating of the 1947 resolution on hon. Members and outside contractual agreements. But others need to be looked at carefully to ensure that the improvements in the rules and procedures are carried forward in the most effective way with the least room for grey areas. That important point, which was made by my right hon. Friend, deserves reiteration time and again.
We must examine these issues very carefully and, as I said, resolve any difficulties before implementation. The public expect us to get this right: it is too important to get wrong.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend did not answer the question about a statute. If the terms upon which hon. Members serve are to be materially changed, is not it right for them to be decided by statute with all the slowness, deliberation and public discussion that that brings rather than in panic in response to particular circumstances? After all, the worst legislation that the House has passed was the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Single European Act. They were passed in a hurry—
Mr. Michael Trend: But Maastricht was not.
Mr. Budgen: In my opinion that was not done slowly enough but that is a different point.
If the terms upon which we serve here are to be changed it would be wise, would it not, for that to be done by statute which would perhaps bite at the beginning of the next Parliament?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend proposes a fundamental constitutional change because the conduct of the House is not a matter of statute, and if the terms upon which hon. Members serve were to be encompassed in statute, it would be a fundamental constitutional change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to answer my hon. Friend. What he said has been heard by my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be responding to the debate. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow us to hear whether there are any other views, particularly those to the contrary, on the rather fundamental constitutional change that he has suggested.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that it was the

483
Prime Minister, because of the urgency and the great weight of expressed public concern, who asked Lord Nolan to make his first report within six months? If it was important for Lord Nolan to report in that time, surely it is important for the House to take action as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman talked slightly complacently about the problems not being too great. Does he acknowledge that Lord Nolan said:
"unless the strictest standards are maintained and where necessary restored, corruption and malpractice can become part of the way of life. The threat at the moment is not great. Action needs to be taken before it becomes so."?
Surely that action needs to be taken on the time scale that was recommended by Lord Nolan.
Mr. Hunt: There was a general welcome for the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was setting up this committee. The Prime Minister made it clear that the central reason for setting it up was the increase in public concern about conduct in public life. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady will think again about what she has said in the light of the central conclusion of the Nolan committee that
"much of the public anxiety"—
to which of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred at the time—
"about standards of conduct in public life is based upon perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts."
Of course, the hon. Lady is right, and I shall come to the action to be taken by the Government on the proposals as they affect the Government.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hunt: Of course, in one moment. Equally, is it not right that the Government, having arranged for this debate to take place, should listen carefully to views expressed by hon. Members of all parties before moving to the next stage?
Ms Angela Eagle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the deliberate time scale that Lord Nolan has put into his report? Lord Nolan uses the categories of A, B and C. If we are considering the recommendations that apply particularly to hon. Members—down that list some quite fundamental changes in the rules with which we are to govern ourselves are suggested—most of them fall into the A category, on which Lord Nolan wants to see immediate action and most of the rest of them fall into the B category, which means that action should be taken and new committees should be in place by November. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how quickly we would have to act to fulfil that timetable and thus restore public confidence?
Mr. Hunt: I say to the hon. Lady that these are very important issues on which I hope that all hon. Members will reflect carefully in their speeches. It is important to get the facts right. If the hon. Lady would turn to pages—
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hunt: In a second. If the hon. Lady turns to pages 7, 8 and 9, she will see that what she has just said is incorrect.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No one wants anyone to procrastinate, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it is vital to get the detail right and that the job of clarifying rules and regulations should not be done overnight?
Mr. Hunt: As I have said on more than one occasion, these are very important issues for this House. Therefore, I think that Opposition Members—
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hunt: Just one moment. Opposition Members do a grave injustice to the Nolan committee if they seek to make this a party political issue. I believe—[Interruption.] Let me just make this point. I believe that Lord Nolan's committee has given us—
Ms Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just looked down the list of recommendations that the right hon. Gentleman said were all classified C—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this matter. It must be a genuine point of order and not a matter for debate. The hon. Member made a long intervention. So many Members want to participate in this debate, and this House and the country want to hear their views. Let us make some progress. Is it a genuine point of order and not a matter of argument?
Ms Eagle: I am concerned that the House has been given a misleading impression by what was said, because 19 out of 20 recommendations—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or our procedures. The hon. Member is arguing with the Minister, who has the Floor.
Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Lady is seeking to continue to dispute the fact, which is rather a waste of time, I ask her to look at page 7. From that she would think that she was correct. But instead of confining herself to page 7, if she turned to page 8, she would see that the majority of the proposals there were Bs. If she recalls, she said at the outset that the majority of the proposals were classified A. On pages 8 and 9, not one proposal is classified A. They are B and in one case C. Therefore—
Ms Eagle rose—
Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Lady examines the record carefully, she will see exactly what she said. I do not understand why we are spending time on a matter that is so clear in the report.
Mr. Duncan Smith: At the outset, so that we may get the matter absolutely straight, will my right hon. Friend confirm for the Opposition Front-Bench team and all hon. Members that the matters concerning Members of Parliament are for Members of Parliament to decide and that what will be implemented has nothing to do with the opinion of the Front-Bench teams of either party? Will he confirm that what will be implemented will be up to this House and this House alone and the opinions of either Front-Bench team have absolutely no bearing on the matter?
Mr. Hunt: I agree—
Mr. John Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. Will you tell us how the Standing Order relates to declarations of interest in the course of the debate? Should hon. Members announce their interest when they speak—and, more particularly, when they intervene?
Madam Speaker: It has never been required that hon. Members declare their interests when intervening, but I shall think it very wise if all hon. Members taking part in the debate carry out our usual procedures and say at the very start of their speeches what their interests are.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) that it is arrogant of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to seek to dictate to the House what the response of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber should be to these very detailed recommendations.
To return to what I was saying a few moments ago, these are serious issues for the House. I believe that Lord Nolan's committee has given us an excellent opportunity to re-establish public confidence in the system now. We should seize that opportunity and not seek to divert the debate down a particular party political channel. We should rise above that debate in order to deliberate on the real issues that face us.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Minister give serious consideration to the answer that he gave about the use of statute? Far from the use of statute being a radical proposal, the House has always dealt with membership and its rules by using the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. There are 400 disqualifying offices, and although there may be differences on some issues, many people believe that such matters should be dealt with by statute rather than through a commissioner who would deal with Members. We could say, "If you are within the law you are all right, and if you are outside the law you will be taken to court." So I hope that the Minister will not rule out statute as the proper way of dealing with the matter. He might find that it had a far wider range of support than he believes.
Mr. Hunt: When my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) raised a similar point, I said that that was an interesting issue but that it raised fundamental constitutional questions. Of
486
course the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right to refer to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. And of course that is a statute. But the way in which we conduct matters within the House has never been primarily a matter for statute. If it were to become so, that would be a significant move that would require the fullest possible debate in the Chamber.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in believing that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not declare his interests in opening his speech, and could have done so once you had given that ruling?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has an interest to declare, he will take the opportunity to do so before he takes the intervention.
Mr. Hunt: My interest is declared in the Register of Members' Interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."]—as a partner in a firm of solicitors and as an underwriting member of Lloyd's. That is widely known, but it has no direct relevance to what we are debating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Nevertheless I make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some decorum and order in the debate.
Mr. Budgen: The Nolan suggestions—and they are only suggestions—do not impinge upon the procedures of the House or on how we behave here. They are suggestions about what are really the terms of our employment. Surely if our terms of employment are to be restricted in some way, that should be set out in statute. Is that not quite different from the old custom of our unwritten constitution, that the procedures of the House and the way in which we behave here are ordered within the House, with no statutory backing?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, which I hope will find a context in the debate. There are arguments either way, as I have been seeking to demonstrate.
To reiterate, the issues need clarification and we must examine all the difficulties that arise before the House moves to implementation. We are having the debate today so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can deal with the issues, and to allow hon. Members to express their personal opinions in the Chamber.
Dr. Tony Wright: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reflected on the fact that the assurances that he gave to the Nolan committee in evidence were comprehensively dismissed by that committee? Is not it the case that the Prime Minister, in setting up the Nolan committee, said that this was a matter of extreme urgency and that the public's trust in those in public life was at stake? Is not the origin of the problem the failure of the House to reform itself? If the House now prevaricates, will not that compound the problem that the Nolan committee was set up to resolve?
Mr. Hunt: I am not aware that anything suggested by the hon. Gentleman has ever been said by any of my right

487
hon. and hon. Friends. It is important that we get this right. With regard to my evidence, I am coming to the rules affecting Ministers when they leave office. If I may make a little progress, I shall deal with that matter.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sensational cases make bad law? Does he recall Edmund Burke's statement that one owes to one's electorate a duty to one's judgment and not to one's industry? If the judgment of Members of Parliament is so suspect that—for the first time—this place must be judged by somebody else, democracy will be irredeemably damaged.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I recall that someone from Bristol said that a Member of Parliament owes to his constituents his industry, but must never sacrifice his judgment to his opinion, and I agree.
Mr. Leigh: I tried to intervene earlier, as I wanted to agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Does my right hon. Friend also agree with the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point that, for 700 years, this House has taken the view that in order to safeguard the liberty of the people, the Executive could have no control over the House. If the House is to be regulated in this tight way—which may or may not be the right thing to do—it should be by statute. Hon. Members should know exactly where they stand, and should not be bound by a commissioner effectively appointed by the Executive to oversee independent Members of Parliament.
Mr. Hunt: These are all serious points, some of which could involve fundamental changes. It is important today to listen to the views expressed in the Chamber. In all cases, this House will have the final say.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is interesting. But if we were to go down the route to statute, would not that delay the matter much more than if the House dealt with it itself? Would not such a process involve the introduction of a Bill? If we were to have a statute, would not we be handing over the scrutiny of this House to the judges and to legal interpretation? That may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly something that the House should consider.
Mr. Hunt: This will be an interesting debate. We are entering an area that the Nolan committee does not address in its report in detail, and no doubt hon. Members who have views on that aspect will put them forward. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate. Like all of us, he will want to consider carefully the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister answer the question that people outside have constantly put in the past few weeks? When Back Benchers become Ministers, 80 or so of whom form a Government, they must then get rid of their consultancies, directorships and all the rest. If that applies to Ministers, why cannot it apply to Back Benchers? One reason why the Government must wrestle with that problem is that, when Thatcher
488
came to power, she allowed those Back Benchers to make as much money as they liked provided that they turned up here at 10 o'clock to get the legislation through. It was the age of materialism and now the Government are having to pay for it.
Mr. Hunt rose—
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. Not until the Minister has responded.
Mr. Hunt: I think that my hon. Friend anticipated that there was nothing serious to respond to.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a serious misconception here? There is a great distinction between the role of the Back Bencher and that of the Back Bencher who becomes a Minister. No Back Bencher is forced to become a Minister; if he does so, it is on the terms on which that employment is offered to him. If every Back Bencher is to be bound by new onerous and radical terms of employment, that becomes a matter for the whole nation as it is the basis on which we serve in this Parliament. That must be a matter for legislation.
Mr. Hunt: I have already acknowledged that that view is a serious contribution to a wide-ranging debate. The question of statute law as opposed to rules of procedure of the House is fundamental and I look forward to contributions on that subject.
May I deal with the recommendations addressed to the Government, that is, those on Ministers and civil servants? During its review, the committee looked at "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"—guidance that the Prime Minister and the Government have made public for the first time ever. It had not previously been in the public domain. The committee made a number of suggestions to improve the guidance. It says that we should draw out the ethical principles and seek to formulate a code of conduct either within the guidance or as a free-standing document. The committee also recommends new arrangements to extend records of gifts to include hospitality accepted by Ministers in their official capacity.
It is self-evident that the integrity of Ministers must not be open to doubt, whether during their service to the nation or in what they do afterwards. So I make it absolutely clear to the House that the Government intend to implement Lord Nolan's recommendation that proposals by former Ministers to take up appointments after they leave public office should be brought within the scope of Lord Carlisle's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
As Lord Nolan recognised, some important points of detail must be put in place before clear ground rules can be established. For example, should the three-month waiting period proposed in the report apply to Ministers who return to an earlier occupation or profession, which may be largely unconnected with their work in government, such as running a business, returning to office as a paid trade union official, returning to lecture at a university, or returning to work as a schoolteacher? How do we strike the right balance between openness and privacy? I would welcome any views that the House wishes to express before we make final proposals for the detailed scheme.

489
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) asked me about the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee, so let me explain what I said. I told Lord Nolan that I thought that the existing rules for Ministers were sufficient to uphold the standards of public life, but that the Government would consider very carefully what he recommended.
Lord Nolan's report finds that those standards remain high and that the problem lies mainly in public perception rather than in the facts. I accept that. I also accept the need to rebuild public confidence. We are therefore glad to accept Lord Nolan's recommendation, which will reinforce confidence that British public life maintains the highest possible standards.
On the civil service, the Nolan committee has been able to build on the welcome common ground that exists between all the political parties in the House. The Nolan committee supports the action that we are taking, for instance, to introduce a new code for civil servants, as set out in our response to Nolan and in our White Paper, "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change". That code, which will be a document of great value, arises directly as a result of a recommendation made by the all-party Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. It sets out concisely what is expected of civil servants and introduces a new right of external appeal.
The Government will look constructively at the further points that the Nolan committee has raised and will take them all into account in the consultation exercise that we are currently conducting with the civil service staff and unions. The Opposition spokesmen and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service have also been invited to offer their views.
Ms Joan Walley: Will that consultation exercise specifically consider the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and women of whichever party and in whichever Government? The Chairmen of the Select Committees are given specific help, unlike the Opposition spokesmen and women who shadow Ministers, who, in turn, have all the resources of the civil service available to them. When considering how to resource Members of Parliament properly, we should take into account not just their constituency business, but their role in scrutinising parliamentary legislation.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady is arguing for more resources through the Short mechanism, which currently provides funds for the party in opposition. That does not relate directly to the point that I was making about the civil service, but should the hon. Lady catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that she will raise that issue again in the debate.
When we complete the consultation process with the staff and unions of the civil service, the Opposition and the Select Committee, we shall introduce the code, because I am convinced by the Nolan committee's recommendation that we should not wait for legislation to do that. As hon. Members will know, I have already said that our mind is open on whether such legislation should be introduced, but we agree with Lord Nolan that we need not wait. We shall therefore introduce that code when we have completed the consultation process.
The Nolan committee report also considers the appointment procedures and propriety in the workings of executive non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies. Non-departmental public bodies are
490
an integral part of public service. The need for integrity on their part is as great as it is for Ministers, the civil service and elsewhere. It is therefore reassuring to note that, on this issue, too, the committee explicitly rules out the idea that there has been any decline in standards.
The report highlights the continuing tradition of voluntary service by those many thousands of public-spirited individuals in positions that are often unpaid or paid at rates far below those that their skills could attract elsewhere. I should like to add my tribute to the many people who serve in those positions. I hope that they will all accept and that the House will accept that the Nolan committee's report offers a conclusive rebuttal of the allegations hurled, without any evidence or justification, at people who give their time and energy to serve the nation in a public capacity.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Some of the most serious shortcomings to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention in its eighth report were in non-departmental public bodies. There were some very serious shortcomings indeed, which led to a unique report, of a type that had never been produced by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Nolan report is proposing that auditors from the commercial sector should continue to carry out the audit of some of those non-departmental public bodies. At present, two thirds of non-departmental public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office. I believe, and the Committee believes, that it is important that all those non-departmental public bodies should be audited by the National Audit Office.
Commercial auditors today—we have witnessed some examples of it recently—have an advantage in obtaining so much of their money from consultancy work, and they make very low bids to obtain that. The only organisation that has no interest in those matters is the National Audit Office, which can be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee and can retain those standards. It is important that the standards that exist in the Government service as a whole be applied throughout those non-departmental public bodies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister continues, may I remind both sides of the House that interventions, by their nature, should be short?
Mr. Hunt: I have a great deal of sympathy with several of the arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the Nolan committee's recommendations is that audit arrangements should be reviewed, to ensure that the best practice applies to all public bodies.
I shall discuss appointments and then auditing arrangements and propriety. The Nolan committee does indeed endorse the key principles underlying the existing appointments system—that ultimate responsibility for public appointments must remain with Ministers, all appointments should be subject to the overriding principle of appointment on merit and public bodies should have a balance of skills and backgrounds in their membership.
The Government are already taking steps to improve the transparency and independence of the appointments process. We have reviewed the central guidance and there is increasing, use, in the national health service and other

491
public services, of advisory panels or committees with one or more independent members. Many of the committee's recommendations build on those initiatives.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hunt: Of course I will give way, but I shall first reply to the argument of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
The Government welcome the proposal for a new independent commissioner for public appointments, who would monitor, regulate and approve departmental appointment procedures. We also accept the case for an extension of the role of independent advisory committees. We are developing formal plans now to implement those proposals.
We need to consider very carefully what the exact functions of the commissioner should be. It appears sensible not to finalise the details until we have appointed someone of the highest integrity and listened to his or her opinions.
The committee also examined the standards of conduct, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne says. The report says:
"in general, the board members of executive non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies are committed to the principles and values of public service and perform their duties to high standards of integrity".
To provide additional reassurance, we are ready to tighten procedures, as recommended in the report. In that way, we aim to show beyond doubt that the rules are being followed. Specifically, we accept that we should review the legal framework governing propriety and accountability in a wide range of public bodies. I am happy to tell the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that work on that review by members of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury is already under way.
The committee also suggested that the Treasury "Code of Best Practice for Board Members," issued, I think, in June 1994, should act as a model for mandatory codes of conduct for each executive non-departmental public body. Although the Treasury model is indeed at the moment principally intended to cover non-departmental public bodies, it is not mandatory. I have an open mind about that. Perhaps it should be; or perhaps we need to tackle it in some other way, more responsive to the needs of each individual body. That issue merits very careful consideration.
National health service bodies, for example, have their own codes of conduct and accountability, which are already mandatory on all boards; and compliance is a condition of appointment.
Mr. Sheerman rose—
Mr. Hunt: I shall mention the committee's final recommendations, and then I shall give way.
The committee's final recommendations propose the adoption of the 1994 "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", together with the committee's own guidelines, throughout executive non-departmental public bodies.
492
We wholeheartedly endorse those proposals, because greater openness in public life is an important objective of the Government. I believe that our code of practice has already been a notable milestone in meeting that objective. We are also introducing an openness code for the national health service, under which the health service ombudsman will be asked to investigate individual complaints.
Mr. Sheerman: The openness that my constituents want is an openness about who is appointed to public bodies. So many good people in this country of ours want to give public service, but, time and again, listen to people such as Baroness Denton, who says that she has never knowingly appointed anyone who is not a member or a supporter of the Conservative party. That is the great unrest among constituents of mine, who want to serve.
Mr. Hunt: Baroness Denton has already said that she was misquoted and did not say that.
I would hope that, had the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said, he would have been reassured that the Government have said that, in certain instances, we accept the recommendations set out in the report, and in others the recommendations need careful consideration.
Mr. John Morris: In his evidence to the Nolan committee, did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster discuss the role of the Government Chief Whip, and say that that was to be different from now on?
Mr. Hunt: I did give written evidence to the Nolan committee, in setting out the new procedure on appointments, that there would be a lessening role for the Government Chief Whip. I made that clear to the committee, and nothing came down from above to strike me down when I uttered those words.
I have outlined the Government's preliminary response to the Nolan committee's first report. Its subject is of the utmost importance to the Government. We believe that people engaged in public service must work with integrity and to the highest standards, and be seen to do so.
Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Earlier he was subject to several interventions—from both sides of the House, surprisingly—that might have implied delay in carrying out the recommendations of the report.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, subject to clarification of certain important matters in the report and subject to a free vote of Back-Bench Members of the House, indeed all Members of the House, there would be high risk to the reputation of Parliament and to the legitimate representation of interests in our processes—which is very important—if there were undue delay in implementing most of the proposals?
Mr. Hunt: On my hon. Friend's first point, I have always believed that, in matters governing issues that affect the House, one should give way on every possible and conceivable occasion. If there were any misconceptions, I hope that they have been dispersed by the way in which, on behalf of the Government, I have so clearly welcomed the broad thrust of the recommendations in so far as they affect the Government.
As far as Parliament is concerned, it must be for Parliament to determine the way to proceed. I very much hope that all those who feel that they have an opinion to

493
express will find time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make their contribution. That is why I should like to bring my remarks to a close by saying that—
Mr. Anthony Steen: In the spirit of openness which the Government are most concerned to exploit to the full, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a cost-compliance assessment of the additional costs of the rules and regulations that will flow from the report and of all the additional staff who will have to be employed at a cost to the taxpayer? That information should be made available to the House and to the nation.
Mr. Hunt: I am sure that the consequences in terms of the cost of any proposals will be considered very carefully. At the end of the day, we are here to undertake a task that Lord Nolan's committee has given us every opportunity to accomplish: to re-establish public confidence in the system.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. While I certainly wish to acquit him of charges of evasiveness about those parts of the report that deal with the Houses of Parliament and while I recognise the Government's desire to hear the views of the House and perhaps of another place in due course, will the Minister at least confirm that the Government accept the underlying thrust of the Nolan committee's report concerning the urgency of the timing of those matters that touch upon the business of the House and the need to act within the time scale that the committee sets out?
Mr. Hunt: I hope that I have already established beyond doubt the Government's determination to respond to the recommendations that affect the Government. I believe that the recommendations that the committee has singled out for early implementation should be treated in the same way as we treat the recommendations of a Select Committee: we must provide a detailed response within the usual two-month period. I have already indicated that we are taking action in a number of areas, but that a detailed response will be provided before the summer recess. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about Parliament, that must be a matter for Parliament to decide.
Above all, I hope that we will remember one thing: while formal procedures are vital, in the end the individual's personal position must be beyond reproach. I made that point to the committee when I gave oral evidence to it. I said then that no individual should act in a way that calls into question his or her integrity. Adherence to that principle and to the others set out in the Nolan report—selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, together with integrity—must remain the foundation of our public life.
I believe that integrity must remain our watchword. We all share responsibility—in this House and elsewhere—for reinforcing the public's confidence in the public service. The Government will do everything necessary to ensure that the quality of the British public service remains, and is clearly seen to be, the best in the world.
4.52 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by declaring my interests as they appear in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a sponsored member of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and I
494
receive research assistance from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and from Unison. I had intended to begin my remarks by welcoming the fact that we are debating this matter as soon as possible after the publication of the Nolan committee report. I had thought that that showed that the Government were treating the matter seriously and urgently. However, in view of the remarks during Prime Minister's Question Time and the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon, I am beginning to wonder whether I drew the correct inference from this early debate.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: I have just started my speech; I shall make some progress first. I certainly do not wish to do anything that would delay the implementation of the Nolan committee's recommendations, and I shall turn to some practical suggestions a little later. It is important to remind the House why it was necessary to set up the Nolan committee in the first place. Having listened to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I think that some hon. Members might be wondering why he thought that the Prime Minister established the Nolan committee. At the time of its establishment, the Prime Minister said:
"In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life".—[Official Report, 25 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 758.]
Upon reflection on the events that led to the committee being set up, I do not think that history will accuse the Prime Minister of overstatement. In the weeks leading to the establishment of the Nolan inquiry, the House and the public witnessed the cash for questions episode, more than one ministerial resignation and a host of other allegations. I do not intend to go into the details of those matters this afternoon, not least because they are still the subject of some Committee inquiries.
Mr. Arnold: In declaring her interests earlier, can the hon. Lady tell us why she did not refer to her remunerated employment? Perhaps she can inform the House of the nature of that remunerated employment.
Mrs. Taylor: The entry in the Register of Members' Interests is entirely accurate. My interests appear there: sponsorship by the GMB and research assistance from ATL and Unison. That is a complete entry.
Mr. Arnold: Nothing in section 2?
Mrs. Taylor: There is nothing to declare in any other section and thus there is no other entry. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take up that point in any other way, he may do so.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests, 22 May 1974 to June 1993 edition, it says that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. Is that true or false?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member making the declaration to decide

495
what it is appropriate to declare. I know of nothing that requires an hon. Member to declare an interest that he or she no longer has.
Mrs. Taylor: I have mentioned ATL. I hope that the Whips' briefing to Conservative Members is more accurate on other matters.
Mr. Steen: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the Register of Members' Interests as at 30 January 1995. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had to give full details of his interests to the House a moment ago because of Opposition Members' complaints, we ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury to do the same thing when she makes a speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already explained that it is up to the hon. Members concerned to declare such interests as they consider are appropriate to the matter in hand.
Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raised a similar point of order with the Speaker when she was in the Chair and she said that at the start of every speech—but not an intervention—the hon. Member concerned should state his or her interests as they appear in the Register of Members' Interests. In opening the debate, the Minister failed to do that and I was forced to provoke him into admitting what his interests were.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that hon. Members should declare interests that are relevant to the matter under consideration.
Mrs. Taylor: Before I continue my speech, may I point out on that point of order—
Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Garrett: It is an absolutely genuine point of order. How can there be any difference between a statement of interests that are relevant to this debate and what appears in the Register of Members' Interests, because this is a debate about Members' interests, among other things?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said absolutely that it is for the hon. Member concerned to declare any interests that he or she considers appropriate.
Mrs. Taylor: Not only have I declared every interest that I consider proper, but I have declared every interest that I have.
The point that I was making—it seems to cause significant embarrassment to Conservative Members—was that many people hoped that the establishment of the Nolan committee would mean a reduction in the number of allegations being made. We were hopeful that there would be a clean start and that significant progress could be made. Perhaps I should remind the House of Nolan's terms of reference. They were:
"To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life".
496
Those terms of reference imply that the House will take action on any suggestions that the Committee makes.
When the committee's establishment was announced, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described it as a plainly sensible and fully necessary move, and promised our full co-operation. I can agree with one thing that the Chancellor of the Duchy said today—we should congratulate the Nolan committee on quickly setting about its task and defining its initial priorities.
I want to deal with the three areas that form the subject of the report published last week. They are: Members' interests; the vexed issue of the employment of former Ministers on the boards of companies, and especially privatised companies with which they had dealings as Ministers; and the issue of patronage which has been exercised in a partisan way when making appointments, particularly to quangos.
The committee took evidence from a wide range of people, in person and in writing. It also took evidence from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, from the Leader of the House, from me and from colleagues. We should place on record our thanks for, and admiration and recognition of, the Committee's work.
The report does not contain all the answers to the problems that face us, but then it does not claim to. It is an important first step. The report was unanimous. Lord Nolan sets great store by that fact, and so should we when we come to consider his recommendations.
This must have been a rather strange day for the Chancellor of the Duchy, because he has been forced to accept the thrust of the Nolan report, yet all its conclusions reject the approach that he took when he gave evidence on 7 February. His evidence that day was amazingly complacent. He dismissed, as he did at times this afternoon, many of the concerns as slurs, innuendo and often downright lies. He said that he believed that the Government should be
"determined to ensure that standards of conduct in public service are maintained".
He seemed to be satisfied to leave it there. It is precisely that satisfaction with existing standards that most worries us. No one could, no one should, and I hope no one would issue a blanket condemnation of all Members of Parliament. It is simply not true to say that they all behave as badly as the few who have brought the House into disrepute. But to imply, as the right hon. Gentleman has, that there was no real problem is to do our reputation no good at all.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Surely the real problem is that too many Members of the House regard a seat here as a negotiable asset for private gain, instead of a basis for a vocation. At the same time, they vote and urge others to vote to obstruct those with a vocation, such as doctors, nurses and teachers, and to press them into being short-term monetary contractors. Does that not go against the principles of Parliament and their Christian basis? If it is pursued too far, it could destroy both.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. In a way, he reinforces the real dangers, outlined by Lord Nolan, that could arise if we did not take action now.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the hon. Lady agree with the remark in chapter 1 of the report to the effect that much of the anxiety about standards in public life is not supported by the facts?
Mrs. Taylor: I have already said that, but I should add that too much of the anxiety has been caused by real problems—such as cash for questions and cash for amendments. It is no use pretending that there is not a real problem.
Giving evidence to the Nolan committee, the Leader of the House acknowledged that there was a real problem to which we had to attend. I want to deal this afternoon with the committee's specific recommendations and outline what our response should be. Then, if time allows, I should like to say a few words about the future work of the committee.
The Chancellor mentioned procedure for Ministers and the fact that the report is now a public document. But, when he gave evidence on 7 February this year, the right hon. Gentleman's attention was drawn by Lord Nolan to an interview that the former had given in which he was asked whether he wanted a change in the rules governing the taking up of outside employment by former Ministers. The Chancellor said:
"I have to say that I believe, and the Government believes, that it is still right to leave decisions about these matters to the judgement of individuals."
Pressed by Nolan to discover whether that meant that the Government wanted no change, the Chancellor reiterated his belief that the current rules were adequate, suggesting that all was well. I am glad that today he has backed down and said that the Government will accept the Nolan recommendations on the employment of former Ministers. I am not convinced that those recommendations can be the last word on the subject, however. We shall want to monitor developments and return to the matter when necessary, to see whether further changes have to be made.
Quangos were included in the inquiry because of the significant concern about them, to which hon. Members have already alluded. Of course there have always been quangos, but they have mushroomed in recent years, spending vast amounts of public money. In the past, there have been unwritten rules determining their balance, and they have never been the subject of such public concern before. That is not surprising, given the facts. Hon. Members have already referred to what Baroness Denton said about not knowingly appointing Labour nominees. Such issues give rise to great concern—not least because they tally with the experience of many of our constituents.
The Nolan recommendations on changing the appointments procedure for members of quangos will make a difference. Quite how significant that difference will be I am not sure, but it is important to realise that it is not, in itself, the answer to the growing problem of the quango state. The Chancellor and other Ministers must acknowledge that public anxiety is not just about who serves on quangos; it is also about their power and spending ability.
The Chancellor of the Duchy, in his evidence to the Nolan inquiry, said that quangos were a good form of accountability. I presume that he has never tried tabling a question about something for which a quango has responsibility. There is amazing complacency about the accountability of quangos. That complacency appeared,
498
surprisingly, to be shared by the Leader of the House during his statement on drugs last week, in which he said that the chief executives of the health authorities would take the lead in some respect because that form of quango gave the best form of accountability. Quangos may be accountable to the Government but they are not accountable to Parliament, and they are certainly not accountable to the public.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee takes a close interest in the work of all quangos and has all the necessary powers to summon their representatives to appear to give evidence. Indeed, the PAC has done so, and its reports are published and debated in the House.
Mrs. Taylor: Yes, but there are still problems with auditing, which were referred to earlier. Indeed, the Nolan report touches on those problems. If anybody is to be complacent and claim that changes to the appointment system will remove all the problems that exist within a quango state, he will be deluding himself. He will not, however, delude the public.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that if the PAC devoted all its hearings over the next 10 years to quangos, it would at the end of that period have discussed only a fraction of them?
Mrs. Taylor: That is probably the case. Even if the assiduous members of the Committee were to sit every day of the week, there would still be a monitoring problem.
Mr. Shersby: This is an extremely important matter. The hon. Lady has said that there are problems in auditing quangos' accounts. Having served on the PAC for 13 years, I can only say that the auditing of quangos' accounts by the National Audit Office is probably carried out to the highest standards that apply anywhere else in the world.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not criticising the NAO, but it can audit only a third of quangos' accounts. There is a real problem in auditing public money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously interested in these matters, will read the Nolan report again, and especially the concerns that Lord Nolan himself expresses about them. The public have a right to know what happens to their money. We must examine how they can be reassured that there will be better auditing procedures in future.
I move on to Members' interests. I shall make some specific suggestions in terms of a timetable that I hope the House will take on board in its consideration of where we should go from here. I accept the recommendations set out in the Nolan report. It is important that the House should move quickly. I am pleased that Lord Nolan has accepted many of the suggestions that I made when I gave evidence to his committee. I said—I believe that this is Lord Nolan's recommendation—that the Register of Members' Interests must be improved.
Contracts of external interest should be registered and available for public scrutiny. The amounts that Members are paid should be disclosed in broad terms. It is extremely important that these recommendations are implemented with all possible speed. Indeed, I believe

499
that the process must be started within the next few weeks. I want to see the framework for the new arrangements in place by the autumn. That means that the House must make positive decisions before the summer recess—indeed, as early as possible.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree broadly with what the hon. Lady is saying. Do I take it that she, like me, does not agree with the interesting suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the House should proceed by way of statute rather than through its own mechanisms, not least because adopting a statutory approach would cause greater delay?
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. By resolution of the House, we can make many of the changes that Lord Nolan suggests. The House will need to consider these matters quickly after the Whitsun recess. We should aim at making the necessary changes as soon as possible.
Mr. Budgen: The House may not have objected to the original arrangements for registration, but the Nolan suggestions go a great deal further. They are designed not to deal with the way in which we serve in the House but to set down the terms and conditions of that service and to influence the way in which we behave outside the House. The House might have decided not to be difficult about registration, but if we are to take a major and radical step forward, which is said to be necessary, surely we should do so on the basis of something that is set out in statute so that for the future people will know the terms on which they will serve in this place.
Mrs. Taylor: If we make the changes that I shall suggest, anyone who wants to put himself forward at the next general election will be clear about the terms and conditions of his employment as a Member. The hon. Gentleman is making a bogus point that should not delay us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady explain—this is not explained in the Nolan report—the difference between income that is derived from advising a respectable organisation about its relationship with government and other forms of income? Why should income that is derived from advising such organisations be declared when the work of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who publish works that no one would read apart from the fact that it is thought that they carry some authority because they are produced by Members—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is a broadcaster, provides another example—need not be declared? There are, of course, parliamentary silks on both sides of the House. Why should uniquely the money from one source be published but not that from the other? Would it have anything to do—I offer this to the hon. Lady in the spirit of helpfulness—with the fact that there are more parliamentary advisers on the Conservative
500
Benches than on the Opposition Benches and at least as many parliamentary silks on the Opposition Benches as on the Conservative Benches?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be pushing some of my hon. Friends into saying, "Publish the lot." I think that Lord Nolan was trying to make it clear that our first responsibility is to ensure that the public know of any income that we receive only because we are Members. That is one of the keys.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with the point in more detail. The hon. Gentleman is not known for his patience, but it would be helpful if in this instance he were patient. I want to make what I hope are some constructive and positive suggestions about the way in which we should proceed.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Lady give way before she moves on?
Mrs. Taylor: Yes.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important for Members who receive research assistance that is paid for by outside bodies such as trade unions—for example, Unison, which I understand is sponsoring many research assistants for members of the Opposition Front Bench—to make a declaration?
Mrs. Taylor: It is clear that the hon. Lady has not read the register in much detail. Money of the sort to which she refers is declared. It should be in the register, and under the new system the amounts involved should be there. We on the Opposition Benches are happy with that proposal and willing to comply with it.
The most important question for us to consider is how we proceed from this point. The way in which we move to implement the Nolan recommendations is the most important issue facing us. The House must take an early decision on the principles of the changes to the register as recommended by Lord Nolan, including the full disclosure of contracts and payments.
The vote on the principle of that has to be separated from the definition of some of the details and, perhaps, the income bandings that would apply, because Lord Nolan has made suggestions and given guidance but not exact definitions. The fact that details have to be established is no excuse for delay. The Select Committee on Members' Interests may well be able to do that and, in normal circumstances, that is the approach that the House would consider.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Given that, like her, I think that the whole House wants to be certain that the resolutions that are put to the House are clear not only to Members but to the public, would the hon. Lady think it helpful if the matter, rather than being referred to the Members' Interests Select Committee—which, she is right, is the obvious place—were considered by a committee of senior Members who have already announced their intention to leave the House in this Parliament? [Interruption.] I suggest that because such Members would not only command the respect of the House but may command

501
respect outside the House with the general public on the ground that they are unlikely to be thought to have any personal and continuing interest in the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: If we were starting from scratch and considering the matter for the first time, that might be a way forward, but we are not. We have Lord Nolan's suggestions and framework. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be a mechanism for delay, and that is what we cannot have. I hope that the House agrees that we must have an early decision to accept Lord Nolan's recommendations in principle and then move to the mechanisms for working out the necessary detail.
I come now to the need for a code of conduct. I am firmly of the belief that the rules that guide our behaviour as Members of Parliament are in "Erskine May" and we, as Members of Parliament, should all be aware of them. Lord Nolan draws attention to the decisions of the Privileges Committee, going back as far as 1947, which are still the basis of those rules. It is clear to anyone who reads "Erskine May" on aspects relevant to Members' interests that Members of Parliament are not allowed to take cash for questions, amendments, speeches or anything of that kind.
If some hon. Members feel that that is not clear—I accept that not all hon. Members have always consulted "Erskine May"—it may be wise, as I suggested to Lord Nolan, to draw up a code of conduct. Again, we can move on that quickly. I suggest that we ask the Clerk of the House of Commons to draft a code of conduct based on the provisions in "Erskine May" which could then be discussed, amended if necessary, and adopted by the House. I hope that the Clerk of the House would consider that appropriate and I think that the House would appreciate such guidance from such a respected quarter. I hope that there can be cross-party agreement on that.
Another aspect of the Nolan proposals that needs to be acted upon quickly is the suggestion that there should be a parliamentary commissioner for standards. The Nolan report states:
"By analogy with the Comptroller and Auditor General, the House should appoint as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a person of independent standing who will take over responsibility for maintaining the Register of Members' Interests; for advice and guidance to MPs on matters of conduct; for advising on the Code of Conduct; and for investigating allegations of misconduct. The Commissioners' conclusions on such matters would be published."
I accept that suggestion. Such an independent element is vital to restore public confidence in the workings of the House.
Sir Terence Higgins: Does the hon. Lady think that the recommendations should be published before or after they have been considered by the Privileges Committee?
Mrs. Taylor: If a recommendation from the ethics officer, or whatever he is called—[Interruption.] I do not see why such a person should not be called an ethics officer or the parliamentary commissioner for standards. If hon. Members say that they are worried about the name, they are creating a smokescreen. Conservative Members may not welcome independent scrutiny, but it is the least that the public are entitled to. Any recommendation by an independent officer concerning a particular Member that
502
is not accepted by the Committee and any indiscretions that have taken place should be made public. That is important.
Mr. Nicholls: My recollection may be entirely false, but I seem to recall that the hon. Lady once worked as a consultant for a firm of parliamentary advisers. Can she confirm that that is so? Why was she presumably content to be a parliamentary adviser then, but apparently now feels embarrassed about it? If she did publish her earnings at the time—or perhaps if she did not—why is she now so keen that everybody else should?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman really should take the issue more seriously. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) asked a significant question on the detail of how the parliamentary commissioner for standards would work. We should concentrate on that. Do we want to make constructive progress as a result of the debate or do Conservative Members want to create a smokescreen so that they can bury the Nolan report and its recommendations?
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made a specific allegation that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) once worked for a parliamentary lobbyist. There is nothing wrong with that. I did as well. But we need an answer to the question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman should well know. I do not expect to hear anything further from him on that point.
Mrs. Taylor: I repeat, ad nauseam, that my interests are in the register. If we are to have a serious discussion about this, let us move on.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked about the parliamentary commissioner for standards. I hope that hon. Members will accept in principle that such an independent officer is necessary to restore public confidence in our system. It is important, not least because of the many difficulties that have occurred when Members have tried to investigate complaints, either those lodged with the Members' Interests Select Committee or those serious complaints that have been brought before the Privileges Committee.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady said a moment ago that she believed that the findings of the parliamentary commissioner for standards should be made public even where they have been rejected by a Committee of the House. Does that mean that an outsider coming in might choose, as Lord Nolan did on arriving in the House, to announce at the beginning of his hearing one of his principal findings and that that should eventually be made public before any evidence has been heard?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the Nolan report and recommendations. That is not what Lord Nolan is suggesting.
Mr. Julian Brazier: It was the hon. Lady's answer—not Nolan.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) doth protest too much. The fact that he has not read the report and its recommendations, and so does not know the context in which I am speaking, is his

503
failing. I would have thought that he should do his homework before coming to such an important debate. Lord Nolan makes clear the circumstances in which such hearings should be published. One of the things that pleases the Opposition and that we appreciate about Lord Nolan's report is that he accepts our case that, wherever possible, the Privileges Committee should sit in public. That is a significant step forward.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will the hon. Lady take into account the fact that many complaints are lodged before the Comptroller and Auditor General about his work in the public sector and that most of those never see the light of day? I assume that she is proposing that, if complaints are lodged against hon. Members, the official, whoever it may be, would work in a similar way to the CAG, that he would sift out what was necessary to refer to the Privileges Committee, as the CAG does in relation to the Public Accounts Committee, that he would make his report, but that it would always be up to the Privileges Committee to decide whether there was substance in that report.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman understands the position completely. He also understands the concept of an appointment, which other Members do not. The officer would sift every inquiry. The officer would be charged with recommending to the Privileges Committee or to the Sub-Committee which Lord Nolan suggests whether there was a prima facie case. Any inquiry would be made only in those circumstances, and several layers of suggestion are recommended in the Nolan report, but, at the end of the day, Lord Nolan says that evidence and decisions must be made in public.
Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No. I must make some progress and some other suggestions.
It seems that some Conservative Members do not want to have a serious debate on this matter, but we need to make some positive suggestions about what should happen. Some hon. Members are under a misapprehension about the proposal for a parliamentary commissioner for standards. I have heard it said that such a proposal would undermine the sovereignty of the House. That is not the case. It is being suggested not that Parliament's sovereignty should be diminished but that our work should be assisted by someone who is independent and in whom the public can have a high degree of confidence.
Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a good idea to work on these proposals, as the Select Committee on Members' Interests sometimes has difficulty gathering evidence? The fact that it has limited resources to do so in relation to issues that are often of great importance to the Members concerned must be borne in mind.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has significant experience of the difficulties of serving as a member of that Committee. Its members, who have had to deal with many complaints in the recent past, have found it difficult. I recognise the problem there. It would be helpful to them
504
or to their successors in the Sub-Committee of the Privileges Committee if they had the assistance of someone of that sort.
Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: We should move on to consider what sort of person and what sort of position this is. My suggestion to the Nolan committee, and the suggestion that is in its report, is that we should consider the position with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is appointed by letters patent on the advice of the Prime Minister following consultation with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We could consider the way in which the parliamentary ombudsmen is appointed. It is extremely important that we should move very quickly. We should aim to have someone in place by the beginning of the new parliamentary Session in the autumn.
Mr. Steen: I deeply resent the implication in Nolan that all of us are crooks. Does the hon. Lady believe that appointing an ethics officer, as she is implying, will solve the whole problem for the nation, and that all the problems that she says exist will disappear as soon as that officer is appointed? Why does she think that that will happen?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read Lord Nolan's report or his recommendations. That is a slur on Lord Nolan and all the members of the committee. There is no suggestion in the report that all Members of the House are crooks. Hon. Members resent Members on any side making such allegations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he has said.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I must move on because I have a serious point to make. I sometimes think that Conservative Members are not interested in serious points.
The changes that have been recommended by Lord Nolan could come into place relatively quickly. There are other changes that will take a little longer and will need some discussion—for example, those to our Committee procedure, including changes in relation to the Privileges Committee and the possible establishment of a Sub-Committee. That is important. One of the factors that we must bear in mind is that those changes must not be allowed to cause any hiatus by which any of the outstanding matters subject to investigation by Committees fall by the wayside. Important investigations are still being undertaken by the Privileges Committee and by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. We must protect those investigations, despite the difficulties and, sometimes, inadequacies of our procedures. We must ensure that that happens. It is important to ensure that all those outstanding investigations are completed in a proper way.
As I said, there is a need for urgency on this matter—I cannot stress that enough. The public will not understand why, having received Lord Nolan's report, we do not accept it and move on from there. It was extraordinary to listen to the Prime Minister's responses at Question Time to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister set up an independent review body to investigate standards of conduct in public life, not least because of the concern caused by some of his own Back Benchers. The Nolan committee has

505
recommended that Members of Parliament should reveal their interests, including the amount that they are paid by outside bodies. That is one of the Nolan committee's most central points, and we accept that recommendation.
Today, however, the Prime Minister announced not only that he did not have a view as to whether those central recommendations should be accepted by the House but that he was now prepared to leave the decision to the very same Back Benchers whose financial interests brought the House into disrepute in the first place. That is a remarkable admission by the Prime Minister and it shows perhaps that his concern about our image and the workings of the House is skin-deep.
Mr. Garrett: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there will be great pressure on a future Labour Government to increase restraints on outside earnings by Members of Parliament, whatever the hardship that that causes among those on the Conservative Benches, and that we should think hard about what we are going to do, so that we can produce policies that enable Members on both sides of the House who fear such restraints to refrain from running in the next election?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Whatever we decide today—and, indeed, any action that we take as a consequence of Lord Nolan's recommendations—will not constitute the last word. Problems remain, and we shall have to return to them on other occasions.
I wanted to discuss the future work of the Nolan committee in connection with the need for a register in the House of Lords, the need for an inquiry into local government and the urgent need for an inquiry into party political funding. We shall have to deal with those issues at a later date. I have, however, made positive suggestions in regard to how the House could amend the Register of Members' Interests so that interests and payments are fully declared. I have also suggested a code of conduct for hon. Members, the work being led by the Clerk of the House, and the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner for standards.
Those are things that the House can do in the near future. If we are to begin to restore public confidence in our democracy, our parliamentary system and the House of Commons, we must get on with them as quickly as possible.
5.40 pm
Sir Edward Heath: Before Madam Speaker left the Chair, she asked two things of us: that we declare our interests, and that we speak briefly. I immediately declare my interests, which are set out on the record that was filled in, in the usual way, at the beginning of the year. It is absolutely accurate, and I regret to say that there has been no increase since it was written.
I shall endeavour to be brief. I do not intend to discuss many aspects of the report—particularly the civil service; it has always had its orders, instructions and regulations, and they must be reviewed from time to time. I must emphasise, however, that the number of cases involving lack of integrity in our civil service is minimal compared with that in other countries. Our civil service is the envy of most of the rest of the world.
I agree that we should look at quangos. I am not in favour of increasing the number of quangos; I am in favour of reducing it. They have taken over many of the
506
proper occupations of elected members of local government, and that can be dealt with. As for the audit, I always greatly respect what is said by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and his views should be given serious consideration.
Let me again declare an interest: I am a member of the public review board of Arthur Andersen, the world's largest firm of accountants, and I am aware of the relationship between accountants and their clients. Our accountants are not allowed to have lunch with their clients, because they might then be accused of being influenced by those clients when reaching the conclusions in their reports. I do not propose to discuss that in detail, however; I propose to discuss matters which affect the House.
I have seldom found myself in greater disagreement with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) than I have this evening. She constantly emphasised the question of public unease. I must confess that public unease about this matter will not have been lessened by the conduct of the House during the debate. Moreover, the part played by the House in public unease—of which I am fully aware, as it is constantly demonstrated in reports of public opinion—is minute in comparison with public unease about other aspects of our national life. I immediately recognise those other aspects of public unease, and they must be put right, but they do not involve the House.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury constantly emphasised the need for haste. What is necessary is proper consideration. When haste overtakes proper consideration, we often end up with the wrong answer. I have criticised our own Government for that: they rush in and make decisions without proper consideration. The House should not fall prey to such an approach.
When I entered the House 45 years ago, in 1950, we recognised every Member of Parliament—man or woman—as a person of integrity. That was the attitude, and it was fully accepted. We have now reached a stage at which every man and woman in the House is an object of suspicion. Why has that come about? I do not consider it healthy or satisfactory, and we must not fall prey to that approach either.
In those days, chairmen of major companies were Members of Parliament, as were trade union leaders. Both groups made important contributions and, I believe, benefited from being here, mixing with other right hon. and hon. Members and hearing debates at first hand. I was sorry when the trade union movement ruled that union leaders could no longer become Members of Parliament. I think that that was a grave mistake: the unions lost by it, and we in the House of Commons lost by it.
When a company chairman addressed the House, he would merely say, "I remind the House that I am chairman of such and such a company, which is engaged in such and such activities." All that was accepted; we knew about it anyway. It was not necessary to make such a declaration at Question Time, because it took up time unnecessarily. That is how the system operated, and it operated satisfactorily. We now have an entirely different situation, which I think is regrettable.
How often, during my time here, have we had a major problem? We had a problem in the mid-1970s, involving three Members of Parliament. The Committee of Privileges had its hearings; Reggie Maudling was

507
exonerated, another Member resigned and a verdict was delivered on the third. That was that: everyone recognised that we had done our duty, and done it properly.
Recently, two Members of Parliament were set up by a national newspaper and unfortunately fell wrong. The case was investigated immediately; a conclusion was reached, the House debated it and action was taken. The Members were suspended for two different terms, and lost their remuneration during that time.
There is no reason for anxiety about that. We were carrying out our duty, and doing it properly: there were no problems. So where are all the other cases? In 45 years, I can recall only those two instances, one involving three Members and the other two. We ought to pride ourselves on the fact that we dealt with those cases at once. It is now proposed that we set up a bureaucratic organisation—for it is bound to be bureaucratic. What will it be able to do to find out what is going on? We in the House know far more about what is going on with our fellow Members than any bureaucrat brought in from outside. We have our own machinery for dealing with such matters. We all have a Whips Office, and we can suggest the necessary action.
Ms Eagle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: Not for a moment. I want to finish what I am saying.
What can that gentleman do? He cannot go into the Smoking Room and say, "By the way, have you heard such and such about so and so? Do you think that I should look into it?" This is a practical problem. What saddens me about Lord Nolan is that, although he is an admirable judge, he seems to lack a certain worldliness—an ability to realise what actually goes on in this world of ours. We must be careful not to fall into that trap.
The next question is how much we should include in the register. I fully accept that Opposition Members, and perhaps some Conservative Members, are in anguish about the fact that all this information is not public and published. Let me relieve them of their anguish: nothing whatever—legal, political, party or domestic—prevents any of them from publishing every detail of their public and private lives. They can publish all their earnings, their wives' earnings and their family earnings; they can publish the amount that they give in housekeeping money, where they go for their holidays and who pays for their meals. They can publish everything. I do not know why they hesitate. They would be in a very strong position: they could say, "This is the new Labour party—we publish it all." One might add, "Please don't write to the wife saying that she ought to get more housekeeping money." One could add such provisos the whole time. All those things can be printed. I guarantee that if every Opposition Member, in anguish, now gives full details of their public and private lives, I will get a publisher, and I will put that in the register as an interest—a very close interest.
We must be sensible about the matter. There is such a thing as the privacy of the individual. I have always understood that that was one of the important tenets of the philosophy of the Labour party. It believes in the privacy of the individual: very well, then—let it support that in this House. What shall we gain by setting out all that information? It will be a serious blow to democracy
508
in this country. [Interruption.] There is nothing to laugh at, because there are examples of what has happened elsewhere.
There is the example, in particular, of the United States after Watergate, when the behaviour of the press and others to the families involved was so appalling that many people whom I know in the United States said that they would never put themselves in a position where the privacy of their families could be destroyed as it was destroyed for those who were involved in Watergate. The result has been that such people have not gone into American public life. That is plain to see for anyone who has studied the subject. I do not want that to happen in Britain. People will say that they are not prepared to be subjected to the sort of inquiries that the new bureaucrat would carry out, the results of which would lead to the information being put in the register. It is bad enough as it is.
I shall give a personal example. Last year, there was a row over Lloyd's, which is still being misrepresented in this week's press. It is said that we deliberately confronted the Members' Interests Committee and refused to do what it wanted. We did not do that. We asked for a discussion and we got one. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Chairman of that Committee, is here. After nearly two hours of discussion, the Committee realised that the situation was not what it had thought when it had discussed the matter alone and it quite properly changed its view. That was the proper procedure to follow.
Yet that story still appears. The press and The Guardian have not yet apologised. They took my photograph outside today, so perhaps that will lead to something. There were other accusations about our losses and debts meaning that we would have to leave Parliament. I have no debts to Lloyd's. Why should I be tied up with losses of £22 million? That is the sort of thing that is happening. It will be much worse if we start trying to put all that into the register.
It has been suggested that the arrangements should be specified, or even put into statute. That is not humanly possible. There are so many cases to consider. If I have lunch with a friend in business and that friend is then made chairman of a firm, what am I to do about it? Do I have to stop lunching with him? What happens if an Evening Standard correspondent sees us lunching together in some restaurant and then writes that I will do what the chairman of that company wants? It is an impossible position. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is trivialising the debate."] It is Opposition Members who are trivialising it.
Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: I am sorry, but I am doing rather well and I do not want to be interrupted.
I recently entertained a diplomat and others at lunch. We had a happy party. He sent me a nice letter of thanks and a bottle of port. What should I do? Should I immediately ask that it be published in the register that I received a bottle of port? Or should I tell the diplomat, "I am awfully sorry; you are very kind, but I am afraid that I have to return it to you. Otherwise, it will be alleged that I will help the company with its problems." Rightly or wrongly, I decided to do neither. All that I did was to write thanking him very much for a bottle of 1970 port, although I would have much preferred 1927.

509
The great danger is that the Nolan report will damage the House. It will also damage the Labour party, because the new members being sought for the new Labour party in the hope of forming a new Government will not be attracted by the kind of proposals to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury has given her full consent.
The leader of the Labour party said some astonishing things this afternoon. He said that the Nolan committee is the Prime Minister's committee. It is nothing of the sort: it is an independent committee. The right hon. Gentleman also said that because the committee had reported we must accept it and put its proposals into operation straight away. It is not for a moment the job of the House automatically to accept committee reports. The report has to be thoroughly examined and dealt with. If we do that, people outside who understand such things will say that we have acted rather sensibly. It will then lie in our hands to deal with the problems which really cause public unease.
Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman talks about public unease and the changes between the 1950s and the 1990s. Does he agree that the real reason for public unease is the devaluation of the ethic of public service, of public services and, by a few hon. Members, of the office of Member of Parliament? That is the trouble.
Sir Edward Heath: I have dealt with Members of Parliament. We dealt with those problems at once and satisfactorily in the House and people realise that.
One matter to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury referred in rather covert form, and which has caused public unease over the past two or three years, is the question of sexual behaviour, which Nolan does not mention. However, the chap in the pub does not talk about setting up an extra bureaucrat to deal with these things; he talks about hon. Members and their sexual behaviour. That has caused a great deal of public unease.
Lord Nolan can do nothing about that problem. He can set out requirements, one of which concerns ethics, but how will he define "ethical"? Hon. Members have many different ethical beliefs, and that is rightly so. To try to typify that and say what every Member of Parliament has to adhere to, believe in and accept as ethical bears no resemblance to human life or the world at large.
I hope that every hon. Member will give the matter serious thought and consideration. Let us abandon inter-party warfare and get down to the things that really affect the public.
5.57 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). As Father of the House, he speaks with special authority on those matters that particularly concern the House and which have been dealt with in the Nolan report.
I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all proper respect, that I think that he has misjudged two things. First, there is the extent of public unease about the things that have been going on in the House. To describe that public unease as small is, frankly, not to recognise the unhappy truth of the matter. I wish, indeed, that it was so. I wish that the matter could be swept aside, because, like all hon. Members, I have a keen regard for the reputation of House and believe that its reputation is essential to the proper working of our democracy.
510
Secondly, I disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the changes since 1950, when he first came into the House—not that there have not been huge changes, and the right hon. Gentleman described some of them fairly and well. He missed one of the most significant things that has occurred during the past 20 or 25 years: the growth of consultancies. I am talking not about the increase in the number of Members of Parliament having outside jobs and interests, much of which, I think, adds to the experience and authority of the House, but about the practice of Members of Parliament hiring themselves out to external interests in return for reward.
Those Members are trading not their accumulated knowledge and wisdom gained from whatever occupations they had previously and are continuing but the special privilege that they have precisely because they are Members of Parliament—access to Ministers and the undoubtedly greater opportunity that they have to further and favour particular causes. That, in my view, is what lies at the centre of the concern about Members of Parliament. I shall come back to that issue in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that the demand for openness is often carried much too far. He is certainly right to warn us about following the American route. The idea that we should all publish our income tax returns is nonsense. It does nothing to improve public confidence in Members of Parliament but does much to undermine their own self-respect and standing in the community.
There is no proposal in the Nolan report that Members of Parliament should, as it were, reveal any income derived from any source, other than that which they earn for being Members of Parliament and thus employed by consultancies. No one is saying that a farmer, insurance agent, stockbroker, artist or author will have to declare his income. We are concerned only with those incomes related to what happens in the House.
Mr. McLoughlin rose—
Mr. Shore: No. I now put that point to one side.
I deal now with the most serious point made by a number of hon. Members and which was touched on by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, especially in an interview that he gave this morning on Radio 4. A number of writers have also dealt with it, including Mr. Simon Heffer who wrote in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that Nolan's recommendations involve the
"over-arching constitutional danger of Parliament surrendering the right to regulate itself to a committee".
Clearly, that refers to the proposal to appoint a parliamentary commissioner for standards. It is true that he would have the power to investigate complaints made to him and to initiate inquiries. However, serious complaints would be referred by him, as the report makes plain, to a Committee of the House. The most appropriate Committee would appear to be the Privileges Committee or a sub-Committee of it, as the report suggests.
That Committee would, as now, carry out investigations into allegations of misconduct and decide what, if any, penalties were appropriate. In other words, a Committee of the House—the Privileges Committee—would decide, not someone from outside. It would continue to make the decisions and recommendations and the House would

511
retain the right to say yea or nay to the Privileges Committee. There is a big difference between that and the impression that has been given that the commissioner for standards would do something on his own account to take over the workings of the House.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Shore: No, not yet.
The analogies that the committee had in mind when that proposal was made were with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has already referred. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General today has considerable power of investigation, but he works to and assists the Public Accounts Committee, which has the on-going responsibility to invigilate Government expenditure. Similarly, it is Members of Parliament who hold the Executive and the Executive's servants to account for what they do, but they are assisted in this work by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who also has independent powers of investigation. No one seriously suggests that the appointment of either the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Commissioner has involved the surrender of parliamentary rights and duties. That analogy must be considered seriously in judging this proposal. The job of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would be to assist, not replace, responsibilities in the House of Commons already exercised by the relevant Select Committees and the House itself.
I hope that what I have said has allayed some anxieties.
Sir Edward Heath: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point, but we clearly disagree. What I object to is someone from outside cross-questioning us as Members of Parliament and then deciding whether there is something that he should refer to a committee. That is out of the question; Members of Parliament should deal with matters as they do at the moment.
Mr. Shore: It is more of a procedural matter. We can go into it in detail. I am very much in favour of further detailed consideration by the House, perhaps in the form of a motion moved by the Leader of the House or in the relevant Select Committees. What we are dealing with in this Second Reading debate, if it can be so described, is the broad proposition which is analogous with the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
Mr. Shersby: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General is for matters of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in Government Departments and by the accounting officers for those Departments—or, in other words, the civil service? The Comptroller and Auditor General has no remit whatever to supervise the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of this sovereign Parliament, so I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy is not strictly correct.
Mr. Shore: I willingly concede that it is not too precise, but the Parliamentary Commissioner for
512
Administration investigates individual complaints and comes up with information that Members of Parliament have probably tried to find themselves. They have probably found it impossible to get and are therefore assisted by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I wish to comment on one or two general points that have emerged from the debate so far. I was relatively pleased with the opening speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is good to know that the Government have accepted a number of the proposals without demur. It is important that we should go ahead with the proposals for scrutinising the appointment of ex-Ministers who are applying for jobs immediately after they have left office. That is right. It works very well with senior civil servants and I see no reason why it should not work well with ex-Ministers.
I am also pleased that the code of conduct for civil servants is to go ahead and that new channels, as it were, of appeal will be made available. That is very important.
On the general question of quangos, I am sure that the new procedures will help. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury made the much larger point that the very role of quangos needs to be reconsidered, but that was not a matter for the Nolan committee. We were dealing above all with how members were appointed to quangos and whether the procedures could be made less vulnerable to criticism and less prone—I put it no more strongly—to the exercise of political patronage than quangos inevitably are today. I think that the suggested procedures will help.
Mr. McLoughlin: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back a little to what he said about the way in which the Nolan committee, of which he was a distinguished member, came to its conclusion on which payments to hon. Members should be published? How did the committee distinguish between remuneration from a newspaper article written by a Member of Parliament as a result of his membership of the House and remuneration of a Member of Parliament for his appointment as a non-executive director of a company, offered to him simply because he was a Member of the House and had some influence?
Mr. Shore: We can debate that in detail later, but common sense should tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between a Member of Parliament writing an article and being paid for it and a Member of Parliament receiving an undeclared sum of money to use his influence on behalf of a commercial firm or enterprise. He ought to understand that difference, but, if he does not, we are in some trouble.
I shall devote the remainder of my speech to the issue of consultancies, which is very much at the heart of our concerns. There is a class of consultancies which the Nolan committee thinks is sufficiently clear and objectionable to recommend a straightforward ban. In paragraph 55 under the heading "General consultancies" the committee states,
"we can see no justification for consultancy agreements between Members and public relations or lobbying firms, which are themselves acting as advisers and advocates for a constantly changing range of miscellaneous and often undisclosed interests … We consider that this is precisely the situation which the Prime Minister has described as 'a hiring fair'."
So much for the moment for that class of consultancies, but that does not settle the matter. According to figures derived from the 1995 Register of Members' Interests,

513
only 26 hon. Members have consultancy agreements with public relations or lobbying firms, while a further 142 have consultancies with other types of companies or with trade associations. In addition, 27 hon. Members have paid consultancies with trade unions, including the Police Federation. They are generally unions not affiliated to the Labour party but those that are affiliated support, through a different form of sponsorship, some 184 hon. Members by making payments to their constituency parties and to their general election funds. Those trade union arrangements may well have to be scrutinised, but I do not think that I am being partisan when I say that it is the 142 paid consultancies with companies and trade associations which are the focus of public concern.
What are the rules affecting these and other consultancies? The rules of Parliament are far from clear. Reference has been made to the 1947 resolution which stated that there should be,
"no contractual agreement with an outside body controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence or stipulating that he should act in any way as a representative of such an outside body."
That seems clear enough in dealing with contractual agreements that have been entered into by an hon. Member with an outside financial interest. But then the question arises: what about paid consultancies which are not binding in the sense of the words that are used in the 1947 resolution but which nevertheless involved a Member using his influence voluntarily but not contractually for the same ends? What about consultancies that are wholly or mainly advisory in which a Member of Parliament undertakes not to initiate any action in the House but consents only to give general advice to an outside body on parliamentary affairs?
An attempt to stiffen the rules on consultancies was made in 1969 by the Strauss committee which was also a committee on Members' interests. Its recommendation is worth reading because it is very important. It stated:
"it is contrary to the usage and dignity of the House that a Member should bring forward by any speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any Bill, Motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive."
That is a strong recommendation, and perhaps that explains why the Strauss committee resolution was never debated and the Front Benches of both parties agreed to put it on one side.
The Strauss approach draws a clear line between advocacy, using the facilities of the House, and advice given to people externally, and recommends that we should be very severe against advocacy. That approach is rather attractive, but it is by no means easy, as the House will recognise, to define with precision the difference between advocacy and advice. They tend to overlap.
Mr. Garel-Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the devil in this matter is in the detail. I shall give my own case. I work as an adviser for British Petroleum. Before signing a contract with the company, I had an exchange of letters in which it was made perfectly clear that on no account would I raise questions, lobby or be active for it in the House. My activities for the company are entirely confined to Latin America. It would be naive to think that a company such as BP does not have a public affairs department. There is an inevitable interface with Parliament and Government, and from time to time people
514
in the public affairs department telephone me and ask for my advice on a particular matter. Naturally, I give my advice.
I hope that the House will be careful and will speedily implement Nolan's recommendations and that, above all, it will be detailed. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that I want clear guidance. I want to know where I stand and if the guidance that the House gives is not acceptable to me I shall take the consequences, and so will the House.
Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it clearly illustrates the difference between consultancies. The one that he describes is clearly aimed at giving information and advice outside, and the right hon. Gentleman is not being used to achieve particular objectives for the company. The House must seriously explore consultancies to see whether a line can be firmly drawn or whether it must be drawn elsewhere.
There is another complication. Must a distinction be drawn between the commercial sponsorship of Members of Parliament and charitable, professional and trade union bodies which also appoint Members of Parliament as consultants on the general understanding that, while they are not bound by their sponsor's wishes, they will usually be willing to support their sponsor's interests? That is another category of agreement to which we must attend and try to reach a conclusion about.
Finally, in examining the history of how Parliament has attempted from 1947 to deal with these matters of concern, I shall look at the Register of Members' Interests. Consultancy agreements come third in the separate categories of registrable interests that are demanded. Under the heading of "clients" which is category 3, it states that Members must disclose the names of clients,
"for whom they provide services which depend essentially upon or arrive out of, membership of the House; for example, sponsoring functions in the parliamentary buildings, making representations to Government Departments or providing advice on parliamentary or public affairs."
The demands by the register clearly contemplate that a Member may have received material benefits,
"which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament",
and which, in the case of consultancy agreements, may involve Members being paid for making representations to Government Departments on issues which inevitably will normally be concerned with matters to be transacted in Parliament. The Nolan committee correctly comments:
"the contrast between the 1947 Resolution and the rules governing the register is in our view totally unsatisfactory. It is small wonder that it has given rise to confusion in the minds of Members of Parliament themselves".
On that great range of consultancies, other than that defined group which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Nolan committee has not come to any definite conclusion.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No. Indeed, it has been said—I have some sympathy with this—that the committee has passed the buck back to Parliament for its advice and consideration. The Nolan committee recommends, however, that much

515
more information should in future be supplied to the register than is now available. First, it says that the detail of consultancy agreements be recorded—of the nature to which the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) referred—and, secondly, that the moneys received in respect of consultancies should be declared.
Those recommendations will undoubtedly greatly increase public knowledge of what consultancies entail. No doubt, the House and its Committees will want to consider very seriously whether consultancies should be allowed to continue or whether, in part or in whole, some of them should be banned. The Nolan committee for its part has expressly stated that it will return to the issue after the House has debated the matter and in the light of the enhanced flow of information.
Sir David Mitchell: When an interest is declared and there for everybody to see in some detail, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what difference it would make if the remuneration were £1,000, £5,000 or £10,000? As long as it is clear that there is an interest and that that interest is properly declared, what additional benefit does the House or anyone else gain from knowing the precise amount?
Mr. Peter Shore: That raises many questions, but I think that, in judging the importance of consultancies and paid outside interests, it is relevant that the actual amount be declared. There is a real distinction between the receipt of £1,000 a year for some small service and the receipt of £10,000 or more for other services. Those payments which are related to what we do and are able to do because we are Members of Parliament should be made publicly available.
It is crucial to the success, stability and reputation of our democracy that Ministers and elected representatives are not only animated, but are seen to be animated by their desire to serve the public interest and not personal gain or advantage. The vast majority of Members of the House are indeed honourable Members. There are very few who—sadly—fall below the high standards that the House expects and the House must deal firmly with those who transgress. There is also a need, as I hope that I have demonstrated, for greater clarity in the House's own rules on personal conduct. It is my hope that the Nolan committee's first report will assist the House in the task of re-examining its own rules and in restoring public confidence in the integrity of our democracy.
6.22 pm
Mr. Tom King: I likewise declare my interests, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) I think that the interests are reducing somewhat. I think that the House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, and, indeed, to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for raising the tone of the debate and enabling matters to be addressed with the seriousness that they deserve. This is a House of Commons matter. It is not something that should be lost in party-political squabble. I do not think that it was helpful—I say no more than this—that the Leader of Opposition chose to ask such a question at Prime Minister's Question Time, to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred. It
516
might have got the debate off on precisely the wrong foot. It is important that we consider these matters. The Father of the House has done a great service by setting before hon. Members some of the real issues that have to be addressed and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has made clear that they are very difficult.
The House owes itself the duty to read the report. It is well written. One letter that Lord Nolan received—I do not think that he will mind me disclosing it—said that it takes an Irishman to write English. Whether that is true or false, it is a serious report and it contains a number, not of diktats, not of instructions, but of recommendations which it asks the House to consider. Not all are for the House to consider because, of course, it invites the Government to consider some recommendations as well.
I pay tribute to Lord Nolan and the staff working with him: Alan Riddell, our secretary, and his team. I also pay tribute to my fellow members of the Nolan committee, who managed to rise above party politics in considering some very difficult issues to try to approach the matter seriously. I know that my colleagues on the committee would not object to one man being singled out. So to those who rise too fast to say that we are seeing the end of sovereignty and the traditions of the House, I say that I would like to pay tribute to Sir Clifford Boulton, who is not about to betray this House of Commons in the early moments of his retirement from it. His contribution to the committee was extremely valuable.
The House should approach these issues with seriousness. We are trustees and guardians of a very precious tradition. The mother of Parliaments is temporarily in our hands. We meet here in a week in which the Senate has decided to resume its investigations into the conduct of the President of the United States; the United States Attorney-General has just announced that she will begin investigations into the previous conduct of a fellow member of the Cabinet, the US Trade Secretary; a French Cabinet Minister, who had resigned from the Cabinet because of charges made against him, has been sentenced to gaol; and 20 per cent. of the Italian Parliament—that is a pretty significant number if one looks around—are awaiting trial on criminal charges. Such issues ought not to be taken lightly.
Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) appeared before the committee, he made a telling point. He said that of some 184 members of the United Nations at the present time, he felt that only a handful had managed to maintain the sort of standards of conduct in public life that we treasure. We know that once it is lost, how difficult it is to regain. Those hon. Members of all parties, who I know feel aggrieved about some aspects of the report, should recognise first that we heard a lot of evidence in the Nolan committee. We worked pretty hard in those six months. It bears comparison with another inquiry that is taking place at the present time, whose only contribution appears to be an announcement of a further postponement of its findings. From our hearings came the statement, which was quoted in the House, that while there are problems that need to be addressed, the standards of public life expected in the country are high and the overwhelming majority of Members of the House and people in public life seek to aspire to them and, indeed, to maintain them.
So, that is the challenge that we face. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; so it is to maintain high standards in public life. Eternal vigilance is necessary. If

517
we say that we believe that we seek to maintain high public standards, we must recognise one thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked what has changed. One thing has undoubtedly changed. I shall not theorise on the reasons for it today. The public perception of this House has gone down and down and down.
The very first witness that the committee called to try to get some feeling for public perception of conduct of Members in public life said that 64 per cent. of the public believe that most Members of Parliament make a lot of money by using public office improperly. He confirmed that when a similar poll was taken nine years ago, exactly the same question was asked and the figure was 46 per cent. I and other members of the committee asked each person who came in, such as newspaper editors, and Professor Ivor Crewe, who gave that evidence, whether they believed that the statement was true. Professor Crewe said no, as did a succession of other witnesses. Yet the public perception is that it is true. It is the perception that is untrue, and it needs to be tackled, because if the House does not command the confidence of the British people there is a serious threat to our parliamentary democracy.
It is against that background that we have made our recommendations.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. King: May I go on and reach a point on which my hon. Friend may well wish to intervene?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I want to comment on something that my right hon. Friend has just said.
Mr. King: I am sure that there will be lots more before I have finished. I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend later, but first I want to say something else on the same subject.
I do not want to speak for long, because we have written our report and now it is for the House to speak. I want to listen to the views put forward on our recommendations. I shall deal first with the recommendations for the Government, and first of all with those concerning quangos.
The Committee was set up in the face of a barrage of allegations about the practice of making appointments to quangos. It was said that all appointees were Conservative placemen and that appointments were entirely a matter of political prejudice. We took a lot of evidence, and if hon. Members read the report they will see that we did not find that those allegations were conclusively proved. We found, indeed, that the evidence was inconclusive and that the Government had already made certain proposals to try to improve the arrangements for appointing people to public bodies.
The system does not work well enough. The range is too limited; the same names keep cropping up. This is not a party political point; there is simply not an efficient system for selecting people. There is some resentment in local government that the usual nominations on a bipartisan basis and the normal appointments of a number of people—"Buggins' turn" on the local authority round—are not coming up, because we have changed that system for appointing the members of quangos.
We want good competent people. We have proposed to the Government that, in order to regain public confidence, there should be a public appointments commissioner—not
518
to make the appointments but to regulate and monitor, to report on the progress of the system of making appointments, and to check that the Departments are acting fairly.
As Nolan emphasises, it is essential that Ministers take responsibility for the appointments that they make. In the final analysis they must answer for them. If a Minister sees somebody competent with the ability, energy and drive that he considers necessary for a particular appointment, there is nothing to prevent him from seeking to have that person appointed. But at the end of the day he must be prepared to take the responsibility for the appointment that he has made. Our proposals are an attempt to give greater public confidence in that area, and I hope that that will be achieved.
We already have a system relating to Ministers' conduct and the standards according to which they operate. Many hon. and right hon. Members will be familiar with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the contents of which have grown up over the years. It is not sufficiently clear and comprehensive, and we suggest that clearer and more comprehensive guidance, entitled "Conduct and Procedure for Ministers" should be given to every new Minister. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already said that a code for civil servants will be introduced, and our suggestion would parallel that, with a proper guide being given to Ministers.
Another question that we addressed was the problem that arises when a Minister is thought to have behaved incorrectly in relation to the code of conduct and procedure, and how that should be investigated. It is no secret that there have been problems. There have been two examples in recent years, and the role of the Cabinet Secretary should be carefully considered. When it is his duty to advise the Prime Minister, should he be the person to conduct the investigations too? I shall not delay the House further, but hon. Members may like to read the conclusions that we drew on the subject. It is essential that there be an effective system.
I shall now mention another aspect that has caused concern—Ministers leaving office and taking up outside appointments. There is no question about the fact that individual Ministers who leave office are capable of making an effective contribution and can bring considerable ability to bear, to the advantage of our country. We must ensure that that channel is not obstructed by political correctness to an extent that becomes unfair to the people concerned and disadvantages our country.
None the less, there must be public confidence that Ministers, like civil servants, are not allowed to take special advantage of information that they have acquired during their period in Government and exploit it for their own personal advantage or for the advantage of an organisation that they may join. When I was Secretary of State for Defence I used to approve or give advice on the terms under which senior civil servants leaving office could or could not take up certain appointments, yet there were no rules for Ministers at all. At present there is nothing to stop a Minister walking straight out and taking any job, although a week beforehand he may have denied his permanent secretary or another senior official in his Department the opportunity to take up a particular employment.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. King: May I finish this point first?
It is fair that Ministers should be expected to take the advice of the advisory committee now chaired by Lord Carlisle—a group of 10 experienced senior people who can ensure that appointments that former Ministers may take up do not invite allegations of impropriety.
I was glad to see that my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) supported that proposal when they gave evidence before the Committee. It could be a defence and a protection for Ministers in such circumstances.
My colleagues and I were anxious to ensure that it was recognised that Ministers and civil servants are not in the same position. The situation is not the same for a senior civil servant retiring at 60 on a full pension, who has anticipated his retirement and knows when he is going, as it is for a Minister who may be about 40 with three or four children, who finds himself, perhaps to his surprise, no longer in such demand as he was. [Laughter.] That reaction is interesting. I do not think that, if the situation changed, Opposition Members would hold quite the same view as they hold now—because it does not happen to be fair. I believe that in the end they would recognise that.
I believe that the changes are sensible. We propose that for Cabinet Ministers, as for permanent secretaries, there should be an automatic three-month waiting period, but that for Ministers below Cabinet level and for Whips there should be no automatic waiting period.
I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), as I promised.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the beginning of his speech, when he gave us some interesting figures about the public perception of Members of the House of Commons. He told us that when those who produced the evidence that we were held in low esteem were asked whether they agreed with that opinion, they said that they did not. How does my right hon. Friend account for the gap in perception between those who gave the evidence and the public?
Mr. King: I shall not detain the House with my opinion on that, because we all have our views on it. However, it is a fact; I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is challenging it. We all share the concern about the public view of Members of Parliament. The people who do not share it may be those who organised the polls and the commentators who commented on them. That is the public perception which, while it may be unfair and fed by the media, is something we must recognise as damaging to democracy.
I now turn to the issue of Members of Parliament. I shall be helped in my remarks by the clear exposition given by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who made clear that there are difficult decisions to be made about how consultancies are to be handled in future. Some members of the committee wondered whether not just lobbyists but all consultancies should be banned completely, and the report addresses that issue.
Exceptions and anomalies have come out in the speeches and interventions which colleagues have made, and the House must address such points. We must ensure
520
that the House does not depend on a mono-cultural stream of people coming through a politically correct net into the House. There must be the widest possible range of access to the House, so that Members have experience and interest in a wide range of fields. The House will be better for that.
The difficulty is how we make that happen in a way which also ensures that we protect ourselves from the other extreme of problem. Every Member knows that there are those who have used their membership of the House to provide services in a way that has invited considerable criticism and which has not brought credit on the House. It will be for the House to draw up the difficult resolutions on that subject.
Some people have asked me what is to happen after this debate. The House must take the report's recommendations forward, and decide how to address the issues. We must ensure that we maintain access to people outside the House, and we must respect the fact that lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process. We do not want debates to be uninformed or to have Members who do not know what they are talking about. We must ensure that we have the mechanisms of democracy without inviting the criticisms which have been attracted to it.
The House must have a way of ensuring that whatever it decides is maintained. I strongly endorse what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said about a parliamentary commissioner for standards. That person could be the registrar of Members' Interests under another name, as we propose the abolition of that post. We also propose merging the Committee of Privileges and the Committee on Members' Interests into a single committee. Those who think that that would be a gross intrusion into the wonderful system that we have at the moment might like to talk to the two Members who recently experienced the present system. They warmly welcome the introduction of a new system which could contain within it the elements of natural justice, efficiency and promptness which some might feel the two Members were denied under the present hallowed system.
A gentleman—or a lady, I hasten to say—of independence and stature could be appointed by the House, chosen by House, voted in to his post by the House and would be an Officer of the House. I do not see how the appointment of such a person could be a great undermining of the sovereignty of the House. Such a commissioner could report to a sub-committee, and would have some powers of investigation. I see in the proposals protection for men of repute from unfounded allegations.
Individual Members could go to an independent commissioner when allegations and smears are made against them. The commissioner would be able to investigate the allegations privately, and he could have the authority to determine whether they justify further investigation. Hon. Members have said that that would be a considerable strength, as they have nothing of that sort at present. We all have odd constituents who can make some wild allegations, but we have no protection against them at all. Someone who could command confidence in that field would be a reassurance and a benefit.
Another point in the proposals may seem outrageous to some. We propose that the commissioner should be responsible for the guidance of Members, and could operate some form of induction training for Members on conduct and procedures. When I came to the House, I

521
stood between Lord Whitelaw and somebody who I have now forgotten, marched up to the Chair, signed a piece of paper, got my writ and I was in. It was thought that I must know what I was supposed to do. I was elected at a by-election, but nobody told me where anything was.
People may say that we are considering some appalling new professionalism, but certain facilities and improvements in this field will be genuinely helpful. If we want to maintain standards, it would be helpful if the standards which the House expects of Members were clearly set out.
I recognise, as did the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, that we have in a sense passed the buck to the House. We have done that in the knowledge that the Nolan committee believes that it is not only allowable but valuable for Members to have outside interests and involvements because that widens the experience that a Member brings to this House. We believe there are none the less challenges which the House has to face. Abuses and pressures in the field of consultancies and lobbying must be addressed.
One or two comments from hon. Members have given me the worry that some people have felt that they could walk away from this matter, and that they could leave it and everybody would forget about it. All of the evidence that I listened to during the proceedings of the Nolan committee, and all that I have been exposed to in my constituency and in my public life suggests that that would be profoundly unwise.
I hope that the House accepts the responsibility to address the issues and to recognise the difficult dividing lines. The House must come up with proposals which can build on the recommendations which we made in the report, and do so in a way which commands the widest public confidence. We must restore public confidence in this mother of Parliaments which we all cherish and hold dear.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I remind the House that Madam Speaker has declared that speeches from 7 o'clock shall be restricted to 10 minutes?
6.48 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Following the precedent established during the debate, I shall begin by declaring the interests that I set out in the register in my name. I must express to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) my belief that he has made an extremely persuasive speech to which we must all listen and upon which we must reflect. He was right to emphasise at the beginning that, compared with standards of conduct observed in public life in other countries, Britain stands out as being gratifyingly clean. It is not pharisaical to note how rarely corruption cases break through the surface of the expansive activities of Government in this country. It is not pious complacency to take pride in the altruism and selflessness of the numberless people who spend their lives working in the public service. Our purpose in Parliament should be to seek to underpin the high standards which the public are entitled to expect and on which, for the most part, they can rely.
In some ways, it is regrettable that today's debate is necessary; but necessary it is. In reflecting that Lord Nolan was not as worldly as he might be to understand
522
the workings of the House and how things are done, the Father of the House was reflecting the judgments of an earlier age and was not sufficiently in tune with the public's perception of the work that is done in the House, nor with the urgent need to seek to affect those public perceptions. I have not served in the House for as long as the Father of the House, but I am in my 30th year of service. Even in my time, I am aware of the changes that have taken place, not least in the accumulation of consultancies, to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred.
One should ask why that has happened. I believe that it has happened at least partly because the remuneration of Members of Parliament during that period has not kept pace with the rise in earnings of others in society. The Nolan committee refers to that fact.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not it strange, therefore, that the Nolan committee reached no conclusion about the link between the increase in consultancies and the decrease in the purchasing power of hon. Members' pay? Does he not find that a matter of concern?
Mr. Maclennan: No. The committee was properly aware of the limitations of its remit. It was not invited to consider the remuneration of Members of Parliament generally and, although it was correct to allude to the issue, it would have been wrong to take a final view about it. However, we can properly consider the link in this debate and form our own judgments on it.
A number of recent episodes have sadly besmirched the reputation of the institutions to which the individuals involved belong. They have raised in the public's mind questions about whether there is a sickness in our political system. I do not wish to linger on the background to setting up the committee, but it will be recalled that a succession of episodes in different areas gave rise to anxiety. Those include the Asil Nadir affair; the circumstances of the arms sales to Iraq, which are currently under investigation by the Scott committee; the resignation of at least one junior Minister who failed to declare a financial interest before his becoming a Minister; the activities of certain political lobbying firms; the accommodation of ex-Cabinet Ministers in the boardrooms of companies that they had a hand in privatising; and, as charted by the Public Accounts Committee in a number of reports, the disreputable conduct of certain individuals who operate within quangos.
Too often, the proper conduct of public business is secured only by ill-defined conventions and self-restraints. Today's abuses are testimony to the frailty of those protections of the public interest. Written constitutions alone manifestly do not eliminate improprieties from public life. None the less, constitutional provisions that defined the public rights and duties of the citizen—and the citizen in public service—and rendered those rights and duties enforceable in the courts would modernise our democracy. They would provide necessary checks and balances, secure greater transparency in public transactions and offer legal remedies where breaches occurred. Under such a constitutional system, Members of Parliament would not have the last word for they would be subject to the constitution. The Liberal Democrats believe that, ultimately, this country should move along that road.

523
The need for the Nolan committee's appointment was, however, urgent and although the effect of its recommendations is far-reaching, it is a very British response to the defacing episodes that I mentioned earlier. The report is a masterly compendium of proposals. If adopted in their entirety, they should help to diminish public anxiety. Wisely, as the need for immediate action is clear, the committee proposes a process—not yet a statutory framework—to be implemented and scrutinised for its effectiveness over a period of time. Members of Parliament are particularly indebted to the committee for the speed and thoroughness with which it accumulated its evidence and formulated cogent proposals.
The underlying principles that the committee advances seem to be compelling. First, those in public life should be guided by certain standards which, when considered together, put the public good before private personal advantage. Secondly, those who choose the course of public service must take responsibility for their own actions and should be guided in those actions by clear codes of conduct to which they and their peers have given assent. Thirdly, as it is not reassuring to people at large that those public servants should be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in their own causes, it is right to appoint independent outside officers to oversee and advise on the effectiveness of the self-regulatory system. Fourthly, it is recognised that corruption does not live in the sunlight. The blinds must be lifted.
The recommendations of the Nolan committee founded on those principles seem to be sensible and the immediate necessary step to remove justifiable public concern. Regrettably, however, there are two omissions. The first was alluded to by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and I shall not linger on it. Non-departmental public bodies should all be subject to scrutiny, by either the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission. I welcome the recognition in the Nolan committee report that
"The absence of automatic public scrutiny does seem to us to represent an anomaly."
I hope that that will be dealt with in the committee's future work.
The second major omission was imposed on the committee by the Prime Minister: consideration of the funding of political parties. All political parties should, in the public interest, be required to disclose substantial funding by individual trusts, private companies and others not required by law to seek the consent of shareholders or members to political donations. The existing arrangements are a potential source of corruption. It has been argued that such bodies and individuals have a right to privacy and to withhold their identification from the public. I cannot see why people should be embarrassed about giving financial support to a political party. The democratic process needs to be funded. The public right to know should override an individual's sensitivity about the revelation of his identity. I take it that few individuals would be reluctant to reveal their identity to the party being funded. The purchase of influence or reward is unacceptable and it is an evil that can be stopped only by openness. No doubt the policing of an open system would present problems, but they are not insurmountable.
524
I welcome and support the committee's particular recommendation about the Register of Members' Interests. I believe that Parliament is helped by the direct knowledge that Members can bring to it from their personal involvement with the outside world. If all hon. Members spoke only with second-hand experience, our debates would be somewhat diminished. There is, however, a consequent need to declare clearly the nature, extent and value to a Member of his outside connections.
Perhaps a more controversial recommendation, and certainly the most controversial one according to today's debate, is the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner for standards. His proposed role would assist Members of Parliament to perform their duties and in no way supplant their responsibilities. He would assist in drawing up the code of conduct and by maintaining the register, advising new Members and conducting preliminary investigations into complaints. I can only speculate about what effect the presence of such an officer would have had upon some of the more colourful episodes that we have observed, even within the past 48 hours, and that have been described before a rather astonished public.
The proposed amendments to the adjudicating role of the Select Committee on Privileges should help to ensure that the rules of natural justice are followed.
Liberal Democrats have advocated that changes should be made to the rules governing the employment of Ministers after they leave public office. I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was somewhat too complacent when he said to the committee:
"It is still right to leave decisions about these matters to the judgment of the individuals concerned."
The life of a Minister may be "nasty, brutish and short", but that is taken into account by politicians when they embark upon that course. From my rather modest experience in that sphere, I do not believe that Ministers become unemployable after they demit office, but the appropriateness of the employment should be subject to external scrutiny. I therefore welcome what the Government have said about that today.
The arrangements for potential whistleblowers in the civil service are also to be welcomed. They will help to limit any attempts to bring improper political pressure to bear upon their independence. Liberal Democrats are unhappy about the growth in Government reliance upon quangos and the evident abuse of powers of political patronage not only to ensure that those quangos are run by agents of like mind to the Government, which is certainly understandable, but that they are used to reward political cronies. The proposals to require the disclosure of political activity and independently to oversee the appointments processes in all Departments is therefore to be welcomed warmly.
Although many of the jobs in the hands of the quangos should be carried out properly by accountable, elected individuals—a point on which I am in complete agreement with the Father of the House—the proposed changes should help to change the more unattractive aspects of the quango culture.
The Nolan committee's recommendations should be accepted. When the Leader of the House replies to the debate, I hope that he will suggest how he proposes to put the issues for decision before the House, particularly those affecting the conduct of Members of Parliament. Of course I understand the desire of the Government to hear the views of the House, but we are entitled to hear from

525
the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, how he proposes to scrutinise the proposals in detail and give effect to them with a view to meeting the timetable recommended by the Nolan committee. Great importance should be attached to that timetable because an integral part of the committee's recommendations was that matters should be dealt with urgently.
I do not think that there is any point in arguing about whether nine tenths or three tenths of the proposals are capable of being implemented before the end of the year. What is clear is that the Nolan committee expected Parliament to act speedily.
The Ministers who are participating in the debate do so in a double role—as Members of the House, who are leading the discussions in the House, but also as members of the Government. We are entitled to hear their answers to our questions in both those roles.
On behalf of my party, I endorse warmly the work of the committee and express my thanks to all those who clearly laboured long and hard to produce this valuable report.
7.4 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I begin by declaring the interests that I have recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
In many respects, I agree with the suggestions in the Nolan committee's report, but I feel bound to say that if they are accepted in isolation, there is a serious danger that, far from raising standards in public life, they may lower them because, at the end of the day, it is the individuals who take public office who set the standards. I believe that the House is already facing a considerable recruitment problem. Given the implications of the report, that matter cannot be divorced from the issue of Members' and Ministers' pay. That issue is extremely relevant if we are to recruit to the House people of adequate standard. I shall return to that later.
I should like to stress one simple point right at the beginning. The expression "full-time Member of Parliament", which has been bandied today and even appears in the report, is misleading. I doubt that there is a single Member of the House who is not full time in the sense that he fulfils what is a normal working week according to any normal outside standard. Many of those Members with outside interests put in the greatest amount of work in this place, not least, for example, because of their membership of Select Committees, which are an increasingly effective means of holding the Government to account.
I am glad that the Nolan committee has accepted what I suggested in my evidence, when I said that the present arrangements for scrutinising breaches—if I can put it like that—of the normal standards of the House were not working. The split between the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests is not satisfactory. The Privileges Committee, with its huge membership, takes far too long to convene between one meeting and another. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is not the appropriate body to deal with such breaches.
The Nolan committee's suggestion that we should appoint a Sub-Committee of the Privileges Committee to deal with the matter is entirely right. We must, however, give the structure an opportunity to work. Despite the
526
persuasive arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I am, therefore, not convinced that the proposal for a parliamentary commissioner for standards is appropriate.
I entirely go along with the initial proposal about the parliamentary commissioner's duties. I agree with the idea that he should be an improved registrar of Members' interests and give advice. The idea that he should carry out independent investigations, however, is not appropriate. I am particularly concerned that page 44 of the report states:
"the commissioner should be able to send for persons, papers and records, and will therefore need to be supported by the authority of a Select Committee with the necessary powers. To give the powers personally to the Commissioner would require primary legislation".
I do not like the way in which the committee suggests we should get around that particular business. The power to send for persons and papers should not be delegated by a Committee of the House to some outside individual, however distinguished. I believe that that proposal poses considerable dangers and I sought to explain some of them to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
It is dangerous to have someone independently carrying out inquiries into all types of allegations, and then perhaps publishing his opinions, without the Privileges Committee having a grip on the thing. A new Sub-Committee of the Privileges Committee, able to work quickly and effectively, with all the powers to obtain any evidence that it needs about allegations, should be given a trial before we go along with that other suggestion, which has considerable dangers.
I am quoted in the report with approval as saying that transparency in respect of Members' interests is all-important. I profoundly believe that. However, it is the declaration of interests that is important to the House. The House is able to discount accordingly a speech by an hon. Member declaring an interest, the way in which he votes, and so on. That is the way in which we have always gone.
A Member either has an interest or does not. I am therefore doubtful about the proposition that it is necessary to quantify. It is not very effective, because what to one person is a large amount of money by way of a consultancy fee may be mere pocket money to another.
Perhaps one should quantify with regard to consultancies that arise from the House, but, as the Nolan committee says, not with regard to outside interests that do not arise from the House. That will be a very difficult line to draw. It will be necessary for the House, and perhaps a Committee of the House, to consider the matter and make proposals to tackle that problem. I doubt that the link between the Front Benchers is an appropriate way of doing it.
I return to my main argument. As the Nolan committee recognises, implementation of its proposals will have a significant effect on Members' ability to have outside income. I believe that, in many ways, the proposals will act as something of a deterrent, especially to those who are elected after the next general election. Therefore, one must consider the matter in its context, and it must be related to Members' pay.
I do not suggest that we should have full-time, well-paid Members of Parliament with no outside interests. They need to have both a sensible level of pay and the ability to have outside interests unconnected with their membership of the House.

527
In that respect, I repeat the evidence and the figures that I gave with regard to what has happened to pay generally. Since I entered the House, real incomes have increased by 80 per cent. Meanwhile, Members' pay has just returned to the level at which it was when I came to this place, and has been below that level, sometimes substantially, throughout the intervening time.
Ministers' pay has declined dramatically—the figures are quoted in the report. That of Ministers has declined by 60 per cent. and that of the Prime Minister by 59 per cent. Present Ministers, in real terms, allowing for inflation, are paid half what Harold Wilson and his Cabinet Ministers were paid. That is the extent of the decline.
We want people to enter the House who are of the quality to become Ministers. We cannot expect them to do so at present levels of pay. That is a serious problem. The amount that one would now need to pay to recruit that type of person as a commercial director in a middling-size plc is double or more what we pay the Prime Minister.
If we are to attract people of real ability into the House, we must consider the fact that someone—perhaps a president of the union—with a good second-class or first-class university degree, who might previously have usually come into this place, can go into the City now and earn more than a Member of Parliament in two years, with the prospect of earning vastly more later.
As the Nolan committee says—indeed, it was said in the final question posed to me when I appeared before it—surely service to the country and to public life is important. Yes; it is profoundly important, and I regard my membership of the House as the greatest honour. Nevertheless, when recruiting people, one cannot disregard the fact that, if one had remained in outside occupation, one would probably be earning five times as much as one has earned in this place—perhaps more. People need to have regard to their family circumstances, and so on.
On timing, it is vital that the proposals in the report should be related to a fundamental review of what is happening to remuneration in this place.
There is a great deal of fuzziness in the report. Many of the issues are not clearly defined. Therefore it is necessary, not for the usual channels, but for a committee to consider carefully the way in which those matters are drafted and the way in which resolutions might be placed before the House.
I make a final argument, because I am running out of time. It is much more important that we should get the matter right than that we should act fast, and it requires very careful consideration indeed by the House and its Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.14 pm
Mr. John Morris: First, I declare my interests, in the same way as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) did, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I agree entirely with his observations on the way in which Members' and Ministers' pay has fallen back. The new chief executive
528
of a middle-ranking unitary authority in local government will be paid as much as, if not more than, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That must be wholly wrong.
When I became Secretary of State for Wales, seven of the chief executives of county councils in Wales were paid more than the person who was the chief civil servant in Wales. There is something wrong.
I express my gratitude to Lord Nolan and his committee and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who are members of it, whom I congratulate on their speeches. I was curious why the committee had to set out "the seven principles of public life" in more than 200 words. I should have thought that we should all know the difference between "right and wrong" and "right and wrong" as public representatives. The fact that Lord Nolan and his committee felt the need to state that does, in itself, no credit to public life.
Despite all the criticisms, I am confident that probably all of us, when we come to the House, come with the highest possible aims. What is regrettable is the steady erosion of understanding of what should be acceptable. Nolan has rightly made us take stock.
As I told the committee in my written observations, when I entered the House, the political consultant was hardly known. The first that I heard of them was in relation to teachers and the police, and now 30 per cent. of eligible Members are registered paid parliamentary consultants.
Nolan has grasped the nettle as regards multi-client consultancies in recommending that the involvement of Members in such consultancies should be immediately banned. I agree. They epitomise "the hiring fair" that the Prime Minister described.
Nolan has kicked into touch the problem of parliamentary consultancies in themselves. I concede, on reflection, that there is at least an argument for distinguishing paid advice from paid advocacy, and I want to hear more about that. I believe, however, that to be paid as an advocate in the House by an outside interest is incompatible with being a Member of the House. The Member is no more than a hired gun.
I do not blame the Nolan committee for wanting to hear more from Parliament. It has not heard a great deal so far. In any event, it intends to return to the matter in a year's time to review the position.
I wrote to Nolan in the following terms:
"Your committee may wish to consider what difference there is between hard cash for an immediate specified return and a consultant who may book a room for a dinner, make an appointment with a Minister, or even perhaps put down an occasional question."
The House has approved the recommendation of the Privileges Committee, in the recent cases before it, as regards the behaviour that we felt fell short of the standards that the House was entitled to expect of its Members. The Privileges Committee said:
"We see no sustainable distinction between a payment of £1,000 for tabling a parliamentary question and a consultancy for which the fee is £1,000 and the only requirement is the tabling of a parliamentary question".
Personally, I would go further: I see no distinction between being paid to table a parliamentary question either on its own or as part of one's paid duties as a consultant. It is the same concept of a "hired gun".

529
The Privileges Committee has deferred its consideration of that part of the remit from Madam Speaker dealing with a general position on the need to clarify the law of Parliament regarding consultancies. We did so pending the Nolan report. Lord Nolan and his committee have come and gone on that aspect for the moment. I suppose that the Privileges Committee, either as part of its original remit or as a result of further instructions from the House, must now return to it; hence, I have gained the impression that Nolan has kicked the ball into touch on that issue.
I find the delicacy on the part of the Nolan committee in this difficult to reconcile with the fact that it had the temerity to give birth to a draft code of conduct for Members of Parliament. On page 39, under the heading "Financial Interests", the report states:
"A Member must not promote any matter in Parliament in return for payment."
Subject to clarification as to what "in Parliament" means, that is ample to cover the whole range of parliamentary consultants, be they single or multi—otherwise, what was Nolan up to? I applaud the committee's ingenuity. I take on board the observations of the right hon. Member for Worthing, who referred to the constitutional powers of the independent commissioner. It is a good idea to ensure at least that control remains with Parliament in the form of the Privileges Committee, warts and all. I welcome the recommendation for the Committee to meet in public, and in debate a fortnight ago I suggested that the Committee should be much smaller.
I turn to the employment of ex-Ministers. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I am glad that he is in the Chamber—must feel pretty sore, having received a black eye from the committee over his bland assumption that all was well or steady as she goes. As we were reminded this afternoon, he gave that evidence on behalf of the Government. I find it deeply offensive that Ministers who have played a major part in privatising an industry or in establishing quangos can take up a major paid role in those bodies, scarcely before the ink is dry on the statute that created them. There should be a firm cordon sanitaire for that kind of employment.
We are talking not about employment generally but about jobs that Ministers have created themselves. That is what we are talking about; let us not confuse it with hon. Members who are looking for work to feed their children. What is necessary for civil servants should be necessary also for Ministers. The minimum waiting period before seeking other employment is two years, and perhaps it should be three. I see no distinction between Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers in that regard.
As to quangos, the present situation is intolerable. I wish that Lord Nolan and his committee had examined the situation in Wales, of which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is well aware. I was glad to hear the Chancellor confirm that the Chief Whip—the Patronage Secretary—will play a much lesser role. The Chief Whip is the conduit for political influence when making appointments and I am glad that his role is to change.
In the 11 years that I served as a Minister, I was never conscious of receiving any guidance from on high, offered by the Chief Whip or anyone else, when making appointments. I performed the same role as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his previous office. Any
530
appointments that I made, right or wrong, were my decisions and mine alone. The Chief Whip did not play a part in that process.
In Wales and elsewhere, we have seen wives of Members, wives of Ministers, ex-Members of Parliament and ex-Members of the European Parliament appointed to quangos. They may be very worthy appointments; indeed, I am sure that they are. However, would they have been appointed but for the fact of who they are? I am glad that there will be an independent aspect to appointing people to serve on quangos.
7.24 pm
Sir Archibald Hamilton: I, too, declare my interests, which appear in the Register of Members' Interests. They include a number of consultancies and directorships. Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today, I am rather disappointed by the Nolan report. I thought that it represented an opportunity to clarify some extremely complex and difficult areas and I am not certain that it has done that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) recognised the public disquiet about standards of behaviour in public life, while acknowledging that some expert witnesses had appeared before the committee and said that that disquiet was unjustified. However, he did nothing to attribute blame for the gap between the two positions. It may have something to do with the media, which insist upon reporting everything in the most unfavourable terms possible. We are becoming so cowed by the media that we rarely dare to speak out against them in any way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater also spelled out clearly to the House what an incredibly incorruptible political system we have compared with many other countries. He illustrated his point graphically by referring to the number of Italian parliamentarians who face being put in the slammer and so on. It would have been useful to include that information in the report. It is extremely important to put in context the problems that we are discussing today, because they are minuscule compared with the problems facing parliaments and democracies all over the western world.
We have an admirable civil service. The permanent under-secretary is the accounting officer in any Department and there is a clear division of responsibilities. I think that that is one of the reasons why our system is extremely difficult to corrupt through financial fraud and so on. I believe that the report should have paid tribute to that fact.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who said that we cannot view the issues in isolation without considering the salaries of Members of Parliament. We must attract professional middle-class people to this House as they have a tremendous amount to offer. But if they are told—as I suspect Labour Members will tell them—that they will receive a salary of £32,000 per annum, they will not come.
Lord Nolan entered chambers in 1953 and was married in that same year. I am informed that he became a tax barrister and I am sure that his earnings, in today's terms, were well in excess of £32,000. He managed to educate his son at a public school and I suspect that he educated

531
his two daughters in the same way. I assure him that one cannot do that today on £32,000. At one stage perhaps Lord Nolan contemplated becoming a Member of Parliament and came to the conclusion that the salary was too small for him to consider so doing. We must put the issues into perspective and remember that a number of hon. Members, not unnaturally, have aspirations to earn more than £32,000 per annum. They do not consider that to be a fortune—although I have no doubt that their constituents might think that it is.
We must also look hard at the question of a waiting period for Ministers before taking up employment after leaving office. I do not believe that Ministers are comparable with civil servants. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, civil servants are able to anticipate their retirement and they receive generous pensions with which to retire. It is quite different when a Minister leaves office. It may be an involuntary act anyway, and he may still be young and burdened with heavy expenses. We should bear in mind the fact that the House has decided that redundancy pay for Ministers should be set at three months' salary. If we then make them wait two years before they can pick up another job, it is clear that the whole question of redundancy money will have to be reviewed—in particular, whether it should last much longer.
My other criticism of the report concerns its findings on disclosing remuneration. That is just a ploy to embarrass in front of our constituents those of us who receive consultancy fees. The argument seems based on the idea that if I earn £1,000 a year as a consultant I shall not be doing much in the House for that, but if I earn £20,000 a year in consultancy fees I must be doing infinitely more in the House. In fact, the reverse is true: many consultancy agreements involving large sums of money mean that much more is being asked of Members in terms of work outside the House. Consultancy agreements often mean representing companies which go in for a wide range of activities. I work for an American defence contractor, and I spend some of my time looking for companies over here for it to acquire—that has nothing to do with Parliament.
I turn next to the vexed issue of the distinction between advocacy and advice. It is thought wrong to be paid to be an advocate. Let us face it, Nolan has made it clear—as a long-term recommendation—that there should be a total ban on all forms of advocacy in the House by hon. Members who may be pursuing the interests of bodies with which they have entered into consultancy or sponsorship agreements. What is the difference between someone with a consultancy agreement and someone who is a lawyer or a solicitor tabling amendments to a Criminal Justice Bill? In principle I see no difference at all. The latter will be employed, perhaps, by a firm of solicitors; if he failed to table the amendments or failed to press the case that the partnership thought important, the firm could sack him.
If we press ahead in this way we shall remove professionals who have something to say about the law and something to contribute to Criminal Justice Bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) believes, too, farmers would not be able to speak about agriculture, or accountants about Finance Bills, and Members sponsored by trade unions would be
532
unable to comment on labour relations legislation. Even Opposition Members who are lecturers would be unable to comment on education Bills. That is the logical conclusion of banning paid advocacy in the House. We cannot draw the line between a Member with a consultancy agreement and a Member who is paid by a particular profession. We need to get away from glib assumptions about a division between advocacy and advice, because it will be extremely difficult to make such distinctions without removing the expertise that we need in this House for commenting on legislation.
I shall end by discussing the commissioner for standards. Many of us are worried that we may create an independent post that will end up being responsible to no one and creating mayhem in this place—even though we may have voted to set up the post in the first place. The solution to the problem is to make Madam Speaker the commissioner for standards. I am sure that she has many other things to do besides inquiring into whether Members of Parliament are behaving properly, so if she does not want to take on the responsibility herself I suggest that she appoint someone who is answerable to her. The role would then become part of the Speaker's Office and would be clearly seen to be independent and answerable to the House. That would remove many of our fears about an independent commissioner over whom, once we had appointed him or her, we would have no control at all.
7.34 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I, like others, declare my interests: as a writer, broadcaster and shareholder. I should also announce that I have been a paid consultant for 45 years, first for Bristol, South-East and then for Chesterfield. The idea that a Member of Parliament can be a consultant only on behalf of companies or individuals—and be paid especially for that—is an illusion.
This is not really a new problem. I am alarmed when I am told that we have had a marvellous system hitherto. Lloyd George, whom I met nearly 60 years ago, sold titles. Then we had the Marconi scandal—not to mention 10,000 Enclosure Acts, under which this House handed over the common land to rich farmers. So let us not mislead ourselves: there has always been a problem, but it has always been limited in terms of the numbers of people involved.
The House is in such difficulties now not because one or two Members have done what they have done but because the House failed to take seriously its responsibility to lay down what our standards should be. So the Prime Minister used, of all things, the royal prerogative to set up a royal commission to examine the conduct of the House of Commons—clean contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which stipulates that no one from outside may presume to regulate what we do here. [Interruption.] Of course Lord Nolan's committee is a permanent royal commission, set up by the Prime Minister without consulting the House—he just announced it—to examine what we should do next. When the House is treated in that way, surely it must begin to take seriously what it has failed to do.
My argument is a simple one and is already known, but I wish to spell it out to the House in some detail: we should lay down what it is lawful for a Member to do and a Member who does not stay within the law will not be eligible to be a Member.

533
I am very doubtful about an ethics commissioner. When I first heard about "ethics man" taking over our affairs, I wondered whether the speaker had a lisp. I have 40,000 ethics commissioners in my constituency and if I act illegally I am answerable to them. We have heard talk of an induction scheme. Are we going to insist on qualifications for getting into the House of Commons? Many Members who have spoken today seem not to understand that democracy is not about qualifications. No one needs to have any qualifications whatever to get into Parliament; if we insisted on them, many people would never get in here. It is, however, much harder to get elected than to pass an exam. We are answerable to our constituents—that is what democracy is about.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all this talk about the seven principles of public life—
Mr. Benn: I have just realised that I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to read out the seven principles. I hope that he will forgive any discourtesy.
There are 400 classes of person who are disqualified from sitting in this House of Commons—I know because I have been through them all. Judges cannot sit here—Lord Nolan could not sit. Roman Catholic priests cannot sit here. No one has suggested that they should be allowed to do so provided we have a "religious commissioner" to determine whether they are qualified. They were excluded because in the old, prejudiced days it was thought that the Pope ran every Catholic priest. That is not true any more, of course. Anglican Ministers cannot sit here either.
I repeat that we should state what behaviour we object to and then make it illegal. Without wanting to get at anyone, I object to the thought that people who are elected to serve their constituents and pursue their convictions should act, for money, to promote the economic interests of a company. I have no objection to people representing bodies like the Police Federation, or to people being barristers or writers—how could I, when I am one myself—but when I hear a Member advancing an argument in the House I want to know that it is his own argument, or that he is representing his constituency, and not that he is being paid to put an argument to the House. His electors are entitled to the same reassurance.
I have drafted an early-day motion which appears on today's Order Paper and which one or two Members may have seen. It would add to the list of disqualifying offices
"any person … who is specifically paid to promote or seek to promote the financial, commercial or industrial interests of a company inside Parliament or in dealings with Government Departments".
That could not be clearer. That is different from being on a board and advising on this or that. Being a company director is different from being in this place and being paid to book a room and to use it—
Sir David Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I cannot give way because I do not have time.
Being a company director is different from being in this place and booking a room or seeing the appropriate Minister to arrange something. Such activity in this place should be a disqualification.
534
Against that background, there is no need for an ethics commissioner. If someone breaks the law, he or she will be taken to court. The hearing will take place in public, unlike the hearings of the Privileges Committee, which take place in private. The hearing takes place and the Member will be liable to disqualification. As for classes of person, that is a matter of judgment. I am not committed to that form of words. If there is a wish to ban trade union representatives, let those who take that view make the case and try to carry the day. The same applies to solicitors and writers, for example. Whatever we do, the procedures must be embodied in law: let us not start with the idea of there being some administrator who will take us aside.
Ethics cover more than personal conduct. For example, would an ethics commissioner say, "Mr. Benn, you should not have supported the poll tax protestors"? Are we not to do this or that? Before we know where we are, democracy will be subordinated to some allegedly objective test.
I was amused when the right hon. Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that he objected to a commissioner. He said, "Parliament can decide." He should apply that argument to our attitude towards Brussels. He has expressed the very objection that some of us have to the European Commission. He objects to the attitude of the Commission being applied to him.
I return to the point of order that I made yesterday. We are not facing the situation which confronted the country 300 years ago when the then king tried to arrest the five Members. Instead, the business community is trying to buy the five Members. If we do not take a strong line against the commercial corruption of Parliament, as exemplified by the strong line that was taken years ago against the attempt by the then monarch to control Parliament, we should give up.
We are in the present mess because as the House of Commons we have lost our self-respect. We should have dealt with the problem years ago. We should not have left it to emerge as it did so that the Nolan report would be imposed upon us by a worried Prime Minister. We should have taken action ourselves. Now that the issue has arisen, we should take our own action. Let us proceed by law. The law should be set out so that everyone knows what it is. Our constituents can then introduce ethical elements.
I am disappointed that the Nolan report does not contain a recommendation that every voter should receive from his returning officer, with his polling card, information about the interests of every candidate and not only those of the outgoing Member. If that information were available, everyone who voted would know that they were voting for an official of the Transport and General Workers Union or for someone sitting on 10 boards. Let the electors choose: it is one of the characteristics of a democracy that they should decide. This is not a little club that we protect with little rules. That is not what it is about. We are not here because we like one another: we are in this place because we have been sent here, and the ultimate discipline on our conduct is the view that those who sent us here take when they decide to return us or to send us packing.
7.43 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: It is splendid to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for

535
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on one of his high days. He made an extremely interesting and exciting contribution to the debate. I fear that I would not have been able to enter Parliament under the stiff criteria that he laid down. I came from the humble world of industry. I was with a company that was making fruit gums, After Eight mints and other lovely products of that sort. There was a wish to improve the lot of other people and, above all, to create wealth. We wished also to create employment. We all wished to be members of a company that contributed to about one fifth of the working population of York. That is something rather different from that which is represented by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). Both of us know about the company that I am talking about.
One of the strands of this place is that its Members are all from different backgrounds. We come from different places and we have different attitudes. That fabric makes this place, a place that has survived for hundreds of years. We must be extremely careful that we do not unpick it in a moment of deep penitence or one of deep-seated madness. Whatever else, we must work out correctly the problem that is before us. We must not panic. We must not say, "We cannot touch that which now exists." It is only right that we must react to any problem that confronts us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, reminded us of the position in 1947 and referred to the report of the Strauss committee. As I understand it, that was the last occasion on which such issues were considered. It is only right that they should be examined again. Equally, it is right that the Nolan report should give us the opportunity to do so. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield admirably stated, the outcome must be decided by the House and by no other authority.
Under the heading "Members' Financial Interests", which begins with paragraph 9, the good Nolan committee states:
"The reasons for the public's reduced confidence in the financial probity of Members of Parliament are not hard to identify. The public reads extensive press reporting of cases in which Members have accepted money for asking parliamentary questions, are said to have stayed at expensive hotels at others' expense without declaring an interest and are employed by multi-client lobbying firms".
There is all that huff and puff about what goes on in this place, but there is little grain of substance. We know full well from the sittings of the Privileges Committee—I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is not in his place—what happened when it examined the two Members and money for questions. The newspaper that was involved had been given information by an unknown business man and the names of four Members. It found nothing during its investigation to substantiate the allegations relating to those Members. It then set out to try to entrap two Members.
If that is the basis for huge public disquiet and embarrassment, I greatly regret it. We cannot consider these issues without taking into account the fact that some aspects of investigative journalism have started to replace some of the aspects of reporting facts. If that is the way in which the world lives, it is not surprising that we should find ourselves caught up in the present position. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)
536
said in his excellent speech, we are faced with problems with which we must deal in a way that is best for the interests of the House as a whole.
I have not properly declared my interest. I shall do so straightaway and as it is laid down in the good book. I have a non-executive directorship. That might worry the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I had two such directorships but I resigned from one, finding it difficult to get to the meetings and deal with the issues that are the responsibility of non-executive directors because of the pressures in this place and the various activities that relate to it.
I understand why it is felt that consultancies are difficult. They are difficult to understand because people do not realise the importance of them. Those who have had management and industrial backgrounds find especially that consultancies are the natural route through which their interests can be expressed outside the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) said, lawyers have a remarkable capacity to earn money anywhere. They can earn money by their sheer skills. If someone has been involved in a background of manufacturing enterprise, it is not unreasonable that he should take an interest outside the House in sustaining manufacturing enterprises. Many manufacturing enterprises in Britain need the assistance of those who can help them to learn what it is to deal with the complexities of the rubric of the society in which they live, with the complexities of law and legislation or of getting export credit and everything that happens when trading overseas. All these aspects of business life affect small companies that are trying to make their way and, indeed, large ones. They look to many sources of advice, and sometimes they select Members.
When it comes to the declaration of interests, including consultancies, I understand the recommendations of the Nolan committee. I understand also that lobbying must be of maximum interest to the committee. It is a difficult matter, but, on the other hand, lobbying Members has been endemic to the House ever since its foundation. In the press, the Members' Lobby is seen as an exchange of information of various sorts. That results in reputations being made in print and sometimes rising circulations. It would appear that those results are all to the benefit of newspapers. Members use the Lobby and the Lobby is the entrepÔt of ideas that are subsequently exploited. Perhaps money does not change hands. Indeed, I doubt whether it ever does. But once we have such a system it is not surprising that we become involved with outside interests that are seeking to find ways of procuring an influence, perhaps at a modest level. Nevertheless, they seek to procure influence.
But it is quite unreasonable for the committee to say that there should be a statement of the earnings from consultancies, but not a statement of the earnings from all other sources of external interest. It is inevitable that if the matter is dealt with only on the basis of consultancies, investigative journalists will have a field day. They will say, "Ah, Member X is getting a consultancy worth Y. What else is he getting?" They will look at his other interests and find out. They will find a way to expose a Member's external income.
That would be a travesty of the way in which we should react to the problem with which we are trying to deal. There must be a compensatory amount of privacy if there is to be a disclosure of pecuniary advantage. We must

537
balance those two things. Some privacy is pretty crucial for a Member seeking to discharge his public office at a time such as this when we have media interest, 24 hours a day from all over the world, in what Members of Parliament may or may not be doing.
We must move slowly on the matter. We must take serious counsel. I was attracted by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) that a committee of Privy Councillors from both sides of the House might be a conduit through which Nolan can be rationalised into what is practical, and what is practical can be applied without the distortions that may happen if the work is done at speed.
I also understand that we must merge the Privileges Committee with the Select Committee on Members' Interests. That is an excellent suggestion and if it is a smaller committee thereby, I for one would be delighted because the 17-man Privileges Committee that we now have is far too substantial for the efforts that we have to make.
I respect what Nolan advises us to do. I understand his keenness to see change. I recognise that there are areas which must be changed. But if we are seriously to preserve our inheritance and not reduce the total panoply of the House for attracting people of talent and enterprise, those changes must be carefully worked out over time in order to be made practical and applicable to our Parliament, and then we can decide ourselves—no one else—to implement them.
7.51 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: The only interest that I have to declare—I do so with pride—is that I have long had the honour of sponsorship as a parliamentary candidate by the Co-operative Movement. As the House knows, I am also a member of the Committee of Privileges, but, of course, there is no financial interest there.
I shall not be speaking at length. My main purpose is most warmly to welcome Nolan's vindication of those who think it wrong for the Privileges Committee to be continuing to sit wholly in private at a time when Ministers talk of their commitment to open dealing and when, virtually by common consent of the major organs of opinion, the British people now want to see what is being done at Westminster in their name.
From the moment the Privileges Committee was reconstituted last July, I made plain my view that, wherever it could be avoided, we should no longer meet behind closed doors. The caveat "whenever it could be avoided" was to allow for occasions when, for some compelling reason, more especially one involving any possible breach of natural justice, the Committee ought to meet in camera. Yet we still meet in secret even when there is no conceivable legal or other reason for so doing and even when a witness specifically requests to be heard in public, as Peter Preston has done in the case of his impending appearance before the Committee.
The Prime Minister's insistence on secrecy, he told me, is based on precedent. "That's how it has always been" is his attitude. But if precedent had always been strictly adhered to, the Privileges Committee would still be meeting by candlelight and threatening, even imposing, fierce penalties against any journalist who dared to anticipate its reports. We heard earlier that Lord Nolan
538
had looked at proceedings in the Privileges Committee going back to 1947. What some of its present members have done is to look back to the Committee's proceedings as long ago as the 17th century, and to do so is to crave further modernisation.
I hope very much that this first report of the Nolan committee will now very soon bring our proceedings out of the shadows and into the 20th century while there are still a few years of it left. That would remove a demeaning stain on the reputation of the House; at the same time it would improve the quality of justice dispensed by its most powerful Committee.
The decision now, as I understand the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will be one for the House as a whole, free from any pressure from the Government, or from anyone else, and of that I approve. We ought never avoidably now to meet in secret in Committees of the House, not because it is unpopular with, in fact deeply resented by, the British people, but because it is patently wrong to do so.
For the same reason I hope that the Nolan committee will urgently reconsider and reverse its decision not to tackle the funding of political parties. It is indefensible that one political party, at a moment of unprecedented unpopularity, should be allowed a veto on this crucially important issue. Surely no inquiry into standards in public life, properly so-called, can possibly avoid the core issue of party funding. As Simon Jenkins, its former editor, said in The Times yesterday:
"It is hard to imagine anything more corrupting than party cash handed over in secret, whether from a property dealer, an Arab Prince or a banker desperate for a peerage."
For his part, speaking last Sunday on BBC television, Lord Nolan said of his committee:
"We are cast in the traditional role of an auditor, a watchdog not a bloodhound, and if a watchdog sees something which needs looking into, it should bark."
That gave the impression that he was determined to stand his ground on party funding, but his bark seems to have been silenced by the Government. That is damaging to his committee's reputation and extremely disappointing to those of us who were encouraged by some of the recommendations in his report.
The Prime Minister's first reaction to the report was to accept its "broad thrust", but he has gone no further since then. We must hope that those two words mean more than that he is prepared to endorse only the principles of acceptable conduct in public life set out in the report:
"selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership."
Some might say that for the Prime Minister even to accept the report's principles is an important step forward. Certainly some of them are not much in fashion in Whitehall now. Take accountability, openness and leadership. Our attempts to let the public see as much as possible of the Privilege Committee's proceedings was all about accountability and openness and it was leadership we were asking for in pressing the Prime Minister to depart from the ancient precedent to which he still clings in defence of secrecy.
The public now want not only to hear talk about precepts but to see them matched by practice. They are entitled to see beyond the doors of the Committee Rooms of the House, to know what is happening as it happens and to hear the Nolan committee barking loudly for full disclosure of all donations to all political parties.

539
I have only one other brief comment to make as a member of the Privileges Committee. In picturesque language, Lord Nolan's report says:
"The Committee is assisted by a small secretariat."
It then goes on to list the names of 12 people who have assisted its work. Those who have criticised the pace of the Privileges Committee's work may like to know that our staffing consists of the admirable Jim Hastings, the Committee's clerk; one third of the time of Paul Derrett, a Committee assistant; and what is called "access" to a shared secretary. What word other than "small" would Lord Nolan use to describe a secretariat as small as that? He might like to come and bark in our forest or, alternatively, perhaps we should start barking too.
7.59 pm
Sir David Mitchell: I start by declaring my interest. I have been a Member of this House for 31 years and, for 22 of those, I have been a practising wine merchant.
Important and serious issues have arisen today. I identify three of them. The first is the extent to which we regulate ourselves. I am uneasy about upsetting the delicate balance between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive. I firmly believe in self-regulation, but we must do that as effectively as is practicable.
The second issue is whether we should go for legalistic rules or a set of principles with a code of practice. Again, I am firmly in favour of the latter. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that an adviser of one sort or another would be enormously helpful. When I came into the House, an older Member drew me a little map on the back of an envelope that showed where the Chamber, the dining room and the loo were, and he said, "That will do you for the first week." That was the whole induction course that I had on arriving in the House. There is something to be said for helping new Members particularly, and for making available to Members at any time someone who is what the Canadian Parliament would call an ethical adviser but, please, let us not call him a commissioner—that would not give the right sense at all.
Thirdly, there is far more right with our system than is being given credit for. But recent events have identified problems and clearly Lord Nolan has drawn attention to matters of uncertainty and confusion, and the need for clarification. I want to draw attention to two of those matters and to make two practical suggestions.
The first concerns the declaration of Members' interests. I fear that, too often, the declaration of those interests has become an alibi for half covering them up. When tabling questions, writing to Ministers or speaking in the House, Members assume that, because they have registered their interest in the register, that is sufficient, but it is not. People do not go around with a copy of the Register of Members' Interests in their pockets. Interests must be declared at the relevant time. If one is to make a speech that has some relevance to one's interests, one should declare that. If one tables a parliamentary question or writes to a Minister and one has an interest, that interest should be declared.
I put forward one practical, brief suggestion that could be implemented almost immediately. When a Member tables an early-day motion and has a paid interest, he has
540
to put an "R" on the Order Paper to indicate that interest. Either that or the letters IDI—I declare an interest—should be put alongside a parliamentary question when a Member is in a paid position in relation to that question. That would be a practical and useful step forward. We on the Privileges Committee had the unhappy experience of dealing with two hon. Members. In that case, such a proposal would have helped to clarify the position.
The second change that I propose is this. At present, one must put an entry in the Register of Members' Interests within a month of acquiring that interest. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be such a delay. If a Member has something to register, he should do so before he writes to Ministers, lobbies in any form, asks questions or makes speeches. That would have prevented one of the two cases before the Privileges Committee from occurring.
I hope that the House will consider those two practical suggestions. The first is that a paid consultancy should be identified on a parliamentary question, and the second is that nothing should be done in relation to using the benefit of an interest until it has been put on the register.
We are all grateful to Lord Nolan for his work. He has done an immense amount in relation to hon. Members. I hope that he will not fail to turn his attention to the interests of Members in the upper House, who, in exactly the same way, can be influenced by the possible effect of a consultancy.
I come now to the vexed question of consultancies. They appear to be in two forms. The first relates to Members who watch Bills, watch draft regulations and the like, and generally advise a trade union, trade association or a large company. They perform an important role. These days, there are too many regulations, directives, and pieces of legislation, and companies often need someone to interpret, to guide and to show them the way through them, and to explain the effect on their business of what is going on.
I gingerly raise the possibility that was put to me by a much respected former Member, Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop. When Members act on behalf of companies and, as a result, table parliamentary questions, incurring public expenditure, perhaps we should consider whether that company should make some contribution to those costs. I am not sure, but that is a matter for further exploration. There is a big difference between a Member advising a company and, crossing a silent line, a company advising him about what it wants raised in the House. That invisible line divides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I should like to ban the latter, but I recognise that there is a thin line between the two, and that it is almost impossible for someone outside to discern whether that line has been crossed.
The best way that the House can help itself is to ensure that transparency exists, that, when someone has an interest, it is declared and available for everyone to consider and, most particularly, that it is declared when it is relevant to the business in hand.
The question of the declaration of the amount of money paid for a consultancy has been raised. Once it is on the register that someone is being paid, that should be sufficient. I do not think that it really matters whether the Member is paid £5,000 or £10,000.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Oh yes it does.
Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says, "Yes it does." No one in the debate has yet given a good reason—perhaps we shall hear one later—why amounts should be declared. What is important is that when a Member does not act entirely as a freelance operator, when he is in some way financially benefiting from what he is doing, that should be declared. That it is declared is sufficient to give Members the warning that they ought to have.
In relation to Members' earnings from consultancies and the like, we cannot ignore the fact that Members are paid extraordinarily little for what they do. When I came into the House, I think that we were paid £3,800 a year; now it is over £30,000, but the purchasing power is within £100 of what it was 30 years ago. I do not know of any other profession that has seen no real increase in the value of its take-home salary over 30 years, a period in which the work load has gone up many times—from 25 or 30 letters a week to 200 letters a week. There is a multitude of other work, such as the Committees of the House. It was a part-time operation when I came in, but it is no longer so. It is very much a full-time one today.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that, on 23 November 1994, I asked for a list of those Officers of the House who earn more than we do. Is it really right for nearly 150 of those who look after us to be paid more than we are? Are Members of Parliament really worth so much less than our excellent staff? Are they really worth so much less than those who administer the Palace of Westminster or service the House in many ways, and do it so very well for us?
During—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.9 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: First, I must declare my interests—although they are all in the register. I am sponsored by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union; I am an unpaid consultant to the Prison Officers Association; and I am an unpaid adviser to the National Association of Licensed House Managers. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I did not catch what was said by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Hoyle: I do not want to be interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, however. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
Mr. Garrett: He said, "Where do you get your election expenses from?"
Mr. Hoyle: It is all in the register; I have nothing to hide. The hon. Member for Eltham need only look in the register. Indeed, he probably has it with him. I am pleased to be able to say that I have nothing to be ashamed of.
In such circumstances, the House finds itself in difficulty because it is complacent about itself. It is time that the House faced up to its low standing with the public. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) gave two figures from a Gallup poll: he said that 64 per cent. of the public believed that most Members of Parliament make a lot of money using public office improperly, and he said that the figure nine years ago was 46 per cent. He could have gone on to quote the other
542
figures: he could have told us that 77 per cent. of the public believe that Members of Parliament care more about special interests than about people like themselves—which is a real condemnation—and that only 28 per cent. of the public think that Members of Parliament have a high personal moral code.
We ought to be extremely concerned about that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) is not present, because he mentioned the Privileges Committee and cash for questions and pointed out that only two Members of Parliament were involved. In fact, only 20 Members were surveyed; two of them accepted the money, while another was prepared to take it and then give it to charity. That is not a good record—and what would have been revealed had the investigation gone further? Moreover, it was alleged that other Members, who were not named, had been taking money for quite a while.
We should be concerned about all this. There is a gravy train in the House—and, amazingly, Conservative Members are involved. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), with his little interests in a shop, can laugh; he comes from south Wales. Let me put it this way to him, and to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell): Conservative Members have 766 outside sources of income. One Conservative Member has 16 such sources, another has 12, two have 11, one has nine, one has eight and one has six.
If we assume that those consultancies are worth £10,000 a time—some are worth more; some may be worth a little less—the Member with 16 of them will earn £160,000, quite apart from his £30,000 salary. Something is wrong. No wonder the public believe that there is sleaze in the House if that is going on. We must know how much Members of Parliament are being paid for all those consultancies. Their constituents have a right to know as well. We have heard a good deal from hon. Members along the lines of, "The public do not want to know; they want to believe that Members of Parliament are honest." I suggest that, at election time, Members of Parliament do not go around saying, "I have 16 consultancies, and I am paid n thousand a time." None of them does that—and, when it comes to making a declaration of what they are receiving, we see them moving away from Nolan.
I have always believed that being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job, but I also agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). One reason why Members of Parliament, particularly Conservative Members, accept consultancies and the retainers that go with them may be that their basic salaries are far too low. We should certainly pay Members a salary that is commensurate with their duties—although Nolan did not make that point.
In recommending the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner for standards, Nolan did not suggest that such responsibilities should be taken away from the House, which would be wrong. He suggested that such a commissioner could report to a smaller version of the Privileges Committee, which would meet in public—which Labour members of the Privileges Committee have advocated. I was very pleased that Nolan recommended that such a Sub-Committee should meet in public whenever possible, and should report to the full Privileges Committee. An aggrieved Member could appeal to the full Committee, and if necessary the matter would be dealt with by the House of Commons as a whole.

543
I do not think that anyone wishing to dispel public unease about the activities of Members of Parliament could disagree with any of those proposals. We should not only be transparent; we should be prepared to put on record what we do and what we earn. If we are not prepared to do that, the public have a right to ask what Members of Parliament have to hide. That is the cause of much of the unease—the sweeping under the carpet, and the cosy club atmosphere that many Members of Parliament want. I believe that those days have gone.
I always appreciate the speeches of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and what he said today was very humorous; but he spoke of matters that belong to the past. Time has moved on. Public unease has grown since the 1950s. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), however, reminded us that there were scandals in the past as well. We must put our House in order; we have taken far too long in reaching that conclusion. Standards have deteriorated since 1979, but only now is the House prepared to get to grips with that.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was extremely complacent. Given that the Nolan committee was set up by the Prime Minister, I expected him to say, "We must examine these proposals on an urgent basis, and act on them." If we delay as long as he suggested before debating the matter again, we shall find ourselves in the summer recess, and we shall not be able to begin to implement even the recommendations that Nolan believes should be implemented immediately until autumn or even the end of the year.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take account of that in his reply. If we are to restore public confidence in the House, the Nolan recommendations must be acted on as urgently as possible—and I believe that they should all be implemented in full.
8.18 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) will not be surprised to learn that I am diametrically opposed to much of what he said. I hope to pick up some of the points that he made in what must necessarily be a brief speech.
I have been a management consultant for the past 21 years but I have never felt uneasy about operating in the House. I have given political and governmental advice, although some of my work had nothing whatever to do with politics. However, I have never acted in a covert way and I suppose that my activities are perhaps more in line with those outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) in his interesting interjection.
As time is short, I shall confine myself mainly to the proposals affecting Members of Parliament, but I agree that we should outlaw the situation that allows Members of Parliament to be employed cavalierly by lobbyists to press the case for a new railway or road and to be paid a large sum of money to canvas and speak to that end. As I understand the Nolan report, that is to be outlawed.
I am also worried about the recommendation relating to Ministers. Goodness knows we have heard how badly paid they are, and I do not think that we can put them in cold storage for two years after they have left office and
544
expect them not to have a proper job. A minimum interim period should be established, but the matter needs to be examined carefully before a decision is made.
I part company from the two right hon. Members who were members of the Nolan committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—when it comes to parliamentary consultancies in general. The report condemns them and recommends the abolition of some, but also suggests strongly that they should in fact be phased out. As we have heard, it demands that the amounts earned should be declared. The hon. Member for Warrington, North said that there is a large difference between the amounts earned by different hon. Members, but I disagree.
What about directors, writers, broadcasters, solicitors and trade union advisers, all of whom in some way owe their jobs to the fact that they are Members of Parliament? Are we to treat some hon. Members differently from others? Is there to be a small core of hon. Members who become the lepers of the House because they have to declare their earnings whereas others, who probably earn much more, get away without doing so? I should not have thought that partial discrimination was the way for the Executive to proceed. I hope that the Government will pay heed to that.
If there is to be financial declaration, it should be total and every hon. Member with an outside interest should declare what he or she earns. There should be either a total declaration or no declaration at all, but there cannot be discrimination.
Of course, we know that the situation would be exploited by the media, who would have a field day if we had to make complete disclosure of such information. Hon. Members would be pilloried by the media, locally and nationally.
I see an inexorable move towards the "full-time" Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said that we are all full-time Members of Parliament but those with outside interests work harder than others.
If we are unlucky enough to have a Labour Government after the next election, I anticipate an accelerated move to full-time Members of Parliament with no outside interests, but who are chained to the House, with no further opportunities, and all for about £32,000. There will be great pressure because the public already think that we should receive only half what we get now. The issue will be fudged by the Government of the day, whether Conservative or Labour. Any increase will be small and will not make up for what is lost with the abolition of outside interests.
I am glad that I am in the later stages of my time here. If I were in my 30s or 40s, I should not want to stay after what I have heard here today and elsewhere. The parliamentary climate is deteriorating. My advice to all contemplating a political career is to think very seriously about it because I can envisage a new authoritarian atmosphere which will not be conducive to their making the best of their abilities.
The Opposition may laugh, but the Nolan committee came about because of "sleaze". If we are unlucky enough to have a Labour Government, they will find that they will receive the same media attention and accusations of

545
sleaze will be directed at them. They should not think that they will get away with anything. They will have a very rough time and should bear that in mind.
The most disturbing aspect of the debate is not the personal feelings or individual cases that hon. Members have used to illustrate their speeches, however, but the fact that Parliament's sovereignty is being undermined. I do not accept what has been said today by the two members of the Nolan committee. The sovereignty of Parliament is being undermined, and that was borne out by the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
We are to have a commissioner on standards, or ethics officer, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so neatly put it. He will be a veritable gauleiter with strong powers to make recommendations. It is true that he will report to a sub-committee, but it will be his poodle. It is hard to imagine that it will reject his recommendations which will in fact be decisions. The committee would not dare do so. The commissioner will submit his proposals and they will be accepted.
The Nolan report is bullish and I do not like its tone. I know what Lord Nolan was trying to achieve and that he was dealing with serious problems, but the thrust of the report is authoritarian. It implies that the committee has come to stay as an institution in its own right, to monitor, judge and instruct. If we are not careful, it will be Parliament's over-zealous headmaster and will monitor public life in general. That would be very much against the interests of democracy.
The truth is that, for good or ill, Parliament must police itself. The public decide whether they like us and, if they do not, they throw us out. That process must not be subverted by the frenzied, unscrupulous media or for short-term political gain, the attractions of which are clear and have been illustrated by many speeches from Opposition Members. Parliament is the highest court in the land and cannot be ruled by a High Court judge, however eminent, or by a registrar, however qualified or respectable.
The Nolan report is not holy writ. We do not have to obey its timetable or respond to the demand for early action. A period for consideration is very important. Parliament must safeguard its sovereignty and deal with the situation circumspectly. There should be no rush to judgment.
8.27 pm
Mr. John Garrett: I confess that I am an occasional lecturer and author. In fact, I am the author of a book on the effectiveness of the House and the chapter that deals with this particular issue converted me to the idea that something must be done. It has always seemed to me that Conservative Members in particular should declare their lack of interest as well as their interests. For example, in debates on state education and health, they should make it clear that they use neither.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on setting up the Nolan committee and trust that he will accept its recommendations, with a few exceptions. I find that I agree more with Conservatives than with my hon. Friends about what is wrong with the Nolan report. For example, I think that the Speaker should be the commissioner for standards and that the recommendations should be embodied in law.
546
It is right that the committee should move on to examine the funding of political parties. The Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party say that the giving of personal donations to the Tory party should be confidential and that donors should be guaranteed anonymity. That does not seem unreasonable, so let Nolan tell us about private donors to political parties—their nationality, the amounts that they give and what they appear to receive in return—without revealing their identity. We should then be able to resolve a mystery of the Tory party funding—the gap between total receipts and corporate and other declared donations—but donors would not be exposed. I urge the Government to consider that proposal.
One Nolan recommendation with which I disagree is that the commissioner for standards should be a person of independent standing. It seems ridiculous that we cannot at least put the supervision of parliamentary standards in the hands of the Speaker.
I can see the virtue of having some outside people on the commission for standards rather than on the sub-committee that is proposed by Nolan. However, as one who has long argued for a new and independent role for the Speaker, it seems to me that the holder of that office should chair the commission. That would mean that we would have constant access to the guardian of our standards. Some people say that the Speaker could not cope with that extra burden but there is a simple way round that and I have been advocating it for a long time. It is that the House should have a chief executive. That would remove the managerial responsibilities from the Speaker and the Clerk, and the Speaker would be able to handle the new responsibility.
Hon. Members should declare their incomes from all sources, should be banned from using their capacity as hon. Members to make money, and banned from working for bodies providing parliamentary services and from accepting contracts of employment. What other employer would allow an employee to take a contract of employment with another employer? That does not go anything like as far as the arrangements for American and French legislators.
Conservative Members have said, and I agree, that there has always been a massive amount of hypocrisy about Members' remuneration. The payment of Members of Parliament was reintroduced in 1911 by Lloyd George after a period of some hundreds of years during which they were not paid at all. He described the pay of Members of Parliament as,
"not a remuneration, but a recompense, not a salary but an allowance. The only principle of payment in the public service is that you should make an allowance to a man to enable him to maintain himself confidently and honourably, but not luxuriously, during the time he is rendering service to the State. That is the only principle, and it is the principle on which we have proceeded."
Lloyd George introduced a payment of £400 a year. By that precedent the idea grew up that a Member's pay was an allowance for broken time from a regular job, and for too many it still is. I was in the House when a Conservative Member of Parliament, the director of a famous civil engineering company, said how grateful he was that his company allowed him time off to attend Parliament.
Nowadays the job of an assiduous Member of Parliament is clearly full time. The idea that we collectively benefit from the wisdom of those hon.

547
Members in all parts of the House who spend a significant proportion of their time in the everyday world of the courts and the City is totally false. Some of the efforts by hon. Members to acquire interests are demeaning to us all. There was not only the money-for-questions scam because the House will remember the case of the Conservative Member who advertised for employment in the parliamentary House Magazine, stating:
"it was one way of drawing the nation's attention to the fact that I only had one consultancy and could take on more".
I also object to the provision of research assistants to Members by lobbying or commercial interests. I do not know how widespread that is but Nolan should investigate it. It occurs throughout the House and it is quite wrong. The present office costs allowance is perfectly adequate for the secretarial and research costs of a Back-Bench Member, and Front-Bench Members get Short money.
We need a proper, professional evaluation of the work of a Member of Parliament—a job evaluation. That was carried out very successfully by professional consultants in 1983 but was disregarded by the Government who pegged Members' pay at 89 per cent. of that of a grade 6 civil servant. That is the top end of middle management, a senior Library Clerk in the House or an assistant accountant employed by the Fees Office. The 1983 exercise needs to be carried out again and the most stringent limits placed on outside earnings. In evidence to Nolan, an hon. Member said:
"It is a great honour and a privilege to be an MP but that does not feed, educate or clothe one's wife or husband or children."
He could have fooled me! It was an extraordinarily insensitive remark to make in public when one considers what many of our constituents are paid—those of them who have jobs.
The whole area of Members' work and outside employment is an embarrassment and must be cleared up. The requirements relating to Members' interests should be enshrined in law and not left as an unenforceable code of conduct. We could start with a code of conduct and then put the matter into law.
The relationships of Ministers and civil servants should also be specified by statute. The report in November by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service proposed legislation to govern the employment of civil servants rather than control via the royal prerogative, which is simply government by proclamation. That legislation could cover the civil servant who had to report wrongdoing by a Minister, and the appropriate outside body for that seems to be the Civil Service Commission.
The legislation would also cover Nolan's proposed commissioner for public appointments instead of having appointments to quangos made by the royal prerogative. Select Committees should have the right to examine prospective appointees to top jobs in quangos. We could not cover them all but simply having the right to do that would put fear into everybody else. My party has been as guilty as any other in creating quangos but now quangos are out of hand. When I first came to the House they were advisory bodies but now they are executive bodies. Wales is a well-known example. There are more members of quangos in Wales than there are local councillors, and they spend more. The whole area needs a clean-up with a view to making as many quangos as possible democratically accountable to elected bodies.
548
This is the thin end of a very big wedge. Perhaps it will not happen during my time in the House but I hope that during my lifetime outside interests will be on the way out. There will be a proper, settled payment for being an MP and hon. Members will not be able to have employment that in any way derives from their membership of the House. They will be made to declare their incomes and the idea of outside employment will wither away. Nolan has usefully taken the lid off a can of worms and I hope that the debate will move from sleaze, which taints the House—all of us—and on to major constitutional questions. The report is a useful first step.
8.35 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I shall speak in a personal capacity and not as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I declare the interest that is contained in the Register of Members' Interests. I first got involved with the Committee and the matters that we are debating in 1975. It was the first Committee to be set up to look at the whole question of registration and Members' interests. We have come a long way since then and I am proud of the progress that we have made.
When I became Chairman in 1979, some of the Committee's activities were greatly resented and I had to twist the arms of some hon. Members to get them to register. They felt that they should not register because they were not statutorily required to do so and a resolution was not good enough. That view was shared by Mr. Enoch Powell, at that time a distinguished and highly respected right hon. Member, who refused to register. The trouble was that other people who were incarnations of Enoch Powell tried to do the same. They got short shrift.
I shall not enter into an argument about a statute because a resolution of the House presents no difficulty and I no longer have to twist arms to get people to register. Entering the area of statutes would be like entering a hornet's nest.
Over many years, I have tried to use two principles when helping to guide the Committee. The first was transparency and the second was compliance. Openness has been the golden thread running through our deliberations and those of Nolan. However, the need for people to comply willingly with the regulations has been of paramount importance.
Two thoughts were in my mind when considering compliance. First, the Committee should have regard to the traditions and practices of the House and to the nature of the people who are elected to it. On the whole, those people have a strong sense of dedication and vocation. Secondly, if our regulations do not match the spirit of the place because they are thought to be too intrusive or bureaucratic, they are doomed. Instead of showing willing compliance, Members will not respect the regulations and will attempt to circumvent them.
I am grateful to Lord Nolan and those who served so conscientiously on his committee and who rightly responded to the challenge. I do not agree with all that is in the report, but I can go along with much of it. I am glad that hon. Members are not cut off from the rest of life. That is contrary to Opposition opinion, which probably reflects the true voice of the Labour party. Nolan is right to come down on the side of those who believe that hon. Members should be allowed to have outside

549
interests and that, far from diminishing proceedings of the House, they would enhance the contributions to the collective wisdom of the House.
I am also pleased that the Nolan committee recognises the difference between councillors and Ministers who have executive responsibilities. As Back Benchers, we do not have such responsibilities, and it is an important distinction to make. The report was right to recommend that hon. Members should not be paid for acting on behalf of lobbying companies. I do not say that because I have anything against lobbying. I know that it is an integral part of the democratic process. Indeed, I have benefited very much from the briefing that I have received from lobbying companies from time to time.
In my verbal submission to the Nolan committee, I said that the Select Committee on Members' Interests lacked the powers and the expertise to act as an investigative tribunal and that, in an adjudicating role, it left something to be desired. I had in mind the more serious cases that have come before us and are before us. I therefore welcome the appointment of an independent commissioner for standards, who will report to a Sub-Committee of the existing Privileges Committee, thus retaining the absolute right of Parliament to be the sole judge of a Member's conduct.
I am not sure that we have got it right. The powers that the independent commissioner would be given are too extensive. Indeed, they have been criticised by many hon. Members in this debate. Some have suggested the Speaker for the job. Frankly, I think that our Speaker is busy enough. The powers are certainly too great. I also worry about the cost and about creating a new bureaucracy. Nevertheless, I like the idea of using an independent adviser. Certainly, it will help the Sub-Committee to consider the more serious complaints when Members have to face the somewhat daunting experience of being questioned and cross-examined by their colleagues. It is right that such Members should be allowed to call up advisers to help them when they are questioned. If not, it will increasingly be found to appear to be and act like a kangaroo court.
The commissioner and the new arrangements are supposed to be put in place by the beginning of the new Session in November. I do not want to procrastinate, as I said in one of my interventions, but there is much to be thought out. We are in awful danger of underestimating some of the complications, not in setting up the bureaucracy but in deciding what should and should not be registered and what agreements should and should not be put on the register. I feel bound to say that I am not convinced that the Government would be wise to rush into the matter. Many hurdles on the way must be overcome.
A new commissioner, for example, must have a pretty good working knowledge and understanding of the House and its Members, not least because compiling the new register will impose additional information, some of which is controversial. I have no problem with facing up to the need for greater clarity in the register. We have had a stab at it, goodness know how many times, as members of the Committee. But there is no reason why we should not try again. No one should underestimate the complexity of that task alone. It is not just a question of semantics.
The report picks up consultancies as the greatest cause for public concern and recommends immediate prohibition of Members from dealing with organisations providing
550
"paid Parliamentary services to multiple clients".
In the first instance, the report presumably aims at Members with consultancy agreements with public relations or lobbying firms. That category may not be as easy to define as some people think. How and on what criteria are such consultancies to be distinguished from, say, advertising agencies, financial advisers, management consultants, trade associations or, indeed, legal practices, all of which have clients of their own?
In paragraph 55, Nolan also appears to regard consultancies in general as the category that, more than any other, might be thought to influence a Member's conduct in Parliament. He appears to believe that, therefore, they should be registered with greater transparency to include disclosure of income. Is that necessarily true? Why is a consultancy more likely to be influential than, for example, holding certain kinds of directorships, or continuing to practise a particular profession? In short, one could interpret the report as suggesting that a consultant, say, to a financial services company with many clients, would have to register, but if he were a non-executive director, he would not. I do not mean to be pedantic, but I know from experience that the more grey areas are left, the more difficult it becomes for the registrar or even the new commissioner to implement the House's decisions.
Registering financial agreements between Members and firms that employ them and the level of detail which will have to be addressed should not be regarded as easy, either. There is also the question of trade union sponsorship, which is an area of professional influence. Are those receiving such sponsorship supposed to register along with those who have consultancies? Is it regarded as a fact that such sponsorships influence parties and Members? That of course brings in the whole question of political funding. In that respect, the Nolan committee has strayed beyond its immediate remit.
On the principle of disclosure, the report recommends that the remuneration of financial considerations received by a Member for parliamentary services or by way of sponsorship should be entered into the register, possibly in banded form. We are all familiar with the fact that the Nolan committee asserted that a Member who gets £1,000 a year as a parliamentary adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing the money than one who receives £20,000.1 disagree. To require Members to report into which bands their additional income falls would suggest that the amount of their outside income has some overwhelming significance and influence. It ignores other influences.
All of us know that our constituents are among the big influences in our lives. They know something about us. We do not want them to know anything about, or to appear to do something or do something of which we would be ashamed and which would affect our reputation if they knew about it. Constituents have influence because they have the power to elect us. The local party organisation also has influence; it has the power to de-select. Those are very important influences. The report seems to assume that all Members start from the same financial position—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the time is up.
8.46 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: I shall be very rapid. My interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I have a considerable number of them, as people will see. I thought that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) was referring to me, because 14 non-executive directorships are listed, although nine of those are unremunerated. I am also sponsored by GMB, which pays £600 a year to my constituency.
In his opening speech, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster drew a distinction between aspects affecting Members' interests, which he said had to be decided by the House, aspects affecting Ministers and those that affect quangos. I was glad to hear him say that the Government would be introducing measures that dealt with Ministers and quangos, but I was disappointed that he seemed to accept that it was for Members of the House themselves to bring forward proposals relating to their Nolan recommendations.
For any proposals to come through, there must be a timetable. The will to keep to the timetable recommended by Nolan has been expressed. I would have thought, therefore, that it was the Government's responsibility to find time during which Members were able to debate these issues. Over the past few weeks, the Leader of the House has not seemed to be enormously pressed for time. I hope that time will be found for the issues to be discussed.
Under what format will that happen? Our debate has shown that the issues are complex and that people have different reactions to them. In the A, B and C category time scale for the recommendations on Members, there are three in category A, seven in category B and one in the category C. I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible for the Government, in Government time, to introduce the three measures in category A, so that the House may debate and decide them, and then cover the measures in category B in a number of separate debates. I hope that it will be possible in the time scale that Nolan suggests to discuss his recommendations and the general issues involved in Government time, during which debate Members would be free to table amendments. I realise that that would take some time, but the issue has proved important and I hope that we will be able to make enough progress in the time scale envisaged.
The two major outside interests that I hold are two non-executive chairmanships. I have held one since 1989, and although I took up the other—the chairmanship of Yorkshire Enterprise—only in the last financial year, it was a job I was returning to, having done it for eight years before I became a Member of Parliament. Those jobs were not given to me because I am a Member of Parliament but are related to my earlier work in the west Yorkshire economy. If those organisations wish me to do those jobs, I am happy to be involved directly in those matters, doing public-private sector work in the west Yorkshire economy.
However, there are other demands in one's life that one must satisfy before accepting any other responsibilities. One has to be satisfied that taking a job will not interfere with one's responsibilities to Parliament. We have responsibilities not only to Parliament but to our constituents, and it is enormously important that those responsibilities are completely fulfilled.
552
One also must fulfil one's responsibilities to one's party. The work we do must be consistent with the principles of our party and with what one wishes to stand for. It would be wrong to speak directly in the interests of certain bodies here, but it would be wrong also to be involved in an organisation if it worked inconsistently with the principles for which one spoke in the party and in Parliament.
That is why, although the only roles that I have taken after entering the House were not directly derived from my being here, they are connected with my interests here. One of my jobs is concerned with housing, so I spoke to the then Labour spokesperson on housing to ensure that doing it was consistent, in his view, with my membership of the House and of the parliamentary Labour party.
The other decision that I have had to make is about money. I acknowledge that it is a matter of individual conscience, but I am perfectly happy with the idea that the financial figures are set down. It might be more consistent if, as one or two other hon. Members have suggested, we followed the principle of total disclosure of all earnings from outside sources. I certainly believe that there is value in setting down exactly the total amount of cash each Member gains from each appointment, rather than using a banding system.
It is up to us as individuals to decide what our outside earnings should be used for. I try to ensure that I use the money either for additional office costs, for funding other aspects of my job as a Member of Parliament for which we are not recompensed, or for the benefit of other causes that I wish to support. In my case, those are usually causes associated with or supported by the Labour party. But that is entirely a matter for an individual Member and his own philosophy.
It is important to move forward on the proposals, so I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that time will be found for those that would affect Members to be discussed and decided on by Members. We recognise that these must be decisions of the whole House, and I hope that they can be taken in the time scale that Nolan suggests.
8.54 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I realise that other hon. Members still want to speak, so I shall make my comments brief. I start by making a declaration—that I have not much to declare. I have a little broadcasting and journalism; apart from that, according to the gauge cited by an Opposition Member, who described Members with 16, 17 or 20 consultancies, I must be something of a failure, for I have none. However, having come from industry, I believe that I have some understanding of what is necessary to contribute in the House on what helps that process.
I start by asking: what is this all about? It struck me when the Nolan committee was set up, and I make no bones about repeating it now, that I do not recall ever having voted for the Committee to be set up in the first place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that it was done by prerogative. My views on the position of Parliament mean that I should like to have had some say in deciding what would be set up.
However, the water has gone under that bridge, and now I shall examine what Nolan was all about. The committee was asked to examine the problems caused by

553
a perception of a lack of probity in public life; yet when I read through the results, especially the evidence, I kept coming up against the fact that the committee found that the public perception was far from the facts demonstrating the level of probity in public life—including standards among Members of Parliament, civil servants and Ministers.
The committee was asked to investigate very few cases over that period. Most of them concerned allegations about Members of Parliament, and none could be demonstrated or proven against Ministers or civil servants. The committee made some fairly general statements about that fact, and early in the report the point is made that there is a gap. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) what problem had created the gap between perception and reality. That, more than anything else, is the question that needs answering. The report deals with the reality, yet the perception is otherwise.
I have been in the House only three years, although it has been a pretty interesting three years. I have not had as long as others to see a decline in anything, but in view of the torrid state of affairs over the past three years I wonder what things could have been like for those who have been here for 30 years. I can hardly believe that they can have seen more change than I have.
I shall now mention some of the aspects of the report with which I agree; I shall return to the gap in perception later. As I said in my evidence, I believe that it is legitimate for Members of Parliament to have outside interests. However, I also believe that we require transparency. Our constituents and others should be able to look and see what we do, and when we speak we must make it clear if we have a general interest out there.
I am against any Member making a speech simply because somebody out there has paid him to do so. That is wrong—Nolan makes that clear to some degree—and transparency would put an end to that. I say to the Opposition that I have no objection to Members having direct involvement with trade unions, as it is important that that side of the argument is heard as much as that of commerce and industry. That involvement must, however, be well known.
I would like to know, however, where the mention of lawyers was during this committee process. It now appears that two classes of people are developing who can exist in this place. We may be in serious danger of saying that any involvement with commercial activities or the wealth-creating sector here only infects and taints, while anything to do with the professions somehow uplifts and makes us better; therefore, those involved with the latter are better than those who may be involved with the former.
Another problem is that Nolan seemed to say that if one made money before one came here, that was okay; one could then afford to be a good Member of Parliament, because one could afford the extra costs. If one inherits money, that is also okay. I am worried that a gap is developing between the different types of Members of Parliament, and I gave evidence on that matter.
Although the argument for banning lobbyists may be tremendously persuasive and have much support in the House, I am not certain how we would achieve such a ban. We can ban one thing today, but it would erupt somewhere else under a different guise. A lobby company
554
may be a rogue company which will find some other mechanism. A lobby company that has someone to represent it here should list on the Register of Members' Interests every company that it represents, and that would have a sobering effect.
The draft code of conduct referred to on page 38 of the report says that, although it is accepted that Members should have outside interests, when those interests come up in a Standing Committee of the House the Member must immediately take himself off the Committee. That negates the idea that such outside interests bring anything to the House, and is a strange straddling of two stools.
I find it difficult to agree with the idea of a parliamentary commissioner for standards. I believe absolutely that Parliament should be the ultimate home of discretion for us all, and that our judges should lie within this body. I feel that having a commissioner would be another act of folly, as we would push the jurisdiction of the House outside to some passing judge of no fixed commitment or abode.
As the number of those who transgress is very small, we do not need somebody from outside to act. We want someone from this place, or a group of people, who accept the fact that this is not a party political issue, and that whoever is looked at should be looked at with fairness and with a sense of natural justice. If, however, we are forced to go down the road of having a commissioner, I would say to Madam Speaker that such an appointee must come solely from her office. There is no way that I will vote for somebody from outside this place, who does not know of the pressures and the work of the House, to sit in judgment on Members. I will not accept another judge coming in to declare on us all. Who, more than judges, are more distant from the population whom we serve? We are the elected Members. I would prefer to keep this matter within the House.
The real problem is that we have become careless with democracy. Most of the developments here have resulted in power seeping away from this Chamber, to Whitehall and to Europe or in statutory instruments. For example, when the Nolan report was made public, I was concerned to hear members of the Opposition and the Government pronouncing on what they thought of it. The Government said that they essentially accepted the broad thrust of the report, while Opposition Front Benchers said that the Government had to accept the report in full.
I do not care what Front Benchers from either side of the House thought of the report, because it is to be debated and decided by Members here in this place. It is an indictment of the Executive and the shadow Executive that they immediately think that they can coerce Members into accepting a decision on the report. Members must decide, and it is not for the Executive or the shadow Executive to tell us what to do.
Whatever we decide to implement will be of no worth if the media do not agree to sign up to what we agree. As long as we go on saying that we will publish reports and findings, the media will go on saying that that is not enough. As long we go on saying that we believe in certain aspects of what we do, we will find the media crawling down our backs, saying that we are nothing but a group of sleazy people acting in our own interests. The media must recognise that they have responsibilities in this matter. They are often referred to as the fourth estate, and they have a huge amount of power and influence.

555
They influence people to make laws and regulations and they influence the way in which taxpayers' money is spent.
I urge the Nolan committee now to consider where the media's influences come from: who pays their lunches and bills; who sends them on trips; who coerces them to write articles; and what motivates them. Without some idea of what they do and some recognition that they have a responsibility in this matter, whatever we decide here tonight or on any other day will never be of use to anyone.
9.4 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: I declare that I am a sponsored member of Unison, which entails no personal remuneration but a payment of £600 a year to my constituency in accordance with the Hastings agreement, which is also a published document.
I commend the work of the Nolan committee, particularly the speed with which it has done its work, the clarity with which it has expressed itself, the openness of its deliberations and the fairness with which it has approached its task. I also commend the right hon. Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who sat on the committee, for their speeches tonight, both of which were extremely thought provoking and raised important questions of detail with which the House will have to grapple—I hope, shortly.
I welcome the report and its recommendations. I also welcome the three-year remit that the Prime Minister has given the Nolan committee and the fact that it can return to these issues if the House makes no progress.
I wish to concentrate mainly on the section of the report that deals with Members of Parliament. That means not that I underestimate the importance of the rest of the report but that tonight I wish to concentrate on an area about which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said very little in his opening speech. He properly dealt with the Government's and the Executive's view, but the crux of many of the issues lies within the House and concerns the conduct of hon. Members.
I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Leader of the House will outline the mechanism by which he proposes to make progress on some of those recommendations—the time scale, perhaps—and the Government's view. I recognise that it is a matter for hon. Members to decide, but the Government must have a view and I should like to know what it is.
The Nolan committee was right express concern about
"the very substantial increase in the number of Members of Parliament employed as consultants".
The report identifies the fact that 168 Members share 356 consultancies between them. That is a relatively new matter, which seems to be snowballing with the growth of lobbying firms. We must ensure that the mechanisms that we have in place are modern and efficient enough to deal with changes that occur outside the House. Although we sometimes need to cherish our traditions, we must be ready to change them if the need arises.
I support the proposed ban on multi-client lobbying companies, which was long overdue. The idea of transparency when a company has a multiplicity of clients is
556
almost impossible to achieve and I hope that the House will take immediate action to put that into effect. I also welcome the recommendation that the House should set in hand without delay a broader consideration of the merits of parliamentary consultancies. My instinct, although I wish to listen to the debate, is that they, too, should be banned. I agree with Nolan that we should look at three quid pro quos if there is to be a ban. First, resourcing for Opposition parties should be much better so that they do not have to rely as much on briefings from lobbying companies. That is done in Germany, for example, where the civil service helps to service opposition parties as well as the Government. We need to look at that issue as legislation becomes increasingly complex.
Secondly, we must consider higher remuneration for Members of Parliament, an issue referred to today by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Thirdly, we must consider the wider issue of proper resourcing for this legislature. The Executive spends massive sums; I believe that it spends more on advertising than it costs to run the whole of Parliament. I do not see how we can do our job as a legislature properly, looking after how the Executive runs the country, when we have, as a member of the Privileges Committee pointed out, such tiny resources to do that job.
I also agree with the suggestion that the agreement between anyone who has an arrangement with an outside commercial interest and remuneration received as a result should be disclosed. Most of our constituents would not accept the argument that the size of the payment has anything but a direct bearing on the potential strength of that interest. Our constituents are looking for us to make those declarations.
It may seem a rather odd thing for a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to say, but I whole-heartedly and unreservedly welcome Lord Nolan's recommendation that the Committee should be abolished. I do not say that with any great joy, but I have served on that Committee since I was elected and it has been a tough and unpleasant duty. Many other members of the Committee probably share that feeling. I cannot go into detail about what is going on on that Committee, but it has been wrecked by the Government's decision to appoint a Whip to it. As a result, we are without an effective system of policing the Register of Members' Interests, just at the time when we most need it. The independent element suggested by the Nolan Committee, albeit sublimated by a Sub-Committee of the Privileges Committee, is an ingenious means of trying to deal with the real difficulty that we have come across in the past few months. Those months have been difficult for me and every member of the Committee.
You might be interested to know, Madam Speaker, that you are being touted as the new commissioner for ethics. That is an interesting proposal, but I am also attracted by Lord Nolan's solution. The main thing about which I am concerned is that Parliament should take fast action to implement some of the extremely important Nolan committee recommendations.
The Strauss committee sat in 1969 and produced a relevant recommendation, which was not even debated in the House. That is why it is important that we are seen by the public, who expect us to take action on the Nolan recommendations, to be serious in our approach. We do not have to be sloppy or look like we are panicking, but we must make faster progress than the House is used to

557
making on such issues. We must fight to reach a consensus on how to deal with them seriously. If it all comes down to party politicking, on one side of the House or on the other, we are doomed to failure. We must strive for consensus to make rapid progress.
The report of the Nolan committee gives us the chance to make such progress. It is no longer acceptable for Members to serve in the House but not to take the necessary action for years. Such action would leave festering resentments and some misapprehensions among our constituents to destroy the foundation of our democracy and our legitimacy in this place.
I would welcome an assurance from the Leader of the House that the extremely tight, but good, timetable for the implementation of the recommendations relating to the House and with reference to Members of Parliament, will be adhered to. Lord Nolan wants 21 of the 32 recommendations to be put into effect now and 10 of them to be put into effect by the beginning of the next Session. That will include setting up new committees and some difficult detailed work, which I hope that the Select Committee on Members' Interests will be able to undertake. Lord Nolan asks for just one recommendation to be implemented by next year.
I hope that we will stick to that timetable. I look forward to the Leader of the House offering us a serious plan of how we will proceed now the debate has been held.
9.13 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I remind the House of the interests that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Two absolutely fundamental principles should underlie this debate and one would hope that they are shared across the House. First, we have an absolute fiduciary responsibility to those who sent us here to act in the interests of our constituents and in the public interest. From time to time there may be trade-offs between those two interests and trade-offs between the short-term and the longer-term national interest. We must handle those trade-offs and make honest judgments about them.
But one thing is clear. No other influences—no private interests or partial affections, to use the words that are used here every day at 2.30 pm—should influence our deliberations or decisions in any way. That is an absolute principle. Therefore there should be no ambiguity about the question whether it is proper for outside bodies—to use the evocative phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)—to advise Members of Parliament as to the way in which they should conduct themselves in this place, what questions they should table and what matters they should speak about, let alone the way in which they should vote. For that reason, I was grateful to the Nolan committee for drawing my attention to the recommendations of the Strauss committee. Reading those recommendations on that subject, I wished that they had been accepted when they were made. I hope that they will be.
The other fundamental principle must be that the regulation of the House—establishing proper rules of conduct and enforcing them, when necessary—must be the responsibility of the House alone. It is wrong to suppose that that responsibility can be assumed by the Executive branch of Government. It was shocking that the Leader of
558
the Opposition appeared to consider today that it was a responsibility of the Prime Minister. To slough off our responsibility on to the Executive branch would be a subversion—indeed, a perversion—of the constitutional balance. The Leader of the Opposition's question today gave us a horrifying preview of the attitude that a future Labour Government would take to Parliament and to the constitution.
As it is our responsibility, we must get this issue right and, as has been eloquently said on both sides of the House, we must not act in haste and repent at leisure. We need to use the Nolan report as something of, as it were, a consultant's report—if I am still allowed to use that word in a positive sense in the debate. Any institution, any business, any organisation, may from time to time wish to appoint outside consultants to advise it on the future conduct or course of its business.
The report should form, not the whole agenda, but part of the agenda for a careful examination of these issues by a competent House of Commons committee. That might be the Privileges Committee, the Select Committee on Members' Interests, a merged committee involving both of them, or a new ad hoc committee. We need to consider those matters in considerable detail and on the basis that decisions must be made in the House—they cannot be abdicated to an outside committee or commission, no matter how distinguished a member of the judiciary heads it, or to the Executive.
I have said the most important thing that I wanted to say. Having said that, perhaps I may add some brief comments to the suggestions made by the Nolan committee. The committee has obviously done some thorough work on the subject, and its conclusions need to be treated seriously but, as I have said, that can in no way relieve us of the responsibility for considering the merits of those proposals and considering the issues in the broadest possible way.
First, I have some hesitation about publishing the financial earnings of Members of Parliament derived from activities relating in some way to advice on politics or on Parliament. I suspect that that recommendation is driven more by the media's thirst for prurient information of a personal kind than by any other consideration. The essential thing is that interests should be declared; the amount of remuneration is not especially material.
Secondly, it is difficult to maintain the distinction, suggested in the report, between consultancies, or activities outside the House that have some political or parliamentary aspect, and other outside activities.
When I entered the House, I continued for some time to do my previous job as a director of a merchant bank in the City. In no way was my job changed, except in the time I spent on it. Many of the clients with whom I dealt would not have had the faintest idea that I was a Member of Parliament. If one is sitting at the boardroom table and a fellow board member says, "You are a politician, you must have some idea about Government policy on this matter or on that Bill which is due to come before Parliament", one cannot say, "I am afraid that part of my contract makes it illegal for you to ask me that question". I think that it will be extremely difficult to maintain this distinction, and I hope that the Committee of the House which examines the matters in detail will consider that point very carefully.

559
Finally, I am particularly concerned about the recommendations on the composition of Standing Committees. I must declare an immediate interest as I have been delighted to serve for a number of years on the Finance Bill Committee. If the Nolan proposals were adopted, I—with my City background and other interests—would presumably be excluded from serving on that Committee, as would accountants, tax lawyers and others with a professional background in finance. We would be excluded from contributing to that legislation.
I can only assume that the recommendation was made by a committee whose members have never bothered to pick up a Finance Bill. If they had, they would realise that only a very specialised category of the human race is likely to take an intelligent interest in a matter that is so dry and so technical. If we were prevented from contributing to debates about subjects of which we have professional knowledge, we would be a great deal less useful to the public whom we are here to serve.
9.20 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I have two interests to declare which appear in the Register of Members' Interests: I travelled to Dublin as a guest of the Irish Government and I visited Malta as a guest of the Maltese Government. Anyone who knows me will know that I am not in either Government's pocket.
I wish to raise a matter which has not been discussed in the debate today, although it was alluded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). There is a serious argument that hon. Members should be full-time Members of Parliament with no paid outside interests. That would alleviate the problem of outside influence and pressure from commercial and professional bodies. A majority of the public sent that message to the Nolan committee, but only one Member of Parliament—me—put that view to the committee.
Time is short, as the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to sum up the debate. I therefore simply refer hon. Members to the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee. The case for having full-time Members is a solid one, and four main arguments have been produced against the counter-view which appears in the Nolan report. They suggest that the committee is wrong to reject the notion that Members of Parliament should not accept employment outside the House. I think that we should have full-time Members of Parliament in a modern democracy.
9.22 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has had an opportunity to refer to the question of full-time Members of Parliament. He was able to speak for only a few minutes, but he raised an issue to which no one has alluded in the entire debate. There was a time when I might have agreed with my hon. Friend and I discussed the issue when I gave evidence to the Nolan committee. It is certainly worthy of debate and it should not be dismissed out of hand. There is a case to be made for having full-time Members of Parliament and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had a chance to put it on the record.
560
I attended six or seven of the morning sittings of the Nolan committee and I listened to the evidence of about 18 witnesses. Having listened to the questions, it did not take long to work out which way the committee would jump. In many ways, therefore, its recommendations did not come as a complete surprise. It was similar to Select Committee proceedings, where one can work out how Committee members are thinking from the questions that they ask.
I only wish that the Chancellor of the Duchy had attended more often, instead of coming along only to the session at which he gave evidence. It would have been useful for him to listen to the questions asked by the committee and the answers given by the witnesses. Had he done so, he would not have made the speech that he gave today. I wish, too, that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—the Father of the House—had sat and listened to the evidence sessions of the Nolan committee. Clearly, he does not even understand the present rules governing the Register of Members' Interests. I respect and admire the right hon. Gentleman, but he trivialised the beginning of today's debate with arguments about the price of a bottle of port, which was ludicrous and demeaning on the part of a former Prime Minister.
I refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Like some of my hon. Friends, I was on the receiving end of questions from the right hon. Gentleman when we gave evidence to the Nolan committee, and I learned a good deal from his questioning. I was advancing proposals for a much more rigorous register than the current or the proposed one, but I too was searching for something that was practical and acceptable to the House. It is no good going for the extreme view; the House would not stand for it. Nor can we carve up a solution between Front Benchers—nobody would want that. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater did a first-class selling job for the work of the Nolan committee. Towards the end of his speech he said, tellingly, that the House cannot walk away from this issue. That is a crucial point. We walk away from it at our peril.
This has not been a partisan debate. It is only natural, as the Government have been in power for 16 years, that there should be more Conservative Members with consultancies and hence more Conservative Members who feel aggrieved and under threat. They should not feel threatened by the Nolan report's recommendations. The House can take a sensible view and then implement it quickly. Taken together, the changes proposed are sensible.
This is probably the most important constitutional change since I entered the House 21 years ago. It may even be the most important since the granting of the universal franchise. We in this House expect our fellow citizens to obey laws whether they agree with them or not; yet for several years the House, while expecting Members to obey its resolutions, has crucially failed on occasion to take action when its rules have been disobeyed. We all know of such cases. By and large, we have proved ourselves incapable of putting our own house in order. That is the ultimate proof that self-regulation can be self-delusion.
The public are anxious about Members of Parliament in general, even though they support us in our constituencies. We cannot escape the fact that 64 per cent. of people believe that we are on the make, even though

561
that is not true. Certainly I would not claim that it was true. This view that the public have has arisen out of isolated incidents, and that is the problem that we all have to face. I can think of no other reason for the public perception than the fact that there has been the odd case of impropriety in recent years.
This view has arisen not just because there is now more openness about our proceedings, which are carried on the wireless and on television. There must be another reason, and it is the fact that we have neglected the fundamentals. While we insist on knowing all the details of legislation and on poring over every dot and comma, while we pass—too many—laws to restrict and instruct our fellow citizens, as a Parliament and as the supposed grand inquisitor of the nation we have continued to live with old-fashioned procedures and modern myths. One of those myths is the idea that ours is the oldest and most democratic Parliament in the world. People repeat that ad nauseam, but although we may once have been the mother of Parliaments, the world has changed since then and we have failed to change with it.
It was said earlier that we are the highest court in the land, so we should be left alone. I would argue that we are the highest court in the land, but we should not be a law unto ourselves because we are the law makers. That is the distinction that I draw. I do not understand why some hon. Members find the House under threat if we look for something other than complete self-regulation.
Time is short, but I shall refer to paragraphs 57 to 59 in the report. They are to be found on page 31. It is not easy to find one's way through the report because the paragraph numbers start differently at each chapter. Paragraph 57 reads:
"We are well aware that some will consider that we are over-reacting to a few isolated cases … Others will feel we should have gone further, and moved immediately".
Paragraph 58 states:
"It is clear that, while some cases have been so bad as to require direct action even under the existing rules, there are problems of principle and practice over the separation of public and private interests, which damage the standing of Parliament. Neither we nor the media have invented the problems."
That is the reality. The Nolan committee did not invent the problems, and the media did not invent them either.
Paragraph 58 continues to remind us that
"the 1969 Strauss report was shelved without debate".
I remind the House that the 1976 Salmon royal commission was shelved without a debate. The introduction of the Register of Members' Interests was resisted until the Poulson scandal forced the hand of the then Labour Government of 1974. It has taken 20 years since then to get the register fully operational, even though we may criticise it now. We know that in recent years some senior Members have refused to comply with the register.
Paragraph 58 adds:
"The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern."
Paragraph 59 reads:
"On the other hand we do not believe that the position is so grave that it has to be addressed outside the framework of the House's own rules."
That is my point. I do not think that we are going outside those rules. It is true, of course, that there must be checks and balances.
562
The original discussion paper of the Nolan committee, entitled "Issues and Questions", led it to be concerned about parliamentary sovereignty. As I said in my evidence to the Nolan committee, I do not want to be misunderstood by anybody. I am honoured to be a Member of this place and to represent the area where I was born and raised, but I do not accept that Parliament should be sovereign over all matters. I am for a written constitution and reform. In a unitary state, political power should be divided and should not reside in one institution, however old and democratic it may be. There should be written codes agreed and enforced by the House and written laws agreed and enforced by the courts, and both should apply to Members.
I was pleased to read in the Nolan report that the committee had taken up the point that the Salmon commission raised in 1976, which is that there appears—there is a dispute about this—to be a gap in statute law, with the result that the bribery, or attempted bribery, of a Member in his or her parliamentary capacity is outside that law. We were asked to take up the matter in 1976 but we never debated the Salmon report. That was a scandal. I raised the issue as a Back-Bench Member when the Labour Government were in office. I raised it again when there was a change of Government in 1979. The issue has remained with us for 20 years and I hope that the Government will now take it on board. The Nolan report asks us to review the matter.
We seek to retain power at the centre of government, in what is still one of the most secretive government systems. As a result, defects in our system have not been taken up. Instead, they have built up in the absence of a relief valve. The pressure has increased. The defects have become worse and worse over the years.
Last Friday, The Daily Telegraph reported:
"a moment of panic following a spat of minor scandals involving Tory backbenchers and Ministers last year, causing the Prime Minister to establish the Nolan Committee."
My argument is that we have not examined these issues for years, with the result that "minor scandals" have caused a blunderbuss of a commission to be established. I believe that standards have been falling for years and the time is long overdue for them to be reconsidered.
The Nolan inquiry has done an excellent job. I shall not argue about whether the report goes far enough. The report is a package. It has been assembled by a committee of people who have experience of public life both inside and outside the House. They have submitted unanimous recommendations for us to take account of and act upon for the good of the public. We would be crazy to dismiss their recommendations or try to put them into a siding.
The report has shown that in respect of the civil service and the quango state there has been something wrong in the conduct of public affairs. The committee has done civil servants a real service. I have read the report from cover to cover. Civil servants can work more easily and have a greater comfort factor in the way in which they carry out their functions if all the Nolan report's recommendations are implemented, along with, of course, the changes introduced by the Government. I accept that they are taken in tandem, but that is a great bonus for our civil servants.
Our argument, as The Times said on Friday, is that the regulation that we are being asked to accept as Members of the House is minimal. The Times described it as a "light touch", although one would not think so from some of the

563
extreme language, based on old-fashioned myths, suggesting that somehow 700 years of parliamentary sovereignty is under attack. That myth is peddled by those who seek to mislead people outside the House about the powers of the House and the nature of British society.
Even so, I accept that this is the first outside interference in hundreds of years in the conduct of the House, but in a very narrow area. However, the changes do not interfere with our prime functions. First, they do not interfere with our ability to represent our constituents in the House. Secondly, they do not interfere with our ability to hold the Government and the Executive to account. Thirdly, they do not interfere with our ability to be the forum of the nation where ideas good, bad and tasteless can be tossed around this cockpit of debate. Nolan interferes with none of that in any way, shape or form, so I cannot see why extreme language describing the House as being under attack is being used.
Acceptance of the Nolan recommendations means, as I told the inquiry, that Parliament ceases to be the absolute arbiter of the public interest boundaries. We have no right, as 651 elected citizens on behalf of our fellow citizens, to be the sole arbiter of the public interest boundaries in every walk of life in Britain. It is not on, it is unacceptable and we are not qualified, even by election, to carry out that function. We have to share that and it has to be shared between ourselves and other interest bodies in society.
Society has become more complex and technical. It is as though over the years the House has not wanted to know about that or be part of it. That is one reason why, over the years, the House has ceded so much power to Whitehall over the decades—it can deal with the technicalities, so do not bother us with that kind of change in society. That has been partly caused by the make-up of the House not being full of people like myself—qualified engineers. Therefore, we should embrace change and do so quickly. We should agree the detailed changes to the Standing Orders and related matters well before the House rises for the summer recess.
One change that we must make, which I do not think is mentioned specifically in the Nolan report but which is crucial in view of its recommendations about the Privileges Committee, is that that Privileges Committee must be given the power to sit during a recess. It is unbelievable that, as far as I am aware, it is the only Select Committee that has no authority to sit when the House is not sitting. The delay that the two Members in the recent cash for questions affair suffered was one reason why they felt an injustice. The matter was raised last June or July, but it was Easter before the House dealt with it. Why? Because for all the weeks that the House does not sit, the Committee of Privileges was not doing any work because it had no power or authority from the House to do so. That must be corrected forthwith. It could be corrected by a motion tabled by the Leader of the House next week. It is crazy not to make that change in the new situation.
Mr. Sheldon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rooker: No, I am sorry; I apologise, but I shall be taking time from the Minister.
Mr. Sheldon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rooker: Yes, briefly.
Mr. Sheldon: Please, will my hon. Friend include the Public Accounts Committee, which also does not have the power to sit when the House is not sitting?
Mr. Rooker: As it is the only Select Committee on which I have ever served in 21 years, yes. I learned more about the machinery of Government in my two years on that Committee than I have in a decade or more on the Opposition Front Bench. Yes, of course that must be the case.
I also believe that the House should regularly review the changes that we institute. We should begin ourselves to think about the implications of the changes for current and future Members. We should not have to wait for someone else to do that. We can think ahead and see the implications of the changes, because that will be important to the way in which we do our work.
I hope that Ministers will not fall over when I say that I do not put all the blame on the Government. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have experience of sitting on both sides of the Chamber. We are a transient group of Members, holding our places on trust on behalf of the people, and no one, from the highest to the lowest, has anything to gain by seeking to make cheap, narrow and partisan points in relation to the changes that we debate, the changes that we propose to introduce and the changes that I hope we shall introduce following Nolan. Nothing is to be gained from such behaviour; we would merely further demean ourselves in the eyes of the public and raise the percentage of those who think we are on the make from 64 to 74 per cent.
The evidence from Nolan is that the public have seen through us and that they do not like what they see. The conduct of policy and the conduct of politics must change and be seen to change. Failure on our part will have the consequence of tearing at the fabric of society. That is a measure of the esteem in which we are held. If we do not do these things, people outside, will be torn asunder. They may not think much of us, but they will think a lot less of us if we do not deal with the changes.
The current membership of the House must be able, with honesty, rightly to claim that we left the political process in better health than we found it. We can start by implementing Lord Nolan's recommendation.
9.40 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): When proposing this debate a week ago, I had envisaged and intended that it would provide the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate. I am not sure that I had anticipated it ranging quite as wide as occurred in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It went well beyond some of the matters that were covered by the Nolan committee, but it was entertaining for all that, and it would have given many people, apart from myself, pause for thought. I can say only that it is clear that he is a well-qualified engineer.
I especially agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about enabling the Privileges Committee not to get into the position that it was in during the last summer recess. I hope that I carry with me at least one its members who

565
I can see in my sights. There are, however, obvious difficulties, which we should not ignore, about getting together during the summer recess a body that consists of 17 people. There is no magic answer, but the hon. Gentleman's point needs and deserves further consideration.
Mr. Sheldon: The Public Accounts Committee as well.
Mr. Newton: If that is a bid for further action from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, having said what I have just said about the Privileges Committee, it would be ungracious of me not to undertake to consider any proposal that he might make.
Following today's debate, one thing that I am clear about is that it was right for the debate to take place as soon as possible after the Nolan committee report was published a week ago. It was also right to have an opportunity to gauge reaction, as we have had this afternoon and evening, before making firm decisions about how to proceed. My speech will seek to reflect the spirit in which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part in the debate.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matters that we have been discussing are extremely complex? We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, but many hon. Members have not been able to take part. Does he agree that there has not been sufficient and full consideration by the House of all the matters before us, and that it would be sensible to set up a committee of the House, or to charge the Select Committee on Members' Interests or the Privileges Committees with considering the matter in detail, taking what evidence they think is relevant and returning to the House with considered recommendations?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is anticipating a point that I wish to come to later in relation to how we might proceed from here. I shall return to it later.
There is no point in disguising the fact that, during the debate, many different points and perspectives have emerged. To a significant degree, however, I am encouraged by what I take to be the three strands of fairly general—I certainly cannot say universal—agreement that have emerged. The first point would certainly not have universal agreement as a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) have suggested putting everything in statute, which would go well beyond the Nolan committee's suggestion.
Apart from that, there has been a general welcome for and endorsement of the importance of self-regulation in the House. It has, perhaps, not been fully recognised today that that is persistently stressed in the Nolan report. Paragraph 1 of its conclusions, for instance, places heavy emphasis on the importance of self-regulation and the committee's wish for it to continue. It states:
"Those standards have always been self-imposed and self-regulated because Parliament is our supreme institution."
That is an important recognition of both the position and the reasons.
Other parts of the report make, in effect, the same point. Paragraph 59 states:
566
"we do not believe that the position is so grave that it has to be addressed outside the framework of the House's own rules."
Paragraph 89 strongly recommends that the House should draw up a code of conduct setting out the broad principles that should govern the conduct of Members.
Paragraph 92 makes an important point, and I shall quote it in full:
"One of the consequences of privilege is therefore that the House of Commons regulates the activities of its Members itself. Where Parliamentary business is concerned, they are answerable to the House and not to the Courts. Because Parliamentary privilege is important for reasons entirely unconnected with the standards of conduct of individual Members of Parliament, we believe that it would be highly desirable for self-regulation to continue."
I believe that that view is widely, and rightly, shared in the House.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between regulating the procedures of the House and imposing—by means of a motion in the House—a particular and new condition on all persons who wish to become Members of Parliament? For instance, it would have been wrong, would it not, for the House of Commons to say that no Member of Parliament could be a clergyman in the Church of England. That, rightly, is decided by statute.
Surely, when we reach the stage of regulating through the registration of Members' interests—which changes all the terms and conditions of employment—the nation will have an interest in the matter. We are not doing this just for ourselves, as a private club; it must surely be done by the House of Commons—by the legislature, acting on behalf of the whole nation.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend links two slightly different points, on which I want to make different comments. First, it has historically been the case for centuries that the House has had rules governing the procedures and conduct of its Members, in various forms. We should think very hard before moving away from that position, especially in the light of the comments made in the report. Secondly—I might have said this to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had I had a little more time—there is a clear distinction between putting into law, as the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 does, a list of offices held that disqualify, and what would come much closer to a list of criteria needing to be interpreted and considered by the courts before it could be decided what was and was not in order. I hope that I have made my concern reasonably clear without labouring it too much, because I must now make progress.
My second encouraging conclusion is that there is a general acceptance of a need for change, in the direction—I choose my words carefully—of the report's recommendations. Substantial reservations are expressed about particular proposals, and considerable emphasis is placed on the need for clarification; but few would argue for no action at all. There has been much echoing of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) today, and one phrase that has been quoted more than once since he spoke is, "We cannot walk away from it."
Thirdly, the debate has pointed to a whole range of questions arising from the report's recommendations which have to be addressed and answered before specific resolutions in a clear and workable form can be put to the House for debate and decision.

567
I took that to be fairly clearly recognised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in a reference that he made to discussing the detail on resolutions. That was echoed in a number of speeches right through the debate, not least in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the importance of which should be recognised, given the experience which my hon. Friend has had as Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He struck a cautionary note about the difficulties of dealing with some of these matters and the need to take care in proceeding with them.
Perhaps that was inevitable because, although tribute has been rightly paid to the Nolan committee for having produced this very substantial report in the short space of six months, it was inevitably unable to address some of the definitional difficulties such as the distinction referred to by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney between advocacy and the giving of advice. It could not address some of those questions as fully as it might have wished had it had more time and as fully as some of them would need to be addressed if we were talking about devising specific resolutions to put before the House. There are a number of such points that I could make.
I would say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that some of the concerns expressed about the need to refine the detail more than was possible for those devising the report, whatever we may think the points of detail are, are not something that can be simply dismissed or waved away. I emphasise that an important part of the thrust of the report is its criticism of the lack of clarity in our existing rules and procedures. We would be doing no service to anyone inside or outside the House by rushing ahead to replace the current set of uncertainties and grey areas with a new set because we have failed to think the problems and difficulties through.
A key question, and again this is a phrase that has echoed through the debate, is to decide how best the work can be carried forward with proper care but without undesirable delay. As many hon. Members have said, we have to get it right.
Before I come back to offer a tentative answer to that question, it might be sensible to say something briefly about the categories of recommendation made in the report: category A, those for implementation with the minimum of delay; and category B, those which, in the committee's view, could be implemented or on which significant progress could be made by the end of the year. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) rather exaggerated the extent to which the report assumes that everything can be done between now and the end of the year. There is specifically a saving clause in that recommendation. Finally, there is category C, which deals with the longer term.
There is only one recommendation in category C, which, uniquely in this part of the report, is directed to the Government rather than the House. It is that the Government should take steps to clarify the law relating to bribery of, or receipt of a bribe by, a Member of Parliament. Given that that recommendation is directed to the Government, it is something that will be considered
568
in the context of the Government response to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred earlier.
I will therefore focus principally on the recommendations categorised as A and B. For the category A recommendations—the shortest-term ones—there does not appear to be any great problem. The first is a proposition that Members of Parliament should remain free to have paid employment unrelated to their role as Members of Parliament. It clearly requires no further action. That has been implicitly accepted in the course of the debate.
The second recommendation in category A is that the House should restate the 1947 resolution, which I will not rehearse. That plainly presents no great difficulty because it is there already and we would be doing no more than reminding people of it. If that is felt to be appropriate, clearly it can be considered.
The fourth category A recommendation is the setting in hand of a broader consideration of the merits of parliamentary consultancies generally, taking account—I think that is the phrase—of the financial and political funding implications of change. That, again, seems to be reasonably straightforward, which is not to say that the consideration itself would be straightforward, and would seem to point either to referring the matter to one of our existing Committees or, as I am inclined to think may be preferable, to establish one specifically for that purpose.
Before deciding precisely what is right in that respect, it is necessary to spend a moment considering how to proceed with the bulk of the recommendations, which are those falling in category B and which have been the principal focus of most of today's contributions. One possibility would be for me to suggest resolutions following discussion in the usual channels, but my doubts about that have been reinforced by some comments made today. I have grave doubts about whether the House would think that process appropriate or right.
Some understandable suspicion has been expressed, articulated perhaps most clearly, but not only, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), about an attempted diktat by members of the Government Front Bench or of proposals based on a deal between members of the two Front Benches. I am inclined to think—this picks up a comment made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—that the appropriate course is to operate according to the House's normal procedure in such circumstances, which is to ask a group of senior and respected Members of Parliament to make recommendations on how we should proceed in the light of the report and to make specific proposals for resolutions that might be put to the House having considered some, many or all of the points raised in today's debate.
That would be more consistent not only with the House's usual practice but with the report itself which, as the two members of the Nolan committee recognised today, has to a significant extent provided a basis for consideration of action by the House. A phrase that they both used but that I do not think was mine was that the committee had in some respects passed the buck to the House. That implies that we now need a proper House mechanism for considering how to proceed.
Mr. Benn: Will it be contemplated that such a committee could meet in public so that the flow of

569
argument could be better understood? There are no grounds for it meeting in private when the arguments are what would be interesting.
Mr. Newton: That is no doubt something that could be considered and might be appropriate for the committee, were it to be established. My approach in my curtailed response is that I am not seeking to make snap decisions about matters that should be the subject of wide consultation.
In response to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I must say that I believe that the approach that I have sketched might well be more, rather than less, likely to achieve the pace of progress towards decisions that many of us desire. As has been said repeatedly today, most forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the devil is in the detail. Frankly, if we attempt to have debates on principle, they will inescapably be debates in which people will say that they do not want to make decisions until they have a clearer idea of shape and detail. Decisions in principle will not mean very much without detail. Only when the detail has been worked out can practical changes occur. In my view, the sooner we get on with it, the better.
If it were felt right to proceed in that way, the question would be whether an existing committee or a new one established for the purpose would be the right course. The latter would probably be preferable, not least for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Regardless of whatever else might be said about their difficulties, the existing committees—the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests—already have other work on their plate which the House would not like to see pushed to one side.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that the remit of the committee should be to consider Lord Nolan's proposals or to work out how to implement them?
Mr. Newton: I would want to embrace both thoughts. Questions that have been raised today about the specific proposals have to be dealt with before one can say that the only purpose of the committee is to implement them exactly as they stand. That is particularly true with regard to some of the points made about the commissioner for standards. If the hon. Lady is going to suggest that that is an attempt to delay or avoid acting on the proposals in the report, I should have to resist that suggestion. However, the work needs to be carefully and thoroughly done before specific proposals are put to the House.
I believe that such an approach would give the best chance of proceeding in a way that the House would wish. That embraces something that I had not entirely expected to hear from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), which was the powerful demand for consensus, something that I have not always sensed in her contributions to our proceedings. I strongly believe, and I hope that everything that I have said in the debate—apart from anything that I have said in my previous years as Leader of the House—has shown that I have no doubt whatever that this place and its rules work best when we move forward in a careful and considered way and seek to achieve the maximum consensus. That is the basis on which I hope we can proceed in this instance.
As everyone reflects on the debate and if that approach finds favour, I propose to undertake early consultation in appropriate ways—and I do not mean just through the usual channels—with a view to presenting a specific proposal to the House.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Schools (North Warwickshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
10 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Warwickshire's schools are in crisis. Parents in my constituency are rightly angry at the damage being done to the education of their children by the Government's financial settlement on local authorities. The Secretary of State for Education has described the local authority settlement as tough. That is right. It is tough on children and on the education opportunities that will be given to them. Children have only one chance of a decent education and it is morally wrong to sacrifice it on the altar of storing up a money chest for pre-election tax cuts.
A couple of months ago a march in London showed just how angry the people of Warwickshire are about education cuts. Parents of all political persuasions and of none joined to protest against the cuts, and many of them came from my constituency. It was an angry shout from middle England, which the Government will ignore at their peril.
As I said, those parents were of all political persuasions—and they included people who had been Conservatives. In Warwickshire opposition to Government policy on the funding of schools is not a party political issue: it unites all the parties and the people against the Government. None of the usual Government excuses applies to Warwickshire. The county is a prudent authority with an excellent auditor's report on administration. Yes, it was poll tax-capped twice some years ago, but at that time it was under Tory control. Whether under Conservative or the present Labour control, the councillors and Warwickshire Members have united in saying that the county is broadly well run, and that the Government's calculation of the standard spending assessment and of capping is unfair, unjustifiable and damaging to children's education.
I shall give some examples from north Warwickshire of the impact of education cuts. St. Edward's primary school in Coleshill will have 205 pupils in September, an increase of 25, and a cut in staffing. Mrs. Gill Owen, an excellent head teacher who tries to run a high-quality school, told me today that she will have to cope with a mixed-ability class of 39, two classes of 36 and three of more than 30. The school repair budget is overstretched and its buildings are dilapidated.
Governors are so angry that they have set a deficit needs budget, as up to 20 schools in the county have done. Although I do not approve of deficit budgets, the anger of all the governors is shown by the fact that the chairman of governors describes himself as previously a lifelong Tory voter. A Conservative councillor who is a governor also voted for the deficit budget. The governors did that because they were angry. The capitation fee for pupils, for example, for books and equipment was already too low at £30, but next year it will fall to £10. Those governors believed that education standards were threatened at the school and they wanted to protest. I do not justify those governors, who regarded themselves as Conservatives, breaking the law, but cannot the Minister understand why they did?
In Bedworth, at Nicholas Chamberlain secondary school, 13 teacher posts are to go. Kevin Scott, the excellent new head teacher, said today that he had the
572
problem of a £280,000 deficit on his £2.4 million budget. Class sizes will rise, pupils will have fewer subject choices and practical classes will exceed 25 pupils—in classrooms that were not designed for practical classes of that size. He fears significant health and safety dangers. There will be fewer books, building maintenance will be cut—the school library has already closed—and information technology provision will deteriorate further.
The school expects to have a deficit carry-over from this year of £30,000 due to the underfunding of last year's teachers pay award. This year, the county cannot fund the pay award, which will put another £50,000 on the schools budget. SSA cuts will amount to £70,000. All that means that there will be no extra income, for example, to cover teachers who go sick. Colleagues will have to cover for the sick, adding to already heavily stressed teaching loads. That will also unnecessarily endanger the standard of education.
The Office for Standards in Education has told the school that, as a result of local management of schools, it must now fill an administrative post that it deliberately left vacant from April last year to save money. Governors are dealing with the obvious anger of teachers who will lose jobs, while Ofsted says that administrative assistance is needed because of LMS budgets. I could list the problems at school after school in my constituency. Polesworth high school is losing £112,000 and is gaining an extra 62 pupils. Coleshill high school has a substantial budget shortfall, too.
The list could go on. It is significant, however, that no one blames the local county council. Everyone knows that the Government's SSA education criteria are £10 million below what the schools really need. How in all conscience can the Government justify what they are doing to Warwickshire schoolchildren? Even local Conservative councillors will not justify it.
I repeat: none of the usual Government excuses for cuts in Warwickshire applies. Is there too much administration? There is not in Warwickshire. The auditors say that there is not. The council spends 73.1 per cent. of the English county average on administration. It has already sliced £1.6 million off budgets in recent years. Not even the Conservative leader on the county council believes that any more can be cut without significantly endangering financial prudence in administration.
Should Warwickshire remove surplus places? The Secretary of State has already praised Warwickshire for its planning, to which I shall return. Should it remove discretionary elements in the budget? Warwickshire has not been awarding discretionary grants for years. The youth service has been decimated. Only nursery education funding is maintained. If the Minister really wants nurseries to close, he must say so clearly and explain how that fits in with the Prime Minister's promises on nursery education.
Should school balances be used? In Warwickshire, that is not really a practical option. Many schools threatened with cuts have no balances. Half of them could not meet the cuts imposed from their balances anyway and others are already eating into provision for repairs and emergencies. The larger balances are concentrated in a minority of schools and not in the schools most directly threatened by the cuts. Should Warwickshire cut management perks in administration? The Audit Commission says that many management perks, as they might be called, are already in the lower quartile.

573
In December, an Education Minister—not the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who is on the Front Bench—said that, in September, Warwickshire had appointed an extra 500 staff. I remember it well, because the chairman of the education committee was in the Strangers Gallery. I looked up at him and he waved his arms and could not imagine how that could possibly be. When he checked the figures that the other Minister had used, he found that they were the figures for the one-year contracts that had been granted and for the provision of ancillary staff. Moreover, they were September to December figures, which always show an increase simply because people are moving from one post to another.
That incident did not show that Warwickshire had taken on 500 extra staff; that simply was not true. It showed that Ministers used that argument because there was such a paucity of genuine argument to justify and defend their actions.
Warwickshire needs three things. First, the Government should lift the cap. It is not only Opposition Members who say that; it has been said by Conservative Members, too. If the cap were lifted, local people could decide how much they wanted their councillors to impose in council tax. I hope that they would decide that they wanted sufficient tax to fund their schools properly.
We also want fair treatment for Warwickshire in the standard spending assessment. That is not fair at the moment, and has not been fair for a long time. The Government must accept that. The reason is clear, and the Minister can check it with Conservative councillors in the county. No doubt they will agree with me.
Way back at the beginning of the poll tax, the Conservatives who then controlled the county decided to implement the promises on which they had been elected and cut spending in Warwickshire. And for the first year of the poll tax that is what they did. The following year, the Government used the expenditure for that previous year as the base for setting the SSA and capping. Everyone in Warwickshire agrees that, as a result, the county has been unfairly treated since then, and expenditure has been ratcheted down in an entirely wrong way. As a result, damage is being inflicted on the children of the county.
We have also asked the Government to raise the education disregard to cover the costs of reorganisation. I therefore ask the Minister to consider those three things: lift the cap; give the county fair treatment over its SSA; and raise the education disregard to cover the cost of reorganisation.
There is one important thing to say about education reorganisation. The Secretary of State has been telling councils across the country to remove surplus places. But I warn other councils to expect more than a simple refusal to lift the education disregard to fund the reorganisation that will remove surplus places. In Warwickshire's case, that reorganisation has been jeopardised by the Government's delay in making a decision on the second tranche of the changes.
The chief education officer tells me that the county is on the brink of being forced to pull the plug on the reorganisation because of Government prevarication. The delay is bringing us the prospect of chaos. Building contracts need to be made and new teaching posts sorted out. Will the Minister tell me when the decision will be made? Or will he confirm that his Department has legal problems as a result of the decision by Mr. Justice Sedley
574
in the High Court on 12 April in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for Education ex parte Skitt? The Government had bungled the closure for Beacon school in Walsall by accepting advice from inspectors of schools on which parents had no opportunity to comment. Have they done the same with the Warwickshire reorganisation? Is that the reason for the delay?
Partly through incompetence and partly through a failure to listen not only to the Opposition but to Conservative Members who speak for Warwickshire, the Department for Education is now imposing damage upon Warwickshire children that cannot be justified. I exclude mendacity, because I absolve the Ministers at the Department for Education of that—although I have my doubts about Ministers at the Treasury and at the Department of the Environment. Will the Minister now act to lift the cap for Warwickshire? Will he reform the SSA, or at least adjust the education disregard?
I ask not just on behalf of my constituents, but on behalf of those who have the most to lose from the Government's shambles—the children in Warwickshire schools.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) to discuss education in the county of Warwickshire. While the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree with every one of his comments, I welcome the way in which he raised the issue.
The hon. Gentleman started by expressing particular concern about the level of resources made available by the Government for education this year. Let me make clear from the start that, so far as education expenditure is concerned, Warwickshire county council—like every other local authority—is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its priorities between and within services. It is the council which has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much is spent on other services. It is also the council which determines, by its local management of schools scheme, exactly how much local schools receive.
It has been said by some—although not by the hon. Gentleman—that Warwickshire has been forced to cut its education budget by 3 per cent. in the current financial year. There is no reason why this should happen. The Government have provided for Warwickshire's education standard spending assessment to increase by 1.2 per cent. this year, and under the capping rules it can spend 0.5 per cent. more in 1995–1996 than it did in 1994–95. In total, Warwickshire is able to spend over £273 million on all services this year.
What does the talk about "cuts" actually mean? The county council is certainly not cutting what it is actually spending, although, most importantly it has decided to spend less of its total budget on education. Warwickshire has drawn up a shopping list of additional spending—it is not alone in that respect—and is then cutting back on what it would ideally like to spend if it could buy all the items on that list. Everyone in the public sector and in business faces the same problem, and the solution of course is to become more efficient. To say or imply that there must be full cover for all wage and price increases is to say that there is no scope for efficiency gains, which must be untrue.

575
It is not unreasonable for Ministers to expect authorities to help fund education by becoming more efficient. Authorities continue to spend vast amounts of money on running their education departments. A recent Audit Commission report found scope for saving over £500 million on the pay bill of local authorities' administrative and clerical staff. In addition, a previous report by the commission found that there was scope for saving over £30 million by rationalising special schools.
It is also not unreasonable for the Government to expect schools to use some of their balances to help offset the cost of providing education. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about all schools not having available balances, and I hope that he accepts that some do. No information on individual school balances at the end of 1994–1995 is yet available, but at the end of 1993–1994 primary schools in Warwickshire had balances which in total amounted to 6.3 per cent. of their budget shares. Secondary schools had 6.7 per cent.
All schools need to consider what balances they should sensibly hold as a result of planning, not merely casual accrual. They can scarcely complain, given those reserves, that they were underfunded during that time. If reserves are not available for particular schools then they need to pay particular attention to their management of resources. They may also wish to suggest to the authority that its LMS scheme might be amended for future years in order to change the distribution of funds.
I know that Warwickshire schools, like schools in other areas, are concerned about meeting the cost of the teachers' pay award. The Government accepted the award of 2.7 per cent. on the recommendation of the school teachers' pay review body. That body acknowledged the fact that financial provision had been set on the basis that pay increases should be offset, or more than offset, by efficiency gains and increased productivity. We have acknowledged—the hon. Gentleman highlighted it in his comments—that the current settlement is tough. There is no resiling from that statement. Nevertheless, many authorities have been able to achieve an increase in their budgets which matches or outstrips the teachers' pay award and have said that they will meet the pay award in full.
It is worth making the point that, although many local authorities claim that they cannot afford the teachers' pay award, they have reached separately a voluntary pay settlement of their own of over 2 per cent. for clerical and manual staff.
I acknowledge that the award will place local authority budgets under pressure. But, in fairness, local authorities are large and financially complex organisations and they have a variety of means of realising the efficiency gains that are needed.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Squire: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I usually give way. I am willing to do so if I make progress in my speech. He would wish me to reach reorganisation proposals and I am anxious to cover those in considerable detail. If there is time, I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him.
The Government consider that teachers thoroughly deserve the increase, in recognition of the excellent work that they carry out in raising standards in our schools.
576
Governors, teachers and parents, as well as the Government, are entitled to look to local authorities to give priority to front-line services such as schools. I hope and trust that the county council will do so.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman would raise the question of Warwickshire's SSA. I am aware that its SSA per pupil is lower than the average, albeit higher than nine other authorities. But, as the hon. Member is aware, the SSA system sets out to provide funding for a standard level of service nationwide. Comparisons with other local education authorities are not necessarily appropriate because the costs of providing a standard level of education across the country inevitably vary. Some of the factors that need to be taken into account are the costs of educating children in sparsely populated areas, the costs of educating children in areas that are socially or economically disadvantaged, and the high labour costs in London and the south-east. Not all authorities will have such high costs or special circumstances as other LEAs do and, therefore, the "poundage per pupil" must vary from LEA to LEA.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to deficit school budgets. Under section 37 of the Education Reform Act 1988, a local education authority may suspend a governing body's right to a delegated budget if the governors fail to comply with the requirements of the local education authority's local management of schools scheme, or more generally, if they appear to manage the school's finances unsatisfactorily.
Where a governing body refuses to set a balanced budget, the LEA will no doubt wish to consider whether to intervene on either or both those grounds. In the event, we have been notified by Warwickshire that it has suspended delegation in the case of four schools, one of which is in the hon. Member's constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that that is as much as I can say: under section 37, governing bodies can appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education against the suspension of delegation, and it would clearly be inappropriate in these circumstances for me to comment one way or the other at this stage on the action which the authority has taken.
As hon. Members will know, local education authorities have a great deal of discretion in how they arrange their local management of schools schemes. It is important to realise what LMS is about. Above all, it is not about the total of spending on schools; it is about the distribution of that expenditure—the balance between centrally retained items and funds delegated to schools, and the distribution of those delegated funds between individual schools. How much Warwickshire spends on its schools is a decision for the LEA, to be taken in the light of its other commitments, both in education and other services.
I note for the record, however, that, according to Warwickshire's LMS statement for 1995–96, the funding which schools are receiving in their delegated budgets amounts, on average, to £1,382 per pupil in primary and middle schools and £1,961 per pupil in secondary schools. Although we do not yet have comprehensive comparative figures across the country, it is safe to say that those are by no means the lowest in the country.
In any case, the amount which schools receive in their delegated budgets will depend—obviously—on what proportion of the available resources the authority chooses to delegate. I note that Warwickshire's 1994–95 budget statement indicated that the authority was planning to

577
delegate 85.7 per cent. of its potential schools budget—about 1 per cent. below the national average. For 1995–96, the percentage of PSB to be delegated has risen to 88.4 per cent., but am I advised that that is simply because the PSB has been redefined. If the effect of that is discounted, it looks as though the level of delegation in Warwickshire may even have fallen slightly.
As to the important question of Warwickshire's reorganisation proposals, I completely resist the hon. Gentleman's allegation of Government incompetence. I am sure that he will appreciate that as the proposals are currently before the Secretary of State for Education, I cannot comment on them in detail, school by school. The Secretary of State will consider the proposals on their merits, taking account of all views for and against those proposals and all the educational issues involved.
I appreciate that the uncertainty over the future of the schools affected by the proposals is causing considerable anxiety locally. As the hon. Member is aware, I have met a number of deputations expressing either support for or opposition to aspects of the proposals. I can assure the House that the proposals will be determined as quickly as is compatible with a full and careful consideration of the issues. The House might be interested to know that Warwickshire's proposals represent one of the largest reorganisation schemes to come before the Secretary of State. It affects 177 schools, while eight governing bodies have also published proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. Seven of the GM proposals conflict with closure proposals published by the local education authority.
The Education Act 1993 requires the Secretary of State to consider the reorganisation proposals and the GM applications together, but she is required to reach a decision on the GM proposals, on their merits, first. That ensures, in practice, that both the GM and rationalisation proposals are properly considered. The hon. Member will understand that we owe it to the parents, pupils and teachers concerned to give those proposals our very closest attention. I submit that we cannot rush them.
Although there is no legal duty to consider statutory proposals within a set period of time, Ministers have, as hon. Members know, given a public undertaking, where possible, to reach a decision on most statutory proposals, including those published under sections 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980, within five months of the date of publication. For some complex reorganisation proposals, like those from Warwickshire, a longer period may be necessary to allow Ministers to give full consideration to the proposals.
The hon. Member referred to the ruling of Mr. Justice Sedley on 12 April 1995 concerning the proposed closure of the Beacon special school in Walsall. In essence, it
578
said that, in fairness, interested parties should be given an opportunity to comment on new issues raised by Her Majesty's inspectorate in its advice to the Secretary of State on a statutory proposal. We are urgently considering the implications of the judgment for the Department's handling of statutory proposals, which includes, of course, the Warwickshire scheme.
Although I cannot supply an exact date as to when Ministers will determine the proposals, we hope to have the matter resolved, or all but resolved, by the end of next month. To put that in context, three months from the publication of the last of the GM proposals equals the date of 9 May. When the hon. Member looks at the dates, I hope that, on reflection, he will consider that the timescale is some way short of the imputation he made against the Department about unreasonable delay. In the meantime, I assure all parents and teachers whose schools are the subject of the proposals that I am well aware of the anxieties which they may currently feel. I shall seek to resolve all the outstanding issues at the earliest possible moment.
The hon. Member also argued that in order to allow the council to borrow sufficient resources to implement the proposals, its capping limit should be raised. If the statutory proposals are approved, the authority will receive extra SSA credit to reflect the cost of the reorganisation. The extra SSA credit does not, however, translate into extra spending power, just more revenue support grant. That is because Warwickshire is already spending above the level of its SSA, as the hon. Member implied. Capping rules are designed to bite on such authorities. Failure to relax the cap should not prevent the council from financing the costs of its reorganisation. Other councils, for example Leeds and Wakefield, have been able to carry out large-scale reorganisations, which remove surplus places, without receiving—
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Squire: In fairness to the hon. Member, I must finish my remarks. I am willing to take up other matters with him after the debate. I still wish to put certain facts on record in the last half minute left to me.
As I said, other councils have been able to carry out large scale reorganisations without a relaxation in their capping limits. May I add that capping remains necessary to ensure that all authorities play their part in the restraint of public expenditure.
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock till Monday 22 May.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Role
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the roles of his Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence in regard to the United Kingdom's defence industry. [25667]

  Mr. Eggar
  The two Departments are in regular contact about the United Kingdom's defence industry.

  The Ministry of Defence, as the biggest single customer of UK industry, aims to achieve maximum value for money in procurement, primarily through competition but also, where appropriate, through international collaboration or non-competitive acquisition. It has an interest in ensuring that its supplier base, which includes both specialist defence companies and general companies in most sectors of industry, is efficient, competitive and capable of meeting its needs in both the short and the long term. It works closely with companies to ensure that its requirements are properly understood and to improve the efficiency of the procurement process.

  It supports the efforts of UK companies to export defence goods and services.

  It funds research and development of technologies needed to meet defence needs. Through the Defence Research Agency it encourages the exploitation of technologies developed for military purposes in civil applications and the exploitation for defence purposes of civil technologies.

  The Department of Trade and Industry's objective is to help UK industry compete successfully at home and in world markets. It works closely with the defence industry and related companies, trade associations, universities and other agencies to help improve the industry's international competitiveness. It pursues trade liberalisation world-wide and helps UK industry to take full advantage of market opportunities.

  DTI works closely with the Ministry of Defence on issues affecting the competitiveness of the defence industries:
  It advises on the industrial implications of MoD procurement policy to ensure that consequences for the competitiveness of the UK defence industrial base are taken into account. On substantial individual defence procurement projects, DTI is consulted well before decisions are taken, to ensure that the industrial implications are considered fully.
  Together with MoD it works to promote joint military and civil research activities and adaptation of military technology to civil applications.
  It works with MoD to develop a common information base on the defence industries.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the award of licences for the 16th round of offshore licensing; and if he will make a statement. [25668]

  Mr. Page
  After very careful consideration of applications for exploration licences in the west of Shetlands, we have been able to offer licences for each of the blocks applied for.

  Our "fast tracking" of these applications means that over 1,700 sqk of 3D seismic surveys will now be shot this summer with even more to come in 1996. Companies have also committed themselves to drilling 12 wells in the next two years and a further 13 in three years time. This level of commitment demonstrates the keen interest in a very exciting area of the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  The blocks attracted a high level of applications with one block receiving eight applications. The competition for some blocks has been intense and some very innovative ideas were presented with a number of very good applications for the same block. A total of 24 applications were received from 17 groups involving 32 companies.

  When examining applications we were conscious of the need to protect the environment. Although most of the blocks are some distance from the coast, it is important to ensure that the risks of any oil spills reaching the coasts of the Shetlands and Orkneys are understood and steps taken to minimise the risks and prepare contingency plans. The companies which have been awarded licences have all shown a strong commitment to protecting the environment.

  These awards—and the interest in the other blocks offered in the 16th round—shows the continuing high level of commitment by the international oil and gas companies to the UKCS. The opening up of new areas in the west of Shetlands basin as a result of this round will help maintain the UK's position as an oil and gas producer well into the next century.

  I plan to announce the remainder of the 16th round awards—for blocks around the coast of Britain and to the north of Scotland—in the summer.

  Copyright Tribunal
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to make to the procedures of the Copyright tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [24778]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Last year, my Department consulted users of the Copyright tribunal on how far they were satisfied with its performance and on how its procedures might be improved. The overwhelming majority of respondents considered that tribunal procedures were fair, flexible, unintimidating and thorough. However, there were some concerns about the cost and speed of procedures and suggestions for improvement in these and other respects were made. The Department is considering these suggestions in consultation with the chairman of the tribunal and it is likely that a statutory instrument providing for some amendments in procedures will be put forward in due course.

  Technopole Information Networks
  Mr. John Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much funding he expects to receive from the European Union SPRINT programme for research into technopole information networks. [24150]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The SPRINT programme ended on 31 December 1994. The European Commission was responsible for the selection of SPRINT projects based on merit, and for issuing grants to the successful candidates. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not receive any funding from the programme.

  The third activity of the EC fourth framework programme for research and development has superseded SPRINT. It brings together under one programme all the Community's efforts on dissemination and exploitation of research results and technological developments. There are provisions in the third activity for support of science parks and networks in support of innovation, though no specific provisions for research into technopole information networks. Projects involving information networks may be eligible for support under other programmes in the fourth framework.

  Richard Budge
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 25, at what venues the meetings with Mr. Richard Budge took, place and which Government Departments were represented at each of the meetings. [24941]

  Mr. Page
  Of the seven meetings with Mr. Richard Budge detailed in my previous answer of 15 May, six were conducted in the office of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy. The meeting on 15 April 1993 took place over lunch in central London. No other Government Departments were represented at any of the meetings.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply of 15 May,Official Report, column 25, which other two directors of A. F. Budge were interviewed. [24939]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  David Thomas Trewick and Martin Connolly were interviewed, together with David Threadkell, a former director.

  Mr. Stephen Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply of 15 May,Official Report, column 24, what was the cost of the Coopers and Lybrand report on the collapse of A. F. Budge. [24944]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Administrative receivers have a statutory duty to report under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and the Department makes no payment in respect of such reports. The administrative receivers and Coopers and Lybrand have carried out further enquiries at the request of the Official Receiver and has submitted invoices to date totalling £51,101.18 plus VAT £8,942.70.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which directors of A. F. Budge were recommended by the Official Receiver for action to be taken against them under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. [24940]
  300
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The content of the Official Receiver's report is confidential between the Secretary of State and the Official Receiver.

  Water Treatment Equipment, Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the DTI has received request for export credit licences for sewerage pumps or other water treatment equipment to Iraq; and if these requests have been granted. [24879]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Export Licences for such equipment have been applied for and, in certain cases, issued. Any export of humanitarian goods to Iraq also requires an authorization from the United Nations Sanctions Committee.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a statement on his Department's policy on a construction contracts Bill. [24020]

  Mr. Eggar
  Matters concerning the construction industry are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  British Coal Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a list of all the properties in Wales that British Coal proposes to offer for sale. [24774]

  Mr Page
  This is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation is still finalising the list of properties to be offered for sale. Details will be made public as the properties become available.

  Policy Statements
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in each of the last five years his Department published policy statements from non-governmental working parties or organisations; and if he will list the name of the document, the organisation which produced it and the cost to the public purse of publishing it. [24007]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain from his United States counterpart a copy of the US Department of Energy's plutonium working group report on environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities associated with plutonium storage, released in November 1994; and if he will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library. [24295]

  Mr. Page
  The report referred to was, I understand, published by the US Department of Energy and is publicly available. It can also be accessed on the Internet.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Malaysia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications to the aid and trade provision for support for power projects in Malaysia have been rejected during the last 10 years; and if he will list the grounds for rejection, the date of rejection and the names of the United Kingdom companies involved. [22676]

  Mr. Baldry
  On the basis of information available, between 1984 and 1993, applications relating to 11 power projects were rejected because they did not meet the developmental, commercial and industrial criteria for the ATP scheme; or for budgetary reasons; or because they were not accepted by recipient Governments. Ten British companies were involved as lead contractors for these projects. Information on the names of companies is commercial in confidence.

  One project was rejected in each of the following years: 1988, 1991 and 1993. Three were rejected in 1990. Information is not readily available concerning the dates of rejection for the other five.

  SCIAF
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he or his Ministers last met representatives of Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund to discuss overseas development; and if he will make a statement. [24162]

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no meetings specifically with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund—SCIAF—in recent years. My noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development, meets non-governmental organisation on a regular basis to discuss emergency and development issues, and has addressed gatherings of NGOs which have included representatives from SCIAF.

  Afghan Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan regarding the Afghan refugees now living in refugee camps in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [24147]

  Mr. Baldry
  We regularly discuss with the Government of Pakistan a wide range of issues including Afghan refugees. This issue was raised last month in talks between officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Pakistan high commission, who expressed appreciation of our support for Afghan refugees.

  AIDS Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the issue of the withdrawal of the AIDS programme from the World Health Organisation. [24506]

  Mr. Baldry
  We support the establishment of the joint United Nations programme on AIDS—UNAIDS—which will replace the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS—WHO/GPA—on 1 January 1996. UNAIDS will be co-sponsored by six United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organisation. The 302
  other co-sponsors are: United Nations Population Fund, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the United Nations Childrens Fund.

DEFENCE

  Air Training, Germany
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air training activities are allowed for Royal Air Force aircraft based in Germany. [24801]

  Mr. Soames
  The supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement of 3 August 1959, governs the way in which the RAF conducts air training in Germany. In general no fixed-wing flying activity is allowed below 1,000 ft above ground level. However, aircraft may be cleared to fly at 50 ft for limited periods during specific exercises. Medium level training is carried out in temporary restricted areas. Weapons training is primarily conducted at the air weaponry range at RAF Nordhorn, although limited use is also made of other ranges from time to time. The rules governing helicopter training activities in Germany are similar to those in operation in the UK.

  UN Peacekeeping Support
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many British helicopters were operating in support of United Nations operations in each of the last 10 years; [24798]

  (2) how many British troops were operating in support of United Nations operations in each of the last 10 years; [24799]

  (3) how many British Hercules aircraft were operating in support of United Nations operating in each of the last 10 years. [24800]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The United Kingdom has contributed troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations in each of the last ten years. In recent years there has been a rapid increase in the level of peacekeeping undertaken by the UN and the UK's contribution has increased substantially. Some 4,600 British personnel are serving in operations under UN command, and about 3,500 more in operations in support of UN Security Council resolutions. Where necessary British personnel are supported by helicopters and Hercules aircraft. Important support is also provided to other elements of UN operations.

  Air Force Personnel
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force maintenance and support personnel there were in each of the last 10 years; [24796]

  (2) what was the total Royal Air Force manpower in each of the last 10 years; and what is the estimated Royal Air Force manpower strength in 1997–98. [24797]
  303
  Mr. Soames
  The total manpower strength of the Royal Air Force and the RAF's maintenance and support element, as at 1 April in each of the years in question is as follows:

  Date

  Total RAF strength (trained and untrained)

  Total RAF maintenance and support personnel (trained and untrained)

  1986

  93,237

  84,861

  1987

  93,627

  85,172

  1988

  93,291

  84,890

  1989

  91,443

  83,385

  1990

  89,685

  81,786

  1991

  88,371

  80,505

  1992

  85,962

  78,183

  1993

  80,909

  73,392

  1994

  75,681

  68,642

  1995

  70,754

  64,056

  For the purposes of this question "maintenance and support" personnel has been defined as all personnel other than those employed on general duties (air) and airmen aircrew duties. It is not our practice to provide estimates of manpower strength more than a year in advance, and the forecast total strength for 1 April 1996 is around 66,500.

  Market Testing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Air Force activities have been market tested over the last five years. [24795]

  Mr. Soames
  Full details of market-testing activities in the Royal Air Force over the last five years are not available centrally. However, in the three year period from April 1992 to March 1995 six Royal Air Force activities have been market tested, and a further 16 subjected to other CFQ processes, which resulted in either contractorisation or efficiency measures being taken. Detail of the six market-tested activities are as follows:

  (a) Those contractorised following market test:

  Inspectorate of Recruitment Exhibition Production Flight, RAF Henlow

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Holbeach

  Flight checking, 115 Squadron, RAF Benson

  Nimrod Major Serving Unit, RAF Kinloss

  (b) Those won by in-house bid team following market test:

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Cowden

  Support Services, Gateway House, RAF Brize Norton

  Information to Members
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 201, what considerations led him not to list the hon. and right hon. Members who have been notified of contracts by his special advisor. [24508]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I do not think listing over 300 contracts, of local rather than national significance, in the Official Report would usefully add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 2 May, Official Report, column 201.

  Sandia National Laboratories
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all projects his Department is working on jointly with Sandia National Laboratory. [24783]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the 1958 UK/US mutual defence agreement, the Atomic Weapons Establishment works closely with Sandia National Laboratory on a number of areas of research. These include:

  Neutron Sources

  Irradiation Effects on Materials and Components

  Non-nuclear Components

  Independent Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Safety

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Nuclear Weapons Physics

  Nuclear Accident Response Technology

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific support is being provided by Sandia National Laboratory in support of the Trident programme. [24782]

  Mr. Freeman
  Sandia National Laboratory provides engineering support services associated with certain US-supplied components of the United Kingdom Trident system. Further details are classified.

  Latham Report
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy his Department has put to the working groups on the Latham report as to the desirability of a single exclusive register for public sector work. [24355]

  Mr. Freeman
  My officials are actively involved in the follow up work to the Latham report, which is being co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment, and also the efficiency scrutiny into construction procurement. Together, these will form the Govnerment response to Latham's recommendations, including the desirability of a single register for public sector work.

  Ground Training
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of ground training in the Royal Air Force. [25563]

  Mr. Soames
  Following issue of the consultative document on 22 March 1995 recommending the closure of RAF Locking and the transfer of its training task to RAF Cosford, representations have been made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and local authorities. My Department has consulted thoroughly with the trade unions and relevant local authorities, and full and careful consideration has been given to all of the representations that we have received.

  Following this work I am satisfied that no issues have been raised which call into question the viability of the proposals, which satisfactorily meet our future ground training needs and save £6,000,000 per annum. I have therefore decided that RAF Locking should close by 1 April 1998.

  We will, of course, continue to consult the trade unions about the detailed implementation of the closure and transfer of work to RAF Cosford.

  High Velocity Missiles
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place an order with Shorts for high velocity missiles; and if he will make a statement. [25564]

  Mr. Freeman
  An order for the development and initial production of high velocity missiles was placed with Shorts Missile Systems Ltd. in 1986. In the light of progress on the project, I have given approval for an order for 1,000 missiles to be placed with Shorts, subject to satisfactory contractual conditions being agreed.

  Defence Accounts Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Accounts Agency for 1995–96. [25565]

  Mr. Freeman
  The chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency is responsible for providing accounting services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the agency framework document. During 1995–96, the DAA will be reorganised and its successor organisations will be set new targets. The chief executive of the DAA will however report progress against the DAA targets during the year in a final annual report.

  DAA has been set the following challenging key performance targets in 1995–96:

  (a) To complete the following workload within the funds allocated for this purpose:

  Manage 89,350 non-industrial pay accounts

  Manage 41,5000 industrial pay accounts

  Complete 130,000 pensions awards/transactions

  Approve 500,000 claims for travel or transfer expenses

  Pay 17,000 fees claims

  Pay 20,000 miscellaneous personal payments claims

  Pay 3,205,000 bills

  Process 45,000 invoices

  Make 396,500 personal payments

  Manage 13,000 imprest accounts

  Process 35,000 HQ receipts

  Process 2,750 banknote orders

  Process 2,250 bank fundings

  (b) To meet the agency's quality of service standards in service level agreements and performance targets.

  (c) To make efficiency savings with a value of at least 2.5 percent. of the initial cash allocation.

  (d) To compete for payroll and pension awarding business offered through the Government's market testing programme.

  (e) To implement the DAA quality strategy by 30 June 1995.

  (f) To implement the findings of the agency's first three year review.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23663]

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

  China
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the President of the Board of Trade has been asked to raise the issue of human rights on his visit to China [24804]

  The Prime Minister
  The President of the Board of Trade has been briefed on all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and more generally on conditions in China, including human rights.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl, the letter from the Bundesministerium der Justif to Ms Lisa Mosey, concerning explosive material and baggage handling at Frankfurt, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. [24794]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply of 14 March 1995,Official Report, column 498.

TREASURY

  Building Societies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the risk and extent of speculative movement of funds in connection with possible takeovers or conversions of building societies, and the duties of boards of societies in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [23266]

  Mr. Nelson
  Monitoring the movement of funds within the building society sector is one of the tasks of the Building Societies Commission.

  Boards of societies faced with speculative flows can respond in a number of ways. These include varying the rates of interest on offer and withdrawing certain types of accounts. In reacting to proposals for takeovers or conversions which may give rise to such flows, the Building Societies Act requires boards to take account not only of the financial interests of their current members, but of the longer-term objectives of the society.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the net annual financial saving, or cost, of his Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24332]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Proposals for the rural White Paper remain subject to continuing collective consideration and discussion. The cost of measures contained in the White Paper will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the yield from inheritance tax arising from United Kingdom securities held by non-United Kingdom residents in each of the last three years. [24713]

  (2) how many non-United Kingdom residents incurred an inheritance tax liability arising from their holdings of United Kingdom securities in each of the last three years. [24714]
  307
  Sir George Young
  For inheritance tax purposes, it is the country of domicile that determines liability and not the country of residence. I regret that information for estates where the deceased was domiciled outside of the United Kingdom is not held centrally. The information requested could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Allowance Transfers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of making individual tax allowances transferable between spouses; and if he will make a statement. [24568]

  Sir George Young
  The full year revenue cost at 1995–96 income levels is estimated to be about £3 billion. This estimate does not take into account any behavioural change which could result from such a measure.

  Mortgage Protection Policies
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the review into the taxation of proceeds for mortgage protection policies was set up; what are its terms of reference; who is conducting it; when he expects it to report; and if he will make a statement. [23630]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it clear in the statement he issued on 2 May that benefits under mortgage payment protection policies will be exempt from tax. The decision resulted from a review that had been under way for some months.

  Summer Economic Forecast
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected publication date for the Treasury's summer economic forecast. [24495]

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: We expect to publish the summer economic forecast on a similar date to last year. I will let the hon. Gentleman know the exact date as soon as it is decided.

EDUCATION

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children under the age of five years receive nursery or pre-school public education in each member state of the European Union. [24219]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The latest available international comparisons of under-fives participating in public and private education are shown in the table. Separate participation rates for nursery provision only are not available.
  308

  Under fives participation rates1 in education, 1992

  Percentages

  Austria

  47

  Belgium

  98

  Denmark

  46

  Finland

  26

  France

  100

  Former West Germany

  49

  Greece

  30

  Ireland

  29

  Italy2

  76

  Luxembourg

  n/a

  Netherlands

  49

  Portugal3

  36

  Spain

  67

  Sweden

  48

  United Kingdom

  53

  Sources:

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1994 edition, HMSO, 1995

  Education at a Glance,. OECD, 1995

  Notes:

  1 Pupils aged 3 and 4 as percentages of the population aged 3 and 4.

  2 1988

  3 1991

  Non-teaching Staff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from which schools she has received reports that(a) dinner ladies and (b) school crossing patrol persons have undertaken teaching duties. [24422]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such cases. Non-teaching staff are widely used to supervise pupils and to support the work of teachers; decisions on their deployment are for headteachers.

  Supply Cover
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the cost of supply cover for classroom teachers, while primary schools carry out the standard assessment tests. [24781]

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated cost of supply cover for teachers administering the national curriculum tests and tasks to seven and 11-year-olds is around £15 million.

  Schools, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 14 on the educational spending in Ealing, if she will give an expenditure breakdown of the figures of (a) £517.33 and (b) £923.45 for expenditure per primary and secondary pupil in locally-managed schools other than that allocated to schools under the locally managed school budgets; and if she will make a statement. [24878]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table provides the information requested. It is derived from the planned expenditure totals and pupils numbers shown in the 1995–96 budget statement published by the local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act.
  309

  Item

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Management and Administration

  a. Education Department

  24.98

  24.85

  b. Other Council Departments

  31.41

  31.34

  Advisory and Inspection Services

  2.33

  2.28

  Special Needs Support Services including Special Units

  a. Pupils with Statements

  69.65

  70.21

  b. Other Services

  19.18

  19.14

  Staff Costs (Supply Cover)

  8.43

  8.49

  Structural Repairs and Maintenance

  45.62

  79.74

  Home to School Transport

  7.81

  69.66

  School Meals and Milk

  a. Expenditure to be met from income

  40.39

  21.09

  b. Other Expenditure

  98.60

  77.46

  Inspection Expenditure to be met by Income from OFSTED

  0.00

  13.21

  Pupil Support

  11.46

  11.56

  LEA Initiatives

  0.65

  0.66

  School Specific Contingencies

  20.26

  20.22

  Capital Expenditure

  21.80

  304.41

  Education Welfare Service

  8.79

  32.01

  Education Psychology Service

  3.88

  2.59

  Statementing Costs

  7.10

  7.16

  Premature Retirement Costs

  14.34

  36.20

  Specific Grant Related Expenditure

  a. Expenditure on Section 11 Posts

  (i) to be reimbursed by Government Grant

  18.36

  18.23

  (ii) to be met by LEA

  23.62

  23.38

  b. Other expenditure to be reimbursed by Government Grant

  20.89

  26.52

  c. LEA contribution to Grants at b.

  17.80

  23.06

EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what alterations he has made to the recruitment criteria for disabled persons employed by Remploy; [24885]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the management board of Remploy about changes to the recruitment criteria for disabled people. [24886]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions 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. Peter Hain, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the recruitment criteria for disabled persons employed by Remploy.
  There has been no change to the recruitment criteria for disabled persons employed by Remploy. Remploy is part of the Employment Service's Supported Employment Programme. This programme is open to people with severe disabilities who are registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and who, because of the severity of their disability and its effect on their productivity, are unlikely to be able to obtain of retain jobs in open employment.
  As there have been no changes to the criteria, we have not held discussions with Remploy management on this subject.
  I hope this is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Maxwell Brothers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what contributions have so far been made from the legal aid fund towards the defence costs of(a) Kevin Maxwell and (b) Ian Maxwell; and what have been the costs incurred by the defence in carrying out public opinion surveys. [24925]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total amount of criminal legal aid paid to date to lawyers acting for all six defendants in R v. Kevin Maxwell and Others is £4,745,391. This amount includes final costs in the magistrates' court of £829,377 as well as payments on account, as of 24 January 1995, in the Crown Court of £3,916,014. All payments include VAT and disbursements, such as expert witness and accountancy fees, and other expenses necessarily incurred. It would not be appropriate while the case is continuing to give a further breakdown of these figures. Nothing has been paid from the legal aid fund to cover the cost of public opinion surveys conducted by the defence.

  Judges
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all full-time judges aged over 70 years still sitting on the bench. [23938]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested as at 10 May 1995, is as follows:

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

  Lord Keith of Kinkel

  Heads of Division

  The President of the Family Division (Sir Stephen Brown)

  Lord Justices

  Lord Justice Beldam

  Lord Justice Glidewell

  Lord Justice Neill

  High Court Judges

  Mr. Justice Drake

  Mr. Justice Gatehouse

  Mr. Justice Knox

  Circuit Judges

  Judge Allardice DL

  Judge Atkinson

  Judge Paul Baker QC

  Judge David Kt QC, DL

  Judge Quentin Edwards QC

  Judge Halnan

  Judge Harris DSC, QC

  Judge Head

  Judge Holt

  Judge Lownie

  Judge Richard Lowry QC

  Judge Mildon QC

  Judge Phelan

  Judge Stroyan QC

  Judge Sir Lawrence Verney TD, DL

  Judge Ian Webster

  District Judges

  District Judge Goodman

  District Judge Hughes

  District Judge Keyes

  District Judge Lam

  311
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of those judges whose period in office has been extended by the Lord Chancellor beyond their statutory retiring age; and when he now expects each to retire. [23939]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor exercises the powers available to him under section 26(4) to (6) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 where he considers it desirable in the public interest to continue a judge in office for a period, or further period, not exceeding one year, up to the age of 75.

  Judge David Kt QC is the only circuit judge in office whose appointment has been continued beyond his statutory retirement date. The continuance expires on 30 April 1996. No district judges in office have been continued beyond their statutory retirement date. There

  Number of professional staff1

  UN

  ILO

  WHO

  ITU

  WMO

  UPU

  WIPO

  IAEA

  UNIDO

  FAO

  WFP

  IFAD

  ICAO

  UNESCO

  IMO

  United Kingdom

  502

  66

  123

  16

  16

  4

  15

  52

  32

  134

  28

  9

  21

  34

  16

  USA

  1,087

  72

  258

  17

  11

  1

  9

  129

  46

  164

  49

  13

  18

  45

  4

  France

  595

  100

  111

  33

  11

  5

  34

  31

  27

  165

  22

  7

  22

  103

  15

  Sweden

  197

  26

  22

  7

  2

  1

  2

  12

  8

  21

  8

  2

  2

  18

  5

  India

  223

  28

  36

  14

  2

  3

  3

  12

  25

  55

  9

  3

  4

  14

  3

  Canada

  330

  27

  48

  10

  4

  3

  3

  24

  6

  61

  36

  3

  62

  24

  1

  Netherlands

  303

  82

  49

  3

  3

  1

  1

  9

  18

  124

  15

  5

  5

  26

  2

  Japan

  246

  23

  46

  6

  4

  5

  3

  24

  22

  37

  13

  3

  3

  34

  5

  Ireland

  70

  5

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  5

  14

  5

  0

  3

  6

  2

  Belgium

  181

  46

  36

  4

  5

  2

  4

  5

  8

  122

  11

  7

  2

  16

  1

  1 UN figures reflecting staff in post on 31 December 1993.

  Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the policy position taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the support for article V, on peaceful nuclear explosions, of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at the review and extension conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in New York. [24423]

  Mr. David Davis
  We expressed the view that there are no useful peaceful applications of nuclear explosions.

  Passports (Date-stamping)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances it is permitted within EU laws or other ordnances for Belgium frontier authorities to date stamp the passports of United Kingdom passport holders on entry into Belgium. [24865]

  Mr. David Davis
  Date-stamping of United Kingdom passports by Belgian immigration authorities would not necessarily be contrary to EC law provided that it could not be construed as an immigration control on a British citizen, and provided that it was not done in circumstances which amounted to discrimination on the ground of nationality. Nevertheless it appears that the few cases reported recently of such date-stamping were the result of administrative error and the Belgian authorities assure us they have taken steps to see that it does not happen again.
  312
  are no powers to continue more senior judges in office beyond their statutory retirement date.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Professional Staff
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the numbers of professional grade officials employed by the United Nations and its agencies who are citizens of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) France, (d) Sweden, (e) India, (f) Canada, (g) the Netherlands, (h) Japan, (i) Ireland and (j) Belgium. [23707]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The numbers of professional staff, including senior officials, employed by the United Nations and its agencies who are citizens of the ten countries listed are given in the following table.

  Holy Shrine, Charar-e-Sharief
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian and Pakistani Governments regarding the destruction of the holy shrine, Charar-e-Sharief. [24897]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not had discussions with the Indian and Pakistani Governments regarding the destruction of the shrine at Charar-e-Sharief.

  Social Development Fund
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors led to the United Kingdom not participating in the Council of Europe's social development fund. [24802]

  Mr. David Davis
  The cost of the United Kingdom joining the social development fund would be prohibitive. As a major contributor to the Council of Europe, our initial investment would be around £30 million, with annual running costs of about £225,000. This could be met only by diverting aid resources from bilateral and multilateral aid programmes.

  Pakistan (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

  313
  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
  [pursuant to his reply 2 May, Official Report, column 151]: I regret that the last three paragraphs of my answer of 2 May were inadvertently omitted. The full answer is as follows:

  We have given considerable narcotics-related assistance to Pakistan both bilaterally and through multilateral channels. Last financial year, bilateral assistance includes the provision of law enforcement training by HM 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.

  As part of the programme of assistance, we agreed to fund the purchase of two helicopters to enhance the capacity of the ANF to interdict drugs convoys in the area bordering Afghanistan and Iran.

  Assistance by EU Governments is co-ordinated through the forum of the Dublin group both locally and in Brussels. Assistance by the European Commission has been mainly directed towards narcotics demand reduction.

  HM Customs and Excise works closely with Pakistani law enforcement agencies. We stand ready to provide further assistance and are considering additional requests from the Pakistan Government for training and equipment to enhance their capability to counter drug trafficking.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Management Matters"
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of printing, publishing and distributing "Management Matters"; who paid this and what charges were made to private organisations who were allowed to insert looseleaf advertisements in the magazine. [24587]

  Mr. Horam
  The average gross cost of printing, publishing and distributing each edition in the 1994–95 financial year was approximately £12,800.

  The cost of producing "Management Matters" is met from the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—budget.

  Organisations which wish to place a looseleaf insert in the magazine are charged at a rate of £38 per 1,000 leaflets. Revenue raised is used to offset the magazine's production costs.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on whose and on what authority the Government publication for civil servants, "Management Matters" included looseleaf advertising for insurance and life assurance. [24585]

  Mr. Horam
  Each looseleaf advertisement that is inserted in "Management Matters" is approved by the magazine's editorial board prior to publication. The board, which comprises officials from the Cabinet Office— OPSS—and HM Treasury, examines each proposed advertisement against pre-determined criteria.
  314
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment has been made as to whether the insertion of looseleaf advertising for private organisations selling financial and other services in "Management Matters" might be understood by readers as implying an endorsement of particular commercial products, not withstanding disclaimers; and if he will place in the Library the reports which have evaluated such matters. [24586]

  Mr. Horam
  There are precedents for civil service publications carrying advertising. The editorial board gave careful consideration to the decision to insert looseleaf advertisements in "Management Matters". Taking into account the strict criteria it would apply and the disclaimer included in each edition—on which it took legal advice—the board took the view that such advertisements could not reasonably be regarded as bearing official endorsement.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to market test the management of the civil service pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [24371]

  Mr. Horam
  The 1992 efficiency scrutiny identified administration of the principal civil service pension scheme as suitable for market testing. New information technology for administration of the scheme, which will start to become operational towards the end of this year, will facilitate the market-testing process. This will also enable service standards to be raised and costs reduced. It will however first be necessary for Parliament to approve an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act which will remove the legal impediment that at present exists to market testing PCSPS administration.

  Occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the PCSPS. The PCSPS will be managed and controlled by the Office of Public Service and Science.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the research work his Department sponsors on HIV/AIDS which incorporates international co-operation. [24694]

  Mr. Horam
  A list of current research work into AIDS/HIV funded by my Department through the research councils, and involving international co-operation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This list show the titles of the projects, by whom they were carried out and, where information is available, the resources allocated.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the research work sponsored by his Department and the amount spent on each project for AIDS/HIV treatment and prevention for the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [24693]
  315
  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Research Council provided data in answer to a similar question on 11 May 1995, and this was placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Equivalent information for the other research councils

  Grant Holder

  Grant Title

  Duration

  Cost

  Research supported by the Economic and Social Research Council

  Dr. M. Lyons University of London

  AIDS and women—the history of sexually transmitted disease and epidemic of HIV/AIDS in East Africa

  1 November 1992 to 1 October 1995

  £129,460

  Dr. P. G. Forster Hull University

  AIDS, the local community and traditional health practitioners in Malawi

  30 June 1993 to 30 September 1995

  £2,790

  Dr. J. Bujra Leeds University

  Gender relations as a key aspect of the fight against AIDS/HIV in Tanzania

  1 September 1994 to 1 September 1996

  £150,000

  Dr. N. P. McKeganey Glasgow University

  An Ethnography of a late teenage population exposed to intravenous drug misuse and HIV

  1 February 1988 to 31 January 1991

  £137,690

  Dr. D. V. McQueen Edinburgh

  An integrated study of AIDS-related behaviour

  1 August 1988 to 31 December 1990

  £264,850

  Dr. H. A. Klee Manchester Polytechnic

  The potential for HIV transmission among amphetamine users in the North West: a study of sexual and social lifestyles

  1 July 1989 to 31 December 1991

  £79,550

  Dr. G. M. Breakwell Surrey University

  Social and behavioral consequences of HIV/AIDS for 16–21 year olds

  1 October 1988 to 31 March 1993

  £308,621

  Dr. R. Ingham Southampton University

  Social aspects of risk reduction in the light of the threat of HIV infection

  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1991

  £136,182

  Dr. M. J. Bloor

  A sociological study of the context of AIDS media messages and audience responses

  1 September 1988 to 31 August 1991

  £198,590

  Dr. M. A. Plant

  HIV/AIDS risks, alcohol and illicit drug use and young adults

  1 July 1992 to 30 September 1992

  £3,260

  Dr. G. Semin Sussex University

  The transmission and formation of AIDS-related representations in adolescence

  1 December 1987 to 31 January 1991

  £136,980

  Dr. J. Holland London University

  Young women, sexuality and the limitation of AIDS

  31 October 1988 to 30 September 1990

  £70,926

  Research supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (all at the Institute for Virology and Environmental Microbiology, Oxford)

  Dr. P. A. Nuttall

  Aids diagnosis

  1 October 1987 to 31 September 1990

  £60,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Expression, purification and in vitro activity of the HIV encoded regulatory protein ART/TRS

  1 January 1988 to 31 December 1990

  £86,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  AIDS vaccine development

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991

  £125,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Expression of simian immunodeficiency virus proteins

  1 September 1989 to 31 March 1993

  £200,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Structure and function of recombinant HIV antigens

  1 May 1990 to 30 April 1993

  £114,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Analysis of CD4 binding repertoire of natural GP120 molecules

  1 July 1992 to 30 June 1995

  £194,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Furin and maturation of lentivirus glycoproteins

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1996

  £111,000

  Dr. P. A. Nuttall

  Virology and environmental microbiology

  12 March 1993 to 1 September 1995

  £65,000

  Dr. I. M. Jones

  Fundamental and comparative studies on the structural proteins of HIV and SIV

  1 October 1993 to 30 September 1995

  £359,000

  Dr. P. Roy

  Development of virus-like particle (VLP) candidate vaccines for human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) produced by baculovirus multigene expression vectors

  1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996

  £58,000

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Fishing Industries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the(a) Government construction grants, (b) fuel subsidies, (c) enforcement of minimum/maximum catch sizes, (d) enforcement of log book reporting and (e) elimination of secret fish holds in each of the other fishing nations of the EEC. [23986]

  Mr. Jack
  On construction grants and fuel grants, I refer the Hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 6 February 1995,Official Report, column 84.
  316
  funded by my Department which have undertaken research into AIDS/HIV treatment and prevention is as follows:

  Latest information on the results of inspections on member states' vessels is provided in the summary tables for 1993, produced by the Commission in accordance with Commission regulation (EEC) No. 3561/85: a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from east coast fishermen regarding the importation of cheap fish from Russia, Norway and Iceland. [24152]

  Mr. Jack
  I regularly consult producers' interests on the question of imports from outside the European Union
  317
  and this was one of the issues raised with me by fishermen's leaders on my recent visit to Tynemouth earlier this month. Subsequent to that, I have not heard directly on this matter from east coast fishermen.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will impose quota restrictions on the importation of cheap fish from Russia, Norway and Iceland. [24151]

  Mr. Jack
  Mechanisms already exist within European Union legislation to take action against imports from outside the EU where they can be shown to be having a disruptive effect on the market over a period of time. Unqualified restrictions on imports would serve only to prevent UK processors from obtaining the raw material supplies that they need to maintain the range of fish products available to the consumer. I believe that there is scope for better communication within the industry to help match supply and demand. I hope shortly to call a meeting of interested parties to explore the issue further.

  Access to the Countryside
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out for(a) the countryside access scheme allowing public access to set-aside land and (b) the scheme allowing access for land in environmentally sensitive areas (i) its number and direction of such agreements, (ii) the location and size of these sites, (iii) what steps have been taken to inform the public of these access opportunities, (iv) the payment made to the landowner of each site, (v) the administrative costs of these schemes, (vi) whether public access was available on each site prior to designation under the schemes. [24618]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Countryside Access Scheme

  (i) There are currently 78 agreements in England. There are similar schemes in Wales and Scotland.

  (ii) Details of access agreements have been lodged in the library of the House. The following table gives a summary of the position by county.

  County

  Size (in hectares)

  Bedfordshire

  91.3

  Cambridgeshire

  93.63

  Essex

  126.93

  Hertfordshire

  22.05

  Norfolk

  111.06

  Buckinghamshire

  21.57

  Suffolk

  142.52

  Cumbria

  4.45

  Wiltshire

  41.09

  Warwickshire

  16.7

  Gloucestershire

  14.33

  Yorkshire

  52.04

  Humberside

  14.74

  Devon

  15

  Cornwall

  15

  Oxfordshire

  42.55

  Surrey

  7.21

  Hampshire

  6.89

  Kent

  26.27

  Northamptonshire

  75.5

  Nottinghamshire

  21.78

  Shropshire

  1.68

  (iii) Participants are asked to send a map of the land opened to public access provided by the Ministry, to their local parish council. Further copies of maps are sent to the Countryside Commission, the
  318
  Rambler's Association and, where appropriate, the local national park authority. Members of the public can request free copies of these maps.

  (iv) The first payments to participants will be made early in 1996. Participants will receive an annual rate of £90 per hectare of route opened and £45 per hectare of open field opened to public access for a period of five years. Participants can normally only claim up to a maximum of 15 hectares of public access on any one farm.

  (v) In 1994–95 administrative costs were £300,000 in England. This figure includes significant start-up costs as the scheme only opened for applications in September 1994.

  (vi) Project officers inspect every potential public access site, any land where there is evidence of existing de facto public access will not normally be accepted into the scheme. Similarly, land which is designated as a public right of way or land to which public access has been secured under another publicly funded scheme is not eligible.

  (b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme

  (i) 26 management agreements with access tier.

  (ii) Details of the access agreements have been lodged with the library of the House. The following table provides a summary by Environmentally Sensitive Area.

  ESA

  Number of agreements

  Total length (in kilometers)

  Broads

  4

  4.62

  Pennine dales

  2

  0.91

  Somerset levels and moors

  1

  0.31

  South Downs

  1

  1.38

  Suffolk river valleys

  1

  0.98

  Exmoor

  2

  1.01

  Lake District

  10

  7.55

  South West Peak

  1

  1.25

  Dartmoor

  3

  5.84

  Upper Thames tributaries

  1

  0.48

  (iii) Maps of completed access routes are sent to the relevant parish councils, the Countryside Commission, the National Park Authority (Where applicable) and the Rambler's Association. These maps may also be sent to other organizations and members of the public, on request.

  (iv) Agreement holders receive £170 per kilometre of access route.

  (v) Unlike the countryside access scheme, it is not possible to disaggregate the costs of administration of the public access tier from the total costs of administering the ESA scheme.

  (vi) Only land which offers new or additional access opportunities is eligible for the scheme. Land which is subject to an existing right of way is not accepted.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [25536]

  Mrs Browning
  A further report on BSE in Great Britain is available today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The report provides information about the continuing decline in incidence of the disease, further proposed changes to the controls and the on-going research programme.

  The number of cases of BSE being reported at present is 45.3 per cent. fewer than at the same time last year and there is continued downturn in incidence of BSE in five-year-old and younger animals. Both changes are attributed to the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminant animals which was introduced in 1988.
  319
  I have also arranged for copies of the BSE progress report presented to the Office International des Epizooties this week to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future of the countryside stewardship scheme. [25537]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government are publishing today a public consultation document which seeks views on the development of the Government's strategy for environmental land management schemes in England. The consultation document results from a review of the future role of the countryside stewardship scheme and of ways of better integrating and focusing all environmental land management schemes in England, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last year on 21 June 1994,Official Report, column 106. The review was carried out by a working group comprising officials from my Department, the Department of the Environment, the Countryside Commission, English Heritage and English Nature. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Library of the House.

  The Government believe that environmental land management schemes are one important means of promoting environmental and amenity benefits in the countryside. The conclusion of the pilot phase of countryside stewardship and the decision that it should be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1996 represent a landmark in the development of such schemes and an opportune moment to review their strategic development.

  The main proposals of the working group are that:
  the countryside stewardship scheme should continue to be based on the key principles established during the pilot phase; subject to the availability of resources, the full range of stewardship options should be retained;
  countryside stewardship and the environmentally sensitive areas scheme should be developed into the Ministry's two core environmental schemes when I take over responsibility for stewardship from April 1996;
  the farm and conservation grant scheme should not continue as a separate scheme in England but capital grants for conservation purposes should be integrated into other schemes, principally countryside stewardship;
  further scheme mergers should be considered once the new agri-environment schemes have been operating long enough to be evaluated;
  subject to resources being available, the focus of countryside stewardship should be broadened to include two new options targeting traditional stone walls and banks and the remaining unimproved areas of old meadow and pasture on neutral and acid soils throughout lowland England;
  the ministry should develop a fuller information service to act as a first stop shop for information and basic advice on the range of environmental schemes for farmers and land managers.

  In addition, I have decided in consultation with my right hon. Friend that a national steering group should be set up to advise the Ministry on the objectives, targets and priorities of all its environmental incentive schemes, their effective development and deployment and their monitoring and evaluation, and that liaison arrangements should also be made regionally.

  The objective of these proposals is to improve the integration and focus, and hence the effectiveness and
  320
  efficiency of the Government's range of environmental land management schemes. They are designed to improve the service provided to land managers and to yield greater environmental benefits in the countryside. As such, they would represent a major development of the Government's strategy for such schemes.

  My right hon. Friend and I look forward to receiving the responses to this consultation document, which will be fully taken into account in the Government's preparation of the forthcoming rural White Paper.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Museum Entry Charges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the revenue accruing to the Exchequer from charges for entry to museums. [22400]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Of the 17 museums and galleries directly sponsored by my Department, seven charge for admission to their collections and exhibitions. During 1994–95, the income generated by these organisations for admissions is estimated at £11.39 million.

  Information about revenue raised from admissions to local authority and independent museums is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Programmes
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the total amount of resources available for local authorities for urban programmes for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will list the allocations to individual authorities. [24359]

  Mr. Curry
  Urban initiatives by local authorities are supported through main programme expenditure by several Government Departments. This is supplemented by targeted programmes which have been brought together into the single regeneration budget. SRB resources are made available to local authorities and other organisations, reflecting the partnership-based approach of many schemes. In total the SRB will fund more than £1.3 billion of regeneration work in 1995–96 in urban and other areas. The Department's 1995 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library, provides detailed information about the programmes supported.

  Sheltered and Supported Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he and his ministerial colleagues have made of the savings to the Exchequer that voluntary organisations provide with sheltered and supported housing. [24026]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Two of the key voluntary providers of sheltered and supported housing are the Abbeyfield societies and almshouses. In 1990 their housing stock represented 1 per cent. and 3 per cent.
  321
  respectively of the total sheltered and supported rented housing available for elderly people. Research published last year by the Department1 found that 28 per cent. of Abbeyfield societies and 100 per cent. of almshouses capital costs were met from non-exchequer sources. Seven per cent. of Abbeyfield and 25 per cent. of almshouses revenue costs were also met from non-exchequer sources.
  1 "Living Independently—A study of the Housing Needs of elderly and disabled people", HMSO 1994.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's conclusions following the completion of consultation on their proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to information technology, finance and personnel services. [25561]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have been discussing how best to give effect to the Government's decision to extend compulsory competitive tendering to white collar professional and corporate services with local authority representatives and other interested parties since early 1993. That consultation has proved valuable to all parties and I am grateful to all those who play a part.

  Last summer we put in place statutory instruments which extended CCT to legal and construction and property services. In the autumn we issued consultation papers setting out the proposed regime for information technology, finance and personnel services. Those attracted between them over 600 responses to my Department, together with 112 to the Scottish Office and 54 to the Welsh Office.

  I have considered all the points made carefully with colleagues in all the departments with an interest in the services concerned and am now able to announce the Government's final decisions on CCT for these remaining services.

  IT Services

  Taking first IT services, we have concluded that both the percentage competition requirement of 70 per cent. for this work and the implementation timetable set out in the consultation paper are reasonable and do not intend to alter either, save that English shire authorities remaining unchanged following review by the Local Government Commission will now be expected to follow the timetable I announced on 29 March at column 644. There is no case for any other substantive change to the proposals put forward in last year's consultation paper. On matters of detail, I am now able to:
  confirm that we intend to make an exemption for fire brigade mobilisation and communications systems. The precise wording of this is being discussed with fire service representatives and a specific exemption order will be brought forward in due course. The defined activity does not include fire brigades' radio systems;
  confirm the proposed credit for in-house IT support to contractors who have taken on other work on behalf of a defined authority, allowing the authority to count this work towards satisfying its CCT obligations, provided it had been the contractors decision to use the IT in question.
  confirm the proposed amendment to guidance on the avoidance of anti-competitive behaviour which will allow an authority to require that contractors use specified software or hardware, including the authority's own systems, where this can be justified on operational grounds.
  322
  I have decided to reject arguments for a short term exemption from CCT for project work underway at the time competition bites.

  Finance Services

  We have given very careful consideration to the competition percentage for finance services. The Government wish to put real pressure on authorities to market test theses services and I am confident that all authorities can achieve the competition requirement of 35 per cent. proposed in the consultation paper. We do not, therefore, intend to change this figure.

  In reaching this conclusion we have had in our minds the Government's commitment that there should be no pressure for compulsory testing of housing benefit or council tax benefit administration. Similarly, the Government have made clear that we are not seeking to compel market testing of those revenues tasks which are to be the subject of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 permitting the work to be undertaken by third parties. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security and I consider that authorities can achieve this figure without necessitating the market testing of benefits work or the revenues tasks I have mentioned.

  We accept that there are some statutory constraints to contracting out aspects of revenues or benefits work, and many of the services are sensitive. Nevertheless a number of authorities have already shown that, even with these limitations, market testing of this work can improve the quality of the service they are able to offer, and we would encourage them to explore this option on a voluntary basis. Should they choose to do so, this can be counted towards satisfying their obligations under the CCT regime.

  Should the percentage chosen in the event be at such a level as to compel any authority to market test benefits administration or other work which we have said should only be exposed voluntarily, we will consider further the arguments for change. Where individual authorities can demonstrate they cannot meet the figure without being compelled to test benefits work the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security and I will consider sympathetically any request they may put forward for a specific exemption.

  In the case of education-related benefits service and student awards administration my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and I have concluded that this work is more closely integrated with the education service that any other part of the authority. The volume of work these services make up is small, and we have concluded there would be little benefit, and possibly some disruption of services, if they were included in the CCT regime. We will, however, wish to consider carefully other methods for improving the efficiency of these services.

  Also on finance services, we intend to make two further changes to the proposed regime. The first is to allow a temporary exemption from CCT for project work on the development and implementation of financial information and management systems underway when CCT bites. This will allow internal management changes, some of which may flow from CCT, to be implemented smoothly.

  Secondly, I intend to allow English metropolitan districts and London boroughs an additional six months to implement CCT extension, taking their start date to 1

  323
  April 1997. This recognises the foreshortened timescale facing these authorities as they prepare for CCT and the need for an adequate lead-in time before new contracts can become operational. The timetable for reorganised shire authorities remains unchanged from that set out in the consultation paper, that which status quo shires will be expected to meet was explained in my announcement of 29 March.

  Personnel Services

  Turning lastly to personnel services, we have concluded that the defined activity should be amended to reflect practical concerns raised about the difficulties of bringing certain work into the CCT regime. We intend to specifically exclude:

  (i) all training undertaken by a local authority on behalf of a Training and nterprise Council (TEC), or, in Scotland, Local Enterprise Council (LEC).

  (ii) personnel work undertaken by local authorities as members of consortia (with educational institutions and others) for the pre-and post-qualification training of social workers.

  (iii) operational training of fire fighters.

  Colleagues in the Department for Education and I also intend to allow in-service teacher training and other education-related training funded through the grant for education support and training—GEST—to be counted towards satisfying the competition requirement in the same way as we have agreed delegated spending under the LMS initiative should count. In Wales Athrawon Bro services will similarly count.

  We have also considered carefully authorities concerns that the competition percentage, which we proposed be 35 per cent., was too high and may compel them to introduce organisational changes or to tender unsuitable work. We have concluded that a reduction in the figure is necessary to accommodate these concerns and therefore intend to set the competition requirement at 30 per cent

  The study of the options for setting the competition requirement undertaken by KPMG on our behalf illustrated that many authorities already actively test the market for certain aspects of personnel work. Much specialist training, for example, is already provided through contract by external organisations. Since they already have a good record in market testing, CCT should present no new difficulties to authorities, For this reason, I have concluded that no additional time is required to implement personnel CCT. All authorities will therefore be expected to meet the timetable set out in the consultation paper, with the exception of status quo English shire authorities, for which I announced a revised timetable on 29 March.

  Finally for personnel services we also intend to increase the de-minimis exemption for personnel work from £300,000 to £400,000 to permit smaller authorities to protect core services.

  Fire Authorities

  The regime I have described will, subject to certain exemptions outlined in the consultation papers, apply to all defined authorities which are subject to CCT, with the exception of police authorities, metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, including London, and combined fire authorities. CCT for IT, finance and personnel in police authorities is the subject of separate consultation still underway.

  For single purpose fire authorities my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office and I have now decided that, having exempted operational
  324
  training the competition requirement for the remaining work within the defined activity of personnel services should be reduced to 15 per cent. For IT and finance work the competition requirements remain at 70 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively, as for other authorities. The implementation timetable for English single purpose fire authorities will remain aligned with that applying to metropolitan districts and London boroughs, save that any new combined authority created following the implementation of local government reorganisation will have two years from the local date for reorganisation to take effect before CCT will bite.

  Conclusion

  I will be bringing forward a draft order to add these new services to the CCT regime shortly. Once the House has had the opportunity to debate and approve this order we will bring forward further regulations to put in place the remainder of the regime I have today announced.

  The regime I have described today will apply to defined authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering comments made on the timetable for implementing CCT extension in Wales and will make an announcement in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the timetable which the new Scottish unitary authorities will be expected to follow on 27 January.

  This announcement is intended to give all authorities a clear basis on which to plan for the extension of CCT. We will write with copies of the new statutory instruments and detailed guidance on each of the new services as soon as possible.

  Following extensive consultation we have now established the statutory framework on which the extension of CCT to all of the white collar services will proceed. This is challenging but, I believe, fair and offers a flexible regime which meets many of the concerns raised with us. I urge all those concerned to strive for the successful implementation of CCT to ensure that local people receive the acknowledged benefits that competition may bring.

  Anti-competitive Behaviour
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take against Ribble Valley district council, Sandwell metropolitan borough council and South Lakeland district council following the notices served on them last year for anti-competitive behaviour. [25562]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 20 July 1994, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, served a notice under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on South Lakeland district council, setting out his view that the authority had acted anti-competitively during a competition for ground maintenance work. On 30 September he served a similar notice on Sandwell metropolitan borough council, also for ground maintenance work, and on 21 November he served a similar notice on Ribble Valley district council, for refuse collection work.

  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the responses to the notices and has today given the authorities directions under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.
  325
  South Lakeland is required to retender the grounds maintenance work which was the subject of the notice so that new arrangements are in place by 1 April 1996, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent if it wishes to reassign the work to its direct service organisation.

  The direction given to Sandwell requires the authority to seek the Secretary of State's consent if it wishes to award the ground maintenance work which was subject of the notice to its direct service organisation when the current arrangements expire in 1997.

  Ribble Valley has been directed to retender its refuse collection work so that new arrangements are in place by 1 July 1996, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent if it wishes to reassign the work to its direct services organisation.

  Minister for Bristol
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure has been incurred by the office of the Minister for Bristol since the present Minister took up post. [24525]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: Since taking up post, the total expenditure incurred by Lord Astor's office in making visits to Bristol amounts to £1,159.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates the present Minister for Bristol has visited the city on official business; and whom he met. [24526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]The present sponsor Minister for Bristol has visited the city on six occasions. The dates of these visits were:

  14 October 1994

  11 November 1994

  16 January 1995

  17 February 1995

  15 March 1995

  12 May 1995

  During these visits the Minister met the following persons:

  Name

  Representing

  Ablett Malcolm

  Hanson Properties

  Baker Simon

  Western Development Partnership

  Bale Simon

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Barrett Bill

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Barnfield Richard

  WESTEC

  Beales Ian

  Western Daily Press

  Bee Will

  Bristol Common Purpose

  Biddle Norman

  University of Bristol Council

  Blake Michael

  Knightstone Housing Association

  Birtchnell Michael

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Brown Jeffrey

  South Bristol College

  Bullard Emma

  Bristol Common Purpose

  Bunyan Diane

  Bristol City Council

  Burge Maureen

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Burke John

  Bristol and West Building Society

  Channon John

  Western Development Partnership

  Collinge Miles

  Bristol Development Corporation

  Couper Professor Heather

  Millennium Commissioner

  Courtier Peter

  Bristol Racial Equality Council

  Croucher Neil

  Bristol Tourism Forum

  De Groot Lucy

  Bristol City Council

  326

  Name

  Representing

  Durie Robert

  Western Chamber of Commerce

  Ewens Alec

  Bristol Old Vic

  Ferguson George

  Ferguson Mann Architects

  Fudge Colin

  University of the West of England

  Hartnell St John

  Bristol 1997

  Heighton Martin

  Bristol City Council

  Holland Helen

  Deputy Leader, Bristol City Council

  Hood Nicholas CBE

  Bristol 2000

  Hood Sam

  Knightstone Housing Association

  Irvine Roy

  Bristol City Council

  Jackson Tess

  Bristol Arnolfini

  Johnson David

  Councillor, Avon County Council

  Kay Richard

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Kearney Paul

  Bristol United Press

  Kelly Andrew

  Bristol Cultural Development Partnership

  Kenworthy David

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Kershaw Diana

  Bristol City Council

  Kingman Sir John

  Bristol University

  Lawder Simon

  "Building a Better Bristol" Campaign

  McClure Tim

  Churches Council for Industry and Social Responsibility

  McGahey Michael

  Westcountry Tourist Board

  McGowan Hilary

  Bristol City Council

  McGuire Cecilia

  Bristol City Council

  McInally Brian

  Gatehouse Enterprise Centre

  McIver Barry

  South Bristol College

  McKinlay Bob

  Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative

  MacMahon Clara

  Bristol Watershed

  Marshfield Susan

  Bristol Chamber of Commerce

  Mellor David

  Alec French Partnership

  Mordaunt Terence

  Bristol Port Company

  Morris Alfred

  Bristol Old Vic

  Ord David

  Bristol Port Company

  Osbourne Hazel

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Pool John

  Bristol 2000

  Robertson Graham

  Leader, Bristol City Council

  Rogerson Barry

  Bishop of Bristol

  Rylance Nicola

  The Bristol Initiative

  Sandbrook Martin

  WESTEC

  Savage John

  Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative

  Shepherd Tony

  Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative

  Singh Raj

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Smetherham David

  South Bristol College

  Smith Steve

  Compu Add Ltd

  Symonds Brian

  CBI

  Taylor Prue

  South Bristol College

  Thomas Christopher

  Bristol Development Corporation

  Venn Ian

  Communities Organised for a Greater Bristol

  Vincent Martin

  CompuAdd Ltd

  Wall Robert Sir

  Conservative Leader of Bristol City Council

  Warren Claire

  Lord Mayor of Bristol

  Williams Eric

  Avon County Council

  Wordsworth Chris

  Hanson Properties

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives the present Minister for Bristol has taken for the benefit of the people of the city. [24527]
  327
  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: The present sponsor Minister for Bristol has, during the first few months of his appointment, been working to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors which are vital to the future success of Bristol and to capitalise on the substantial public investment secured for the city through, among other things, the Bristol development corporation and single regeneration budget challenge fund.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authorities provide specialist facilities for autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [23677]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 15 May, Official Report, column 13.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were awarded(a) weekly industrial disablement benefit and (b) reduced earnings allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available in Newham; how many claims for industrial disablement benefit and reduced earnings allowance were allowed in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what were the total amounts of (i) lump sum back payments and (ii) gratuities awarded in each year in Newham. [23790]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 17 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about awards of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) and Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA) in the Benefits Agency's Newham District.
  Information about awards of benefit, or claims allowed, is not available for all of the periods requested because collection of the relevant data on an individual office basis did not begin until October 1991. The figures for 1991–92 relating to awards and claims allowed therefore cover a period of only six months. The available information is at Annex A.
  The distinction between the figures for IIDB allowed and awarded is that some successful claims do not attract benefit because they are assessed at less than 14%. On the other hand, all claims allowed for REA result in an award of benefit.
  Information about lump sum back payments and gratuities is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Year

  Claims allowed IIDB

  Claims awarded IIDB

  1991–92

  98

  59

  1992–93

  126

  50

  1993–94

  142

  30

  1994–95

  77

  31

  Note:

  1994–95 figures are provisional and subject to amendment.
  328

  Reduced Earning Allowance

  Year

  Claims allowed and awarded REA

  1991–92

  22

  1992–93

  20

  1993–94

  2

  1994–95

  0

  Note:

  1994–95 figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  St. Paul's Angels Nursery
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the expected working life of St. Paul's Angels benefit agency nursery, Brixton, when it was opened; [24711]

  (2) if St. Paul's angels benefit agency nursery, Brixton, is able to offer vacant places to the general public; [24709]

  (3) what are the grounds for closing St. Paul's Angels benefit agency nursery, Brixton, after September. [24710]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the St Paul's Angels Nursery in Brixton.
  The nursery was opened on 19 June 1991. No timescale was put on the life of the nursery, but to ensure continuing value for money it has been subject to financial review since it opened.
  Since 1991, with the transfer of the bulk of benefit processing work from Brixton to Belfast there has been a significant reduction of locally based Benefits Agency staff to about 70 on the Brixton site. Despite vigorous efforts by management, take up of places has been low and from September 1995, no District staff plan to use the nursery. A review, conducted in March 1995, shows that the nursery does not satisfy the Treasury value for money criteria and there is a financial shortfall.
  I should add that local management have attempted to accommodate domestic arrangements by extensive use of flexible working patterns, including allowing staff to work part time.
  It is not possible to open the nursery to the public as the Benefits Agency may not trade as a business in competition with the private sector. The Agency is consulting once more with other Government Departments and Agencies in the locality to see if they would be willing to pay the necessary subsidies in respect of their staff's use of the facility. Until this has been done no decision about the future of the nursery can be taken.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he received the memorandum from Disability Wales on incapacity benefits, posted to his Department on 4 December 1994; on what date he sent an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter to Disability Wales; and when he expects his Department to answer the letter. [23950]

  Mr. Hague
  A copy of the letter dated 4 December 1994 from Disability Wales was received on 22 March.

  A reply was sent on 17 May.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated amount of benefit fraud in each year since 1979. [23674]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is not available. The benefit savings figures for the fraud detected from 1986–87 are in the table.

  Year

  Benefit Savings £ million

  1986–87

  1144

  1987–88

  1196

  1988–89

  1262

  1989–90

  1309

  1990–91

  2341

  1991–92

  2427

  1992–93

  2558

  1993–94

  2654

  1 Count by district offices.

  2 Count by area fraud sectors after the internal fraud organization changed.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) what plans he has to exempt sheltered and supported housing from the remit of the proposed changes to housing benefit; [24023]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested bodies with respect to the proposed housing benefit changes, with particular reference to sheltered and supported housing; [24025]

  (3) what savings he is expecting by the expected reductions in housing benefit for sheltered and supported housing; [24027]

  (4) what analysis was made by his Department of the extra costs that sheltered and supported housing would bear under his proposed housing benefit changes. [24024]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received the report of the Social Security advisory committee following its public consultation on the proposed changes to housing benefit. We will be considering carefully the position of sheltered and supported housing under the changes as part of our response to the report.

  Amputees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the (i) categories and (ii) range of clothing grants which may be paid to(a) single upper limb amputees, (b) double upper limb amputees, (c) single lower limb amputees, (d) double lower limb amputees, (e) amputees who have lost one upper and one lower limb. (f) triple amputees and (g) those who have had all four limbs amputated. [24122]

  Mr. Hague
  An allowance may be awarded to an arm or leg amputee or other war disablement pensioners whose pensioned disablement and/or prosthesis causes wear and tear of his clothing. Payment of the allowance is not restricted to amputees. The allowance may be paid at one of two rates as follows:330

  £ per annum

  Higher rate

  129.00

  Lower rate

  82.00

  If the pensioner wears a single artificial limb—other than a tilting-table limb—the lower allowance is awarded. If he wears a tilting-table limb or has more than one artificial limb, the higher rate is awarded. In any other case where the Secretary of State is satisfied that as a result of the pensioned disablement there is exceptional wear and tear of the pensioner's clothing, the allowance may be awarded at a rate not exceeding the higher rate.

  The rate paid to an amputee pensioner is not solely dependent on the site on amputation nor on the number of amputations but on a medical assessment as to the extent the pensioner's accepted disablement and/or prosthesis causes were and tear of his clothing.

  Fraud
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of claimants of incapacity for work benefit who are likely to attempt fraud through the false or unnecessary use of wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement. [24076]

  Mr. Hague
  We have not made such an estimate.

  Low Income Statistics
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish a response to the Social Security Select Committee's report, "Low Income Families: Low Income Statistics:", published on 21 March 1995. [25538]

  Mr. Burt
  A Government response to the Social Security Select Committee's report, "Low Income Families: Low Income Statistics" has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were(a) the running costs of the Child Support Agency and (b) the costs incurred by his Department in dealing with Child Support Agency matters in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95. [24831]

  Mr. Burt
  The annual accounts for the year ended 31 March 1994 were published on 28 November 1994. These included an expenditure statement prepared on an accruals basis and show that the net cost of operations during 1993–94 was £139 million. Similar accounts will be prepared for 1994–95 and published in the agency annual report.

  It is not possible to identify separately the expenditure incurred by the Departmental headquarters in respect of Child Support Agency matters.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time the Child Support Agency takes to make an assessment; and thereafter in what period those assessed have to make a payment. [20138]

  Mr. Burt
  [Pursuant to his reply Official Report, column 106, 1 May.]: The information I gave regarding the time taken to complete an assessment was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:
  331
  The length of time taken to complete an assessment is variable as it depends on the receipt of information from various sources. Once the agency has all the information it needs, it is currently taking 99 days to complete an assessment. Where no payment is received within 14 days from notification of the maintenance assessment, the agency can consider enforcement action.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update(a) table G2.04, relating to benefit status of parent or person with care and absent parent, (b) table G2.07 relating to net income from employment of absent parents where maintenance has been assessed and (c) table G2.08 relating to distribution of maintenance assessments of the "Social Security Statistics 1994" by reference to the most recent data from the caseload of the Child Support Agency. [24836]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested, based on information available at March 1995, is in the tables.

  Benefit Status of Parent with Care and Absent Parent at 11 March 1995

  Thousands

  Absent parents

  Parents with care

  Total

  1On Income Support

  On Invalidity Benefit, Sickness Benefit or UB

  Not on benefit

  Benefit Status not Known

  Total

  488.0

  90.1

  21.9

  172.3

  203.7

  IS

  391.0

  77.8

  18.2

  138.9

  156.1

  FAMC/DWA

  63.6

  9.5

  2.6

  19.5

  32.0

  No benefit

  33.4

  2.8

  1.1

  13.9

  15.6

  Notes:

  1 Includes some cases on Invalidity Benefit, Sickness Benefit or UB. In some cases where the MEF was returned the AP's benefit status was not recorded and so the available information on APs may not be fully representative of all cases.

  Net income from employment of Absent Parents at 11 March 1995 where maintenance has been assessed

  Maintenance Assessments

  £ per week

  000's

  Percentage

  All Absent Parents

  —

  267.5

  100.0

  APs with no employment income

  —

  117.1

  43.8

  APs with employment income

  —

  150.4

  56.2

  Average net employment income (£pw)

  195.67

  —

  —

  Net employment income (£pw)

  Up to 49.99

  —

  3.9

  1.5

  £50.00–£99.99

  —

  8.2

  3.1

  £100.00–£149.99

  —

  33.5

  12.5

  £150.00–£199.99

  —

  43.0

  16.1

  £200.00–£249.99

  —

  31.1

  11.6

  £250.00–£299.99

  —

  16.9

  6.3

  £300.00 or more

  —

  13.8

  5.2

  Note:

  Net income from employment is gross pay less income tax and National Insurance contributions. Average net income is the mean for APs with income from employment.
  332

  Distribution of Maintenance Assessments at 11 March 1995

  Maintenance Assessments

  £ per week

  000's

  percentage

  Full Maintenance Assessments1—AP not on Income support

  All assessments

  —

  175.0

  100.0

  Average Maintenance Assessment (£pw)

  37.22

  —

  —

  £0

  —

  18.3

  10.5

  £0.01–2.30

  —

  24.4

  13.9

  £2.31–£5.00

  —

  1.8

  1.0

  £5.01–£9.99

  —

  4.5

  2.6

  £10.00–£19.99

  —

  11.8

  6.7

  £20.00–£29.99

  —

  15.1

  8.6

  £30.00–£39.99

  —

  18.8

  10.7

  £40.00–£49.99

  —

  18.6

  10.6

  £50.00–£59.99

  —

  17.0

  9.7

  £60.00–£69.99

  —

  17.8

  10.2

  £70.00–£79.99

  —

  13.1

  7.5

  £80.00–£89.99

  —

  7.7

  4.4

  £90.00–£99.99

  —

  3.6

  2.1

  £100–£109.99

  —

  1.3

  0.7

  £100–£119.99

  —

  0.4

  0.2

  £120+

  —

  0.8

  0.5

  Full Maintenance Assessments1—AP on Income Support

  All assessments

  —

  82.9

  100.0

  Average Maintenance Assessment (£pw)

  0.93

  —

  —

  £0

  —

  48.8

  58.9

  £2.20

  —

  12.1

  14.6

  £2.30

  —

  22

  26.5

  Interim Maintenance Assessments2

  All assessments

  —

  87.5

  100.0

  Average Maintenance Assessment (£pw)

  96.34

  —

  —

  Under 30.00

  —

  0.0

  0.0

  £30.00–£39.99

  —

  1.1

  1.3

  £40.00–£49.99

  —

  3.0

  3.4

  £50.00–£59.99

  —

  8.7

  9.9

  £60.00–£69.99

  —

  3.0

  3.4

  £70.00–£79.99

  —

  2.5

  2.9

  £80.00–£89.99

  —

  1.9

  2.2

  £90.00–£99.99

  —

  30.3

  34.6

  £100–£109.99

  —

  12.9

  14.7

  £110–£119.99

  —

  13.3

  15.2

  £120+

  —

  10.8

  12.3

  1 Includes Category 'B' Interim Maintenance Assessments.

  2 Excludes Category 'B' Interim Maintenance Assessments.

  Note:

  Category 'B' Interim Maintenance Assessments are made when insufficient information has been provided about the partners of the AP, PWC or about some other member of their households.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the cost implications for income support for severe disability premium of the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Anne Marie Bate; how many cases are potentially involved; and if he will make a statement. [24880]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  On 9 May the House of Lords Judicial Committee granted the Secretary of State and chief adjudication officer leave to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Anne Marie Bate. This means that the exact impact of the judgment on the
  333
  payment of the severe disability premium within income support will depend on the decision of the House of Lords.

  It is difficult to assess the cost implications and numbers of potential cases. The judgment could result in an estimated 45,000 income support claimants being entitled to between one and eight days severe disability premium as a result of the two day period between the judgment and the introduction of amending legislation restoring the original policy intention behind the premium. Additional costs could also arise from appeals currently within the appeal system or later appeals.

  Payment of benefit arising as a result of the case has been suspended pending the result of the appeal.

  Income Support
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to the Exchequer from the lower rate of income support benefit payable to those aged between 18 and 25 years. [22407]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [Pursuant to his reply 9 May Official Report column 391]: The information I gave regarding the current annual cost of raising the income support rate for 18 to 24-year olds was incorrect due to a typographical error. The correct information is as follows.

  The current annual cost of raising the income support rate for 18 to 24 year olds to that payable for single people aged 25 and above would be about £420 million.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is based on the 1990, 1991, 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1995–96 prices and benefit levels.

  2. The figure includes the additional cost of linked increases in housing benefit and council tax benefit.

SCOTLAND

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21481]

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office as an employer, has made considerable progress on equal opportunities issues. Its initiatives have been based on the 1984 report, on "Equality of Opportunity for Women in the Civil Service", and also on the Cabinet Office "Programmes of Action on Race and Disability".

  Details of these initiatives can be found in the following Cabinet Office publications:

  Civil Service Data Summary 1994

  Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service—10 Year

  Progress Report 1984–94

  Annual Reports on the Progress of Women and People of Ethnic Origin

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [21483]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the 334
  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.

  In line with the Government's commitment in the White Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", the Scottish Office is committed to reporting on equal opportunities in its annual report.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21482]

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is 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. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21480]

  Mr. Lang
  I am responsible, along with my ministerial team, for ensuring that Government policy on equal opportunities is implemented in the Scottish Office.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what principle determines the levels of funding allocated to local authorities for closed circuit television systems in Scotland as compared with England and Wales. [23641]

  Mr. Lang
  Capital consent allocations to Scottish local authorities are not project specific and it is for local authorities themselves to determine their own priorities for their areas, including the provision of closed circuit television systems, from within the total resource available to them.

  A recent competition by the Home Office to fund closed circuit television systems in England and Wales was not emulated in Scotland. In Scotland we remain firmly of the view that funding for the installation of CCTV should continue to be provided by joint ventures involving local businesses, local authorities and other groups who derive a direct benefit from the resource.

  These financial arrangements, involving a large public sector commitment, have worked well. I am glad to say that there are already 13 CCTV schemes in Scotland, with more in prospect.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-departmental public bodies, arms-length organisations, and executive agencies which can be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [24212]

  Mr. Lang
  The following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Crofters Commission

  New Town Development Corporations

  Red Deer Commission

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Homes

  335

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Executive agencies are within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner in the same way as their parent Department. Scottish Office executive agencies are:

  Scottish Prison Service

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Students Awards Agency for Scotland

  Water Boards
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been allocated to set up the three new water boards in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [24805]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A total of £9.7 million has been allocated for grant-in-aid to the new water authorities in 1995–96. The allocations to individual water authorities is shown in the respective grant-in-aid tables at chapter 4 of the Scottish Office departmental report, published as Cm 2814.

  Lucia Martin Johnson
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will intervene in the case of Lucia Martin Johnson of Craigendmuir park, Cardowan, Stepps, to prevent her removal from the United Kingdom. [24863]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the provisions of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, which were incorporated in to the laws of the United Kingdom by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, such decisions are for the Court of Session and not for my right hon. Friend.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the well-being and comfort of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the workstation and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at Dover house, Whitehall, London. [25233]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department introduced restrictions on smoking in 1990 under which smoking is not permitted by staff at any time in work areas, reception areas, corridors, toilets, lifts, conference rooms and staff restaurants, except where there are designated smoking areas. In Dover house there is a designated smoking room in which staff may smoke.

  Fisheries Committee
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations led to the decision not to release externally the annual report of the electricity Fisheries Committee. [24189]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The annual reports which the Fisheries Committee has made to my right hon. Friend in recent years, were
  336
  produced on its own initiative. There is no statutory requirement for them. They were made without any expectation on the part of the committee, or hydro-electric companies, that the reports would be given wider distribution. For that reason, these reports have not been released externally. However, the committee will be informed that any future annual reports will be made available on request.

HEALTH

  Charges and Receipts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 177, what assumptions informed her estimate of charges and receipts in tables of the departmental report for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [23620]

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimates of charges and receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96 were published in table 3 of the departmental report, Cmnd 2812.

  The estimates of hospital and community health services charges and receipts for 1994–95 were based on the latest national health service trust audited summarisation accounts and on accounts and estimates from health authorities. The 1995–96 hospital and community health services current estimate is based on projections of past trends in receipts and will be revised in the usual way as further information becomes available. The HCHS capital receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96 assume that some expected land sales which were not completed in 1994–95 will take place in the following year.

  The estimate of family health service charges and receipts for 1994–95, reflected the charge levels then in force and forecasts of the volume of prescriptions and dental treatments. The planned increase for 1995–96 reflects the increase in family health services charges announced on 22 February, updated forecasts of the volume of prescriptions and dental treatments, and the knock on effect on charges of the increase in dental fees from 1 April, following the recommendation of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body.

  Dental Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of adults who no longer have access to NHS dentists. [24406]

  Mr. Malone
  All family health services authorities in England report that they can help patients who contact them to find national health service dentists.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will undertake an assessment of the report commissioned by the Austrian Government in 1993 on the role of fluorides in the prevention of caries. [24803]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes, when it is received.

  Operations
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of(a) a hip and (b) a cataract operation undertaken by hospitals in Derby. [24215]
  337
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Graham Rudd, chairman of Southern Derbyshire health authority, for details.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to make it a statutory requirement for(a) the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs, (b) the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, (c) the Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, (d) the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy, (e) the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorships, (f) the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, (g) the Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and (h) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, to lay an annual report before Parliament. [24203]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to introduce legislation to make it a statutory requirement for any of these bodies to lay their annual reports before Parliament. The following bodies already publish their annual reports through HMSO:

  Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food;

  Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship;

  Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  The annual report for the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy is available from the body itself. Reports from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment are published by HMSO, although not necessarily annually.

  The Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs does not publish an annual report. Its recommendations are made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who considers them in the formulation of policy.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals have commenced nursing training in each of the last five years. [24354]

  Mr. Sackville
  Data on the number of entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education are collected by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Copies of the board's annual report for 1993–1994 are available in the Library.

  Kawasaki Disease
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 495, what information about Kawasaki disease has now been made available to doctors through (a) her Department and (b) health authorities. [24080]
  338
  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer plans to include advice on the diagnosis and treatment of Kawasaki disease in his "Update" newsletter which is sent to all doctors in contract with the national health service. Copies are also placed in the Library.

  Details of the information which health authorities make available to doctors is not collected centrally.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will support the campaign to make the people of the United Kingdom more aware of myalgic encephalomyelitis; if she will increase official recognition of the disease; and if she will make a statement. [24096]

  Mr. Sackville
  We recognise what is increasingly being referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome as a potentially debilitating and distressing complex and we would support any informed efforts to raise awareness of this condition. Unfortunately, the causes of CFS are not understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment.

  The national task force on CFS, PVFS—post viral fatigue syndrome—and ME, which is independent of the Department, has produced a report. With a view to securing progress and promoting the development of a professional consensus, the chief medical officer has invited the conference of medical royal colleges to consider the report. The views of the conference of colleges will be of much assistance to the Department in helping to determine the best way forward.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to meet representatives of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs to discuss the rescheduling of temazepam; and if she will make a statement. [24120]

  Mr Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 10 May at column 756.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the capital expenditure on(a) the Derbyshire royal infirmary, (b) Derby City general hospital and (c) the Queens medical centre, Nottingham since (i) 1979 and (ii) 1992. [24213]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on capital expenditure is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact David Dawson, Norman Woods and Martin Suthers, chairmen of Derbyshire royal infirmary, Derby City general hospital and Queen's medical centre, respectively for details.

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the Foreign Secretary in respect of the transfer of moneys promised to the Peto institute in Hungary to the Peto institute in Britain; [24503]
  339
  (2) if the Peto institute complies with the criteria under the section 64 scheme, to apply for a grant this year; and what other financial assistance is available to the Foundation for Conductive Education. [24504]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 April at column 113. Any application from the Foundation for Conductive Education for funding in 96–97 under the section 64 scheme would be considered on its merits. The Health and Education Departments keep in close touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the agreement between the United Kingdom and Hungarian Governments covering the construction of a new international Peto institute in Budapest and I met the Hungarian Minister of Health in Budapest on 19 September 1994 to discuss progress.

  Rubber Gloves
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dangers her Department has identified in the use of certain types of rubber gloves used by health service workers; what assessment her Department has made of allergic reactions caused by the use of rubber surgical gloves used by health service workers; and what advice her Department gives to DHAs as to the purchasing of rubber surgical gloves. [24580]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is investigating claims of an apparent increase in the incidence of latex sensitivity in the last two years. The Medical Devices Agency is consulting experts in the field and reviewing survey information from other countries. A safety notice will be issued shortly drawing attention to the fact of latex sensitivity. Health authorities and national health service trusts are advised to buy surgeon's gloves and examination gloves which meet the Department's specification and quality standards, as do all such gloves supplied through the national and divisional contracts of the NHS Supplies Authority. Non-latex gloves are available under those contracts, if required.

  Richard Linford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will call for a report into the medical care given to Mr. Richard Linford and Mr. Christopher Edwards, prior to their imprisonment; and is she will make a statement; [24665]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the treatment of Mr. Richard Linford at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford following his arrest for assault in November 1994. [24664]

  Mr. Bowis
  North Essex health authority, Essex social services and the Home Office, representing the Prison Service, are establishing an independent inquiry into the care of Christopher Edwards and Richard Linford as required by HSG(94)27, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hib Vaccine
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the Hib vaccine has had on cases of Hib meningitis since its introduction. [24563]

  Mr. Sackville
  The introduction of Hib vaccine, in October 1992, has had a dramatic impact on cases of invasive Hib disease, including meningitis. Disease 340
  among young children targeted by Hib immunisation has almost completely disappeared. Laboratory reports show that cases of Hib meningitis in the under-fives fell from 347 in 1991 to just 11 last year; a reduction of 97 per cent.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on advice to be given to parents by GPs about the level and type of protection given against meningitis by the Hib vaccine; and what monitoring is undertaken by her Department to ensure this advice is complied with. [24565]

  Mr. Sackville
  Before the introduction of Hib vaccine into the childhood immunisation programme in October 1992, the Department of Health provided all health professionals with a comprehensive pack of information on the vaccine, including guidance on answering parents' questions. The pack includes information from Hib vaccine trials which showed 95 per cent. of children immunised developed effective levels of protection. It also clearly states that the vaccine gives protection against the invasive forms of Hib disease, including meningitis, but that it will not protect against other types of meningitis. Information about the type of protection Hib vaccine gives against meningitis is also contained in parents' information literature published by the Health Education Authority.

  The Health Education Authority conducts a continuous tracking study of parental attitudes and knowledge of all immunisations in the childhood programme, including Hib. for the Department.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the incidence of tuberculosis among persons who had at some stage had the BCG vaccine in each of the last five years; and what conclusions she has reached concerning the effectiveness of the BCG from this information. [24566]

  Mr. Sackville
  Whether or not a patient with tuberculosis had previously received BCG vaccine is not routinely recorded, nor was this information collected during the 1993 national survey of notifications of tuberculosis.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out for(a) St. Bartholomew's hospital, London and (b) North Tees general hospital, Stockton-on-Tees (i) the catchment population, (ii) the annual revenue and capital budgets, (iii) the number of consultant medical staff, (iv) the number of nursing staff, (v) the average waiting time for patients and (vi) the proximity of the nearest general hospital. [24700]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information on St. Bartholomew's hospital is not available centrally, as St. Bartholomew's is a constituent part of a larger unit—the Royal London Hospitals national health service trust. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Sir Derek Boorman for specific details.

  For information about North Tees general hospital, my hon. Friend may wish to contact Ms J. Graham Bowman, chairman of the North Tees health NHS trust, for details.

  Asthma
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of childhood asthma have been reported in Britain in each of the last 15 years; and what percentage this is of the children in Britain. [24561]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested. It has been estimated that 4 to 6 per cent. of children have asthma requiring regular medical supervision.

  Earlier this year, the Department of Health published "Asthma—An Epidemiological Overview", copies of which are available in the Library. This overview brings together a range of statistics on asthma.

  Recruitment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from(a) hospitals and (b) general practice about difficulties in recruiting doctors; and if she will make a statement. [24721]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received some representations from NHS trusts. However, this may be due to factors such as the geographical location or proposed duties of the posts. The number of NHS consultants continues to rise steadily, with average annual increases over the five years to 1993 well in excess of the Government's 2 per cent. target.

  The specialist workforce advisory group, SWAG, recognises the need to have better information about recruitment difficulties in relation to hospital doctors. SWAG has recently conducted a survey on this issue in a small sample of trusts. Most of the responses have now

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  Acute surgical

  1,312,775

  1,287,166

  1,213,773

  1,246,919

  1,258,519

  1,234,125

  Acute medical (not Paediatrics)

  1,370,415

  1,258,608

  1,182,521

  1,167,393

  1,158,073

  1,114,957

  Paediatrics

  464,118

  429,110

  433,369

  406,353

  400,576

  384,851

  A and E speciality

  85,510

  82,225

  81,656

  82,901

  84,046

  82,132

  Other emergency

  600,680

  583,786

  545,991

  548,859

  521,520

  486,005

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the motion made by certain African countries in respect of the position of the current director general of the World Health Organisation. [24507]

  Mr. Malone
  The draft resolution proposed by two African countries in respect of the current director general of the World Health Organisation was withdrawn by its sponsors after it failed to attract support among other African countries, and before member states from other WHO regions had commented on it.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to improve the working conditions, living conditions and terms of employment of junior doctors; what percentage of junior doctors is currently receiving implemented improvements; and if she will make a statement. [24695]
  342
  been received, and SWAG will use this information to help it make decisions on the relative priority with which it should examine individual specialties.

  Some general medical practitioners have expressed concern about recruitment into general practice. However, the number of general practitioner principals continues to increase year on year.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has received on the relationship between alcohol consumption and heart disease; and if she will make a statement. [24712]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is one of the matters currently being considered by the inter-departmental group on sensible drinking. The group has received about 90 pieces of evidence on the effects of alcohol consumption on health, including the effects on heart disease.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of(a) surgical, (b) adult medical, (c) paediatric, (d) intensive therapy units, (e) A and E and (f) other, emergency admissions in each of the last 10 years. [24722]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1988–89 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. Comparable data for earlier years are not available centrally. Patients in intensive therapy units are admitted under the care of consultants in the specialties that provide the treatment.

  Emergency admissions, numbers of finished consultant episodes:

  Mr. Malone
  "The New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours", copies of which are available in the Library, has resulted in significant improvements in the conditions of junior doctors. Over 96 per cent. of the 27,669 junior doctors and dentists in England now comply with the current new deal contracted hours' targets.

  We have devoted over £180 million to support the new deal. Our task forces, working closely with hospitals, have made excellent progress in using this money not only to reduce junior doctors' hours but to make real improvements in their living and working conditions. Over 2,000 new posts for doctors, including over 900 extra consultant posts, have been funded centrally or locally to support the new deal. We have also enabled task forces to spend significant sums in-year on improving living and working conditions.

  We introduced in 1992 a new, more flexible, pay system which recognises the diversity of junior doctors' working patterns and rewards them according to their level of work intensity. We have also accepted a recommendation this year from the Doctors and Dentists Pay. Review Body to increase the rate of pay for on-call

  343
  work for house officers and senior house officers. This improves their position relative to other doctors in training.

  We are committed to ensuring that the very encouraging progress made so far is sustained and that we continue to move forward in providing a better working and training environment for junior doctors. This will help to improve the quality of patient care delivered by doctors.

  Medical Graduates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical graduates leave the profession within three years of graduation. [24696]

  Mr. Malone
  Data are not available in the form requested.

  Pre-Registration House Officer Posts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the process for allocation of pre-registration house officer posts. [24697]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department seeks the advice of the postgraduate deans and the medical profession's joint consultants committee on the number and distribution of pre-registration house officer posts. The aim is that there should be sufficient posts to ensure that all new graduates are able to obtain a PRHO post. There is a small—currently 12.5 per cent.—excess of posts to ensure that they have some choice.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the change in emergency demand and urgent demand for ambulance services in 1994–95; [24698]

  (2) if she will list the ambulance services which failed to meet patients charter standards in any month for the year 1994–95, and the total number of months in which each ambulance service failed to meet patients charter standards; and if she will make a statement. [24699]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected on a monthly basis. Information on ambulance service activity in 1994–95 will not be available until later in the year.

  Read Clinical Codes
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total sums paid for the Read code by the NHS; and to whom these sums were paid. [24762]

  Mr. Sackville
  The sum paid by the Secretary of State for the Read clinical codes is commercial-in-confidence information. The agreed amount was paid directly to the inventor and developer of the codes, Dr. James Read, in April 1990.

  Telephone Links (South Thames Regional Office)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total cost to South Thames regional health authority of purchasing electronic links computer equipment for new 10 digit telephone numbers within the NHS; [24789]

  (2) from which budget South Thames regional health authority is purchasing electronic links computer equipment. [24788]
  344
  Mr. Sackville
  The telephone switchboard at Eastbourne terrace, the location of both South and North Thames regional health authorities, will be upgraded at a cost of £8,500 to make it compatible with the existing Department of Health telephone system. This will have significant benefits and will be funded from the office information system implementation budget for the North and South Thames regional office.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she is giving to extending the age that women are automatically screened for breast cancer. [24824]

  Mr. Sackville
  A study is being planned looking at the benefits and cost-effectiveness of including women aged 65 or over in the breast screening programme. Research is already under-way on the effectiveness of screening women aged 40 to 50.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the research currently being conducted into(a) breast screening of women 65 years and over, (b) breast screening of women under 50 and (c) the interval between breast screening which her Department has (i) commissioned and (ii) evaluated; and if she will detail for each (1) the body undertaking the research, (2) the geographical areas covered, (3) the sample size, (4) the expected completion date and (5) the cost of the exercise. [24825]

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom Health Departments, along 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, and the two major cancer research charities—the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—are currently funding four studies into breast cancer screening costing £5 million over five years. Two of these trials relate to:

  (i) The effects of screening women annually from age 40
  This is a multi-centre trial of some 195,000 women aged 40–41 who were identified and randomly allocated to a study group of 65,000 or a control group of 130,000. An interim analysis will take place in 1996, after which a decision on future funding will be taken.

  (ii) The effects of screening more frequently than every three years in women aged 50 and over
  This is a five-centre randomised trial looking at annual screening. The aim is to recruit 100,000 women aged 50 to 64. This trial is due to finish in 1996.
  The trials are being co-ordinated by the United Kingdom co-ordinating committee on cancer research. The Department of Health contributed £270,000 to the trials in 1994–95.
  The Department also funds the cancer screening evaluation unit at the Royal Marsden hospital, Sutton, by some £400,000 per year. The CSEU has a wide remit for the evaluation of cancer screening, a large part of which relates to breast cancer screening. This includes the co-ordination of the multi-centre UKCCCR age trial.
  A study is planned to look at the benefits and cost-effectiveness of including women aged 65 or over in the breast screening programme.

  Imported Monkeys
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to potential health hazards posed by the import of monkeys into the United Kingdom. [24786]

  Mr. Sackville
  All monkeys imported into Great Britain have to be licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and must spend six months in quarantine. Importers carry out tests for infectious agents that might be transmitted to humans before importation and during the period of quarantine. Instructions on preventing the spread of infection are given to those who handle monkeys as part of their work. Our medical advice is that these steps are adequate to protect human health.

  Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility a family health services authority has to ensure that a general practitioner holds current medical insurance. [24785]

  Mr. Malone
  None. General practitioners, as self-employed contractors, have responsibility for ensuring where appropriate, that they hold medical insurance. Subscriptions to medical defence bodies are fully reimbursed to the profession through the cost-plus contract.

  Disciplinary Tribunals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a nurse may present evidence to a hospital disciplinary tribunal. [24787]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no special provisions or circumstances which affect the attendance of nurses at disciplinary hearings; like other members of staff they may be called on to give evidence.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been undertaken by her Department to warn young people of the need to protect themselves against HIV when travelling abroad. [24862]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Education Authority which has the responsibility for the national HIV public education programme runs a summer campaign every year to alert travellers to the risk of HIV infection when they go abroad. This year and for the past two years the Department of Health has also run its HIV "Travel Safe Campaign" which is aimed at young, independent travellers. National initiatives are amply supported by travel projects funded at local level in the national health service.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Traffic, Hampshire
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sections of motorways in Hampshire currently have traffic levels which exceed on average 75,000 vehicles per day; and what sections are expected to have such traffic levels by 2000. [24299]
  346
  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what sections of motorways in Hampshire currently have traffic levels which exceed on average 75,000 vehicles per day and what sections are expected to have such traffic levels by the year 2000.
  The following sections of motorway currently have traffic levels in excess of 75,000 vehicles per day:-

  M3 Junctions 4–6 (Camberley to Basingstoke)

  M27 Junctions 5–9 (Stoneham to Park Gate)

  M27 Junctions 11–12 (Fareham to Portsmouth)

  By the year 2000, the following additional sections are expected to have flows in excess of 75,000 vehicles per day:-

  M3 Junctions 9–14 (Winnall to M27 Chilworth)

  M27 Junctions 4–11 (Chilworth to Fareham).

  Road Surfacing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of(a) laying and (b) maintaining 100 yards of (i) porous and (ii) conventional asphalt. [23863]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the cost of (a) laying and (b) maintaining 100 yards of (i) porous asphalt and (ii) conventional asphalt.
  My previous answer of 8 March quoted a range of prices for one kilometre length within a typical surfacing contract. Prices for a 100 yards length would be approximately 10% of those quoted figures. For instance a two lane dual carriageway all purpose road would be £10,000 to £20,000 for porous asphalt and £7,000 to £10,000 for conventional asphalt. I should point out that where only short lengths such as 100 yards are to be surfaced the costs would rise substantially for both porous asphalt and conventional asphalt due to the increased impact of fixed site costs. As we have little experience of such working we are unable to be more precise.
  Differences in maintenance cost between porous asphalt and conventional asphalt relate chiefly to the need for more frequent resurfacing with porous asphalt, the extra cost of the porous asphalt material and the more frequent salting operations needed for porous asphalt in winter. It is currently not possible to give any representative information on the additional cost of salting given the limited amount of porous asphalt which has been laid and the recent mild winters. However, I am able to give you an indication of the difference in material and laying costs. Broadly speaking, maintaining a porous asphalt surface over the life of a road will be of the order of double the cost of maintaining a conventional asphalt surface. This does not take into account the effect of traffic delays during roadworks which will add to the cost of maintaining porous asphalt because of the need for more frequent resurfacing.
  As explained in my letter the costs are influenced by numerous factors such as traffic and climatic conditions. These also have an influence on the life of a road surface. Consequently the performance of the different surfaces will vary significantly from site to site.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the locations of the sections of Britain's motorways that currently have porous asphalt surfacing; what total length of motorways is covered in porous asphalt surfacing; and what total length of
  347
  motorway covered in porous asphalt surfacing currently have traffic levels (a) below and (b) above 75,000 vehicles per day. [24300]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the locations of lengths of porous asphalt laid on motorways throughout Britain and of those the total lengths carrying above and below 75,000 vehicles per day.
  You will appreciate that the Secretary of State for Transport and the Highways Agency are responsible only for roads in England. Roads in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the appropriate Secretaries of State and I am not able to provide information to you for those areas.
  Porous asphalt surfacings have been used within two long term trials on the M1 in Yorkshire and on the M6 in Lancashire. In addition, porous surfaces have been used on the M40 (Junction 6 - Postcombe) and on the M25 widening (Junctions 7–8) currently under construction.
  To date the total length of motorway covered with porous asphalt is approximately 4.5 miles excluding the trials. These trials comprise approximately 1.1 miles but in each case it is only one or part of one of the two carriageways which has been treated.
  None of the lengths with porous asphalt surfacing carry flows less than 75,000 vehicles per day.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, columns 351–52, in what specific circumstances porous asphalt is considered not to be technically suitable as a noise mitigation measure on motorways. [24461]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the specific circumstances porous asphalt is considered not to be technically suitable as a noise mitigation measure on motorways.
  The technical limitations on the use of porous asphalt on motorways and other trunk roads are set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 7, Section 2, Part 4, HD27/94 as published by HMSO. This states that porous asphalt should not be used in the following situations:

  a) On areas where the pavement strength is sub-standard.

  b) On areas where there is considerable acceleration, braking, turning and parking.

  c) On tight radius curves, and loops of radii less than 75 metres, or when gradients exceed 10 per cent., without advice from the Overseeing Department.

  d) On areas where excessive deposits of detritus or oil and fuel may be experienced; such as parking areas, exits from farms and quarries and other industrial sites.

  e) On areas where the use of tracked vehicles, construction plant, farm equipment or similar industrial vehicles is expected.

  f) On areas where the cross-fall is insufficient to remove water to the road edge such that flooding may occur in the porous asphalt.

  g) At locations where free drainage cannot be accommodated along the low edge of the surfacing; for example abutting other types of construction such as a concrete carriageway.

  h) Generally on lengths of carriageway less than 100m, because of spray carry-over from adjacent surfacing, unless special conditions prevail.

  348

  i) Where cyclists use the carriageway and where kerbs are provided, unless provision is made to ensure drainage design overcomes any possible safety hazards.

  j) On existing new bridges where it is not possible to adequately drain the surface.

  k) In urban environments, where frequent excavations by statutory undertakers may occur.

  l) Where traffic levels exceed 4,000 commercial vehicles per lane per day, at opening, without reference to the Overseeing Department. This is being extended to embrace traffic levels up to 6,000.

  Porous asphalt is not recommended for use on jointed concrete or flexible composite road pavements without seeking advice from the Overseeing Department. Additionally, it is not recommended for certain steel deck bridges.
  Whilst the above limitations currently apply the Highways Agency has implemented a research programme to see if it is possible to produce more durable porous asphalt and reduce the number of limitations.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 345, what is the definition adopted by his Department of noise levels being unreasonably high at adjacent properties to a motorway; and what consideration is given to the expected increase in noise levels due to the future growth in traffic. [24458]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the definition adopted of noise levels being unreasonable adjacent to motorways and what allowance is made for traffic growth.
  The level of traffic noise which is taken to be unreasonable is that prescribed by the Noise Insulation Regulations, namely a level which is predicted to exceed 68 db(A) at the facade of a residential property, of which an increase of at least 1db(A) is attributable to traffic on the new or improved road. Future growth of traffic, both on the new road and associated roads in the area, is taken into account by basing predicted noise levels on the most adverse combination anticipated within 15 years of the new road or improvement being open to traffic.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 344, for what reasons only motorways which had a start of works prior to April and which are still under construction are considered for the provision of acoustic fencing. [24459]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons only motorways which had a start of works prior to April and that are still under construction are considered for acoustic fencing.
  The provision of acoustic fencing is considered for all new motorway and motorway widening schemes as the noise mitigation part of a package of environmental measures. But how much is provided in any one year depends on when the particular scheme starts and the contractors programme of work on that scheme.

  349
  Thus in answering your previous question, we could only give details of fencing for schemes which had started and therefore had a known contractors works programme. Information for schemes which are due to start this year will become available when the contractors submit their programme and I shall write to you again.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 346, how he allows for the cost of compensation for loss in property values under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in making a cost benefit analysis of proposals for acoustic fencing and other noise mitigation measures for motorways in the absence of specific figures. [24400]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning how costs of compensation for loss in property values under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are taken into account in cost benefit analysis of proposals for acoustic fencing.
  Composite estimates of the likely amount of compensation payable are provided by the District Valuer at various stage of development of a road proposal. Estimates of the element of compensation attributable to loss in property value under Part I of the Land Compensation Act take into account the mitigating effect of any protective measures included in the options or alternatives which the District Valuer is asked to consider.

  Street Furniture
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the likely reduction in the numbers of serious and fatal accidents if steel or concrete light standards and telegraph poles were replaced by aluminium poles and standards. [24904]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) serious and (b) fatal accidents involved collision with lighting standards and telephone poles in each of the last five years. [24905]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Fatal and serious accidents involving collision with lamp posts, telegraph poles or electricity poles: Great Britain 1989–93

  Number of accidents

  One vehicle only involved

  Pedestrian and one vehicle involved

  Object hit

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Fatal

  Serious

  Lamp post

  1989

  94

  866

  4

  20

  1990

  110

  854

  6

  25

  1991

  91

  683

  6

  32

  1992

  93

  627

  5

  26

  1993

  70

  586

  4

  16

  Telegraph pole or electricity pole

  1989

  45

  290

  0

  5

  1990

  34

  288

  3

  3

  1991

  27

  234

  3

  9

  1992

  25

  213

  1

  6

  1993

  28

  182

  0

  1

  North Sea Conference
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he will (i) put forward and (ii) support at the North sea ministerial conference in Denmark on 8 June in respect of shipping; and if he will make a statement. [24404]

  Mr. Norris
  A note on UK policy objectives for the fourth North sea conference was placed in the Library of the House on 16 May. My Department has been fully involved in the preparations for the fourth North sea conference, and has already made a number of proposals consistent with our policy on marine safety and pollution following Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".

  The Government will be represented at the North sea conference by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will be proposing and supporting a wide range of measures to enhance ship safety, to reduce accidental and operational discharges from ships, to improve the clean-up of spills and to secure better compensation for the victims of marine pollution damage, especially through the development and ratification of the convention on hazardous and noxious substances.

  Coast Watch Services
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to the Coastguard Agency in respect of co-operation with the National Coastwatch Institution; and if he will make a statement. [24669]

  Mr. Norris
  The Coastguard Agency welcomes any useful information which the National Coastwatch Institution may provide. It is always ready to encourage any responsible organisation volunteering information which might assist the coastguard in fulfilling the national responsibility for co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the results of the evacuation trials conducted by the HSA on new high-speed catamaran passenger craft; and if he will make a statement. [24920]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about evacuation trials on new high-speed catamaran passenger craft.
  There are no plans to publish the results of the evacuation trials conducted by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) on high-speed catamaran passenger craft. The MSA is, however, fully satisfied that the craft currently operating from United Kingdom ports can meet the required evacuation time for this type of vessel.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he gave to the evacuations from the Achille Lauro and the Lakonia when postulating evacuation times for ferries using United Kingdom ports; and if he will make a statement. [24922]
  351
  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about evacuation times for roll-on roll-off ferries with regard to the cases of the "Achille Lauro" and the "Lakonia".
  Responsibility for the investigation of casualties to ships lies with the flag state; neither the "Achille Lauro" nor the "Lakonia" were registered with the United Kingdom. The flag state may thus determine what changes are required to the regulations of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and, put forward proposals for discussion within the International Maritime Organization. Any changes agreed, including for example evacuation times, would be implemented by the United Kingdom and other Administrations signatory to the SOLAS Convention.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons he has not yet accepted the Marine Safety Committee document 65/4, "RoRo Ferry Safety". [24822]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has already broadly welcomed the recommendations of the panel of experts, now issued as Maritime Safety Committee document 65/4, in his oral statement to the House on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1753. The Government will continue to press for the adoption of measures to enhance ferry safety recommended by the panel.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the review of the financial implications of Marine Safety Committee document 65/4, "RoRo Ferry Safety", to be completed and published. [24823]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State for Transport, in his oral statement to the House on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1753, emphasised that any new measures proposed as a result of the recommendation made by the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts would be subject to a full analysis of the potential costs and benefits. The Marine Safety Agency is currently investigating the costs of implementing various possible new requirements for ro-ro ferries. This information should be available in time for the negotiations on ferry safety at the International Maritime Organisation in November.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary or State for Transport how much time is allocated to muster passengers from 10 decks to lifeboat points in the standard 30-minute evacuation of 2,000 people from roll-on-roll-off ferries. [24919]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about allocation of the 30 minute evacuation time for roll-on roll-off ferries.
  No specific period is allocated for the muster of passengers. The muster of passengers will commence when the general alarm signal is given whereas the 30 minute evacuation period begins with the abandon ship signal which may be given sometime later.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has sought or received views from the Royal Institute of Naval Architects on the estimated costs and timescale of introducing the recommendation in Marine Safety Committee document 65/4,"RoRo Ferry Safety". [24821]
  352
  Mr. Norris
  The Government are aware of the views of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects on the issue of ferry stability, in particular its views submitted to the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts.

  The Government will continue to press for the adoption of recommendations on roll-on roll-off ferry safety made by the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts on ferry safety. We need to take matters forward on the basis of the panel's recommendations, including a full analysis of the costs and benefits of implementing new measures.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities were made available for the Marchioness action group to examine or photograph the hull of the Marchioness(a) on the shore at Southwark and (b) at any other named location; to whom and on whose authority the hull was sold; and on what date it left the Thames. [24744]

  Mr. Norris
  Although the marine accident investigation branch inspected the hull of the Marchioness in the course of its investigation, at no time was either access to the vessel or sale of the vessel under its control.

  The sale of the vessel would have been a matter for the owners, Tidal Cruises Ltd, following its release by the police on completion of their investigations. My Departments has no records relating to the sale of the vessel.

  Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will accept as a regular procedure that any major transport accident which involves either large-scale loss of life or has significant implications for transport policy should normally lead to the setting up of a public inquiry. [15905]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: Ministers must be free to consider the most appropriate form of inquiry, taking into account the circumstances of the accident and its severity. The purpose of any inquiry must be to establish the facts and cause of the accident, to evaluate what lessons can be learnt and to make recommendations to avoid future recurrence. Technical inquiries, such as those by the independent marine accident investigation branch and the air accident investigation branch have the advantage of being carried out by experienced and expert investigators. A public inquiry is one option that Ministers will consider following a major transport accident but we do not believe that it would be appropriate or effective for this to be accepted as a regular procedure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what services are available for autistic people in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [23679]
  353
  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 16 May,Official Report column 194.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was allocated to the youth service in Northern Ireland in 1993–94 and 1994–95; how much was allocated to(a) uniformed organisations and (b) non-uniformed organisations; and what was the membership of (i) uniformed and (ii) non-uniformed organisations in each year. [23990]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total allocation was £15.822 million in 1993–94 and £16.010 million in 1994–95.

  The information on allocations to uniformed and non-uniformed organisations and their respective memberships details is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for each type of home improvement grant at each of the Housing Executive offices were refused because of the means-tested element since the introduction of the Housing (NI) Order 1992. [23706]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chief executive has advised me that the Housing Executive does not refuse grant applications on the ground of a means test. The means test determines the contribution which an applicant must make towards the cost of remedial work. The amount of the applicant's contribution can range from nil to the full cost of the works and, depending on this assessment, applicants may decide not to proceed.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long it takes to process each of the nine home improvement grant applications at each of the Housing Executive grants offices in Northern Ireland. [23704]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chief executive has advised me that the information requested is not readily available. However, the average time to process applications at three key stages is as follows:

  Average time

  1. From receipt of preliminary inquiry form to inspection of the dwelling

  15 weeks

  2. From inspection to issue of a schedule of Work

  9 weeks

  3. From receipt of completed formal application to issue of approval

  4 months

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been made for each type of home improvement grant at each of the Housing Executive grants offices in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the Housing (NI) Order 1992; and of these how many were(a) approved (b) rejected and (c) withdrawn, giving the reasons for refusal. [23705]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chief executive has advised me 354
  that the Executive does not maintain records in the format requested. However table 1 indicates the total number of preliminary inquiry forms received by each grant office, the numbers refused and the numbers not taken forward by the applicant. Table 2 shows the numbers approved by grant type.

  Table 1: Numbers of preliminary enquiries received, refused and withdrawn: October 1992–March 1995

  Preliminary enquiries received

  Preliminary enquiries refused

  Withdrawn

  Belfast: Area 1

  4,378

  1,353

  196

  Belfast: Area 2

  3,897

  1,641

  367

  Belfast: Area 3

  4,853

  1,392

  301

  HMO Unit1

  196

  Nil

  Nil

  Ballyclare

  3,312

  1,506

  205

  Ballymena

  2,401

  584

  104

  Coleraine

  1,567

  383

  281

  Derry

  5,127

  1,383

  456

  Omagh

  4,690

  587

  590

  Fermanagh

  2,802

  555

  56

  Newry

  5,559

  74

  46

  Craigavon

  5,940

  730

  393

  Lisburn

  3,258

  717

  332

  Newtownards

  4,374

  1,508

  416

  Totals:

  52,354

  12,413

  3,743

  The main reasons for refusals are:-

  1. the property was considered to be fit for human hanitation;

  2. the property was less than 10 years old;

  3. the applicant did not have the appropriate legal interest in the property.

  1 House in multiple occupation

  Table 2. Formal approvals issued: October 1992–March 1995

  Ren

  NBG

  DFG

  MWA

  RG

  HMO

  Belfast: Area 1

  413

  —

  52

  156

  796

  —

  Belfast: Area 2

  415

  —

  21

  217

  800

  —

  Belfast: Area 3

  403

  —

  63

  365

  883

  —

  HMO Unit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  Ballyclare

  277

  2

  71

  225

  83

  —

  Ballymena

  185

  12

  65

  97

  13

  —

  Coleraine

  157

  7

  56

  89

  14

  3

  Derry

  366

  6

  165

  278

  23

  —

  Omagh

  228

  20

  136

  335

  351

  —

  Fermanagh

  128

  118

  50

  248

  137

  —

  Newry

  178

  15

  169

  168

  998

  —

  Craigavon

  209

  33

  119

  199

  1,864

  —

  Lisburn

  225

  28

  65

  128

  285

  1

  Newtownards

  299

  2

  76

  268

  450

  2

  Totals:

  3,483

  243

  1,108

  2,773

  6,697

  56

  Notes:

  Ren = Renovation Grant.

  NBG = Replacement Grant.

  DFG = Disabled Facilities Grant.

  MWA = Minor Works Assistance.

  RG = Repairs Grant.

  HMO = Houses in Multiple Occupation Grant.

  Road Traffic Legislation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in introducing new road traffic legislation in Northern Ireland. [24320]
  355
  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) is carrying forward a programme of road traffic legislation aimed at updating the law in this field. Three Orders in Council are being progressed as follows:A draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order which will update road safety and construction and use of vehicles provisions will be laid before Parliament in the near future.
  A proposal for a draft Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order setting out the prosecution and punishment of offenders, including the introduction of a penalty points system, is currently being drafted and will be published for consultation purposes by the autumn.
  The modification of the law in relation to the regulation of traffic, parking places and speed limits is to be the subject of a Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order. It is planned to publish a proposal for a draft Order in Council for consultation purposes in the autumn.

  Ports Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants are available from the European Union to Northern Ireland ports in the public sector that would not be available in the event of privatisation. [24316]

  Mr. Moss
  European Union structural funds grants which are currently available to public sector ports in Northern Ireland would continue to be available in the event of privatisation

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will adopt to ensure an upturn in the construction industry through investment in schools, hospitals, education, housing, roads and factories. [23702]

  Mr. Moss
  I have asked my officials to consider, as a matter of urgency, how the construction industry could best be assisted over the coming year. The possibility of increasing expenditure on infrastructure will be borne in mind.

  Railways
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing the consultants' recommendations about Northern Ireland Railways. [24314]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 January 1995,Official Report, column 146. Since then the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company has commissioned a study to examine further opportunities for market testing and contracting out and to advise on the scope for sale of Northern Ireland Railways' non-core businesses.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he plans to require the owners of land to which the public may have access to eradicate Heracleum Mantegazzianum; and if he will make a statement about the dangers associated with this plant. [24082]
  356
  Mr. Moss
  No new measures are planned to require the owners of land to which the public may have access to eradicate Heracleum Mantegazzianum or giant hogweed. The Department of Agriculture and Department of Environment continue to promote a programme of voluntary control.

  The existing provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1888 give district councils powers to deal with "nuisances" in premises, including lands, which are in such a state as to be "injurious to health".

  The danger associated with giant hogweed is that the plants release sap when the stems are cut or leaf hairs are broken. On contact with the skin in sunlight, the sap can cause severe blistering.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what towns and villages are currently being considered for the designation of conservation area status in the constituency of South Down; and when these designations will take place. [24761]

  Mr. Moss
  The towns of Saintfield and Ardglass are currently being considered for designation as conservation areas. There is also a proposal to extend the conservation area of the village of Rostrevor, originally designated in 1979. It is not possible at this stage to indicate when the designations will take place.

  US Investment Conference
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review his decision to provide partial funding for support of representatives of non-governmental organisations at President Clinton's investment conference, to be held in Washington DC from 24 to 26 May; and if he will make a statement. [24857]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on President Clinton's investment conference to be held in Washington DC in May; and how he intends to maximise the returns for all delegates from Ireland, north and south; and what plans he has for de-briefing, follow-up meetings and dissemination of the results of the aforesaid conference within Northern Ireland. [24861]

  Mr. Ancram
  The White House conference for trade and investment in Washington offers considerable potential for more investment in Northern Ireland and the six border counties of the Republic of Ireland through new inward investment, trade, business partnerships, technology transfer and tourism. This potential will be released through the various breakout or workshop sessions, individual meetings with key business people and networking at various functions.

  Following the conference there will be full follow-up on all prospects for trade, inward investment or technology transfer.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the resources and facilities of Her Majesty's Government's Departments and agencies by way of access to briefings, meetings, and exhibitions organised by Her Majesty's Government's Departments and agencies to assist and facilitate the participation of the representatives of voluntary organisations and community groups, at
  357
  President Clinton's investment conference in Washington DC; and if he will make a statement. [24858]

  Mr. Ancram
  Officials in Northern Ireland Departments and agencies have already participated in briefings of community group representatives in preparation for their attendance at the White House trade and investment conference in Washington.

  During the conference, officials will be available to provide information and advice for the purpose of facilitating the participation of all representatives.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the support of the participation of the community and voluntary sector representatives invited to attend President Clinton's investment conference in Washington DC. [24856]

  Mr. Ancram
  Some financial assistance will be available through the Northern Ireland voluntary trust to community and voluntary sector representatives to enable them to participate in the conference.

  A break-out or workshop session has been offered by the conference organisers to provide an opportunity for bringing together the interests of those involved in community development activities in Northern Ireland with those of business leaders from both sides of the Atlantic. Support has also been provided by officials involved in briefing community sector participants.

  Rowe Report
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has yet received Mr. J. J. Rowe's report on the operation in 1994 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. [25532]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received Mr. Rowe's report and it is being published today and copies are being placed in the library. I am most grateful to him for his work.

  As the ceasefires continue to hold the powers in the Act are being used less and less. But the Government believe that the Act itself remains necessary. This is also the view of Mr. Rowe. I am therefore laying before the House today an order continuing for a further year those provisions in the Act which are currently in force. We all look forward to the time when there will no longer be a need for them.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. David Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1995–96. [25533]

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

  1. To collect 98.11 per cent. of the gross collectable rate, excluding late assessments, by 31 March 1996.

  2. To achieve a reduction of 2 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of rate collection per rate account issued.

  3. To generate refunds to 97 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  4. To process by 31 March 1996 90 per cent. of applications for the incoming year received before 15 March 1996 from existing housing benefit recipients.

  5. To achieve a reduction of 2 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of processing Housing Benefit applications.

  6. To process 95 per cent. of Housing Benefit claims free of error.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the problems of drug abuse. [23560]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Apart from several general inquiries from members of the public, we have had 52 letters forwarded by Members of Parliament this year.

  The most common inquiry was concerned with the legal status of drugs, usually arguing for or against legalising cannabis, followed by issues such as drugs and crime, the scheduling of temazepam, drug logos on clothing and cuts in the numbers of customs officials at ports.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers there are on duty per 1,000 population in the Metropolitan police; and what is the national average. [23562]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary that there are 3.6 officers per 1,000 population in the Metropolitan police district. This compares with a national average of 2.2 officers per 1,000 population excluding the Met.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of introducing identity cards; and if he will make a statement. [23563]

  Mr. Howard: The cost-effectiveness of any identity card scheme would depend upon the detailed arrangements for the scheme, the value of the card to the individual holder, the wider value to society, and the costs of the scheme. I intend publishing a consultation document on identity cards shortly.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the delays in making decisions on applications for asylum. [23564]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 has reduced significantly the average time taken to decide applications made since the Act came into force. But delays persist as a result of a large and continuing increase in the number of asylum applications. Earlier this year, my right hon. and learned Friend announced substantial additional resources to speed up the asylum determination and appeal system. We hope to announce shortly proposals for further improvements.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the number of asylum seekers held in custody. [23571]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Since 1 January 1995 we have received 97 letters on this subject from hon. Members writing on behalf of their constituents and 47 from members of the public writing direct. I have also received a letter, dated 2 May, from the Refugee Legal Centre.
  359
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in the last year have been detained for over six months. [23572]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested. On 9 May 1995, a total of 118 persons who had at some time claimed asylum had been in detention for six months or more. Of these, 114 had their application refused.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the current establishment of the third country unit within the Home Office's immigration and nationality department; and if he will make a statement on the function of this unit. [24826]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The third country unit is part of the asylum division. It consists of one higher executive officer, four executive officers and one administrative assistant. It is responsible for cases where an asylum applicant has arrived from a safe third country to which he may be returned without substantive consideration of his claim in accordance with paragraphs 337 and 345 of the immigration rules.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been removed to Norway on safe third country grounds since 26 July 1993; and how many so removed have been returned to the United Kingdom by the Norwegian authorities. [24827]

  Notifiable recorded by the police by police force area and offence group

  England and Wales 1994

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and Forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in another building

  Avon and Somerset

  167,975

  6,791

  1,091

  1,714

  37,397

  93,164

  4,316

  22,532

  970

  21,938

  34,890

  18,993

  18,404

  Bedfordshire

  55,661

  1,978

  426

  582

  12,881

  27,271

  1,904

  7,214

  405

  7,414

  10,341

  6,124

  6,757

  Cambridgeshire

  61,732

  3,030

  421

  242

  14,099

  33,942

  1,460

  8,087

  451

  5,792

  10,335

  6,206

  7,893

  Cheshire

  74,926

  3,245

  543

  278

  19,248

  34,961

  2,625

  12,449

  1,577

  7,451

  11,662

  9,363

  9,885

  Cleveland

  81,732

  2,359

  236

  466

  18,428

  42,931

  1,287

  15,621

  404

  12,007

  10,902

  12,380

  6,048

  Cumbria

  42,492

  2,153

  250

  74

  10,066

  20,259

  1,127

  8,170

  393

  2,555

  7,586

  4,156

  5,910

  Derbyshire

  85,915

  3,984

  493

  421

  24,049

  38,526

  1,678

  15,995

  769

  8,564

  14,190

  10,112

  13,937

  Devon and Cornwall

  109,396

  4,603

  892

  403

  30,266

  54,843

  3,258

  13,780

  1,351

  6,884

  21,367

  15,123

  15,143

  Dorset

  55,590

  1,885

  443

  146

  9,395

  31,456

  3,151

  8,244

  870

  3,564

  10,111

  5,740

  3,655

  Durham

  65,029

  2,665

  510

  149

  12,524

  33,591

  2,575

  12,259

  756

  7,989

  8,995

  7,709

  4,815

  Essex

  106,025

  4,505

  549

  423

  23,639

  55,314

  2,688

  17,968

  939

  8,346

  17,352

  8,606

  15,033

  Glouccstershire

  61,198

  2,140

  1,006

  319

  15,844

  31,765

  2,677

  6,850

  597

  4,528

  13,671

  7,685

  8,159

  Greater Manchester

  339,074

  9,281

  1,228

  5,361

  91,077

  156,296

  8,549

  64,874

  2,408

  49,661

  51,908

  54,915

  36,162

  Hampshire

  141,271

  5,704

  1,056

  585

  29,600

  74,988

  4,026

  23,779

  1,533

  9,571

  26,936

  12,829

  16,771

  Hertfordshire

  54,887

  1,996

  305

  264

  12,100

  28,788

  1,307

  9,781

  346

  5,301

  12,782

  4,480

  7,620

  Humberside

  135,826

  5,054

  695

  547

  43,965

  62,544

  3,010

  19,402

  609

  15,023

  19,356

  20,127

  23,838

  Kent

  155,345

  7,128

  1,099

  635

  26,871

  86,022

  3,830

  28,001

  1,759

  16,677

  25,006

  16,944

  9,927

  Lancashire

  127,302

  3,232

  502

  546

  27,151

  63,958

  3,486

  27,275

  1,152

  11,038

  21,399

  17,990

  9,161

  Leicestershire

  99,150

  4,855

  617

  1,158

  26,109

  48,279

  3,326

  14,238

  568

  10,785

  17,006

  15,574

  10,535

  Lincolnshire

  47,767

  2,319

  393

  119

  11,221

  23,110

  1,158

  8,733

  714

  3,345

  5,906

  6,239

  4,982

  London, City of

  5,272

  125

  23

  29

  675

  3,640

  422

  267

  91

  79

  541

  37

  638

  Merseyside

  136,825

  7,678

  808

  2,035

  33,042

  65,342

  3,012

  23,286

  1,622

  15,308

  16,357

  20,479

  12,563

  Metropolitan Police

  849,976

  46,292

  6,929

  25,518

  161,174

  399,545

  32,591

  168,363

  9,564

  57,859

  126,276

  103,988

  57,186

  Norfolk

  56,075

  2,187

  370

  186

  13,931

  29,412

  1,481

  7,882

  626

  3,614

  10,179

  5,081

  8,850

  Northamptonshire

  57,607

  2,498

  367

  306

  14,521

  27,199

  1,559

  10,701

  456

  6,536

  9,194

  6,942

  7,579

  Northumbria

  204,057

  6,185

  746

  1,213

  57,207

  82,215

  2,946

  52,553

  992

  25,008

  23,151

  29,121

  28,086

  North Yorkshire

  62,153

  2,082

  263

  187

  16,694

  31,358

  1,059

  10,031

  479

  5,235

  10,876

  7,152

  9,542

  Nottinghamshire

  152,592

  7,718

  1,141

  1,193

  34,639

  71,974

  3,857

  31,301

  769

  16,010

  19,072

  21,735

  12,904

  South Yorkshire

  157,089

  5,027

  664

  1,062

  51,242

  69,998

  2,885

  24,859

  1,352

  21,692

  23,304

  25,563

  25,679

  Staffordshire

  93,179

  6,090

  551

  416

  26,736

  41,772

  2,244

  14,925

  445

  9,638

  16,320

  12,637

  14,099

  Suffolk

  39,393

  2,140

  392

  118

  7,778

  19,624

  1,544

  7,137

  660

  1,938

  5,517

  3,200

  4,578

  Surrey

  46,782

  2,715

  463

  165

  10,158

  24,046

  1,724

  6,899

  612

  3,612

  8,263

  4,657

  5,501

  Sussex

  107,105

  3,420

  747

  589

  24,271

  56,214

  2,860

  17,759

  1,245

  6,701

  18,286

  13,024

  11,247

  Thames Valley

  186,268

  5,564

  870

  1,130

  38,254

  103,974

  6,115

  28,763

  1,598

  19,618

  38,460

  21,187

  17,067

  Warwickshire

  42,592

  1,411

  288

  136

  11,040

  21,797

  1,091

  6,483

  346

  5,004

  8,363

  4,548

  6,492

  West Mercia

  83,948

  3,437

  473

  284

  16,738

  45,438

  1,545

  15,332

  701

  8,258

  13,866

  8,610

  8,128

  West Midlands

  315,755

  10,407

  1,354

  7,028

  90,637

  142,522

  8,134

  53,738

  1,935

  40,347

  49,714

  48,241

  42,396

  West Yorkshire

  289,719

  9,414

  1,504

  2,968

  87,391

  134,406

  5,625

  45,720

  2,691

  34,917

  44,815

  55,306

  32,085

  Wiltshire

  38,147

  2,495

  364

  137

  8,152

  19,193

  1,142

  6,144

  520

  2,406

  6,210

  4,032

  4,120

  Dyfed-Powys

  21,602

  2,192

  250

  41

  3,491

  9,667

  631

  4,816

  514

  1,110

  2,372

  1,396

  2,095

  Gwent

  38,431

  2,533

  270

  79

  6,639

  19,841

  1,160

  7,047

  862

  3,538

  5,895

  3,296

  3,343

  North Wales

  43,451

  2,612

  352

  100

  10,215

  20,611

  1,103

  7,917

  541

  2,494

  7,372

  3,314

  6,901

  South Wales

  157,748

  6,141

  550

  419

  37,405

  77,227

  3,677

  30,952

  1,377

  25,372

  26,666

  14,802

  22,603

  England and Wales

  5,251,059

  219,270

  32,494

  59,771

  1,257,960

  2,559,023

  145,845

  928,127

  48,569

  534,727

  842,770

  679,643

  578,317

  360
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Four persons who had been refused asylum in the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds have been removed to Norway since 16 July 1993. Of these, one has been returned to the United Kingdom.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the trend in the recorded crime figures. [23565]

  Mr. Maclean
  Recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 5 per cent. in 1994. Together with the 1 per cent. fall in 1993, this represents the largest percentage fall over a two-year period for 40 years. This fall is a testament to the success of recent police initiatives which actively target crimes such as burglary.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by each police force in England and Wales within each category of crime in 1994; how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by each force; and how many of the burglaries recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1994 were(a) in a dwelling and (b) in another building. [23876]

  Mr. MacLean
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are Her Majesty's Government's plans for(a) further funding for closed circuit television and (b) further funding for supplementary policing in urban areas. [23566]

  Mr. MacLean
  The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. The possibility of further competitions in the future has not been ruled out, but it is too early to give a firm commitment.

  General funding is allocated between police authorities on the basis of a formula which measures relative policing needs. That formula allows for extra demands in urban areas.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the outcome of the bid for Government funding for a closed circuit television scheme for the Boscombe shopping centre in Bournemouth. [23570]

  Mr. MacLean
  My right hon. and learned Friend was pleased to announce on Monday 27 March that this scheme was one of the 106 successful schemes to share the £5 million funding provided to spread CCTV technology more widely.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the number of women serving a prison sentence. [23567]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 9 May 1995, there were 1,470 sentenced female prisoners in Prison Service accommodation in England and Wales.

  Drug Smuggling, Republic of Ireland
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance has been requested by the Republic of Ireland to combat drug smuggling into the United Kingdom and the Republic. [23568]

  Mr. Maclean
  There is close co-operation between police and customs in the United Kingdom and their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and regular exchanges of information on operational matters. Irish customs has requested some training assistance which HM Customs and Excise is providing.

  Police Salaries
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on top salaries in the police force. [23569]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 22 March, I wrote to Professor Sir Laurie Hunter CBE informing him of the Government's response to the Police Negotiating Board's recommendations for chief officers' pay. The Government approved most of the Police Negotiating Board's proposals for restructuring chief officers' pay. The Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations about the timing of the implementation of part of the new pay arrangements, which the Government are currently considering.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long victims of violent crime whose cases were assessed under the tariff scheme will have to wait for the reassessment of their awards. [23573]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 1 May,Official Report, column 92.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total legal costs of defending the Government's tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation in the courts up to and including the House of Lords: and if he will make a statement. [23632]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) on 16 May,Official Report, column 190.

  Prisoners (Drug-related Offences)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the numbers in prison for drug-related offences. [23574]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of prisoners serving sentences for offences under misuse of drugs legislation in 1994 was around 10 per cent. of the prison population; but no reliable estimate is yet available of the number of prisoners serving sentences for offences committed under the influence of drugs or to pay for drugs.

  "In the Line of Fire"
  Mr Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the Audit Commission report, "In the Line of Fire". [23575]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today in response to an identical question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will have on the fight against crime; and if he will make a statement. [23548]

  Mr. Howard
  The Act will make a significant contribution to the fight against crime. As the Police Federation has said, it will"enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of our society".

  Jersey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to visit Jersey to meet members of the states to discuss the current constitutional position. [23561]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit the Channel Islands, as it is customary for Home Secretaries to do, in the not—too—distant future. Meanwhile, my noble Friend Lady Blatch has recently completed a visit to the Channel Islands, including Jersey, where she held discussions with members of the states.

  Police Station Inquiry Desks
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve civilian competence in dealing with the public at police station inquiry desks, with particular reference to the ability to communicate; and if he will make a statement. [23662]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter primarily for each chief officer of police. I am not aware of any problems arising from civilian members of the police service dealing with members of the public, but I, or the relevant chief officer of police, as appropriate, would be happy to respond to any specific concerns.

  Brian Douglas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the death of Mr. Brian Douglas on 8 May; and what assessment has been made as to the cause of his injuries. [24692]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the matter is being investigated by the Police Complaints Authority. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to order a searching review of the case of Derek Bentley to deal with all outstanding issues of public concern and following the review, consider the appropriateness of recommending a posthumous free pardon. [24901]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am aware of no present grounds for a further review of this case, which was very thoroughly reviewed in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library full details of investigations carried out by the police at the request of the Home Office and other relevant documents relating to the case of Derek Bentley. [24903]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Police reports are confidential documents which do not fall to be disclosed. A memorandum was published on 1 October 1992, however, explaining in detail the decision then reached that there were no grounds for recommending the grant of a posthumous free pardon to Derek Bentley. This dealt among other things with the alleged inconsistencies in evidence. A copy of the memorandum was placed in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what terms of reference were set by his Department for the investigation of the Derek Bentley case by the Metropolitan police requested by his predecessor in 1991; and what reports were subsequently submitted to his Department. [24923]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office wrote to the Metropolitan police in August 1991 asking for inquiries to be carried out into certain matters which had been presented to the Home Office by Thames Television and others. The police submitted two reports in October and December 1991.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will arrange the release of full details of investigations by the police ordered by his predecessors into the case of Derek Bentley; [24902]
  364
  (2) if he will review his Department's papers relating to the Derek Bentley case with a view to fulfilling precisely the legal requirements for disclosure of papers and investigations undertaken by, or on behalf of, himself or his predecessors. [24900]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Following a request by solicitors for the family of the late Derek Bentley, we are examining our papers with a view to making appropriate disclosures in full compliance with the Hickey judgment as soon as possible. Such disclosure to affected parties and their legal representatives is not constrained by the provisions of the Public Records Acts which govern the opening of records to the public.

  Detainees
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the current establishment of the detention planning and policy unit within the Home Office immigration and nationality department; and if he will make a statement regarding the function of this unit. [24828]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The immigration service detention policy and planning unit employs a total of some 53 staff including those engaged in detention centres at Campsfield house, nine; Gatwick airport, four; and Harmondsworth, 25, where the staff also have national responsibility for co-ordination of the use of detention places.

  The detention policy and planning unit is responsible for ensuring the provision of detention accommodation and escorting services including all commercial, financial and contractual matters and for co-ordinating policy, procedures and practice relating to all aspects of immigration detention management.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost in the financial year 1993–94 to his Department of detaining persons under the Immigration Act powers in(a) immigration detention centres, (b) Prison Service establishments and (c) police cells. [24855]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total cost to the immigration service in running its detention accommodation in the financial year 1993–94 was £7,466,352. No separate figures for detaining persons under Immigration Act powers are kept by the Prison Service. The cost of detaining persons under the Act in police cells was £430,152.27.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current(a) weekly and (b) monthly cost of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers in (a) an immigration detention centre and (b) a Prison Service establishment. [24854]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The overall cost of detaining a person in accommodation for which the immigration service is responsible is currently estimated at £540 per week, including full immigration service staffing costs. This would equate to £2,340 per month. The current cost of detaining someone in a Prison Service establishment is not available. The latest available figures are for the year 1993–94, which show a cost of £411 a week or £1,780 per month, excluding headquarters costs. In many cases, the carrying company which brought the person to the United Kingdom is liable for all or some the expenses incurred. Therefore, the whole cost does not fall to the taxpayer.

  Paul Malone
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to refer the case of Paul Malone to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement; [24894]

  (2) what action he proposes to take following the Metropolitan police investigation into the case of Paul Malone. [24892]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This case was referred to the Court of Appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend under section 17(l)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 on 8 December 1994. As the case remains sub judice it is not appropriate for me to comment. As my hon. Friend stated in his reply to a question from the hon. Member on 27 April 1995,Official Report, column 679, the report of the investigation by the Metropolitan police has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will decide whether any criminal charges should be brought. Once a decision has been made, the chief constable of Cheshire and the Police Complaints Authority will consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against any officer.

  Greater Manchester Fire Authority
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Greater Manchester fire authority concerning the financing of the service. [23555]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions during the course of the past year.

  Pornography
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 applies to pornographic magazines normally displayed on the top shelf of newsagents. [24477]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 applies to any matter, including pornographic magazines, displayed in a public place or where it can be seen from a public place, if such matter is indecent.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 in the last five years; how many of these were successful; and at what sort of premises the material was displayed. [24480]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information of the number of prosecutions and convictions for 1989 and 1993 is given in the table. 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Information is not collected centrally regarding the type of premises where the offence took place.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, 1989–1993

  England and Wales

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Prosecutions

  30

  27

  9

  10

  7

  Convictions

  17

  19

  4

  8

  3

  366
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the trends in pornographic publishing and distribution industry in respect of the explicit nature of the material, and what action he is taking to resist the slippage of standards and ensure that the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 is effectively enforced. [24479]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government share the widespread concern about the spread of pornography and keep the law in this area under review. Measures to ensure that the law keeps pace with advances in technology and is enforced more effectively were included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  The recently established interdepartmental group on obscenity will monitor trends in the area of obscenity and pornography with the aim of identifying any actual or potential difficulties in enforcement or weaknesses in the law, including the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whose responsibility it is to enforce the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981; and what arrangements are in place to monitor its enforcement; [24482]

  (2) to whom the public should complain in respect of concerns about a magazine cover which they believe is indecent and on display. [24476]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The enforcement of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 itself is a matter for the police, to whom the public should complain if they are concerned that a magazine cover is indecent and on public display.

  The interdepartmental group on obscenity keeps under review the operation of the law on obscenity and pornography, including indecent displays.

  Panic Alarms
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available for panic alarms to be given to tenants in high crime areas. [24206]

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1988, a number of vulnerable people have benefitted from personal alarms funded under phase 1 of the safer cities programme. Funding under this programme is restricted to areas in which safer cities projects have been established, and decisions on which schemes to support are taken by local steering committees based on their agreed priorities and action plans.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been carried out by his Department or by other bodies into the effectiveness of panic alarms in crime prevention; and what assessment he has made of these studies. [24208]

  Mr. Maclean
  As part of a programme of work on violent crime, the Home Office funded a project in Merseyside aimed at preventing domestic violence. Pendant alarms, linked via a cellular network to the police divisional control room, were loaned to "at risk" victims. At the same time, a database of police calls to domestic incidents was established so that officers responding to one of the alarm calls could be briefed quickly about the previous calls received from that address. Police officers were issued with aide-memoires on their powers for dealing with incidents of domestic violence; and victims were given information cards, and offered help from a
  367
  domestic violence prevention officer in developing longer term safety plans. Detailed accounts taken from the victims indicate the relief both they and their children experienced as a result of this work. The report of this project was published as crime prevention unit paper 49. I have arranged for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library.

  I am not aware of any other research in this area.

  Security Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a licensing scheme for security companies; and if he will make a statement. [24158]

  Mr. Maclean
  I am currently looking again at policies in this area and await with interest the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the private security industry which is expected shortly.

  Female Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners currently share (a) two and (b) three to a cell. [24272]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of female prisoners currently sharing two and three to a cell.
  At the end of April there were 54 female prisoners in England and Wales sharing two to a cell designed for one. There were no female prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one.

  Braille Ballot Papers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those European Union countries which provide ballot papers in local, national and European elections in Braille; and if he will make a statement. [24113]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am not aware that any of the member states provide ballot papers in Braille. As in this country, blind voters throughout the Community may choose someone to help them to vote.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce Braille ballot papers in local, national and European elections; and if he will make a statement. [24112]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no plans to do so.

  Polling Station Ramps
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the amount expended in the 1995 local elections in England and Wales on the provision of temporary ramps for access to polling stations; what assessment was made of the comparative cost and cost benefit of providing permanent ramps instead; and if he will make a statement. [24111]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The provision of temporary ramps for use at local government elections is a matter for local authorities. No grants are made from central funds 368
  towards the cost of equipment purchased for local government elections, but returning officers may apply for grants towards the cost of temporary ramps to be used at polling places for parliamentary and European elections. Temporary ramps purchased for parliamentary and European elections under these arrangements can be made available for local government elections and for other purposes by arrangement with the returning officer.

  Returning Officers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid or payable to each returning officer in England and Wales at the 1995 local elections; what out-of-pocket expenses had to be met from these payments; what was the level of payment to each other grade involved in these elections; and if he will make a statement. [24107]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Returning officers' fees and expenses and other costs relating to the conduct of local government elections are met by local authorities. This information is not collected centrally.

  Crack Cocaine
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on cautioning of persons found in possession of crack cocaine. [24012]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the police to decide, on the basis of the guidance on the cautioning of offenders in Home Office circular 18/1994, whether a person found in possession of a controlled drug should be dealt with by means of a caution.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the net annual financial saving, or cost, of his Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24333]

  Mr. Maclean
  Proposals for the rural White Paper remain subject to continuing collective consideration and discussion. The cost of measures contained in the White Paper will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey.

  Safer Cities Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the funding via the safer cities scheme for a secure room for the safety of witnesses at Salford magistrates' court to Coventry magistrates court and other magistrates courts. [24207]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no such plans. The Coventry safer cities project closed in March 1994 and the bulk of the safer cities programme now forms part of the single regeneration budget at the Department of the Environment. It is for projects' local steering committees to decide on their funding priorities.

  Witness Liaison Officers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to discuss with Victim Support and other interested groups ways to
  369
  introduce witness liaison officers (a) across the country and (b) in the Hillfields and Stoke Aldermoor areas of Coventry; [24209]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment on funding for witness liaison officers (a) across the country and (b) in the Willenhall, Hillfields and Stoke Aldermoor areas of Coventry. [24205]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have accepted the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on criminal justice that witness support schemes should be established at all Crown court centres. There are already 40 schemes in operation, including one at Coventry Crown court, and additional Home Office funding, made available in 1994–95 and 1995–96, will enable Victim Support to establish schemes at all 78 Crown court centres by the end of 1995.

  My Department has regular contact with Victim Support on a whole range of issues, including witness support. Since the Home Office accepts responsibility for funding the Crown court witness service this is not an issue which I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Car Fires
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires there were in cars; and how many deaths were caused by those fires in each year since 1993. [24435]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is for 1993 and relates to car fires attended by local authority fire brigades. This is published in table 15 of Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" issue 29/94, "Summary Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to seek further information on how the Foundation for Business Responsibilities applied its funds; [24705]

  (2) what investigations the Charity Commissioners have made into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; what assessment he has made; if he will seek further investigations; and if he will make a statement. [24704]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Charity Commissioners have recently concluded their second enquiry into the affairs of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities during which they interviewed a number of further witnesses and sought and obtained further documents. The two inquiries have established that some money was paid improperly to Marketforce Communications and that there were some shortcomings in the controls within the charity. The individual responsible for the payments has left the charity and has repaid the money. The administrative and financial systems of the charity will be closely monitored over the next two years. Responsibility for decisions in relation to individual cases are the responsibility of the Charity Commissioners.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Metropolitan police received a report of the thefts of documents from the offices of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities;370
  what investigations were undertaken into these thefts; and what the conclusions and results were. [24703]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nicholas Hill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will write to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North giving the outcome of the application for parole of Nicholas Hill convicted in 1990 at Birmingham for robbery. [24560]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I will write to the hon. Member once Mr. Hill has been notified of the outcome of his current parole review, which should be known in about three months' time.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youths under 18 years were held in Prison Service establishments in 1994. [23937]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 18 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many youths under 18 years were held in Prison Service establishments in 1994.
  The population of male and female youths aged under 18 at 30 June 1994 was 1,526.

  Prisons (Drug Tests)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the establishments piloting the first phase of mandatory drug tests in prisons together with the percentages in each prison of prisoners tested positive; and what forms of disciplinary penalty have been chosen by each governor in each case where prisoners have tested positive; [20313]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the increase in prison population and average length of sentence, arising from disciplinary actions as a result of the first phase of mandatory drug testing in prisons; and if he will make a statement; [20312]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the results to date of the first phase of mandatory drug tests in prisons; what is the percentage of randomly selected prisoners and targeted prisoners who have tested positive; what are the most common drugs identified; and what is the average increase in prison sentence for drug-positive results; [20314]

  (4) if he will make a statement on (a) the cost to date and (b) the anticipated costs of the mandatory drug tests in prisons. [20315]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 24 April 1994]: Eight prison establishments were selected for the initial phase of the mandatory drug testing programme. These were Bristol, Holloway, Lindholme, Pentonville, Wakefield and Wayland prisons, and Her Majesty's young offenders institution/remand centre, Feltham and HMYOI Stoke Heath. Holloway has only recently begun its testing programme and no results are as yet available.
  371
  Random tests have been carried out at each of the other seven sites and, of the total samples taken and submitted for testing between February and the end of April 1995—871—36 per cent. have confirmed positive. The results for individual prisons are shown in the table.

  In addition to the random tests, each prison undertakes tests targeted on prisoners who are suspected of misusing drugs and, of the total samples collected on these grounds and submitted for testing between February and April 1995, 62 per cent. have tested positive.

  The most common drug identified through the random testing programme is cannabis, which was present in 32 per cent. of the random tests undertaken. Of the other drug types, only opiates—heroin—present in 2 per cent. of tests undertaken, and benzodiazepines—tranquillisers—present in 1 per cent. of tests, appear in any significant quantities.

  All prisoners testing positive are informed of the options available for assistance in giving up their drug habits. Reducing the level of drug misuse within prison is one of the Prison Service's strategic priorities for 1995–98. To facilitate this, the Prison Service has recently launched a comprehensive drugs strategy containing a wide range of measures aimed at reducing the supply of drugs into prison, reducing the demand for drugs within prison together with measures to assist in rehabilitating drug misusers. Local drug strategies are being developed at each prison and will form part of each establishment's contract with their area manager.

  The disciplinary penalties selected by governors have varied between prisons and in individual cases. A total of 290 prisoners have, up to the end of April, been found guilty of disciplinary charges arising from positive drug tests and penalties have generally included the imposition of added days for those serving determinate sentences. Details of individual punishments for those charges resulting from positive test results will be placed in the Library.

  As the number of adjudications following positive tests has been relatively small, the impact of any awards of added days on prison population will have been negligible during the initial phase. Any impact on future prison population is being considered but with the limited information available to date, it is not possible as yet to make any reliable estimates of future trends.

  The total costs, excluding staffing costs, incurred during 1994–95 in introducing mandatory drug testing in prisons was £95,000. One of the purposes of the initial phase of mandatory drug testing is to help identify the total costs likely to be involved in the drug testing programme. These costs will not be clear until the initial phase is over and the negotiations are completed with contractors who are bidding for a national contract to provide the Prison Service with drug testing facilities.

  Establishment

  Number of random tests carried out

  Proportion of random tests confirmed for illicit drugs Per cent.

  Bristol

  145

  33 (±8)

  Feltham

  143

  40 (±8)

  Lindholme

  46

  48 (±15)

  Pentonville

  166

  46 (±8)

  372

  Establishment

  Number of random tests carried out

  Proportion of random tests confirmed for illicit drugs Per cent.

  Stoke Heath

  78

  23 (±9)

  Wakefield

  115

  29 (±8)

  Wayland

  178

  35 (±7)

  Total

  871

  36 (±3)

  Note:

  The plus/minus (±)yigures shown in the last column represents the confidence which can be placed in the accuracy of the proportions given the relatively small number of tests undertaken to date.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent on crime prevention in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage this is of the criminal justice budget. [22837]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her yesterday in response to question No. 184.

WALES

  Careers Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  to ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will make a statement on the running of the careers service in Wales. [24197]

  Mr. Redwood
  My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Richards), announced on 3 April 1995, details of the contracts agreed for the provision of the careers service from 1 April 1995. Arrangements for contract management were set out in the prospectus published on 8 June 1994.

  Copies of the prospectus and the announcement are available in the Library of the House.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department's second and enhanced early retirement and voluntary redundancy scheme was advertised; and how many applications have been received so far. [24928]

  Mr. Redwood
  On 20 December 1994. A total of 163 applications were received.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, on what date the request for volunteers for the Welsh Office redundancy scheme without enhancement was first posted; and how many staff applied in(a) the first and (b) the second month. [24927]

  Mr. Redwood
  On 4 November 1994. There were two applicants in November and one in December.

  NHS Annual Accounts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May, if he will ensure that copies of trust annual reports are made available to the public via the public library service and via local authority offices. [24938]
  373
  Mr. Redwood
  Copies of their annual report may be obtained on request from NHS trusts.

  Trust Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, columns 103–4, if he will specify which trust had its non-executive board members announced after 1 April; on what date; and if he will specify which of the trusts which became operational on 1 April 1995 still have not had the non-executive board members' names announced. [24935]

  Mr. Redwood
  Morriston NHS trust became operational on 1 April 1994; its board was completed in February 1995. No announcement was made.

  The following trusts became operational on 1 April 1995: Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS trust; University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust; University Dental Hospital NHS trust; West Wales Ambulance NHS trust; and Glan-y-Mor NHS trust—shadow running until 1 April 1996 I have not yet announced the names of the non-executive directors.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 103, on what date he initiated the consultations with local authorities or their associations on the implications for authorities of the action plan for the Countryside Council for Wales. [24933]

  Mr. Redwood
  I consulted both the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts on 4 May 1995.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 103, in which section of his Department the grade 7 officer was in charge of the financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales immediately before being put in charge of the review. [24942]

  Mr. Redwood
  The officer had a wide range of policy experience before undertaking the review. It is not my Department's practice to give detailed information about the postings of individual officers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 102, if the Financial Management Policy Review of the Countryside Council for Wales reached the stage of drawing conclusions before it was overtaken by the review referred to in his answer to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1329; and if he will give the cost to public funds separately for each of the two reviews. [24932]

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales was not completed, although some of the initial conclusions reached were carried forward into the review. Work on the review was carried out by the appropriate divisions in my Department as part of their normal duties and it is not possible to attribute separate costs to the work beyond the information provided in the answer to the hon. Member on 15 May.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 102, for how long the Countryside Council for Wales had been in existence before the financial management policy review was begun; and if he will list all other non-departmental public bodies which have had reviews initiated following a shorter period of existence. [24943]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Countryside Council for Wales was established on 5 November 1990 and assumed its full responsibilities on 1 April 1991. The financial management and policy review started on 5 April 1994. No other reviews of executive non-departmental bodies have been undertaken in a shorter timescale.

  Cardiff East Sewage Works
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultation he has had with the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water concerning the proposed Cardiff East sewage works; what further consideration he has given to the size and scope of the scheme and the date for completion of stage one and stage two; and if he will make a statement; [24929]

  (2) what representations he has had concerning the proposed Cardiff East sewage works; and what consultations he has had with the Environment Directorate of the European Commission concerning derogations from the completion dates specified in the municipal waste water treatment directive. [24926]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 20 October 1994, at column 313.

  GP and Hospital Records
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the principal aspects of the guidelines governing the conduct of appeal hearings under the health service complaints procedures as they applied in 1991–92, with respect to the safe keeping of original NHS general practitioner and hospital records in his Department's vaults during the adjournments of such hearings; what records are kept of retrievals of such records during any such adjournment of a hearing; what are the rules relating to the notification to appellants or their legal representatives on the resumption of the hearing of such retrieval of documents and records; and if he will make a statement; [24780]

  (2) what departmental records exists of retrieval and replacement between 19 March and 7 September 1992 of files held in his departmental vaults containing the original general practitioner records and hospital records of Robert Powell (deceased), of 138 Brecon road, Ystradgynlais, pertaining to the adjournment appeal by Mr. William Powell of the same address and father of the deceased child under the NHS complaints procedure in relation to primary health care. [24784]

  Mr. Redwood
  The regulations governing the handling of complaints against GPs make no specific provision about the safe-keeping of such documents in the circumstances described. The security of all documents is
  375
  of course subject to the Department's overall policy on record keeping. Only the hospital records of Robert Powell were held by the Department between March and September 1992.

  The only record of retrieval during that period concerns the retrieval made in response to a request, made by a letter dated 13 August 1992, from Mr. Powell's solicitors for the hospital records to be subject to scientific testing. The other parties to the appeal were made aware of the request.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to cost proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition for a Welsh Assembly. [24931]

  Mr. Redwood
  When I get a clear idea of the Opposition's devolution proposals I will comment on costs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what guidelines he has agreed with his Department to maintain a proper distinction between party political activities and administrative duties in calculating the cost of proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition for a Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [24930]

  Mr. Redwood
  Once the Labour party has published its agreed proposals, I shall calculate the costs taking account of published data.

  Local Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 103, what guidelines he has given to trusts which became operational on 1 April but which have not yet had their non-executive board membership appointed, on the negotiations of local pay bargaining with nursing and auxiliary staff; and if he will make a statement. [24934]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I hope to complete appointments shortly which will enable all trust boards to authorise settlement.

  Trade (Taiwan)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what he is doing to promote trade between Wales and Taiwan and whether he will make a statement. [25535]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office actively supports trade and business contacts between Wales and Taiwan—including a successful trade mission to Taiwan last September; by support for inward investment, including the recent announcement of a 100 job project by Ringtel, the first major Taiwanese inward investment into Wales. The Welsh Development Agency has an active programme to develop further investment opportunities and maintains an office in Taipei. I am also aware of and appreciate my right hon. Friend's support for the WDA's efforts through his own forthcoming visit to Taiwan.

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

Mine Clearance
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
In which countries the Overseas Development Administration is helping to finance mine clearance and mine-awareness projects.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we concentrate our funding on the worst affected countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, northern Iraq and Mozambique. We have also provided such assistance to north-west Somalia, Rwanda and Yemen.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she has been doing so far to deal with this appalling situation is welcomed widely by the humanitarian agencies and those working with them, as I myself welcome it? Does she agree that the facts are grim: some 2,000 anti-personnel mine injuries worldwide, not least to children, each month; up to 1,500 consequent amputations each month; and long-term damage to agricultural production as large areas of land become impossible to farm? In the light of all that, will the Minister tell the House what new measures the Government will be proposing at the UN Inhumane Weapons Convention in September to bring an end to that sinister slaughter of the innocents and all the economic damage involved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his welcome for what we have been able to do so far. In the past four years we have spent some £15 million on mine clearance and making people aware of the existence of mines which can be anywhere where there has been armed conflict. There is always the danger of old hidden mines. Unfortunately other countries are unlike ourselves in that, where we use mines, as we did in the Gulf War and the Falklands, we clear them all up afterwards. In response to the noble Lord's other question, the figures are grim. They are very grim indeed. I am working to ensure that we take action. He asked me about new measures for the conference in September. We are now discussing what further action we can take, and I shall be in touch with him about that.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the Minister for a visit she made on VE Day in Hyde Park to the Halo mine clearance organisation. It was received with interest, and her support is greatly appreciated. What steps do the Government take to ensure the future well-being of those very brave British volunteers who undertake the whole area of removing mines and making them safe in uncharted minefields? She met one of them who has no arm and no leg. What does her department do to insure for the future lives of those who are wounded or
662
disabled? Can she give some assurance that their lives are insured or partially insured by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Viscount for what he said and for mentioning the Halo Trust. I pay tribute to it and all the other organisations which are so active with us in trying to clear mines. The noble Viscount asked me about the protection of those who go out to train others in mine clearance. Obviously serving officers in the British Forces who do some of that work are covered. It is up to the NGOs to provide the insurance for others. That is part of the whole matter at which we are looking. This work is incredibly badly needed when one thinks that there are some 80 million to 110 million land mines scattered through 62 countries. We must get on with this job, and I shall be doing all that I can to assist the process.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House that these land mines are no longer manufactured in or exported from this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the UK has neither produced nor exported anti-personnel land mines for several years. The agreement on 15th March extended the national export moratorium. There is now a total ban on the UK export of non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel land mines, and a ban on the export of all anti-personnel land mines to countries which have not ratified the 1981 UN Weaponry Convention. In some cases it is of course necessary to use land mines, but that will be rare. One example which I believe noble Lords will understand is a land border such as that between Finland and Russia, which for many years could not be policed except by the responsible use of land mines; Finland knowing where the land mines had been put. That is what we must aim for if there are any circumstances in which they have to be used.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to report on the progress of the clearance of mines in the charted areas in the Falkland Islands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is my understanding that any mines that might have been laid by Her Majesty's Forces have been cleared away. There was a problem with mines which we believed to have been laid by others in the Falkland Islands. We hope that those have all been cleared away. Action was taken by the MoD to try to ensure that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, may I put to the Minister that there is one simple—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am asking a question. Does the Minister accept that there is one simple policy which we should urge upon all countries, and that is that there should be a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and export of anti-personnel land mines, and that anything short of that will result in the continuing deaths and maiming of innocent people the world over?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a noble aspiration that there could be one simple policy. I am afraid that the world is not as noble as the noble Lord,

663
Lord Dubs. We have a huge task to undertake to get rid of land mines. We are trying not to make it worse for the future by controlling, as I explained in answer to an earlier question, their production and export. As I said, the UK has neither produced nor exported anti-personnel land mines for several years. We cannot make, but we can encourage and are encouraging, other countries to do likewise.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any information on the progress towards ratification of the two additional protocols of the Geneva Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot at present, but it is hoped that a way will be found to ensure that those protocols can be ratified.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that members of the Royal British Legion are most concerned about the situation because many ex-sappers who have undertaken such work have lost their lives? It is a most dangerous job and if there are any issues in relation to this matter about which the Minister would like to talk to those in the British Legion they will be only too pleased.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that.

Channel 5
3.10 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they will apply in granting the licence for Channel 5.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor):My Lords, the award of a Channel 5 licence is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. In considering applications, the ITC will take into account, among other things, the cash bid; programme quality and diversity; the sustainability of the service over the 10-year period of the licence; plans for retuning video and other equipment; and the restrictions on who may hold the licence contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all noble Lords must sympathise with the ITC because it has been landed with a most difficult problem? The bids that have been received are reported as being £36 million, £22 million, £22 million, and £2 million from BSkyB. Is my noble friend also aware that we hope that the amount of the bid will not be the most dominant and overall factor in the decision? We must take a long-term view and it is difficult for anyone accurately to forecast who will provide more entertainment for those people who watch television.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend made an important point. The ITC will have much to consider before reaching a decision. Bids will first need to pass the
664
ITC's quality threshold. Thereafter, the ITC will consider the details of the bidders' business plans, the cash bid and other programme commitments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the wide range of the bids described by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, indicates that the present system is ludicrous and farcical? However, two of the bids were almost identical; they were within £2,000. Is that not clear evidence that when the Government introduce legislation relating to the future of the BBC they should introduce a proper broadcasting Bill which will reform and bring into proper order the Financial arrangements for awarding television contracts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The five bids ranged from more than £36 million down to £2 million and it is surprising that two of them happened to be of exactly the same amount. The number of bids indicate that several broadcasters are interested in the fifth channel. The size of the bids suggests that it will be a successful commercial channel.
The ITC has made it clear that, if for any reason the highest bid is ruled out and only the two tied bids are deemed to be acceptable, it will invite those who submitted the two tied bids to submit further bids in order to decide the outcome. The licence would then be awarded to the highest bidder.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the franchise bidding system not only as regards Channel 5 but the recent allocations of ITV Channel 3? Does he agree that we need a reversal of the priorities in the criteria for allocation? Would it not produce better television if, instead of the present situation in which the main consideration is the top price, accompanied by a quality threshold, the main emphasis was on quality once applicants had achieved a basic price threshold? For once can we not have quality put before money?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is entirely right. The ITC must consider a number of aspects, which include quality and price, before reaching a decision. It is clear that the level of interest in Channel 5 shows that the Government were right to make the opportunity available so as to extend viewers' choice.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, do the Government consider that there have been marked improvements, following the highest bid factor, in what was considered to be the best commercial television service in the world? In other words, do they believe that it has produced any improvements?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend had a distinguished career in commercial television as chairman of Anglia Television. He would know better than I that it is for the ITC to make decisions about quality and franchising and not the Government. The Government's role is to set up the statutory framework which provides the rules under which the ITC must operate on behalf of the country.

Nurses' Morale
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the level of morale among National Health Service nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is always possible to do more for the morale of valued, professional staff. I am confident that giving individual nurses greater responsibilities and involving them more in the decisions that affect their work will continue to do much to raise morale.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that only this month nurses at the various conferences pledged themselves wholeheartedly to the National Health Service? Is she further aware that UNISON conducted a survey among its members and the Royal College of Nursing and found that there was concern that nurses were not getting a fair crack of the whip over pay increases? Could that matter at least be examined?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as regards nurses' pay, we follow the recommendations of the pay review body. That body, which is independent, has reported for 12 years running and we have always accepted its recommendations. This year it recommended that nurses' pay should be 1 per cent, across the board, with additions of up to 2 per cent, locally determined. We are recommending that. Two-thirds of the trusts have now put their offers on the table and three-quarters of those are at 3 per cent, or more.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that press reports indicating that 1 percent, is the norm are causing unnecessary anxiety and loss of morale among nurses? Is she aware that in the case of most trusts the offer of 3 per cent, has been on the table for a long time but that local union negotiators have been restricted by their national bodies over even discussing those long-standing offers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner is right. Many trusts have had local pay for some time—for instance, Derby, Heatherwood, Southend, Nottingham Community Health and many others. There local pay has been negotiated and agreed with staff, and in many cases the staff have been involved in the new scheme. Indeed, they are benefiting and choosing to join the scheme because they know that local pay makes sense and means that their decisions and their excellence can be rewarded, whereas national negotiation does not allow for that.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it is important that nurses' pay should be locally negotiated? Why does that not apply to doctors who are employed by the same hospital trusts? Part of the trouble is that nurses believe that they are being treated differently from doctors in the same hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, since the National Health Service began, and certainly since the new contract for GPs was introduced in the mid-1960s, GPs
666
have been on performance-related pay, which is very local indeed. Consultants have always had merit awards which reflect their performance. Doctors who were offered local pay by their independent review body—an additional 2.5 per cent.—chose not to pick it up. I believe that the nurses are very wise indeed to take up the offer that they have received. In fact, in the end their percentage increase will be greater than that of doctors.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, bearing in mind the long tradition of strike-free service by members of the Royal College of Nursing, will my noble friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to bring home to nurses the fact that strike action would inevitably harm patients, as it did during the winter of discontent, and that it would also harm the well-deserved good reputation that nurses have with the public?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean is absolutely right that if nurses try to withdraw any of the work that they are doing it will affect patient care. Indeed, if they want to be disruptive to the National Health Service that will affect patients in that many will have to wait longer for treatment. That would really be a tragedy because we have made such progress in reducing the time that people wait for treatment. It would be a tragedy if the Royal College of Nursing's members voted for industrial action. It would cause me personal sadness and sorrow because I believe that in the long term it would erode the professionalism of the Royal College of Nursing, which would be a very great pity indeed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the nurses who trained at the Nightingale School of Nursing at St. Thomas' Hospital are saddened at its closure, which will take place this October? It has been in existence since Florence Nightingale herself. Is the Minister aware that sometimes change is not good for morale?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the training which nurses receive. In the past four years we have invested £400 million in the new nurse training scheme. I believe that we have the best trained and most committed nurses in the world.
The Nightingale School of Nursing is not closing. It is transferring to Guy's Hospital, which will become a centre for all sorts of teaching, research and development. We recognise increasingly in the National Health Service that there are many different professions and disciplines. The more general training that can be provided for all those different professions, the better will be the teams that we have in the future, which in turn will give a better quality of care.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, if, as is probable, the vote goes in favour of industrial action, do the Government really intend to go to war with the nurses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we value nurses: one has only to see the enormous investment that has gone into not only their training but also their general professional development now in post-registration training. The last thing that we want is war. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that it is not a vote for industrial

667
action. Nurses will vote as to whether they will change their rules so that in the future they can take industrial action. That is an important, significant point.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how is it that the Government have managed to lose the argument and get themselves blamed for what an independent review body has recommended when there have been occasions in the past that an independent review body has made awards which are deeply offensive to the financial strategy of the Government? How is it that the Government are blamed for this when for once it is not their fault?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a term for that but perhaps this is not the appropriate place to use it. Some of the difficulty is that the pay review body made the recommendation but it was the nursing unions and health unions generally which promoted the idea that it was only 1 per cent. Indeed, I know that some nurses still believe that they will receive only 1 per cent. The Government cannot say that every nurse will receive 3 per cent, because 2 per cent, is to be determined locally. That was a difficult message to get across. I believe that once local pay is established, we shall not face those problems in the future. It will be a matter for local negotiation. I believe that that is the way forward. If one looks at the survey carried out recently by the LSE, one can see that only one-quarter of workers throughout the country are covered by national pay deals compared with nearly a half 10 years ago.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many of the local pay deals have conditions attached to them which mean that, in effect, most of those who are to receive the pay award will not receive the full 3 per cent.?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, half of the offers that have been put on the table have some qualification. But in many cases that will mean that overall nurses receive higher levels of pay. In fact, we now know of trusts which are offering between 3 per cent, and 9 per cent. In all the examples which I gave nurses will receive more than they would have done if they had stuck to national agreements.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any pay system which gives the same reward to those who work less effectively and with less commitment than their colleagues, and with no regard to local conditions, must be flawed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. As someone who has built up one of the most successful British companies and employed large numbers of staff, he will know the ingredients of success. Centrally negotiated wage agreements are fast becoming irrelevant and inappropriate in today's world. We must move away from that. No organisation can run its business when it has no control over 70 per cent, of its costs.

Russia: Military Co-operation
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reported in The Times of Friday 12th May, Britain is planning to step up its military co-operation with Russia to an unprecedented level in spite of the continued conflict in Chechnya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, my department signed a memorandum of understanding on military co-operation with Russia in 1993. That began a valuable, but relatively modest, programme of contacts which we believe is important in establishing good relations with Russia and promoting security and stability in Europe. Planning and implementation of the programme is of course taken forward in the light of all recent developments.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply but he does not seem to have answered my Question, which is whether the article to which I referred in The Times is correct.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have seen the article and, to some extent, I think that it overstates the amount of defence co-operation envisaged. The exercise that is mentioned in the article is due to be held in the United Kingdom and not in Russia. We have not invited a group of Russian officers to train in the United Kingdom as such. They will merely visit some of our defence establishments. However, we recognise the need to nurture our defence links with Russia in order to promote growing stability, as I said earlier, in the post Cold War era.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, do not the Armed Forces welcome the opportunity to train in new areas? Contacts between our servicemen and their counterparts in the host nation help to contribute to an understanding of Western values and objectives.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. We certainly welcome any opportunities to train in other parts of the world, in particular because it relieves some of the pressure on our own training lands in the United Kingdom, which may cause a degree of concern in this country. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely correct as regards his assertion that co-operation among the armed forces of parties which were formerly not exactly friendly can only be for the benefit of all concerned and help to promote greater stability.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can it be said that Western values have been drawn to the attention of the Russian forces when they continue to bombard indiscriminately towns and villages in Chechnya and even shoot at columns of refugees? That is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the Budapest Declaration of the OSCE. What measures are available to the Council of Ministers of the OSCE when Russia continues to flout the recommendations made by that council that there should be a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement in relation to the problem in Chechnya?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will realise that we are very concerned about all reports of human rights abuses and civilian casualties in Chechnya. What is going on there is certainly a setback for hopes of greater Russian-Western co-operation. We have made that absolutely clear to the Russians. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that clear to President Yeltsin on his visit to Moscow on 9th May.
We welcome the establishment of the current OSCE mission in Chechnya. We hope that it will make an extremely positive contribution to resolving that crisis. We have heard some fairly encouraging news that round table talks may be arranged under its auspices and we hope that that may lead to further progress.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, was not the timing and the publicity given to the remarks by the Chief of the General Staff in Moscow very unfortunate, following so close on the atrocities that we have witnessed in Chechnya? Further, will the Minister accept that the long-term objective of military co-operation is very desirable, especially to give real meaning to the rather nebulous partnership for peace?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I am not responsible for what The Times publishes and when it does so. As I believe I made clear earlier in my response to my noble friend, we believe that The Times overstated the case and the amount of co-operation that was envisaged. I welcome the point made by the noble Lord that military co-operation, in the main, can probably only be for the good.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said about the desirability of building bridges with Russia and, indeed, integrating her into a European security order—something which the Labour Party endorses—can he comment on the desirability of expanding NATO to include Poland and other East European countries while excluding Russia and other CIS states?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to co-operate with Russia and develop links with that country. We obviously would like to see NATO developed further. I understand the concerns of the Russians on those particular points. However, I do not believe that we can allow the Russians themselves to impose a veto on any further development of NATO, particularly in terms of taking in—should the time come when it is possible to do so—Poland and the other Visegrad nations.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the report that British officers are being enrolled in the Russian Army programme for potential peacekeepers is true? If it is true, can my noble friend assure the House that the sort of peacekeeping that the Russians have in mind is not what we have seen in Chechnya?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the sort of peacekeeping that we have in mind is certainly not what is reported from Chechnya. However, as I said earlier, we believe that co-operation between our Armed Forces and the Russians
670
is something which can contribute to the stability of relations between the East and West. That is certainly something that we shall continue to build upon.

Employment Rights Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to employment rights. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Industrial Tribunals Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Permitted hours in licensed premises]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
("(3) In subsection (6) (off-licences), the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, shall begin at ten in the morning".").
The noble Lord said: I move the above amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who, unfortunately is required to be in Brussels today. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. The noble Lord has asked me to give his apologies to the Committee and to deal with his two amendments. The amendments deal with very small matters. They do not refer at all to Sunday hours, but only to one day a year; namely, Good Friday. So far as concerns Sunday, the Bill deals with the anomaly which survived after the Sunday Trading Act of last year which stated that, although large shops and supermarkets may open for a total of six hours between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., they can only sell alcohol between 12 noon and 3 p.m. That means that during the period before 12 noon and after 3 o'clock supermarkets

671
have to do what some of them were doing illegally before the Sunday Trading Act last year; namely, they have to put cordons around their drinks shelves and refuse to serve drinks during that time. The Bill before us removes that anomaly on Sunday.
However, the amendment refers only to Good Friday when the Sunday restrictions on the total opening of supermarkets or large shops do not apply. On Good Friday, supermarkets can be open from 8 o'clock in the morning until quite late at night. Yet the Bill as drafted forbids them to sell alcohol before 10 o'clock in the morning. That is based on the analogy of the Sunday opening provisions.
The Bill was initially rather more complicated because it included Christmas Day, but those provisions have now been taken out by government amendment in another place. I suggest that it would be a small, harmless but still welcome rectification of an anomaly if the legislation were now to be amended to allow off-licences to sell drink from 8 o'clock on a Good Friday morning rather than from 10 o'clock as is the case at present.
Of course, Good Friday is an important part of the Christian year, but it is not universally observed as a public holiday all over the country. As I understand it, in large parts of Yorkshire, Good Friday is not a public holiday and the following Tuesday is taken instead. Those who go to the three-hour services, for example, on a Good Friday will not really be affected by permission being granted to sell alcohol between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. The benefit would be that the barriers, the cordons, the signs, and so on, which are required for the partial closure on Sunday, and which, under the present legislation have to be retained, could be removed.
I do not suggest that we are discussing an earth shattering amendment in any way, but I do suggest that it would he in keeping with the conciliatory way in which the Government have approached the Bill for it to be passed now. I can assure the Minister that, if it were to be passed in this Chamber, there would be no attempt to delay the Bill in another place on its return there. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me that we are discussing a very sensible amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider it favourably.
Lord Gisborough: I should also like to support the amendment. It is eminently sensible and should he well supported.
Lord Skelmersdale: I second the remarks made by my noble friend. Indeed, it is a great pleasure, for once, to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I should like to add to his point about Yorkshire and say that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the noble Lord and I have agreed on more than one occasion in the past.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that that is so, but I was referring to today. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that Good Friday is not a holiday in Yorkshire—or in parts of Yorkshire. However, I have always regarded the most
672
fervently religious part of Great Britain as being Northern Ireland. I should point out that it is not even a holiday in the Province. Therefore, one can buy intoxicating liquor in Northern Ireland perfectly freely as one can on any other day of the week. I should like to see that extended.
Lord Monson: I was in two minds about the amendment. On the one hand, I do not believe that it would do any harm for supermarkets and a very small proportion of their customers to be mildly inconvenienced for a small part of one day out of 365. On the other hand, the original purpose of the Good Friday bank holiday has now largely disappeared; indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh alluded to that fact. I would guess that not more than 5 per cent. of the population at most spend the hours between 12 noon and 3 p.m. on Good Friday in quiet, solemn prayer.
Of course, logically, if shops are to be compelled to close at all on Good Friday for religious reasons, they should be compelled to close during those three hours. However, no one has proposed that and that is not what is on offer. That being the case, I can see no reason for resisting the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: I regret not to have been present at the Second Reading of this Bill but I have read the record of the debate. In it the noble Baroness in charge of the Bill referred to a balance in this matter of religious festivals. She remarked that she believed that the balance proposed by the Government was correct. I wish to support her on that. I have the impression that such a balance would be widely thought to be fair and sensible, both in this Chamber and outside it.
Speaking personally, I noted with appreciation that the present arrangements for limited hours will continue as regards Christmas Day. I am grateful that the Government deferred to views expressed in another place on this matter, not least by the right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. On balance this seems right. Consumer interests are not the sole consideration; the protection of employees and their families is equally important. That point is addressed in another connection in an amendment which will follow.
It is against that background that we come to the more detailed matter before us; namely, that of licensing hours for Good Friday in supermarkets and stores in which there may otherwise be a cordoned off area from, say, eight to 10 o'clock in the morning. Given that extended hours are now being proposed for the opening of licensed premises on Good Friday, the amendment before the Committee seeks to eliminate what may prove to be but an anomaly. No Member of the Committee has adduced compelling reasons to retain for Good Friday this particular provision. I do not think it reasonable to make life difficult for shoppers for two hours in the year and therefore I believe it is not reasonable to resist this amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was absolutely right; these amendments would permit off-licensed premises to sell alcohol on Good Friday from eight o'clock in the morning through to 10.30 in the evening. The Government recognise that, at first sight, this might seem a simple and worthwhile change from the

673
10 o'clock start which the Bill provides for off sales on Good Friday. But, as is so often the case, a change of this kind would not be entirely straightforward, and there are a number of matters that need to be considered. Good Friday is, of course, a religious festival, and it is for that reason that licensing hours on Good Friday have traditionally been the same as for Sundays. The Bill will continue that link. The licensing hours on Sundays and Good Friday for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises will be increased from what they are at present, but not so far as to bring them into line with weekdays.
The amendments of my noble friend—supported today by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—would mean that off-licence hours on Good Friday would be virtually the same as those for routine weekdays, which are from eight in the morning until 11 at night. The question arises, therefore, whether it is right for off-licence purposes to treat Good Friday just like any other day of the week.
The noble Lord's purpose is to enable supermarkets with off-licences to sell alcohol throughout their opening hours. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve on Sundays. Under the Sunday Trading Act large stores like supermarkets may open for six hours between 10 in the morning and six in the afternoon; and the new Sunday off-licence hours will cover which ever period of six hours within those times that supermarkets choose to open. But it is a rather different matter to tailor our off-licence hours to suit whatever times, outside of the restrictions of the Sunday Trading Act, shops choose to open.
Most of the debate on off-licence hours on Sundays and Good Friday has tended to concern supermarkets. But only a small proportion of off-licensed shops—less than 15 per cent.—are supermarkets. The great majority comprises either shops specialising in the sale of alcoholic drinks or small shops which sell alcohol along with a range of other goods—frequently the typical corner shop. These small shops are not subject to the Sunday Trading Act, and so they can open at whatever times on Sunday suit them and their customers. Many open quite early, but under the new off-licence hours in the Bill they will not be able to sell alcohol before 10 in the morning.
So while we have restrictions on off-licence hours, and lesser restrictions on shop opening hours, there will always be times when shops with off-licences may open but not sell alcohol. The only way in which that situation could be avoided would be by abandoning off-licence hours altogether. While that is a course which my noble friend, who is not present today, and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might well applaud, I hope they will agree that it goes far beyond the ambit of the present Bill. Furthermore, as the noble Lord acknowledged when the Bill was read for a Second Time in this Chamber, extending Good Friday hours beyond those that are proposed for Sundays would be to move in the reverse direction from the views which were expressed in another place. There amendments were moved, albeit unsuccessfully, which would have left the licensing hours on Good Friday for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises as they are at present—that is, from midday until three p.m. and from seven until 10.30 in the evening. There was certainly no move to extend Good Friday hours beyond those provided in the Bill.
674
The noble Lord also acknowledged, in the light of those views expressed in another place, that he would make little headway in seeking more liberal hours for pubs on Good Friday than the Bill already envisages. The amendment therefore concerns only off-licence hours. But it would be illogical if Good Friday were regarded as comparable with Sunday as far as pubs and clubs were concerned, but were treated like any routine weekday for off-licence premises purposes. I am sure many licensees of pubs would find it hard to accept that their Good Friday opening hours should be more restricted than weekdays, when off-licence hours were not.
The Government take the view that there needs to be a proper degree of consistency between on-licence hours and off-licence hours. That is not to say that hours should be the same for both kinds of business. They are not uniform now—for good reasons—and nor will they be when the Bill is enacted. But there need to be good reasons for applying different standards to pubs as compared with off-licensed shops. There seems no obvious justification for linking Good Friday with Sunday for the purpose of pub hours but with weekdays for off-licensing purposes, which is the effect of the amendments before us. For these reasons the Government believe that the balance in the Bill is about right. However, I have to say that amendments such as these must be a matter for the individual conscience of Members of this Chamber and therefore I leave the matter to the free vote of this Chamber to determine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that response, or the logic of it, difficult to follow. Of course it is true that there have been those, both in this Chamber and in another place, who have been against the extension of hours proposed in this Bill and they have proposed amendments which have been defeated. They have come from all sides. I should have made it clear that neither is this a party matter within the Labour Party; a large number of my noble friends are opposed to the provisions of this Bill.
I am not convinced by the argument on amendments in another place further to restrict opening hours. When the Minister says that there are other anomalies which still remain to be corrected, I am sure she is right. It is true that what this amendment does is remove only one anomaly of many. A number of us said at Second Reading that at some time we would have to recognise that this piecemeal approach which is being adopted by the Government is not satisfactory because it does not allow us to consider all the issues at any one time. Yet the Minister appears to come to the conclusion, although she has not actually criticised the direct effect of this amendment, that somehow the anomalies which are still there do not permit the Government to accept the provisions. I am not sure whether, if the matter is put to the vote, she will vote against it. I am not sure whether she will advise any of her noble friends who agree with her to vote against it. I am not sure what the Government's position is, or whether indeed we can hope for a Government amendment which would deal with any deficiencies in drafting at a later stage in the Bill. Will the Minister advise the Committee further?
Baroness Blatch: I have said that it must be a matter for individual conscience. I do not want my intentions to influence people and for them to feel that they must take a

675
lead from me as Minister. I have made the Government's position clear and I will exercise my vote as an individual in this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that clarification. Am I right in thinking that, although the Minister pointed out other anomalies, she did not say that the amendment itself was defective?
Baroness Blatch: That is absolutely right. The amendment is not defective in itself.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to have to join in the debate. This is such a sensible amendment that I took it for granted, since it was within the spirit of the Government's legislation which I totally support although I am probably more extremist than the Government, that the Minister would say, "This is a perfectly good idea and let's get on with it". Is it the Minister's wish that the Committee divides on the amendment so that Members can express their opinion? I am lost as to what is going on. I just came in for decorative purposes.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make the position clear. What I said was that it is not for the Government to accept the amendment on behalf of the whole Committee. I think that it would be presumptuous of the Government to do that.
There is an issue here. The issue, which I believe will be a matter for people's consciences, is to determine whether Good Friday should be considered as any other day of the week or whether it should be consistent with the rules which apply on Sundays. That is the issue before the Committee. It must be a matter for individual Members to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are grateful for that. Although the Minister still states that there are wider issues as to the comparability of Good Friday with other days of the week which are not dealt with within the amendment, the Minister has confirmed that the amendment is not defective and that it achieves the objectives that we seek. Although other anomalies still remain, I believe that it is appropriate that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
(-Employment protection
Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Licensing Act 1964 after Schedule 14) shall have effect in relation to the rights of bar workers in relation to work during the previously restricted hours on Sundays.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 3. I make it clear from the outset that on these amendments the Labour Party has a
676
policy. It is the policy of protecting the rights of those who are required to work on Sunday. These matters were rehearsed at considerable length in debates on the Sunday Trading Bill last year. Comparable amendments were put forward although not in these terms.
The new schedule in Amendment No. 3 is lengthy and I apologise for that. However, employment protection legislation is lengthy and complicated. I was encouraged to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor move the First Reading of new employment protection consolidation legislation which may make life easier for those of us who seek to amend the 1978 Act in future.
Paragraph (1) of the schedule deals with definitions generally. Paragraph (2) defines a protected bar worker, which is the category of worker with which the amendment deals. Paragraph (3) makes sure that there is no discrimination either way by making provision for those who work in bars on a Sunday to opt into the existing legislation. Paragraph (4) deals with the notice of objection to Sunday working. Paragraph (5) provides a definition of the meaning of "opted-out bar worker"—that is someone who has chosen not to work the extended hours proposed in the Bill. Paragraph (6) deals with a notice period. Paragraphs (7) and (8), the core of the schedule, deal with the right not to be dismissed for refusing to work between the hours of three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday. Paragraph (8) deals with the redundancy excuse which an employer might be tempted to use. Paragraph (9) deals with the qualifying period and the upper age limit. It again refers hack to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Paragraph (10) goes further than dismissal by giving protected bar workers the right not to suffer detriment in their employment. I am told that in employment legislation that has a specific meaning.
Paragraph (11) requires the employer to give an explanatory statement of his policy so far as concerns Sunday working. Paragraphs (12) to (15) deal with contract of employment rights. Paragraph (16) is technical and deals with proceedings for contravention. Paragraphs (17) and (18) deal with restrictions on contracting out of the schedule. Paragraph (19) deals with transitional protection mainly in maternity cases. Paragraphs (20) to (22) are miscellaneous amendments to the 1978 Act.
The principle underlying the amendment—although it is lengthy I believe that it is reasonably clear—is this. Having extended the hours on which bar workers may well be required to work on a Sunday they should be given some protection for their family life and indeed for their religious obligations on a Sunday in addition to that which is already provided under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
The amendment relates only to protected bar workers. The Minister, Mr. Forsyth, replied to a comparabe amendment in another place, at col. 1782 of the Official Report on 5th April. With admirable honesty, he said:
"I now come to the part of my brief marked 'Use only if pressed'. There is an anomaly, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention it, but the people who work in off-licences arc shop workers, and as such already have the right to decline Sunday work. It would he irrational for the law to pretend that employees in pubs, restaurants, hotels. sports clubs and so on are shop workers and should therefore have the same rights, simply because the premises in which they happen to work happen to have liquor licences".
We are legislating for two groups of people: those who are bar workers working in on-licences; and those who are working in off-licences. Mr. Forsyth did not come to the conclusion to which I come: that the anomaly is that there should be differential protection—a higher lever of protection for those who work in off-licences and are shop workers—and a lower level of protection for those who work in bars. That distinction cannot be right.
Perhaps I may say this to the Minister, in the most conciliatory of spirits because she has been helpful this afternoon. I hope that she recognises that that is the anomaly which remains in the legislation. That is the anomaly which should he dealt with by this modest extension to employment protection rights. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This Bill continues the process of sensible deregulation to which the Government are committed, allowing businesses to stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions as to how they should operate. I believe the proposed Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are unnecessary and would be a retrograde step in a Bill which otherwise moves forward in line with the demands and expectations of today's society.
Where workers in any industry are asked to take on additional work or to change their working hours, that is a contractual matter for them to decide. Hours of work are for agreement between employers and their employees, whether they work in licensed premises or elsewhere. It would he wrong to impose unnecessary restrictions on the way that businesses in the leisure and catering industries operate.
The proposed new schedule, to which the proposed new clause would give effect, is aimed at giving bar workers the right to refuse to work during the additional Sunday hours permitted by this Bill—that is, between three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. It would add to this Bill employment provisions similar to those introduced for Sunday shop workers in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and for Sunday betting workers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
In the Government's view, it is plainly wrong to seek to replicate and apply provisions which are specifically appropriate in one set of circumstances to circumstances in which they are not appropriate. We do not accept that the position of employees of licensed premises is directly comparable with that of shop workers or betting workers. Their situation is in fact quite different. Until the recent changes, legislation prohibited on Sundays the very activity that shop and betting workers were employed to do, and the employees in question could reasonably have expected never to have been required to work on Sundays. However, for pubs, restaurants and clubs, Sunday has been a long established and important trading day. It has been quite lawful to sell alcoholic drinks on Sundays, and to employ people to do so, and the afternoon break is largely regarded as archaic and a nuisance.
The very nature of work in licensed premises encourages more flexible working patterns. This has long been the case and bar work and the like has provided opportunities for many employees who prefer this type of work or who may be unable to work more conventional hours. This Bill must not put constraints on the freedom of employers and employees to agree hours which suit their individual circumstances and preferences.
678
This Bill seeks to remove barriers and anomalies and to allow businesses to trade freely. The leisure industry is competitive, with various attractions vying for our attention, particularly at weekends when many families enjoy time together. Many hotels, restaurants, pubs and clubs will welcome the additional trading hours in order to allow them to compete on an equal footing with other businesses in the industry. Others may have no wish to take advantage of the new regime. However, that is a commercial decision for them to take. It should not be the role of Government to impose unnecessary administrative burdens.
Not only would the provisions contained in the amendment be extraordinarily cumbersome, they would also create new and indefensible anomalies between the rights of different groups of staff working in licensed premises. Those involved in serving alcoholic drinks would have the right to stop working for four hours on Sundays whereas their colleagues working alongside them on different activities would not. To put it another way, employees in a particular branch of a particular industry would have the right to refuse to work between three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday, irrespective of what their contract of employment said, but between midday and three o'clock, and between seven o'clock and half past 10 in the evening, they would be be bound by their normal contractual terms.
Were the amendment to be accepted I only hope that none of your Lordships is ever in a restaurant ordering lunch at three o'clock on a Sunday afternoon! It would certainly be a strange experience to have the wine waiter down tools while the rest of the restaurant carried on as normal. Perhaps the scene would be reminiscent of pubs at "last orders", with customers rushing to beat the bell, ordering the drinks they think sufficient to last them through their meal. Or perhaps the bons viveurs would hold on until seven o'clock, when they would finally be able to round off their lunch with a glass of port. I see no reason to legislate in this area and I hope that the noble Lord may be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The last few sentences of the Minister's reply were quite extraordinary. We had something of a debate at Second Reading, initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, about the indefensible difference between restaurant licences and full on-licences. Although my amendments refer merely to on-licences—in other words, to bar workers—the Minister has chosen to attempt to make fun of the amendments by talking as if they referred to restaurants as well. They clearly do not. Restaurants serving drinks on a Sunday will still be able to do so after three o'clock. My amendment refers only to bar workers and protected bar workers, it will not apply to restaurants.
Another curious aspect of the Minister's speech was the idea that in pubs there are people serving alcohol and people working alongside them who are not serving alcohol. It is true that in large pubs when lunch is being served there are people who are mainly serving food or mainly preparing food, but in any pub that I have ever seen, whether on a Sunday or another day, people do whatever work is to be done. They do not have

679
demarcation disputes between them. I am clear, from the way in which my schedule has been drafted, that it would apply to all bar workers and that it would apply equally.
It is simply not true that people who work in pubs have accepted unlimited Sunday working. Of course, they have accepted Sunday working and flexible working patterns for many years. But anyone who has listened to or read the debates, both in this House and in another place, on the Bill and on the Sunday Trading Bill last year, will agree that the extension of licensing hours in pubs from 12 o'clock to three o'clock and from seven o'clock to 10.30, to 12 noon to 10.30, means a substantial difference in the obligations imposed on those who work there. It makes a huge difference to their family life and their ability to make contact and spend time with their families on those days.
As I said at the time of the Sunday Trading Bill, I suspect that a high proportion of bar workers will not wish to opt out of the gap of working between three o'clock and seven o'clock. I suspect that they will wish to make other arrangements to spend time with their families or engage in their own leisure pursuits. I suspect that there will be very little disruption as a result of any amendment of this kind.
Frankly, the reasons which the Minister has given for opposing the amendments do not stand up at all. She did not really deal with my point about the difference between those working in off-licences and those working in pubs with on-licences, except by asserting that what we are trying to do is to extend conditions from circumstances in which they are appropriate to circumstances in which they are not appropriate. She said that they are not directly comparable. I suggest that in all material respects they are directly comparable. We are dealing with people who have to make judgments about the hours they work and the way they organise their lives. Those who wish to make provision of that kind have expressed the view that they need extra protection.
I do not believe that it is appropriate at this stage for me to pursue the matter to a Division. However, I give notice that we may have to return to the matter at a later stage in the proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: Was a vote called for the amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I have called that Clauses 4, 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill, which was agreed to. Amendment No. 2 was, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Section 4(2)]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert:

(" 1964 c. 26

The Licensing Act 1964.

In section 60(6), the words "or Good Friday".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, which the Committee approved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 10 minutes until 4.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister explain why we are adjourning for 10 minutes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise very humbly on behalf of the Minister concerned, who is stuck in traffic. I am sure that she has your Lordships' sympathy.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.10 to 4.20 p.m.]

Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the House for not being present to commence this business at 4.10 p.m. I apologise, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I say that I was pitching for investment for Northern Ireland.
This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Northern Ireland has a quite different history of historic monuments legislation from Great Britain. The first historic monuments legislation in Northern Ireland dates from an Act of 1926, subsequently amended in 1937. Current legislation, the Historic Monuments (Northern Ireland) Act 1971, has maintained this distinction, but the enactment of the 1979 Act in Great Britain stimulated a review of provisions, from which this draft order springs.
The proposed draft order provides for the protection of scheduled historic monuments by the introduction of scheduled monument consent procedures, obliging persons to seek the consent of the Department of the Environment for any works which might affect a scheduled monument. There are approximately 1,080 scheduled monuments, equivalent to some 8 per cent. of the 13,000 recognised sites and monuments in the Province. Scheduled monuments, and monuments in the

681
department's care, would be further protected by restrictions on the use and possession of detecting devices on those sites.
Secondly, the draft order provides for the possibility of management agreements concerning historic monuments in private ownership. The provisions give scope for a partnership between owners and the department towards the long-term protection and management of monuments, particularly in a rural context.
Thirdly, the draft order deals with the acquisition and guardianship of historic monuments and lands in their vicinity. There are 181 historic monuments in the care of the Department of the Environment, and the provisions reflect demands for improved public access and facilities for visitors.
Fourthly, the draft order provides for the continuation of the Historic Monuments Council. This body, which advises the department on its functions under historic monuments legislation, was first established in 1926 as the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee.
Fifthly, the draft order maintains provisions for the reporting of the discovery of archaeological objects and restrictions on searching for them.
In reviewing the application of the 1979 Act to Northern Ireland, consideration was given to the inclusion of provisions to enable the designation of areas of archaeological importance similar to those set out in Part II of that Act. However, given the limited success of those provisions and developments in archaeology and planning policy, it was decided that such provisions should not form part of the draft order.
The draft order was issued for public consultation in July 1993 and was well received by most of those consulted, especially those concerned with the archaeological heritage in Northern Ireland. Objections were raised by metal detectorists against those provisions which they felt would limit their activities on historic monuments.
Three significant amendments have been made to the proposals following public consultation. These amendments widen the advisory role of the Historic Monuments Council, particularly in relation to the new provisions for scheduled monuments. They provide for a role for the Northern Ireland Planning Appeals Commission in hearing appeals concerning scheduled monument consent. They delete reference to restrictions on detecting devices in searching for archaeological objects except where such searching is carried out on protected monuments.
The draft order is the product of several years of internal review, taking into account both the experience of those who have implemented the 1979 Act in Great Britain, and wide public consultation. The draft order brings together the results of those processes, introducing measures broadly paralleling the 1979 Act while retaining the long-held strengths of Northern Ireland historic monuments legislation. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we entirely accept the Minister's apology. I think that I speak on behalf of all your Lordships when I say that there is no
682
other Minister by whom we would prefer to be kept waiting. In any event, it is quite inappropriate to blame the Minister. Most people would join me in blaming the Government, and I think that that is what we should do.
We welcome the thrust of the order and its purpose. In the 10 minutes or so that we had to pass before beginning this business I turned my eye to Article 42 which makes it a criminal offence for any person who finds an archaeological object not to report it to the relevant authorities, and a separate and distinct criminal offence to be in possession of, or retain possession of, such an object. All agog, I wished to satisfy myself as to the definition of an "archaeological object". Article 2(2) states that archaeological object,
"includes any object, being a chattel … manufactured or unmanufactured … which is, or appears to be, of archaeological or historical interest and which has, by reason of such interest, a value greater than its intrinsic value".
As a lawyer I am happy to say that that will cause endless problems in court in the future.
I considered a possible example. In, say, five years' time, after the next election, the Minister, alas, will no longer be occupying her present situation. If in the next year or so she goes, as she regularly does, to Ballymena, Craigavon or Dungannon and happens to discard a pair of ministerial Wellington boots which happen thereafter to be ploughed over and if, subsequently, I happen to discover those ministerial, monogrammed Wellington boots, they will have an intrinsic value of about 75p, I suppose, while the value of the materials of which they are composed will be about 50p. However, their historic value (by virtue of their connection with the revered Minister) will be significantly greater than either 75p or 50p. It will probably be in the region of £2.50 plus VAT. According to the definition I have quoted, that would make them—absurdly, but perhaps understandably—an archaeological object, the possession, or non-reporting of possession, of which would render me liable to prosecution and condign punishment in the magistrates' court or equivalent. Can that be right? Other than that helpful question, I have nothing further to add.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, after that deeply politically controversial but extremely amusing speech, I am glad to say that these Benches wholeheartedly support the order. It is difficult to choose between whether we would rather have the Minister here discussing this very important order or trying to raise money for investment in Northern Ireland. Ideally we would have both, so I shall be brief and allow the Minister to get back to her other duties.
This is an important order. As the troubles recede—we must all pray that they have receded for ever—many people in these islands are able to discover the extreme beauty of the countryside of Northern Ireland as well as its man-made beauties. For instance, there are the splendid ring forts which all too often enthusiastic farmers seem to bulldoze. Perhaps they will be slightly better protected once the order is passed.

683
It is not only British and Irish tourists who will be visiting Northern Ireland. It is estimated that over 600,000 extra visitors may travel to Northern Ireland this year and it is essential that we have the best possible protection for the heritage of Northern Ireland. I welcome the integrationist approach that is possible in Northern Ireland because it is the Department of the Environment which deals with it. There is a putting together of the countryside and of the buildings. In a way, the regime envisaged in Northern Ireland has much to teach the rest of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, as the noble Baroness said, some of the elements maintained in the order from earlier legislation actually came from the devolved administration in its period at Stormont. This is therefore an area for bipartisanship not only in Northern Ireland, but also in this House. In that spirit I am happy to support the order.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, perhaps I might rise for a moment to refer to the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the Minister's boots. As I understand it, the regulations only apply to. objects of archaeological interest. Though I feel sure that such boots may be objects of sentimental interest, particularly to the noble Baroness, can they truly be said to be of archaeological interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. In fact the order refers to articles not only of archaeological interest, but also of historical interest. It was the latter adjective upon which I was focusing my attention.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I thank the House for its forgiveness for my lateness. I have just heard possibly the most political speech from the Front Bench opposite on the subject of Northern Ireland and I fully appreciate the spirit in which it was made. This Minister is very much a part of this Government.
I would add that Ireland is full of history. I can think of no other area in the world where the past plays such a great part in the present. In designing a brighter future for Northern Ireland we must be careful to protect the past and the tremendous culture that exists there. The aim is to ensure that we should not lose that by accident. The order therefore is written in rather wider terms than may appeal to a lawyer. But it is written to make sure that people take anything that they discover to the Ulster Museum to be examined, which may reveal that they are on the brink of discovering a significant new part of the history of Northern Ireland.
I should point out that, as the Scots say, I do not think that I shall be "outwith" my Wellington boots; nor do I believe that, should I be on my second pair, the first pair would be of too much interest; and nor do I believe that it would be a possible case from which lawyers could earn money. I thank noble Lords for their support for the order and commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bathing Water: ECC Report
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to both Motions set down in my name on the Order Paper. The European Communities Committee C, of which I have the honour to be a member, examined the European Council's proposal in 1994 for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water, intended to supersede the current directive which was put in place in 1976.
The purpose of the directive is to ensure satisfactory common standards of health protection for bathers throughout the Community; to contribute to the solution of transboundary problems of water pollution; and to ensure that there is no distortion of competition in the tourist industry. The Commission argues for the replacement of the current directive to take account of scientific advances which may permit a reduction in the parameters to be tested. That is expected to reduce costs to member states while maintaining the level of health protection achieved. The committee considers the objective of the proposal to be admirable. However, it is concerned about its probable effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
The committee now presents two reports for the consideration of the House, dealing with the issues raised. The first—Bathing Water—published in 1994, deals with the directive generally. In that report we deplored the absence of a soundly based cost-effective analysis of the proposal and indicated that the committee would wish to report again to the House when we received Her Majesty's Government's own cost compliance assessment. It reached us in February of this year. Our second report—Bathing Water Revisited—is based on the evidence we subsequently received on the implications of the cost compliance assessment for the UK. Hence we are presenting the two reports together for debate.
I should explain that I am speaking as an inadequate substitute for my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for whose wise guidance we are much indebted; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who was to speak in his place. Unfortunately both are unable to take part in the debate this evening. But I am happy to be supported by three members of the committee and fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, can offer the special expertise needed to deal with the many esoteric, medical and scientific aspects of our report, which I shall find it difficult to do. Thus I shall confine myself largely to the other issues arising from the directive.
Although it is clearly highly desirable that there should be legally binding minimum standards for bathing water throughout the Community, we have found the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Commission's new proposals to be controversial if not doubtful. In formulating those proposals the Commission did not carry out open consultation with the scientific community, which we would regard as essential. Its scientific

685
approach in the new directive is out of date, especially in relation to the analytical methods to be used, and its decision-making therefore is uninformed.
Lack of expert consultation and advice on the scientific issues was unfortunately accompanied by an equal failure to consult member states on cost benefit analysis. It is unacceptable that policy formulation could have reached the stage of formal proposals from the Commission for the revision of the existing directive without including a menu of individually accepted measures. In their response to our first report, HMG agreed the Commission's assertion that compliance with the proposal would not cost significantly more than compliance with the existing directive, which is "seriously flawed". They went on to agree that the Commission's misconception of the consequences of its proposal may have been due in large part to the lack of consultation with member states. The Government considered that the Commission should seek advice now and be prepared to amend the proposal accordingly. The committee is glad to learn that expert advice is now being sought by the Commission.
It is relevant that in order to comply with the requirement of Article 130R, a revised directive should make no charge which would either increase the net public cost of compliance without a proportionate increase in the level of public health protection, or reduce that level. Though there is a well-founded case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on grounds of subsidiarity, in our view it would probably be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of a directive which has been in place since 1976 and is in principle desirable. However, we consider that only microbiological parameters, which are good indicators of public health risks, should have to be monitored within the directive.
A number of complex inter-related issues confront the Government in deciding how to proceed and we shall be glad to hear from the Minister tonight on how it is proposed to confront them. The first is the need for a common approach to legislation on water: the bathing waters directive; the urban waste water treatment directive; and a directive on drinking water that is due for revision. All of these have important health implications for the public. They also have very large cost implications on which the committee took extensive evidence from the water companies, the Government and interested agencies in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom alone, the full proposals of the Commission for bathing water would entail significant capital expenditure of the order of £1.6 billion and £4.2 billion in addition to that required to comply in full with the existing Bathing Water Directive 1976 and the urban waste water directive. That amounts to about £9.5 billion over the next 10 years. Those figures do not take account of what may be required for drinking water.
These costs are very significant. They might be justified if they demonstrably brought gains in public health greater than those that could be achieved at smaller cost through other actions. They demonstrate that the responsible Commission directorate, DGXI, in formulating proposals and claiming cost neutrality, has not carried out adequate research and consultation with member states, or that it has understood the microbiology and engineering involved in sewage treatment.
The committee recognises that there are important political implications in the proposals. The need for the best possible measures to protect the health of the public must be balanced against the cost, which will fall largely upon the consumer. The committee also recognises that the bathing water directive can, with advantage, be updated in the light of modern scientific knowledge and methodologies. However, we consider the following points to be essential. First, the proposal must be viewed as part of the whole future strategy of water. Secondly, the importance of timing must be recognised. All of the engineering work should be integrated so that the water companies can operate from a stable base in planning and investing if the risk of unnecessary and wasteful expenditure is to be avoided. Thirdly, the Government must at once ensure that the Council and Commission get on with the necessary further consultation and make possible the adoption of a strategic approach to improve the quality of urban waste water and bathing water and take account of economic, public health and environmental issues, though in practice it may not be possible to include drinking water if that means significantly more delay. Not least, it is for national parliaments and the European Parliament to ensure that the data on costs and health risks are publicly available and debated. The Government can make a valuable and early contribution.
One of the biggest problems encountered by the committee was the lack of transparency that appeared to be a feature of the operations of the Council and Commission. For instance, Council negotiations normally lack openness on the scientific basis for directives that have been formulated. We have also found that the Government have been unable to answer our questions on the cost of compliance with existing directives by other states. They have sought that information but it has proved difficult to obtain. Fortunately, we understand that an early opportunity to start strategic thinking will be provided by a European Parliament seminar to be held in June of this year to look at water legislation in the round. The committee hopes to be represented at that seminar.
We strongly recommend that no detailed planning for the proposed bathing water directive takes place until a strategic overview has been carried out. We hope that this will be done without undue delay and agreed, but, as the Government have said, decisions need to be taken in the light of comparable information on health and cost implications from a representative number of member states. The Government have also said in their response to the Second Report that the future heavy investment under the urban waste water directive reinforces the need to ensure that a revised bathing water directive forms part of a coherent Community policy, and that the investment implications are properly understood. In the committee's view, that makes it all the more essential for the public to be fully consulted and informed.
Other members of the committee will address other important aspects of the two reports. It only remains for me to thank on behalf of the committee the two admirable specialist advisers: Professor David Kay (whose qualities have also led the Commission to seek his views) and Dr. Gareth Rees. I also wish to thank all those who gave evidence before the committee, not least Ministers and

687
civil servants. Most of all, we thank our splendid clerk, John Goddard. As always, he has guided us with both patience and wisdom. We are pleased that the Government have responded constructively to many of our representations. We look forward to action from them. We welcome in the Minister one who should, as a former member of the committee, understand our concerns and thought processes particularly well. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).—(Baroness Park of Monmouth.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for the admirable and concise way in which she introduced the debate. I intend to highlight some elements of the report and suggest possible action. Before doing so, I should declare a vested interest. I take great delight in swimming in the sea and in lakes and rivers throughout the United Kingdom. At some point or other I have swum in almost every coastal water around the British Isles. I also have children who swim.
Having read the reports and considered the subject in the past, I sometimes wonder how many of those involved in the drawing up of such reports are themselves swimmers who take delight in swimming in our bathing waters. I suspect that there are very few, given some of the things that can be read in these reports.
The matters to which I speak are referred to in the Bathing Water Revisited Report, which also includes a summary of the original report. The first matter I wish to highlight arises at the bottom of page 7:
"Mr. Byatt said he had not looked at the possible consequences for the local economy if bathing waters were not improved. He did not appear to consider these factors relevant to his considerations of the interests of water charge payers in his period reviews of price limits".
I suggest that that encapsulates one of the problems of the current regulatory regime of public utilities. The regulator has to work within a framework that is set effectively by the Government. Matters have to be examined within that framework. In the real world, if we think of ourselves as politicians we have to consider far wider implications than just the precise matters that the regulator is empowered to consider. That creates a real problem in trying to deal with the actions of public utilities.
Paragraph 4 on page 14 of the report states:
"In most British bathing waters, including those complying with the present directive, bathing brings a higher risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms than the public meet in normal daily life".
I had always thought that swimming, particularly in the sea, was a healthy activity, not something that increased the risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms.
Paragraph 5 says,
"there is increased risk of gastro-intestinal illness where the concentration of streptococci, measured at chest depth, exceeds about 40/100 ml.".
If one thinks that the Commission directive talked in terms of 400 per 100 millilitres, one can see that in practice there is a factor of 10 difference between the two
688
figures. That suggests to me that the European directive is not very relevant to the prevention of problems that we seek to achieve.
Paragraph 7 of Appendix 3 states:
"For children the risks from persistent diarrhoea are likely to be of greater significance".
I have children and I believe that we have a responsibility as a Parliament not just to think in terms of adults but to think in terms of the special risks that children run.
I shall not quote all the evidence in the report but the evidence from Surfers Against Sewage is quite interesting. It made the point that people can now spend far longer in the water because of the cheapness and availability of wetsuits. As a child I used to spend hours in the water. We may think of today's children being less hardy than we were as children but I am sure there are occasions nowadays when children spend hours playing in the water.
We must also take into account the fact that people go bathing all the year round and not just at particular times of the year. I was shocked to hear that the sampling is carried out only at particular times of the bathing season. Because the sampling is not done outside that season the water companies feel they have carte blanche to shovel almost anything into the water. That is a sad reflection on the water companies in terms of the responsibilities they should have but apparently do not have.
I have highlighted a number of areas in the report which I consider to be of concern. I should like now to talk about suggested actions. I am glad to echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that we need a rigorous scientific basis for the consideration of action. We are gradually getting there but we have not got there yet. We need to engage in more scientific research, monitoring and analysis of the results. From that, it is to be hoped, we can determine what are sensible limits.
I mentioned the discrepancy between the limit of risk of 40 per 100 millilitres and the directive figure of 400. We need to set sensible limits that will prevent risks to health. It is not acceptable to say that we can accept a certain degree of risk to health. We need to recognise that when people go swimming they are entitled to think of that as being a healthy activity and not something that subjects them to increased risk.
In this context it may be that we need to start driving the European Union rather than appear to be driven by it. Perhaps, in Britain, we should set sensible limits that will protect our swimmers and bathers from risk of ill health and then take them to the European Union and say that we want those limits to be applied throughout Europe. We should start leading rather than allow ourselves to be led in the wrong direction.
Information should be available to the public. There is some talk in the report about the possible closure of beaches. I would not go down that road. However, it is important that we should make available information about the risks of bathing in particular waters. Then, to a certain extent, it becomes a matter for individual judgment as to whether someone is likely to engage in those risks.
The reference in the report to the "Jaws" syndrome is very interesting. In the film "Jaws" the mayor of the town refused to tell the public that a great white shark was

689
roaming off the beach because it would frighten off the tourists and the town would lose its source of revenue. We have to be honest with the public. We have to tell them that the bathing waters in particular areas—unfortunately, this appears to be so in most areas around our coast—are liable to lead to an increased risk of infection. An informed public will demand action to deal with the problem.
My final point concerns the action that needs to be taken. There is general agreement about the need for a large amount of capital investment. It is unfair and wrong that capital investment should be sought on the short-term money markets and that the premium which that demands must be paid by current consumers. This is a classic case of long-term public investment being required. The only way to achieve that is by the Government and perhaps the European Union borrowing the money on a long-term basis at low rates of interest—there would be virtually no risk attached to the borrowing—and making it available to the water authorities to invest in cleaning up the effluents from the sewage works which seem to be the primary problem. Until we are prepared to do that, we will not achieve the results which I am sure we all want.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I shall do my best to fulfil the trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has placed in me to deal with the medical side. Like the noble Baroness, I am sorry that our chairman could not dazzle the House this afternoon with his own erudition in the whole range of these matters. I strongly support the noble Baroness's remarks about our Clerk, John Goddard. As an aside, it remains a deep mystery to me that no constituency has seen in him a possible candidate for membership of the European Parliament. His grasp of Europe seems to me to be exactly what might be wanted. I echo, too, the thanks that we all owe to David Kay and Gareth Rees. It was a most agreeable committee on which to serve.
Perhaps I may say how splendidly the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us all that this House has had an interest in bathing since the days of Lord Byron, who smiles on us while we have our lunch. As a young man he bathed at Southwell and he went to Brighton when it was very much the place and swam far out to sea, as the noble Lord does.
I wish to make two points clear. First, the question of water is far-reaching and complex. It goes all the way from the tap into the sink, down the drains, through the sewers, and, sadly in this country, very often out to sea. There is also the point, as the noble Lord showed so well, that we have a new state of affairs which was not the case when I was doing my national service or serving in Australia for a time. I refer to the arrival of the suits which allow people to swim for a long time and at great depth. Wet suits have changed the picture. The directive we have been wrestling with and the proposed new directive will not, I fear, please the noble Lord because to date there has been concern for the bathers and not the surfers, dinghy sailers and people swimming far out to sea. Much more concern has been shown for beach bathing.
690
I give personal support to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, which derive from the committee's activities, and by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about the need for some standards for the quality of the water in which we bathe. I know a young man who survived after bathing on a beach associated with a very splendid hotel in Norway. I was called to see him one morning because he had a splitting headache. He was covered with a rash—the rose spots which, in the old days, was the dreaded typhoid. Thank God he had been injected against typhoid, but he did have a very bad attack of para-typhoid fever. That was in Norway and we may draw what conclusions we like from that. It reminded me how important it is to check up on the quality of the bathing water in which my children, for example, submerge themselves.
As an aside, perhaps I may tell noble Lords that in North America on Cape Cod, at a place called Wellfleet, there is a splendid, large pond—as the Americans call it, but which we would call a lake—large enough for rowing and other activities. It is called, rightly, Gull Pond. I do not know what the right word is to describe gulls at rest in the evening. Do they roost? Anyway, they all alight on Gull Pond and spend the night talking to each other having a fine old time and, I fear, contaminating the water because occasionally Gull Pond is closed to our use. Certainly, my children have got sore throats from bathing in it and trouble with their eyes.
Personally, I go along with the committee of which I was a member, believing that we do need standards. Some of us have recently been in eastern Europe where there may not be much bathing in the sea, but there is inland bathing. I suspect that those countries are going to join us and so we would be wise to have some good regulations in preparation and in line.
Speaking as an elderly medical student, the problems as regards the quality of water are not new to the medical profession. At about the time I was doing National Service there were a great number of complaints. Many years ago there was great concern about something called "traveller's diarrhoea". The Royal Army Medical Corps and the Department of Health at the time did a lot of studies to try to find out where and why, when young men were sent abroad, they had diarrhoea. In many cases they could not find an explanation. There was a general feeling that people get nervous and nerves can upset the bowel and therefore a lot of the diarrohea was probably of nervous origin.
Again, in 1959, there was a great report from the Public Health Laboratory Service. It studied bathing water at about 40 beaches throughout the country. What it said essentially was, "Well, our bathing beaches may be a bit of a mess so far as the bacteriology is concerned, but if we search the records we do not find any cases of poliomyelitis which can be attributed to our bathing beaches. We find only two or three cases where gastroenteritis is really a classifiable disease". That continues the sort of spartan attitude about bathers which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, himself supported. They are tough, hardy people and do not suffer many serious diseases that lead them to hospital. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will nod when I say that we

691
noticed the same spartan attitude towards the people who bathe on our beaches when we interviewed people from the department. The Minister was probably there.
That is understandable. There have been so many important changes about bathing since 1959 and I should like to touch on a few of them. Without doubt, one of the wonderful things about the health service is that people are now more conscious of ill health than they were. They are more conscious of symptoms. So the threshold has moved from having cholera to having diarrhoea lasting four days, which is the kind of thing we have been studying in the committee and some of the reports we have received.
We also have to remember that four or five days out of a holiday is quite expensive for someone taking the family to Europe. We have to bear in mind that the European beaches, which seem to be so wonderful—to my mind, they very often are—are drenched with ultraviolet light from the sun and do not have the problem of tides. Very often they are protected by the kind of septic tanks which go with villas beside the sea all over the world.
Lastly, we have to bear in mind—thanks be to successive governments in this country and elsewhere— that more and more people are affluent enough to have beach holidays. It is the mode to bathe. The noble Lord is a leader of fashion and much to be respected for that. But there is increasing evidence since 1959 that there is an association between counts of organisms in bathing water and the amount of ill health created.
In 1994 representatives of the Public Health Laboratory Service came to see us. They said:
"Appropriate value should be applied to all recreational waters at all sites"—
which will please the noble Lord—
"but we lack scientific evidence to get and set the standards".
Important surveys have been carried out on beaches and on cohorts of people in resorts over the past few years. We are very fortunate that while we were sitting our specialist adviser, Professor Kay, reported a very interesting study that he had conducted from his headquarters in Leeds. It was published in that very reputable journal, The Lancet. He showed a continuous drift in the number of symptoms created against the count of bacteria in the water.
So we have a rather awkward situation which I point out to all noble Lords. We cannot say, "The water is definitely safe on any beach that we know of as yet". There is always likely to be an organism that will give something. So it is healthy but, like crossing the road, there are always risks. There is this continuous relationship between bathing risks and the levels of indicators.
In future, the United Kingdom hopes to reduce the risks, not least by having more treatment of waste water. The waste water which goes into our sewage farms so often passes out as sewage into the sea. If we can improve the quality of treatment of our waste water we shall be taking a step. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a very important point which I am sure other Members will be referring to; that is to say, all these things are inter-digitated and integrated. One cannot worry about
692
bathing water without worrying about waste water; one cannot worry about that without having to think about tap water and drinking water.
The committee, on which I was proud to sit, accepts the opinions that have arisen about the need for indicators. It has set out in the report the kinds of values it is concerned with. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, it is concerned about the high values that seem to be in the present directive and the much lower ones which are expected to arise from what we hope will appear in future.
Basically, what we want to see in future is much more consultation by the law-givers, not only with the people who actually swim, but with the bacteriologists who actually know. Those are the people we have to encourage to come together. I was going to read some short sections from the new report but I shall not bore your Lordships with them because those are the messages.
There are problems for the scientist in future which I shall just touch on. We know that when they are consulted they are going to be asked awkward questions about the regulations. Where should the sampling be done? We believe that it should be about a foot below the surface; a metre high or chest height for a fully grown adult—perhaps one should say, a fully grown man. Where, and how often, should the sampling be done? At the moment it is done every fortnight. Those are snapshots. We do not know what happens when there is a storm which brings water out of the meadows where there may be farm animals feeding bacteria into the river, which go into the bathing water down in the estuary.
We must ensure much greater reliability of the tests that are introduced. That is one of the things about which I feel most strongly. It is very much my hope that the European Environment Agency will take close to its heart the question of the reliability of the bacteriological tests and the differences between techniques used in different countries and try to ensure that we have uniformity of quality.
The way it is done is that the equivalent of 100 millilitres of water is taken and passed through a filter paper. The filter paper is then turned over. It is grown in a medium which produces the growth of the germs, so that individual germs are not looked for, which would be tedious to do down any microscope. The germs are allowed to grow into little cultures so that the number of cultures can be counted. I am sure that your Lordships can see that there are great possibilities for differences in the culture medium between, let us say, the French and the Germans and so on. We must try to get those things sorted out. They run for a time at 37 degrees and then they are switched up to 44 degrees to pep up the growth so that it is more recognisable. Are those the right temperatures?
We shall undoubtedly be looking at the possibility of the application of the wonderful new science—molecular biology—to bathing water problems. Your Lordships should know that there are things called bacteriophages which are viruses which infect bacteria. Those are the bacterial invasions which allow our sewage farms to work. It is hoped that eventually such indicators will be possible, although when we talked to our expert he said that it would take seven to 10 years. However, that is down the line, and we must ensure that our friends in Brussels keep their eyes open to what is in the future.

693
I have no doubt that we must ensure that the public are properly informed and educated about these problems in water. We want further information. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell noble Lords tonight that the Government will fund further research and analysis to provide, soon I trust, a well-founded new bathing water directive.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Park for introducing the debate and pay tribute to our Clerk and two specialist advisers who were of such invaluable help to the committee. As a member of the sub-committee, I was interviewed on Westcountry Television and asked what my reaction would be if, when bathing, I found solids passing me by. That was not an easy question to answer, but it illustrates the public perception of water purity. It has nothing to do with either of the two directives. Filtration of course is the responsibility of any sewerage authority. It is not even primary treatment; it is pre-primary treatment.
We have two directives, one which works broadly well and upon which there has been considerable expenditure, and another which is seriously flawed on two counts. The first is that of cost. My noble friend Lady Park referred to that. The Commission has given its opinion that the directive is cost-neutral. That has not been backed up with a detailed cost analysis by the Commission and, in the words of the sub-committee's report, it does not survive scrutiny. Our estimate is that the cost of compliance with the directive and the waste water directive could be up to £9 billion. I shall have more to say about that expenditure later. It may be a ballpark figure, but it is considerably more than cost-neutral. It has also to be said that the Government advise us that they have had difficulty finding comparable data from other member states. The cost of implementation would fall unevenly over the country, with places like the West Country being affected particularly badly. That is in addition to the rise in water charges, to which I shall speak in a moment.
Possibly no less serious, since it strikes at the whole plausibility of the directive, are our worries that the Commission has not engaged the scientific community in open discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to that point in some detail, as did my noble friend Lady Park. There has been a lack of transparency in the Community's deliberations in this respect. Having on the committee my noble friend Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and, as chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, your Lordships will appreciate that the committee speaks with some authority.
We have a report which has not been sufficiently technically researched and which would involve expenditure of, quite frankly, massive proportions. But at the end of the day it is a case of, "You gets what you pays for". More contamination means higher risk of illness. Less contamination means higher expenditure on sewage disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to worries about diarrhoea, whereas in the past the worries would have been about much more serious illnesses. The present directive is no doubt in need of updating in the light of scientific progress, but there is no evidence to suggest—
694
the committee found this—that it does not afford a satisfactory level of protection from serious illness. The more important point is that it was the sub-committee's opinion that neither the present nor the proposed directive would provide complete protection from the gastro-intestinal symptoms or respiratory illnesses which are essentially self-limiting to four days, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, and which have always been a risk in sea bathing—the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to this—and which are basically acceptable to the public.
Perhaps I may return to the subject of costs. We have this potentially massive cost in addition to the costs already incurred which have resulted in such large rises in water charges. Sewage works are expensive engineering projects which have to be planned and built over a period of years before improved water quality is achieved.
Changes in policy on water quality standards need to be taken well in advance if wasted expenditure is to be avoided. In 1990 the UK Government's sharp change in policy on sewage treatment had a major impact on costs incurred by water companies and, therefore, on water charges borne by consumers. This causes real concern, particularly to holiday areas in the South West.
In 1990 the Government announced policy changes which effectively increased the capital investment required over a 10-year period from £1.4 billion to £2 billion. We must bear that in mind in relation to the £9 billion cost of the proposed directive. Water bills in the South West had to increase not, as had been planned, by the 6.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation but by 11.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation.
The committee is concerned that there should not be money wasted by another sharp shift in policy, causing expensive new engineering works to be undertaken and making unnecessary some works already completed and in the process of being built.
We are therefore concerned that engineering decisions by the water companies should be able to be taken against the background of a stable policy for water quality. The committee sees a need for decisions on the water quality standards in any new bathing water directive to be taken with all speed so that the water companies can take a strategic approach to the treatment of urban waste water and to the quality of bathing water. If decisions on the mandatory standards of bathing water quality and on the engineering and treatment programmes they require are delayed, there must be a risk of considerable wasted expenditure. We hope the Government will press the Commission and the Council for the necessary speedy decisions.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I, too, echo the tribute paid to our chairman on his handling of what has been an extremely difficult investigation. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who dealt adequately with the technical, financial, medical, and policy issues contained in the report.
I came to the sub-committee somewhat late in the day and I have approached the problem from a slightly different perspective. I hope that the House will bear with

695
me if I present a slightly idiosyncratic view. I have had only one friend of whom it was said, "If he fell into a septic tank he would come up with a diamond ring". Ordinary mortals such as myself, who become involved in the subject of wastes, sewage and water quality, usually finish up thoroughly mired in it.
It is interesting to note that as the committee was studying the possible new bathing water directive from the European Commission two newspaper reports threw a sharp light on the problems of our maritime location. First, much was made of some intrepid plastic ducks which, if my memory is correct, had been frozen into the Arctic in the Baring Straits as a result of a sea disaster and were washed ashore in the United Kingdom some four or five years later. The second was a survey which revealed that a surprising proportion of the flotsam washed ashore on our westerly coasts originates in North America.
The oceans are restless. Ocean currents flow round the British Isles in a generally clockwise direction. The North Sea is a large eddy with the Gulf Stream feeding in from the north and an outflow through the Dover Straits. Pity the poor water companies which have responsibility for bathing water quality and which know that, with few local exceptions, every time they test, the water that they are testing is travelling steadily down the coast. Unless everyone applies the same meticulously high standards, their task is impossible.
The second problem involved in dealing with bathing water quality is historical in its origin. When sewage systems were first constructed for seaside towns in the 19th century it was not at all unusual for them to use short sea-outfalls for disposal rather than install the expensive filtration and treatment plants which were necessary inland. Smaller populations, fewer visitors and an absence of some of the modern materials that are now in regular household use meant that coastal communities could dispose of their sewage quickly and cheaply. Now a century later we see the consequence of such a past.
In paragraph 11 of the second report, Bathing Water Revisited, we see that South West Water believes that the cost of compliance with the proposed new directive in their region was disproportionately high because the region has almost one-third of the designated beaches in the United Kingdom while having only 3 per cent, of the population.
The cost of compliance is not exclusively a factor of the number of designated beaches in a region; it is also due to the number of communities which have had the advantage—if advantage it be—of disposing of their sewage directly into the sea. Of course, that problem is exacerbated by high seasonal numbers of tourists who, while contributing to the problem, at the same time expect—and rightly, in my view—that beaches should be clean and hygienic.
That brings me to the issue of costs and benefits. The first European Council Directive on Bathing Water (76/160/EEC) dated December 1975 contains the following statement:
"Whereas"—
696
the Commission seems to love "whereas" and "having regard to" because there are many of them. I have chosen the essential one.
"Whereas, in order to protect the environment and public health, it is necessary to reduce the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterioration".
That was the motivation for the first report.
Interestingly, the next directive in the field (91/271/EEC), relating to urban waste water treatment and dated 21st May 1991, does not mention public health as a motive but contains the following statement:
"Whereas [again] to prevent the environment from being adversely affected by the disposal of insufficiently treated urban waste water, there is a general need for secondary treatment of urban waste water".
The waste water of seaside towns is urban waste water.
The second committee report that we are considering, Bathing Water Revisited, establishes at Table 1 on page 6 the different costs of meeting the various standards that might be set over and above the £9.5 billion, which appears in paragraph 7, required to comply with the urban waste water directive. In trying to calculate whether those costs are justifiable, your Lordships' committee has a problem. The public health cost of sickness as a result of sea bathing is quite small. There is a very small number of acute cases where the consequence of a dip in the sea is tragic for the individual concerned. Beyond that, diarrhoea and nausea are the main problems and they soon pass. That is as may be, but I have never heard or believed that savings in public health costs were the sole determinant for cleaning up our sewerage and industrial waste disposal problems. If that had been the case, many of the rivers in industrial areas which used to be so offensive would never have been tackled. In those cases, the public health cost was marginal because no sensible person would go anywhere near them, still less would anyone use them as a source of water supply.
The issue of trying to cost environmental benefits or disbenefits presents an even greater problem. I intend to approach that aspect in a different way by reverting to the problems faced by South West Water. In that part of the country the tourist industry succeeds because of a belief in clean sea bathing, clean rivers and clean countryside. Can the West Country afford to put that industry, which is vital to its economy, at risk by allowing the reduction of one of the assurances of environmental quality? I suggest not. Mr. Byatt of Ofwat may be right to be concerned about the impact of high costs on water customers. But unless the communities in the South West arc prepared to put the tourist industry in jeopardy in their region they have little option but to shoulder their share of what is a much wider problem. Perhaps some form of tourist levy can be considered to assist in financing but that runs the risk of persuading people to go elsewhere, possibly abroad.
There are no easy answers. These problems are not exclusively national; they are international. One has only to consider the problems of the Baltic or the northern Adriatic to appreciate the need for the establishment of a common, acceptable standard and its enforcement. What is certain is that the privatisation of the water industry has helped. Examination of the water companies' capital construction programmes reveals that since privatisation there has been a great expansion of expenditure on capital

697
works in sewage disposal because government financial control totals no longer apply and the industry now has access to the money markets. The proposal for a new directive is in tune with public demands for high standards and these two reports should help the Commission towards an appropriate decision.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as always, we are immensely indebted to noble Lords and others who have given their efforts to producing these reports; to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate so far; to the noble Baroness for filling in at rather short notice; and to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for an extremely interesting and illuminating speech on the health situation.
In particular, I wish to follow the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Dixon-Smith. In spite of our gratitude to the people who have produced the report, I believe that there is a general unease in relation to the results. There was a time when bathing water was not a problem. Apart from anything else, our climate saw to that. But if for no other reason than the use of wetsuits for various water sports, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the number of bathers and other people using the sea has increased dramatically. And so it is a problem that so many of our beaches and much of our bathing water are frankly disgusting. They are a major turn-off for tourists and a source of crippling disease, although I accept not for great numbers of people, and cause a great deal of discomfort and unease.
We spend a great deal of money on the problem, the costs of which seem to fall rather inequitably—or at least the people of the South West seem to think so. We should probably look again at the whole problem of financing what needs to be done.
We accept that Brussels has not done its homework properly on this matter and that should be rectified. But that is no reason for us not to take such precautions as we can. Paragraph 58 of the report states that:
"Some of us are attracted by the idea that if sufficient effective resources were devoted to reducing pathogenic content of sewage discharges there would be no need for a bathing water directive".
However, it goes on:
"on reflection … the Committee concluded that 'belt and braces' were both desirable".
I am informed that it is extremely unusual for a Select Committee to report even initial disagreements in that way. I conclude that that paragraph masks a considerable unease on the part of at least some members of the committee.
I would argue that end-of-pipe solutions are the best way forward for public health. Certainly there are plenty of examples of the inadequacy of long sea outfalls. The Eastleigh pipes blew within seven months of installation and the Worthing ones all failed. Yorkshire Water spent £32 million on a system which produced water of an appalling quality and now will have to spend another £35 million to meet the urban waste water directive requirements. That is £67 million spent on long sea outfalls, whereas an effective end-of-pipe solution would have cost only £45 million.
698
This is not a very pleasant subject, made more unpleasant by what has been referred to as the "Jaws" syndrome, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred. Your Lordships will remember that in "Jaws" people continued to be eaten by sharks because the local authority was afraid that, if it admitted that anyone had been even sniffed at by a shark, tourists would not come and the local resorts would be ruined. Likewise, inhabitants and authorities in resorts are afraid to mention the problem that we are discussing this evening, and the fact that they do not like, do not want and are afraid of mentioning it militates against its solution.
With others of your Lordships, I am reaching the end of the sittings of your Lordships' Select Committee on sustainable development. Therefore, I am well apprised of the necessity of value for money and not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have heard all those arguments and I accept them. Nevertheless, I accept that the problem at which we are looking today must be tackled radically or it will both continue and cost much more in the long run.
Today, we are making both "Jaws" and "The Return of Jaws". In spite of all the work undertaken, I am no more happy with the results than I was with the original work of Brussels. Unless we take a truly radical approach in the next few years, however expensive that may be, in a few years time we shall be here in this Chamber debating "Jaws III".
5.35 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who are not members of the Select Committee, I begin by echoing their thoughts that this has been a work of considerable diligence and skill. I commend also the noble Baroness who opened the debate on doing that with characteristic thoroughness.
I support a great deal of what is in the report but I should also like to make some criticisms of it. I shall not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who preceded me. There must be some anxiety about costs. A balance must be drawn. One has also to apply a cost benefit analysis to this form of legislation. However, I am not so sure that that is as easy to apply as has been suggested by some of your Lordships in this debate.
The background to our considerations starts with the bathing water directive of 1976. Perhaps I may add the thought that that was adopted by unanimity. It was adopted because there was a considerable fear that polluted bathing waters, especially those polluted as a result of sewage, represented a serious health hazard. Of course, it provided also a very generous period for compliance.
In this report, the extent and seriousness of such hazards is questioned to a considerable degree. Certainly during the period for which I was responsible for environmental affairs in the European Commission a good deal of thought was given, even i n those days—up to the beginning of 1989—to a revision of that bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and, indeed, to endorsing that which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asserted; namely, that this should be seen in the context of a water policy as a whole. There is much to

699
commend that. However, I am not sure that we have the time to be able to develop a policy of that coherence and have it enacted within a reasonable period of time.
I have browsed through the report but I believe that, unless I am mistaken, the Select Committee did not consider in relation to the 1976 bathing water directive—and I confess that I only knew yesterday that I was to speak in the debate—the dilemma which confronts the Commission in relation to the enforcement of any law. The Commission is the guardian of the treaty. Even though there were strong arguments to suggest, even in 1985, that the bathing water directive had some serious defects attaching to it, that did not remove from the Commission and the Commissioner responsible the duty to ensure that the law was properly enforced. There appears to be no mention of that in the report.
The fact that the background to the whole matter had been that the original draft directive—which, presumably, had been negotiated over a period of two or three years— had been subjected to all the scrutiny of the Council of Permanent Representatives before it reached the Council of Ministers, must have given governments the opportunity (and at that time it was a Labour Government) to investigate any doubts before the directive became law.
However—and I am being a little anecdotal here—when I came to study such matters and the way in which the question of identifying bathing waters was being applied (which was a requisite under the draft directive) I found that a number of governments were seriously deficient in their recognition of fulfilling obligations which fell upon them and that they failed to recognise the duty of the Commission in enforcing the law. In my judgment, the United Kingdom Government sought to sabotage the directive; indeed, there is some reference to that in the first report that we are considering today. The Government took an attitude which, essentially, was, "We don't like this directive and we hope that it will go away"; and they did nothing about it.
As is pointed out in the report, in carrying out the duty of identifying bathing waters, I believe—although I am speaking now from memory—that France identified something like 1,100, Italy about 1,000 and then, in lovely little landlocked Luxembourg, 39 were identified. But the United Kingdom, which has the longest coastline of all, identified only 27.1 believe that that shows a scant regard for carrying out their duties in that respect. That caused the Select Committee to say that there had been a sluggish British response.
It was for that reason that I authorised the commencement of infraction proceedings. The Government failed to recognise that Blackpool, Southport, Bournemouth and Great Yarmouth actually had beaches. But, happily, there was a subsequent U-turn; or, at least, a partial U-turn. In 1987–88 the compliance rate improved. Then there was another U-turn represented by the adoption of the urban waste water directive which is designed to stop the dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998. All towns with a population of more than 10,000 will have to apply secondary treatment before discharge. I believe that that is unquestionably an advance. Whatever one may say about the efficacy of the Commission in producing those proposals, there has,
700
undeniably, been some considerable improvement in standards over those years. That is to be commended. Of course, it is not something that is due simply to the Commission; it is due to member states improving the way in which they are working in that regard.
Doubtless the latter will involve very substantial capital investment in the future. One of the problems has been a great deal of not duplicity but certainly misinformation about the costing of the programmes. An enormous estimate was given by the Treasury and a different estimate given by the Department of the Environment. That hardly leads to a recognition of the credibility of the Government. I entirely endorse the views of the Select Committee in saying that it is important that we should have a proper assessment of the capital cost involved. In relation to the draft directive proposed, it is right to say that there should be a better assessment, if at all possible, of the cost involved.
In relation to the latter, I saw that Mr. Henningsen of DGXI said in evidence to the Select Committee that there was considerable difficulty in building such assessments into a draft directive. He said that,
"cost estimates always depend on information that we get from the Member States".
The burden of his argument was that that information is sometimes difficult to procure and, at other times, unreliable. If, as a country, we are to play a more important role than we have done in the past in producing a meaningful policy in that regard, I believe that we should look at some of our own warts while being ready to criticise the work of the Commission. But is there anything in the argument of Mr. Henningsen? Has the Select Committee properly addressed those points?
Doubt has been cast on the environmental credentials of the Government over a long period of time. Indeed, it is interesting that the Minister for Agriculture said only recently, that he regretted the posture of the Government in earlier days when he had been a junior Minister because it had not helped Britain's reputation in the field. Of course, I am only offering a resume of what he said. I respect Mr. Waldegrave who played a notable part in the discussions that we had, although he did not always seem to have the backing of his colleagues. I believe that the arguments about nooks and crannies, the arguments that took place in Edinburgh, the assertions that environmental policy was always going too far, and even the suggestion that it ought to be repatriated, hardly led to an enhancement of the Government's credibility.
I turn now to the argument that the Commission had not consulted the scientific community. If the Commission has failed in that regard, it is a serious fault on its part. But before a draft directive reaches the Council of Ministers and while it is being considered by the Council of Permanent Representatives, are not those points vigorously argued by the Government? So what did the Government say in that respect? Did they take the view that the scientific community was not consulted and did they not say, as they ought to have said, "Well it's not too late to do it now"? I think that it is uncharacteristic of the Commission. In my experience of the Commission, its members did consult very widely and as best they could. I find it surprising, but it may well be a correct assessment of the position.

701
I turn now to the question of subsidiarity. I believe that the case has very clearly been made out for action in the sphere of bathing; and, indeed, as regards bathing water. It is important to establish common standards for the protection of bathers' health throughout the European Union and, at the same time, to recognise the trans-boundary dimension of water pollution. It is right that the Select Committee should have drawn attention to the effects on tourism.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Monkswell made some very pertinent points regarding the interests of ordinary people who are, perhaps, not quite so knowledgeable of the complex scientific arguments involved in the presentation of the report. They are entitled to have clean water when they bathe; they are entitled not to have to confront faeces even if treated; and they are entitled to expect higher standards than they have been getting hitherto. Whether, of course, that justifies the enormous amount of expenditure involved is a matter of balance and requires a further assessment.
The question of local decision-making was also referred to on page 10 of the seventh report. I am a little dubious about that. At paragraph 20 the report states:
"We think there is a need for a more serious attempt than appears to have been made hitherto to assess the economic benefits which might flow from a reduction in the minor illnesses associated with bathing".
The report further stated:
"It might appear after investigation that the higher standards to be achieved should not be made mandatory under Community legislation or, perhaps, even under domestic legislation, but should be left to local decision within each water company area after full consultation with water charge payers and other groups concerned".
I must say I find that a somewhat extraordinary proposition to advance. It virtually means that one accepts ultimately the total bona fides of the water companies in carrying out their consultations with the local people concerned. I have found in dealing in the past, not only with water companies but also with governmental organisations, that there is a great deal of special pleading involved in the public relations exercises that they undertake. I am not totally convinced that they are prepared, because of the special position they are in, to provide that totally balanced and objective view as a result of consultations. Are they able to carry out the consultations anyway? What would be the nature of the consultations that they would be prepared to carry out? How reliable would it all be?
I have mentioned a few of the criticisms that I have but that does not in any sense mean that I do not believe this report is other than an excellent one. It has been well presented and it is coherent. I will not say that it is without complexity. When I was reading it last night I found some of it rather difficult to absorb and it did not manage to keep me awake. But having said that, I commend all those who participated in this extremely difficult work.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I ought first to declare what is perhaps an historical interest, having had the opportunity to participate as a member of the sub-committee in the deliberations leading to its first report on bathing waters. But setting aside my own earlier involvement, I wish on behalf of the Government to
702
congratulate the committee, under the exceptionally able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, who I regret is not able to be here today, on the two excellent reports on the proposed revision of the bathing water directive. It is with my inside knowledge that I can endorse the tributes which have been paid by various committee members both to the special advisers who were involved and also to the clerk, who was invaluable throughout. I would also like to pay tribute to the quality and expertise of some of the speeches today, not least that of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, who gave us a lucid presentation of the two reports.
Your Lordships invariably bring great expertise and insight to discussion of proposed Community legislation both in the Committee Corridor and here in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is an example of the experience and expertise that are available to this House in debates on European affairs. I should at the same time express the Government's wish that it had been possible to reply earlier to the committee's second report, Bathing Water Revisited, to give more time for the response to be considered before this debate.
The existing bathing water directive was adopted as long ago as 1975. Many would say that it has had a chequered history in the UK—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed this out—and this has contributed to the comparatively high level of public interest in its revision. I shall not dwell on the past, which perhaps continues to influence public perception of the quality of our bathing waters. But in looking to the future and the proposed revision we would be wise not to forget the lessons that can be gleaned from the history of the existing directive.
It is clear to me from your Lordships' reports that these lessons have not been forgotten. This scrutiny and debate have identified weaknesses in the proposed revision that require a positive response from the European Commission. I want to put on record that the Government consider that the need for revision is unquestionable and that there is merit in some of the Commission's proposals. However, we share the committee's concerns on some important aspects. Revision is the opportunity for thorough updating and correction of the shortcomings of the current directive. It is not the time to replace one set of shortcomings with another.
I understand that your Lordships' reports have been studied in Brussels and that the conclusions and recommendations, together with criticism from other quarters, have caused the Commission to re-examine its proposal. The result is not yet known, but it may become clearer before long, when the Commission explains its proposals for water legislation to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and to a wider audience. I hope that the results of your Lordships' deliberations will be influential. I say this because the Select Committee has carried out a thorough and independent scrutiny of the proposal. This scrutiny deserves a proper response. It is, of course, reassuring to us that so many of the committee's views accord with those of the Government. Our response to the first report, Bathing Water, shows the extent of the agreement. There is a similar convergence of views in our recent response to Bathing Water Revisited.

703
A dominant theme of both reports (and indeed of the debate today) is the need for greater openness and wider public debate on bathing water standards. There can be little doubt that a better exchange of information and views during the formulation of the Commission's proposal would have helped to improve its quality and may have saved time in the long run. I believe that, although the committee's criticism of lack of consultation has been taken to heart, there is still a lack of information in the public domain on the implications of the proposal for other member states. The Commission itself has only recently started a study to collect basic information about levels of faecal streptococci, which is a parameter with greatly enhanced significance in the proposed revision.
In the UK the Government have commissioned extensive research, and published the results, to shed light on the complex issues of water quality and health. Many noble Lords today have pointed out just how complex issues of water quality and public health are. We have also carefully assessed likely compliance costs. We have made this information widely available—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl continues, may I ask, dealing with the question of scientific assessment, what is the role of the European Environment Agency in relation to this? Is it doing any work in this regard, and what is its relationship in connection with any such work with the work going on in DGXI, and indeed in the member states?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I was going to mention the European Environment Agency a little later but, as the noble Lord will know as well as any of us, it is only just now properly in action. It has distributed various specific studies to various topic centres. The topic centre based in the UK will be dealing with water. It may be a little too soon to say exactly what will be the extent of the agency's contribution, but I think everyone who has an interest in the agency hopes that it will provide authoritative information across all environmental media.
As I was saying, we have made the information that we commissioned on both costs and the health quality parameters widely available in order to inform the debate and it is apparent that it has been a significant part of the evidence considered by the committee. But we have still to see comparable information from other member states. EC legislation should be developed in the light of comprehensive, Europe-wide knowledge of the consequences. Armed with the committee's conclusions we shall try to ensure that standards of information are improved. I stress that point to my noble friend Lady Park.
Your Lordships, and especially my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, have drawn attention to the need for a public debate on acceptable levels of health protection. While the principle must be welcome, given the complexity of the issues, a meaningful and informed debate presents a considerable challenge. The effects on health at the standards under consideration are not so great as to be immediately obvious—except perhaps in some cases to those intent on sensationalism. The effects cannot be distinguished by looking at the number of people who go to their GP or the chemist following bathing. So research has to be based on the results of questionnaires which seek
704
bathers' and non-bathers' views on their perception of their state of health. Moreover, the results of the different surveys which have been carried out do not show agreement on the effects on health associated with particular levels of indicators of sewage contamination. There are difficulties, too, in knowing the precise water quality to which bathers have been exposed.
These problems make establishing relationships between water quality and the chances of suffering minor illnesses difficult to quantify other than in rather broad terms. However, on the basis of the evidence which is currently available, the Government share the committee's views that there is no justification for imposing on the public significantly higher costs in order to reduce the present level of risks.
The Government have made considerable efforts to ensure that the public has information about any risks associated with bathing. We funded the Water Research Centre study, which is probably the most comprehensive study of its kind undertaken anywhere in the world.
It looked at a large number of bathers, a spectrum of different bathing water qualities and a variety of different bathing activities. This research concluded that the existing standards provide adequate health protection. But any risks must be seen in their proper context—for example, against the background of risks associated with the other activities in which people participate on their holidays. Also relevant is the finding from the WRC research that bathing in clean, cold, salt water can itself cause certain health effects. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was astonished that a healthy activity such as swimming could possibly lead to any form of ill health. However, I believe that he confused the difference between the exercise and the environment in which that exercise is taken, as do joggers when they jog along a busy road.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as someone who suffers from raynaud's phenomenon—I should explain that that is gangrene of the extremities—I know the risks associated with cold water bathing. They are recognised and acceptable. I take issue with the Government on the fact that contamination from sewage causes extra health risk to people and they seem to think that that is acceptable. I do not think that the British public would recognise that risk as acceptable.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I believe that he will find his assertion to be absolutely untrue.
With some sympathy, I turn to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made. I have more than a few children who, like the noble Lord's children, like to be in and out of the sea. The Government take very seriously the likely effect of sea water quality on children who are swimming off beaches. The Government plan further detailed analysis of the data on children specifically.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out that closing beaches or prohibiting bathing—one of the suggestions in the proposed revision of the bathing directive—would be difficult. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the committee and feel that it would

705
be disproportionate, inappropriate and hugely impractical. Not only would preventing people from swimming cause problems for those seeking to enforce the ban, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, knows, the time taken to undertake microbiological analysis is such that by the time one decides to close the beach the problem may no longer exist. The Government feel strongly that, if for some reason health factors within the water tested cause concern, appropriate action should be taken.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, stressed that information and advice must be given to the public. Two or three noble Lords referred to the "Jaws" syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, got as far as "Jaws III" before he sat down. That scenario is very much not the case. The Government recognise that the provision of information is the only sensible response to bathing water problems.
Perhaps I may point out that in the UK a scheme is in operation whereby the results of monitoring by the NRA are displayed on notices at bathing waters. An associated leaflet explains in simple terms the significance of the monitoring results.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, also referred to the challenge of sampling and the difficulties associated with it. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wanted sampling conducted over a much longer period outside the traditional bathing season. However, it is during the traditional bathing season that the directive requires water to be sampled. The UK season, from mid-May until the end of September, is longer than that of some other member states. If the National Rivers Authority carried out monitoring for longer periods, there would be a significant increase in costs without any commensurate benefits.
Perhaps I may refer again to the European Environment Agency, which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned. Sampling comparability and techniques could be one area in which the European Environment Agency takes an interest and on which it seeks greater conformity across the community. Comparability of data is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned. Concerns have been expressed that the directive and the proposed revision allow too much scope for different interpretations of the monitoring requirements so that, for example, the UK's diligent approach places us possibly at an unfair advantage. I have some sympathy with those views. I believe that the Commission is aware of the concerns and has taken some steps in its proposal to reduce potential discrepancies.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted two important issues from his own experience in this area: first, the extent of comparability of enforcement or the application of the directive's obligations; and the duty of the Commission to enforce the law. The Government recognise the importance of both issues.
The public's concern about bathing water quality is likely to continue, despite the massive investment being made in sewerage infrastructure. Some £9.5 billion is already earmarked for the completion of the first bathing water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive. I believe that it is not possible to shift the costs either on to central government or to the European Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell
706
suggested, because, first, that would defy the polluter pays principle, and, secondly, one is in effect still charging the public at the end of the day. It goes round in a circle and is not an endless corridor, as the noble Lord might wish. It is the responsibility of us all to seek to ensure that the debate about costs and benefits is as constructive as possible given the sheer volumes of investment which are required.
A number of shortcomings of the present directive which need to be addressed concern the bathing water quality parameters to be monitored and for which mandatory standards are set. The committee has focused most attention on the microbiological parameters because it is these, rather than for example transparency or dissolved oxygen, which are most closely related to the directive's fundamental objective of health protection. The committee has quite rightly endorsed the Commission's proposed deletion of total coliforms and salmonella as not adding useful information. Fine tuning of the faecal coliform parameter by changing it to E. coli is a further useful improvement. The Government noted the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on bacteriophage. Indeed, we believe that it could well be a promising and good indicator. But clearly more work has to be undertaken first.
There is a view that deletion of any particular parameter represents a weakening of the standards of protection. I am pleased that the committee has rejected that line of argument by recommending that monitoring for enterovirus should no longer be required on the grounds that the test methods are too unreliable. They are also very expensive. In other words, it is an unsuitable indicator for routine monitoring under the directive. There is unchallengeable logic to this recommendation which I hope the Commission will accept.
Your Lordships' reports have given great emphasis to the proposed mandatory standard for faecal streptococci. There is common ground that this is a good indicator, with a simple and reliable test. The debate concerns the numerical value of the standard to be set. The committee has exposed the lack of scientific justification for the proposed standard of 400/100 ml and has called for further analysis of the evidence. We are planning further work but, because of the complexity and limitations of the research, and the difficulty of measuring actual health effects related to water quality, which I mentioned earlier, it would be unwise to expect unequivocal evidence in support of a particular numerical standard in the near future. And, unfortunately, the same difficulties in deriving reliable quantification of effects would arise in meeting the committee's suggestions in Bathing Water Revisited for more serious attempts to assess the economic benefits of more stringent water quality standards.
I point out that the Government are participating with the NRA, the water industry and others in the development of methods to evaluate the economic benefits arising from improvements in water policy. We are not sluggish on the subject but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, measuring cost benefit analysis in this area is not straightforward. It will take

707
further work. I know that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith had quite a lot to say on the subject.
There is a lack of hard evidence from other member states. This reinforces the need for fuller debate and the sharing of information from as many sources as possible. I commend the committee's contribution to encouraging this fuller debate both in this House and elsewhere.
Finally, my reply would be incomplete without covering the important matter of costs. Much of Bathing Water Revisited concerns the committee's analysis of the compliance cost assessment carried out for the Government. Indeed, costs have been fundamental to many of the points raised in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bridge-man gave us a great deal of thought on the subject.
We have recently responded to specific points in Bathing Water Revisited, including such matters as the need for a coherent Community water policy which recognises relative priorities and the implications of legislation for investment. One of the most fundamental points made both by the report and by my noble friend Lady Park was the need for coherent strategic policy-making and investment in the whole water area. The Government are not being led. They are leading, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested. We are keen that the various strands of Community water policy should integrate properly and interrelate where they have to overlap and that the timing is sensible. Given that resources are not infinite, we are keen that priorities are properly set on cost benefit analysis, where it can be achieved, and on proper scientific evidence, where it is available. The Government are fully aware of the need for a coherent strategy throughout the area. When we consider the extraordinary sums of money involved in the investment, that factor is vital.
However, I should like to draw attention once again to perhaps the committee's most important opinion: it was unconvinced that there was justification for imposing on the general public significantly higher costs in order somewhat to reduce the present risks of self-limiting illness associated with bathing. Through the debate today, the House has, I believe, endorsed that view. Furthermore, there is no question but that the UK cost study shows that the proposed provision would mean the imposition of significant additional costs. Avoidance of unjustified additional costs is a principle which the Government can readily support.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to today's debate. I believe it has been a useful opportunity for us all to exchange ideas on some of the very complex technical issues arising from the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. I have noted the many issues raised here today and I hope that I have managed to respond to most, if not all, of them. Above all, I have been reminded of the widespread consensus on the fundamental issues which must shape the UK's objectives for the revision of the directive.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken for the interesting contributions. I was particularly glad to hear from the Minister that the Commission is reconsidering the proposal in the light of our comments. I was pleased to hear that the Government are working closely with the NRA and that there are many convergences of views between us. I am glad that the Government are leading, not following.
I agree on the need for more information on the position in other states. We can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on that. He is particularly well placed to comment on the issue. His argument that the Government should be pushing for it is one which we wholly support.
Finally, I wish to pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Paragraph 58 did not conceal a sinister rift. It simply recorded a discussion and a difference of view.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I know that the paragraph did exactly that, but I understand that it is unusual for a committee report to record a discussion in that way. The fact that it was done and that the powers that be allowed it to be recorded must surely show that there was an unusual reason for the matter to be recorded like that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which naturally exceeds mine on the usual habits of committees. I can only make my comments from the view of one who was there. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bathing Water Revisited: ECC Report
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the House will be aware that we debated both Motions together. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water Revisited (Seventh Report, HL Paper 41).—(Baroness Park of Monmouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Signs
6.15 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before the regulations governing road signs are relaxed, they will carry out assessments and research with regard to the potential environmental impact and confusion to road users as a result of the proliferation of road signs.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today's convention demands scrupulous declarations of interest by Members of both Houses, and since the Question involves tourist signposting perhaps I may begin by confessing that I am involved in one of the largest tourist attractions in Great

709
Britain. It is set in an area of outstanding natural beauty, the New Forest. I am President of the Southern Tourist Board and a member of the Heritage Committee of the British Tourist Authority.
The Question is deliberately designed to draw the attention of Parliament for the first time to proposed amendments to the traffic sign regulations which, if introduced as proposed, will, I believe, have a very detrimental long-term effect on our environment, being unmanageable and potentially confusing to touring motorists.
Britain is justly famous all over the world for its green and pleasant land and its historic towns and villages, largely uncluttered by a profusion of signs. For many decades, governments of all persuasions have made it their policy to keep our roads and particularly our countryside clear of a proliferation of signs. With the growth of tourism and leisure, this policy had to be altered, so in the 1980s the brown and white tourist signs were introduced, denoting a tourist attraction with symbols indicating their type because bona fide tourist attractions are visited by a large number of people who are unfamiliar with the area. The numerical criteria relating to the number of visitors to each site and other conditions have been generally accepted by the tourist industry as a valid limitation, as the stated purpose of signs is to provide directions to ease traffic flow not for advertising.
This system has worked very well with the tourist boards supervising compliance with criteria. The current policy already allows a large range of tourist establishments to be signed. They include theme parks, Zoos, historic properties, museums and leisure complexes. Consequently the brown and white sign has a defined and recognised meaning. There have been some justifiable requests for a limited extension of the criteria to other types of destination which attract large numbers of tourists.
Now, as suggested by a circular from the Department of Transport, this successful scheme, which has won widespread public acceptance and confidence, is to be replaced by a virtually unregulated free-for-all. The new definition of an eligible establishment is proposed as any,
"permanently established destination or facility which attracts or is used by visitors to an area, and which is open to the public without prior booking during its normal opening hours".
That description is so wide that it would cover not only all guesthouses and bed-and-breakfast establishments, but also every pub and restaurant—even shops if they chose to apply—and the department proposes a presumption in favour of approval. There are approximately 5,000 visitor attractions in England, many of which are not currently signed, but the number of premises that could potentially be signed under the new suggested definition could be well over 200,000.
So how would the physical requirements of locating and installing so many signs be met? Stranger still, it is suggested that establishments be permitted to supply and put up their own signs. That raises the question of who will maintain them and keep them up to date in future years.
Another problem is that the new widened definition of eligibility without any qualifying criteria will allow establishments to have a sign, even if their opening times are such that they may often be closed when visitors who
710
follow the signs arrive. Surely it is wrong that signs should be a source of misinformation. Under existing criteria, attractions that have limited or seasonal opening periods below established levels must indicate that on their signs.
The total lack of nationally accepted criteria for the signposting of tourist attractions based on numerical justification, or quality and operational standards is surely unacceptable. Significantly it is a step which Scotland has refused to take; it will wisely continue to administer its signage through the Scottish Tourist Board. Wales will do likewise. It surely must be right, in line with the recent tourism policy statement of the Department of National Heritage, Competing with the Best, that tourism sign eligibility in England should comply with prevailing tourist board standards which are accepted by the industry, such as the "Visitors Charter" code of practice for attractions and the national grading and classification schemes for accommodation which the Heritage Secretary only recently pledged to strengthen.
There is no doubt that an appropriate broadening and flexibility of eligibility criteria would be welcomed, to permit signs for other types of permanent destination which attract large numbers of tourists and visitors from outside the area. If hotels, pubs, fast food establishments, supermarkets and picnic sites need and deserve further signs, could they not be known as tourist facility signs, and be in a different colour so as not to downgrade the credibility of the brown and white signs to proper tourist attractions?
Unfortunately there is nothing in the proposals to reflect the special requirements of areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or the New Forest, in whose recently designated heritage area there are 38 hotels and 88 bed-and-breakfast establishments. In the county of Hampshire alone there an; 2,000, all of which, it is suggested, should have a presumption in favour of a sign.
It is further proposed that local roads authorities may establish their own criteria. Yet surely signs must also be continuous and not differ between adjacent local authority areas. Most importantly, signs must be clear and reliable sources of information. The application of consistent conditions is needed. Signage policies must be comprehensive, and be devised in full collaboration with environmental and regional and national tourist interests.
There is no evidence that the issue of sign proliferation has been evaluated, either in terms of physical requirements, information need, or, in my view most importantly, environmental impact. As the proposals stand there is a real risk that large numbers of signs could damage the very environment that tourists want to see, and that they could confuse rather than assist.
The proposed proliferation of signage will undoubtedly bring about a devaluation of the existing brown and white signs, and will have a detrimental effect on visitor attractions that serve high volume need, through their signs becoming visually insignificant. If so many establishments are to be signed, either in a cluster or all on one post, the result will surely be self-defeating.
The House may wonder why this radical new policy has not received wider publicity. For reasons that are unclear—I refrain from saying "sinister"—the

711
consultative paper and the draft orders were issued just before Easter with little over a month allowed for representations. Very few local authorities or amenity bodies have had time to consider the paper. Indeed, one local authority told me that it did not even have time to put it to the relevant committee.
Surely eligibility for signage must continue to depend on establishments adopting nationally agreed codes of practice and minimum standards—and minimum numbers should continue to be accepted by the Department of Transport as preconditions for signage, especially on motorways.
I am sure that everybody will agree that the object of signs is to inform and direct. They must be accurate, clear and reliable. If there are no standards, there will be chaos. So what is the rush? I plead with the Government tonight to carry out further consultation to achieve nationally agreed criteria, to come to a sensible agreement with regard to the definition of tourist attractions relevant to tourist facilities, and to delay implementation of any proposals until such time as a proper assessment is made of the undoubted damage to our countryside, towns and villages. It seems inconceivable that the Government would choose to ignore the strong representations by such bodies as the Association of County Councils, the tourist boards, motoring organisations, RoSPA and the CPRE, which have a long history of fighting against the proliferation of signs.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend who will answer this Question this evening. He will be valiantly representing the Department of Transport, which over the years has traditionally been in the forefront of preventing unnecessary signs on Britain's roads. To defend such a complete capitulation to the proposed free-for-all must be very painful for many in his Ministry. It must be especially cruel, since the idea for these far-reaching changes comes not from the Department of Transport but, ironically, from the Department of National Heritage—set up, as it presumably was, to protect our heritage. It should have known better.
This Government's general record will be judged by history, and there will inevitably be a difference of opinion as to their successes and failures. The proposed deregulation will, if enacted, be virtually impossible to reverse. One thing that I would have thought no government would wish to hand down is a bitter legacy of polluting this country with tens of thousands of brown and white signs, hence ruining our green and pleasant land.
I shall leave the last word to Ogden Nash, who said:
"I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all"!
6.26 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for tabling this Question. We all know the considerable expertise and experience that he brings to the subject. Like him, I must begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the National Trust. The National Trust could also be considered a tourist organisation. We have over 270,000 hectares—or in plain
712
English 600,000 acres—of land, and associated with it, relevant to tonight's discussion, 190 houses of historic interest, 114 gardens, 62 landscape parks, and so on, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore the "white on brown" signs are certainly useful to us and to our 10 million plus visitors.
Along with English Heritage, the National Trust currently enjoys the special dispensation of not having to consult the local tourist board for approval that our properties should be regarded as tourist attractions in order to qualify for "white on brown" tourism signs. The trust has for many years used its own oak leaf logo on these signs; it has become widely recognised across the country. We have been involved in the Department of Transport's consultation process on this difficult subject for over four years.
With regard to the present proposals, the National Trust, as an organisation responsible under Act of Parliament for landscape conservation, is deeply concerned about the proposed dramatic expansion in the eligibility criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, listed them: cinemas; hotels; B&Bs; restaurants; retail establishments, and so on. We, too, have no doubt that the ensuing proliferation of signs will have a dramatic and detrimental effect on the appearance of our countryside.
For example, the Department of Transport's circular of 3rd April states:
"Local authorities now have"—
I assume this means that it "would have"—
"much more flexibility to consider applications. In response to last year's consultation national qualifying criteria (such as minimum visitor numbers) have been abolished. Other qualifying criteria imposed by Circular Roads 1/91, such as only allowing signs from the nearest A or B road, and requiring attractions to be open for one year, have also been abolished. The Department expects that under the proposed new arrangements all reasonable requests for signs will normally be met".
This proliferation will be especially serious in designated areas such as national parks and AONBs, as the noble Lord mentioned, but it would also be deplorable in the open landscape as a whole. The chief planning officer of the Lake District Planning Board has commented that,
"visitors to the area both from this country and abroad frequently remark on how attractive the Lake District is because of the absence of unnecessary signs. Inevitably that will change if the proposed amendments go ahead and it is not inconceivable, for example, to envisage twenty or more signs on the Crook Road to Bowness advertising the presence of hotels, pubs, caravan parks, camp sites and bed and breakfast establishments. The cumulative effect over the whole of the Park would be devastating".
As someone who has his home in the Lake District, all I can say is "Hear, hear". He knows what he is talking about. I think that it would be quite appalling.
It should be a matter of pride that, thanks to sensible controls, our countryside has hitherto not been disfigured by the plethora of notices and signs which confront the visitor in many overseas countries.
If we are to enter a world of visual free-for-all, to use the noble Lord's phrase—because that is what it seems to amount to—the only controlling bodies will be individual highway authorities. Surely it would be wise to make the erection of those signs subject to the normal planning process as well.

713
We consider that the proposed liberalisation of signing is a passport to declining standards of design and taste. The removal of proper vetting standards and restrictions is in our view certain to lead to inconsistency and, in many cases, shoddy and inappropriate signs. Moreover, the prospect of plans for the grouping of establishments on a single sign is not encouraging. Already many places bear a multiplicity of signs of different shapes, sizes, colours and significance, to the confusion of the motorist or visitor, rather than to clarification. To make an already cluttered situation worse is a short-sighted and unwise policy.
We particularly regret the removal of tourist boards from the approval process. The tourist boards have accepted some responsibility for promoting environmental objectives as well as those of tourism—a principle also supported by the Government. They are better placed than the highway authorities to insist on some degree of quality and consistency—and this surely is a case where national consistency is important.
The trust is further concerned about the proposed definition of a "tourist attraction" as one which is,
"open to the public without prior booking during its normal opening hours."
The trust maintains a number of properties where such visiting patterns are not practicable but where it is still important to ensure that adequate signing is provided.
One of the worst aspects of our urban environment as we approach the millennium is visual clutter in our streets. The proliferation of signs, of instructions, or mandatory injunctions is particularly intrusive and offensive. Perhaps they may be necessary in our towns but, for heaven's sake, let us not compound the situation by allowing this awful contagion to spread unnecessarily to our wonderful countryside.
What the department is proposing seems to me to cut right across, for example, the good work it is increasingly doing to harmonise and design our roads into the landscape. I refer, for example, to its excellent publication The Good Roads Guide published in 1992. Incidentally, it has a whole section on road signs, which I would not have thought was consistent with the proposed policy. What I ask myself is: what does the Department of the Environment think of all this? What is the point of trying to protect our fine countryside from unsightly development if, at a stroke, the essential regulations which control signs in the countryside are so diluted as to make them ineffectual. I submit that that is what the proposals will lead to. I beg the Minister to think again.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I should declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of RoSPA. I am also on the public policy committee of the Royal Automobile Club.
At the outset, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Montagu and, like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, remind your Lordships of the immense amount of work that over many years my noble friend has put into the business of tourism, in the promotion of stately homes, and the heritage generally. I doubt whether many Members of your Lordships' House know more about the subject than he does.
714
I appreciate the detailed points that have already been made and share those sentiments—but I think that I share them probably to a lesser degree than my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made clear in their contributions. I give a qualified welcome to the measure because I am basically one who supports deregulation, and this is part of that process.
I share with my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu a sense of misgiving in that the letter from the Department of Transport, starting off the consultation process, is dated 3rd April when the closing date for submissions was 5th May. As has been said, that is a very short response time for the 126 consultees named in the annex to that letter. I have seen a number of the submissions—I shall quote from one or two later. As I said, I am a little worried about that aspect.
I was also a little alarmed when I saw that the draft regulations are dated 29th March. My noble friend the Minister shakes his head, but I have a copy of the draft regulations dated 29th March. I shall be happy afterwards to let my noble friend see it. One might assume that the decision had already been made. But enough about that because the statutory instrument—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. When I reply to the debate I shall be happy to go into this in a little more detail, but we must be clear that the statutory instrument has not been laid. The draft statutory instrument has been consulted upon.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, [did not suggest that it had been laid. What I said was that there is a draft statutory instrument—I have a copy of it—which is dated 29th March. That is some few days before the invitation to consult went out. One could draw a sinister conclusion, if one so wished.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and apologise for intervening again at this stage, but perhaps it might clarify the situation. The point is that that is is what is consulted upon. I should not like the House to get the impression that the consultation is in any way pre-empted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not going to argue the pitch and toss of that one. Of course, I accept what my noble friend says. In fact, I thought that we were going to consult on the draft circular on tourist signing. All that I am suggesting is that a draft instrument dated 29th March was available whereas the invitation to consult is dated 3rd April, and with that invitation comes the draft circular on tourist signing, which is the matter about which the consultation was to take place. I have spent far too much time on that aspect, but I thought that it was right to make that small point. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us, out of those 126 consultees, how many submissions have been made to date. Most of the submissions that I have seen express a number of serious reservations. All of them express the fear about the proliferation of signing and the relaxed criteria which have been mentioned.

715
If the decision to grant a sign is to lay with the local highway authority, I have no quarrel with that. They are eminently suitable people. But they will have a delicate balancing act to perform between the genuine tourist need; the understandable desire of those providing tourist facilities to make tourists aware of them, and the third aspect, to which my noble friend Lord Montagu referred, that of the commercial, the hard-nosed greed element.
In paragraph 3, relating to the removal of restrictions, the submission states:
"However, the statement 'The Department expects that reasonable requests for signs will normally be met' does not go on to clarify 'reasonable'. Many requests may be 'reasonable' but, if erected on the highway, contribute to"—
then follow a number of disadvantages. The submission goes on to say:
"The Society strongly disagrees with the Department's recommendation to group establishments on a single sign. Bolting new signs to existing sign arrays is rarely good practice without considerable modification".
It goes on to talk of wind forces, the footings, and so forth.
The Freight Transport Association, the RAC and the Automobile Association all emphasise the danger that more signs and more directions will bring to road users. There are good reasons for that. We must make sure that, if we are to add new signs, they do what they are meant to do. At the same time, we must look at existing signs and see whether or not we can get rid of some of them. The proliferation of signing will be a real hazard.
I should like the Government to expand on the draft circular and issue guidelines so that there can be a consistency of approach across the country. Above all, as the RAC said in its submission, road safety must be the paramount consideration in the erection of any new signings.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in adding my tribute to my noble friend Lord Montagu for raising this matter, I wish to underline his immense experience and the contribution he has made to the whole of the world about which we are talking today. I am sure that it will be recognised by everyone.
As chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, I must declare my interest. But if those on the opposite Benches will excuse me, I should like to put this matter into a political context and talk primarily to the Members of my own party, particularly my noble friend who is to reply, and remind them of what the Conservative Party stands for. It is totally relevant to this proposal.
The central role of the state is to protect the citizen; to protect the employee; to protect householders; to protect consumers; to protect investors; and, more recently, it has been increasingly recognised, to protect the environment. That is one of the main roles of the state in the context of Tory philosophy. Having said that—and on this point I may not wholly receive the agreement of all Members of the party opposite—I am an enthusiastic deregulator. I do not believe that there should be any unnecessary regulation. I am well aware that regulations can grow into pernicious little empires which hassle other people.
716
But this proposal is peculiarly ill-founded. I hope that the Government recognise that the countryside is an important part of our environment. In this country we can be extremely proud of our success, particularly in comparison with other countries, in the way in which we protect our countryside. England is still extremely beautiful. Its protection is rooted firmly in the planning system.
I have no difficulty or hesitation in paying tribute to the Labour Party and the Labour Government—I hope my noble friend is not looking too astonished and surprised—of 1945 to 1951, which laid the foundation of the planning system which has enabled our countryside to survive in the way it has. It is a system which has since been refined. But we must be extremely careful before we interfere in a way that leads us to take a backwards step. I particularly regret that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is not present this evening. He authorised me to say that he very much agrees with my opposition to this proposal.
I want to make another slightly political point. I am aware, because my noble friend Lord Astor wrote it in a letter, that my honourable friend the Member for Harwich, Mr. Sproat, is the person responsible for the proposal. But may I remind the Government of the considerable difficulty my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had, as Secretary of State for the Environment in the early 1980s, when he put forward some tentative proposals—I do not blame his integrity in putting them forward, though I may question his judgment—to mess about with the green belt? He had to withdraw them in confusion. That is a lesson the Government should have learnt.
These proposals will be thoroughly provocative to many people on whom the Government should depend. What particularly worries me, though it is supposed to be a consultative document and, like other noble Lords, I deplore the unnecessarily short period of consultation that has been given, is that in writing to Mr. Ian Bruce, MP, on this subject, my noble friend Lord Astor concluded,
"I am convinced that the new proposals will benefit tourism and leisure establishments, whose contribution to the rural economy should not be underestimated".
I hope that the Government are not prejudging this issue. I hope that the consultation is genuine. I have a lot of time for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and have had the opportunity of raising this matter with him at a meeting in this building. He made it clear that if the reaction against the proposal was as I said I felt it would be, then the Government would take action accordingly. I hope that that will be the case.
The idea behind the proposal appears to be to put policy in the hands of local authorities and allow them to decide what signs there should be. We know that local authorities themselves do not want that. Their reaction is in general against the change put forward by the Government. I do not believe that it is fair to trust local authorities to withstand local planning pressures; that is, applications for signs that may be thoroughly undesirable. Nor do I believe that what the Government put forward is consistent with what they have said in other areas. For example, in Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 the Government supported their tourism task force's document Maintaining the Balance published in 1991.

717
They said that they supported the development of industry in a way that could contribute to, rather than detract from, the quality of the environment. I believe that to be a very important statement. I am amazed that the Government should have brought forward this matter in that context.
My right honourable friend and my MP, Mr. Gummer, the Secretary of State for the Environment—for whom I have the highest regard—in a paper published last year spoke of the need to improve our surroundings and to conserve and enhance the environment of town and country. The document to which he provided the introduction said that the design and use of roads and the impact of parking signs and roadside furniture all affected the quality of an area. He even went on to say that local people could identify surplus signs that might usefully be removed.
I believe that there is much to be done in the opposite direction to that set out in these proposals. I mentioned to my noble friend yesterday that I wished to raise two points. He may say that they are not wholly relevant to these regulations, but they are certainly relevant to the spirit of them. I take the example of a road I know well: the A. 12 Witham bypass. In that rather attractive part of Essex there is a plethora of large hoardings along the side of the A.12 road, the hedge having been cut down to reveal them. I am told that they result from a dispute between Braintree District Council and Essex County Council. That may not matter very much, but it is illustrative of the kind of thing which we do not want and which can happen, even under the present regulations, when the matter of signing and advertising is left wholly to local authorities.
I suggest that much needs to be done in the way of improving the facias of petrol stations with all their flags and unnecessary advertisements. They often disfigure our countryside.
Those who have already heard of these regulations—they are relatively few in number—have almost universally reacted angrily to them. But I suggest that that anger is as nothing to what will happen if the countryside begins to be despoiled in the way we know has occurred in other countries. One of the painful rules of politics is that you may not intend to give the wrong impression or to do something, but perception is reality. I believe that it is extremely unfortunate that the Government have even brought forward these proposals.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for bringing forward this important matter this evening. I suppose that most of us, together with members of our families and friends, spend a lot of time driving through unfamiliar territory. I have no sense of direction and no bump of locality and so I am permanently bewildered and rely a great deal on signs.
In principle, I am in favour of some liberalisation, but very much provided that certain elephant traps along the road to this desirable result are avoided. Road signs have been with us in Britain since the Roman occupation, but they have become crucial because of the increasing speed and particularly the exponential increase in the volume of
718
traffic over the past 20 or 30 years. One might paraphrase the words of Lewis Carroll in "The Walrus and the Carpenter" to summarise road traffic growth:
"And thick and fast they came at last, And more and more and more".
I believe that the crucial factor in road signing is that schemes should first be devised comprehensively for an area on paper, or perhaps on computer, before anything is erected. While I suppose a highway authority has to devise its own plan, I rather wish that this was done by an outside highway authority for a particular area. How used we are to the situation where our destination is clearly marked at a roundabout, for example, but after a mile or so one comes to a T-junction where there is no indication at all. "But everyone knows you turn right for the city centre", the locals will say. But everyone knows that except the person for whom the sign is; intended, the stranger to the scene.
The first area in which the current proposals may be thought to be deficient is that of eligibility for signing. The definition of a visitor attraction is imprecise and will cause considerable confusion as regards the type of attraction that may be eligible for signs. The presently proposed definition is likely to lead to signs for anything and everything, as several noble Lords have said already. I believe that that is called information overload.
In March my wife and I were driven extensively around Dublin. We saw for ourselves the results of too much information. Having to read a long list at some speed in heavy traffic puts the driver in an extremely dangerous situation of inattention to other vehicles, particularly cyclists. Surely, after listing essentials such as city centres, railway stations, hospitals and the like, the criterion in most areas should be a relationship to the popularity of the attraction or facility. It is hard cheese on less visited attractions, but I believe that they should in their advertisements, literature and related material make plain to visitors how they can be reached. In this way, forests of signs, as can be seen in the Republic of Ireland, will be avoided, satisfying both aesthetic and safety considerations.
But the essential step in all this is first to make a plan and to decide such questions at that stage as to whether an attraction is signed at all, with the onus on the attraction to make representations, how early on it is to be signed, if that is the case, and so on. An exception perhaps in lightly trafficked areas may be remote or awkward destinations, such as hotels, inns, camping sites and the like, where no danger of proliferation, and hence confusion, prevails.
Common sense seems to be the best aid, perhaps guided by traffic statistics. People and organisations should be given some idea of how soon they may expect a sign or signs to be erected, on which the circular is silent, with a suitable explanation if their application is refused. The consultation circular is notably silent on the environmental impact of signs. I have a strong personal preference for placing signs high up and making them of durable materials. Why high up? Perhaps my preference springs from living in the republic of Islington. We live in the age of the graffiti artist. While it is a matter of balance, from an environmental point of view I prefer to see a pristine sign well raised up than a shabby, overwritten one

719
lower down, which may also have been rendered unreadable. I give a small example. My wife and I regularly travel on the M.1 to Sheffield. At a certain point the road crosses the River Erewash. This is marked with a low road sign. Inevitably, it has been scruffily altered to read "River Eyewash". I hope that I am sensitive to environmental considerations, but for the purposes of legibility and other reasons I adapt the wild western film expression (albeit for a different scenario) "Hang 'em high".
The use of symbols is self-evidently useful in space saving and legibility to those who hurry past, provided that the department authorises all symbols and they are nationally coherent. There are already many such examples: British Rail and Underground station logos, H for hospitals, the outline of a building for an historic house and so on. Others may usefully be introduced after research. The general road traffic signage that we have been familiar with for years relies almost entirely on symbols alone, alas often much too close together. There is an argument for the spacing out of roadside information, especially with the night driver in mind.
There must be exceptions for perhaps less common signs, such as the words "side winds" which appear under a windsock on motorways. The most intriguing one that I have come across on this theme is a sign beside the Suez Canal, where words really are necessary. It reads "Please dip your headlights to oncoming shipping". Colour also has its part to play. I believe that the habit, or policy, that has grown up of signing subsidiary destinations in brown and white is a good one. It is an easy visual separation to make from the more important road traffic management signs, which are mainly coloured black and/or red on a white background.
In conclusion, I believe in some liberalisation provided a first step is the construction of a comprehensive signing plan. In this way we shall, it is to be hoped, avoid confusion, a reduction in the quality of information, and forests of signs leading to environmental degradation and traffic hazard. Relying on the chaotic alternative might lead to the action summarised by the last words of a short story by the Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock:
"He jumped on his horse and rode off madly in all directions".
That, I think, is what we must strive to avoid.
7 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for the opportunity to discuss deregulation of tourism signposting. I find it slightly saddening that, while strongly supporting deregulation, as many of us do, and indeed as much of the tourism industry does, that tourism industry, in which I declare an interest, shares many of the concerns expressed all round the House this evening.
I welcome the fact that the range of tourism businesses allowed to apply for white on brown signs is being widened. Of course tourism attractions and facilities should be given every opportunity to promote their products. But the present criteria, requiring a specified volume of visitors, tourist board vetting and local highway authority administration, have, as my noble friend Lord Montagu reminded us, proved a little
720
restrictive. That is no excuse for going right over the top in the opposite direction. But total deregulation would be an over-reaction—a view which I feel is shared by many who have spoken tonight.
On the one hand, tourists, British and foreign, regard these signs as a seal of approval, a good housekeeping endorsement, an indication that the product or facility fulfils certain quality criteria. But if we go for blanket deregulation as presently proposed, it seems that ability to pay for signposting would become the only criterion for any business applying for a sign in England. Suitability or relevance to visitors would go by the board. The number of signs we could—even would—come across would become limitless and, far from being helpful, would detract from the environment which tourists want to experience, could certainly be confusing and could, very importantly to me, be detrimental to road safety.
We should, of course, be going for some measure of deregulation in this field. But may I suggest a number of criteria which I hope will be taken into account before an order eventually comes before Parliament.
First, with regard to minimum quality criteria, facilities granted signs should in future, as now, meet visitor rather than purely local needs, as well as meeting statutory tourist board standards and codes of practice. Secondly, I would very much hope that there would be a Britain-wide and consistent approach to signage, even though we are discussing only England and perhaps Wales tonight. Although tonight's Question deals only with those two countries, may I pay tribute to the Scottish concept of grouping relevant signs together. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, touched on that point. I also pay tribute to a modest fingerpost which is at the bottom of Bridge Street as one goes into Parliament Square—so modest that many noble Lords may not have noticed it. But it draws attention to all the major attractions—they are national attractions—in this neighbourhood which the tourist may wish to visit. In their ways both the Scottish and the Westminster fingerposts are examples of best practice and should not be overlooked in our future consultation. They are appropriate to visitor needs as well as to environmental ones in the areas in which they are sited.
Thirdly, I should like to see authorities guided at a national level. I appreciate that we are discussing a DoT subject tonight, but I feel that we need something akin to a PPG as to the planning issues. Beyond that I would like to see consultation with both facility providers and the tourist boards.
Fourthly, I would remind the Department of Transport that there is already a compendium of tourism symbols published by the British Tourist Authority and evolved by it over many years. It has the agreement of the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Countryside Commission and promotes symbols—or pictograms—which also enjoy the endorsement of the British Standards Institution and the ISO. As we are talking considerably of an international business, I believe that international standards should be followed.
I have expressed a number of my concerns. I have touched on the environment, on the quality of attractions, on safety and on suitability. But my real concern is that, in going for total deregulation we are

721
damaging the very reputation of the product which visitors wish to experience. As my noble friend Lord Montagu reminded us, the Department of National Heritage has recently published the discussion document Competing with the Best, which sets out the department's agenda for tourism. I very much hope that in progressing these orders the Department of Transport will not overlook the aspirations of the Department of National Heritage and, most importantly, will not let total deregulation of signage destroy the very quality of the impression which British tourism seeks to provide.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for opening this debate. I agree strongly with the view of other noble Lords that a proliferation of signs along country roads or within towns is not desirable either on environmental or on safety grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seemed to be veering away at one point from his very natural and deep concern for safety but later in his speech he emphasised very forcefully the requirements of safety, so I do not feel that I need repeat all the excellent points that he made.
Surely the Government do not wish England to follow in the steps of the United States and, more recently, of France where every small town is surrounded by forests of signs which totally obscure such things as street names and direction signs put up to assist travellers in moving through or around the town. We cannot wish to encourage that. We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken with knowledge of the national parks. A large part of the county from which I come is covered by areas of outstanding natural beauty or outstanding landscape value. We all share with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, the feeling that we do not wish these beautiful parts of our country to be despoiled by signs.
How does the proposed approach serve the Government's countryside policy? Why has the Department of Transport apparently abandoned its former opposition to a proliferation of signs on or near roads? I am disturbed by the presumption that local authorities will grant all reasonable requests for new signs which, combined with the relaxed criteria for determining which organisations can make such requests, involves the danger that the protective approach to the countryside adopted by many local authorities, including my own, an approach enthusiastically endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will be swamped and overcome.
On the other hand, local authorities and the national parks have a proper interest in the maintenance of the local economy. That is true even in rural areas. Problems can arise when, for example, local shops, pubs or tea shops, which have had a modest tourist trade over a long period, are bypassed by a new road. One thinks also of good but smaller tourist attractions which cannot meet the visitor numbers required by current legislation but which nevertheless have a more than purely local interest. For example, I, as a resident, have an interest in trying to get to a large
722
number of things in order to acquaint myself what is going on in various places within my county. I might have to travel 25 to 30 miles to get where I am going. I may not necessarily know well the area I am attempting to visit. Surrey is not a particularly large county. There are others which, geographically, are much larger. We have to think of a sort of hierarchy of signing to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, briefly referred. He said that if there were to be signs directing one to smaller places, perhaps they could be of a different colour. It is difficult to think which colour to use because both blue and green are already accepted for other uses. I understand the point he is making. The point I am making is that there are some places of interest with facilities for drivers and visitors which could legitimately be signed, perhaps not from the motorway system but from other roads which are in the discretion of the local authority.
A properly developed and nationally authorised system of pictorial signs or symbols would also assist local authorities who wish to establish such a lower hierarchy of signage to places of local interest. It would very much reduce the amount of space that any such new signs would take up. One can imagine a pink sign, which is not a colour used by the Department of Transport. It could have on it a teacup, a windmill, or whatever, located where one of the excellent brown signs we have all learnt to follow would normally stand.
I do not believe that the Government should do what they propose. Some relaxation of the current criteria, however, might avoid the sort of conflict to which a noble Lord referred—that is to say, that which applies to Braintree and Essex County Council. As I understood the reference, that is precisely the situation where the local district council wishes to encourage the local economy, which is one of the duties laid on it. The county council says, "You cannot do that; you cannot put up those signs along the road because that does not agree with our policy or national policy". So the signs are put in a private field along the hedgerow. It is precisely that sort of proliferation I am anxious to avoid by allowing local authorities greater freedom to, first, determine what sort of local places of interest should be signed and, secondly, to rigidly control the type of sign which is put up. We cannot have masses of different signs whether on one or 15 sticks. There is no difference with 15 signs on one stick because they are just as confusing, particularly if they are all prepared in different ways. For example, there may be the logo of the little craft shop on one and a copy of the local pub sign on another. Such an arrangement of signs would be very difficult for anyone to follow and extremely distracting from the point of view of safety.
I hope that the Minister will consider allowing local authorities to combine both their role as supporter of the local economy and as protector of the countryside and of road safety by instituting further discussions as to how one can lay down nationally agreed but reasonably flexible rules for a second rank of tourist signing. I see the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, nodding his head gently in my direction. That might prove to he acceptable to a wide number of people.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I, like other Members of this House, join those who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on initiating this important debate. It may be that the Minister feels a little set upon. There has been not a word of commendation for what the Government are seeking to do, at least as far as the detail is concerned. What emerges from this debate is that this House and everybody who has spoken will be expecting from the Minister an assurance that the consultation period, which is much too short, will be extended and that the Government will think seriously about the draft statutory instrument which has been published, if not laid.
I can understand why the Government wanted to consult about this. We have here a massive document of several hundred pages and full of detail. Why did the Government not say more specifically that this was a consultation document? They should have said so. However, maybe that is not an important point because in his intervention the Minister said that this is a consultation document. Let us have an assurance from the Minister tonight that the Government are in fact entering into these consultations in a thoroughly bona fide way.
I want to know why the consultation period was designated as one month. Was that reasonable in the circumstances? Why the rush? If there is some need for this very substantial change—and the burden of proof rests fairly and squarely on the Government here—why do they have to limit the consultation period to one month? The Government have to discharge the assertion that there is an overly bureaucratic system currently in force. We had all this during the debates on the deregulation Bill. Nobody wants unnecessary bureaucracy. One wants to sweep aside unnecessary red tape.
The main charge which has been made in the course of this debate is that there is a real fear, not simply on the part of individuals, but on the part of reputable organisations dealing with tourism, the environment and safety, that the situation that could emerge under the Government's proposals could lead to a serious degradation of environmental and safety standards which would impact badly on tourism. Those are charges which are not lightly laid.
The noble Viscount is a thoroughly reasonable Minister whom we all like and admire. But we shall like and admire him that much more if he makes a positive response to the criticisms that have been made that he will discuss with his colleagues—this is not one of his responsibilities—ways and means of ensuring that the process of consultation will he real and that the period will be extended. Perhaps he will also be kind enough to say who actually supports the proposals. Most people have said in their responses that they want some relaxation of the regulations, and that is as far as they go. Then the criticisms really come with great force.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, was right to mention all the associations that have come out in support of these criticisms. For example, the Association of County Councils says:
724
"whilst efforts to deregulate, reduce bureaucracy and support tourism are to be welcomed, the general thrust of the present proposals effectively jettisons the delicate balance which the [Government], with others, has striven to maintain between a large number of competing and inherently conflicting interests".
The Association continues:
"What is being generally proposed, however, not only consigns that patiently constructed balance to the dustbin but, worse, introduces a new and vastly enlarged competitive element which has the potential to bring the whole system of tourism signing crashing down about our collective ears".
There is deep anxiety about proliferation, and the Minister must answer that charge too.
Far from making the situation easier for tourists and drivers, it will be much more confusing if deregulation were to take full effect. Is the Minister satisfied that the application procedures required, and the criteria set out, are in any sense adequate? What are the guidelines to be inserted here? What is the key information that will be required? Does he believe that there should be nationally defined common criteria? What would be the situation if adjoining highway authorities were to adopt different criteria? Those are the questions, with the others that have been put during the debate, with which the Minister must deal.
How does all this stand alongside our system of planning control? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for the remarks he made about the Labour Government of 1945–51 and the impetus they gave to proper planning procedures. I was interested in his philosophic meanderings on the subject of the Conservative Party. I suppose it needs something like that. It does not have much going for it at the moment, and perhaps it should refer to the noble Lord for further advice. I am not sure that would do it much good either.
The debate has shown that there is great disquiet about this situation on all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will tell his Secretary of State that we are not satisfied with what the Government have produced.
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Montagu for raising this important subject and for giving us the benefit of his considerable experience in the tourism field. I shall explain in more detail the proposals which have been put forward, but I should like to start by answering a number of criticisms made by noble Lords about the consultation exercise. I can give a categorical assurance that this is not a fait accompli; the decisions have not been made; the consultation exercise is an entirely bona fide one; and the responses to that consultation exercise, and indeed to the sentiments expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, will be fully taken into account.
That having been said, I was also pleased to hear the general recognition of the value of deregulation and the feeling that a relaxation of the current prescriptive rules is due. There has been a considerable difference on the question of degree. As ever, we must try to seek the correct balance. There has been a considerable thrust for this type of deregulation from a number of sectors in the tourism industry. That is worth pointing out to balance the counter-arguments which have been expressed strongly this evening.

725
The question asked by my noble friend refers to the regulations governing road signs and the consequences of sign proliferation in general. I believe noble Lords have generally accepted that this was prompted by our current proposals for a relaxation of the policy on signing tourist destinations and facilities. I should like to emphasise that our proposals relate only to extending the use of white and brown traffic signs to a wider range of destinations and facilities.
Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, the design of all traffic signs must conform with regulations made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Transport, Wales and Scotland or be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. The placing of individual signs is the responsibility of the relevant highway authority. All local highway authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that signs are safe and to have regard to the effect of particular signs on local amenity. It is important to note that the existing regulations do not place any limit on the number of traffic signs that can be erected for any purpose. That is left to the decision of the local highway authority in the light of local road conditions.
We have discussed safety. My noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, commented on that issue in particular. Again, it is worth recognising that the 1994 regulations give local highway authorities a great deal of flexibility in the detailed design of direction signs. In particular, there is no restriction on the type of destination that can be named on black and white local direction signs. In other words, the statutory provision for controlling sign proliferation is the general requirement in the Road Traffic Regulation Act for local highway authorities to ensure that signs are safe and to have, as I said, regard to local amenity. That is the control that is used at the moment to stop sign proliferation, and it will continue to be the control used to stop sign proliferation. The regulations are of course supplemented by Department of Transport guidance and advice.
The effects of the draft statutory instrument—I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting him at an early stage in the debate, but I must emphasise that this is a draft statutory instrument—are to extend the range of destinations that can be signed with white and brown signs and the range of symbols that can be included on tourist facility signs and to reintroduce the use of white and brown signs to indicate the facilities available in bypassed communities. An issue that has not been mentioned this evening is the value of indicating facilities that are available in villages or small towns that have been bypassed. We are increasingly seeing smaller conurbations being bypassed to relieve traffic pressures on them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, the definition of a tourist attraction eligible for white and brown signs would be amended under the proposals to remove the requirement for tourist board recognition and to remove the prohibition on using white and brown signs for establishments engaged primarily in retailing and catering. The arguments put forward against amending the traffic signs regulations fall into two rather different categories. The first is the argument that allowing the use of these signs for a wider range of establishments
726
will give forth dangerous and unsightly sign proliferation. But I have already explained that the existing controls on sign proliferation will continue to be used to prevent that hazard.
Our proposals emphasise the need to ensure the safety of particular signs rather than to consider applications on the basis of inflexible general assumptions. There is no reason to suppose that the use of white and brown signs will be less safe, or more damaging to the environment, than black and white signs. The use of white and brown signs allows drivers to identify at a glance the types of destination being signed. Research suggests that drivers are likely to look for details on white and brown signs only if they are looking for tourist information. In other words, the message put across is that the white and brown sign is tourist information and not for general directional purposes. That is an important point when considering the question of the overload of information on the driver.
Also, when we consulted last year on the principle of deregulation, we received representations that the provision of clear and well-designed traffic signs could do more to help traffic and local businesses in a safe and environmentally acceptable way than the many, often unofficial, directional advertisements found on hoardings or parked vehicles in fields beside the road.
That was the point my noble friend Lord Marlesford was making when he expressed his concern about garage signs, for instance, in fields and possibly illegal signs erected on the highway.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will not that unsatisfactory situation continue to persist? It is an additional burden.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. Of course, I accept that one cannot easily stamp out illegal signs and that there is a problem. However, increased access to legal, properly designed and located signs with the official authority of the local highway authority is preferable to unofficial, illegal, badly designed signs which could be found at inappropriate places. I fully accept the problem raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford about unsightly illegal signs. I can assure him that the Government see that as an important issue.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans argued that white and brown signs should not indicate merely the type of destination that is being signed but should provide evidence that they meet certain quality standards. The eligibility criteria were tightened up in 1991 at the request of the tourist boards. That was intended to improve standards rather than because or any evidence that the widespread use of white and brown signs was having an unacceptable impact on the environment or causing any confusion at junctions. However, more recently we have been reviewing the policy of limiting eligibility for signing because of the many representations received by my department that it did not meet the needs of the tourism industry as a whole.
When we reviewed the policy we received strong representations that the white and brown signs should be available for a much wider range of tourist destinations and facilities than those recognised by tourist boards and that it should not be left to the tourist

727
boards to decide which destinations and facilities should be signed. We also received representations that the procedures for applying for signs should be simplified.
The detailed proposals, which we circulated on 3rd April, reflect a policy that signing applications should be determined on the basis of local road conditions and the safety and environmental implications of erecting signs at particular locations, rather than central prescription or blanket policies. They also reflect the Government's view that it is not the function of traffic signs to control or maintain standards of service in the tourism industry and that white and brown signs, like other direction signs, indicate the route to a particular destination and not official approval of its quality. The determination of the quality of the attraction should not be related to the sign.
That brings me on to the subject of the departmental guidance that has been issued, or that we intend to issue, to help local highway authorities to ensure that signs are safe and appropriate to their environment. The traffic signs regulations are supplemented by guidance on the design and placing of direction signs generally in order to enable local highway authorities to provide drivers with appropriate information to complete their journeys efficiently and safely. The DoT design guidance is underpinned by a solid body of research about drivers' ability to absorb information from signs of different shapes, sizes and colours. I was much taken with the idea of the pink sign, which was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I am sure that there has been full research on the qualities of the colour pink for signposting—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, of course, the suggestion of the colour pink was a joke. However, the principle is one to which the Minister perhaps inadvertently referred. He distinguished between signage such as to major tourist attractions of the National Trust which have a seal of quality. That is what gives them the right to use the brown and white sign. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, was making the point that I made; that if we
728
allow signs to places which have not been guaranteed by the tourist board, or whatever, a different colour would be suitable.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Baroness and I will ensure that her suggestions regarding a further level of signing are taken fully into consideration. However, perhaps another type of sign could cause further confusion.
All white and brown tourist signs are required to meet the design and siting standards for direction signs generally to ensure that they are clear and legible. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, that that will continue to be the case under our current proposals.
The draft guidance also indicates that the responsibility for signing lies in the first place with the highway authority responsible for the road providing direct access to the tourist attraction or facility. There is little benefit to the tourist or to the business if signs are provided a long distance away but disappear as one approaches one's intended destination. We know from considerable research that lack of continuity in signing is the biggest cause of confusion, frustration and complaint.
We have had a full discussion on the issue of signing for tourist facilities. My noble friends and other noble Lords have made clear their views on the dangers associated with deregulation. However, I believe that there has been an acceptance of the value of deregulation and the fact that some relaxation is due. As has been noted, the Government have put forward detailed proposals. They have been subject to consultation and a wide range of responses has been received.
I conclude by repeating the assurance that the consultation will be taken extremely seriously. Responses to the consultation and the sentiments expressed tonight in your Lordships' House will be taken fully into account.

Sheffield Assay Office Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Peking Conference on Women: Furtherance of Agreed Policy on Contraceptives
  Peking Conference on Women: Furtherance of Agreed Policy on Contraceptives
  No. 2 Marsham Street
  No. 2 Marsham Street
  IACS: Number of Late Claim Penalties
  IACS: Number of Late Claim Penalties
  Deer: Night Shooting
  Deer: Night Shooting
  Rail Travel: Operators' Insurance Cover
  Rail Travel: Operators' Insurance Cover
  Buckingham Palace: New Traffic Management Scheme
  Buckingham Palace: New Traffic Management Scheme
  Millennium Commission: Staffing
  Millennium Commission: Staffing