Sitting of 1 November 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Private Security Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.4 am
  Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee a matter of considerable concern in the country at present—the private security industry. I am pleased that some of my colleagues on the Committee have been able to raise themselves at this unusually early hour to take part in the debate.
  The Home Affairs Committee inquiry into the matter began a year ago, and we reported on 7 June of this year. The industry has grown so large that it is by common account larger than the entire police force in this country, and, by some accounts, twice as large. Yet there is great concern at the number of cowboys, rip-off merchants and villains involved, to say nothing of the industry's low wages and the danger to the public which is associated with some sections of the industry. There is also concern about whether the industry ought to be acting in the way it is by appearing to take powers away from the police.
  There have been calls for state regulation, which, until recently, have been resisted by the Government. The Government's position has been that problems in the private security industry can be dealt with by self-regulation within the industry, and that a licensing system would be expensive, bureaucratic and a burden on the taxpayer. The Government believed that matters concerning the quality of training and wages could be dealt with better from within the industry by the industry and its customers, and that that might be done by strengthening the existing regulations and mechanisms within the industry.
  The Committee took evidence from anyone who was interested in the matter, and we were told a number of things. First, we learned that many allegations about the quality of the industry were justified. There was a great deal of evidence about criminal behaviour, poor quality of work, poor working conditions and inadequate training, and we heard about private neighbourhood patrols which seemed to be little short of protection rackets.
  Secondly, we were told that there were a large number of self-regulating bodies which the Government had supported within the industry, many of high repute. Those included the International Professional Security Association and the British Security Industry Association, and a large number of established firms were members. Alas, not every firm had joined, and it was estimated that 80 per cent. of private security firms were not members
  212
  of one of the self-regulatory bodies. Not every employer required the private security firms which they employed to be members of such bodies.
  Thirdly, we heard that there were problems with ascertaining whether those who were involved in the private security industry had previous convictions. Fourthly, we were told that, whatever our feelings on the issue of non-intervention in business by the state, the state did have a duty to protect citizens from racketeers and villainy. We heard about one firm where 11 out of its 26 workers had between them 74 convictions, with one of the workers having 48 convictions.
  As a recorder, I tried a case not long ago in which a security guard opened premises at night to the other members of his gang. When that security guard was eventually caught, it was found that he had been appointed notwithstanding the fact that he had a substantial number of previous convictions for burglary and other forms of dishonesty. We were told that the state had a part to play in establishing minimum standards of employment, and that it certainly has a part to play where police work is involved. In particular, since there was nothing to stop villains and exploiters from setting up in business, the public had a right to expect the state to play some part in controlling the industry.
  Fifthly, we heard that the problems were in the manned guarding sector of the private security industry, where the service is bought on a cost basis rather than necessarily according to quality, and where competition is fierce. Those factors have meant that wages in that sector are low, sometimes as low as £1 an hour.
  We heard that a third of those in the industry were earning between £2.30 and £2.60 an hour, and that therefore the quality of the recruits was low. That has also meant that there is a high turnover, low training levels and excessive overtime; and that, from time to time, the difference in pay is made up by unemployment benefit. Such are the conditions in the manned guarding sector.
  Sixthly, we heard few complaints about the technology and alarm side of the industry.
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I give way to my colleague on the Home Affairs Select Committee.
  Mr. Mullin: In the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about appalling wage rates, does he agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage might be of benefit? Does he recall that one or two witnesses from the industry whom we interviewed said that a national minimum wage would not cause them any problems, and that it would prevent them from being undercut by the sort of cowboy outfits that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just described?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman knows my views about a national minimum wage. I believe that its introduction would harm employment prospects and would cost jobs in our communities. It is one thing to say that there are problems because of the exploitation of the work force in the private security industry, but quite another to take a large leap and argue that the Government must introduce a minimum wage. There is a space in between, in which some improvements to the running of the private security industry will secure much more acceptable wages for its employees. The Government

  213
  share my belief that it is not for the state to force the level of wages to the point at which large-scale unemployment occurs.
  Mr. Mullin rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I would like to make some progress. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to develop his argument.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way just in case I do not get called?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman is diligent and stays in the Chamber long enough to take part in the debate, he will almost certainly be successful.
  Seventhly, the Select Committee was told that, although the level of offending in the private security industry was no higher than it was among the general public, public confidence required the industry to be whiter than white. Eighthly, we heard that the industry was in favour of compulsory state regulation. Furthermore, to our astonishment, we heard that the industry was prepared to pay for it itself so that it should not be a burden upon the taxpayer. That was a significant comment, and I know that the cockles of the Minister of State's were warmed when he read that evidence.
  Ninthly, the Committee heard that there was a difference of view about how the vetting of employees should be done to discover their character and whether they had any previous convictions. By whom and to what extent should such vetting be conducted? What should be done about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974? At the end of the day, companies do not have to check employees if they do not want to do so. They cannot ensure that no lies are told, and they cannot check identities if false identities are offered. Nothing much can be done to stop bent firms, especially if the employers are bent.
  Finally, the Committee heard that, if a regulatory system was decided upon, the necessary legislation could be introduced neither quickly nor simply. Provision must be made for laying down standards; the creation of criminal offences and the introduction of an appeals mechanism. There would have to be a method to distinguish between the size of companies to which certain rules would apply.
  Any legislation would have to include details governing conditions of work, including hours of work and pay; gender and equality and the introduction of permits by agencies. The powers of the police would also have to be specified, as would the powers of the Home Secretary. Such legislation would have to be so far-reaching that a truly terrifying list of necessary activities would have to be performed before it could reach the statute book.
  In short, the remedies suggested for the ills of the industry were of two kinds. First, tighter controls should be imposed on individuals working within it. That could be achieved by allowing access to criminal records or by licensing approved guards, or both. Secondly, only licensed companies should operate within the industry.
  It was clear that, if any of the traditional police roles were being transferred to private security companies, adequate safeguards would have to be provided for the
  214
  protection of the public. It was also clear that there needed to be firm action to tackle the growing problem of totally unregulated private local patrols, which prey on the fears of the vulnerable.
  The vetting procedures should also be tightened so that the wrong people do not become guards. At present, the private security industry is not in the list of categories in which anyone can have access to criminal records.
  What did the Committee recommend? First, we recommended that greater access should be given to national criminal records as part of the vetting procedures of private security industry companies; that vetting should not be done through the companies directly, but through a self-financing agency, which should be empowered to insist on proof of identity of the person to be vetted; that vetting should be limited to recordable convictions and cautions held on the Phoenix database that recently came on stream.
  Secondly, we recommended that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should not apply to the provision of private security services. Thirdly, we recommended that there should not be a blanket ban on anyone with a criminal conviction, irrespective of how long ago the act was committed or how irrelevant that conviction was. We concluded that a substantial reduction in the incidence of unsuitable people operating in the industry could only really be achieved by a licensing system.
  We recommended that, first, everyone working in manned guarding system only should have to be licensed to do so. That is where the worst examples of danger to the public occur. Secondly, we noted that the same problems did not tend to arise where companies employed in-house guarding as opposed to contract guarding. Thirdly, we recommended that the vetting agency should also issue the licences.
  Fourthly, we recommended that it should be a criminal offence for guards to operate without a licence and for companies to employ an unlicensed guard. We also said that, although a case had not been made for statutory regulation of the systems installations and alarm sector, if the industry did not improve its rules and regulations, or were standards to deteriorate in that sector, such regulations should be considered. The rationale for withdrawing from regulating that sector was the old-fashioned one: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  We agreed with the overwhelming majority of the evidence that we received, that the advantages of regulation of the manned guarding sector to ensure quality of service and protection of the public, industries, customers and the work force outweighed the loss of commercial freedom. We recommended that a statutory regulatory system should be set up under that sector. That would entail legislation making it a criminal offence for an unregulated company to offer contract guarding services.
  It would entail the creation of a new agency, which would have to be accountable to Parliament through the Home Secretary. It is obvious that it should have strong links with the police, industry and commerce. However, it must be independent of the security industry itself. There would need to be time to work out the details, which we did not attempt to go into, and a transitional period to phase in the changes.
  Finally, we recommended that the licensing system should be sufficiently adaptable to allow its extension to cover other parts of the industry, such as door supervisors,

  215
  who we had always thought were called bouncers. Meanwhile, that sector should be the subject of close attention from local government and, in particular, the use of best practice in existing local registration schemes, some of which we examined briefly and seemed to be good and successful, should be encouraged.
  That was what we reported in June, and normally, we could have expected the Government to reply in about two months. Four months later, they have not yet replied, and I am not over-optimistic that we will have a response today.
  In fact, we have received a holding reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister. In a letter dated 25 July to the Clerk to the Committee, Mr. Crispin Poyser, we were told that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary regretted that
  "he is not yet able to offer a full response … He is considering with colleagues the wide-ranging implications of the Committee's recommendations and will reply in detail as soon as possible."
  However, my right hon. and learned Friend made a number of provisional observations. He agreed that the growth of the industry had given rise to concerns; that there was no question of transferring core police tasks to the private security industry; and that the Government shared the Committee's concern about reports of poor standards in the manned guarding sector. It was also clear that the vetting arrangements required further consideration.
  The letter added that the Government agreed with the Committee that self-regulation had worked well in the systems installations sector, and they would continue to observe the situation. The Government gave the issue of guidance on door supervisors a high priority and would look at the impact of the advice that we recommended. The central recommendations for access to criminal records for all parts of the industry, with an exemption from the provisions of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and statutory regulation of companies and licensing of individuals in the manned guarding sector, were now being addressed urgently, and a formal response would be sent as soon as possible.
  We know that the Government's attitude to the matter has changed, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the British security industry's annual luncheon recently, as he told the Committee, that a week was a long time in politics. We are greatly heartened by that.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Government find the issue too complex to respond to in full at this stage, it would be a useful halfway house at least to grant that details of criminal records should be available to those seeking to employ people in the security industry, and that, in respect of such records, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should not apply?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Naturally, the workings of the Committee are so close and integrated that my hon. Friend has read my mind and anticipated the next and final part of my speech.
  We all appreciate that the length of the Government's consideration is due to the complications involved and the fact that we did not produce—nor could we be expected to produce—a detailed framework for legislation, which, of course, would have to be thoroughly worked out and tested. There would also have to be full and thorough
  216
  consultation with the industry. Therefore, we accept that it is unlikely there will any comprehensive legislation on the subject for some time yet.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) pointed out, that does not mean that it is impossible to take action on parts of the programme. The most serious aspect of the matter is where crooks masquerade as bona fide security guards. That could be stopped by legislating to allow previous convictions to be looked into by the police, and by extending the operation of exemptions from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to cover the employment of security guards.
  I therefore invite my right hon. Friend the Minister to make those changes as soon as possible, or at any rate to encourage hon. Members to choose such legislation if they should be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills in the new session of Parliament, and to commit the Government to the support of such legislation.
  If the Government act on a problem that is both worrying and growing, and which is causing considerable distress to sections of the community, they will not only earn the thanks of a nation that has a right to feel trust in those who are guarding and protecting it and its property, but will gain the thanks and admiration of the private security industry itself, which I know my right hon. Friend the Minister once, in an earlier incarnation, graced.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: We all know that security and the fear of crime are at the top of the public's agenda, if not that of the Government. Home Office statistics alleging the reduction of the rate of criminal activity mean nothing to millions of people who are afraid to walk out of their own doors. In that atmosphere of fear and alarm, the potential for growth in the private security industry is huge, and the issue of regulation and licensing must be addressed constructively before it spins out of our effective control. As it is, the industry employs over 160,000 people—more than the police service.
  There are three main points that I want to make. First, regulation must be implemented to safeguard the public. Secondly, those working in the industry must have certain standards of employment so that they are not exploited. Finally, the issue of accountability needs to be addressed.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs found overwhelming evidence that the industry contains a large amount of criminality. It is obscene that convicted burglars are allowed to protect homes from others who are pursuing their former occupation. Regulation is needed to ensure that those purporting to protect are themselves trustworthy and fit to give that protection. Nothing less than the safety of individuals, many of them extremely vulnerable, is at stake.
  However, it is not to enough to call for mere regulation. Self-regulation has palpably not worked. Protection rackets have sprung up, where cowboy outfits charge £1 a week or more—that has happened in my constituency—to protect a home. Responsible firms have taken steps to ensure decent standards. Many have developed membership of trade associations, training programmes and vetting procedures, but many have not, and will not unless they are required to by law.
  People who can afford high-quality security will get it, while the poor suffer at the hands of the unregulated and unscrupulous. The Home Secretary has been predictably

  217
  dismissive of the need for tighter control. He is relentless in his pursuit of a free market dogma that will place people at risk. Home Office Ministers have even sought to apply the principle "let the buyer beware" to the industry. That beggars belief.
  I stress the need for regulation, because without it we cannot be certain that those in the private security industry are responsible enough to wield the considerable power they hold. I am not calling for restrictive measures that would cause mountains of paperwork and bedevil effective operation. However, the freedom to operate should not be mistaken for a licence to prey on the fears of the public.
  The unregulated marketplace, which self-regulation unfortunately too often resembles, is an arena for the unscrupulous to drive out the responsible. As so often in commercial life, the good are tarred with the same brush as the bad. A licensing system must be introduced in conjunction with proper training. Companies and individuals must be subject to that procedure.
  I agree that the worst cases in the industry involve the manned guarding sector. Therefore, I accept that, for the time being, that sector alone should comply with any new laws; but there should be room in the legislation for those laws to be expanded to other sections should it become necessary.
  In addressing the issue of regulation, we must not be concerned solely with those whom the industry serves. Regulation will also protect employees, as standards of safety and pay are appalling in many companies. Many guards must work a disgraceful number of hours simply in order to take home a living wage. While at work, they are often vulnerable to attack and receive no support from their employers.
  Many guards are given no training in how to deal with the difficult situations they may face. I have heard reports of security guards who were attacked on site, taken to hospital and then sacked the next day because they could not turn up for work. That is what occurs under the free market of labour: lives are not valued, because irresponsible companies know that their employees can do little to protect themselves.
  Regulation would be the first step in halting exploitation of the guards. It would provide training and put in place standards of safety and good practice that would insure guards against putting their lives at risk while their employers go unchecked.
  10.30 am
  Mr. John Hutton: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his good fortune in securing a debate on the private security industry. In doing so, he has performed a service both to the House and to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
  I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been presented to the House already in favour of regulation of the private security industry. Anyone who heard the evidence submitted to the Select Committee and who read the Select Committee's report could only reach the same conclusion as the Committee. The arguments in favour of regulation are compelling. Without rehearsing those arguments, I shall summarise them under four headings.
  218
  First, voluntary self-regulation has clearly failed to establish sufficiently high standards in the industry. That is because more than two thirds—almost three quarters—of the companies involved in the industry are not party to any self-regulatory mechanisms. The practices pursued by the best companies in the industry are constantly undermined by the cowboys.
  Secondly, we have seen clear and disturbing evidence of criminality in the industry. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the case of a company that employed 26 people, 11 of whom had previous convictions. An even more astonishing example of criminality was revealed in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  It drew the Select Committee's attention to the case of one employee in the private security industry who had applied for a shotgun certificate. His employer endorsed his application for a shotgun certificate, stating:
  "I have known X for one year … he has worked for X (Private Security Company) this length of time. X has a sociable nature and a good, even temperament.
  I recommend him as honest and a very reliable person, who can be trusted".
  When the police inquired into that employee's application for a shotgun certificate, they found that he had 15 previous convictions for dishonesty and violence. One of those convictions was for a burglary that had involved the use of explosives. Even more disturbing was the fact that the employee had a conviction for the manslaughter of his wife, who had died when he attempted to perform an illegal abortion.
  It is not sufficient for the Government to say—as they have in their evidence to the Select Committee—that the evidence of criminality among members of the private security industry is the same as among the general public as a whole. I do not believe that that is the correct argument. The point is that the evidence of criminality among members of the private security industry is significantly higher than criminality among members of the police force. That is the comparison that the Home Office should have made.
  Thirdly, the Select Committee found unacceptably low employment conditions, appallingly low pay, a weak training record on the part of most of the companies involved in the industry, and abysmal career prospects for employees. Many employees in the industry must work very long hours under unsocial conditions simply in order to make ends meet.
  A job advertisement appeared today in the job centre in Barrow in my constituency. It offers £2.40 an hour, with no enhanced rates for overtime, for between 30 and 60 hours work a week. It is not possible to attract the kind of people that we want in the industry if they are employed under those terms and conditions. The Select Committee believes that a proper system of statutory regulation could make a significant contribution in that regard.
  Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) said, we must reassure the public about who is performing those increasingly important services in our community.
  We must proceed carefully to a system of statutory regulation. I am sure that there will be full consultation among the police, the industry and others involved. We

  219
  must be mindful of the costs involved and the impact on the industry of any regulatory system. We must also be aware of the damage that will be done to the industry if we do nothing at all. Therefore, I believe that we should make the decision in principle to move quickly towards a system of statutory regulation as recommended by the Select Committee. That would end the current uncertainty, and allow progress to be made in agreeing the important details of the new regulatory framework.
  Sadly, there seems to be little immediate prospect of any progress in the field. Many people will conclude that the delay in the Government's response—which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, identified—may have something to do with the confusion that lies at the heart of the Government's industrial policy. It can be described succinctly as a policy of deregulation. The Government's problem is: how can they pursue a policy of deregulation in industry as a whole and embrace statutory regulation for the private security industry without looking foolish?
  I am not particularly concerned about whether the Government look foolish; they manage to do that without any help from this side of the House. The problem is entirely of the Government's own making. We need a little less ideology in this area and a bit more common sense in order to make the progress that we all want to see.
  10.36 am
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the work that he and the Home Affairs Select Committee have done in this area. He does the House a favour by debating the subject this morning. There is clearly a good deal of concern in the community about the private security industry, and the Select Committee has provided evidence of the industry's shortcomings.
  I am concerned to ensure that, in a society that is prone to hyperbole, we do not damn an entire industry because of the malfunctioning of part of it. We should be aware of the fact that the majority of the industry is honourable, honest and efficient. It is a large industry, that has grown considerably recently. It has high standards generally, and it would be a great shame if the whole industry were condemned because of the malpractice of a few. Nevertheless, we must address the existing problems, and I shall confine my remarks to three areas.
  The first is access to criminal records. It is very important that the industry should have the right to access criminal records. The effectiveness of the industry is reliant upon its ability to employ honest people who can be trusted under pressure. Therefore, people with records of assault or dishonesty should clearly not be employed in the industry. If industry personnel are to be trusted, employers must have the right to check the backgrounds of job applicants. It will be possible for employers to carry out checks via the Phoenix system when it is operating properly.
  It is important that such checks should be confined to convictions, rather than any other information that may be held by the police. Convictions are on the public record, in any case. It has always mystified me why so much fuss is made about criminal records. After all, the courts operate entirely in the public domain, and public records and press reports of convictions are retained. It is not too
  220
  difficult for an enterprising individual to search through press records—particularly with the advent of computerisation—and unearth any previous convictions.
  I therefore believe that there is unnecessary concern and caution in that respect, and I would welcome the opening up of those records to employers. The Select Committee recommends that. Even Liberty has said that it should be possible, so I strongly back that proposition.
  After all, if I may draw a comparison, any statement made by an hon. Member of the House that is recorded in the Official Report, be it 30 or 40 years ago—certainly in the past 10 or 15 years—is readily accessible. That is something that has been said in the public domain. A similar rule should apply to any action that has taken place that is recorded in the public processes.
  However, there should be a balancing right for an individual to be able to correct any error of recording, and to explain any detail that may be general or vague. A simple record of a specific conviction does not tell the whole story. A conviction for assault may result from a serious, unprovoked assault which may be part of some other criminal activity, such as a robbery; but the assault may be an example of youthful exhuberance.
  Perhaps a student, who had taken part in a demonstration, had been carried away in the heat of the moment and had been involved in an assault on the police when resisting a police instruction. That person would never do such a thing later in life, but they might be subject to condemnation along the same lines as for a serious criminal assault in the pursuit of some other crime if they did not have the opportunity to correct or explain the record as it was kept. It is important to have that balance right.
  Secondly, I support the Select Committee's conclusion that it should be right for the private security industry to be exempted from the requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I have always been dubious about that Act. It creates a legal fiction about which I feel uneasy. Although I would not want in any way to deter the right of a person to rehabilitate themselves after a crime after sufficient years have passed, when their conduct in society had re-established itself, nevertheless the idea that there should be a legal fiction that the crime never took place worries me in principle.
  There are exemptions from that concept. They have multiplied over the years, for good public reasons. They should be extended to the private security industry. The Select Committee is entirely right.
  Thirdly, I am uneasy with the idea of statutory regulation in any industry, unless it is proved to be absolutely necessary. Although there is a good deal of convincing evidence that it may be necessary in the private security industry, I remain cautious. I would prefer a proper system of industry self-regulation; there is evidence that that can work well in certain industries.
  I appreciate that self-regulation has been tried in the private security industry, and that considerable difficulties have arisen, that it has not turned out to be effective so far as a concept, and that the main trade organisations in the industry have now said that statutory regulation is necessary. I regret that.
  In the advertising industry, in which I worked for a while, there is a good and efficient system of self-regulation. I was involved in some of the early work

  221
  that resulted in the setting up of self-regulation in the direct mail industry. There are established examples of self-regulation operating. However, I accept that that is a different industry, and that the rights of the public regarding advertising, although important, do not bear comparison with the much greater protection that is needed in the security industry.
  I am three quarters of the way along the line to accepting statutory regulation, but I continue to have doubts. I hope that time will be given, before statutory regulation is introduced, for the industry to have one more chance—perhaps a short time—to try out the development of proper self-regulation, perhaps under the threat of statutory action otherwise.
  Mr. Mullin: The industry is begging to be regulated.
  Mr. Merchant: I am well aware of that—indeed, I said that a few moments ago—but that does not alter my principled objection to statutory regulation as a concept unless it can be proved to be absolutely necessary. I am not convinced that that is the case. However, as the hon. Gentleman heard me say, I am a long way along that route, and, if a final opportunity for self-regulation can be shown not to work, I would reluctantly accept the need for statutory action.
  Last year, I supported in some detail the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995, which introduced regulation in those centres. I hope that that shows the hon. Gentleman that I do not take a hard line that would oppose statutory regulation in every case; far from it. Nevertheless, it must be shown to be absolutely necessary in each example.
  The problem with statutory regulation is that, once introduced, it starts a creeping process. I read an article in The Guardian dated 8 June on that subject, which specifically said, referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary:
  "Let him start on the narrow front, leaving the regulations open so that wider areas could be included later."
  That is always the process with statutory regulation. One starts on a narrow field, and there is constant pressure to widen it, until one is regulating everywhere.
  I do not want a society that has unnecessary regulation or regulations extended into every aspect of life. If we must have statutory regulation, I would put in a plea for limited regulation—perhaps only the licensing of individuals, rather than the licensing of individuals and the regulation of companies.
  I leave the House with the following thought. If there is to be licensing or regulation in the manned guarding sector of the industry, applying to contract guarding, I fail to see the logic of confining it to that sector and not extending it to non-contract guarding. If it does not apply in both sectors, I envisage a strange anomaly developing.
  All those strict regulatory requirements will affect companies offering the service, but an individual company that wishes to recruit its own individual guard—not a contract company, but a person—will be able to do so without being subject to licensing requirements. That would be a route for contradiction and abuse.
  I hope that, if we must go down that route, it will be done more comprehensively, so that regulation covers the whole logical area of one sector of the industry.
  10.47 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Liberal Democrats believe that regulation of the private security industry is essential and has been shown to be, and that that opinion is shared by all the most responsible people in the industry.
  That issue has been before us for some time. In 1990, the Defence Select Committee took evidence on the way in which private security companies were being used for defence installations, and expressed great unease about the way in which the pressure to keep the contract price down was leading to unsatisfactory regulation, in some cases by inappropriate organisations.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has introduced private Member's legislation with support from all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, to try to do something in that industry. In September 1994, the Liberal Democrat conference passed a resolution calling for regulation of the private security industry.
  We have before us the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of May 1995—the Committee of which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who introduced the debate, is Chairman. It is an excellent report, which details the matter extremely well, brings together a great deal of evidence and makes an extremely cogent case.
  The report draws attention to the growth in the size of the private security industry, and especially the expansion in the role of the private security industry into areas that were previously the domain of the police, which, it said,
  "give rise to reasonable and increasing concerns about the industry's relationship with the public and about standards within the industry."
  Part of the background to that is concern that the private security industry should not be taking over police duties and responsibilities.
  We feel strongly that the job of policing and maintaining law and order is a job for accountable, disciplined and trained police officers. There have been too many instances lately in which communities and organisations have felt compelled to use private security, not for its proper role, which is extensive, but to provide services that they believe the police cannot supply because of a shortage of resources. The police service itself is anxious about that.
  The private security industry is expanding into prisons: first, it undertook prison escort duties, and it is now involved in the running of private prisons. We are unhappy about that, because we believe that the deprivation of the liberty of an individual, where required by the state in pursuit of the law, is a job for the state, not one that should be handed to private agencies.
  Despite all that, there is still a massive role for the private security industry. There are many responsible firms and people in that industry, and their leaders want a regulatory system. It is too easy for criminals to be employed in the industry, and it is too easy for criminals to set up their own businesses.
  There is absolutely nothing to stop someone walking out of Wormwood Scrubs, hiring a van—or, as someone said when I mentioned this before, stealing a van—acquiring a dog and setting up as a private security firm. That is not good enough, and it is of course a constant threat to the reputation and credibility of the responsible firms in the industry. They feel that especially strongly.

  223
  The door is wide open to criminal infiltration of the industry. Evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee contained many instances, some quoted in the body of the report, of how damaging that can be. The Association of Chief Police Officers produced a report for which the chief constable of Northumbria was responsible. It cited many instances of such criminal infiltration.
  In addition, the industry has worryingly low rates of pay. Associated with that must be the risk that people who fail to meet the necessary requirements will be hired. A constant complaint, echoed in the report, is that there is far too little training. Too many people working in the industry have no training at all. The public are being deluded into thinking that someone in a smart uniform is trained, disciplined and accountable in the way that a police officer is.
  The similarity of uniform perhaps leads the public to believe that, even if such a person is not the same as a police officer, he is similar. That may be so when the person involved is a highly trained security officer from a reputable firm, working on a specialist task. However, it is not the case with many people working in the industry. A uniform is not necessarily a sign of good quality training or careful recruitment and screening.
  The industry has tried to operate a system of self-regulation, but it has been proved repeatedly that self-regulation does not extend far enough and give reputable firms the protection that they require.
  During the last Home Office Question Time, I suggested to the Minister of State that it was not acceptable for the Home Office and its agencies to employ private security firms that did not belong to one of the industry's organisations. I was surprised by his reply. He said:
  "It would be contrary to European regulations to exclude companies … on the basis that they do not belong to a trade organisation."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 472.]
  Of course, it so happens that, in this industry, the self-regulating bodies are part of trade organisations. The Government say that, because of European regulations, they and, presumably, other public agencies, cannot insist that the security firms that they employ are part of a self-regulatory system.
  If that is so—I hope that the Minister has reconsidered the matter since then—how much stronger is the case for statutory regulation. If insistence on self-regulation is precluded in the public sector, statutory regulation is all the more important.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Did the right hon. Gentleman pick up the point that I attempted to make briefly at Question Time, that there is nothing to stop the Government or any other organisation setting their own quality threshold and standards for the employees whom they would take on from a private security company? One cannot use membership of a trade organisation as the sifting mechanism.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister said that, as with any contract, Departments can set their own quality standards. He has amplified it a little by saying that they could specify the employees. I take it that he means that the Government could insist that employees did not have any previous relevant criminal convictions, but the fact remains that it undermines the concept of a self-regulatory system to say
  224
  that one cannot take any, notice of whether a company is or is not a member of a self-regulatory body simply because that body is a trade organisation.
  That being the case, has the Home Office ever advised the industry to set up a self-regulatory mechanism separate from its trade organisation? I am not aware that it has ever encouraged the industry to find a way around that difficulty to ensure that that can be one of the usual standards and qualifications. We seem to be undermining the whole notion of self-regulation. If the Government cannot make use of it, what use is it? Clearly, we need a better system. It is also clear from the Home Affairs Select Committee report that too few companies chose to take part in a self-regulatory system for it to be effective.
  Closed circuit television is another problem. Much of the monitoring of closed circuit television is carried out by private security companies, some of which scarcely qualify to be called that. Closed circuit television is a valuable tool in fighting crime. Although the Home Secretary has occasionally sought to suggest that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of it, he regularly opens such schemes in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities which have set them up with the help of the Home Office.
  I hope that the Home Office will eventually cough up the money to install a closed circuit system in my constituency. We have been pressing for it for some time. We thought that the latest list was supposed to help the smaller communities, but it seems that too many of the larger places are at the front of the queue.
  There is no control over what happens to the video tapes produced by closed circuit television. There is evidence that such material is being obtained for the production of violent commercial videos. It is also possible to obtain it for blackmail and other purposes not related to its proper use. An unregulated activity is being carried out by unregulated companies.
  I would expect any system of regulation of security companies to cover their conduct in this sphere. The problem has to be dealt with one way or another. Otherwise, sooner or later, someone will start switching off closed circuit television systems because they are being abused, and the public's co-operation will be undermined.
  The product of closed circuit television is used to fight crime, but if it is going to finish up as a violent product on video shop shelves and seen by children, the whole exercise will be fatally damaged. We cannot allow that to happen.
  Another problem is that of bouncers. I believe that they are sometimes called door attendants, but they are bouncers in the Bigg Market in Newcastle. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton visited the many night clubs in Newcastle to examine not only the bouncers but what went on inside—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I did not.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that he did not, but he established that there is a registration scheme, which is an example of good practice and should be encouraged.
  Mr. Mullin: What about the Serjeant at Arms?
  Mr. Beith: I do not think that the Serjeant at Arms will be required to register. The presence in the world of

  225
  bouncers of many people with criminal convictions and associations with violent crime was a serious problem on Tyneside. The registration scheme has been a help.
  I believe that relevant legislation should be included in the Queen's Speech. The Government should not have delayed as long as they have. It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should have to wait longer even for a Government response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report. We ought to be getting on with it. I know that there are issues still to be resolved, but there needs to be an agency to carry out any regulation. There also needs to be access to criminal records, exemption under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and action to monitor closed circuit television.
  The Government must stop dragging their feet. The private security industry needs legislation in order to be able to carry out its important job properly, and the public need the assurance that when they see a uniformed security guard, they are seeing someone who has been subjected to a proper system of registration and control.
  10.58 am
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) rightly stressed that Conservatives tend to be in favour of deregulation. We should certainly look carefully at how we can avoid regulating unnecessarily, and at how we can keep regulations to a minimum. But the evidence we received from some parts of the security industry was overwhelmingly in favour of some form of regulation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said that he was 75 per cent. convinced by the arguments for some sort of regulation. I would say that it is no good giving the security industry one more chance for self-regulation when we know that we are not worried about the 20 per cent. of the industry which is responsible and which does regulate its own activities; we are concerned about the other 80 per cent., which does not regulate itself.
  The Select Committee bore in mind the need to restrict regulation to the areas where there are seen to be obvious problems. Although, for instance, there are problems in respect of the installation of alarms in people's homes and businesses, there is no clear evidence that the situation requires regulation. Current consumer legislation and breach-of-contract law would appear to be the appropriate remedies for people who are dissatisfied with their installations.
  The problem of corrupt or bent installers using the opportunity of visiting people's homes or businesses to case the joint and then tip off underworld colleagues can be met by regulating those who can be employed, and introducing a form of licensing based on access to criminal records.
  The Select Committee was also concerned about the possible growth of protection rackets. That is a worry in many countries, but here, too, I believe that the answer lies in licensing, both for organisations and individuals.
  We also briefly considered the question of bouncers. There is a need, I believe, for the licensing of people and organisations in this area. It is possible for self-regulation to be highly effective.
  226
  In September this year, I visited the Sin Bin, a nightclub in Medicine Hat, Canada. It is a place frequented by British troops stationed at BATUS, the British Army training unit in Alberta. Instead of employing large, thuggish bouncers of the type one often sees in this country, the club employs small, weedy bouncers with a very professional attitude. They are equipped with hidden radios, so that, if one of them is trying to get rid of someone, he is soon surrounded by a group of other bouncers. Numbers, not weight and size, soon persuade troublemakers to leave promptly.
  In the end, this debate comes down to the balance between preserving the freedoms of the individual and the costs and inconvenience of regulation. The Government need to negotiate with the industry over the right amount of regulation. Clearly, there are relatively inexpensive ways in which regulations can be introduced. Although no definite figures were produced, the Committee came to the conclusion that a criminal record check might cost £20. That seems little enough to spend on such an important aspect of security in our daily lives.
  The members of the industry who gave evidence made it clear that they would be happy to bear the costs of this regulation, so they will not be an additional burden on the taxpayer. The industry would welcome and pay for the sort of regulation that the Select Committee has advocated.
  As I say, I believe that the Government should negotiate with the security industry, if they have not already done so, with a view to drafting legislation. If it proves impracticable to deal with the whole problem in the coming Session, I would urge the halfway house recommended by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who so ably introduced this morning's debate.
  11.4 am
  Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on initiating this debate. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and his colleagues are understandably angry that we are debating the private security industry in private Members' time, instead of debating a Government response to his Committee's report in Government time. The need for action has been clearly spelt out by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).
  The need for regulation became clear long before the Select Committee published its report, but there has been no sign yet that Ministers intend to take firm, positive action. The fudge of giving only employers access to the criminal records of employees—an idea that has been suggested—does not go far enough. It simply would not sort out the rogue employers—and rogue employers as well as rogue employees are certainly a problem, as illustrated in the Committee's report.
  Proper protection of the public requires the Government to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry, and it is time for Ministers to stop dithering and prevaricating. The Labour party's view is shared by the police, the public, the industry itself—and even, I am glad to note, by the Select Committee. The Home Secretary has not yet leaked the slightest whiff of an intention to

  227
  grasp the nettle, which suggests that he intends to allow things to fester for another full Parliament. That is just not acceptable.
  I challenge the Minister this morning to give us straight answers to 10 straight questions. First, will he promise to introduce a statutory system of regulation for the private security industry—yes or no? Secondly, will legislation be announced in the Queen's Speech and introduced in the coming Session of Parliament? Thirdly, will the Minister specifically include manned guarding, patrol duties and door supervision in the legislation? Fourthly, will he agree that the regulation of those who undertake such tasks must include proper vetting procedures, through a publicly accountable system, together with high standards of training and supervision in the industry?
  Fifthly, does the Minister accept, in the interests of the companies in the sector which are well run and highly professional, that there should be strict regulation of all companies that undertake such activities? Sixthly, will he accept that these functions can be exercised, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, by a self-financing agency, accountable to Parliament, through the Home Secretary, for both policy and operational decisions?
  Seventhly, will the Minister accept that, while these areas of activity require urgent regulation, many companies offer a wide range of related services, and that the agency should be capable of dealing with all such issues—as suggested also by the Select Committee's report? That might involve training, certification and registration requirements for those undertaking installation work, via systems already in place in the industry. In short, will the agency have the powers and flexibility to cope with a changing market?
  Eighthly, will the Minister make it a criminal offence for an unregulated company to offer services in the three fields of activity that I have mentioned? Ninthly, does he agree that there must be effective penalties for those who fail to follow proper procedures with regard to vetting and training? Tenthly, will he accept the necessity for the police to have the power to intervene in the interests of the public when they need to do so?
  Those 10 questions, clearly answered by the Minister, would help a great deal to ensure progress on a matter that has exercised the public a great deal in recent times. By answering positively, the Minister would introduce a system that would be practical and not excessively onerous, bureaucratic or costly.
  The fact is, I fear, that we are bedeviled by the Conservatives' obsession with ending regulation wherever it exists and avoiding it even where it is needed—except in the public services. I am the first to applaud the ending of red tape and the cutting of needless regulation, but an unregulated marketplace is a place where bad drives out good and worse drives out bad.
  The hon. Members for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and for Vale of Glamorgan have clearly moved some way on the important issues that we are debating, but at the same time they illustrate the reluctance of Conservative Members generally to grasp the nettle. With the Conservative lurch to the right, the playing field is tilted steeply against responsible and professional companies. Lack of regulation is not freedom, but licence in the worst sense of the word. Voluntary regulation clearly does not work. The Home Office does not insist that firms and their employees are registered under the present system.
  228
  Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) introduced a private Member's Bill that focused on the private security industry. He said that, if someone wanted to be a tattooist, he would have to be approved by the local authority, but that an individual could set up a security firm and install alarms, or become a private eye, without any qualifications or experience, even after having been released from gaol in the recent past. Those who set up such firms do not have to have local authority approval. Self-regulation is not effective—indeed, it can be avoided. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to those shortcomings.
  Companies are operating in sensitive areas of public life with a complete lack of accountability. Penetration by criminals is of serious concern, even if it involves only a minority. Wages can be low. The most recent trade union survey of security officers' wages that I have seen revealed average earnings of £2.23 an hour. Many employees are obliged to work 70 or more hours a week if they are to take home a living wage. These matters require the active involvement of government. Ministerial hand-wringing is not enough.
  It is about a year since we last debated these matters. I said during that debate that, sadly, we had reached the position where it was difficult to find opponents of statutory regulation, apart from Home Office Ministers and criminals who might be deprived of their work within security organisations. It is clear that Back-Bench Conservative Members have moved on regulation, and it is time for Ministers to move, too.
  Many people in different parts of the country have been approached by individuals who tell them that they operate a security system and look after homes in the area for a weekly payment. They may hint that homes might not be so secure if money is not paid. They may not always intend to break the law, but such hints are often interpreted by residents as a form of threat.
  Such an approach is sometimes close to operating a protection system, which is unacceptable. There have been examples of those developing a security system on an estate telling the police of their plans, then telling local people that they had the approval of the police when that was not the position.
  In a brief intervention, the Minister seemed to reflect ministerial comments last year that, first and foremost, for members of the public, it is a case of "buyer beware". That is not acceptable. Such an irresponsible approach misses the point. A Ministry or a large company that regularly buys in security services can make comparisons, test the market, insist that its objectives are met and have adequate legal and professional advice. At the same time, ordinary members of the public and those running small companies are seeking security services. They are rarely in the position of a Ministry or large company.
  Concern about the wrong people being involved in private security patrols and their management has been confirmed in different areas. Some of the examples are both frightening and similar in nature. A circular by one group offering patrols by staff free of criminal convictions bore the name of a director who had several convictions for both dishonesty and violence. A senior police officer told me:
  "I personally find it monstrous that people with convictions for burglary in dwelling houses are being allowed to run businesses and work for such companies whilst having strings of convictions for the offence for which they are purporting to protect the public."

  229
  Another senior police officer wrote to me about a new security firm as follows:
  "You may share my concern and dismay when I tell you that Mr. F (the person who formed the company) is a man with many previous convictions and is currently on bail as well as being a disqualified driver. Working with him in his security business is Mr. G, who has 23 pages of convictions on the Police National Computer … most of these convictions involve burglary and theft in domestic properties. He has only recently been released from prison and he too is a disqualified driver."
  Claims made by some companies have been exposed as entirely untrue. An organisation which claims to protect homes by charging £1 per week per household issued a leaflet stating that staff were experienced, had a forces background and were in constant communication with the police. It claimed also that all properties were logged on a computer and that the company was registered with the police. The local superintendent who told me about this wrote:
  "My view on having sight of this leaflet was that at best the company was misleading the public and at worst their promotional material was a criminal deception. Mr. A admitted that his staff were not trained, not in radio communication with the police, and not registered under the Data Protection Act."
  As for being registered with the police, there is no system of registration. When considering last year what were then the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we suggested that interim measures should be adopted. Our recommendations were not accepted, and a year has passed with no action being taken by the Government. A cry from the Minister of "caveat emptor" and self-regulation provides no answers. How do the public tell the difference between a genuine service and a virtual protection racket? The answer is that they cannot until it is too late.
  There are no controls on who can set up a security business. There are no checks on their criminal record. Invariably, staff are inadequately trained. No checks are made on employers. If the industry is to be involved in such work as patrolling the streets, staff must be trained and must follow a code of practice agreed with the police. That should be basic. The Government recognise that, where private security companies run prisons, the Government have the right to lay down standards of training. Yet for patrolling the streets, no standards are laid down.
  Last year, the British Security Industry Association's journal, Security Spokesman, highlighted the Home Secretary's claim during his speech to the BSIA that
  "there are no grounds for the Government to licence the private security industry because of the insufficient evidence of criminality."
  The editorial commented:
  "this argument misses the point in one crucial area, that of public accountability".
  Referring to the industry's greater public profile, the editorial stated:
  "equally inevitably, greater public accountability must follow as a consequence. It is this—not criminality as Michael Howard would have us believe—which is at the crux of the regulation issue."
  That is a responsible approach to the issue, and I welcome the fact that it comes from within the industry, which has given so much evidence to the Select Committee.
  230
  Over a quarter of a century ago, Philip Sorenson, then chairman of Group 4 Total Security, said:
  "It is the responsibility of the security industry to work towards statutory backing for a system of control. That system should allay any fears about the role of private security companies in our society."
  He was right 25 years ago, and his words are even more urgent and compelling now.
  The least we should expect from the Minister is a series of straight answers to the 10 questions I have put to him, and a promise that there will be legislation to deal with the issues to which we have drawn his attention in the forthcoming Session.
  11.17 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for giving me the opportunity to explain the position that we have reached on the important matters to which he referred.
  In major parts of the security industry, there is little call for change. In the security system or alarms sector, self-regulation has proved highly effective. The in-house guarding sector has caused no problems. Difficulties in certain areas involving bouncers are being tackled by means of specially designed measures, of which the Select Committee on Home Affairs approved.
  That is not to say that the security industry is without problems. As in any other industry or business, there are areas of concern. Like the Select Committee, I think that these problems lie mainly within the contract manned guarding sector of the industry.
  According to a research report published by the Policy Studies Institute last year, that sector comprises about 24 per cent. of the industry's employees, not 80 per cent. as has been suggested. None of those employees has a police constable's powers. None of them carries out what we have identified as core police functions, and rightly so.
  Nevertheless, many of them will be seen in areas where they have frequent and close contact with the public. It is vital that public confidence in them should not be misplaced. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the bad reputations of a few unsuitable individuals or poor companies do not tarnish the reputation of the industry as a whole.
  There is little evidence of criminality across the board within the private security industry, but we have seen some alarming data from the police on various incidents throughout the country.
  Of particular note is the part played by bouncers. I am hopeful that the registration schemes for door staff, which are being set up by the police and local authorities in areas where there are problems, will meet that need. Both the police and the Select Committee believe that it could, and we shall shortly issue guidance on the setting up and running of schemes for those who wish to introduce registration arrangements. At the same time, we shall ask the police to help us to monitor the number and operation of the schemes.
  My hon. and learned Friend and his Committee offered us three options for improving quality in the manned guarding sector: licensing for individuals; regulation for companies; or to combine the two and set up an agency to run new arrangements for the licensing of individuals

  231
  and to ensure that companies fulfil certain minimum criteria. The Committee proposed that the licensing of individuals should be based on mandatory criminal record checks, and that there should be greater access to criminal records for a widely defined industry.
  I am well aware that one of the main concerns about the private security industry is the employment of individuals who have in the past committed criminal offences. Many see it as essential, therefore, that there should be a means of checking whether a prospective employee has a criminal record.
  At the moment, there is no legitimate method of obtaining that information, other than by putting pressure on individuals to exercise their rights under the Data Protection Act 1988 for access to the information on convictions that is held on police computer systems. The problem is that that circumvents the safeguards available to individuals under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which aims to strike a balance between giving offenders a chance to reintegrate themselves into society and the need to protect society from those who might offend again. It allows convictions that have been become spent, through the passage of time and the individual's subsequent good behaviour, to remain unknown to prospective employers.
  There are groups, of course, who are exceptions to the Act, but they do not include any part of the private security industry. I know that that is something that parts of the industry would like to see changed, and it is one of the issues that the Home Affairs Select Committee's report recommended that the Government should consider. It is, though, an issue that needs to be put in the context of the more general question about pre-employment vetting.
  That whole subject has been of concern to the Government for some considerable time. At present, criminal record checks are carried out by the police only for certain groups of employees. Most checks take place to protect vulnerable people, such as children, while others are necessary for the purposes of national security or for probity in the administration of the law.
  The Government have therefore been reviewing very carefully the current arrangements for vetting. Towards the end of 1993, we issued a Green Paper, "The Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes". It posed 12 questions that had arisen from the Select Committee's deliberations on vetting.
  In the light of the 180 responses that we received to that consultation exercise, the Government have been considering a new approach to vetting. We believe that a system of pre-employment checks of criminal records is needed that is more accessible and more open, and which will meet the needs of employers and other organisations who need to employ people in positions of trust.
  A White Paper will shortly be published setting out our views. Although I cannot go into details about its contents, I can tell the House that it will discuss ways of enabling a much wider range of employers to obtain relevant information about criminal records quickly and cheaply.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister has specifically addressed the issue of checks on employees. Will he now tell us whether the White Paper will also deal with checks on employers, and who will undertake those checks and be accountable to the public?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and wait for the White Paper.
  As I said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee last December, the introduction of an easily obtainable criminal conviction certificate would be one way of achieving that. Developments of this kind will be possible largely due to improvements in technology, and particularly the development of a comprehensive criminal record database on the police national computer, which will provide access to a much wider range of information than was once the case.
  Those proposals would go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns of the police, the industry and others, but it is also fair to point out that criminal record checks on their own will not be enough; not everyone with a criminal record is necessarily unsuited to all jobs, and not all those who are unsuitable for employment in the industry will necessarily have a criminal record.
  If criminal record checks are to have a part to play in determining who may be employed as a security guard, the next question is whether unspent convictions should be revealed—that is, whether the industry should be excepted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I believe that the Act has worked fairly well since its introduction 20 years ago, and we must be sure when considering any case for making a new exception that the purpose of the Act would not be undermined. It may be the case that, under new vetting arrangements, for example, sufficient information could in any case be made available within the current provisions of the Act.
  The Select Committee's report also outlined new criminal offences to lend teeth to the new statutory arrangements. We must be very careful to ensure that any new criminal offences, with all the implications that they carry for the criminal justice system as a whole, are created to deal only with a serious nuisance that cannot be dealt with otherwise. That may be the case here, and again it is something that we are still considering.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best predictors of future criminality is when one has committed offences in the past?
  Mr. Maclean: It is certainly a clear predictor, but it is also the case that offences are committed by some in the manned guarding sector of the security industry and also by those who are responsible for children and have passed all sorts of security checks. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, despite some 600,000—perhaps coming on for 1 million—checks per annum, mainly involving people who may be working with children, many people who are involved in offences against children have never had a blot on their record before, so there is no perfect predictor of criminality.
  The private security industry is a large and diverse organism, and the question whether, and if so how, to regulate all or part of it does raise complex questions. I know that my hon. and learned Friend understands that we are giving very careful consideration to his report. The Select Committee has identified a range of issues and given a steer on how they might be tackled, but, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, he has not given us a detailed blueprint on how it could be done. I must say to him and to the House that it is not a matter of Ministers making a grand pronouncement in principle without having tried to work out some of the detail that might follow such a pronouncement.

  233
  My hon. and learned Friend's debate today is both timely and helpful, and, as I said in my evidence to the Select Committee, we go a long way together in agreeing on the areas of prime concern, but we must ensure that we get the solutions right. The recommendations in his report touch on the interests of many, both within Government and outside, and, like the recommendations of every Select Committee, they merit close attention.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I shall conclude now. My hon. Friend can reply if he gets the House's permission.
  We will give my hon. and learned Friend and his Committee a full reply when we have managed to give the report the full and proper consideration that it deserves.
  10.4 am
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: With permission, perhaps I might reply. The debate has been of a very high standard, and it has been across party lines. There has been a minimum of rancour, and the debate has shown the House at its best. It has brought out the important point: that the industry is honourable and is working well, in the main, and it is a sign of the maturity of its leaders that they are prepared to have Government restriction and legislation to control it, to take account of the relatively small section of the industry that is working badly.
  We have demonstrated that we recognise that the problem of immediate legislation is very difficult, but if the Government act soon on the question of criminality, that will provide a measure of satisfaction.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the conflict between the Government's well motivated desire to deregulate, and the fact that here we are calling for regulation; but the fact has been strongly made that, where the industry is itself calling for state regulation and where there is an outstanding need to protect the public—and where the industry is prepared to pay—this is not a question of relying on the shibboleths of political dogma. There is a practical need to introduce the kind of legislation that has been requested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
  We are, to some extent, encouraged by the Government's response. The public and the industry will also be encouraged. But we shall only be encouraged—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

  Manufacturing Industry
  11.30 am
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about manufacturing, as I come from an industrial area. I am concerned about the human misery of unemployment—the sheer waste of people, many of whom are running out of hope.
  A third of my constituents receive some form of income benefit. That should be set against Bradford's proud industrial heritage. The town must now create 700 new jobs a year just to retain its present employment level. In the early 1980s, we lost 22,000 jobs in four years, and we have never recovered. Companies such as GEC, International Harvesters and Baird Television, employing thousands, have completely gone; other major employers have drastically reduced their work forces. Hepworth and Grandage, a leading engineering company that employed 5,000 in its prime, now employs fewer than 250.
  Bradford is not unique, however. Britain's industrial regions have been devastated by the growing cancer of long-term unemployment. We hear today that Britain has slipped to 18th in the league table of world prosperity; it is bottom of the league in terms of investment and job creation. I know that other hon. Members will want to share their experiences of the failure of Tory economic policy.
  The history of Britain over the past 150 years could be portrayed as the inevitable effect of the decline of manufacturing industry. In the Great Exhibition of 1851, Britain was clearly seen as the strongest and most dynamic economy in the world, whose strength was based entirely on the success of manufacturing. Our competitors then were Germany, France and the United States—which long ago outstripped us, along with many other countries.
  There are many reasons for our decline, but one of the most significant is the fact that in certain parts of the establishment there is still a feeling that to work in manufacturing is somehow inferior, confining employees to the tradesmen's entrance for life. There is a snobbish attitude to the industry. That attitude must be consigned to the dustbin. We are still a manufacturing nationjust—but we have a whole new series of challenges to face.
  The Conservative Government have presided over the two deepest recessions since the second world war. Our economy has not the capacity for strong growth. In August, a survey conducted by the Business and Technology Education Council showed that more than half the firms employing more than 100 people thought that their profitability would be affected by skill shortages among young workers. We heard yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister is to call for a job skills audit: he, too, recognises that Britain is way behind other countries in terms of competitiveness.
  The rate of growth has been slowing seriously. Between 1979 and 1993, the economy grew at an average annual rate of only 1.7 per cent.; that is the slowest rate of growth in the United Kingdom since the 1930s. The Treasury forecast implies that the average growth rate between 1988 and 1998 will also be only 1.7 per cent., as against a pre-1979 post-war rate of 2.7 per cent. The United Kingdom's average growth between 1979 and 1993 has been the slowest in the 18 countries in the G7 and the European Union.

  235
  Manufacturing output rose by 0.5 per cent. in the first quarter, to a level less than 1 per cent. above that before the recession. Manufacturing output in 1993 was less than 1 per cent. higher than it was in 1973. In 1979, manufacturing output accounted for 30 per cent. of the economy, and more than 7 million people were employed in the industry; by 1993 the figure had fallen to around 20 per cent., and 4.3 million people were employed. Millions were unemployed in areas such as mine.
  It could and should have been different. Let us consider the Pacific rim countries. There is no suggestion in Japan, South Korea or Malaysia that manufacturing is inferior: it is seen as essential to the development and prosperity of those countries, whose financial policies are directed towards efficiency. They have decided what they are good at, and they pursue policies that maximise their effectiveness with complete dedication.
  The Asian tigers, as they are known, are increasingly involved in higher technology production, firmly based on a deliberate industrial policy. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have established domestic semiconductor industries. A recent study carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded that that was encouraged by Government support for start-up costs and research as well as by protection. In South Korea, the Government identified semiconductors as a strategic industry in 1983. They provided a $400 million support package, and the industry has now become the largest outside the OECD area.
  A planned economy can work. We must do the same: we must recognise that we can never compete with the emerging nations on a basis of low-added-value, low-pay processes. If we are to grow and develop as a nation, we must concentrate on what we are good at. We must realise that high-added-value, high-quality manufacturing is our future. If we try to compete by forcing wages and conditions down, we shall end up competing with Somalia and Bangladesh—and we shall lose.
  That is why Labour's policy of introducing a national minimum wage will help parts of industry that are committed to planning for the future on a realistic basis. They know that to pay their workers the rate for the job is not a waste of money, but an investment. They also know that training their staff is the most important investment of all.
  Mr. John Sykes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a manufacturer in the north of England. The policy of a large manufacturer in my area—a food processing company—is to produce and sell goods in the area that it supplies: if it wants to supply food products in England, it will build a factory there. It wanted to do the same in France, but because of the excessive costs—the minimum wage and other social costs—imposed by the social chapter, it could not afford to build a factory there; instead, it doubled the production line in Scarborough. Does that not prove the hon. Gentleman wrong?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I do not think that it does. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should mention France: we should be competing with France, Germany and the other industrialised countries, rather than with third-world countries.
  There is a good deal of hype about what a national minimum wage should be. I hope that there will be sensible, planned discussion between the social partners—
  236
  employers and trade unions—to arrive at realistic figures that can be managed by industry. A good industrial strategy would ensure that the minimum wage set standards and promoted high self-esteem among the work force; it would not opt for a low-wage economy in which people competed for jobs priced at around £1 per hour. That would be totally unacceptable. I am convinced that a national minimum wage will boost Britain and its manufacturing base.
  The unskilled and the poorly educated have suffered most from the rise in unemployment. The Tories have failed to invest not only in new technology and industry, but in the skills of the work force. In an internationally competitive global economy in which investment capital is mobile, the key factor in competition is a highly skilled work force.
  Among the 21 countries in the OECD, the United Kingdom lags behind all but Turkey in terms of the proportion of 17 and 18-year-olds in education. Currently, 180,000 17 and 18-year-olds are not receiving education, work or training: that is a national disgrace. The Government have slashed the training for work budget by 29 per cent. since 1992. In 1994, the economic adviser to Lloyds bank warned that Britain was in danger of becoming a low-skill economy unless investment in training for manufacturing jobs was increased.
  Low skills will discourage industry from adopting better technology, further increasing the need for better training. That downward spiral is probably the greatest threat to the opportunities now facing the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry. All good companies know that working with their employees is important. That is why 47 of the top 50 manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom are trade union organised: good industrial relations set the scene and the environment for success, and we should try to help work forces to develop them.
  We must concentrate on innovation and design, yet the amount of money that we as a nation spend on research and development has consistently gone down. Today's research is tomorrow's product and, increasingly, major players throughout the world are committed to long-term development priorities as they realise that new products have longer and longer lead times and need more and more development.
  Britain is doing just the opposite. In 1990, our industrial investment in research and design as a percentage of industrial production was almost the same as it was 20 years before. In the same period, comparable spending on R and D in Germany, Japan and France had doubled, and in the United States of America it had increased by one third.
  Britain has no representative in the top 25 companies in the international table of research and development spending. That is partly because British companies pay out an increasing proportion of company profits in dividends, rather than use them for reinvestment. We need to ensure that the strength of our financial sector also becomes a source of strength for our industrial sector because, as a whole, investment has greatly decreased as well. From 1979 to 1993, the average investment level, as a share of the UK economy, was the lowest of the 18 countries in the G7 and European Community. As the Bank of England pointed out in its August 1995 inflation report, investment is 20 per cent. below its level in previous recoveries.

  237
  In Britain, investment per worker in manufacturing is 30 per cent. below that in Germany and the United States, and only one quarter of that in Japan. In its recent summer forecast, the Treasury revised down its forecast for growth in business investment from 10.75 per cent. in 1995 to 4.75 per cent. On OECD figures, in 1994, the United Kingdom had the lowest level of investment as a share of the economy at 15 per cent., compared with Germany at 22 per cent. That leaves the UK with an investment gap of £46 billion relative to the investment share in Germany.
  If we consider the past 150 years, every time it was possible for us to take the wrong decision, we did so. We have consistently placed barriers against manufacturing and, even worse, successive Governments have moved the goalposts at depressingly regular intervals. I think that we have had 12 Secretaries of State since 1979. We must create a level playing field by introducing policies that help with the consistent development of a sound manufacturing base and discourage the speculator, the dawn raider and the asset stripper.
  All the key players, especially financiers and industrialists, have roles to play in reversing Britain's consistent under-investment. We should shift the onus of proof in a hostile takeover bid and require the company seeking control to demonstrate that its success will be in the public interest. We could launch a business development bank for small businesses which would specialise in providing direct long-term investment in the expansion of the productive economy. When we have those policies, we must leave them in place so that businesses can plan ahead. Planning is vital for all businesses.
  The Government claim to understand and support business, yet everywhere I go in my constituency I meet businesses, small and large, that are depressed and outraged by the lack of understanding shown of their concerns at all levels of Government and of the civil service. An example of that was the business rate in Bradford, which went up by 40 per cent. The local authority would never have imposed such an increased burden on local business, but the Government, who have total control over the business rate level, showed no signs of understanding the potentially disastrous effect that such a rise would have.
  One measure that virtually every business person I meet advocates is the introduction of fiscal measures to reduce tax on profit retained in businesses, so that investment can be stimulated. It is not just businesses that want that. Every trade union with members in manufacturing wants such growth, as do all academic economists. I am proud of Labour's investment budget for Britain because it contains manufacturing investment incentives. It shows an ambition for the country that the Government do not seem to share.
  The only people who are against incentives are those at the Treasury, which perhaps comes as no surprise. The Treasury has never understood manufacturing and never will so long as recruitment and promotion is based on such a narrow and prescribed basin.
  There are many things that any Government should do to ensure that manufacturers can do their job effectively. Efficient transport policies must be pursued. In my region, improvement of the A650 is desperately needed. Such work has been on and off for the past 25 years.
  238
  Throughout that time, lorries have been sitting in traffic queues in residential areas while the firms they have been delivering to waited in angry frustration. According to the Automobile Association, one mile in every seven in our motorway network, and more than 4,000 miles of our primary roads, need urgent repair.
  The electrification programme has cost hundreds of millions of pounds. When it is finished, the Government will have created such a disastrous shambles in the railway industry that no one will want to run mainline trains on it. The example of the channel tunnel rail link sums up how Britain lags behind. French trains travelling at 185 mph from Paris on some of the newest track are forced to travel at little more than 50 or 60 mph from Dover to London. As ex-President Mitterrand said, the channel tunnel opens up two worlds of travel: high-speed through France, followed by a leisurely look at the English countryside.
  My constituency is even further disadvantaged by the increasingly poor links to London. Without a modern, integrated transport system, Britain's manufacturing industry is at a disadvantage as soon as the product leaves the factory gates.
  There must be a national ambition for Britain and a visionary economic plan to promote key industries, because no country of Britain's size can hope to survive without a strong home manufacturing base. Every opportunity that has presented itself in the past 16 years has been wasted. North sea oil was viewed as a great opportunity, and it should have been, but consider what happened. Because of short-term attitudes and incompetent financial management, the oil forced exchange rates up, which inevitably meant that the price of manufacturing goods rose in comparison with our competitors. The Government stuck their head in the sand and hoped that the problem would go away. The only thing that went away was a large chunk of our manufacturing base.
  The Government have always been driven by their relationship with the City, which has never genuinely supported manufacturing industry. That relationship has been the most damaging in modern British history. It has created a short-term approach that looks for the quick fix of privatisation, rather than the consistent support of manufacturing, which creates wealth and prosperity in the long term. The Tories have not understood manufacturing industry and in some sectors they have welcomed its decline.
  As we enter the 21st century, Labour recognises that the working environment has changed. New technology and new information networks need to be harnessed to promote an industrial development policy that uses the population's skills to their maximum, rather than allowing hopelessness and disadvantage to damage the fabric of society. Britain has a great history of manufacturing and, if we are not to sink into oblivion, it must be our future as well.
  In the past 16 years, we have had an industrial policy, or rather lack of one, characterised by incompetence, indecision and the short-term view. Two million unemployed people is unacceptable, in terms of the cost of unemployment both financially and socially. Regions such as Bradford, which I represent, do not deserve to be treated in the way that they have been. What are the Government doing about facing that challenge? They are looking to have tax reductions of 1 p and 2p.

  239
  The countries that will succeed in this new global marketplace are not only those that have sound public finances, but those that invest in the skills and technologies of the future. Many partnerships have been established between the public and private sectors and at our party conference I was happy to see the relationship with British Telecom. The fact that we are going to have laptop computers on every desk in the education sector is superb.
  Britain still has world-class companies, but few of them. We need manufacturing policies that are dynamic, thoughtful and consistent. Within 18 months, the Labour Government will deliver those. This debate is about not talking Britain down, but making certain that we develop and expand our economy so that manufacturing can regain its rightful place as part of Britain's future.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. It is a pleasure to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I agreed with one or two of his points. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will deal with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech in his usual robust fashion.
  Where I beg to differ in particular with the hon. Member for Bradford, South is in his remarks on a minimum wage. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), who brings so much experience to debates on these subjects, referred to the experiences of his company. I welcome his presence and hope that he will speak in the debate shortly.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South thought that a national minimum wage would be a boost for Britain. It would be a boost only for costs and unemployment.
  As right hon. and hon. Members know, I represent Southport, which is a seaside resort. It is not known for its heavy industry. It is a tourist resort and a major part of the local economy is the residential and nursing home sector.
  I recently had the pleasure of inviting my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to Southport. When he visited my constituency, he had the opportunity to meet, over lunch, more than 100 local business men and women. He heard of their experiences, their concerns and their wish to see red tape cut further. He heard about their successes and we were able to draw attention, even in a seaside resort, to what is often called in Southport back-street development—it is that sort of town and that is where industry has to thrive.
  There are many businesses that employ only a few people; I can count them on several hands, not just on a few fingers. There are businesses in my constituency that employ just a few people, but which export to more than 30 countries. For too long, Conservatives have had to listen to Opposition Members claiming that British manufacturing industry is in decline.
  Mr. Sykes: The so-called experts.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend knows, as I do—I mean no discourtesy to any Opposition Member—that Opposition Members do not have the experience that he has had. We shall, no doubt, hear from him later.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I said that 22,000 jobs had been lost in Bradford in four years. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that
  240
  those jobs have not been lost and that we have not suffered from a large rise in unemployment in the area? Could the situation have been altered? Are the figures that show how far down the prosperity league table Britain is accurate? If not, why not?
  Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would know that I was not referring to Bradford or to job losses. If he is kind enough to pay attention over the next few minutes, he will hear me make a number of my own points. The House is a good judge of character. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is battling for his constituency this morning and I know that he will not mind if I battle for mine too.
  I return to the so-called decline of manufacturing industry. It is a myth; nothing could be further from the truth. The myth of manufacturing decline has been expounded by those who take no account of qualitative economic indicators and who are unable to escape from their old socialist methods of measuring everything in terms of quantity. The percentage of our gross domestic product and employment accounted for by manufacturing industry has certainly decreased over several decades. That feature is, however, mirrored in other major economies and it is mainly a result of productivity increases and efficiency gains.
  It is true that, until the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, our manufacturing performance was poor. During the 20 years up to 1982, Britain's share of world manufacturing exports fell by half and our major industries were propped up by nationalisation and riven by strikes. For various reasons, on which I shall expand in a moment, the trend has been reversed. Not only did the number of manufacturing companies increase by 27,000 in the 1980s, but manufacturing exports increased by 66 per cent. in the decade, and the growth in import penetration was slower than in any of the other six major economies.
  The United Kingdom has also received far more inward investment, a third of which has benefited our manufacturing sector alone, than any other country in the European Union. The United Kingdom has attracted more than 40 per cent. of Japanese and United States investment into the European Union as a whole. Some 434 new investment decisions have been made in 1994–95 alone—we are barely into the 1995–96 financial year—creating or safeguarding almost 90,000 jobs. Companies such as Lexmark, Ford, Toyota, Nissan and Jaguar did not have to invest in the United Kingdom. They did so in no small measure because of what a Conservative Government have achieved.
  As a result of inward investment, we are already, for example, a net exporter of televisions. I confidently predict that we shall shortly become a net exporter of cars. The basis of this turnaround has been the promotion of genuine competition, which has been achieved by winding down import restriction arrangements and exposing our manufacturing to the rigours of the international market.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: In other words, companies that could not cope with competition did not survive. The result was the great shake-out of the 1980s in which overmanning and other inefficient practices were banished. On that point, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MacShane: If the turnaround is due to the rigours of world competition, why did the Government feel it necessary to give a £80 million bribe or subsidy to Ford to keep Jaguar production in the west midlands? Without that massive Government subsidy, Ford would have moved Jaguar production to the United States. Is that an example of the competitive market?
  Mr. Banks: I am delighted by, and support, the Government's action in that respect. I have no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and decries the Government's action, the employees of the company will listen to what he says and wonder whether he speaks for new Labour, old Labour or himself.
  I return to the inefficient practices which, I hope, have been banished as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The promotion of competition is still being carried forward relentlessly in the form of the second competitiveness White Paper. In addition, successive Conservative Governments have implemented a combination of policies which have created the right economic framework in which our companies can compete abroad and in which foreign firms can locate here.
  Privatisation, deregulation, the reform of over-powerful trade unions, investment in skills and training and tax reform have all contributed to the success story to which I am referring. The United Kingdom has low interest rates, low inflation and low taxation. We have a fairly sound transport infrastructure, we have skilled and hard-working labour and a work force unhindered, in comparison to the 1970s, by repressive trade union power. Let us not forget that we also have rapidly rising productivity. The only thing that we do not have is the social chapter, which would impose unnecessary costs and burdens on all British industry, not just manufacturing industry.
  In 1979, it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to prop up the nationalised industries. I shall take British Aerospace as an example. Since privatisation, productivity has risen by 150 per cent., and it has become our largest manufacturing exporter. British Steel has at least doubled its sales over the past decade to become one of our largest exporters. We could also consider what has happened at Rover, Short Brothers, Rolls-Royce, Amersham International, Vosper Thornycroft and many others. It was the courage of the Conservative Government that made privatisation possible and, because of their work forces, those companies have been able to take advantage of the economic conditions to which I have referred.
  Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend mentioned British Steel. Stones Bitter wanted to do a television advertisement in Sheffield which extolled the virtues of the steel and the beer. The company sent a team up to Sheffield to film what people might think of as a normal steelworks, but it found that there were no grimy men doing the work because the modern steelworks were automated and efficient. The film crew had to go to Czechoslovakia to film a steelworks where there were grimy men and things were done in the old-fashioned way. I make the point because British Steel is a completely revolutionised firm, although the policies that the Labour party is trying to introduce would destroy British Steel before one could say Jack Robinson.
  Mr. Banks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making a powerful point. He underlines what I was saying about improved efficiency and productivity.
  242
  It is clear, though, that the recession has taken its toll in terms of lost capacity. To underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, that loss does not reflect poorly on our manufacturers. Lack of demand was largely the cause of it, not incapacity to supply. Indeed, sharp falls in manufacturing output have been mirrored abroad, especially in Germany and Japan.
  Recession can, of course, cause permanent damage, but the success of what the Government have done for manufacturing since 1979 in the United Kingdom can be measured by how well the industry has recovered after recession. Manufacturing output is back to record levels. The production of cars for export, for example, has almost trebled since 1988, and business surveys suggest that output and exports remain good.
  In the light of that achievement, I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said and I shall listen to what other Opposition Members say later in the debate if they catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
  Trying to decide what the Opposition stand for depends of course on to whom one is listening; whether it is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his backroom boys or one or two of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. It seems that all Opposition Members hanker after a sort of ludicrous Utopia, where manufacturing is everything and other sectors of the economy are overlooked. Their answer to improving manufacturing industry is to subsidise—they have no qualms about that word. They are antiquated—I am referring to subsidies, of course, not Opposition Members.
  Although it is an honest pronouncement of their party's policy, subsidy has no place in the new Labour vocabulary—just like "socialist" or any phrase with the words "pips" or "squeak" in it. No, the Labour party now likes to refer to assistance, or aid, or investment. I fail to see how throwing money at manufacturing industry, or at anything else, without a hope of ever seeing a return can be labelled an investment.
  Every policy which the Labour party recommends ought to be stamped with a sort of health warning. Imposing the social chapter on our firms, a minimum wage, opposing privatisation: such policies can seriously damage our manufacturing industry. Those policies may appease Opposition Members' sponsors in the trade unions, but they utterly fail to offer any help or hope to our manufacturing industry.
  The competitive position of British manufacturing will be improved by competitive exchange rates and the fruits of major inward investment projects. Combined with the promising economic outlook, it is likely that Britain's manufacturing base will continue to show growth and not a diminishing trend. It is typical of Opposition Members to run down British manufacturing industry. The real question in 1995, or as we move towards the 21st century, is whether manufacturing industry can survive without a Conservative Government. I ask it, I doubt it, and I sincerely hope that the sector never has to find out.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: The future of manufacturing industry is crucial to Dudley's future. Two out of every five people of working age in my constituency rely on the manufacturing sector for their jobs—almost double the national average. They cannot all

  243
  work at Merry Hill, one of the biggest retail complexes in Europe. Nor can they all work at the Child Support Agency, also located in my constituency—although judging from the time that that agency takes to reply to letters from Members of Parliament, a few more employees might help.
  We have a proud manufacturing tradition in Dudley and in the west midlands generally, and we mean and need to keep it. The country needs us to keep it and needs our manufacturing industries to grow and to succeed in world markets. There are some positive signs: the expansion at Rover, Fords's decision to build the new model Jaguar at Coventry, and plans for expansion at Toyota, to cite but a few.
  More west midlands companies have become world class, and I fully acknowledge that. The Japanese "transplants" have had a significant effect in bringing that about, not only in the automotive components supply industry, but in the manufacturing sector generally, through the demonstration effect that their modern manufacturing techniques have had. Company de-layering, cell manufacturing, the continuous improvement philosophy and benchmarking, for instance, have all produced benefits for British companies that have gone down that route.
  Nevertheless, we still do not have nearly enough world-class companies, and, according to the most recent quarterly survey by the Confederation of British Industry, manufacturers in the west midlands are gloomier than all others in the country about economic prospects. It is a salient fact that manufacturing investment in the second quarter of this year is still 15 per cent. lower than it was at the beginning of 1990. My local training and enterprise council is telling me that labour shortages are already affecting manufacturing industry in the black country.
  Only yesterday, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers warned that there would be 100,000 job losses over the next two years, and the Engineering Employers Federation reported that 8,000 engineering jobs were likely to be axed across the country over the next year.
  I acknowledge that Ministers are concerned about the manufacturing sector and are starting to say some of the right things, but they still have to do the right things. Since 1979, the manufacturing sector has seen its share of gross domestic product fall from 29 per cent. to 22 per cent. It has also lost 2.9 million jobs. That is a greater percentage of the work force than that lost in the United States, and the sector has lost jobs at a rate three times faster than in Germany. Research for the Government's second White Paper on competitiveness, published earlier this year, revealed that British companies are failing to match the productivity of United States firms in any of 12 key sectors of industry, and in only one are we exceeding German levels.
  After 16 years of Conservative Governments, views from the boardrooms of British businesses reveal a damning indictment of Government policy. An Association of British Chambers of Commerce survey in 1994 found that more than one company in five reported that red tape had inhibited growth and prevented them from taking on people. This year, an Institute of Export survey shows that 47 per cent. of companies expressed the view that banks did not meet their needs.
  Mr. Sykes: On the subject of deregulation, why did the hon. Gentleman's party vote against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill?
  Mr. Pearson: The Labour party is fully committed to the principle of deregulation, but we do not believe in the way the Government have been going about it. If I may, I should like to make progress.
  The CBI surveys have consistently reported that more than one in 10 firms employing fewer than 500 people consider late payment to be a problem. The chambers of commerce told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there was a
  "patchwork quilt of provision"
  of business support and that firms
  "perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage compared to their international competitors where different structures of business support exist."
  Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, of which I talk to many, confirm all of that evidence and more. They tell me that they want a stable macro-economic climate to give them the confidence to invest and to make sensible decisions. They want access to finance on appropriate terms, the ability to get their goods to market efficiently, to be free from unnecessary regulation and red tape, to have an effective business advice and support network if they need it, and otherwise to be left to get on with running their businesses and making profits.
  That does not seem too much to ask, but most of those businesses feel badly let down; they feel that the Government have not delivered the goods. They blame the Government for the recession. They still have problems with the banks. For more than a decade people have been waiting for the Government to put their hand in their pocket for the Dudley southern by-pass and the extension of the A4036—and they are still waiting. None of the business people to whom I talk believe that there is less red tape now than three years ago, and most, although they think that the business links scheme is a step in the right direction, are sceptical about whether that initiative could ever be of any use to them.
  Dudley's manufacturing companies, like those in the rest of Britain, deserve better than that from the Government, and I shall outline how a different approach could be taken. I shall then highlight three areas in which action is needed. Clearly there are more such areas, but other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  At its heart, a new approach needs to take on board the facts pointed out by the business academic Michael Porter, who said:
  "while national government has a role in upgrading industry the role of state and local governments is potentially as great or greater".
  The Government need to recast regional policy completely. Competitiveness must run through it, with the Government recognising that in future the regions and cities across Europe will compete with each other as much as co-operate with each other to attract, develop and maintain high quality companies and industries.
  That is already happening now, and it will rapidly intensify. In the west midlands we compete head to head with Baden-Württemberg in Germany and Emilia Romagna in Italy. In terms of gross domestic product per head, recently published OECD figures rank those areas eighth and 10th respectively in the EU, while the west midlands is 46th.
  Regional selective assistance needs to be transformed into a strategic tool for assisting companies to upgrade their competitive positions. Regions should be required to

  245
  produce clear statements of their aims and objectives, and of their strategies for development based on improving competitiveness. For most regions, those strategies should focus more on developing and supporting indigenous manufacturing business than on attracting inward investment. They should look to broadening and expanding industrial clusters, harnessing new technologies and helping more companies to understand what it takes to be world class.
  The three areas that I intend to highlight are accessing finance, dealing with red tape, and late payment. I remain convinced that Britain needs a vehicle for channelling long-term loans to companies at reasonable rates of interest. Companies in Germany and Japan have been able to benefit from such arrangements for years, and we need something similar here.
  Simplification of tax legislation would be a major step towards cutting red tape, as anyone who has served on the Finance Bill Committee will recognise. The Government need to grasp the nettle firmly, as they do with tax collection, by forming a unified agency and merging the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
  On late payment, I know that there are arguments both for and against the introduction of a statutory right to interest. On balance, I favour a statutory right on overdue commercial debt. I do not imagine that it would be used extensively, but if the Government and their agencies led the way by paying promptly, that could, over time, help to change the payment culture in business. Here one may cite the drink-driving legislation as an instance in which the law has played a part in changing attitudes. With the move to self-assessment of income tax, the Inland Revenue will have a legal right to interest on late payments: what is good enough for the business of government should surely be good enough for business itself.
  12.13 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on his success in obtaining the debate and on his excellent speech, which set out the tragic decline of British manufacturing, especially over the past 16 years, and eloquently described the steps that we need to take to reverse that decline. I am also pleased follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) and during my speech I shall reinforce some of what he said.
  There is some scope for agreement across the Chamber in that we all agree that a strong manufacturing sector is vital to the British economy. We have not always been able to agree about that. In the early 1980s the Government seemed happy to see swathes of British manufacturing shut down as a necessary price for some greater economic benefit. In 1983 our national manufacturing trade balance went into deficit for the first time, but the Government did not appear unduly perturbed.
  I welcome the recent change in tone in Government statements about manufacturing—for example, last year's announcement of the London manufacturing initiative—and I hope that it heralds a real change in substance that will become apparent in the months ahead. It would be wonderful to see the imaginative proposals about
  246
  encouraging manufacturing investment made this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, taken up by the Government.
  In London, manufacturing employment has halved in the past 15 years, while the overall level of production has remained steady. That startling conjunction illustrates success in improving productivity but highlights the dismal stagnation in the volume of London's manufacturing. Manufacturing has fared badly in comparison with services, and since the mid-1980s London has de-industrialised more than any comparable city in the OECD countries.
  The effects of that decline have been devastating in the area of east London that I represent, especially through persistent sky-high levels of unemployment. None the less, manufacturing levels in east London are still twice the London average. East London, especially the Lea valley and the Thames gateway, remains London's manufacturing centre, and east London will be a key barometer for assessing the success of the London manufacturing initiative.
  In making my proposals, I want to be constructive and, I hope, optimistic about the future, without hiding the scale of the challenges that we face. There are four key areas in which Government action can support renewal of the manufacturing sector in east London.
  First, regeneration activity and support for manufacturing need bringing together. In the past—in the early days of docklands, for example—regeneration and property development initiatives combined to displace industry, by boosting land values and encouraging manufacturers to sell up and leave. Industrial land was developed for housing or offices, because those brought the fastest profits.
  It is time for us all to be clear that successful regeneration needs manufacturing, and that property development which sweeps away manufacturing is inimical to regeneration. Three quarters of London's development land is in the north-east quadrant, concentrated in the Lea valley and the Thames gateway, and the Government have identified those areas for targeted support. I warmly welcome that.
  The task now must be redevelopment for high-grade industrial purposes such as technology parks and modern manufacturing plants—modern locations for modern industries. English Partnerships should be instructed to invest strategically to support manufacturing regeneration. I welcome the new development being undertaken by the docklands development corporation in the royal docks, which will promote an international exhibition centre, a university college, a technology centre and high-technology manufacturing. Among the projects now being considered for single regeneration budget funding by the Government office for London is the royal docks technology centre, which would provide vital research and development support for east London manufacturing, in partnership with universities.
  Partnership between public and private sectors, as exemplified in that bid, is the key to attracting and creating the "patient money" that alone can achieve the long-term economic success that London needs. The result could be high quality locations for companies in the new and growing sectors, such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, information technology, biotechnology and environmental technology.

  247
  The Government's existing regeneration programmes can be used to achieve in east London the high-quality sites that those new sectors demand. It is astonishing that London has only 7 per cent. of the technology park floor space that Birmingham has. Elsewhere, technology parks have been developed by universities on their vacant land, but London's universities do not have that vacant land. It is not physically possible for them to follow the successful examples of Cambridge, Surrey and Heriot-Watt universities.
  Land is, however, available in east London. City challenge, assisted area status, urban development corporations, English Partnerships and regional challenge should all point in the same direction to achieve locations for modern manufacturing. As yet, they do not. There is no need for extra money, but there is a need for a more strategic application of the existing money. There are single regeneration budget bids before Ministers at present which aim—like the royal docks—to strengthen east London's manufacturing. Those bids deserve support.
  I also welcome the recognition of the importance of improving the links between industry and universities. That is obviously right. If the next industrial era is to be an information age, the extension and exploitation of the knowledge base is critical. Strong industry is best organised in clusters, whether in the potteries or in silicon valley. They allow firms to sharpen each other's competitiveness and pull in the skills and support services that firms need. In turn, that strengthens the cluster.
  In an information age, higher education is vital in enabling industry and clusters to develop. This is not just about providing links to research, but about investing to produce entrepreneurial graduates and young people whose study turns into business ideas and who are then actively encouraged to found new companies.
  Clusters are regional, as are the strongest industry-university links. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West referred to the changes that are needed in regional policy, and he has drawn Members' attention to the increasingly impressive contribution of agencies such as Greater London Enterprise and others around the country. Colleges and universities must rediscover their regional roles inside society and the economy.
  The technology foresight programme and the White Paper on competitiveness—to which reference has been made—are right to envisage better bridges between universities and industry. A partnership between universities and innovative small and medium-sized companies will be especially important, as few smaller companies on their own have the resources for long-term research. Their well-being—and a large slice of our future prosperity—will depend on their ability to establish and sustain long-term partnerships with universities.
  Universities can stimulate the creation of the new companies of the information age as well. If we overlay the different trends in east London, we discover a high density of manufacturing employment and a high density of unemployment. We also discover that there are low levels of post-16 education take-up and low levels of jobs in the modern information-based economy. Those trends are accompanied by the highest birth rate in the United Kingdom, which portends a troubled future unless the relationship between education and training on the one hand, and manufacturing expansion on the other, is developed a long way beyond its current state.
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the importance of linking education to industry, and the dismantling of the binary divides certainly helped in that direction. If the hon. Gentleman is so committed to the right kind of technical education, why would his party—given half a chance—abolish city technology colleges?
  Mr. Timms: I see precious little evidence that city technology colleges are tackling any of the issues that I have raised in the debate. They are irrelevant, and they are not addressing the key issues.
  Local collaborations are emerging with enormous potential for good. The Government are still not focused and do not act to give incentives to such collaborations—no matter which Department or Minister is involved. That fundamental problem has not yet been tackled successfully, despite the establishment of the regional Government offices and the overarching persona of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  We need to create the right infrastructure, particularly in transport and communications. I start with a compliment. Much has been achieved in east London. In transport infrastructure, the docklands road system, the light railway and the Jubilee line extension are major and positive achievements. I was intrigued by the phrase used by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks)—a "fairly sound transport infrastructure"—to describe the position in the United Kingdom, but the key element in the transport infrastructure in east London remains uncertain.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the transport infrastructure in east London, can he explain why the Labour party scuppered the crossrail project?
  Mr. Timms: I very much hope that crossrail will go ahead, and I believe that it will.
  The key element in the transport infrastructure in east London is what is to happen to the channel tunnel rail link. When the Government announced in 1991 that the channel tunnel rail link was to be routed through east London, they said that the link would be welcomed in east London for the economic regeneration that it would bring. That was correct. I was leader of Newham council at the time, and we welcomed the announcement for that very reason.
  Four years later, however, we still do not know for sure if there will be a station in east London. The Transport Select Committee rightly said that the station at Stratford was needed in the national interest, as well as in the interest of regenerating east London. We need the Government to confirm that they will allow the east London station to go ahead. East London faces Europe. It is the place where Europe reaches London, and the Government should join local authorities, training and enterprise councils and universities in exploiting it as an asset. We need both the east London international passenger station and a proper channel tunnel rail freight strategy.
  Good telecommunications are also vital, and we need a rapid development by the private sector of the new national communications networks mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. Britain can become Europe's knowledge capital, but manufacturing requires high-capacity communications for computer-aided design. The networks will provide new highways for partnerships between companies, and

  249
  between companies and universities. The Government need to provide the right framework and the leadership to ensure that the investment that is needed is quickly achieved.
  Finally, the Government need to ensure the availability of high-quality research data. The absence today of a clear picture of the condition of London's industry in a European context is becoming a critical problem. The standard industrial classification fails to show how the industrial sectors are converging and new ones emerging. Small and medium-sized companies need market data to understand how to expand into Europe, where 60 per cent. of our trade is now carried out.
  We have tremendous needs in east London. Newham, with just over 200,000 inhabitants, has lost 50,000 jobs in the past 25 years. The Government have acknowledged that the regeneration of east London is a national priority, and manufacturing industry will be central to the success of that regeneration. Without it, we shall never create the decent long-term jobs that we need.
  Manufacturing regeneration will happen only with targeted support for new business locations which are fitting for modern manufacturing companies, with creative partnerships between universities and industry, with a world-class transport and communications infrastructure and with high quality market data. Those do not require immense Government spending, but they do require Government action. Inaction will mean decline, a rapid worsening of the already severe deprivation that we face in east London and the unforgivable loss of an opportunity to provide enormous benefits to the whole nation. I do not say that the Government have done nothing—I have made it clear that I welcome a number of their initiatives—but much more needs to be done, as we cannot afford to miss these opportunities.
  12.27 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I shall try to keep my remarks brief, as I am looking forward to the winding-up speeches—particularly that of my old friend, the Under-Secretary. While preparing my thoughts on my short speech, I looked for some coherent policy—[Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "She is walking out."] The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) can read my speech in Hansard tomorrow. Now I can say what I really think!
  We are seeing in effect the devaluation "boomlet" following our exit from the exchange rate mechanism petering out. The latest CBI industrial trends survey reveals that business investment is down, and previous speakers have identified a loss of confidence and job losses. There has also been a rise in unit labour costs, a far more important measure than productivity.
  What worries me as a British Member of Parliament is that, when we talk about British manufacturing, we are talking more and more about foreign firms which happen to manufacture in this country. I have no objection in principle to that, but there is a problem that, for every pound of profit that Ford, Samsung or whoever makes in the United Kingdom, about 50p goes away to America, Korea or Japan.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Does the hon. Gentleman know the proportion of British manufacturing that is foreign-owned?
  Mr. MacShane: What is most worrying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am looking forward to the Minister's speech, because he should give a clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Can the Minister name—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have a speech punctuated by various sedentary interventions.
  Mr. MacShane: I invite the Minister to name a single car or computer manufacturer—they are still the key component industries for our future—that is in British hands. That is why we are 18th in the world ranking of relative gross domestic product. We are out of the premier division and the first division. We have a third-rate Government, consisting of Ministers who, for the most part, are queuing up to join the National Westminster bank or GEC. When Amber Valley turns red at the next election, I wish the Under-Secretary good luck on his future job promotion prospects.
  Mr. Sykes: The hon. Gentleman is a well-known pan-European Member. Can he tell me why this country, of all European countries, has attracted 40 per cent. of Japan's inward investment in Europe? Is it because of our deregulated market or the socialist policies followed here?
  Mr. MacShane: The answer is simple—other European countries invest far more in themselves than we do. Investment per capita in Austria stands at 79.6 per cent.; in Belgium, 35 per cent.; and in Germany, 59 per cent. The equivalent investment in the United Kingdom is zero per cent. Even more alarming than the OECD's GDP per capita report is the report published in the summer by the World Economic Forum, which ranked the United Kingdom 35th out of 48 countries in terms of education and training in the world's manufacturing economy.
  Yesterday, we read that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that he intends to set up a committee to consider why our industrial training is so poor. Frankly, he need only look in the mirror, because he and his Cabinet colleagues have presided over the destruction of apprenticeship schemes, the de-industrialisation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred and the de-skilling and de-waging of our society. He and his successor at the Department of Trade and Industry seem to think that McDonalds and Burger King can replace the sinews of British manufacturing.
  Do we have an identifiable industrial policy? That is certainly not evident at the Ministry of Defence. Its equivalent in other countries is a lead ministry in supporting the manufacturing sector. We have a Secretary of State for Defence who is so puffed up with his hatred of Europe, and so full of contempt for the necessary politics of international partnership, that he will sell Britain's defence manufacturing sector down the river. He will turn the British armed forces into demonstration teams for American arms dealers. The letters SAS on his office wall actually stand for "sell-off and scrap" what remains of the United Kingdom's defence industry.

  251
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) referred to subsidies. The haphazard policy of subsidisation, which does not seem to follow any coherent—
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I do not wish to be discourteous, but I must make progress.
  Mr. Banks: But the hon. Gentleman mentioned me.
  Mr. MacShane: Very well, I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Banks: When the hon. Gentleman referred to the haphazard nature of policies, I presume that he was referring to the policies of his own party rather than to my remarks.
  Mr. MacShane: Thank you.
  We all know that £80 million has been given to Ford to keep Jaguar production in the west midlands and that £10 million was given to Samsung to expand in the north-east. I have no objection in principle to such funding, but such massive subsidies—more than £150 million offered to firms under the regional selective assistance scheme in the first three months of this year alone—make a mockery of the Government's efforts to outlaw the subsidies that are paid to certain companies in other European countries.
  In common with other Opposition Members with an interest in steel, I have always supported the efforts of British Steel and Ministers to bring pressure to bear on the European Community to stamp out such subsidies. When our own Government send multi-million pound cheques to Ford at Detroit and Samsung in Korea that makes us look foolish and hypocritical as we campaign against European subsidies.
  Mr. Oppenheim: What about Bridgend?
  Mr. MacShane: The Under-Secretary may like to know that Samsung is a Korean firm.
  This country has been offered the possibility of using European structural funds for the regeneration of steel regions such as my own, Rotherham. The European Commission steel area regeneration programme, known as RESIDER, had a budget of £224 million for 1988 to 1992. Because of Government inefficiency, we got only £4.14 million of that, despite the fact that our steel industry suffered the biggest job losses in Europe. The second stage of that initiative, known as RESIDER II, has been allotted reduced funds for 1997–99.
  That programme, together with initiatives on the textile and coal industries, and those concerning military conversions, have been allocated £394 million for 1994–97, and £315 million for 1997–99. We will get £50 million for those industries, but so far the Government have not said that that money from Brussels will be used to support the steel, textile and coal industries and the military conversion sector. Many in the steel industry fear that that money will be used to buy votes in marginal seats in the south rather than to support the conversion and re-industrialisation of the steel sector.
  I want to hear the Under-Secretary pledge that European cash for steel under the RESIDER II programme will be allocated to help conversion
  252
  programmes in Rotherham and other steel communities. It would be the most cynical corruption of that programme's money were it to be used for any other purpose.
  I look for some balance and equilibrium. We need a service industry and a healthy financial services sector, but we also need a new industrial programme. That is why I welcome the proposals announced this morning by the shadow Chancellor. Under Labour again, we need a one-nation manufacturing policy in which industry and manufacturing will once again be given their rightful place.
  12.36 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on initiating this debate. I am sure that my congratulations reflect the admiration felt for him by everyone in the Chamber.
  We have had a good debate. I was especially glad that my hon. Friend saw fit to begin his speech by highlighting the cultural problem from which we still seem to suffer concerning the status of the manufacturing sector. I know from his previous speeches that the Under-Secretary is also concerned about that. I hope that he will address that issue today and tell us whether he has any new ideas to reward those employed in that sector; they would then receive the recognition that they deserve for their central role in our economy and society.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will also address the critical questions raised by my hon. Friend about the extremely worrying slump in industrial investment. We have great firms—there is no question about that—and we should celebrate them a lot more than we do.
  We must also address the serious problem of under-investment, which was the theme of much of today's debate. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the average level of investment in the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1993 as a share of the economy was the lowest of the G7 countries. The August inflation report from the Bank of England noted that investment is now 20 per cent. below the level that it was in previous recoveries. That is a significant indicator, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay careful attention to it.
  The statistics quoted by my hon. Friend reinforced vividly the case made this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who called for urgent Government action to arrest this country's relative decline in the league table of national income per head, which was published by the OECD. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will want to explain why the United Kingdom has slumped from 13th to 18th place in the league table.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: That is not likely.
  Dr. Howells: I hope that the Under-Secretary will do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned that in 1851 Britain had the most dynamic economy in the world. Like me and hundreds of thousands other others in this country, he bitterly regrets our relative decline as a manufacturing country. We are proud of our industrial heritage. Those who try to pour scorn on what we argue should realise that that is where we come from.

  253
  When I read tables that chart our continuing relative decline, it offends me. I do not want Britain to be outstripped in the prosperity league table by countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, Hong Kong and Singapore—countries that have never enjoyed a fraction of the benefits that we have enjoyed of mighty natural resources of coal, gas and oil and our wonderful geographical location as one of the great trading nodes of the Atlantic and European economies.
  The Under-Secretary must tell us why we have slumped under his Government's management and why, with some of the world's finest scientists and greatest educational traditions, we continue to invest less in our manufacturing industries than do our competitors. He might try to explain how we can begin to educate and train our people and to modernise our welfare state so that it provides new incentives for employment and skills and the opportunity for Britain to tap the enormous creative potential of the 2 million people, many of them young, who are trying to find a pathway from welfare into work.
  Most important of all, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us when and how the Government intend to construct a modern competition policy capable of tackling the sort of monopolies and market rigging by vested interests that is holding the country back. He must know that competitiveness abroad depends on greater competition at home. It also depends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) said, on recognising the urgent need for the Government to be proactive and infinitely more energetic in transforming potential business locations such as Newham—and scores of other places the length and breadth of the country—where old industries have died and where there remains a crying need for properly targeted support for new business locations and, as my hon. Friend put it so well, for creative partnerships to be developed between universities and industries.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said, the need to encourage high-quality research, and to collect and disseminate accurate data on that research, is of central importance if our universities, training and enterprise councils, business links, local authorities and all the other agencies operating in and around the sector are to succeed in playing a part in the transformation of our manufacturing industry.
  The great success of co-ordinated ventures, where they have occurred, should be replicated across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) stressed the need for the regions of England to have a greater say in shaping the economies of the regions in the way that we in Wales and Scotland have done through our development agencies. That would help to encourage that sense of belonging, identity and pride that was such an important component of industrial success a century ago right across these islands.
  As all my hon. Friends emphasised, there must be a sane and urgent assessment of our transportation and telecommunications infrastructure if we are to maintain our position as manufacturing producers and world traders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South observed, congestion, whether in our airports or on our roads, railways or telecommunications highways can only waste our resources and energy as manufacturers.
  254
  Let the Government be under no illusion: the Labour party has no higher priority than to address the problem of how to arrest the trend of relative decline in investment and prosperity.
  As one who has been associated in various capacities with the coal mining industry in this country on and off over 20 years, I have few illusions about the performance and nature of publicly owned enterprises and what can happen as a result of overcentralised planning and management. I witnessed the meddling hands of Whitehall combined with the half-witted prejudices and dogmas of those on the Government Benches strangle what little spirit of initiative remained in the industry by the early 1980s. Nor do I doubt that, perhaps even by the late 1960s, the National Coal Board's management mechanisms for deciding production and investment policy were wholly incapable of responding to the demands of rapidly changing markets and energy technologies.
  Those short histories apply more or less equally to a range of industries, including key ones such as car and motor cycle manufacture. For those who were born and raised in communities that depended on those enterprises, the experience of the past couple of decades has been painful in the extreme. As we heard in the debate, no one understands that experience better than my hon. Friends.
  Labour has every wish to ensure that never again will our communities be forced to endure the rates of unemployment and social deprivation that resulted in no small part from the inability of those charged with managing our economy to understand the changing demands of the market, to help ease the pains of transition and to provide the infrastructure required by modern manufacturing.
  I recognise the strengths and benefits of a market economy but also the need to guard against market failure where the market is not delivering a solution that benefits consumers and customers. Where that happens, we should be able to design a minimum amount of intervention as a corrective so that the market works for the benefit of the many and not the few, if Government economic and industrial policy is to be designed to produce a better, more equitable and more prosperous society.
  We have had a helpful debate today. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) could not give us the benefit of his great experience by telling us how we should run the economy. I am sure that his interventions have been helpful.
  More helpful, however, have been the contributions of my hon. Friends. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take them seriously and give us some answers.
  12.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for the spirit of his comments. He will be disappointed to learn that I agree with some of them and with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), whose choice of debate I welcome. It is an important issue.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned that too often in Britain manufacturing is regarded as a second-rate option. We have a cultural aversion to

  255
  manufacturing. Britain must be the only country in the developed world where, if people say that they are engineers, it is thought that they have come to mend the washing machine. That is not the job of an engineer—not that there is anything wrong with people who mend washing machines.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South is also right to believe—this has pervaded the debate—that our manufacturing decline started not in 1979, as some people have liked to try and make out over the past 15 years, but in the 1850s or 1860s. We have had a long period of relative decline in manufacturing.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is the Whigs' fault then?
  Mr. Oppenheim: It is the Whigs' fault. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger unerringly on it.
  Mr. MacShane: Where are they?
  Mr. Oppenheim: That is probably why they have not turned up, not that there are many of them. There is a difference between Whigs and Liberals. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) should read his 19th-century history.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South about the idea that the decline has somehow continued. In fact, as I hope to show, we have shown some improvement, not necessarily since 1979 but certainly since the early 1980s, and tribute should be paid to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned some other points on which I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked about the ascent of the Asian tigers as being largely the result of protection and industrial policy. That is a little simplistic. For one thing, Hong Kong and Singapore have been very open markets, relatively speaking, and have had little in the way of industrial strategy. Between 1982 and 1994, those countries increased their imports four times but Britain's exports to those countries increased by five times. That shows that the picture is not only of decline; there are areas where we have done very well indeed.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South also mentioned that we had to have a visionary industrial plan. Visionary industrial plans are rather easier to talk about than implement. I seem to recollect from my childhood and student days that we had a visionary industrial plan in Britain the 1960s and 1970s; I shall return to its results later.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham seems to want a policy of guns, not butter, and to believe that Britain should somehow pour money into an industrial strategy to encourage the arms industry, which sets him at odds with many members of his party. He also seems to think that inward investment is not a totally good thing because we lose control, and he said that the investment in this country by Samsung and by Ford was a mixed blessing. Inward investment has gone on for many years. In fact, one of the few successes in inward investment under the last Labour Government was a huge Ford engine plant in Bridgend that was financed from the United States.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) made many very valid points about the link between education and industrial
  256
  performance. I shall return to that issue later. Many people are hung up on the idea of industrial strategy and Governments doing this, that or the other. We can assist industry by improving education and training. The hon. Gentleman should probably have given the Government some credit for the fact that the number of people in higher education has increased from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. Although they need some fine tuning, the launch of national vocational qualifications is a huge step toward improving vocational education.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham or the hon. Member for Bradford, South—I forget which—referred to the British Telecom agreement as a great example of the way forward in leading edge industrial strategy. BT has pulled a fast one over the Opposition, and it will be laughing all the way to the bank. It appears that, in return for cabling hospitals and schools—many of which are cabled anyway—it will have a virtual monopoly over the provision of cable services nationwide. I must inform the hon. Gentlemen that cabling is free. However, the subscriptions paid afterwards are not free, and BT has not agreed to waive those charges. That is a classic example of the naivety of the Labour party when it comes to negotiating with organisations such as BT. It is the consumer who will suffer from carve-ups of the market by vested interests.
  I conclude my canter over the territory covered by Labour speeches by mentioning an advertisement that appeared this morning in The Times and possibly in some other lesser journals. It purported to show that Britain has slipped from 13th to 18th in terms of gross domestic product per head. There was one glaring mistake in the advertisement: it claimed that France had overtaken us, whereas in fact France overtook us during the period of the previous Labour Government.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham might also be interested to learn that the figures in the advertisement have been achieved by inserting Hong Kong and Singapore, which were not included in previous tables. It is true that Hong Kong and Singapore produce more per head than we do. They are great paragons of the relatively open market and low taxation. According to the World bank, Hong Kong and Singapore also rank above Germany, Japan and France—so we are not in bad company in that respect.
  Many Labour speeches have the pervading theme that markets are imperfect, and that therefore Governments should step in to perfect what Labour Members call "market failures". I am a free marketeer who agrees that markets are imperfect—very few things in this world are perfect. I am afraid that the idea that politicians and civil servants can step in and resolve market imperfections has been disproved by a long litany of failed interventions on the part of politicians and civil servants. Markets are imperfect, but unfortunately the decisions made by politicians and civil servants to try to correct market failures are even more imperfect.
  Politicians are at a disadvantage in that regard. The market is an aggregate of thousands, sometimes millions, of decisions by the people most concerned with it: investors, consumers, shareholders and workers. Their aggregate decisions are likely to be better than those decisions made by politicians and civil servants who almost invariably do not have access to the same information.

  257
  Even if they did have such access, as hon. Members who remember the 1970s will know all too well, the decisions of politicians and civil servants are distorted by vested interests. Politicians and civil servants are influenced by vested interests, and the most politically powerful vested interests will receive most of the money.
  Labour Members seemed to think that British manufacturing has done particularly badly in the past 15 years. The 1960s and 1970s were probably the nadir of British manufacturing under Governments of all political persuasions, not just Labour Governments. The performance of British industry during that period was so poor that many foreign observers genuinely wondered whether Britain had a real future as an industrial nation. Poor labour relations and low productivity in huge swathes of our manufacturing industry led to Britain's falling further and further behind our main competitors and to a steady decline in our share of the world market for manufactured goods.
  In the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was bottom of the G7 countries when it came to growth in manufacturing productivity and output. Growth in manufacturing output actually fell between 1974 and 1979. Let us not forget that those were the days of grandiose state-sponsored industrial strategies, when British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and British Leyland cars were, sadly, the butt of musical hall jokes—that is when the nightshift was not asleep or on strike.
  Mr. MacShane: Or both.
  Mr. Oppenheim: That is right.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd correctly pointed out that the decline in manufacturing in the early 1980s proved very painful for many communities. Conservative Members must recognise that fact. Mining areas in my constituency suffered not just in the early 1980s but in the 1960s and 1970s when Labour Governments closed many pits. We must realise that mining communities underwent a painful transformation.
  However, Labour Members should also recognise that manufacturing output has expanded rapidly since the early 1980s to make up the lost ground. I think that Labour Members know in their heart of hearts that much of the industry that was lost in the early 1980s was inefficient and unsustainable capacity, which was kept alive on a drip-feed of Government subsidies and protection from foreign competition.
  Since then, the growth in Britain's manufacturing output has not only made up all that lost ground, and more, but put us on the G7 manufacturing output average. We have moved from the bottom to the middle of the league. A much more important figure is the growth in productivity. During the 1960s and 1970s, we were
  258
  bottom of the tables for productivity growth in manufacturing. During the 1980s and 1990s, we moved to the top of that league. British manufacturing productivity was higher than that of Japan, Germany, France and Italy during the 1980s and 1990s.
  A recent independent report has shown that we have made up three quarters of the productivity gap between Britain and Germany. In every decade since the war until the early 1980s, the productivity gap between Britain and Germany widened. Since 1980, we have made up three quarters of that lost ground. Labour Members should recognise that there have been some successes as a result of factors such as increased competition and privatisation.
  Companies such as British Steel, that were almost basket cases are now highly successful. British Steel is the fourth largest steel producer in the world. It is highly profitable, it exports half of its output and it supplies 80 per cent. of the domestic market. The Rolls-Royce aero-engines company, which was almost written off in the 1970s, doubled its share of the market for civil aero engines following privatisation. Privatisation and the hands-off approach has had an effect. I also believe that sounder monetary policy and lower taxes and inflation have created a more stable environment.
  We must improve our standards of education if we are to close the remaining gap between Britain and the best economies, such as Germany and Japan. We have not overtaken those countries; we have caught up a lot of lost ground, but we still have some to make up. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that education has been our Achilles' heel since the middle of the 19th century. I hope that we are about to reach some sort of consensus on the issue. We must improve vocational education and ensure high standards in education.
  In the past, Labour Members have opposed many of our education reforms. However, in their heart of hearts, I believe that they accept that many, if not all, of the reforms were necessary and worth while. Conservative Members accept that those reforms take some time to bed down. It takes time to change the culture of an education system that has been in place for 30 or 40 years. We must recognise that some disruption will occur.
  However, there are no magic solutions that will improve manufacturing performance. We must improve education and training, and ensure a stable monetary policy that maintains low inflation, which will allow manufacturing industry to invest for the long term and get away from short-termism. We must have a low-tax regime that does not crowd out the manufacturing sector.
  Although we continue to have differences, the opinions of Conservative Members and Labour Members about those issues are a great deal closer together than they were 15 years ago. I recognise that we have not done everything right, but I hope that Opposition Members will acknowledge that we have made significant progress in making our manufacturing industry more competitive and productive and increasing output since 1989.

  Motorway Service Area (Iver)
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the important matter of the proposed motorway service area at Iver on the M25 in my constituency.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will reply to the debate, not only because he is the Minister responsible for that aspect of policy, but because, as the hon. Member for Slough, he knows that part of the country as well as anyone, and is especially well qualified to make a judgment about that important matter.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the fact that he has agreed later to receive a petition that I hold in my hand, which was signed by nearly 2,000 local people and which gives some sign of the strength of feeling about this proposal. I am especially grateful to those people who have gone to great lengths and put in a great deal of hard work to collect all those signatures, especially Mrs. Eileen Sibley, who is secretary of the Iver Lane and district residents association, who personally collected about 800 signatures.
  An inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment has recommended that a motorway service area should be built on the M25 at Woodlands Park, Iver, in my constituency. In my opinion, that is one of the most perverse and indefensible planning recommendations that I have ever come across. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House why it should not be allowed to proceed.
  There are three motorway service areas on the M25—one each in the north, south and east quadrants. It is generally agreed that there is a need for a fourth motorway service area in the western quadrant, as the distance between the one in the north and the one in the south is 63 miles. I do not disagree with that conclusion, although I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Woodlands Park is 24 miles from the one in the north but 39 miles from the one in the south, so it is by no means equidistant between the two.
  The history of that matter is, as my hon. Friend confirmed to me in a written reply last week, that the Department of Transport commissioned a survey of possible sites in July 1984. That led to an announcement, in 1988, that the Department would promote a motorway service area at Iver. However, that was not the Woodlands Park site, but a site on the other side of the M25, between Iver Village and Richings Park. In the end, for various reasons, no planning application was submitted.
  In 1989, the Department of Transport announced a fresh search for a motorway service area site on the western quadrant. Soon after, the provision of motorway service areas was deregulated, and the search for a suitable site was abandoned.
  We now move to February 1994, when Cape Plc and Corporate Land Ltd. submitted three planning applications for a motorway service area at Woodlands Park. Those were determined by Buckinghamshire county council, because that site is the subject of an existing minerals and waste disposal planning permission.
  When the applications were submitted, the Department was still proposing to build link roads along the M25
  260
  between the M4 and the M40. Since then, it hasabandoned that proposal, and instead proposes to build a fifth lane in each direction to accommodate the increased traffic. I believe that it was for that reason that the Department directed the county council to refuse planning permission.
  The Department gave two reasons. The first was that the development of a motorway service area would be incompatible with the link road proposals; obviously, that objection is no longer relevant. The second was that the motorway service area would be incompatible with the use of the motorway in its present state, as regards both the safety and function of the motorway as part of the national system for through traffic. I believe that reason to be as relevant today as it was last year. Indeed, I believe it to be a conclusive reason not to implement that scheme.
  Although the county council had no choice but to refuse the planning application, it considered all the other issues arising from it. It concluded that planning permission should be refused for those reasons, too.
  First, the council said that it had not been demonstrated that that was the proven optimum site in the western quadrant of the M25. Secondly, it said that it had not been demonstrated that the development on a former waste disposal site could be carried out safely during and after construction. Thirdly, it said that the proposed hotel was not a necessary facility, and might become a destination in its own right.
  Fourthly, the council said that the motorway service area, because of its excessive size and unsatisfactory siting, would be unduly obstructive and detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and to the character of the area. Fifthly, it said that the MSA would, according to the advice of the National Rivers Authority, be at direct risk of flooding, and would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
  Cape Plc and Corporate Land Ltd. appealed against the refusal of planning permission. Between 22 November and 9 December 1994, the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the appeal held a public inquiry at the Evreham centre, Swallow street, Iver. Evidence was given by the appellants and by Buckinghamshire county council and individual witnesses, included County Councillor Mrs. Audrey Bainbridge, County Councillor Mrs. Ros Wingrove, District Councillor Mr. Richard Worrall, and Mrs. Sibley, whom I have mentioned.
  Those individual witnesses said that, for many years, local residents had suffered the adverse effects of two previous exploitations of the site—mineral extraction and industrial waste filling—as well as those arising more recently from the addition of fourth lanes to the M25. Now, just as the site has been restored to a rural appearance, they are confronted with the prospect of further and permanent damage to their residential environment by the construction and subsequent operation of a massive motorway service area.
  Those witnesses told the inquiry that noise and air pollution levels in the locality, not least from the M25, are already high, and would be further aggravated by the appeal proposals.
  Those witnesses said that asbestosis and related diseases are well known at first hand in the locality, including numerous deaths, especially of former employees of Cape. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend

  261
  the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) in his place, since many of his constituents will be affected by that proposal. Later, he will say a few words about an aspect that we both consider extremely important—what will happen when the site is dug up and asbestos, which is buried in the site, is exposed.
  The local objectors also claim that the assessment of need for a motorway service area does not take into account the relative proportions of long-haul and short-hop traffic on the M25. Lastly, but by no means least, they said that the motorway service area, with its approach roads and its overbridges, would have a devastating visual impact on the present rural appearance of the site.
  I deal now with the inspector's conclusions. The inspector complains that neither Buckinghamshire county council nor South Buckinghamshire district council nor any other local authority has even mentioned an alternative site. What does the inspector mean by that? Is he saying that the planning authority is required to consider a planning application not only on its absolute merits but on its merits relative to the merits of a range of hypothetical alternatives? If so, he is talking nonsense.
  As the director of planning services of South Buckinghamshire council said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), dated 29 September, local authorities are not in a position to carry out a detailed analysis of propositions concerning alternative sites. Local authorities do not have the responsibility or the resources to do that. Councils have not been asked to do that by the Government; nor did the inspector state that that was required in this case.
  If an applicant seeks to demonstrate that an exception should be made to green belt policy, the onus must surely be on that applicant to prove that there are no suitable alternative sites. That was not done satisfactorily in this case. For the inspector to imply criticism of local authorities and to expect an optimum site to be put forward by them is wholly unacceptable. Given that the inspector has not been able to say that Woodlands Park is the optimum site suggests that the decision is flawed.
  The inspector's logic is as follows: we need an MSA in the western quadrant of the M25; the whole of the western quadrant is in a green belt area, so we must make an exception to green belt policy and put the MSA in the green belt; no one has come up with a satisfactory alternative to Woodlands Park, so Woodlands Park it must be. That is the logic of the madhouse, but it is, of course, partly due to deregulation.
  The Department of Transport abandoned the strategic approach to MSA site evaluation in favour of a more free-market approach. Although that may be acceptable generally, I doubt whether it makes a great deal of sense when there is a presumption against development in the entire area of search.
  As I said, the proposed site is 24 miles from the northern motorway service area on the M25, but 39 miles from the southern one. That suggests that the optimum site would be some seven or eight miles further south than Woodlands Park, somewhere to the south of the M4. However, it is not my job to propose alternative sites, nor
  262
  is it the job of local councils. It is something to which, in these exceptionally difficult circumstances, the Department of transport should once again turn its attention.
  The inspector also ignored the cumulative effect of development in the green belt. I am concerned that each planning application should be considered on its merits without reference to what is going on elsewhere. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads knows my constituency well, so I draw his attention to the Eton college rowing lake and the National Rivers Authority's flood relief scheme. They were decided by planning inspectors without reference to each other, even though they impact on precisely the same area.
  The South Buckinghamshire district council gave evidence to the inspector on the proposed development but the inspector chose to ignore it. The fact is, however, that every month the fragile green belt is under further attack. This month, it is a proposal from the Central Railway company to build a new railway through my constituency, complete with a 100-acre marshalling yard in the green belt at Denham.
  Forty years ago, Iver was a delightful village in a genuinely rural area. Since then, it has endured the construction of the M4 and its subsequent widening, the construction of the M25 and its widening, mineral extraction on a massive scale, substantial dumping of waste, the threat of a large sludge treatment works to be transferred from Heathrow if the fifth terminal there is given to go-ahead—and now this.
  I suppose that Iver might today be described as semi-rural, but if the proposal goes ahead and the last piece of green belt between Iver and London is destroyed, a better description might be "suburban". At that point, one will be entitled to ask what is the point of having a green belt if we keep on making exceptions to it, because, in the end, there will be no green belt left.
  I believe that the inspector has seriously misdirected himself. He has concluded that Iver is the best site because no one has come up with anything better. He has gone out of his way to criticise local authorities for their failure to produce alternative solutions, although they have no obligation to do so. He has completely ignored the cumulative effect of development in the green belt. I hope very much that the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will throw out his flawed recommendations.
  1.14 pm
  Sir Michael Shersby: I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). My constituency immediately adjoins his, and the residents of the Cowley area of my constituency are especially affected by the proposal.
  I object strongly to the proposed development, which, as my hon. Friend said, would mean a further substantial loss of the green belt. As president of the London Green Belt Council, I share my hon. Friend's astonishment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment could even consider allowing the proposal to go ahead. However, as my hon. Friend said, there is another reason for not allowing the proposal to continue—the danger to public health that would arise if asbestos

  263
  deposited on the site years ago were to be removed, even under what are reassuringly known these days as controlled conditions.
  The danger is the risk of mesothelioma, which is caused by the inhalation of minute asbestos fibres and which results in death many years later. This has been known to the Government and to the asbestos industry for many years. For example, in 1949, Dr. H. Wyers, who was then the medical officer at the Cape Asbestos Company, now Cape plc—the joint developer of the site—reported 115 fatal cases in which asbestosis was mentioned, and provided evidence of lung and pleural cancers accompanying it. The average age of death was 40.8 years. The late 1950s and early 1960s was the time in history when the ability of asbestos fibres to cause mesothelioma was finally and officially recognised throughout the world.
  The assessor who was appointed to advise the inspector who conducted the public inquiry was there to advise on technical aspects, with specific reference to landfill and the associated problems of gas and leachite production. With hindsight, it would have been much better had the inspector been assisted by an environmental assessor to help him consider the inherent dangers of developing the site, given that it has been used to dump quantities of asbestos.
  Paragraph 14 of the assessor's report states:
  "it is known that extreme precautions must be adopted by anyone handling the material in quantity".
  That statement is rather misleading, as the Health and Safety Executive Guidelines refer to the need for precautions to be taken by anyone handling asbestos, not only those handling it "in quantity".
  The assessor goes on to state that the fact that
  "it can be handled in safety is highlighted by the common practice now of the removal of asbestos from schools and many public buildings".
  I suggest, however, that it is very difficult to see the connection between such present-day practices and the very open site of some 44 acres being considered for a motorway service area.
  It is well known that the technique used to remove asbestos involves the creation of negative pressure, and the removal inside a plastic tent from which the air is sucked through a filter. That is the best way of keeping all the microscopic death-dealing fibres in the working area. However, those fibres are so small that they are not visible to the human eye, and are absolutely lethal when inhaled.
  I understand from the information at my disposal that all three of the common types of asbestos—chrysolite, which is white, amosite, which is brown, and crocodilite, which is blue—are present on the site. How would lorries enter and leave a 44-acre site under a plastic tent, going through the necessary airlocks? It is inconceivable. What about the danger to the workmen involved in carrying out such a hazardous operation? It has been suggested that a soil covering of 500 mm be used to cover the operation at night, but there is no recognition of the fact that the soil will then be contaminated, and will similarly have to be excavated and removed.
  I invite the House and the Minister to consider the dangers to the environment and to health inherent in any such work involving large-scale excavation and piling on land contaminated in this way. The assessor goes on to say:
  "This is by no means an ideal site".
  I completely agree.
  264
  I therefore tell my hon. Friend, and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, that there will be a serious risk to human health if this site is excavated for the construction of a motorway service area. That risk is far too great, and should not be taken. I therefore hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will change his mind and refuse planning permission.
  1.20 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on the clear way in which they have expressed the case on behalf of their constituents. They will know that attempts to provide a motorway service area on the western side of the M25 have a long and complicated history.
  In November 1989, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic announced that existing plans for Iver were to be abandoned, and a fresh site search for an MSA on the western part of the M25 would be undertaken. The reasons for this return to the drawing board were summed up in the announcement as
  "the very complex problems which make the provision of a single-sided site at Iver very unlikely in the foreseeable future."
  My hon. Friends may well think that my predecessor's assessment got it absolutely right. They might equally wonder what has changed since 1989. The most important change was that, in 1992, the provision of new MSAs was deregulated. What this means in practice is that it is now for the private sector rather than my Department, as it was in the past, to identify sites for new MSAs, secure planning permission and acquire the land.
  It is therefore under these deregulated arrangements, rather than at the Department's instigation, that the present proposals have emerged. There were, of course, three applications for Woodlands Park; all were submitted by the same developer. All three applications were referred to both the Highways Agency and the planning authority. The agency's response was to object to each of them, on the grounds that development of an MSA at this site would prejudice the proposed M4-M40 link roads. That objection, together with the planning authority's own views on the applications, led to all three being refused.
  It was the developers' appeal against those refusals that led to the public inquiry which took place in November and December last year. At the start of the inquiry, the agency maintained its earlier objections to all three schemes. As the inquiry proceeded, however, the developer submitted revised drawings showing amended accesses.
  The agency's engineers discussed these revised proposals with the developer, and as a result were able to tell the inspector that the revised proposals met the technical standards for connection to the dual four-lane M25. But the agency maintained its objections to all three proposals, on the grounds that they would prejudice the provision of the proposed link roads.
  That was the position when the inquiry closed. There have, though, been some further developments since. In particular, we announced that it was not now proposed to build the link roads, and that we would seek instead to widen the M25 from four lanes to five in each direction between the M4 and M40.

  265
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment considered that our revised proposals for this section of the M25 did potentially amount to a significant new factor which he ought to take into account in considering the inspector's recommendation. That is why he announced on 25 September this year that he was minded to allow two of the appeals, but that he would defer his decision for three weeks. The additional time was to allow interested parties to make any further representations to take account of the new factors.
  I now turn to some of the more specific points which my hon. Friends have raised. I have already made the point that the Woodlands Park proposal is in no sense a Government proposal. The Department has had plans of its own in the past for an MSA at Iver—although not in the same location—but never reached the stage of submitting a planning application.
  The Department's only view, which is set out in its advice to local planning authorities, is that MSAs should not generally be more than about thirty miles apart. That is not simply because we like to see regular MSAs for their own sake. It is important to safety that motorists should have a chance to stop every 30 miles or so. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has accepted that there is a case for a motorway service area somewhere on the western quadrant of the M25, although not at this location.
  Beyond that, the Department's direct involvement is limited to ensuring that the proposals meet our technical requirements for an MSA. In other words, we need to be satisfied that, if planning permission were to be granted, the MSA could be connected safely to the M25.
  A point which I know has been raised in this context is that we have recently begun the trial of a controlled motorway scheme for the M25 between junctions 11 and 15, a little to the south of the proposed MSA. The scheme is a response to the very heavy volumes of traffic using this part of our motorway network. One of the aims is to reduce the need for motorists to switch from lane to lane—weaving, to use the jargon term. Yet the agency is apparently prepared to agree to an MSA on this, another section of the M25 carrying very heavy traffic flows, even though the inevitable result will be increased weaving movements as motorists seek to get into and out of the site.
  This seems, I agree, an odd response, but there are two separate considerations. First, departmental standards lay down a minimum distance which must be preserved between successive motorway junctions. That distance is, to use a foreign measurement, two kilometres. On the latest agreed plans for the Woodlands Park MSA, at least this distance is available to all vehicles entering or leaving the MSA on either carriageway.
  The second consideration was whether, even though this technical standard had been met, the Highways Agency should continue to oppose the MSA simply because the extra weaving movements might affect the capacity of this part of the road. Clearly there is a balance to be drawn here.
  The aim of the controlled motorway experiment is to make more efficient use of the existing capacity by controlling speeds and encouraging drivers to stay in lane. There is no doubt that introducing a completely new
  266
  access point, as the MSA would do, means that some of the benefit that we might derive if the controlled motorway experiment is a success—I believe that it is—and is extended past the site would be lost.
  The Highways Agency therefore had to balance the extra weaving movements that the MSA would introduce against the benefits to motorists of having a new MSA on a very long stretch of motorway which currently lacks any services. This is a difficult judgment, but I have instructed officials in the Highways Agency to consider whether it is sensible to allow an MSA at this location, with the attendant disruption to traffic flow, when it may be necessary to impose permanent traffic management on this stretch of road when it is widened to dual five.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has made very clear his own concerns and those of his constituents about the asbestos contamination which affects the site. He will not, I know, expect me either to comment in detail on the technical issues or to anticipate the outcome of the Secretary of State for the Environment's consideration of the inspector's recommendations.
  What I can do is remind my hon. Friend that it was because of the contamination question that the original planning application fell to be considered not by the district council, as would normally be the case, but by Buckinghamshire county council. He will also be aware that the inspector at the inquiry was assisted by an independent assessor appointed by my right hon. Friend specifically to consider the questions raised by the presence of asbestos on the site.
  I know that measures to deal with the contamination were discussed very thoroughly during the inquiry. I am assured that, if planning permission were to be granted, the Health and Safety Executive would be involved in considering detailed schemes for the disposal of asbestos, and will be responsible for ensuring that the operation is carried out correctly.
  That would be guaranteed by conditions which would be attached to any planning permission that might be granted. The conditions would cover, among other things, further site investigations to assess the degree of contamination; measures to deal with it; implementation of those measures; and monitoring of the disposal operations. That is a comprehensive list, which I hope will give my hon. Friends and their constituents some reassurance.
  To conclude, I must stress once again that the current proposals are from the private sector, not from my Department or the Highways Agency. Like any other proposals, they fall to be considered first by the local planning authority and then, in the event of a call-in or an appeal, as here, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  A few days still remain during which interested parties can make representations to my right hon. Friend if they believe that the withdrawal of the Department's link road scheme and the replacement strategy of widening to dual five introduce new considerations which were not adequately aired during the inquiry. Further representations must relate to those considerations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not agreed to reopen the entire inquiry.
  I know that my hon. Friends will understand if I do not allow myself to be drawn any further into consideration of the merits or otherwise of the planning applications. It

  267
  would be wrong for me to do so. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will note the points that my hon. Friends have made. I have no doubt that he will want to ensure that they have all been covered adequately before he announces his decision.

  Fireworks
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about firework safety. I am sure that we all want to see this year's bonfire night celebrations go ahead safely and enjoyably. We do not want to wake up on Monday to learn that the number of firework injuries has risen for the third year running. Last year, more than 1,500 people were injured in firework-related accidents. That was a 48 per cent. increase on the previous year. Over half of those affected were children. There have already been alarming reports this year of firework-related injuries.
  I am sure that the House would think that the Government should be tightening laws on firework safety. I have no doubt that Ministers will say that they are doing so, but I dispute that. As time is short, I shall bring to the attention of the House only two considerations that illustrate my argument. What I have to say will show that Ministers' zeal for what they call deregulation has made a bonfire of essential firework safety measures and has increased red tape rather than reducing it in enforcing the regulations that remain.
  First, I want to draw attention to the sale of fireworks to children under the age of 16 years. Secondly, I shall draw attention to the importing of dangerous fireworks into the United Kingdom. The seriousness of selling fireworks to children under 16 will be clear to anyone who has noted the increased number of "here today, gone tomorrow" shops that open to sell fireworks shortly before bonfire night, only to close soon after.
  In Birmingham, an operation planned by one of the local newspapers, the Birmingham Evening Mail, and the trading standards department found last week that nine out of 10 shops visited proved themselves to be willing and prepared to sell fireworks to a girl under the age of 16 years. Until this year, the firework safety regulations that were introduced in 1986 gave clear responsibility to trading standards departments to prosecute shops selling fireworks to under-16s. The regulations were swept away, however, because the Government said that they duplicated other provisions, and specifically those set out in the Explosives Act 1875. When the Government swept away the regulations, they also did away with the enforcement mechanism. Confusion now reigns over who is meant to be enforcing the law.
  Some trading standards departments, especially in metropolitan areas, do not believe themselves to be authorised to enforce the law.
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burden: I note the Minister's response.
  Ministers insist that the law is much clearer than I believe it to be. That being so, why, on 15 May, in answer to a written question that I tabled, did the Minister inform me that the police constituted the enforcing authority for the Explosives Act? When I asked a virtually identical question on 24 October, why did he present a different answer, to the effect that responsibility was sort of with the police, sort of with trading standards officers and sort of with fire authorities? If the Minister cannot make up his mind who is responsible for enforcing the law, how does he expect the law to be enforced?

  269
  Recent events suggest that the deregulation of import controls on fireworks from abroad is an even more worrying issue. In 1993, the Government scrapped the requirement that there should be specific licences for imported fireworks. Ministers and the Health and Safety Executive's chief inspector of explosives assured everyone that that would not mean that controls would slacken. A letter from Mr. G. E. Williamson, the chief inspector, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 30 November 1993 specifically stated:
  "Importers will still have to make application to HSE, but now for classification and authorization. They will still need to provide evidence that the HSE has classified and authorized the fireworks before the importation takes place, if challenged. Appropriate documentation will be provided. And the importer will need to ensure that the firework meets the British Standard or its equivalent at all times."
  Those sentiments echoed the ones in a letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend of 14 November 1993. I think that the letter was written by the Minister's predecessor.
  If all that is the case, how is it that seven container loads of fireworks bearing the label "Red Lion" came into the country at Southampton in the past few months? They were produced in China and imported by a firm called Kanash, which is based in Northern Ireland. Once they were on sale, Liverpool trading standards officers received a tip-off about the fireworks and seized some for tests. The found that, despite the fact that the fireworks had British standard labels, virtually none of them complied with the relevant standard. Indeed, some were not even eligible for it. The officers found also that six different lines of the fireworks contained sulphur chlorate, which has been illegal in this country since 1894. It can explode if dropped even if the firework has not been lighted. The address that was shown on the label for the fireworks, which was in Liverpool 6, did not exist.
  First, why was the problem with Red Lion fireworks picked up only when they were on the market? Secondly, is it true that Kanash, the importers, contacted the HSE in early 1995 and that the executive gave advice about how the firm could bring in fireworks before the HSE had conducted any tests on the products of that firm? Thirdly, why did the HSE not bother to monitor a brand new company, apparently with a non-existent address in Liverpool and a Belfast connection? Fourthly, is it true that the fireworks were held for several weeks, perhaps even months, at the Royal Ordnance factory at Chorley? Were any tests carried out there?
  Fifthly, has the HSE seen records of tests carried out on the consignment of Red Lion fireworks? If so, where and when were the tests carried out, what were the results and what was done subsequently? Sixthly, seven containers came into the country and only three have been located. What steps are being taken to find the remaining four, which we know arrived in Southampton? Seventhly, what attempts has the HSE made to trace customers and what records has Kanash provided to assist it? Eighthly, will anybody be prosecuting Kanash or the Royal Ordnance factory for importing or storing the fireworks? Ninthly, have any assurances been given to either organisation about immunity from prosecution?
  There are serious questions about Kanash and Red Lion, but the matter does not end there. Last Friday, Cleveland trading standards department informed Her
  270
  Majesty's inspector of explosives at the Health and Safety Executive of the presence of sulphur chlorate in the Thunderstorm firework produced by Black Cat Fireworks. That led to the HSE contacting the local radio station and, I understand, issuing a press release saying that Thunderstorm should be withdrawn from sale. Some important questions still remain about that.
  First, is it true that the HSE was informed of the presence of sulphur chlorate in Thunderstorm fireworks as long ago as the summer of this year by the managing director of Standard Fireworks? Secondly, what action has been taken on the basis of the information that was supplied? As far as I know, no action was taken. Thirdly, what action, beyond a call to the local radio station and issuing a press release, has the HSE taken to ensure the withdrawal of Thunderstorm fireworks from sale? Fourthly, is it true that Cleveland trading standards department has now found sulphur chlorate in a number of other fireworks produced by Black Cat, and that it has informed the HSE about that? What is the HSE doing about that?
  Is the Minister satisfied that Her Majesty's inspector of explosives in particular, and the HSE in general, are doing the job properly? If the Minister is satisfied on that, will he tell me today how many companies' products the HSE tested for sulphur chlorate before 1995, as it has had that responsibility all the way through?
  In the light of all of that, I invite the Minister to agree with me that several things need to be done urgently. First, the firework safety regulations of 1986, which were swept away by Ministers, should now been reinstated. Secondly, import licences for fireworks should be reinstated. Thirdly, there should be, for the first time, mandatory compliance with British standard 7114 for categories 1, 2 and 3, for all fireworks that are made available for sale to the public. Fourthly, all other fireworks should be regarded as category 4 and therefore available only for public displays.
  Does the Minister agree that there should now be proper vetting, by a licensing system, of all those seeking to import fireworks, and that it should include clear assurances about storage requirements and mandatory sample testing for sulphur chlorate, and that fireworks should comply with British standard 7114 before they are distributed? Does he agree that such testing should take place on licensed explosives sites, with proper independent monitoring and with trading standards officers being involved? Does he further agree that, where a container is shared by more than one importer, trading standards departments should be informed of the destination of all consignments, and not just be given a broad-brush generalisation?
  In the light of what has happened with Black Cat, Red Lion and so on over the past few months, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me those assurances today. If he is not able to do so, not only can we not be assured that Her Majesty's inspector of explosives is doing his job properly, but it may be the case that the Minister may not be doing his job properly either.
  1.43 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has allowed me a minute, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) for taking up this cause.

  271
  Is the Minister aware that Lyn Williams, the general secretary of the Police Federation, wrote to him less than three months ago, saying that previous legislation
  "seemed to work well in practice ensuring that the law was well enforced and that many youngsters were, no doubt, prevented from injuring themselves"?
  He continues:
  "I doubt whether any Chief Officer will have the resources available to deal with this problem in the way it has been dealt with over the last fewer years … At the present time it seems that there are attempts to 'plug the gap' by seeing if powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 can be used … We do not consider this satisfactory."
  Is the Minister further aware that the Home Office wrote to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities last week, saying:
  "We have not been able to establish whether the DTI consulted the Home Office before revoking the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986 and we are … unaware of any consideration which may have been given to the implications of the revocation for enforcement. The present position is that we are consulting the DTI and they are now looking into the question of enforcement responsibility"?
  That was written less than two weeks before fireworks were put on sale.
  It is quite clear to some of us that the right wing of the Conservative party seems to want to sweep away any laws. They do not care which laws, as long as they can reduce the number. In this case, the victims are likely to be the children and those who have previously had the enjoyment of fireworks, whom the Minister and his party are now putting at risk.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on his choice of subject, as it gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the Government's efforts to highlight the issue of firework safety—an issue with which, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman began his speech—and there are many important messages there. It also gives me the opportunity to respond to a great deal of the misinformation that there has been concerning the controls that apply, some of which we have heard in this debate.
  For the Government, there are two important matters, the first of which is the misuse of fireworks. The vast majority of injuries—the hon. Gentleman rightly said that more than 1,500 injuries require hospital treatment—result from carelessness and stupidity rather than from the composition of the fireworks themselves. That does not mean, of course, that the Government do not also take seriously ensuring the safest possible structure for fireworks. Indeed, we take measures to ensure that unsafe fireworks do not find their way on to the market. If they have done, we warn the public, in circumstances that have come to the public's attention in recent days, as the hon. Gentleman has already outlined.
  It is true that there has been a rising trend in relation to firework injuries. Having said that, that trend may well reflect an increase in the number of fireworks that are sold. The retail value of fireworks sold has increased by more than 30 per cent. in three years to £43.5 million in 1994. Well over 100 million individual fireworks are sold on to the market, so in those circumstances, the accidents, when taken as a proportion of the number of fireworks on
  272
  the market, pale to a figure in which there is just about one accident for every 65,000 fireworks that are let off. It is very important that the Government take action to try to reduce that still further. However, it is also important that we should set that matter in context.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Evans: I shall do so, but very briefly, because I have already allowed the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to speak.
  Mr. Sheerman: What proportion of those fireworks are made by the one remaining British firework manufacturer, Standard Fireworks, which operates a plant near my constituency; and what proportion come from places such as China, whose standards many of us are worried about?
  Mr. Evans: We have looked at whether imported fireworks have any role to play in terms of the increase in figures. We have no evidence of that at all. Our evidence is that most of the injuries, sadly, are down to complacency, foolishness and stupidity, the illegal use of fireworks and not following the instructions that have been given. That is why I am pleased that Mr. John Woodhead, the public relations director of Standard Fireworks, joined me for the launch of the firework safety campaign a couple of weeks ago and, in fact, endorsed the remarks that I made.
  Let me deal with the important point that the hon. Gentleman made about the sale of fireworks to those who are under the age of 16. Let me make it clear that the retail sale of fireworks to under-16s is prohibited in law today. It has been prohibited ever since 1875 by section 31 of the Explosives Act.
  The supply of fireworks to the general public is also subject to the requirements of the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. Although both Opposition Members and some trading standards officers have expressed doubt, when I spoke to Warwickshire trading standards officers earlier today, they were in no doubt that they had power to act under the regulations. Moreover, it has been stated on national television today that they have decided to do precisely that.
  Mr. Burden: The issue is section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, not the General Product Safety Regulations. What authorises trading standards officers in metropolitan areas to enforce that legislation?
  Mr. Evans: The law was clarified to spell out the fact that the police, in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service, have the clearest role in enforcement of the Explosives Act. However, there is also a well-established responsibility for safeguarding the safety of consumers, and that has been vested with trading standards officers over many years. The penalty for breaches of section 31 and the General Product Safety Regulations is already there, and is enforceable.
  Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: I have given way a number of times, and the hon. Member for Northfield has asked me a number of important questions to which I must respond in the short time that remains.

  273
  My point is that the legislation is there to govern the sale of fireworks to those under 16. The hon. Member for Northfield said that fireworks had been sold to people under 16 in nine out of 10 shops; I hope that that information will be given to the police and trading standards officers so that action can be taken.
  Implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks was the suggestion that such shops mushroom overnight. Trading standards officers have requirements in relation to the licensing of shops that sell fireworks, primarily because of the requirements for storage of those fireworks. I know from contact with my trading standards office that it is enforcing those measures, and my discussions earlier today with Warwickshire trading standards officers suggested that they were enforcing them as well. If there is evidence that shops have started up without the knowledge of trading standards officers, they should be drawn to the attention of both trading standards officers and the police.
  Let me deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about import controls. More than 100 million fireworks are sold in this country each year, and it is clearly not practicable for each firework to be checked. Apart from anything else, the ultimate test is to let the firework off. In the circumstances, it is simply not logical to expect such a degree of control.
  Much has been made of the fact that the position in relation to the licensing of imported fireworks changed in December 1993. Those changes were made to comply with our obligations under the single market, and had nothing to do with the Government's more general deregulation initiatives. However, much misinformation has been disseminated about the changes. Before December 1993, fireworks could be imported only under an import licence that served as a means of authorisation and required fireworks for consumer use to meet British standard 7114. That system has been replaced by an alternative system based on controlling the supply of fireworks, together with reinforced legal provisions for their authorisation.
  The essential point, however, is that under both systems there are tight import controls. Imported fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom must meet the same safety standards as those produced domestically: all fireworks must comply with British standard 7114. Under the new system, as under the old, the applicant must apply to the Health and Safety Executive supplying information about the items that he wishes to import; the onus is on the importer to ensure that safety standards are met. The HSE requires fireworks to meet British standard 7114, and, if satisfied, subsequently authorises them. The HSE continues to enforce the requirements for authorisation of fireworks under the Explosives Act 1875.
  I was asked some specific questions about the position regarding Red Lion fireworks. I have been in touch with the HSE. Three applications were made, dated 21 and 27 April and 22 May, in relation to seeking classification and authorisation of samples for importation. On 25 May, an authorisation was issued; but its purpose was to limit importation for evaluation and test purposes only. Furthermore, it required evidence of compliance with the conditions for authorisation of explosives in Great Britain before the fireworks could be released to the market.
  On importation, the importer arranged for samples to be tested by an independent laboratory. I understand that
  274
  the laboratory in question, which is known as Hayley and Weller, is established as an independent laboratory. The HSE received the first test results from the laboratory on 28 September.
  Subsequently, the HSE raised further questions specifically in relation to an issue that later came to public attention, concerning the possible presence of any sort of prohibited mixture such as sulphur chlorate in the samples. There was an initial response; a certificate was provided from China. The HSE, however, required a certificate from an independent source. Following the provision of independent documentary evidence, authorisation was given for the fireworks to be released for retail sale.
  The hon. Member for Northfield suggested that action taken by Liverpool's trading standards office brought the matter to public attention. A public statement was certainly issued by the office, but the HSE had been undertaking a range of tests relating to fireworks that had reached the retail market—quite apart from the mechanisms to which I referred earlier. As part of that process, some 70 samples were received by the HSE, and two relating to Red Lion were found to contain prohibited substances.
  The action of which we have heard subsequently was initiated because that information was brought to the HSE's attention. It is certainly also true that the Liverpool trading standards office, acting on information from another manufacturer, conducted its own tests. That suggests that the system contains many more import control elements than the hon. Member for Northfield suggested.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give way. I am running out of time, and during the three minutes that remain I want to concentrate on what the Government consider to be important messages.
  Given that 100 million fireworks are to be set off during the next few days, it is important for the general public to be aware that the vast majority of accidents are caused by carelessness and complacency. Sadly, we have seen examples of that in cases that have come to public attention in the past few days. A child in South Shields has been injured by a banger which was thrown in a public place—that was in itself a criminal offence—and in Northern Ireland children have been injured by sparklers.
  Last year, 150 adults—I repeat, adults—were taken to hospital with injuries caused by their own misuse of sparklers. That underlines my point that complacency, stupidity and carelessness are mostly to blame for injuries of this kind. I am grateful to the BBC's "999 Lifesavers" programme, which this Friday will highlight such issues to remind parents of the need for safety at a time when families will naturally want to enjoy their firework celebrations, but must be aware of the accompanying dangers.
  The Government are also obliged to Mr. Derek Thompson, the character Charlie from the BBC's "Casualty", and the lead character in the campaign of the Department of Trade and Industry. During the press conference that I launched on the firework safety campaign, he said that, if we were to keep children out of casualty on 5 November, we had to ensure that we followed the messages on following the firework code. I hope that all parents will take that on board.

  Betting Tax (Horse Racing)
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate and I also thank my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for being here to reply.
  The horse racing industry faced a real crisis over national value added tax differentials with the introduction of the single European market in January 1993, but the opportunity to owners to register for VAT threw a vital lifeline to the bloodstock industry. The entire horse racing industry, and my constituents in Newmarket in particular, was most grateful for that crucial concession from the Treasury.
  Unfortunately, the national lottery's very success in the space of one year has produced fresh difficulties for racing. I remind my hon. Friend that, during the passage of the lottery legislation, a commitment was made that the actual impact of ticket sales would be monitored and reported to Parliament.
  Together with the betting industry, racing employs some 100,000 people in Great Britain. The betting industry generates £4.5 billion in turnover and operates 9,300 betting shops. General betting duty produces some £355 million per annum for the Treasury. Although it is true that betting in real terms has declined over the best part of 30 years, clear evidence exists that it is now falling in absolute terms as well. Bluntly put, the long-term viability of racing is now imperilled. Unquestionably, the arrival of the national lottery and of scratchcards in particular has everything to do with it.
  Betting duty produces an exceptionally good deal for the British taxpayer. Racing receives back just over £50 million from the betting levy and the tote. General betting duty stands at 7.75 per cent. If, however, one takes total turnover and subtracts prize moneys, one comes out with an effective tax rate of 34 per cent.; by comparison, for the national lottery, it is only 24 per cent.
  That tax burden is manifestly unjust. It is threatening not only the profitability of the bookmaking industry but the crucial level of prize money available to competing race horses. It is also beginning to affect greyhound racing.
  My hon. Friend will be aware of significant changes going on in the pattern of racing and of training. Although Britain can claim to be the historic centre of equine activity, new owners and new breeders are taking a much more global view. Some owners now winter their horses in sunnier climes—that would appear to be paying off handsomely. Race meetings outside Europe offer much larger prizes. It has become a cliché to talk of global markets and global communication, but it is happening in horse racing now.
  The prize money available in Britain is looking even more increasingly paltry by international standards. Taking prize money per horse expressed as a percentage of keep and training costs, in Hong Kong it is 100 per cent., in Japan 92 per cent., in France 49 per cent., in the United States of America 47 per cent. and in Germany 43 per cent. In Britain, it is only 21 per cent. and looks set to diminish even from that low level.
  276
  So what, if anything, can be done by owners and breeders? Clearly, it is difficult to reduce the day-to-day costs of owning a race horse. If the risk-to-reward ratio is so poor, and so poor by international standards, it is unsurprising that up to 30 per cent. of owners leave racing each year.
  I alluded to the increasingly international movement of race horses. In a three-year period up to 1994, the number of British-trained horses that successfully competed abroad rose by 75 per cent. For precisely the same reason, foreign-trained entries to British races fell by 30 per cent. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has said that, if the decline in betting activity continues because of the national lottery, it will cause a cut of £6 million from the 1995–96 levy scheme of £55 million. Clearly, the future projections of £57 million for 1996–97 and £59 million for 1997–98 look unattainable.
  In other words, the lack of prize money will discourage new owners, and inevitably cause more British-trained horses to compete abroad and fewer foreign-trained competitors to come here. Sooner or later, that will begin to affect the fixture list. All that is disturbing for employment, tax generation and the industry in general, which is increasingly underfunded by any objective standards. Although underfunding has been a feature of racing for many years, it is now tipping into a chronic state of underfunding.
  The Bookmakers Committee commissioned a report from the Henley centre which estimated that, this year, the reduction in betting turnover resulting from the introduction of the national lottery is fully 8 per cent. More and more national lottery terminals are being installed and a midweek game is planned. In those circumstances, some 15 per cent. of the 40,000 people employed in the betting office industry could lose their jobs and numerous shops could close, with the inevitable consequences of a decline in taxation income.
  I should add that, at the time of the national lottery's introduction, a decision was made not to allow betting shops to offer betting on the national lottery—that is despite the experience in the Irish Republic. That at least would have softened the revenue loss blow. Equally, shops were not permitted to sell lottery tickets. Surely, there is now an opportunity to consider liberalisation.
  That is an unnecessarily oppressive restriction on business. Camelot certainly no longer needs such protection. Such moves could restore turnover to off-course betting activity and would certainly be a deregulatory measure. I urge that contact be made between the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; that could be the basis for at least a partial solution. That deregulatory measure would help the industry to compete on more equal terms. Nobody could have forecast the national lottery's tremendous popular appeal. However, it has a unique competitive edge on other forms of betting. Newspapers have also introduced scratchcards, thereby compounding the problems.
  Simply put, a certain number of punters who might have had a flutter on the races are buying lottery tickets or scratchcards instead. I mentioned the redundancies and shop closures that have already begun. There are other clear signs: there has been a doubling of

  277
  cancellations by betting shops of satellite information services; equally, race sponsorships by bookmakers have been cancelled.
  To sum up, we are caught in an unvirtuous circle: betting turnover diminishes, betting duty revenues fall, the prize money pool shrinks and, at every level, there is ultimately an employment impact. In the bookmaking industry, shops will close and employees get laid off. In the horse racing industry, the direct impact will be on jockeys, trainers and stable staff.
  Of course, I welcome the arrival of the national lottery. I applaud its tremendous success and popular appeal. No other industry, however, is being more directly and clearly hit than horse racing. I have the honour of representing in the House the world's racing capital. I cannot be silent about the impact that the position I have described will have on many of my constituents and their livelihoods. Despite an admirable record of self-help in the industry, only the Government can practically resolve this problem.
  How can that be achieved? Clearly, the level of betting duty must be reconsidered. I have already said that the effective tax burden on punters compares unfavourably with the national lottery. A cut in betting duty would give a considerable and essential boost to racing.
  I need hardly mention that many of the jobs under threat are in rural areas where alternatives are hard to find. A cut in duty would stimulate betting turnover, although, in my view, it is vital that part of that cut finds its way via the levy directly into racing. I hope, therefore, that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget decides to reduce betting duty, he will express his expectation that part of that reduction should go via the levy into racing. My right hon. and learned Friend could, of course, say that the reduction would be contingent on a suitable agreement to enable that to happen.
  The racing industry is overwhelmingly financed by owners, at about three times the total levy and tote contribution. Without a reasonable spread of owners, especially new owners, the industry's financial liability will become impossible. We come back to the unvirtuous circle: diminished prize money reduces the desire of individuals to own race horses, fixture lists become smaller, attendances fall and revenues decline further.
  Racing has an unassailable case for increased investment. The levy provides capital for upgrading facilities at race courses, not only for spectators but for jockeys and horses. Race courses need to be upgraded continuously to attract increasingly demanding race goers and to provide proper safety arrangements. By international standards, the integrity of British racing is extremely high, and this too requires money.
  Other less obvious benefits flow from the proceeds of the levy. Breeders are rewarded for improving their bloodstock and equine veterinary research in Britain needs to be supported. It is probably the finest in Europe and we have been mercifully spared strains of illness that have cropped up elsewhere in the world. Of course, private capital finds its way into all those activities, hut, at the minimum, funds from the levy can
  278
  be used to complement those important endeavours. While prize money continues to remain at the heart of racing's financial problem, there are numerous ancillary activities and projects that provide the backdrop to race meetings themselves.
  It is, of course, the race horse itself that is the linchpin of the industry. A decline in horses in training ripples out in negative ways which I have sought to describe. In a recession, people hold on to their possessions longer. With racing, the unfavourable prize money to cost ratio manifests itself in a current reluctance in Britain to purchase younger horses. Indeed, the number of horses in training is below both the peak 1989 level and even the level of 10 years ago, despite the undoubted attractiveness of VAT registration for owners and the growth in the number of horses in multiple ownership. Only 5 per cent. of new owners and only 7 per cent. of the more long-standing owners cover their costs.
  I do not wish to give the impression that it is only owners who are beneficiaries of prize money. About a quarter of the pool is distributed among stable staff, jockeys and trainers. That, in turn, spills over to a whole spectrum of individuals, such as vets, insurers, farriers, feed merchants, transporters and saddlers. There is an extraordinary misconception about the true and substantial size of employment that racing helps to create.
  At 7.75 per cent., general betting duty is punitive in a uniquely harsh way. The Select Committee on Home Affairs produced, in 1991, a yardstick that there should be the possibility for a race horse to cover its costs, of from £1,000 to £1,500 a month, if it won three races. At present, that is pie in the sky, and it has become even more clear since the inception of the national lottery.
  An urgent cut in general betting duty of an appropriate size is required to restore the industry, at the minimum, to its pre-lottery state. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has had specific representations and recommendations on that score. My own clear view is that any cut should be divided between the punter and, through the levy, racing.
  Millions of people enjoy racing; it is part of our national heritage. Millions of people participate in the national lottery. The two are now inextricably linked, but to the great disadvantage of the former. Any fair-minded person would conclude that the high level of tax currently imposed on betting turnover is unreasonable. Racing can be stimulated and prize money increased only by a decisive reduction in the cost of betting. I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to give the matter his fullest consideration in the lead-up to the Budget.
  2.15 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for bringing this important subject to the House today. I declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. I want to draw attention to the effect of the national lottery on the betting industry. The Government did, after all, do something for the football pools to help them with the problems that they encountered with the national lottery.

  279
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed out, betting duty is at present 7.75 per cent. of turnover. The bookmakers are asking for a reduction of 2 per cent. because they feel that, if they get that reduction, they can pass it on to the punter. That would be very helpful to the people who use betting shops and there would, therefore, be an increase in turnover. I realise that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General can say little today in the lead-up to the Budget, but I hope that he can assure us that such a reduction is being carefully considered.
  2.16 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on a first-class speech. He has obviously studied the issue and all the points he raised are ones that anyone who is interested in the betting industry would support.
  I want to expand on the case for the greyhound industry which is also viewed by millions of punters and which provides thousands of jobs. I also declare an interest in that I own five greyhounds which run at Shawfield.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: And they never win.
  Mr. McKelvey: They win regularly, but I am still poverty-stricken. Owners have a difficult task, as do trainers.
  I now turn to the levy and the portion of it that is meant to go to greyhound racing. Unfortunately, it is a voluntary contribution and, although the big, respectable bookmakers have paid their share of the levy, a percentage of the others have not; there is always a shortfall. If any reduction in betting duty, which I support, is to find its way to the greyhound industry, there must be some mechanism by which the voluntary contribution is collected.
  I know that the Paymaster General knows a great deal about this subject. Many of us have written to him and we shall go to see him next week. Although he is knowledgeable, we need to work out a technical way around the problem of voluntary contributions. If we do not, the shortfall will wreck the greyhound racing industry.
  2.17 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on initiating this debate. I recognise that, this side of the Budget, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General cannot respond to points relating to the Budget. However, I simply make one point in echoing what has already been said.
  We are all pretty tired of people saying, on fairly thin evidence, that the national lottery has hit either the money they raise or the business they run. It is clear to me from the evidence, however, that the betting industry, especially off-course betting shops, has been extremely hard hit because of the similarity of its business and the scratchcards. People make a direct choice to buy scratchcards rather than to go into a betting shop. Clearly, the industry needs help.
  280
  Whatever methodology of the revenue impact the Treasury accepts, I simply ask it to look at the methodology it has used before when it has believed that there would be a gentle decline in revenue or even an increase in revenue by leaving tax at existing levels. I refer of, course, to the withholding tax for American film stars, which was a disaster for the film industry and in terms of revenue.
  There could be a rapid decline in revenue unless something is done. If such a decline happens, it will hit jobs across the country, particularly in Ladbroke Racing Ltd., which is a major employer in my constituency. I very much hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that point when considering the Budget later this month.
  2.19 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) introduced this debate with knowledge and eloquence. He has already become an effective advocate of horse racing and its associated industries. He will have been pleased, as I am, by the speeches of other hon. Members and the interest that they have shown in this debate.
  I would be the first to acknowledge that horse racing is part of our sporting heritage. It adds excitement and colour to our national life. It is also, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a substantial employer and important as an industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds fairly mentioned that the Government have introduced several helpful measures in recent years, such as the opportunity for owners to register for VAT and thereby recover that tax. There have also been a number of separate deregulatory measures such as those enabling betting shops to open in the evenings and the advent of Sunday racing and betting.
  There has also been a further relaxation of restrictions on betting shop facilities—resulting, for instance, in the opening up of betting shop frontages. More recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has proposed that amusement machines should be allowed in betting shops. He hopes to put a draft order before the Deregulation Committee soon, with a view to the proposal being introduced and coming into effect next year.
  Of course, some of those deregulatory measures have been somewhat two-edged in their effect, and I am aware that some bookmakers consider that, for instance, Sunday racing and the opening of betting shops on Sunday have led to higher overheads, which more than cancel out the corresponding increase in revenue and profit. But that must be a commercial decision for them. In general, we seek to remove restrictions unless they are justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked that betting be permitted on the national lottery. It is true that, under the law as it stands, bookmakers cannot accept bets on the lucky numbers. That is a matter not for the Treasury but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that she will consider my hon. Friend's arguments carefully and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of Ministers in that Department.

  281
  The question of duty rates was central to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and was also brought up by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend referred to a study which claims that the very success of the national lottery has caused a marked switch of expenditure away from betting shops. That same point has been made to me in representations from the betting industry and the British Horseracing Board.
  As the House will understand, with the Budget only a few weeks away, I cannot comment on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say in his Budget speech. However, I can assure the House, hon. Members who have spoken and those who are listening that my right hon. and learned Friend and I will make decisions in the light of comments made today, and that all representations will be very carefully considered before the announcement on 28 November.
  2.24 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  2.30 pm
  On resuming—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Derek Anthony Enright, esquire, Member for Hemsworth. I am sure that Members on
  282
  both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall he read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LOCH LEVEN AND LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Assisted Areas
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the timetable for the next re-examination of the assisted area status map. [38649]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): When the present map of the assisted areas was introduced in July 1993, the Government made clear that it would remain in place for at least three years. Areas need time to take full advantage of assisted area status, and frequent changes to the map could create uncertainties for potential investors. The Government have no plans to review the map during this Parliament.
    Sir Roger Moate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reassuring reply. In my constituency, in the travel-to-work area of Sittingbourne and Sheerness, assisted area status is much appreciated and has already produced several hundred jobs. However, the unemployment level is still 10.8 per cent, and it must be clear that areas such as mine and many others take longer than three years to gain the full benefit of such status.
    Can my right hon. Friend give some assurance that the general tendency would be to favour renewal of the three-year periods where unemployment remains high, and furthermore that there will be no automatic cut-off at the end of the three years, and that cut-offs, if they are to occur at all, will do so only when the House has reviewed the orders and passed new ones?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of a cut-off. The map will remain in place until it is changed. The previous map remained in place for nine years. I am glad that assisted area status is helping my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that 34 offers of assistance have been made in the Sittingbourne and Sheerness travel-to-work area, worth £2.4 million, and associated with more than 650 jobs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why can there not be an urgent review of the assisted areas map, especially in the light of the decision of Campbell's Soups of America to close its Homepride plant in my constituency? That was a profitable operation that made £3.9 million last year, and it has one of the most modern canning plants in western Europe. Is it not an outrage that a foreign predator can move into a small town such as Maryport, destroy jobs and create such anguish and concern in that small community?
    Mr. Lang: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's protectionist instincts, but the assisted area map can operate effectively only on a long-term basis. If changed periodically at a whim, in the light of temporary economic circumstances, it would not have the intended impact of enabling mobile investment projects to be decided upon in the context of a secure and stable economic background.
    Mr. Nicholls: While assisted area status may be helping the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), it is not helping my
    284
    constituency of Teignbridge. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are proper safeguards to ensure that, when a business locates in an assisted area, the jobs created there are real and have not been pinched from elsewhere?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the effect of the assisted area status map and regional selective assistance is primarily to create new jobs. The attraction of inward investment to the United Kingdom is a result of a number of factors, but the assisted area map certainly helps in that direction.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the President of the Board of Trade give urgent attention to west Gwynedd, north Meirionnydd, Dwyfor and Arfon and give them full development status? When the assisted area map was last drawn up, the Transfynydd nuclear power station was open, but it has subsequently closed and employment in the area has fallen. The Government's plans to provide an enterprise zone in the area have now been abandoned. In the light of that, unemployment is now at an unacceptably high level, and the area desperately needs help to attract new industry.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are keen to help attract investment to areas of high unemployment, and that and there is a range of ways in which that can be done. Regional selective assistance, through the assisted area map, is only one method but, as I said, the map does not benefit from frequent changes. It benefits only from stability, which allows decisions to be taken on a proper long-term basis. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any encouragement that a review will take place in the near future.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on the basis of what happened in my constituency after the Government decided—correctly—that we no longer needed assisted area status? Will he assure my hon. Friend that there is more inward investment and that more jobs are being created now, without assisted area status, than before?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is also the case that the financial assistance offered under the arrangement is substantially less than that offered in many other countries. We are able to win inward investment because of the other qualities that Britain has to offer. Among the major inward investment projects which have come to this country without assistance are Nissan, Toyota and Samsung Heavy Industries.
    Mr. Bell: The President will know that those inward investment projects were assisted by Labour-controlled local authorities throughout the country.
    The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) reminded the House that the assisted area scheme has been extended to areas that have known prosperity and then known mass unemployment. Even the Deputy Prime Minister admitted at lunchtime that the UK is 21st in the international league table of investment per capita, and 18th in the league table of national income. In a moment of honesty, the right hon. Gentleman might also admit that Britain has halved its level of investment since 1979.
    The House will welcome the assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the assisted areas map will not be rewritten in the short term. That will

    285
    obviate the suspicion that existed last time—when the map was redrawn by the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury)—that it was written in blue pencil to help the Tory party, and not the country.
    Mr. Lang: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the figures used in the Labour party's advertisement in The Times today were taken from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which recently described Britain's performance as "impressive", and added:
    "The United Kingdom's sweeping structural reforms are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive and less inflation-prone economy".
    The OECD endorsed our approach to deregulation and a flexible labour market and adopted all of the policies that we are supporting in the face of fierce opposition from Labour.

    Midlands Electricity
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in respect of consumers regarding the PowerGen bid for Midlands Electricity from the Midlands Electricity consumers committee. [38650]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Jonathan Evans): None.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware of the Midlands Electricity consumers committee chairman's concern that the proposal will not be in the interests of consumers? Is he aware that the centre for the study of regulated industries has shown that, while the cost of generating electricity since privatisation has fallen by 6.8 per cent., bills have fallen by only 1. 6 per cent.? The interests of consumers have certainly not been protected to date. Is it not about time the Minister started doing so? Will he refer the proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Evans: The interests of consumers have been served by the privatisation of the electricity industry in terms of the price to domestic and industrial consumers. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the structure that relates to these matters. It is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading first to produce a report, which will then be passed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. At this point, any representations should be directed to the Office of Fair Trading and the director general so that they may be incorporated in the advice that he will tender in due course to my right hon. Friend. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should ensure, if he has not already done so, that his representations are passed to that quarter.
    Mr. Harvey: Without anticipating the Budget, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are still opposed in principle to a windfall tax on the electricity companies?
    Mr. Evans: Yes.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend recall that electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks in the midlands and the rest of the country under the Labour Government? Labour has no right to lecture this or any other Government about electricity price rises.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition were then determined to ensure that the
    286
    electricity industry remained a 100 per cent. state-owned monopoly. In those circumstances, the great benefits that are now pouring on consumers would not have been possible.

    Shipbuilding
    Dr. Godman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many merchant vessels of 500 gross registered tonnes or more were constructed in United Kingdom shipyards in each of the past four years. [38651]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Taylor): The number of merchant ships of 500 gross registered tonnes or more completed by United Kingdom yards between 1990 and 1994 was 18, 17, 14, nine and 11 respectively. The total tonnage of the completed ships almost doubled over the period.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister knows that, on the Clyde, we have witnessed a decline from 32 shipyards to three. Even though Kvaerner Govan won a tidy little order recently, those three shipyards are in a perilous condition. Will the Minister seek a reappraisal of the decision to end the seventh directive of the shipbuilding intervention fund? Should he refuse to do so, will he urge upon the European Commission the need for fair competition in the Italian and Spanish yards, against which our yards bid for European contracts?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman slightly underplays the small order to which he referred, because Kvaerner Govan has won a £60 million contract to launch communication satellites from a platform in the Pacific. I am sure that he welcomed that order in his constituency, so I hope that he will also welcome it in the House.
    The agreement within the European Union on the OECD shipbuilding agreement effectively means the end of the shipbuilding intervention fund. The hon. Gentleman must know that. That will, however, benefit his yards and others, in the sense that there will be a fairer basis of international competition. At the moment, we compete against highly subsidised yards elsewhere. It is in Britain's interest that that agreement should come into effect as soon as possible, and that we should continue to improve the competitiveness of ships carrying the red ensign.
    Mr. James Hill: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his roving commission along the south coast? We were pleased to see him in Southampton. As he roves along the south coast, he will find many small shipbuilding yards that would appreciate orders. Some years ago, there was a scrap and build scheme operated by the European Union, but I am afraid that we did not take it up. When my hon. Friend is in Brussels, he may have reason to raise that scheme. Any more support for our small shipyards would be welcome.
    Mr. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for the yards along the south coast. I am delighted to be the sponsor Minister for those south coast towns. I have recently visited Southampton, Portsmouth and Hastings, and I am aware of the local difficulties. I shall look at my hon. Friend's proposal, but there is no substitute for our competing with the rest of the world for contracts. I therefore welcome the fact that other countries are having to abandon their subsidies.

    Exports By Heavy Goods Vehicle
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the approximate value of the goods exported from Britain in heavy goods vehicles in the last financial year. [38652]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The latest figures for the value of exports broken down by mode of transport are for 1992. Since then, the abolition of relevant customs documents for intra-EC trade has resulted in no figures being available.
    In 1992, the value of seaborne exports carried by vehicles was £40.4 billion.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree that the extremely valuable trade carried by heavy goods vehicles can cause considerable environmental damage, especially where it is forced, on its way to the ports, on to roads that go through old market towns? Can he assure the House that he will do his utmost to ensure that the Government go ahead with the Newbury bypass as soon as possible?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constituency concerns, but he would do better to address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing proportion of the heavy goods vehicles that are used to improve our export trade are made in my constituency by Leyland Trucks? Does he recognise the achievement of the reformed Leyland Trucks in terms of its share of the heavy goods vehicle market, which is a direct result of the Government policies with which my hon. Friend and I have been associated for many years?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. UK commercial vehicle manufacturers took nearly 60 per cent. of the UK market last year. They export nearly 40 per cent. of their output. He is right that the policy of the Opposition was to intervene and pour in Government money, which would have created another disaster along the lines of the one that they created with British Leyland in the 1960s and 1970s. Our policy has allowed the company to recover not only in the domestic market but so that it is exporting at record levels.

    Scotch Whisky Exports
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from the Scotch Whisky Association on improving the promotion of Scotch whisky within international markets; and if he will make a statement. [38653]
    Mr. Oppenheim: We fully recognise the importance of the spirit drinks industry and its contribution to UK export performance and to our performance in general. We have wide-ranging contact at all levels with the Scotch Whisky Association and we give it extensive assistance towards its export effort.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister recognise that the best international promotion that could be given to this vital industry would be to recognise at home the value to
    288
    domestic industry of the Scotch whisky industry? As more than 45,000 jobs in Scotland are directly and indirectly dependent on the Scotch whisky industry, is it not time for the excise duty levied on Scotch whisky to be put on an equal footing with the rest of the spirit industry throughout the European Union and the rest of the international community? Can the Minister give us an assurance that the DTI will make such representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern. In fact, excise duty on spirits has fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms during the past 10 years. If we were to halve excise duty on spirits, and that reduction were fully passed on, the result would be a fall in price for consumers of only about 20 per cent. It is worth remembering that. I expect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been known to enjoy the odd glass of whisky himself occasionally, will take the hon. Lady's comments into account at the end of the month.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present excise system for taxing alcoholic drinks is not just discriminatory and distortionary as between alcoholic drinks and other drinks or products, but distortionary within the alcoholic drinks business? It would be logical and desirable to move to taxing alcohol content, irrespective of whether it occurs in Scotch whisky, beer, wine or any other alcoholic product. I know that it cannot be done overnight—any reasonable person would accept that—but should we not try to move towards it as a strategic objective?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There is much validity in what my hon. Friend says, but he would not expect me to pre-empt my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement at the end of the month.
    Mr. Graham: The Minister will not be aware that Chivas Regal is building a massive plant in my constituency which will create a wide distribution network. I therefore have a strong interest in Scotch whisky, as well as enjoying it. Scotch whisky is one of the most popular drinks in the world. Why do the Government not take steps to tackle measures such as those taken by the Japanese Government, who have put massive charges on to Scotch whisky and thereby created further unemployment in our country? We welcome Japanese products, but our products should be welcomed in Japan without being subject to punitive taxation. The Government should do their best to ensure a level playing field.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's enjoyment and extensive knowledge of the finer things in life. I assure him that we have referred the Japanese taxation system to the World Trade Organisation disputes settlement procedure, and we hope for a favourable decision before too long.

    Export Promotion
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to promote British exports overseas. [38654]
    Mr. Lang: British exports have been breaking new records. This may be due in part to the recent White Paper which announced more support for companies attending

    289
    trade fairs and missions abroad, more commercial staff at embassies and high commissions around the world, and improved local help through business links.
    Mr. Robinson: Given the excellent performance of British companies overseas, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have every incentive to go out and win even more orders in the coming year?
    Mr. Lang: I do indeed. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the volume of our exports has risen by no less than 91 per cent. since 1979. We are breaking records in a wide range of new markets around the world.
    Mr. MacShane: While we welcome any increase in British exports, is not the real problem the fact that our trade balance continues to widen in favour of imports? What are the Government doing to address that problem, particularly in light of today's very disturbing news that we have slumped to 18th in terms of gross domestic product per capita? Britain is going downhill: we are importing more and not exporting enough.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that our recent trade figures show that the trade gap is relatively narrow, taking no account of invisibles. Our trade gap last year was the narrowest since 1986. The export component of that figure, excluding oils and erratics, was a record. Why does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that fact?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best way to assist and promote United Kingdom exports is by providing incentives to investment, improved training, low interest rates, continuing low inflation and the continuation of a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to say that, as is almost always the case, I agree with my hon. Friend. The economic policies pursued by the Government have led to that very satisfactory outcome. It is only by continuing to pursue those policies, rather than espousing those of the Labour party, that we will be able to sustain it.
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that the Confederation of British Industry reports increased anxiety among exporters. Today's figures not only reveal a deficit—and a growing deficit—in our balance of trade, but include the forecast that that deficit is set to grow wider still. That shows our lack of competitiveness after 16 years of Conservative government. Does the Minister deny that the trade figures reveal our lack of competitiveness and the fact that Britain has slumped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league behind France, Germany and Italy, when we had the oil?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibility for trade and industry matters. I regret that I disagree with almost everything she has said, including the accuracy of her figures—particularly in relation to France. The hon. Lady asked primarily about exports. I must point out, lest she has not noticed, that our exports are breaking records. We are exporting more now than at any other time in our history. She should recognise that achievement. If she takes account of invisibles, she will realise that the export:import balance and the balance of
    290
    trade is very much more favourable than she allows. It is certainly vastly more favourable than it was under Labour Governments.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to assist British exporters is by bringing to an early and final end the Arab boycott of Israel? If he agrees, what action is he contemplating to bring that about?
    Mr. Lang: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable to achieve peace and harmony in that area on a long-term basis. That would certainly lead to increased trade, and probably more exports for the United Kingdom. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Nuclear Safety
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the projected standards of safety to be applied in the nuclear industry following privatisation. [38655]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Health and Safety Commission made it clear in its evidence to the nuclear review that the current regulatory regime is a rigorous system which ensures that a high level of safety is achieved. The same high standard of safety will apply after privatisation.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware of the recent statements by Scottish Nuclear safety expert Dr Richard Killick, which say that privatisation will lead to a massive reduction in safety and will have long-term implications for the safety of the industry at large? Will he now abandon privatisation or, at the very least, reconsider safety—or will he allow dogma to influence his decision at the expense of the public's health?
    Mr. Eggar: I read about Mr. Killick's allegations in the newspapers and I asked for a full report because I take safety extremely seriously.
    I can tell the House and the hon. Gentleman that at no time while Mr. Killick was employed by Scottish Nuclear did he ever mention those anxieties to the company, or to the chief inspector of nuclear installations, or to the relevant nuclear installations inspectorate staff, or to my Department. Those anxieties have surfaced only since he left the company.
    Given Mr. Killick's background, he is well aware that, if he has genuine anxieties about safety, the first place to go to express them is to the independent regulator, the NII. Apparently, instead of doing so, he has spoken to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and to the press. That is irresponsible behaviour and, if I may say so, it is irresponsible of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) to mention those anxieties as he has.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Did my right hon. Friend read the evidence that Greenpeace gave to the Trade and Industry Committee on precisely that subject? Specifically, it said that there was no reason to believe that
    "the management of a"
    privatised
    "nuclear company should … be"
    any

    291
    "less sensitive to safety concerns. For operating power stations … ownership is less important than strength of regulation."
    It is obvious that that should be so, because a shut-down nuclear station will earn no revenue, which would be to the commercial disadvantage of a privatised company.
    Mr. Eggar: I noted what Greenpeace said. Post-privatisation, safety concerns will of course be at least as important as, if not more important than, they are at present, and they will be guaranteed by the independent nuclear inspectorate.
    Mr. Battle: Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury expects to receive less than £3 billion from the proceeds of the nuclear privatisation deal, and that it cost the Government more than £3 billion to build Sizewell B power station alone? Does that mean that the Conservative Government are prepared to give away seven power stations for nothing? On those terms, will not that prove to be a shabby, short-changing deal for taxpayers and consumers alike?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Eggar rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There should be only one debate in the House at a time. There is some cross-questioning going on below the Gangway and there should be only one lot of questioning—to Ministers at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Eggar: I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to his new role. To the last of his questions I answer, "No."

    Small Business
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet representatives of small firms to discuss Government measures to encourage start-ups. [38656]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Ministers, my Department's officials and business links regularly hold meetings with small firms organisations. Support for business start-ups is regularly discussed. With a net increase of about 60,000 businesses in 1994 and a projected increase of about 100,000 businesses in 1995, Government policy is effective.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the biggest problems that confronts small firms in my constituency is excessive regulation? Does he agree that the Government's small businesses litmus test scheme will help firms because they will be consulted first? Is not that yet another example of the Government helping small firms? It is all very well the Opposition sneering, but does my hon. Friend agree that, as long as they support the minimum wage and the social chapter, they cannot claim to support small businesses?
    Mr. Cummings: Henry, try to live on less than a minimum wage.
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am inclined to name Members and ask them to leave the Chamber if they are not able to contain themselves while we are at Question Time. Hon. Members below the
    292
    Gangway on both sides of the House must stop blaming each other and behave like the adults they are supposed to be in this Chamber.
    Mr. Taylor: My answers usually give rise to excitement after I have given them, not before. The key point about the small business litmus test is that all regulation will be considered in the light of its impact on small businesses. That is a welcome step forward.
    As for the minimum wage, it is important to ensure that when Opposition spokesmen talk to small businesses, small businesses understand what they are being told. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce had to correct a recent Labour press statement. It is clear that the Labour party has not understood the devastating effect that the minimum wage and social over-regulation would have on small businesses.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware of the devastating effect of the cancellation of the business start-up grant on business start-ups? Training and enterprise councils, business links and economic development units across the country are already reporting a 25 per cent. drop in small business start-ups. If the Government are serious about small business, is it not about time they reintroduced that useful grant, and soon?
    Mr. Taylor: The grant is now part of the single regeneration budget, which is important in that local people come forward with partnership schemes which have, as part of their scope, the generation of small business start-ups. The announcement yesterday about the national network of business links will provide enormous help to those wishing to start up small businesses. The Department for Education and Employment's training for work scheme is also a great asset. I believe that the Government have in place a range of possibilities to which small businesses can look when they need help.
    Sir John Cope: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is not only start-ups that are important but that it is important to allow existing small businesses to flourish and expand? In that connection, it is extremely good to see on the Order Paper the flow of deregulation orders following the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues do all they can to speed up the flow of those orders?
    Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend speaks from experience, having been a Minister with responsibility for small businesses. I know that the creation of a small businesses Minister in every Department will accelerate the interests of small businesses in relation to any proposals for regulation that come to the Floor of the House and will speed up ideas about what we can do to deregulate.
    Mrs. Roche: When the Minister next meets representatives of small businesses, will he explain to them in detail why the consultancy brokerage service has had to be axed before it was even launched, at a cost to the public purse of almost £3 million? Is not such incompetence yet another example of how, under the Conservative Government's management, Britain has slumped to 18th in the world prosperity league?
    Mr. Taylor: The slumping going on in the House is in the originality of the questions being asked by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The business links system,

    293
    which is now countrywide and which combines training and enterprise councils, enterprise agencies, universities and business interests, is the best business support system of any country. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Lady, who has just made her debut in the Labour Front-Bench team, will enjoy seeing what a Conservative Government are delivering in the field.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the start-up of flights between Prestwick and Stansted airports? Does he believe that it breaks the mould of expensive flying within the United Kingdom? Does he further believe that it gives a great opportunity to small businesses in my constituency to extend their areas of operation and that it will greatly encourage those who wish to start up new businesses?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is an indefatigable fighter for the interests of businesses in his constituency. I am sure that the new airport arrangements will assist, and I wish the new venture the very best of luck. I am sure that Ministers at the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry will take a close interest in the progress being made.

    Electricity Industry
    Ms Coffey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the electricity regulator to discuss regulation policy. [38657]
    Mr. Eggar:I hold discussions with the Director-General of Electricity Supply on a regular basis.
    Ms Coffey: Does the Minister agree that the proposed acquisition of Norweb by North West Water raises certain issues about the current regulatory system? Clearly, neither the water regulator nor the electricity regulator has in the past been able to anticipate the massive profits generated by those industries. The benefits have not been passed on to customers—shareholders have been the major beneficiaries. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to look again at the regulatory framework, to ensure that, in any future mergers, customers and employees as well as shareholders get a much better deal?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Lady knows, that matter is shortly to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so it would be wrong for me to comment on it at this stage.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since privatisation, the price of electricity in Yorkshire has fallen by 16 per cent? Will he further confirm that my constituents will enjoy the benefits of a £50 rebate next year as a result of the demerger of the National Grid, and that the regulator has stipulated that the distribution prices charged by Yorkshire Electricity should be reduced by 3 per cent. per year for the next four years? Does the Minister agree that that is excellent news for consumers of electricity—our constituents—and that the Labour party is desperately trying to divert attention from it?
    Mr. Eggar: Privatisation has brought enormous benefits to electricity consumers. Prices have fallen by 9 per cent. in real terms over the past two years, and next year prices for the average electricity consumer will be £90 lower than they were last year. My hon. Friend is right to say that further reductions beyond next year are in the pipeline.
    Mr. McWilliam: If electricity companies are so successful, why do I have to pay so much for my
    294
    electricity from Northern Electric while it keeps being the subject of predatory takeover bids from friends and bankers of the Conservative party or from American multinationals? Why can I not get my electricity at a fair price?
    Mr. Eggar: Assuming that the hon. Gentleman has lived in the Northern area of electricity provision for many years, I might point out that for the first time he will already have had, and will have in future, a real reduction in the price of his electricity—a feat never achieved before, and certainly not under nationalisation.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the electricity regulator has a role to play not just in protecting the interests of the consumer but in protecting those of the shareholders? Is he aware that during the recent merger involving South Western Electricity, some shareholders were denied the right to retain their shares in the company? Would it not be right for the regulator to take up that matter?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right to say that the electricity regulator must, under statute, take account of the interests both of consumers and of the financial situation of the companies that he regulates. It is a matter of company law, not peculiar to the electricity industry, that, once 90 per cent. acceptances have been received, there is effectively a compulsory right for the acquiring company to purchase the additional shares. That does not apply only to the utility companies; it is a general rule which has been on the statute book for a number of years.
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to increase competition in the electricity industry. [38658]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Privatisation has opened the electricity industry to the disciplines of the market, and it has provided for increasing competition where previously there was none.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that that increasing competition has meant that the East Midlands electricity board closed 60 shops last year, putting hundreds out of work and providing a far worse service for pensioners and others who want to pay their bills? The money from that has gone to increase earnings per share from 12p to 78p and the chief executive has paid himself a bonus of £120,000. Is the Minister further aware that, when the National Grid is sold off, households will receive £50 each, while shareholders will be given £2 billion and the chief executive who handles this legalised theft will receive a bonus of £200,000? Is that competition?
    Mr. Evans: It is curious that Labour Members all spend their time deriding the regional electricity companies but then write to me saying that every proposed merger application should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that the companies should remain in the hands of those now in charge of them.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the electricity industry exists to provide electricity for consumers, not jobs for employees? Does he think that the electricity consumer would like to return to the old days of nationalisation, when a chief executive was paid rather less and electricity cost much more?
    Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend has made clear, privatisation has ensured that the consumer's interest has

    295
    been to the fore. That is illustrated by the powers exercised by the Director General of Electricity Supply. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. Consumers would not have obtained the present deal under the old 100 per cent. state monopoly which Labour Members fought in the trenches to retain.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister not appreciate the anxiety in the north-west with the takeover of MANWEB by Scottish Power and the proposed merger between North West Water and NORWEB, with the possible loss of thousands of jobs, fat cat salaries for those who run the industries and poorer services for customers? There is no good deal, merely a privatised monopoly.
    Mr. Evans: With regard to the Scottish Power-MANWEB deal, the hon. Lady should know that the Director General of Fair Trading advised my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that there were neither competition nor public interest grounds to warrant a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    The hon. Lady referred to the proposed merger between North-West Water and NORWEB. Had she been listening earlier, she would have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State say that the matter is on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's desk. It is therefore inappropriate for Ministers to comment.

    Military Equipment Exports
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of export credit guarantees last year were used to support the export of military equipment. [38659]
    Mr. Oppenheim: Eighteen per cent. of the value of guarantees issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in 1994–95 were for contracts for the export of military equipment.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister realise that less than 2 per cent. of our total exports are of military equipment but that they receive more than 30 per cent, of all export credit guarantees? How does he justify that? Does he realise that, if United Kingdom manufacturers of civilian equipment received the same Government support as arms manufacturers, we would not have slumped from 13th to 18th position in the world prosperity league, and the York carriage works in my constituency would not have lost vital far east export orders to competitors in Germany and France, and would not, therefore, be closing, with the loss of all 750 jobs?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on one matter. The Labour advertisement which appeared in this morning's press stated that France had overtaken us in the past 15 years. That is wrong. France overtook us when the Labour Government were in office. To fiddle the figures in its advertisement, Labour included Hong Kong and Singapore, which were excluded in the 1960s and 1970s. According to the World Bank, in terms of gross domestic product per head, Hong Kong and Singapore are also ahead of Japan and Germany, so we are in fairly good company.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. He should be focusing on the percentage of export credits relating to the export of
    296
    capital goods to non-OECD countries. Given the total figures, ECGD cover is the right proportion when compared with the overall proportion of exports. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should reduce ECGD cover for defence exports, he should make that absolutely clear, as such a reduction would have severe job implications for many people represented by Labour Members.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, thousands of people are employed by British Aerospace in the military defence industry? Many small to medium-sized businesses are supplying British Aerospace. It is important that those businesses receive Government support through export credit guarantees, and that the Government support projects—as we have done—such as the Eurofighter 2000, which means that we are able to secure many thousands of jobs and manufacturing skills in the north-west, especially in the smaller industries to which I have referred.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. The House should be aware that 400,000 jobs are dependent on the defence industry. Those jobs are concentrated in various constituencies, including those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If it is now Labour policy to cut back export credit support for defence sales, perhaps the Opposition will let us know. We can then assess the effect on their constituents' jobs.

    Manufacturing Output
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the likely date by which manufacturing output will be at least 3 per cent. higher than in 1990. [38660]
    Mr. Oppenheim: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be publishing a new forecast for manufacturing output later this month.
    Dr. Jones: I was—[Interruption.] I was taken aback by the fact that the Minister was not prepared to give any kind of estimate. Is not our manufacturing production only just about where it was before the recession began? It is no wonder, then, now that the competitive advantage of the devalued pound has faded away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—that we are back in the red with our balance of payments in manufacturing, which never occurred before the Conservative Government came to power. [Interruption.] What mark out of 10—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The more the House calls the hon. Lady to put a question, the longer it will take her. Will the hon. Lady come to her question now?
    Dr. Jones: Yes, Madam Speaker. What mark out of 10 would the Minister give the Government for that performance?
    Mr. Oppenheim: If I could give them 11 out of 10, I would. Manufacturing output grew by 4 per cent. last year and it is forecast by the Confederation of British Industry to grow by 4 per cent. this year. It is at record levels. When the Labour party was in charge of the commanding heights of British industry, British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and British Leyland made cars that

    297
    were the butt of music hall jokes. Manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and growth in manufacturing productivity was bottom of all the main industrial countries.
    Since 1979, not only have we got record manufacturing output, but the growth in our manufacturing productivity and in our manufacturing exports has been 80 per cent. Manufacturing has done very well under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will reach the 3 per cent. extra above the boom times provided that the country is sensible enough to re-elect a Conservative Government? We are the only party that understands the needs of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Oppenheim: The proof of the pudding is very much in the performance. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was bottom of the Group of Seven league of major industrial countries in terms of manufacturing output growth and growth in productivity. In the 1980s and 1990s, we were top in the growth of manufacturing productivity and ahead of Japan and equal to the average of the G7 countries in growth of manufacturing output. As I have said, manufacturing has done very well indeed under the Conservative Government, in stark contrast with the disastrous state in which the last Labour Government left it.
    Mr. Purchase: Did we not lose 350,000 jobs in manufacturing during the reign of the Conservatives in the 1980s? Did not imports of manufactured goods exceed exports in 1984 for the first time in Britain's industrial history? Is not manufacturing investment now lower than it was five years ago under the present Government? What has the Minister to say to that?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There is one very big difference between our trading performance and that of the last Labour Government. Under the Labour Government, there was a period of surplus, but it was declining very rapidly. Under the Conservative Government, the performance has improved and, for the first time in many decades, we have maintained our share of world exports in manufactures. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that under the Labour Government jobs in manufacturing fell at the rate of 700,000 a year, output fell and productivity was stagnant. Under the Conservative Government, output has risen and productivity is at record levels.
    Mr. Day: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of the improvement in manufacturing output in this country has been due to companies such as Avro International, which is based at Woodford in my constituency of Cheadle and has just recently made a marvellous export sale to Australia? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the management and work force of Avro International on that breakthrough in the Australian market?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I will indeed take that opportunity. The performance of British Aerospace is indicative of the improved performance of British manufacturing since 1979. Looking back to the 1970s, companies such as BAe, British Steel, British Leyland—all the nationalised, monopoly industries—were almost dead on their feet; they were industrial basket cases, whereas now they are highly successful, exporting all over the world. Rolls-Royce has trebled its share of the civil aero engine
    298
    market, BAe is profitable again, and British Steel, which was the world's largest loss maker, is now one of the most profitable steel companies in the world—it exports 40 per cent. of its output, accounts for 80 per cent. of the domestic market and is once more a highly efficient industry. That is the story of what has happened to British manufacturing in the past 15 years.

    Scientific Invention
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to improve the application of scientific invention to industry. [38661]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government are committed to innovation and wealth creation through science and technology. The £40 million foresight challenge, the Office of Science and Technology and DTI competitions in industry/academic collaboration and technology transfer and the improved Smart, Spur and Link schemes are recent initiatives.
    Mr. Flynn: What sort of example is the Conservative party setting in regard to the application of scientific inventions on the Internet? The web sites of the Labour and Liberal parties are fully interactive, but the only way to interact with the Conservative site is by means of a game which features the Prime Minister playing cricket and invites the public to "spot the ball". Is not one of the reasons why this country has slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league the fact that all that the Conservatives can offer it on high technology is balls?
    Mr. Taylor: I was in charitable mood and intended to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on putting a science question on the Order Paper following the transfer of responsibility for science to the Department of Trade and Industry, but he has mentioned a competition that Labour would constantly fail, because it can never spot the ball.
    We have done an enormous amount to advance all the technologies in this country and their application on the Internet and the super-highways. We have made possible new processes which help education, hospitals and schools. The Conservative party's Internet site is independently regarded as the most exciting of the political parties' sites, as indeed it must be, as I launched it at the Conservative party conference.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to Hastings last week and visiting Instrument Technology Ltd.—a company which is applying industrial techniques to the sciences of vacuum generation and semi-conductors. Does he agree that there are administrative blockages in some of the international scientific programmes such as CERN? What action is he taking to try to help British companies win contracts?
    Mr. Taylor: I valued my visit to Hastings last Friday, and I was impressed by the company that my hon. Friend took me to see. There is no doubt that it is one of the leading companies in the vacuum generation part of the industry, supplying research to establishments such as CERN. Unfortunately, many of the procurement techniques adopted by CERN make it difficult for companies to tender properly. Having led a trade delegation to CERN about a year ago, I am engaged in continuing discussions with it.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister prepared to accept that what is happening in the international prosperity league

    299
    table is mirrored in the league table showing percentage of gross domestic product spent on research and development? The United States spends 2.72 per cent. of its GDP on research and development and Japan spends 2.93 per cent. while Britain is much further down the league, spending only 2.19 per cent. Given those figures and the link between research and development expenditure and industrial performance, is it any wonder that Britain has slumped to 18th place in the world prosperity league table?
    Mr. Taylor: I am beginning to think that the record has stuck. Throughout Question Time the Opposition Front Bench has been given evidence of which it was not previously aware, but it has not yet adjusted its own records. Our science base is widely regarded as excellent. The research in our universities and the work done by the research councils is remarkable and our science and engineering base has grown by 10 per cent. in the past 10 years, so we need not suffer by comparison with other countries. Indeed, in many of our best industries—the pharmaceutical industry, for example—we are world leaders.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position shadowing me on science. When he has considered some of the establishments in this country, he will realise what the centres of excellence are. Nevertheless, I concede that we must do better: there is no question but that there are too many holes in our good performance and too many sectors where there is not enough read-out from the excellent science base into industry and where British industry is not examining the longer-term requirements of encouraging science, both applied and basic, for the benefit of competitive performance. The purpose of the DTI and the Office of Science and Technology is to try to remedy that, both by encouraging the science base and by increasing technology transfer and innovation.

    Trade with North America
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit his counterparts in North America to discuss bilateral trade with the United States and Great Britain's relationship with North American Free Trade Agreement countries; and if he will make a statement. [38662]
    Mr. Lang: I shall be visiting the United States of America and Canada next week to discuss the United Kingdom's successful trade and investment relationship with my counterparts in the American and Canadian Governments and with others in both countries.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend will be visiting the United States of America and a united Canada. Is he aware that British companies are the biggest investors—they invest more than companies in any other countries—in the United States, and vice versa? Is he also aware that the United States is our second largest trading partner? Does he not think that that is partly due not only to our historical connections, but to a common language, a common culture and a common legal system? Does he agree that talk from the Labour party that we should concentrate only—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it.]
    Madam Speaker: We could have an Adjournment debate on that interesting topic. Perhaps the hon.
    300
    Gentleman would apply for one, but as this is Question Time, would he now put a direct question and resume his seat?
    Mr. Fabricant: I stand chastised, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no mutual exclusivity and that we can trade well, not only with Europe, but with the United States of America and the NAFTA countries, too.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right in all his points. I appreciate his difficulties as there is so much good news to impart to the House and such a great need for education among those on the Opposition Benches. He is right that the United States of America is the United Kingdom's second largest market. Our exports this year are running at some 8 per cent. higher than last year so far and, at £16.8 billion, our exports last year were a record.
    Mr. Eastham: If it is so glorious to have our investments pumped into America, would it not be wise if some of that investment were pumped into Britain? Instead of the Tory Government swanking about the Japanese investing in Britain, why are we not investing in Britain ourselves?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that investment in plant and machinery in the UK has risen by 50 per cent. since 1979, and that since 1981 investment has risen faster than throughout Europe.

    Isle of Wight Ferry Services
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the further report on ferry services and fares to the Isle of Wight. [38664]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading expects to announce the outcome of his review of the market for the supply of cross-Solent ferry services in December 1995.
    Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. There is no denying that there has been massive investment in all ferry routes to and from the Isle of Wight—in new vessels, better terminal facilities and improved timetabling—but the House will recognise that the Isle of Wight sees itself as a captive market whenever it wants to visit England. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he receives the report.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has always kept the position under close review on behalf of his constituents. He will know that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that, although there was a monopoly position, it could not be said to operate against the public interest. Nevertheless, it was decided that there would be a review after three years to ensure that the public interest was in no way damaged. That review has been undertaken, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will closely consider its contents when they are received.

    Nuclear Safety
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that safety standards are being maintained in the nuclear industry. [38665]
    Mr. Eggar: The independent Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate continues to

    301
    monitor closely the safe operation of all UK nuclear installations. The Government will not permit any weakening of the existing regulatory regime, nor of the safety standards currently in force.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why was the Minister so dismissive earlier of the remarks by Captain Richard Killick, who has spent a lifetime in the industry? Should he not pay serious concern to the fact that Mr. Killick is worried about nuclear safety if the Government go ahead with privatisation? If the Government nevertheless press ahead with this crazy privatisation, will it not be further evidence of their frenetic lurch to the right?
    Mr. Eggar: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has at least tried to produce a new soundbite. That is a relief to us. He should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and must try to ring the changes rather more often.
    302
    On the substance of the question, I would take Mr. Killick's comments rather more seriously if he had raised them with Scottish Nuclear and if he had taken them up with the nuclear installations inspectorate rather than going first to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and the press. In my judgment, scaremongering about nuclear safety is highly irresponsible and hon. Members should have no part in it.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Did not the worst nuclear accident that the world has ever seen occur in a state-owned nuclear power station? Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have one of the toughest safety regimes in the world governing nuclear generation and that, if anything, that regime will be made still tougher once the industry is transferred into the private sector?
    Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This Government will do nothing to imperil nuclear safety. The NII is the independent arbiter of the continuance of the extremely high safety standards which have been such a feature of the British nuclear industry.

Beaufort Dyke
3.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to request a debate under Standing Order No. 20. You will recall that three years ago, on the previous occasion that I asked for such a debate, in relation to Rosyth, you were kind enough not only to grant it, but to grant it on that very day, so I have my fingers crossed that I may get the double.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the danger to the public and the work force arising from the British Gas operations at Beaufort dyke off the coast of south-west Scotland."
The matter is specific, as, for the past three weeks, phosphorus incendiaries have been washed up on the shores of Ayrshire, Arran and Argyll. In spite of protests by local Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and in spite of a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence and a meeting with Cedric Brown of British Gas, the dangerous pipe-laying work is continuing.
For a few days, the Health and Safety Executive imposed a prohibition order on the work because of the concern expressed by the work force. The sub-contractors
304
and the local people also expressed that concern. However, for some reasons, which have never been explained to anyone, the order was lifted by the Health and Safety Executive, and the work, which is already behind schedule, was allowed to recommence.
Today, we have the overriding reason for an urgent debate. The Scottish Daily Mail, in a three-page exclusive report, reveals that depth charges are now lying inches away from the gas pipeline, and that there are other explosives in the vicinity, so it would be quite irresponsible for British Gas to continue. The Scottish Office announced last week that there is to be a marine survey later this month. British Gas must suspend its operations until the results of the survey are known and until action is taken to make the munitions safe.
Ministers whom my colleagues and I have approached keep passing the buck from one to the other. It is only today that I realise that it is not those in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence, but the Department of the Environment which is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive. Ministers in that Department should be brought to book before the House.
Local Members of Parliament have not had an answer. The only way in which we shall get answers from Ministers is to have an emergency debate. I request urgently, on behalf of my colleagues, that you grant it, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I have to give my decision to the House without stating my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It follows a similar point of order which was raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 24 October, on which you ruled, and arises from the actions of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
In the summer, the hon. Member wrote 18th birthday congratulations, in the form of a letter on his constituency notepaper, and claimed to be acting in a ministerial capacity. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, one of the letters went to a constituency activist of mine, who brought it to my attention and said that it had spoiled her 18th birthday. She would be very happy to receive a birthday card from me, but was not happy to receive a lot of Conservative propaganda from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—to whom I gave notice at midday by telephone and by note of my intention to raise the issue today.
I was adding to the problems since I wrote to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North protesting about the matter when it was drawn to my attention three weeks ago. So far, I have not received a reply giving some explanation of why he was writing to my constituents. Indeed, when I spoke to him last night and asked him when I would get a reply, he told me that he did not intend to reply, which is why I have no option but to resort to bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
Not only is there the issue of writing to other hon. Members' constituents—the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, on which you ruled last week Madam Speaker—there is a rule of the House, as I understand it, that birthday greetings from hon. Members must be no more than greetings, and must not include propaganda about Conservative achievements in Wales, and so on.
Thirdly, there is the fact that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North has not answered my letter, and, fourthly, he has claimed specifically that he was writing in his ministerial capacity, which he has no right to do in the form of birthday greetings to 18-year-olds in Cardiff, West.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's principal concern is that one of his constituents has been approached by another Member. I can confirm his understanding that it is a clear convention that, unless otherwise agreed between the hon. Members concerned, the interests of members of the electorate can be represented only by their constituency Member—in this case, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). But as he and the House know, I, as Speaker, have no means of enforcing those conventions; I have to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out their problems between them.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you in particular are keen to defend both the reputations of this House and Members of it. I have a difficulty with The Independent. Several days ago, the Labour Research magazine, which is linked to the Labour party, did its usual accurate level of research in supposedly revealing a secret document about Members who belong to the freemason organisation. I might add that that secret document is available in most public
306
libraries, and the magazine demonstrated only that it could not read it correctly, since it misnamed me as a senior official of the freemason organisation.
The article attempted to smear colleagues who are members of the organisation, which does a great deal of good charitable work. It presented the matter as something sleazy, which Nolan should be looking into.
The particular point that I raise is that, as we all know in this place, a lie is halfway round the world before truth has got its coat on. The item has been retracted by the newspaper in a piece which nobody could see if they did not have their glasses on—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow debates, or these lengthy statements by Members. I do not think that the House quite understands what a point of order is about. A point of order has to be something with which I, as Speaker, can deal. Now come to the point of order.
Mr. Bruce: The point for you, Madam Speaker, is whether, when Lobby correspondents refuse to put the record right as quickly as possible in a sensible way, you can remove the passes from those people and—
Madam Speaker: Order. An individual complaint that the hon. Gentleman has against the Lobby is not a matter for me as Speaker to deal with. He must deal with the Lobby himself, as I have done for the past 23 years.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On another point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, I was astonished to hear Captain Richard Killick, who was formerly one of the Royal Navy's senior experts on nuclear safety, being defamed by the Minister for Industry and Energy. Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that a constituent has an absolute right to raise matters of concern, both local and national, with his or her constituency Member of Parliament? The idea that a constituent should be prevented from doing that, and instead should have to go to the Government—the sponsor of the legislation about which he is complaining and wishes to express concern—is absurd, and extremely dangerous.
Madam Speaker: Any individual in this country has an absolute right and liberty to go to his or her own Member of Parliament to seek redress. That is the way in which we all deal with our constituents; there is a perfect right of access.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I can see hon. Members standing.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that constituents have an absolute right to come to their constituency Member to raise matters on their own behalf. Could you therefore do something about the fact that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has just made that very point, came to my constituency without advising me in advance, in order to take a petition from constituents on a matter that they had not had the courtesy to raise with me in the first place? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we could probably take up many afternoons with such matters.

307
I have given many rulings on the subject, and I expect Members of the House to behave as adults. [Interruption.] Order. I have given my rulings, and explained to the House about the convention. I expect Members to observe that convention, and to arrange matters between themselves.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will you let us know, Madam Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has yet submitted any evidence in support of the allegations that he made yesterday?
Madam Speaker: I have not yet received any information from the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that today Yorkshire Water is applying for a drought order for permission to introduce 24-hour rota cut-offs in Halifax and Huddersfield. If that happens, industry in my constituency could be desperately affected. Even worse, schools could close, and the elderly and sick in nursing homes could be put gravely at risk.
My point of order for you is to ask whether the Government have said that a Minister will make a statement on what, thanks to the mismanagement of the privatised utility, Yorkshire Water, is a grave crisis for my constituents and for people in Huddersfield.
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been told that a Minister seeks to make a statement today. Had that been the case, we should all have known about it, because it would have been on the Annunciator.
Ms Diane Abbott: Have you, Madam Speaker, any information about a Government statement on the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who has been sentenced to death on trumped-up charges by a military tribunal under the discredited military regime in Nigeria? Given the circumstances, severing diplomatic relations and severe economic sanctions are the least that people will expect from the British Government.
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Lady to the point of order and exchange that took place on the matter yesterday. No, the Government have not told me that they seek to make a statement.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Although obviously I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker, on the application for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20 made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I wonder what other avenues are open to us as Members of Parliament to pursue the matter.
Madam Speaker: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been in the House long enough to know that there is more time now for Back Benchers to raise such issues than ever before. If he does not know what they are, he can come to my office and I will give him a seminar.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance, too, because of my extreme concern for my constituents who live on the coast near the area where the explosives are being washed up. Our concern is environmental. Will the Government make a statement—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to raise the same matter again. There are many opportunities—through Adjournment debates, on the Loyal Address and in many other ways—for the matter to be raised in the future.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Madam Speaker. If the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) does not supply you with the evidence to which he referred in his spurious allegation yesterday, what steps—if any—can be taken to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the House to withdraw the allegation?
Madam Speaker: I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

Representation of the People (Amendment)
3.44 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration.
It is timely to be promoting a Bill which seeks to extend and improve the methods of electoral registration, because we are likely to have a general election using registers which will operate from February 1996 to 1997. If the election is not held with those registers, it certainly will be held with the registers for the year after that.
There is still time to register on the current electoral register, as the qualifying date for registration is 10 October in Britain and 15 September in Northern Ireland. People can still register even if they fail to do so before those dates, as long as they have qualified for the registers to be published on 16 February. Supplementary lists can be produced afterwards, so everyone who is not registered should make an effort to ensure that they are placed on a register.
They should ensure that they are on a register, not just because there is a legal requirement to do so, but because the franchise arrangements of this House have been based upon the struggles of the chartists in the 19th century and the suffragettes in the 20th for one person, one vote. One would have to look in a broom cupboard to see how the chartists and the suffragettes have been remembered, despite what they did to extend the electoral arrangements in this country.
Everyone should register, but help is needed to ensure that that is done. Money should be spent on advertising that goes beyond the recent advertising campaign on the subject, and a amount of money should be spent at least comparable to the amount spent on advertising the electricity and gas privatisations, to ensure that people are encouraged to take advantage of this fundamental right.
The best practices of electoral registration officers should be spread throughout the country, but the resources they require to do that are often far greater than are available to local authorities. An examination must take place of standard spending assessments and other provisions, to ensure that those funds are made available.
Political parties can also play a role in canvassing to ensure that people are registered. Keir Hardie said that, if Labour looked to the electoral register, it would surely achieve victory. Political parties must be aware of the importance of getting people on to electoral registers. Probably the best thing that could be done to encourage people to register would be for Parliament to make politics seem relevant to people. If people felt that Parliament expressed their views or that the Government were concerned with and linked to the people of this country, they would rush to the polling stations to ensure that they were on a register to exercise their franchise.
Even if we all do our best under the current arrangements to get people on registers, there are serious defects in how the system operates. If someone moves home today—or has done since 10 October—they cannot appear on the relevant electoral register in their area until 16 February 1997. They might not appear on that register even then, because they may have moved again to some
310
other area. We are supposed to have an increasingly mobile society, but we do not have the electoral arrangements to deal with it.
In 1991, the Hansard Society reported that, by the time a typical constituency register was finished, 16 per cent. of the names on it were redundant, and were no longer eligible to vote in the area. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys study in 1991 on electoral registration by Stephen Smith showed that non-registration in England and Wales amounted to between 7. 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. of those eligible to vote. The figure was especially high in inner London. Other OPCS publications on electoral registration show that similar problems exist within other cities.
The figure is high among the young—particularly among people coming up to vote for first time, known as "attainers"—among the black population, and among people who live in private rented accommodation.
The rate of non-registration is astronomically high among those living in furnished private rented accommodation—exactly the sort of people who move around. It is also higher among men than women. It is my modest claim that between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers.
Following a dispute I had with certain people at the OPCS about that claim, Dennis Roberts, director of statistics at the OPCS, wrote an internal memo stating:
"Surely the estimate produced by Mr. Barnes MP is broadly correct."
If I had time, I could easily prove how at least between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers.
My Bill would tackle the serious problem of under-registration by introducing a rolling register, so that people could be added to their local register when they moved into a new area, and deleted from it when they moved away. People who died would also be deleted front the register, to avoid electoral communications being sent by political parties.
The duty of the electoral returning officer would be to contact people as they moved into the area. They would do so by means of the information supplied to them from statutory undertakings, educational institutions, local authorities, Government Departments, and other electoral returning officers. They would also receive information from the registrar of births, marriages and deaths, so that the necessary deletions could be made as a result of death.
The EROs would then give people who had moved into their area the opportunity to comply with the registration requirements before adding those people's names to the register. The EROs could therefore check whether those people should be added to that register. The registers would cease to roll when an election was called, but it would still be possible for a person's name to be added, because the new qualifying date would then be the date of the announcement of the election. After the election, the registers would roll again. That requirement is included to ensure that no particular area is packed with people during a by-election.
A key element within the proposed system would be the early issue of polling cards, accompanied by the most extensive publicity possible. People who did not receive one would realise that they were probably not on the

311
register. They would still have time to register as long as they qualified to do so on the date when the election was announced.
There is little time for my Bill to become law, but I offer it to the Government for inclusion in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. No doubt Ministers will tell me to get lost—much to their shame. I must stress that my Bill has all-party support—in fact, the list of supporters sounds like a coalition Government.
Apart from my Bill, the Government should also consider the work done by a non-party organisation, Full Franchise, which has argued in favour of my Bill. It has also argued for access to polling stations for disabled people. That proposal was included in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which I introduced this year, and which is still before the House.
Legislation should also be introduced to establish a register of homeless people to ensure that those people are given their full registration rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Paul Flynn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 November 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
Orders of the Day

  Gas Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the first amendment, I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment to Lords amendment No. 211 in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

  Gas Bill
    Clause 1

      GENERAL DUTIES UNDER 1986 ACT
      Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      Madam Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 2. By leave of the House, I will put Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together.
      3.55 pm
      Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had been moved as a group and I was waiting for Lords amendment No. 3, to be taken with amendments Nos. 13 and 22, to be called before opening my comments. I did not hear it called.
      Madam Speaker: I put it, but it is confusing to deal with Lords amendments, as the whole House agrees. If it is in order with the Minister, I am quite happy to go back to amendment No. 3 if the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) wishes to speak on that. I would have to have Lords amendment No. 3 properly moved by the Minister and we will debate also with it amendments Nos 13 and 22.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 27, at end insert ("chronically sick,")
      The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      If it would help, Madam Speaker, I shall comment on this group of amendments, which was made in response to a point made by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in Committee in a debate on an amendment that had been moved by Baroness David. My noble Friend suggested that we needed to look again at whether the Bill's definition of those who are disabled or of pensionable age as requiring special consideration or services need to be expanded to encompass those who had suffered very severe and prolonged illness. Having considered the point, we accept the broad thrust of that argument and, through this group of amendments, we are trying to answer the point made by my noble Friend.
      Mr. Battle: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing us to open the debate on this group of amendments.
      We welcome the return of the Bill at this late and perhaps non-controversial stage. It launches British Gas into the brave new world of domestic competition. Labour does not oppose the principle of opening up the domestic market to competition since British Gas has been privatised. It would have been better if the changes that

      313
      we proposed in Committee and on Report had been accepted, but it would be churlish not to accept and acknowledge that crucial progress has been made in the other place. We welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment.
      Our concerns are still focused on the Bill's effect on consumers. The amendments introduce protection for the chronically sick as well as for those who are elderly and disabled. That is welcome. It is a broader definition. We would have preferred what I would call a fairer distribution mechanism to ensure, for example, that there is no regional discrimination. As the biggest and, perhaps, more attractive markets will be in London and the south-east, we need to be assured that less attractive markets will not be starved of what the Minister considers to be the benefits of opening the market.
      Even the Minister would not want a regime in which gas costs more for people in Newport than for those in Norwich simply because Newport is further away from the gas's landing point. I think that it is important that the Bill does not have a regressive effect, in that the more affluent customers are considered to be profitable to suppliers and therefore enjoy the benefits of choice and competition, while prices end up much higher for the elderly, the disabled and the chronically sick, who are more likely to suffer from fuel poverty.
      It would be churlish not to acknowledge that there has been some progress and that some common-sense amendments dealing with consumer protection have been moved in the other place. However, we do not think that they go far enough. We must ensure that those on lower incomes experience the benefits of competition rather than suffer its adverse effects.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: Amendment No. 13 adds the word "disabled" to section 7A—the anti-cherry-picking provision. Does the Minister envisage that licences granted under the provision may discriminate on the grounds of social disability or sickness? I find it difficult to understand how a licensee could ensure that that does not occur. Will the licensee base his or her calculations on the number of people in a street?
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, there is a danger of a strong regional element. Licensees could look at the valley communities, for example, and try to avoid having to compete for gas in that area. How will we get around the issue of competition and discrimination on a regional basis, especially as one consequence of the Bill will be discriminatory pricing on a regional basis?
      Mr. Eggar: I shall pick up the rather wide point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has raised. There will be a transportation charge differential. That flows not from the Bill but from decisions made by the Director General of Gas Supply before the Bill's introduction. We have never made any secret of that fact. That differential will not be more than plus or minus 2 per cent. of current consumer prices
      The Bill's structure—this point was raised in Committee—has potential benefits for the more remote communities that are perhaps not connected to gas. It will make it easier for local communities and individuals to take the initiative and many competitors of British Gas
      314
      believe that they will be able to connect consumers to gas at a lower cost than British Gas. The Bill also contains powers that will allow the connection costs to be spread over a number of years, rather than having one upfront charge, as applies under the Gas Act 1986.
      As to the hon. Gentleman's other point about what is loosely described as "cherry picking", the appropriateness of precise licence area is a matter for the director general. The various issues may be encapsulated by saying that the Bill's structure and the licences are designed to make it as difficult as possible to engage in cherry picking, however the cherries may be defined and however much people may want to pick them.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 13 agreed to.

    Clause 6

      LICENSING OF GAS SUPPLIERS AND GAS SHIPPERS
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 8, line 27, at end insert—
      ("(6A) If the holder of a licence under subsection (1) above applies to the Director for a restriction of the licence, or for the revocation of the licence in accordance with any term contained in it, the Director shall, subject to subsection (6) above, accede to the application if he is satisfied that such arrangements have been made as—

      (a) will secure continuity of supply for all relevant consumers; and

      (b) in the case of each such consumer who is supplied with gas in pursuance of a contract, will secure such continuity on the same terms as nearly as may be as the terms of the contract.

      (6B) A person is a relevant consumer for the purposes of subsection (6A) above if—

      (a) immediately before the restriction or revocation takes effect, he is being supplied with gas by the holder of the licence; and

      (b) in the case of a restriction, his premises are excluded from the licence by the restriction;

      and in that subsection 'contract' does not include any contract which, by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2B to this Act, is deemed to have been made.")
      Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Battle: We welcome amendment No. 14. It underpins the guarantee of the security of supply, because it provides that, if a supplying company goes bankrupt, it will not be in a position to withdraw the supply until it has found a replacement. That adds some essential protection of consumers, who will not be subject to liquidation and therefore will not have their supply cut off.
      I was slightly surprised, when I approached the Bill at a late stage, to find that that amendment was not in the original Bill. Perhaps it should have been on the face of the Bill. It has been added by Lords amendment. I hope that it is welcomed by the Government, as it is welcomed by the Opposition.
      Mr. Rowlands: I wish to make a variation on that argument. As I understand it, that amendment will clarify what happens if a licensee decides not to continue to supply, and it clarifies the means by which that termination occurs.

      315
      I assumed that the amendment was needed because the Government gave the impression, in some of the early undertakings that we received about competition in gas, that a huge, new, great, wonderful pool of entrepreneurial skill would emerge—that new companies would emerge that are capable of delivering that new competitive gas supply. Inevitably, if there is a new style of supplier, a risk arises that that company may go bust or go into liquidation or run into trouble. I therefore understand the aim of the amendment.
      I have read some troubling press reports. We now have an opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify matters. Will he tell us whether some of those reports are accurate? Is it true that the new suppliers are likely to be anything but new entrepreneurial skilful newcomers who will be exciting new players in the gas market? Recent press reports suggest that it will be Amoco Corporation of America, linked with Seeboard plc, the English regional electricity company. It will be BP and the Norwegian Statoil-Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap AS. It will be Total and Texaco Ltd., linked up with Calor Group plc. Those are huge oil moguls, which will dominate the market in supplying domestic gas as much as any of the new entrepreneurial companies of the type against which the amendment was presumably aimed to safeguard consumers.
      The Minister should try to give us a flavour of the type of new licensee that he expects to emerge—or is it that, as it appears from press reports, we shall have not a marvellous burgeoning of exciting new gas suppliers but huge new forms of concentrated power? Is it true that oil companies will drill, produce gas and deliver into the households of the United Kingdom? That is not exactly an image of a wonderful new spirit of competition. It is a huge collection of other big barons entering the market to compete with the baron British Gas.
      I believe that there is a serious issue as to what image and vision Ministers had when they went down that road of gas competition. I wonder whether the Amocos and the Totals and the Amerada Hesses and so on will reach Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—that is why the amendment is important. Who will be the new competitor in our district? I have a horrible, nightmarish feeling that it will be the electricity company—perhaps even the electricity company taken over by the water company. It would be wonderfully rich if one of the consequences in our district was that we had somehow reconcentrated what were public monopolies into combined private monopolies in which the same company delivered gas, electricity and water.
      Those questions arise as a result of the pattern or type of new competition that may emerge. Certainly, if that arises, those amendments are unnecessary. However, if it does—if my interest and worry are proved right in the longer term—what would one have achieved if the result is that our water, electricity and gas are supplied by the same big brother, but privatised instead of public?
      Mr. Eggar: I deal first with the provenance of the amendment, which is essentially technical. Hon. Members who considered the Bill in Committee will remember that there are in it a number of protections to ensure that a licence is granted not only to financially viable companies but to companies that meet various other criteria set by the director general.
      316
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to what he described as a concentration of power. I do not want to get too mischievous in what is, and has always been, a basically friendly debate, but the idea that the Bill will lead to an extra concentration of power is a bit rich, considering that there was previously an absolute monopoly supported by the hon. Gentleman. Under that system, one company bought all the gas produced in the North sea and supplied it to the consumers. The Government were determined to break that monopoly and to introduce competition.
      The Bill is an attempt to provide a framework within which different types of competitors can emerge. We are not thinking only of the type of companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which have so far publicly announced that they will supply nationally. We wanted to produce a framework within which regional suppliers could emerge. I have always been keen to safeguard opportunities for very localised producers.
      Let me describe a scenario that I have in mind and how it can come about under the Bill. Personally, I believe that a major source of gas supply to the United Kingdom will be coal-bed methane. We have to get the technology right but there is no reason why, over a period, we should not be able to produce it competitively, as the United States has managed to do.
      Because of the location of the major consumers of gas in the United Kingdom—they have historically been around the coalfields—there is a ready and nearby market for constant supplies of gas which are particularly appropriate to coal-bed methane producers. That might also apply to remoter villages in, for example, South Yorkshire, which are perhaps not on gas supplies but which are near mains gas supply systems and coal-bed methane supplies.
      I wanted to provide a framework in which, over time, localised suppliers could emerge, producing for perhaps three or four coal-bed methane wells and supplying to relatively few purchasers. I have never heard it suggested that there were tremendous opportunities in the south Wales coalfields because I have never heard it suggested that there was the same methane availability there as there almost certainly is in other parts of the country.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked whether people will want to compete in the valleys. I see absolutely no reason why they should not. I also see no reason why the Bill's provisions should not make it easier for communities that are not already on gas to be put on gas. There will be an average reduction in the price of supply.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he has replied. However, I do not think that it would be much of an achievement if the overall effect is that the alternative supplier turns out to be our electricity company. Is that the type of company that the Minister envisages as British Gas's main competitor in areas such as mine?
      Mr. Eggar: It is probable that in most parts of the country the relevant regional electricity supplier will want to be able to supply gas. How successful and competitive it will be is another matter, but the huge advantage from the hon. Gentleman's constituents' point of view is that they will no longer have to buy from just one supplier. Whatever the alternative or alternatives—incidentally, I think that there will be more than one alternative to British

      317
      Gas—consumers will have a choice. The history of competition is that it drives down prices and improves the quality of service because it is only when that happens that consumers can be persuaded to move from existing suppliers. Whoever British Gas's competitors are, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are likely to benefit.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: I completed an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with British Gas, and therefore took a self-denying ordinance and did not seek to serve on the Committee scrutinising the Bill. I can assure the Minister, however, that much of the drive for competition came from British Gas, which felt that it would get the regulator off its back and that a free-for-all would ensue.
      As a former graduate of the dismal science of economics, I am reminded of the fact that all capitalist endeavour tends towards monopoly. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right about the small regional monopolies that will emerge as competitors, just as they have in the water and electricity industries. I cannot envisage many people making large amounts of money from, according to the Minister's vision, extracting methane, although I hope that some will take that technology forward.
      4.15 pm
      The Lords amendment has to do with the holder of a licence applying to have that licence restricted. The worry is that, when the licences are drawn up, there will be profitable, cherry-picking areas and also areas of marginal profit—for instance, when I was studying British Gas, a decision was taken not to run the pipeline to Gretna all the way across the border to the north of England, because it was thought that that would be a loss-making venture compared with a pipeline direct to Gretna. The same sort of scenario will recur with these monopolies. Some people will be supplied with gas; many more will be left aspiring to be supplied with it.
      My worry is that people will apply to remove from their licences areas that are not currently being supplied—and that would be allowed, because the amendment stipulates only that a person is a relevant consumer under the new section 6(B) if
      "immediately before the restriction or revocation takes effect, he is being supplied with gas by the holder of the licence".
      So people whose homes are not on the pipeline may be excluded from the licence holder's area and will never be connected. To change the licence, another supplier would have to be found. So many areas of Britain, under competition, will not be linked up, because all the competition will be about making money out of buying and then selling gas to end users. The companies will continually try to make profits from their regional monopolies, not to serve the needs of consumers.
      Thus, although the Government laud competition, the chances of people in the remoter parts of the United Kingdom getting a gas supply will diminish with this Bill, even if it includes the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Eggar: I am keen to be helpful. Two distinct issues are involved here. First, will customers already connected to a gas supply benefit from competition; and will there be more connections? All the evidence so far is that
      318
      competition will lead to reduced prices and improved standards of service and choice for consumers. Once people are linked up to the gas system, there will be no difference resulting from the Bill. The right to withdraw from the market is carefully circumscribed, and the interests of the consumer as regards supply are protected.
      The other issue concerns whether people and enterprises not currently linked up to a gas supply will have a better or worse chance of being linked up as a result of the Bill. I strongly believe that their chances will be improved, for a number of good reasons. The first is that, under the Gas Act 1986, it was in practice impossible for British Gas to spread the charge of initial connection over a period. If householders have to pay as much as £1,300 for connection, and have to buy boilers and so on on top of that, that will represent a considerable outlay. So that was a negative factor, which will be removed once this Bill gets Royal Assent.
      Secondly, it will be open to any competing transporter to link with the main gas supply, having regard, of course, to safety considerations. It may well be that competitors will be able to lay the necessary pipes at a lower cost than British Gas and therefore make things possible that would not otherwise be possible. Thirdly, individual householders will have the right, again subject to safety provisions, to link their properties—trenches will have to be dug and pipes laid, for example—directly with the nearest supply.
      For all these reasons, I think that it is likely that more connections to the gas supply will take place when the Bill is enacted. There is some evidence to support that. For example, under the 1986 legislation, competitors may compete to supply gas to certain new developments. There is some evidence that British Gas's competitors have been able to supply such developments at a cheaper price and have won some contracts.
      The Bill will help our constituents rather than harm their interests and meet the concerns to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 15 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 8, line 38, leave out from ("no") to ("before") in line 39 and insert
      ("domestic supply licence shall authorise the supply of gas to any premises")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar.]
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21.
      Mr. Rowlands: I wish to know more about the context in which the amendments have been tabled. The Government have supplied helpful notes on the amendments, and I thank them for so doing. It would seem that, during the introduction of pilot areas, before there is full competition after 1998, there can be monopoly suppliers. A monopoly supplier can be British Gas or any authorised licensee. British Gas is to assume the responsibility of being a monopoly supplier in most of Britain between now and 1998, yet the director general, Miss Spottiswoode, has made the extraordinary statement

      319
      that British Gas's future is in considerable doubt because of long-term North sea contracts that have tied it to high prices.
      Perhaps the Minister will comment on the plight, as it were, of British Gas—I hold no brief for British Gas, and the Minister knows that I was a great supporter of Sir James McKinnon during the earlier part of his regulatory activities—as a result of entering into long-term contracts when it was a monopoly supplier. After all, it had a statutory responsibility to deliver a secure supply. It was willing to pay quite high prices because it expected to be the supplier for the next 20 years and beyond and responsible for domestic gas supply. That is the context in which some long-term contracts were entered into.
      There are questions to be asked. Miss Spottiswoode caused more than a flutter in the dovecote when she commented on the future of British Gas if long-term contracts remained around BG's neck at the end of 1998. We know that British Gas will be the monopoly supplier throughout most of the United Kingdom between now and the end of 1998.
      It is reasonable to ask the Minister how he thinks that any difficulties might be resolved bearing in mind the shadow that hangs over the future operations of British Gas because of the long-term contracts to which I have referred. Does he share Miss Spottiswoode's view that the survival of British Gas is in doubt given the structure of the Bill and long-term contracts? As I have said, it had a statutory role to play, a role different from that which it will play in future years.
      Mr. Eggar: I could not help but smile when the hon. Gentleman said that he holds no brief for British Gas. I remember when he was No. 2 to the now noble Lord Owen on the Labour Front Bench, and he did indeed read out a brief that was provided to him by Sir Denis Rooke, who at that time was the chief executive of British Gas, in order, as he saw it of course, to demolish a point that I was trying to make from the Conservative Back Benches. If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will see that from time to time there has been a slight liaison between himself and British Gas.
      The main justification of the amendment is, of course, to clarify the drafting. It is also to deal with an anomaly that has arisen. As I mentioned earlier, there are already provisions for suppliers other than British Gas to supply consumers, and they are fairly limited; they are for new developments. As originally drafted, the Bill would have made it impossible for those developments to be supplied with gas. That is the background for the clarification.
      My next point is a more general one about comments made, and which I have read, by the director general in the newspapers. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, going back a considerable number of months, and it is now widely accepted, that the contractual arrangements for gas purchases entered into by British Gas, in the context of the monopoly industry, are not appropriate for the new competitive world. It is therefore both inevitable and desirable that some degree of contract renegotiation should take place. I see that renegotiation as a matter to be pursued commercially between British Gas and the other companies involved. I understand that some preliminary discussions have taken place, and I shall continue to follow developments closely. It would not be appropriate at this stage for the Government to intervene.
      320
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the director general's alleged concern about the financial health of British Gas. The director general made it clear that there was no immediate threat to British Gas. She was at pains, I believe, to point out that it is her responsibility as director general, under her statutory duties, to consider all possibilities, however remote they are. These renegotiation discussions are important and I have no difficulty with the director general drawing attention to the importance of the negotiations. I note that British Gas has also welcomed the fact that she had done so. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 68 agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    THE GAS CODE
    Lords amendment: No. 69, in page 23, line 11, at end insert—
    ("Supplies of gas illegally taken
    8A.—(1) Where any person takes a supply of gas which is in the course of being conveyed by a public gas transporter, the transporter shall be entitled to recover from that person the value of the gas so taken.
    (2) Where—

    (a) any person at premises which have been reconnected in contravention of paragraph 10(1) below takes a supply of gas which has been conveyed to those premises by the public gas transporter; and

    (b) the supply is taken otherwise than in pursuance of a contract made with a gas supplier, or deemed to have been made with such a supplier by virtue of paragraph 8 above or paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 to the Gas Act 1995,

    the transporter shall be entitled to recover from that person the value of the gas so taken.
    (3) Each public gas transporter shall make, and from time to time revise, a scheme providing for the manner in which, and the persons by whom, the number of therms or kilowatt hours represented by a supply of gas taken in such circumstances as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above is to be determined for the purposes of that sub-paragraph.
    (4) Sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) of paragraph 8 above shall apply in relation to a scheme under this paragraph as they apply in relation to a scheme under that paragraph.
    (5) In this paragraph—
    "gas supplier" includes a person authorised to supply gas by an exemption granted under section 6A of this Act or an exception contained in Schedule 2A to this Act;
    "value", in relation to any gas taken in such circumstances as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, means the amount which, if the gas had been taken in such circumstances as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 8 above, could reasonably be expected to have been payable in respect of the gas under a contract deemed to have been made by virtue of that sub-paragraph.")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Rowlands: The amendment inserts an entire new paragraph in schedule 2, allowing the supplier to claim the value of gas taken illegally. Is it a long-standing provision? Does it exist in any previous gas legislation? I foresee a good deal of argument about the value of gas

    321
    that is taken illegally, and about how that value is to be clawed back. I know of no such cases in my constituency, but I can envisage them in the future.
    Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister explain how the charge will be levied? Will it be levied on premises or individuals? I do not want the legislation to penalise a person who has been named in a formal contract as the recipient of the gas supply when someone else may have taken the gas when the premises were empty, for instance. The premises might be rented or sublet by the contracted gas consumer, or someone might be living there illegally. The commercial position may be easily explained, but what about individual gas consumers in domestic premises?
    Mr. Eggar: The Gas Act 1986 allows gas charges to be recovered by public gas suppliers, whether or not the gas was taken by arrangement. That is not a novel concept. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to say that the amendment makes an additional provision in relation to the theft of gas. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides that the owner or occupier is to be deemed to have contracted with the appropriate supplier when gas is taken without authority, but that the existence of that deemed contract will not provide a defence in any criminal proceedings for theft of gas. The amendment is therefore to plug a potential loophole.
    There are, however, other circumstances where gas might be stolen and where it is appropriate for the public gas transporter and not the gas supplier to be responsible for recovering the sums concerned. For example, where premises may have been permanently disconnected or where gas is stolen in the course of its conveyance—directly from one of the pipelines—there may not a supplier with title to the gas who is able to recover the money. If gas is taken from a pipeline, no one quite knows to which company the gas belongs and a deemed contract does not exist, one must have a way of taking action against the thief because, in effect, someone is stealing gas. That is the reason for all the provisions.
    Mr. Rowlands: Do the provisions apply only to the transporter? Do they not cover the gas supplier?
    Mr. Eggar: The scheme that is made under the new paragraph will contain provisions for determining who is responsible to the transporter for the taken gas. One must consider this in the light of the particular circumstances of a case. We are trying to cover every eventuality and ensure that there is a case to be answered for someone who nicks gas, in the colloquial term.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 70 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 23, line 42, after ("above") insert
    ("—
    (a)")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 72, 73, 81, 286 and 287.
    Mr. Battle: In relation to the Minister's comments in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), today it was revealed that Clare Spottiswoode, Director General of Gas Supply, has taken a part-time job with Booker McConnell. That is surprising due to her high work load, to which she has often referred. I do not know whether ministerial consent was sought or needed, but it suggests that her work load would be more than cut in dealing with the complex and brave new world opened by the Gas Bill shortly after it becomes law. That she has time to take up a part-time job at this stage is surprising.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the justification for the regulator's increase in salary earlier this year was precisely that she did not have time to take on other jobs, which had been the basis of her original contract?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) share my surprise. We can simply note our surprise at this stage, but, in view of our debates today, it puts something of a question mark over the regulator's role.
    Amendment No. 81. deals with entry following discontinuance of supply. In the other place, Earl Ferrers tabled the amendment, which has serious implications for all gas consumers, and is of concern to the Gas Consumers Council and to us. The Lords amendment reads:
    "Any officer authorised by the public gas transporter or gas supplier"—
    after 24 hours' notice lo the occupier or to the owner of the premises if they are unoccupied—
    "may at all reasonable times, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises have been reconnected, or the supply has been restored, without the relevant consent."
    The amendment gives the gas supplier the right to enter the premises of a consumer who is not a customer of the supplier, perhaps because he has had his supply previously disconnected. As a result of the drafting of the amendment, the supplier will need to give no reason why he wants to enter the premises. He will not need to show the evidence that has led him to suspect that there has been illegal reconnection of the gas supply. The amendment could lead to an infringement of civil liberties and private property rights. We should know where we are. The amendment allows no redress for consumers who may have suffered disruption, inconvenience and perhaps even distress as a result of the operation of this power. The power could clearly be open to abuse.
    The amendment refers to
    "Any officer authorised by the public gas transporter or gas supplier"
    being able to enter the premises, which compounds the concern that meter service providers should be registered and subject to a code of conduct. Entering premises could be an additional service that metering companies could provide to the supplier who has subcontracted out the work to them.
    It is not clear whether, purely as a result of the authorised officer being able to produce a "duly authenticated document", he will be allowed to enter the

    323
    premises of a consumer even if the consumer is not there. The present requirement is to give 24 hours' notice; that is short notice, especially at weekends or in holiday periods.
    I have some recommendations for the Minister and I urge the Government to take them on board. We suggest that the supplier or the public gas transporter should be required to give at least 48 hours' notice, by recorded delivery, of the intention to enter the consumer's premises. The letter should clearly state who the authorised officer will be; any deviation should make the authorisation null and void. Any authorised officer, whether or not he is an employee of a public gas transporter or supplier, should be an employee of a meter service provider registered with Ofgas. We suggest that it should be spelt out in the Bill that the authorised officer must be an adequately qualified person to undertake the work and one in whom consumers have confidence.
    A clear procedure must be established as to the grounds on which a supplier or public gas transporter may enter a consumer's premises. The consumer must be informed in the letter. The procedure should also cater for redress for consumers suffering inconvenience as a result of a pointless visit, for example. We want to ensure that the new shippers, suppliers and transporters or their subcontractors do not use less qualified people than at present, thus lowering standards.
    Although we cannot make any changes at this stage, we ask the Minister to take our comments seriously and to use the delegated responsibilities that the Bill will give him to do something practical about our concerns.
    Ms Judith Church: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). We are trying to ensure that the consumer is properly protected, but the amendment will not achieve that. Many consumers will be disconnected for one of several reasons, one of which obviously is non-payment of their gas bill. We must know who might go to their homes and with what authority. If the person coming into their homes is someone authorised to do so, rather than the gas supplier, how will consumers know about it? Will a requirement for proper communication be written into contracts to ensure that we know who is doing what? A problem could arise if an engineer from a rival gas company went into the home of one of my constituents. There are to be all sorts of reasons for such visits.
    The Minister told us in Committee that we were thinking of about 30 new suppliers of domestic gas; so rival companies will be trying to carve each other up in the competition for new customers. I do not suppose that they will be rushing to get as customers those people who have been disconnected—but that is another point on which I shall not expand, because it is not relevant.
    4.45 pm
    We are considering the most vulnerable of people, quite often not the most educated, who do not understand. At the moment, they know that gas from British Gas is coming into their homes, that there is a British Gas van outside their homes, that there is a British Gas maintenance or service engineer, with a British Gas uniform and a British Gas card. Yet we are talking of sending in anybody, with some other sort of card, which people will not have seen. People are warned all the time about allowing others into their homes, yet they would
    324
    have to admit people who might not be properly safety-conscious and who might not be there for the proper purposes.
    There are many dangers and people need the 48-hour period which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has pressed the Minister to reconsider. At least such a period would enable people to ring up to verify the letter that they had received about a forthcoming visit—presumably, it would have a telephone number on it—if they were in some confusion about who might visit their home to carry out work. A consumer could be put at risk, especially if representatives of companies are visiting homes on a fraudulent basis.
    Mr. Connarty: My concern is very similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) but goes slightly further. Someone who has lost the gas supply because of financial difficulty may be in a stressed situation—not necessarily in relation only to the gas supply. When a person receives a letter to say that someone is coming along wanting to check if the gas supply has been reconnected, it is likely that that that person will not deal with it immediately—it would be one more thing behind the clock on the mantlepiece to be dealt with when such a person got his or her life sorted out.
    It worries me immensely that someone could visit homes without any reason to suspect a consumer—just to check that the gas supply had not been reconnected—and force entry. The Minister should consider the additional stress placed on someone who is already in some social, family and financial disarray in such a case. Tremendous safeguards must be written into the Bill.
    Perhaps the Minister could explain how original suspicions would be triggered and how safeguards would be provided. I am thinking especially of the parallel situation of wheel clamping. Wheel-clamping agencies are hired by councils and others to go around clamping cars. It appears that they do it in the most maverick way. When I lived in London, I regularly came across people who had been wheel-clamped in the areas where I liked to park as a resident. It seems that such agencies are in the business of trying to clamp as many cars as possible. They trigger the incident, and we know of the hue and cry among the public about that.
    Duly authorised persons who do not belong to a gas company at all but are part of an agency could be allowed to take on the spying and breaking into premises to try to cut the possibility of illegal gas supplies being reconnected. It is a frightening prospect for us to consider, but it must certainly be much more frightening to someone who is under stress and has financial and other social problems with which to deal.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall deal first with the first point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). My understanding is that the director general's non-executive directorship is entirely consistent with her letter of appointment. No conflict of interests is envisaged. I understand that the hon. Member for Leeds, West did not cover energy matters at the time, but it was fully explained and anticipated then. There was publicity and an announcement by the Government about a salary adjustment for her. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) look back at the press cuttings, they will find that there

    325
    was an agreement, which was made clear at the time, for her to take up a certain number of days with a non-executive directorship.
    As for the other matters, I understand Opposition Members' concern, but we must put our thoughts in context. We are talking about cases in which it is suspected that somebody is stealing gas. That is the basic background. There are provisions now, effectively identical to those before us except that they rest on a right to inspect gas equipment. It was felt that, because we had a Bill before us, it was appropriate to make it clear in this circumstance that there is no concept of inspecting gas equipment, and that the inspector is looking for possible theft of gas.
    From a constituency point of view, we are making a legal change but not a practical change. It is a desirable legal change because we are making the background clear. There are concerns about forced entry, for example, and I assure the House that, as at present, that will require a magistrate's warrant. There is no change there.
    In Committee we spent much time discussing the various conditions that will be imposed in the licence to ensure, so far as possible, that there will be no impersonation. It is proposed that the licences will require authorised officers to be able to identify their authority, by methods including ID cards, badges, and so on. There will also be provision for special arrangements such as passwords for pensioners and the disabled, because we are concerned that they might be worried.
    The licences will also oblige licensees to safeguard the ID documents, and so on. They will be obliged to take steps to prevent impersonation. Some of the matters raised are fully dealt with in the next but one group of amendments, which we shall discuss with Lords amendment No. 82. I understand hon. Members' concern. What always worries us is the impact on our constituents, but in practice there will not be a substantive change.
    Mr. Connarty: While the Minister was speaking I remembered a Faraday lecture sponsored by British Gas last year at which was demonstrated an electronic device that could read the flow of gas in a household from outside. It was said that metering as we know it, whereby the volume of gas is mechanically controlled and regulated, with meter readings, would be a thing of the past in a few years' time.
    If we are moving, however slowly, into the future, the idea of someone's having to force entry to" a house to find out whether there is a flow of unauthorised gas is already a somewhat outmoded concept. The Minister said that a magistrate's or justice's warrant would be needed to make an entry. Can he assure me that those duly authorised persons will not be like the wheel clampers—agencies that go around making money out of breaking into people's homes and causing them distress?
    Mr. Eggar: I hope that I have made the position on forced entry clear. I have reservations about a period of notice because we are talking about investigations into people who are stealing gas. Almost by definition, if we give 48 hours' notice of such an investigation, we may find that a reconnected supply has been disconnected again.
    326
    Much work is being done on what is known as "intelligent metering" systems, including on a site adjacent to my constituency. It is believed that within the next decade or so, gas, electricity and water—if it is appropriate—will be remotely metered, but we are some way off that. The consensus is that, while it can be done from a technical point of view, it is not cost-effective in most situations. Most people believe that remote metering will become cost-effective before very long, but in the meantime we need some provision to keep the human race involved in the process.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 81 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 29, line 6, at beginning insert
    ("No officer shall be authorised by a public gas transporter, gas supplier or gas shipper to exercise any powers of entry conferred by this Schedule unless—

    (a) the transporter, supplier or shipper has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that he is a fit and proper person to exercise those powers; or

    (b) in cases of emergency, those powers are powers conferred by paragraph 19 above.

    (1A)")
    Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 147, 177, 178, 197, 205, 216 and 217.
    Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments grouped with No. 82 include Lords amendment No. 197, to which I wish to address a few words. Should I do so now, or when we reach No. 197?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should speak to the amendment now.
    Mr. Rowlands: Lords amendment No. 197 is designed to create a new offence for those who make false statements or bogus calls, and it is very welcome. The thing that slightly astonished me was that such acts may not have been serious offences hitherto. Has the sad growth in bogus calling and other similar acts led to this very important provision?
    I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what provision exists at present with regard to such acts. Are our consumers and householders far less protected than they ought to be? I welcome the amendment very much, although it may be a sad comment on the changing times and the increasing problems with law and order that our communities are encountering. Bogus calls and false statements have led not only to thieving and burglary, but in many cases to violence against elderly people. While I support the amendment in the strongest possible terms, I must ask the Minister whether householders have been left unprotected until now.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman asks a fascinating question, and the answer goes to prove that there is no new form of human trickery known to man. The common law used to provide for an offence of false personation, but apparently the House abolished that offence in England and Wales with the Theft Act 19.68, thereby creating a hole that the common law had filled probably for several hundred years. We are now refilling that hole.

    327
    That is the background to the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I was not aware of it myself.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 83 to 132 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 133 agreed to [Special Entry].
    Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 178 agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    OTHER AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF 1986 ACT
    Lords amendment: No. 179, in page 53, line 15, at end insert—
    ("Duty of Director to investigate certain matters
    .—(1) In subsections (1) and (2) of section 31 of the 1986 Act (duty of Director to investigate certain matters), for the words "an enforcement matter" there shall be substituted the words "a reserved matter".
    (2) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
    "(3) In this section and section 32 below "reserved matter" means any matter—

    (a) in respect of which any functions of the Director under section 28 above are or may be exercisable; and

    (b) which has not been designated by the Director as a matter which is to be investigated by the Council.

    (4) A designation under subsection (3) above may be made—

    (a) either generally or in relation to matters of a particular class or a particular matter; and

    (b) either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the designation.

    (5) Conditions specified in a designation under subsection (3) above may contain provision for the designation to cease to have effect, either generally or in relation to matters of a particular class or a particular matter, in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the conditions." ")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 180 to 185 and 293.
    5 pm
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The amendments relate to the duties of the Director General of Gas Supply and the additional duties that we would like her and the Gas Consumers Council to take on.
    Since the Committee's and their Lordships' deliberations on the Bill, figures are available to show that, sadly, and contrary to the predictions from Ministers, the number of complaints from gas consumers has reached record levels. In the first half of this year the number of complaints to the Gas Consumers Council totalled the same as those recorded for the whole of last year. I understand that the rate of complaints is such that in the first nine months of this year the Gas Consumers Council has received a record number of complaints—more than in any other year, even its peak year of 1988.
    The amendments are designed to give greater powers to the director and the Gas Consumers Council to track down the source of some of those complaints. There is no doubt that the deterioration in services of which we are aware and which has been evinced in a number of services offered by British Gas has led to an increase in
    328
    complaints. The closure of 160 gas showrooms has led to a deterioration in the services on offer in the high street. Those showrooms used to offer a number of services, including the important one of offering advice on the payment of bills. The Post Office cannot offer such advice. Because of those cuts in services, gas showrooms have been merely left to sell appliances. Those closures have led to an increase in reported complaints.
    Consumers have also complained because of poorer services to homes: 50 home service advisers have been axed, which must have had an effect on the speedy and essential help to which elderly and disabled gas users had become accustomed.
    At present I do not believe that the regulator has made any connection between those poor levels of service and the behaviour of British Gas, especially in the boardroom. Since our Committee concluded its deliberations, the Greenbury recommendations have been published on boardroom pay and the way in which salaries and share options should be handled. I am sorry to say that British Gas does not seem to be at the forefront of companies implementing those recommendations to the letter.
    At the same time as we have heard of bonuses of £1 million given to a few British Gas directors and record levels of complaints against it, the regulator does not have the power to make a connection between those facts, nor does she have the power to ask the Gas Consumers Council to investigate those problems and make the necessary recommendations. The amendments are designed to bring those functions together so that the director general herself has a duty to consider boardroom remuneration and evaluate the services offered by British Gas.
    British Gas has received a record number of complaints against it. Despite the threat that it may lose the charter mark issued by Ministers at the beginning of the year because of that, things have gone from bad to worse. I should be sorry to see it lose its charter mark. It has given us no pleasure to see a company that was a byword for safety, efficiency and helpfulness, and which had one of the best records on customer help, become in such a short time the subject of universal criticism. That criticism has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although it has been voiced by just one or two Conservative Back Benchers.
    Unless British Gas improves its customer services, it will, I am afraid, go from bad to worse and lose customers. Its ability to respond to the needs of its 18 million domestic consumers and several million industrial consumers will therefore deteriorate.
    Through the amendments, we want to send a clear message to the Director General of Gas Supply. She must take a greater interest in the concerns of gas consumers. She must not, as she has told Members at recent meetings, concentrate on fostering the competitive aspects of the industry.
    People in houses who feel that their gas service is deteriorating do not look to competition to solve those problems, but to British Gas. They want that company to ensure that it provides the services that it has always provided. People are particularly critical of the resources that those in the boardroom of British Gas have devoted to boosting share option schemes and salaries rather than getting down to running the core business and keeping British Gas customers satisfied.
    Mr. Rowlands: I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
    I should like to know about the function of amendment No. 179. According to the useful note from the Government it is intended to revise section 31 of the Gas Act 1986 so as to
    "empower the director to designate matters to be investigated by the council either generally or specifically and either unconditionally or subject to conditions."
    That is plain enough language and it suggests that the Gas Consumers Council could become the creature of the director general. According to the amendment, it appears that the terms of reference of the Gas Consumers Council's work will be defined and designated by the director general. That is how I read it and, if so, should we be in favour of the amendment?
    As my hon. Friend has already said, the director general has made it clear that she sees her remit to be the development of competition. The Gas Consumers Council may find that the character of the competition that is being encouraged by the director general is having adverse affects in other respects on the interests of consumers. The roles of the director general and the Gas Consumers Council are not necessarily compatible or consistent. I have always assumed that those roles were separate. If they have the same function, why have both? We have always assumed that the Gas Consumers Council, as a representative body with regional presence and, therefore, with feedback from the grass roots consumer movement, has a role different from that of the director general. It is a different animal.
    It is not clear whether the amendment is inclusive or exclusive. Does it mean that the director general can limit, determine or define the investigative function of the Gas Consumers Council? That is what is suggested by the layman's language of the notes provided by the Government to accompany the amendment. The amendment talks of general or particular matters and of designations being unconditional or subject to conditions. What sort of conditions is it envisaged that the director general could impose on the Gas Consumers Council?
    Could the director general say to the Gas Consumers Council, "Thou shalt not investigate an activity," or forbid it to investigate her decisions? If the Gas Consumers Council found an activity it wanted to investigate or if gas consumers felt that the director general was letting consumers down in some way, would the council be able to investigate in an independent, free spirit? If the amendment does not make the Gas Consumers Council a creature of the director general, it certainly gives the director general power to investigate and define the work of the Gas Consumers Council. I do not like the sound of it and I do not know whether we should accept it.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said, British. Gas in recent years has suffered one of the saddest declines in consumer confidence. One reason for that is that all the changes and convulsions that have happened have meant that the sense of identity that we had with, for example, Wales Gas, has been broken up. The regional structure of British Gas was significant. I know that the Bill and the Minister are not responsible for that. It stemmed from reports of the
    330
    Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One consequence of that upheaval has been that British Gas's feel and touch for consumer matters has declined.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South mentioned gas showrooms. The most vivid—dare I say, amusing—debate on the Gas Act 1986 was on what was called the Merthyr gas showroom amendment, with which I stoutly sought to defend my local showroom against what I saw would be the impact of that Bill. After all these years, my worst fears have come true, and the Merthyr gas showroom has been closed. Indeed, showrooms all over the country have been closed. That is a withdrawal from the community and from the important close contact points that British Gas had with consumers. The use of those showrooms as advice centres and contact points—not only for paying bills—was important. The staff who worked in those showrooms—this was certainly true of the Merthyr showroom—enjoyed respect and were highly regarded.
    The withdrawal of important contact points with consumers has led to the sad saga, vividly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, of the rise in the number of complaints. Regionally, Wales Gas was an important part of the institutional framework of life in Wales and the capital. A remnant of it is still there, ably led by the local manager, but it is not the same. The result of the changes and convulsions is to be found in the figures that my hon. Friend quoted.
    5.15 pm
    I should like to know a bit more about the role that the Gas Consumers Council will have and its relationship with the director general. I hope that my worst fears about the wording of the amendment are not justified and that the role of the Gas Consumers Council will not in some way be restricted by conditions or definitions suggested by the director general. Those are serious points, but behind them lies the much more serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South about the sad way in which British Gas has lost touch with many consumers as a result of the convulsive changes that have taken place in the industry.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
    When we were originally consulting on the Bill's structure, we had to decide whether the Gas Consumers Council would be amalgamated with Ofgas. That had been the formula we had followed for Offer. We decided against that. It was a fundamental policy decision.
    The amendments were suggested jointly by the Gas Consumers Council and Ofgas to introduce an element of flexibility. The amendment deals with complaints and only with complaints. Under the Gas Act 1986, the Gas Consumers Council has to pass complaints about enforcement matters to the director general. There is no option under the terms of the Act. The amendment gives some flexibility.
    The Gas Consumers Council might very well decide that it thought that it could deal with a matter and the director general would say, "Fine, go ahead and investigate it." However—this deals with the point about the conditions that the director general might set—she

    331
    might then say, "If there is a breach of the licence, for which I am responsible, please refer it back to me." That was only an example. The amendment is designed to provide a better practical working relationship and is supported by both the director general and the Gas Consumers Council.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister for that example. It is reassuring that it is a joint suggestion. The Gas Consumers Council, then, can proceed to investigate what it wants but where that would infringe on the specific duties of the director general it would refer the matter to the director general. It will be a free agent in every other sense. Is that the assurance that the Minister is giving?
    Mr. Eggar: Not in the precise terms in which the hon. Gentleman puts it. He is talking about very wide-ranging powers. We are talking about keeping the existing division between Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council but allowing some of what I would call practical flexibility. In other words, where there are matters which clearly fall to the Gas Consumers Council to be investigated, which it has a desire to investigate and which do not conflict with the overriding powers of Ofgas, the council can go ahead. It is a practical working relationship. The strict division originally imposed by the Gas Act 1986 has proved to be a hindrance in responding to reasonable complaints from the average consumer. This is therefore a significant step forward on behalf of consumers.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made the same speech as I have heard from him several times before. There was the odd wry smile among hon. Members on both sides of the House as they heard more or less the same phrases tripping out as tripped out on the first day of the Committee.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What about September's results?
    Mr. Eggar: Garbage stays garbage, however often it is repeated. The hon. Gentleman seems incapable of understanding that, from the consumer's point of view, the advent of competition will be the ultimate spur for British Gas. If consumers are dissatisfied with the standard of service provided by British Gas, they will be able to go elsewhere. Nothing will concentrate the mind of British Gas or any other gas supplier more than consumer choice.
    I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the charter mark. A review is being conducted involving British Gas, the Gas Consumers Council and other interested parties, and I expect that the results will be announced later this year. While it is true that the absolute number of complaints is at an historic high, we should also examine the way in which British Gas is meeting its service standards in the regulated market. Last year, British Gas met 36 of the 39 service standards agreed with Ofgas and came very close to achieving the other three. That performance matched the performance of British Gas in 1993, which the GCC had described as "excellent". I do not wish to dismiss the rise in the number of complaints, but if one examines the level of performance one can see that British Gas has met 36 of its 39 service standards.
    Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 192 agreed to, some with special entry.

  Schedule 3

    DUTY TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS AND GIVE REASONS
    Lords amendment: No. 193, in page 59, line 7, at end insert—
    ("Duty to consider representations and give reasons
    . After section 38 of the 1986 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
    "Duty to consider representations and give reasons.
    38A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order exercise any one or more of the powers conferred by subsections (2) to (4) below.
    (2) This subsection confers power to provide that, before the Director makes a specified decision in relation to a licence holder, the Director—

    (a) shall give to the licence holder a written notice stating—

    (i) that he is considering making the decision and the reasons why he is considering doing so; and

    (ii) that the licence holder may, within a period specified in the notice, make written representations to him or, if the licence holder so requests, make oral representations to a person appointed by him for the purpose; and

    (b) shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.

    (3) This subsection confers power to provide that, where the Director makes a specified decision in relation to a licence holder, the Director shall as soon as practicable give to the licence holder a written notice explaining why it appeared to him to be appropriate to make the decision.
    (4) This subsection confers power to provide that, where a specified decision made or proposed to be made in relation to a licence holder will or may materially affect any specified person, any provision made by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above shall, with any specified modifications, apply in relation to that person.
    (5) Nothing in any order made under this section shall require the Director to disclose any information the disclosure of which he considers would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of a particular individual or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate.
    (6) An order under this section—

    (a) may make different provision in relation to different cases or different circumstances; and

    (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

    (7) In this section

    'decision' means any decision under this Part, or under a condition of a licence, other than a decision to make a provisional order under section 28 above;

    'specified', in relation to an order under this section, means specified in the order or of a description so specified;
    and references to a licence holder include references to an applicant for a licence." ")

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 194.
    Mr. Battle: Amendment No. 193 refers to the annual report that the director general must now make on the state of the industry. The amendment was put down in the other place by my colleague the noble Lord Peston, and the Government have agreed to require the regulator to

    333
    draw up an annual report which will be presented to Parliament. The report will assess the progress of competition and the extent of improvements in price and customer services.
    The Government have conceded considerable ground in allowing the amendment, not least because I understand that they repeatedly refused Labour amendments in Committee that required the assessment of competition in the pilot areas before competition was extended nationwide. I believe that the amendment is a good second best option.
    Some progress has been made with regard to customer protection, although we do not think that the Government have gone far enough to ensure that those on low incomes will not suffer the adverse effects of competition. The Government have had to introduce a large number of technical amendments to their Bill, particularly in the House of Commons, which suggests that the details of the legislation were not thought through properly before it reached the Floor of the House. That is water under the bridge, and I know that the Chairman of the Standing Committee commented on that point.
    The amendment connects the role of the regulator with competition policy. The relationship between the regulator and competition policy will remain an essential point of focus in the future brave new world. Labour Members intend to keep a very close eye on competition. If consumers suffer any deleterious effects when the Bill becomes an Act, it may be necessary to re-examine the arrangements and perhaps even the definition of the powers of the regulator and the director general.
    Although the Minister has given his assurances in that regard today—we are grateful for those assurances and we take them at face value—we do not always get every jot and tittle of legislation correct in this place, and we often underestimate the effects of legislation on our constituents. I hope that the Minister will agree to reserve the right to return to the issue if necessary, as the relationship between the role of the regulator and competition will remain central to any future debate on energy policy.
    Mr. Rowlands: I, too, welcome the amendment. At one stage I considered amending it, but I decided to accept the Minister's verbal assurance—he is an honourable man—that the Director General of Ofgas will get the message as to what should be included in the annual report.
    The amendment says that the report should include a statement about effective competition and a general survey of developments in respect of such competition. Will the report also explore the success or otherwise of the pilot areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) touched upon that issue, although he might have pursued it a little further. Will the terms of the report cover the performance of competition in the pilot areas?
    I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Director General of Ofgas accepts as part of his remit in the next 18 months an investigation of the growing claims about potential price cuts in the first pilot area in the west country. I do not know whether the Minister's fingerprints were on the weekend press reports, which stated:
    "Whitehall sources now expect prices to fall by 25℅ in the West Country."
    334
    There is no reason why the director general or Ministers cannot report on whether that target has been achieved.
    Will the Minister say whether his Department is responsible for such assessments? The price cuts were first estimated at 10 per cent, but we are now talking of cuts of 25 per cent. in the west country pilot area. That is a very interesting benchmark against which to gauge the success of competition. Will the Minister say whether the press reports are, shall we say, reasonably inspired? If they do not have his fingerprints on them, does he endorse their estimate of the price cuts in the pilot area?
    The annual report should cover the impact of the pilot area projects, and it should deal also with regional pricing. I hope that the director general will include a special section in his report about the impact, not of this Bill, as the Minister chided me earlier, but of other decisions that will lead to discriminatory regional pricing. We shall need to know the consequence of those decisions—the amount of the differential in gas prices.
    The Minister has spent most of his parliamentary lifetime since I have known him, all those years—[Laughter]—over some years—attacking British Gas, but I repeat that, in fairness, British Gas produced in Merthyr Tydfil, in Rhymney and in many other parts of the country, a uniform, reasonably priced system of gas. That gas was securely delivered, with a tremendous record of safety and of bringing natural gas to our regions.
    I doubt whether that gas pipeline system, which will now be privatised, would have been built, had it not been by the public sector. It was the success story—a great technical achievement—of, yes, a public monopoly. That monopoly created a gas pipeline structure that is one of many things that we can be really proud of, in infrastructural terms. Let us not deride the historical contribution that British Gas has made.
    5.30 pm
    In addition, at least British Gas did not discriminate against us because we were a long way from the North sea. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the annual report of the Director General of Gas Supply includes an assessment of the regional pricing that emerges, not necessarily as a result of the Bill, but as a result of a combination of factors, of which the Bill may be one, contributing towards discriminatory pricing of one type or another.
    I assure him that we shall keep a vigilant eye on it, but it is hard to know exactly what tariff is being charged in place x, y or z. Such comparisons should be an integral part of the annual report that the amendment establishes for the Director General of Gas Supply.
    Mr. Eggar: It is inconceivable that any report would not specifically cover the pilot area performance. I will draw the director general's attention to the argument that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) makes about regional pricing. It is interesting that, at present, British Gas is free to differentiate on a regional basis and it has chosen not to do so; who knows what it will do in future?
    I have read all sorts of comments about what might happen to prices, but it is interesting that, universally, it has been said that prices will decrease as soon as there is competition. Those decreases will be welcomed by consumers, whether they are 10 per cent., the 15 per cent.

    335
    that a company has spoken about openly, or the speculation about as much as 25 per cent. Consumers will ultimately benefit from the introduction of competition.
    May I gently pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)? Yes, there are very many technical amendments to the Bill. I claim some foresight. I said on Second Reading that we would be revising the Bill extensively. The reason is that I have always been determined that we would consult, and respond to anxieties when expressed.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has been kind enough to comment twice on the yellow document that I have introduced. That is a feature at the present stage of consideration, at the previous Commons stages and at the Lords stages. It is an innovation—I believe that it has never been done before. It was designed deliberately, on a technical Bill, to help hon. Members through.
    I say this to the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I cannot claim that, even in spite of all that consultation and the further forthcoming consultation on licences, we shall not find that there are aspects that, with the benefit of practical experience, we would have wanted to do differently or that we need to amend—I think especially of the licences. Everyone must understand and appreciate that.
    So far, the way in which the House and the other place have dealt with the issue shows that we can, in a reasonable spirit, tackle a complex technical piece of legislation in a way that responds to the various different interests and, ultimately, the interests of consumers throughout the country and our constituents.
    I thank the hon. Gentlemen for the debate. It has been a useful exchange.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 194 to 201 agreed to
    Lords amendment No. 202 agreed to.
    Lords amendmeats Nos. 203 to 210 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 211, in page 62, line 2, at end insert
    ("(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule, for the words from "placing in" to the end there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

    "(a) placing pipes, conduits, service pipes, cables, sewers and other works, and pressure governors, ventilators and other apparatus, in or under any street; and

    (b) from time to time repairing, altering or removing any such works or apparatus placed in or under any street (whether by him or by any other person."

    (3) After sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
    "(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that, in such cases and to such extent as may be provided by the regulations, a public gas transporter shall pay, by way of compensation for any loss sustained by any person in consequence of the exercise of those powers, such sum as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.
    (5) No regulations may be made under sub-paragraph (4) above which amend, or re-enact with modifications, regulations previously made under that sub-paragraph."
    (4) In paragraph 3(2) of that Schedule, for the words "giving a supply of there shall be substituted the word "conveying".")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eggar]
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am delighted that we have managed to place amendment No. 211 before the House, because my right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that the matter has a long history.
    The Minister just said that he was determined to listen, consult and respond, so that the Bill might be amended as appropriate, but perhaps I should congratulate him on his neat attire and dapper appearance at the Dispatch Box, because he might have given a slight appearance of having been dragged backwards through a hedge, kicking and screaming a little, because we have had a long history of battling to include the amendment in the Bill.
    The Minister may remember that I wrote to him initially, without success, and then brought delegations to visit him, when he said that he would be able to consider the matter further. It was not until we received a letter from the chairman of British Gas that we were aware of any progress.
    The Minister took that as being of some comfort, but the terms of the letter were something of a mass, in which the chairman said that, in the case of small businesses, British Gas would give
    "sympathetic consideration … on an ex-gratia basis."
    I did not feel that that went anything like far enough. We did not press the matter any further in this House, but I am pleased to say that, when the Bill went to the other House, strong feelings were expressed. I am grateful to Baroness Nicol and the eight peers who spoke about that issue at various stages in the other House.
    Strong anxiety was expressed by six trade associations, led by the British Retail Consortium, about the need for stronger action. I was delighted when Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, after the Government reshuffle and his appointment, was able to propose an amendment showing that there would be regulations. However, I wish to express my anxiety that those regulations may not go far enough—although, as they are couched, we cannot be too sure exactly where they do go.
    British Gas originally spoke about businesses with only a turnover of £250,000, and then said that they could go up to £500,000. That is far too low a limit, and I find it difficult to understand why there should be any limit. If one private company—we are now discussing private companies—causes damage to another private company, why should there be any restriction on the statutory right to compensate that other business? There is a lack of logic.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I wrote to him and sent on a letter from the British Retail Consortium on that subject. I hope that he will bear it fully in mind.
    Reading the Official Report of the debate in the other place on 25 October, I see that Lord Peston said:
    "we have moved seven-eighths of the way towards our destination. I am not sure whether it is a constitutional point or a point of honour but since the regulations are in response to your Lordships' demands it seems clear that the Government will introduce them corresponding to what we have discussed. It would be appalling if the Government, having introduced the regulations in response to what we have said, formulated them in a way which did not bite on the issues we have put forward."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1133.]
    That sums up my worries, because there are strong anxieties.

    337
    In my letter to the Minister, which I faxed the other day to his office, I drew attention to the fact that £500,000 by no means covers 90 per cent. of all small businesses, which I think he had been led to believe at an earlier stage. The British Retail Consortium says that many of its members would not be covered.
    Only a third of the members of the British Hardware Federation would qualify. Only half of the membership of British Small Shops and Stores would qualify. Spar (UK) Ltd, which works for most of the smaller retailers, estimates that only half of its members would be able to apply for compensation. Equally, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce is concerned that many of its members will fall outside the threshold.
    I do not think that there should be any limit but, if the Government are determined that the figure should be lower, I refer my right hon. Friend the Minister to the Companies Act 1989, in which a small company is defined as one whose turnover is not more than £2 million. If that definition is used in that Act, why can it not be used in the Bill? It is poor logic to say that there should be a limit.
    At the outset, my right hon. Friend was not overly keen on statutory compensation, thinking that it would be a burden that would be passed on to consumers. That perhaps reflects his Department's old-fashioned thinking about nationalised industries, in which all costs were passed on to consumers. We should instead consider it as an incentive to make firms avoid incurring costs in the first place.
    Representatives of North West Water came to see the Minister as part of a delegation. They told him that they try to conduct business in a way that led to the minimum amount of damage because they were aware that they have a statutory duty to pay compensation. If North West Water can regard the legislation as good in this respect, I am sure that it will be good for British Gas and any other utility that might be causing damage on such a scale.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that local authorities can reduce a rate assessment when street work is undertaken. That is done without regard to the size of the company involved. If local authorities can be flexible, why does British Gas feel that there has to be a limit? After all, we are no longer dealing with a public utility but with a series of private companies. Why should they be immune from the damage that they inflict on others? Privatised monopolies should be just as accountable and subject to market rules as any other businesses.
    Water industry compensation has been on the statute book for many years, but I do not think that the public regard it as anomalous. Indeed, they believe it to be perfectly sensible. We should regard compensation for the gas industry in the same light. If we regarded it as an incentive for it to conduct its operations more profitably, we could all benefit as a result.
    I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to accept in principle the notion that compensation is right. If he believes that there has to be a ceiling, it should certainly be much higher than £500,000. Whatever compensation scheme there is should be transparent, accountable and universal.
    338
    I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for having got the Bill this far. I understand that the consultation period will run for three weeks from this month, and ask him to confirm that, during that time, full account will be taken of the points made by the numerous trade organisations—the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Forum of Private Business, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Association of Convenience Stores—about the need for a much higher limit so that we can draft regulations with which we can all be satisfied.
    I apologise for not having been able to table the amendment in my own name at an earlier stage, but it will be appreciated that it has been only a few days since the Bill came back from another place.
    Mr. Battle: I read the report of proceedings in another place and, having also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I believe that he makes a cogent and logical case, which the Minister should answer. I hope that any response to the hon. Gentleman does not involve our getting stuck on the question of how small a small business is.
    The issue of statutory compensation is an important and practical one. I hope that we shall not see wrangles, with our streets dug up and left with holes, while companies have to produce accounts to prove their financial position. That would be intolerable and unacceptable. I hope that this important, local issue can be sorted out positively, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Eggar: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on his first change to Labour party policy. When the amendment was first introduced, I think I am right in saying that the Opposition spokesman was as sceptical as I was. I must say that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) also listened to the arguments. In any event, I do not want to spoil the atmosphere of what has been a good-natured exchange.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-West (Mr. Thurnham) on his determination. As always, I listened carefully to the arguments. I had a major hand in the debate in another place. I shall not go over the arguments about the difference between gas and water or the reasons for deciding access to the public highway.
    My hon. Friend's substantive point related to companies with a turnover of £500,000. May I gently say to him and those who associate themselves with his remarks that it is not ideal to have the issue raised at this stage. The first that I knew about the definition, which we raised from £250,000 to £500,000, being queried was when his fax reached me on 31 October. His argument until now has consistently been on behalf of small businesses, so his present argument that there should be no limit at all seems slightly inconsistent. However, I do not wish to argue fiercely with him about that.
    There will be a limit, but I am willing to listen to arguments about what exactly it will be. Of course, problems arise with the percentage of small businesses that qualify, because retail businesses have higher turnovers than other small businesses. We are prepared to examine the issue, but need to do so rapidly. We have no time for formal consultation, and the various concerned

    339
    bodies that have not yet put their views to us need to do so quickly. Having said that, I support the amendment, and commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments Nos. 212 to 269 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 270, in page 76, line 4, at beginning insert
    ("(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,")
    Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 271 and 272.
    Mr. Eggar: As this is the last group of amendments, I should like to extend my thanks to the Opposition, my officials and the Clerks of the House for the way we have managed to get through a complex and technical Bill in a good spirit and with maximum co-operation, always mindful of the many benefits that will flow to consumers from the Bill.
    Mr. Battle: I echo the Minister's remarks. Although I came to this Bill at a very late stage, I know of the work that has been done on it by the Clerks of the House and others. I would also offer a word of thanks to the Minister for the book that his Department published, carefully setting out how the amendments relate to the Bill. If other Departments of Government followed that practice, it would greatly help us all—and perhaps improve legislation generally.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 271 to 298 agreed to.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
    5.51 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
    That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
    That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

    (a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

    (b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session;

    (c) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

    (d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

    (e) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (c) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

    (f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent; upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

    (g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it;

    (h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

    (i) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;

    (j) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session; and

    (k) if the Bill is reported from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
    That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session—

    (1) that it have power to consider—

    (a) alternatives to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the approach of the rail link to St. Pancras station from the west of Highbury Corner;

    341

    (b) the provision of rail sidings on the Midland Main Line on the western edge of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

    (c) the relocation of Tarmac plc's existing concrete-batching facilities to a site in the north-west corner of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

    (d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding railways in the throat of St. Pancras station in the vicinity of the Regent's Canal;

    (e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding diversion of the Camden sewer;

    (f) the provision of an additional road into the King's Cross Railway Lands from York Way, in the London Borough of Camden;

    (g) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding ticket halls and subways of the London Underground Railways;

    (h) the provision of a sewer forming a diversion of the St. Pancras sewer;

    (i) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill (buildings authorised to be demolished), so far as relating to the London Borough of Camden;

    (j) the running through a tunnel of so much of the rail link as lies between Barrington Road, in the London Borough of Newham, and Dagenham Dock, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham;

    (k) works required in connection with the accommodation of the easterly portal of the main London tunnel;

    (l) the undertaking of additional overhead line diversions in the vicinity of the A13 in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering;

    (m) realignment overground of the rail link and Tilbury Loop Railway in the vicinity of the Mardyke Park housing estate at Thurrock, in the county of Essex, and associated works;

    (n) the provision of additional roads in the vicinity of Crowbridge Road, Ashford, in the county of Kent;

    (o) the provision of sidings on the Ashford to Canterbury Railway to the east of the River Stour at Ashford, in the county of Kent;

    (p) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the junction of the rail link and the Eurotunnel Railway at Folkestone, in the county of Kent;

    (q) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by Part I;

    (r) alterations and additions to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the compulsory acquisition of easements and other rights over land by the grant of new rights;

    (s) the disposal of land acquired for the purposes of or in connection with the works authorised by Part I;

    (t) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used; and

    (u) additional power to stop up highways in connection with the construction of the A2 and M2 improvement works;
    and, if it thinks fit, to make Amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;

    (2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee mentioned in paragraph (1) above is empowered by that paragraph to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—

    (a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and

    (b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents;
    That it be an instruction to the Clerk of Private Bills that, on receiving an original copy of the first newspaper notice of any Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the
    342
    Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session is empowered by paragraph (1) of the above instruction to make, he shall publish the date of the notice in the Private Business paper.
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

    Sir George Young: There are two motions on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill to be debated today. The first is an instruction on additional provisions, and the second is a carry-over motion. It may be helpful to the House if I say a brief word about both.
    The channel tunnel rail link is one of the country's most important infrastructure projects of this decade, probably of this century. The House gave the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill an unopposed Second Reading on 16 January, with hon. Members on both sides expressing a wish to make rapid progress with the passage of the legislation and the implementation of the project.
    The carry-over motion takes forward that unanimous will of the House. It is simply a procedural requirement to allow the Bill to run from this Session into the next. It is a hybrid Bill, which therefore has to be considered by Select Committees in each House in addition to all the usual stages of a public Bill. Because of that, and because of the scale of the rail link project, the Bill will inevitably take more than one Session to complete its passage.
    Good progress has been made since the Bill's introduction on 23 November last year and its Second Reading on 16 January. The Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), started work on 21 February. The Committee has spent 60 days so far considering the 993 petitions received, which is well over 250 hours. The House will, I am sure, join me in paying tribute to the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), and the seven other members of the Select Committee for the way in which they have tackled this daunting task. They have kept proceedings moving forward and have listened to petitioners with unfailing courtesy, concentrating on the important issues. They have already reached and announced a number of key recommendations and decisions.
    The Committee needs to complete its work in the new Session, and the carry-over motion provides for the Committee to continue on the same basis as approved by the House in the original committal motion on 16 January. The House has already made clear its support for the CTRL project, and carrying over the Bill is essential to bringing the project to fruition.
    The other motion, instructing the Select Committee with regard to certain additional provisions, is to give effect primarily to the Select Committee's own wishes, announced on 20 July, on changes to the route of the rail link. The procedures of the House require that the people whose interests may be affected by the new route changes must be afforded the right to petition and be heard by the Select Committee. This is achieved by a formal instruction of the House to the Select Committee that the Committee may consider the route changes, which then enables the Government to deposit the necessary additional provisions and notices to be issued to those affected.
    The major route changes are at Mardyke park in Thurrock, Barking and the approach to St. Pancras. Following the Select Committee's announcement in July, the route changes have been developed in sufficient detail

    343
    for plans to be produced, property to be referenced and environmental assessments to be undertaken. For Mardyke park, the route is being realigned and a viaduct moved away from the housing estate. For Barking, there is a longer tunnel than the Select Committee sought. For the St. Pancras approach, the Select Committee accepted the promoters' proposal that two options for changing the route should be considered, and the motion allows for that.
    I do not intend to run through other items in the motions, although the Minister of State will be prepared to respond to any particular concerns raised by hon. Members. Generally, the other items are minor alterations to works and land to be acquired or used, some of which are a consequence of the Select Committee's decisions. Others are tidying-up provisions, often to meet concerns raised by petitioners during negotiations.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I have a personal concern about blight: the tunnel goes immediately underneath my house. I am quite happy about that, but is there any compensation in this for me? My property, along with many others, has been blighted; its value has gone down. People do not want to buy a house over a tunnel.
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are statutory compensation schemes, to which he, like other members of the public, is entitled. Union Railways is operating its own scheme for people whose properties are affected by blight. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is the advice that I would give my own constituents: to take legal advice if he believes that his property interests are affected.
    Mr. Banks: You are the Secretary of State.
    Sir George Young: I am not a solicitor. I do not have the relevant qualifications, and I would hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman any unqualified legal advice.
    Ms Margaret Hodge: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Hundreds of my constituents' properties were blighted by the original proposals, and they remain blighted. The Secretary of State said that it was up to Union Railways to come up with a scheme for voluntary purchase, but Union Railways tells me repeatedly that it works under directions given to it by the Department of Transport. We therefore seek tonight the assurance that the properties that will remain blighted—despite the revisions in the proposals—will be covered by a compensation scheme that will be fair to the people whose homes have been blighted for many years.
    Sir George Young: As I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, the Select Committee has not yet dealt with this subject. It will come to the matter, I believe. She is right to say that Union Railways is buying homes on request within the safeguarded zone for the CTRL. That includes all homes taken wholly or in part by the link. It also operates a discretionary purchase scheme for properties seriously affected by the construction or use of the CTRL in cases of severe hardship. Union Railways published new guidelines for the operation of the scheme on 19 July; they are broadly in line with the arrangements for the road schemes. In our view, widening the purchase schemes to less affected properties could worsen any blight.
    344
    The Select Committee, as I have said, is still considering property and compensation issues connected with the CTRL.
    The instruction by the House does not approve the additional provisions listed; it merely empowers the Select Committee to consider them formally, with the benefit of petitions from those affected. The Committee is not obliged to adopt all or any of the provisions.
    The Government's aim is to deposit the additional provisions in two batches: the first—including Mardyke and Barking—in a few days' time, and the second—principally the St. Pancras approach—in early December. This should enable the first batch to be considered by the Committee starting just before Christmas. The second batch should start in Committee after the Christmas recess. The House will, I am sure, share the Committee's wish to complete its hearings without delay so that the CTRL project can go ahead as soon as possible.
    6 pm
    Ms Clare Short: I shall begin by saying something personal about the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will remember the time—it was some years ago—when we worked together in the project Re-unite, the purpose of which was to give more support to parents—usually mothers—whose children had been abducted. It was a worthy and important cause. I hope that the period during which we work together on transport matters will be as productive as our earlier work.
    I have made a comment about the Secretary of State behind his back that perhaps I should make in front of him. I know him to be intelligent and socially concerned, and that being so, I have a basic respect for him. As we begin our new transport relationship, I find it impossible to believe that the right hon. Gentleman judges the current rail privatisation proposals to be in the national interest. I am sure that we shall return to that issue. The more I see of the proposals, the more people I meet who are involved with them and the more of the detail that I come to examine, the more I become aware that they are massively destructive to our transport systems.
    I cannot believe that a man of the quality of the Secretary of State could possibly support the proposals. It seems—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to intervene too strongly when there might be harmony. I hope, however, that we shall restrict the debate to the motions that are before us.
    Ms Short: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to get my compliments in first.
    Along with many other Members, I accepted an invitation about a year ago to travel to Paris from Waterloo on the new Eurostar service. I think that we were all invited to make the journey. I tried to register the journey in the Register of Members' Interests and was told that if something is offered to all Members, it is not necessary to register it. That is an interesting concept.
    I made the journey with my mother. It is interesting when people in their 70s travel by rail. For them, the smoothness of the ride is of great importance. I met my

    345
    hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and he, too, was taking his mother to Paris. We had a mothers' day out to Paris, in the rain.
    I found—many others have found since—that the quality of the service on the French side of the Channel was massively more impressive than that on our side. Some British people are ashamed about that when they make the journey. President Mitterrand, when he opened the French link to the tunnel on 18 May 1993, said:
    "Passengers will race at great pace across the plains of northern France, rush through the tunnel on a fast track and then be able to daydream at very low speed, admiring the English countryside."
    Speed and comfort are important. With a poor-quality service there is spilt coffee on the English side but not on the French. There are stops and starts on our side and it is difficult to walk through the train as it sways. I felt sad and rather ashamed that the quality of the service on the French was so massively higher.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Short: I shall give way to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman's point is sensible.
    Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady will not be aware that I travelled on the Eurostar service today. I returned to Waterloo this afternoon. I can assure the hon. Lady that the service that I received was excellent on both sides of the channel. There was no difference in the service on either side. I do not recognise her description of the service. Again, our service is being berated at the expense of British Rail. That is deplorable.
    Ms Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was sleeping during the journey. No one is suggesting that the quality of service provided by the British staff is lower than that given by the French. I am merely saying that the train travels a great deal more slowly on the British side. That is fact. I am not berating anyone. If the hon. Gentleman did not notice the difference in speed, his sensitivity—[Interruption.]
    We support the motions that are before us. Given that it is possible that the Bill will be given Royal Assent during 1996 and that instructions for work to begin will be given in 1997, we, Labour, expect and intend to take over responsibility for the project and see it through to completion as early as possible in the new millennium. We are critical, however, that one of the largest civil engineering projects in Britain for a long time has progressed so slowly and that so much anguish and pain has been caused by planning blight because of the Government's mad ideological commitment to market forces and private sector control of all projects, rather than a partnership between the public and private sectors that would bring the best from both sides to the project. The Labour party is firmly committed to the latter approach, which would be much more strongly in the national interest than the Government's arrangements.
    Any review of the details and the history of the project—I have obviously engaged in such a review in preparing for the debate—makes enormously depressing reading. It is a story of delay, dither, blight and wasted resources. That stems from the Government's initial determination that no Government grant or subsidy should
    346
    be provided for the project. As a result, it had become clear by the end of 1991 that London's investment community was unenthusiastic. That error of judgment led to the big U-turn in March 1993, when the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government had decided that the project would have to go forward as a joint venture. We were told in January 1994 that the Government were willing after all to provide substantial public sector support for the project.
    We now know that the Government intend to hand over to the successful bidder as much as £1.7 billion in cash subsidies and asset transfers without taking any public stake or power to ensure public accountability in return for such massive public investment. That is deeply wrong, both morally and democratically. The tax burden is higher now as a percentage of gross domestic product than it was in 1979. The burden is more inequitably distributed with the result that those on lower incomes are paying more tax now than they have for a long time. It seems profoundly wrong to hand over massive public resources to private companies without ensuring that the public interest is secured. The Opposition object to that.
    It is to be welcomed that the Government have responded positively to the proposals that are set out in the report of the Select Committee on Transport. We are concerned, however, about the delays caused by the Government dithering over the best way in which to finance the scheme. We are also concerned about planning blight. We note that there is good news for those who live along some sections of the route. A pamphlet is being issued in Barking that states that there is good news at last. Many people will be comforted by the progress that has been made, and that is to be welcomed.
    Some extremely serious allegations were made in an article that appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 27 August. It suggested that the Secretary of State and his Ministers had attempted to nobble the work of the Select Committee. It is such a serious allegation that I imagine that Ministers will want to respond to it. The article states:
    "Sir George Young, the transport secretary, has told Cabinet colleagues that the Select Committee has already accepted too many points made by objectors, especially in Labour-voting areas of London."
    I hope that the Secretary of State has not proceeded in that way. Citizens' rights to compensation and other matters should be protected regardless of voting behaviour.
    The article continued to the effect that The Sunday Telegraph had learnt
    "that Sir George is to send a discreet message to the two senior Tory MPs on the committee that it would not take much more to make the project no longer viable."
    That is interesting. The article stated:
    "Sir George and John Watts, the rail minister, intend to approach Sir Anthony before the committee's next meeting on October 17. They will urge him to resist widespread demands for a more generous approach to compensation."
    That is extremely serious and something that should he mentioned on the Floor of the House.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in which he outlined his views. He told me that he did not intend in any way to influence the Committee. I read out the letter to the full Committee at one of its

    347
    meetings. The Committee accepted his word, as I did. No attempt has been made to influence me in any way. I assure the House that if that were tried, I might go the other way.
    Ms Short: The letter seems peculiar. I think that the Minister, when he is winding up, might want to come back to that point.
    Another specific point that I would like the Minister to address when winding up is where things stand on the ombudsman's report, which found the Government guilty of maladministration leading to injustice over their refusal to pay compensation to some residents. As hon. Members may well remember, the report included some extremely distressing cases: a couple who wished to move because their son had hanged himself in the property; and another where a woman with a degenerative illness wanted to move closer to her family but was unable to do so. I understand that there is a meeting this evening. I also understand that there might be some suggestion that the Government will be rather more helpful than they have been about the ombudsman's report. I very much hope that that is true and that we can have some news on that.
    I should also be grateful to know what progress has been made to ensure that when passengers arrive at St. Pancras station the infrastructure can cope with the traffic, because one of the great worries about rail privatisation is that there will be separate writs breaking up the national network and that there will not be the necessary co-ordination of the system. I want to know whether those developments are in hand and, in particular, whether we can now have a firm date for the commencement of direct services via east coast and west coast main lines to the rest of the country.
    Our view is that the project is essential to the updating and strengthening of Britain's rail network, and we as a party are absolutely committed to the maintenance of a united national rail network that will co-ordinate transport services throughout our country and remain in public ownership. We also believe that it will improve comfort and efficiency for travellers and that our trade and business relationships with our European neighbours will be strengthened. We deeply deplore the terrible delays that the project has suffered because of the Government's ideological obsessions, but we strongly support it and look forward greatly to taking responsibility for it in government and carrying it through to success.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is self-evident that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. The debate must finish at 7.21, so I appeal for short speeches.
    6.11 pm
    Dame Peggy Fenner: I am grateful to get your help in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will try to comply with your injunction.
    I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench two particular points. First, today on the front of a national tabloid appeared a report—I do not know whether it was leaked—which concluded that the M2 road widening between junctions 1 and 4 has been postponed. I remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee sought assurances that it would be completed within the same
    348
    construction period as the channel tunnel rail link. The Government themselves gave the qualification that if either were delayed for funding reasons, they would not delay the other indefinitely.
    I should make it quite clear about the widening of the M2 road that, as soon as I learned the price of building another bridge—hon. Members will be aware that we are to have two road bridges and one rail bridge adjacent to one of my villages, Borstal, near Rochester—I said that it was a bridge too far, and asked whether we could ban the road. I ask my right hon. Friend to look again to see whether that road really is needed, as it is a great imposition and additional noise to my constituents.
    Secondly, I had hoped to read in the instructions to the Select Committee—I accept that they cannot be too detailed—some instruction to look again at the mitigation of noise, because my constituents are certainly not satisfied with noise barriers that cover only one portion of each of these three confounded bridges. They want noise barriers that go right the way across. Their living environment must be balanced against the visual impact that the barriers would have. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that some of the £13.6 million that was allocated from Brussels should be given to ensure the protection of the living environment of the people in Kent and in London who perforce must have this link running through their section of the country.
    I have read a rumour, but being a politician I do not believe much that I read in the newspapers, that the Select Committee, when it continues into the next Session—I hoped that this would be in the instruction—will look specifically at generic matters, such as blight, compensation, noise mitigation and construction, because in those matters hon. Members like myself are very worried about people who want or need to move. We are worried about construction—in the case of my constituents, not only of a rail bridge but of another road bridge, and all that that implies. My constituents hoped that building of the two bridges would run simultaneously, but they opened their paper today and learned that that will not be. Will they have 10 years of construction, as the bridges are built sequentially, one after the other?
    Part of my constituents' problem, in addition to this great burden on their environment, is that the construction will interfere with a tip that has had asbestos dumped on it for years. Nobody will give them any scientific evidence that it is safe to interfere with it. I warn my right hon. Friend that they require some scientific reassurance about the effects of moving the tip, and construction on and around it. I do so in respect of a recent finding in a court on compensation for people who are suffering because, as children, they played near a source of asbestos. People are naturally worried. We also had the same situation in the dockyard. Although proximity to the source of asbestos was many years ago, men have died 30 years later.
    I take it that hidden in this instruction are the detailed instructions to the Select Committee about its next work. I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee is a very independent character and that he and the Committee will do it their way, but I seek assurances on the fate of the M2 and its consequential co-ordinated building; the factory farm site and its asbestos; and the noise mitigation barriers across all two or three of the bridges, whichever it finishes.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Some six hours ago I, too, emerged from the channel tunnel on Eurostar, coming back from meetings in Brussels, and I have to say that my experience was identical to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) rather than that of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). Indeed, other passengers in the carriage clearly thought that there was something wrong with the train. Those coming from Brussels who had not used it before, having had the smooth ride through Belgium and France, when suddenly faced with a remarkable reduction in speed, and much more rattle and swerve as they came through the Kent countryside, clearly did not relish the prospect of reaching London, as they feared, some hours late because the train obviously had something wrong with it.
    We know that there is nothing wrong with the train; it is a great institution, but the link is clearly totally inadequate. That is why I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will congratulate the Select Committee and express relief that it has made such progress so far. We are grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who have undertaken this task, but it has to be said that already the likely cost of the link has risen by another £170 million as a result of the amendments. We are now looking at a bill of something in excess of £2.7 billion. The cost of delay is clearly the most difficult cost of all to face. How can we justify that to our constituents, who are already well aware of the considerable time that it has taken to get thus far?
    The instructions clearly are helpful in a number of ways, and I shall concentrate on one or two of them and their broad purpose rather than go into great detail, because I know that many hon. Members with local concerns wish to speak. The most important implications are for the provision of freight travel through the tunnel. I have always believed that to be the major justification for a rail-based fixed link across the channel. Indeed, I believe that that is already considered to be fully justified, and that its potential is extremely exciting.
    Last year, for the first time, freight shipments on the United Kingdom's rail network fell below 100 million tonnes. That has serious implications for the whole British economy, let alone for the balance between road and rail. I hope that both these instructions and the speed with which the Committee is able to make progress will result in increasing opportunities for the economic transport of freight by rail.
    A few weeks ago, it was suggested in the Financial Times that that would be the most critical issue in regard to future funding of the tunnel, and also that it would be critically important to our entire rail network. Given that few freight journeys of less than 300 miles are possible because of the loading and unloading costs at each end, the access given by the tunnel to the continental rail network is clearly of remarkable importance. We shall not have that opportunity again. More than 75 freight trains a week are making regular return journeys to a number of European countries; surely we should encourage that trend.
    Given that the inadequacies of the trans-European network from Britain's point of view are of our own making, we are clearly presented with another opportunity. According to a Railnews bulletin sent to hon. Members by Eurotunnel,
    350
    "taking the road to rail ratio and comparing to other countries, Britain could have got 750km of high speed rail but instead only got 80km, for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Sources in Brussels have said that Britain could have got very much more if it had applied; one wonders if there is a real government intention to spend a significant amount of money on improving the West Coast Main Line. Could not some of it have come from this TEN scheme? Even the modest £70 million required for the line upgrading between Glasgow and Folkestone for piggyback services could have been covered under the combined transport priority list.
    The Whitehall excuse is that projects, other than the CTRL, were not sufficiently advanced—who can we blame for this but the same people!"
    The CTRL is incredibly important in itself, but it should also be the pioneering project that leads to effective new investment—particularly in freight travel—on our rail network in other parts of the country. It is feared that the return that Railtrack will demand for access charges—not just for the CTRL, but elsewhere in the country—could hold that back.
    Of course noise insulation—to which the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) referred—and blight involve important considerations. Many hon. Members will wish to express their constituents' views on those subjects, but those are transitional problems, and I hope that the improvements that have already been hinted at will be seen as the Committee continues its work.
    I believe—as, I think, do many members of the public, as well as Members of Parliament—that the function of this link to the continental network to extend opportunities for the freight industry to convey more loads by rail will really make the difference. It will be able to remove from the hard-pressed roads of Kent, and southern England generally, a proportion of the heavy loads that they are currently carrying, and at the same time enable the road improvement programme to be seen in a different light.
    Finally, let me comment on future funding for not just the CTRL but similar projects. The French Government may not be perfect in other respects, but over many years, under different political leadership, they have seen opportunities for partnership between local authorities and national Government, and between public and private enterprise, as critical to such projects as high-speed rail links. The DATTAR scheme is by no means perfect in its consideration of environmental implications—we in this country would probably consider ourselves better at such things—but in other respects it leaves us standing.
    Today, not for the first time, I passed through the amazing station at Lille where the three mayors of the Lille conurbations—all of different political persuasions—worked together to create a magnificent focus for a TGV station, as well as for Eurostar and for an integrated nodal transport system. That project is already a great success: it has generated new business and retail involvement.
    I believe that we are missing an opportunity. I hope very much that the Committee's work will be successful, but I fear that we are still treating the project as a "one-off"—a project that can be attempted only in special circumstances—when it should be showing how we can bring private investment into the public-sector rail network as a whole.
    That is the Liberal Democrat recipe for the success of a 21st-century rail system. It is working successfully in other parts of Europe, and we should model the future of Railtrack on it rather than allow the cranks of the right to abscond with an important national asset.

    351
    The House will wish to congratulate the Committee on the work that it has done so far. I believe, however, that delay could prove extremely expensive, not just to the individuals who are blighted by it but to the whole British economy. With heartfelt emphasis, we add to our previous plea: the Committee has all our best wishes, and godspeed.
    6.25 pm
    Sir John Stanley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and his Committee. I do not know whether they are volunteers or pressed men—I do not think that there are any women on the Committee—but, in any event, they are devoting a vast amount of their time, and showing the utmost diligence, in dealing with a highly complicated matter.
    I want to make three points. The first relates to the old and continuing issue of blight, and the adequacy or otherwise of the discretionary powers of acquisition that are now applied by Union Railways. I welcome the fact that Union Railways is having a further stab at this, and has come up with a new voluntary acquisition package; but I am extremely doubtful about whether that package will be generous enough to meet the needs of people who, without any doubt, have experienced catastrophic blight. They cannot sell their main asset other than at sacrificial prices.
    It simply is not reasonable to put home owners in such a position. The limited number of my constituents who are in that position are making fresh applications under the new arrangements announced by Union Railways, and I earnestly hope that those applications will be successful. If they are not, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to change the rules and make them that much more generous, so that no one is asked to take a large knock on personal capital for a scheme pursued in the public interest. That financial burden should be borne by the public; it is not for individuals to accept a major financial sacrifice and not to obtain fair value for their homes.
    My second point relates to two of the detailed provisions of the second motion, (q) and (r). They appear to widen the Committee's instruction to enable it to consider open-ended changes for what will be approved planning permissions—and, indeed, extensions to compulsory purchase. We want to be assured that those wide new provisions will not be used to the detriment of the rights of individual land owners, and rights pertaining to easements. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us of the limited and responsible use of what are wide extensions of both deemed planning permission and compulsory purchase powers.
    My third point concerns freight. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that nothing in the second motion will be used to constrain the freight use of the rail link; indeed, I hope that he will be able to tell us that freight use will be enhanced to the maximum extent. At present, freight users will be able to use the rail link to a considerable extent. They are also able to use existing lines to the channel tunnel. Given that two freight options are available, I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will treat with the utmost scepticism the planned third option that is apparently being constructed by a company called the Central Railway Group.
    352
    In a letter that my right hon. Friend sent to me in the last week or sp, he tells me that Central Railway Group is planning to apply to him for the construction of a third rail freight line from the midlands, going along existing lines and through Tonbridge in my constituency, to the channel tunnel. On the proposals that I have seen so far, that work would have a serious impact on the centre of Tonbridge and on other regions up and down the proposed route of the Central Railway Group's new freight link.
    Given that hon. Members are planning to create a new railway line that will carry freight, and that existing lines already carry freight, it is superfluous to create a third freight route, with all the potential blighting effects under the Central Railway Group's proposals. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will be mindful of those points if, in the next few weeks, an order is put to him under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure.
    Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend give way before he sits down?
    Hon. Members: He has sat down.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I believe that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) had already resumed his seat.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Chris Smith: In this debate, the starting point for all of us must be that we want the channel tunnel high-speed rail link to be built not only as quickly as possible but in the right way. For those of us who represent constituencies along the route of the line, building it in the right way is terribly important. I do not, therefore, want either of the motions before us tonight to be opposed or defeated, but I do want to flag up one concern.
    The most intricate part of the proposed route is the approach to St. Pancras, which comes through the borough of Islington, across the east coast main line and into the St. Pancras railway lands. The Select Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill spent considerable time on that matter, and I pay great tribute to its work. I am delighted to see its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) here. The Committee deserves great credit for the assiduity of its work.
    In its initial conclusions just before the summer recess, the Select Committee recommended that, in the approach to St. Pancras, what has become known as "Alan Baxter's fully tunnelled option" should be adopted. There was rejoicing in my constituency at that recommendation because it was precisely what local people wanted. It removed the problems of blight, disturbance and noise that they had feared.
    Work is continuing on the working up of Baxter's fully tunnelled option but, alongside it, we have a second option developed by Union Railways, which the Committee will consider together with Baxter's scheme. The alternative approach will not be completely fully tunnelled. It will, however, contain more tunnel than in the original reference case. Both options under consideration are better, therefore, than the reference case. Local residents are in the process of examining in detail both options to find out which one they would prefer.

    353
    Those residents have gone through a rollercoaster of hope and despair on this exercise. Having been told that the Baxter's option was going to be adopted, suddenly they are faced with two potential options, one of which may not be as good as the Baxter's option. Blight has returned to the western part of Islington around Caledonian road as a direct result of the new uncertainty that has been created.
    There is a problem. The plans for the two options will, as I understand it, be deposited on 5 December. Local residents will then have only five weeks to prepare new petitions on the new proposals. Even worse, the people who have already petitioned must pay another £20 fee to submit their new petition, which, through no fault of their own, deals with new material.
    I hope that the Government, the Select Committee and the House will recognise that the procedure of having to petition fast over the Christmas period and of petitioners having to pay an additional fee above what was originally deposited is putting a great difficulty in the way of the petitioners. I flag up that concern. Petitioners are being put at a severe disadvantage, blight has returned, and there is continuing concern about what will happen in relation to the final approach to St. Pancras.
    I make two simple requests. The first is to Union Railways. It is that there will be a full and fair working up of both the options—the Baxter's fully tunnelled option and the Union Railways option. Local residents will be able to make a clear decision and put their representations to the Select Committee only with a full and fair assessment of the impact of the two alternatives.
    The second plea is to the Select Committee members, and I am sure that they will readily accept this: listen carefully to what local residents say when they have had a real chance to examine in detail the two options on the table as we are talking here, not just about the value of property, although that is important, but about people's lives for many years to come. People locally want the line to be built in the right way, but they want their lives to be damaged as little as possible in the process. I am sure that the Committee will want to listen to what they have to say in putting their case forward.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My constituency has been blighted since 1988. Every route that has been considered for a rail link has twisted and turned across my constituency and, therefore, we in Gravesham view with much concern the on-going considerations in relation to the rail link.
    I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to item (u) in the second motion, which refers to the
    "A2 and M2 improvement works".
    Those works take place in an especially sensitive area of the green belt, which is strong on the natural environment. It contains Ashenbank wood and, in relation to heritage, Cobham hall. That region must be treated with careful consideration by the Select Committee when it returns to it.
    354
    Encompassed within the M2-A2 works is a junction for the so-called Wainscott bypass. If my hon. Friend the Minister is looking for vast savings to be made on the road programme, the best thing he could do is to scrap that bypass, and to simplify the A2-M2 junction.
    In those works, reference is made to stopping up various highways in the region. Select Committee members should pay careful attention to a number of accesses along there, especially to the Rochester and Cobham golf club. If that access is blocked, the golf club will be cut off and there will be major havoc to transport flows in the parish of Cobham.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to work being started on the rail link in 1997. One of the first works to be done would be the initial work for the construction of the tunnel underneath the River Thames and the construction of the Ebbsfleet railway station. These works will be on either side of the ancient town of Northfleet. Heavy goods vehicles already thunder through that old town. If works start on both these massive projects under the rail link proposals, life for the residents of Northfleet will be made totally intolerable.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to nag the highways authority—Kent county council—to ensure that, in its programme for 1996–97, it gives the Northfleet bypass the highest priority. I know that my hon. Friend has referred to it as a high priority, but our highways authority must make that its top priority. If my hon. Friend is worried about the finance for the Northfleet bypass, which is known as the south Thamesside development route phase 4, I point out that he can certainly finance it out of the considerable savings to be made on the Wainscott bypass.
    I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). The House has authorised expenditure of £1.2 billion for improving the existing railroads across Kent to cope with the increased traffic coming from the channel tunnel; passengers and freight now go along the southern routes. The argument in favour of the rail link is saturation of rail capacity across Kent. The construction of the channel tunnel rail link is to bring additional capacity across Kent. As it is new, the logical thing to do is to build it to high-speed qualities so that we do not have one or two problems that were referred to earlier.
    If one builds a brand new channel tunnel rail link for high-speed operation, the last thing one does is to put across it heavy carriages with heavy goods. The high-speed rail link should not have freight running along it, not least because residents along the high-speed rail link will not have had railways running past their properties before, and they should not have that added imposition.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing about compensation. We remain to be convinced that there are proposals adequately to compensate people whose houses are their principal investment and saving in this life. It is not fair to say, "We need the project, we cannot really afford it, so we will finance it partly out of the capital value of your house." That would be a shameful way in which to treat my constituents and those of hon. Members in Kent and in central London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a lot of encouragement tonight, and that the Select Committee will also bear these points in mind.
    6.42 pm
    Ms Margaret Hodge: I join everyone in thanking those members of the Select Committee who did something that is rather unusual—at least for Conservative Members—and very welcome, which is that they listened. Those who attended the Select Committee sitting that I attended with my constituents were astounded to see Members of Parliament applauded by members of the public for their courtesy in listening. We very much welcome that.
    The original proposals were ill conceived and wrong; we have to say that today. They were led by engineers who had no proper concern for ordinary people. The original proposals were dominated by the view that short-term penny-pinching rather than the long-term interests of all the people along the route must be the essence of what was being considered.
    The original proposals brought enormous hardship to hundreds if not thousands of my constituents. There was one gentleman whose life was dominated by the issue and who suffered from terrible emphysema because of his proximity to the existing rail track. He died worried about his future.
    One family cared at home for a son who was severely handicapped. They wished to emigrate to Canada so that their other children could care for their son in the long term. They were unable to do so and have remained unable to do so because they cannot sell their property; it remains blighted.
    Another constituent was unemployed for a long time. He managed to secure a job elsewhere, but he could not take it because he could not sell his house and move to Chelmsford. Those are the real stories—not transitional problems—of the impact of ill-thought-out proposals on my constituents and on thousands of people along the line.
    I have three points for the Minister. First, we need some indication of the timetable for bringing in the new safeguarding directions to alleviate the blight. The blight has been there for many years and is still there. Secondly, I stress that the discretionary purchase scheme lies in the hands of the Minister and his Department. He cannot keep shifting the blame to other people, whether Union Railways or the Select Committee. If it turns out that people remain unable to sell their properties—if it turns out that people lose their freedom of movement, which is critical to them—the Government must take responsibility and must return to a more generous discretionary purchase scheme, along the lines of the French scheme.
    Thirdly, there will be increased freight. What we must ensure and what is of particular concern to my constituents is that the freight does not shift to the roads. They would then have the impact of the rail link and increased road traffic.
    My constituents are not well off. They will now have to make new representations to the Committee. Not only is there the £20 fee, but the fees incurred if legal advice is sought and the loss of earnings for the time that they have to take off work to make representations to the Committee. Those new costs should be met by the public purse because, if the Government's original proposals had been less incompetent, we would not have had the additional delay and further consideration by the Committee.
    356
    If the present Secretary of State had been in his position earlier, if the present Minister for Railways and Roads had had an influence earlier and if I had been able to make representations earlier, we should not have ended up with a compromise for Barking. I welcome the compromise, but it is not ideal. It does not tear the heart out of Barking as the original proposals would have done, but it leaves hundreds of people, both house owners and council tenants, with an uncertain future. They are unclear about whether they can move and whether the channel tunnel rail link will have a long-term impact on their lives.
    I hope that the Select Committee and the House can come up with sensible proposals to deal with blight and with the discretionary purchase scheme, to alleviate some of the suffering that has been caused in my constituency.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I congratulate the Committee on having worked so hard. I was a little disappointed to learn that a senior member of the Committee had said that the proposals from Kent had been well put by officers but not sufficiently supported by councillors. That is unjust, as all the representations made by Kent were made with the endorsement of the councillors. Indeed, in at least one case—and I think in several others—county councillors were not allowed to give evidence to the Select Committee on behalf of their parish councils. So if there is any sense that there is a lack of political will behind what the Kent people have been saying, it is misunderstood.
    I am of course going to support the motions, because, as many hon. Members have said, they are the only way in which to relieve my constituents from blight. But I do so with a heavy heart. It has been a lamentable story. We were told at the beginning, when the channel tunnel was first being devised, that there was no need for a railway; we were told that there would be no question of any form of public subsidy for the line; we were told that there would be four routes on the table, although it quickly became apparent that three of them were a complete whitewash and not ever intended to be worked. A whole series of undertakings have been given and withdrawn.
    My constituents are thoroughly cynical about whether they will even see what the Select Committee has recommended—and, indeed, has been accepted so far—happen in practice. It is perfectly clear, as many of my constituents who are much more numerate than I shall ever be have pointed out, that the economic viability of this line is very fragile. Ministers have made it clear in correspondence among themselves that they have anxieties on that score. Those anxieties are well founded.
    The worst possible outcome for any of us would be that all the proceedings on this Bill in both Houses of Parliament were completed and the line was not built for a considerable length of time. That would be a scandal and I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us an undertaking—even though I am sceptical about some of the undertakings that I have had so far—that the line really will work.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, however, for the letter that I have received this very evening saying that, on the authority of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Committee, it has been agreed that the worst cases of hardship brought before that Committee will be looked at again. That is a welcome assurance.

    357
    I say once again to my hon. Friend—he has heard me say it before, but it is essential to say it again—that the way in which we handle compensation on big public schemes is a scandal. It is not easy, but what happens is a scandal. For the permanent secretary to the Department of Transport to try to maintain that there are only two kinds of blight—statutory blight and the blight caused by uncertainty—is so far removed from reality as to be a disgrace. Member after Member in this short debate has pointed out that, although there is no uncertainty over large parts of the line, the blight persists and will probably persist for another decade.
    I do not believe that the line will be built as quickly as we all hope that it will be. I heard today that a potential tenant of Union Railways was offered a 10-year tenancy. When the tenant said that the company had to be joking because the line was set to go through the cottage, Union Railways is alleged to have said that there was no chance of the line being built in the time scale provided. I have not had time to check the story, but if it is true, it is a disgrace.
    I wonder what the real cost of the line will eventually turn out to be. There has never been a project on such a scale which has cost anything like the budget first projected. The only thing that would be worse than not having the line built after all the proceedings in both Houses would be to have half the line built and some future Government saying that they could not afford to finish it.
    I should like to make one detailed point. I am disturbed and distressed to discover that the thoroughly sensible way suggested of improving the amenity of the Boxley valley—one of the causes célèbres before the Select Committee—by the road going over the line, under the project described as 3A, has been thrown out by Union Railways. I very much hope that in this debate the Minister will allow us to hope that at least that alternative could once again be properly considered.
    I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that after the matter is resolved, the trauma of compensation and blight that we have all endured should not be forgotten. Could we not have a cross-party consensus that the present system of handling compensation is lamentably unfair and try to work out a better system for the future?
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: I join other Members in paying a warm tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), and the members of that Committee—not because I am a creep, although I am prepared to do almost anything to get the Stratford international station located in my area, but because I have chaired many a Committee on a private Bill and I know precisely how much hard work goes into it and how little credit is given to the Members who carry out the work.
    I also join with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and others who have referred to blight. I raise the matter in a slightly jokey fashion, but on the present alignment the tunnel would go immediately under my house in Forest Gate. I am quite happy for that to happen
    358
    if we can get the international station located at Stratford. Indeed, I do not care if the tunnel goes right through my living room so long as we get that station.
    Compensation and blight must be taken into account. One would always hope that Union Railways and the Government would be as generous as possible. Many people who want the project are living in properties which will be blighted, especially if, as has been suggested, the time scale for the project is way beyond 10 years.
    When the Chairman reported the initial findings of the Committee, he said:
    "It is our view that a station at Stratford capable of handling international traffic is desirable both in the national interest and in the interest of regenerating eastern London."
    In east London we say "Hear, hear" to that.
    The long box recommendation, which safeguards the possibility of an international station at Stratford, has been accepted by the Government, who will require the nominated undertaker to build it, but they are resisting the Committee's proposal that it should be done under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
    Mr. Stephen Timms: Given the Committee's strong endorsement of the Stratford station, which my hon. Friend has just relayed, given the support that the Government have given to the long box, given the fact that every local authority in London supports the choice of Stratford international, given that London First supports it, and given that everybody who advises the Government on regeneration in London supports it, does he agree that it is now time for the Government quickly to give firm support to the Stratford international proposal?
    Mr. Banks: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, and many Conservative Members would also agree with him.
    I should like to ask the Minister a series of specific questions. Although the Government will require the long box to be constructed by the nominated undertaker, the nominated undertaker has not yet been chosen. When does the Minister expect to choose the nominated undertaker? Will the decision on Stratford be coupled with that choice, or will it be taken separately? If it is taken separately, when does he intend to take a decision on Stratford? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has just raised. Will it be a final decision with regard to Stratford?
    Can the Minister confirm that the Stratford rail lands will not be sold off piecemeal prior to a decision? We have received some assurances from the Department of Transport, and a recent letter from the Department to the chief executive of Newham confirmed it, but a public statement from the Minister would be very useful at this point.
    In my area, we are alarmed that Railfreight is talking actively about reopening Stratford as a major freight terminal—in fact, as a railhead for freight—contrary to all previous assurances that Ministers and officials have given us that there will no freight railhead in east London. What is going on? Can the Minister tell us? Who is calling the shots? We need to know.
    The proposals that Railfreight is now talking about appear to be in conflict with the proposals for developments on the rail land, including the international station at Stratford. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said, there is enormous cross-party

    359
    and cross-London support for Stratford as the location of the second international London station. I hope that the Minister will find time to answer the very specific questions that I have asked.
    6.59 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: I was interested to read in a biographical note about the Secretary of State that he once wrote a book called "Blessing or Blight?" It was on the tourist industry, but in his leisure years the right hon. Gentleman may be able to follow it up by writing about the channel tunnel link and rail privatisation.
    We have had a good debate. I add my congratulations to the members of the Select Committee who did the drudgery and, as has been said, listened to the many objections and concerns. I pay tribute, too, to my colleagues who have made such effective representations on behalf of their constituents.
    Perhaps the most interesting comments in the debate were made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who asked when and whether the link would be built. He said that the worst thing would be if "some future Government" said that they would not complete it. However, as the hon. Gentleman and everybody else here should know, under the present scheme it will not be within the gift of the Government to say that they will or will not complete the link. The intention is to hand over the works to a private company, which will decide whether to complete the link.
    Let us look at the scenario that Ministers are creating, and the trail of past Secretaries of State for Transport. It seems that an announcement will soon be made that the assets of European Passenger Services—almost £1 billion worth of public assets, every penny of which was paid for by the taxpayer, every brick and pane of glass in the Waterloo international terminal, and every coach and piece of livery on the Eurostar trains—will be handed over to a private company.
    From that day the revenue stream, the most lucrative in the history of the British railway network, will go to the private operators. If the Secretary of State wants to contradict me, he is welcome to do so. When the traffic reaches its expected peak, 15 million people a year will travel on the service and every penny of the money will go to the private operator.
    The trade-off for that is incredible; if the Mafia had suggested it, it would be regarded as beyond the dreams of avarice. At some future unspecified date, the private consortium will start building a channel tunnel link along a route not yet defined, within a time scale which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent rightly said, is undefinable.
    If one of the consortia were unscrupulous enough it would go round east London funding the objectors, saying, "Keep this going as long as possible. The last thing we want to do is to build a channel tunnel link. Why should we, because our revenue stream is guaranteed ad infinitum?"
    Will the Secretary of State contradict any of that? When the announcement is made will he tell us why the operator would have a vested interest in speeding up the process of building a channel tunnel link? More important, will the Minister who replies to the debate give me one reason why the assets of European Passenger Services should be
    360
    handed to a private operator before the Bill has completed its passage, and before a sod has been turned on the route that is finally decided?
    Why is it essential for the private operator to have the revenue stream before there is agreement on either the route or the financing of the rail link? Will the Minister answer that simple question, because it has never been answered? What precedent is there for giving an operator the money in return for an unspecified, and I believe ultimately unsustainable, expectation that the link will be built according to criteria laid down by the Government and the Select Committee?
    What is the rush to give away the assets, other than that which underlies all the activities of the Tory party? It is the desire to shovel as much wealth and as many public assets towards its friends in the private sector before the day of judgment when the Tories are finally turfed out. Why is it a matter of public urgency to give away the assets of European Passenger Services?
    Let us look back at the timetable for the process. Government is about more than rhetoric; it is about record. The Government should be judged harshly on what they have done to the constituents of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for what they have done to British prestige, leaving us with the poor relation, the national embarrassment of the slow line to the channel tunnel, where the French take over with a high-speed railway line.
    Let us look at the record of disaster and fiasco. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 ruled out public funding to support passenger services. Not a penny of public funds was to go to support rail passenger services to or from the channel tunnel. In those days Parkinson's law ruled, under section 42(3) of the Channel Tunnel Act.
    In 1988 British Rail launched a competition for a public-private partnership. In those days the Tories hated even public-private partnerships because the word "public" was mentioned. In 1989 Cecil Parkinson reaffirmed:
    "It remains the policy of the Government that no subsidy will be given to channel tunnel rail services".
    In June 1990 the public-private idea was killed off. British Rail had done a deal on it and then it was killed off, throwing the whole thing into disarray—the ideological hammer blow. I shall return later to the figures involved at that time.
    In October 1991 a proud announcement was made at the Tory party conference. By that time it was the present Foreign Secretary, then Secretary of State for Transport, who made the announcement. The route had been definitively finalised and would go through Stratford, terminating at King's Cross.
    In 1993 it was the turn of the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who has now gone off to his merchant bank, where he belongs. He said that the decision was not final at all. Stratford was called into question and Ebbsfleet mysteriously appeared—the Rumbold memorial terminal. Stratford was no longer on the agenda.
    In 1994 the Bill finally got going—and here we are carrying it on into 1995–96. Thank heaven that, while the Tories blundered around and went to every conceivable length to take the project away from the public sector, the public sector was getting on and doing the job. That is

    361
    why we have that wonderful Waterloo international terminal, and the trains built and designed in the public sector. The whole job has been done by the public sector, and the public sector is proud of it.
    What were the costs? In 1990 when Cecil Parkinson killed the joint public-private sector venture, British Rail was requesting a grant of £500 million and a low-interest loan of £1 billion. For that, the job could have been started and the Committee would have been under way in 1990. The work on the link would have been well in progress by now; perhaps it would even have been completed.
    However, that was ruled out—it was far too much money. But look what the Government have done with taxpayers' money now. According to the British Rail annual report and accounts for 1994–95, the assets of European Passenger Services, now being transferred to the private sector, are worth £800 million. For Union Railways the figure is already £42.6 million, and cumulative expenditure on the railway project to date is £492 million.
    In other words, without a sod having been turned on the project, as much money has been spent as would earlier have been spent to have had the whole thing finished, with a link built and the national embarrassment avoided.
    Of course the expenditure continues. Will the Minister tell us how many hundreds of millions of pounds the Government now intend to hand over to the purchasers of European Passenger Services—or rather, "purchasers" is the wrong word, because they will be getting it for nothing? How much cash will they get, on top of the assets? What will be the total bill to the taxpayer for handing the enterprise over to the private sector? The Minister should give us some answers, because that is a fraud on the nation and on the taxpayer.
    7.8 pm
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) into his fantasy world, but the limited time available to me is better spent in trying to reply to some of the serious points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that the previous Labour Government cancelled the project to build the channel tunnel, so some of his blusterings lack conviction.
    There is impatience in the House for the railway to be built and opened as soon as possible, and that impatience was shared by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The project has taken a number of years to develop, and the House is now rightly considering it in fine detail. Everyone directly affected has had the opportunity to petition and to be heard by the Select Committee.
    Justifiable tributes were paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the way in which the Select Committee—under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)—listened carefully to the petitions and responded in a practical and sympathetic way. The Committee has
    362
    proposed many important changes. Where it has not done so, the matter must be regarded as settled as far as this House is concerned.
    Sir Michael Neubert: I am sorry to intrude on my hon. Friend when he is short of time, but I do so on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is away on ministerial duties. The Committee recommended that the route should be varied and should deviate 20 m south of the line proposed in the Bill as it passes through Rainham. That is not specifically mentioned now. Has there been an omission?
    Mr. Watts: All the matters on which the Committee made a recommendation have been covered by our response. The instructions before the House relate to matters that the Committee does not already have adequate powers to consider and take forward. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members would like more changes, but the suggestions have all had a fair run before the Select Committee.
    The Committee is quasi-judicial, which means that its decisions and recommendations carry special weight, but the promoters' approach to the Committee's announcements on 20 July was—as far as possible—to deliver what the Committee sought. In undertaking the further development work, new problems and opportunities invariably arise. It was therefore important to look not only at the letter of what the Committee sought but at the underlying explicit and implicit objectives. We were loth to reject decisions, and where problems arose we sought other ways of achieving what the Committee wanted. At the end of September, the Government published their detailed response to the Select Committee; it is now for the Committee to decide whether it is content.
    The hon. Member for Ladywood accused the Government of seeking to "nobble" the Committee. I commend to her the transcript of the proceedings of the Select Committee on 24 October—day 57 of the proceedings—in which the Chairman of the Committee quoted the Secretary of State's letter of 23 October to him. The letter reaffirms the Government's recognition of the quasi-judicial role of the Select Committee, of the chairman's independence and of not constraining the Committee's work. The Chairman said that he had no more to say on the subject; nor do I.
    The hon. Lady also raised the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), to give the Government's response to the Committee's report, which was published on 25 July. Copies of the letter were sent to hon. Members concerned and placed in the Library.
    The Government are prepared to consider afresh how a scheme might operate to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress could be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the CTRL between June 1990 and April 1994. We must look at the costs, which cannot yet be established. The response is out of respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee and for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without any admission of fault or liability.

    363
    The hon. Lady asked me about Eurostar services beyond London. European Passenger Services expects to begin these services in the first half of 1996.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) mentioned the M2 proposals and their concurrency with the construction of the CTRL. I can tell her that there is no foundation to the report relating to the M2 in today's edition of the Daily Mail.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I understand that, if preliminary work has not been carried out on the Wennington-Mardyke section of the A13 before the channel tunnel rail link has been constructed, the Government will have to pay heavy compensation. Can the Minister clarify that? Will he write to me on the matter, as it is not clear whether the section will go ahead or what the consequences would be if it did not?
    Mr. Watts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well seized of the significance of the A13 scheme to the CTRL project, and I shall write to him in due course on that matter.
    We recognise the advantages of a co-ordinated approach to the M2 schemes, to the construction of the CTRL and to construction of the projects within the same time scale. That is why the M2-A2 scheme was originally included in the CTRL legislation. I can assure the House that the Government will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the M2-A2 widening works are completed within the same period as the CTRL, and that the construction arrangements for the two projects are co-ordinated.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Medway also raised the generic issues that are to be addressed by the Committee, including those related to blight compensation. There is no instruction to the Committee on this matter because it needs no new instruction. The Committee already has the power to look at such matters and make recommendations. I understand that the Committee has heard a great deal of evidence on the matter already, and it is not ready to make recommendations. When it does, we shall consider them, but it would be premature for me to prejudge what the Committee might recommend.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned freight and the CTRL. The Committee asked for the freight loops at Charing and Singlewell and for the connection to the Dollands Moor freight yard to be constructed according to the same time scale as the main project to allow the rail link to carry as much freight as possible. We have accepted that recommendation, and given the Committee an undertaking that will be binding on the nominated undertaker.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling also raised—he has done so assiduously on many occasions—the problems of blight, and he referred to the new voluntary, purchase arrangements introduced in July. For the first time, we are to bring the arrangements for new rail projects into line with those for roads. In fact, before these proposals were made, there was no provision for dealing with new rail projects in terms of voluntary purchase arrangements. Other matters concerning blight compensation are for the Committee to consider and to
    364
    make recommendations. We will respond to the Committee,, but I should not prejudge its recommendations.
    My right hon. Friend also raised the proposals of Central Rail Group to construct the new freight line, but that would have to be brought forward under the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992. If that happens, the House will have the opportunity to reach a decision on the principal project before it proceeds to any inquiry.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister is coming towards the end of his remarks. Will he answer my questions about the value of cash and assets to be handed over to the private sector?
    Mr. Watts: No. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, as I shall write to any hon Member to whom I have not had time to respond in the debate. The hon. Gentleman's queries do not relate to the order, and I think that I should continue to spend my time on that.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the approach to St. Pancras. The Select Committee asked for a different arrangement for the approach to St. Pancras from that originally proposed in the Bill. It has now agreed to consider both the modified Baxter scheme, as it is called, and the promoter's developed scheme in the new year. We welcome that decision and we expect to introduce the additional provisions for both schemes in early December.
    I can assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that both schemes will be dealt with in an even-handed way, so that both the Committee and those who may wish to petition it have the fullest possible opportunity to appraise their relative merits. I will also seek to make available as much information as possible as early as possible to assist the petitioners.
    The cost of petitioning was raised by the hon. Members for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Islington, South and Finsbury and others. It is not a matter that we can control, because the cost of it is standard and is set by the House.
    We believe that the Baxter scheme had some significant defects in operational terms, as well as it presenting some major difficulties in the construction phase. That is why Union Railways developed an alternative that we now believe to be better environmentally and superior in both its operations and construction. It also meets the key objectives of the Baxter scheme and, in particular, reduces the impact on Caledonian road and the traders and others who live there. It is also significantly cheaper than the modified Baxter scheme, although that is not an overwhelming consideration.
    It will be for the Select Committee to take a view as to which of the options should finally be chosen. I can assure the House that there will be no attempt at ministerial interference in the Committee's deliberations. I gave that assurance on Second Reading, and I am happy to repeat it.
    When the Baxter scheme was worked on sufficiently to prepare an additional provision, its construction and operational difficulties became more apparent than they had been during the Select Committee's deliberations. That was the driving force behind the production of the promoters' developed scheme.
    The hon. Member for Barking paid a well-deserved tribute to the Select Committee and its work.

    365
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised the question of Boxley valley. We have promised to continue consultation on the landscaping and mitigation for the route of the rail link through the Boxley valley, in line with the Select Committee's recommendation. I understand that Union Railways has had a series of discussions in the past few months with the local authorities and parish councils directly concerned—
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [27 October].
    Question agreed to
    Resolved,
    That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
    That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

    (a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

    (b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session;

    (c) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

    (d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

    (e) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (c) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

    (f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

    (g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it;

    (h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

    (i) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing. the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;

    (j) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session; and

    (k) if the Bill is reported from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [27 October], to put the Question on the second motion.
    Question agreed to
    Resolved,
    That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session—
    366

    (1) that it have power to consider—

    (a) alternatives to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the approach of the rail link to St. Pancras station from the west of Highbury Corner;

    (b) the provision of rail sidings on the Midland Main Line on the western edge of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

    (c) the relocation of Tarmac plc's existing concrete-batching facilities to a site in the north-west corner of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

    (d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding railways in the throat of St. Pancras station in the vicinity of the Regent's Canal;

    (e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding diversion of the Camden sewer;

    (f) the provision of an additional road into the King's Cross Railway Lands from York Way, in the London Borough of Camden;

    (g) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding ticket halls and subways of the London Underground Railways;

    (h) the provision of a sewer forming a diversion of the St. Pancras sewer;

    (i) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill (buildings authorised to be demolished), so far as relating to the London Borough of Camden;

    (j) the running through a tunnel of so much of the rail link as lies between Barrington Road, in the London Borough of Newham, and Dagenham Dock, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham;

    (k) works required in connection with the accommodation of the easterly portal of the main London tunnel;

    (l) the undertaking of additional overhead line diversions in the vicinity of the A13 in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering;

    (m) realignment overground of the rail link and Tilbury Loop Railway in the vicinity of the Mardyke Park housing estate at Thurrock, in the county of Essex, and associated works;

    (n) the provision of additional roads in the vicinity of Crowbridge Road, Ashford, in the county of Kent;

    (o) the provision of sidings on the Ashford to Canterbury Railway to the east of the River Stour at Ashford, in the county of Kent;

    (p) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the junction of the rail link and the Eurotunnel Railway at Folkestone, in the county of Kent;

    (q) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by Part I;

    (r) alterations and additions to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the compulsory acquisition of easements and other rights over land by the grant of new rights;

    (s) the disposal of land acquired for the purposes of or in connection with the works authorised by Part I;

    (t) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used; and

    (u) additional power to stop up highways in connection with the construction of the A2 and M2 improvement works;
    and, if it thinks fit, to make Amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;

    (2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee mentioned in paragraph (1) above is empowered by that paragraph to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—

    (a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and

    367

    (b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents;

    That it be an instruction to the Clerk of Private Bills that, on receiving an original copy of the first newspaper notice of any Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session is empowered by paragraph (1) of the above instruction to make, he shall publish the date of the notice in the Private Business paper.
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

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

    PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    TELEVISION
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7942/95, relating to television; and supports the Government's approach to the negotiations on the proposed amendment.—[Mr. Willetts.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Ambulance Cover (Kyle of Lochalsh)
    7.21 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to present a constituency petition to the House on behalf of constituents and residents in the area of Lochalsh in Ross-shire. They have collected nearly 700 signatures requesting that local ambulance cover should be maintained in the Kyle of Lochalsh with the establishment of a permanent base.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons instruct the Scottish Ambulance Service trust accordingly.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table

    Mrs. Brenda Price
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willeas.]
    7.22 pm
    Mr. Jerry Hayes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise what I consider to be probably the worst miscarriage of justice I have ever encountered in my 12 years in the House.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: Since you were dropped from "The James Whale Show".
    Mr. Hayes: I hear the hon. Gentleman's jocular aside, but this is a serious matter, concerning my constituent, Mrs. Brenda Price.
    In 1991, Mrs. Price was accused by the Spanish authorities of being involved in drug smuggling. Some 18 months later, a warrant was executed, but the evidence, as far as we know what it is—the crux of the case—is flimsy.
    In 1993, the Spanish authorities wanted Mrs. Price to be extradited on the basis of the charges against her. The Spanish authorities acted rightly and properly, and within their rights—that is what the relevant treaty says. She was taken to Holloway prison and imprisoned without bail for several weeks. Eventually, because of the efforts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, she was eventually granted bail. The trouble is that the Spanish authorities could not or would not get their act together.
    The charges were dropped, and Mrs. Price thought, understandably, that that was the end of the matter. She had been imprisoned in Holloway without bail, and accused of a serious offence, but the charges had been dropped by the Spanish authorities, and the warrant was cancelled.
    A few weeks ago, Mrs. Price and her husband went on a day trip to Calais. They crossed over to Belgium, but, on doing so, she was arrested under the old warrant issued by the Spanish authorities, which wanted her to be extradited.
    I find Mrs. Price's treatment extremely worrying, not least because of a letter from the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Incidentally, I am delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, because he is one of the most conscientious and able Ministers in the House.
    My right hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me:
    "As you know Mrs. Price was discharged by the Metropolitan magistrate at Bow Street as the Spanish authorities had decided not to pursue Mrs. Price's extradition at this time. We share her Solicitor's concern that Mrs. Price was detained for so long in respect of an extradition request that was not pursued—although I must stress that in acting as they did the Spanish authorities did nothing that they were not entitled to do—and we will be registering this concern with them."
    Mrs. Price, as a free British citizen, quite properly felt she could go to France. She was subsequently arrested, however, and is now in gaol there. Her husband, Sam Price, has not been allowed to see her recently, and, as far as one can understand, will not be allowed to see her for the next three months.

    369
    It is not for any of us to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. What the case is about is getting authorities, such as the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to get their act together. Why should a British citizen be languishing in a French gaol—she may stay there for a number of months to come—unless those authorities have the evidence to keep her there?
    I am not criticising the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Home Office, which have been extremely helpful. I urge my right hon. Friend, however, to say to the Spanish authorities, "If you have evidence against this woman, bring it to us now." Mrs. Price's lawyer in France has told me that she cannot make a bail application on her behalf until that evidence is furnished by the Spanish Ministry of Justice. That is as gross an affront to justice as any occurring anywhere in the world.
    I know that my right hon. Friend will do his utmost to get the Spanish authorities to act. He will remember the case of the British lorry driver, Roy Clarke, who spent 20 months in custody only to be acquitted. The case of Brenda Price is far worse, because no evidence has been brought against my constituent.
    Mrs. Price is not alone. It has been estimated by that splendid organisation, Fair Trials Abroad, which has compiled a fascinating report which I am sure that my right hon. Friend has read, that there are probably 15,000 Mrs. Prices throughout Europe.
    Why is that? It is because there is no concept of Euro-bail. People are languishing in foreign gaols simply because the authorities are unable or unwilling—or too incompetent—to get their act together, and they will not furnish the necessary evidence. That is a gross miscarriage of justice, and such cases happen all the time. I ask my right hon. Friend to raise the matter at the Council of Ministers. I know that the Home Office has been reluctant to do that in the past, but Euro-bail should be discussed.
    I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report by Fair Trials Abroad which says that the number of foreigners in serious trouble outside their own countries is surprising. In 1993, the figure was over 45,000, with over 15,000 on remand. A high proportion are EU citizens. The numbers will continue to grow rapidly as the full effects of freedom of movement and other factors come into play.
    Almost all the cases that Fair Trials Abroad knows of in which some sort of miscarriage of justice is likely to have occurred contain an element of discrimination. It is satisfied that the discrimination involved in provisional liberty, foreign evidence and lack of proper interpretation constitute the major current threats to the pursuit suit of justice for EU citizens.
    Bail discrimination is an affront to justice, because it involves prejudice. Council of Europe statistics suggest that there are thousands of EU citizens on remand in Europe's prisons at any one time who are affected. A foreign accused is invariably dependent on some form of foreign evidence during investigation and trial. For such evidence, he will be dependent on the procedures of European co-operation. Those procedures are ineffective. Up to 1,000 miscarriages of justice will occur annually in any one year from this cause alone.
    370
    Before my right hon. Friend moves too far towards to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I should say that I am about to conclude. I should not like to catch my right hon. Friend the Minister unawares, because I know that he has been listening most carefully. I ask him to do everything he can, in co-operation with the Foreign Office, to get the evidence from the Spanish justice department. If they cannot, this woman should be released.
    It is interesting that the Spanish representative, the President of the Council of Justice Ministers, has stated that the problem of Euro-bail needs to be dealt with as a priority. Even the Spanish are saying that. It is important that every channel is used to persuade these people to either put up or shut up.
    This is a grave miscarriage of justice. I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything he possibly can, not just for Mrs. Brenda Price but for the 15,000 or so others like her in the European Union, and for people like Roy Clarke who have languished in gaol. I ask my right hon. Friend to do what he can.
    7.33 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said. He raised a number of concerns about the extradition request made by Spain to France in relation to one of his constituents, Mrs. Brenda Price, who was arrested near Dunkirk on 5 October when travelling through France with her husband and son. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I reply in detail to the points he has made.
    Mrs. Price is at present being held at the Maison d'Arrêt in Loos. Before I turn to particular concerns, it may be helpful if I explain the general background to the case.
    Extradition is the mechanism for returning fugitives to the country where an alleged offence has been committed, for the fugitive to be tried in a court of law. Extradition among all European Union countries apart from Belgium is covered by the Council of Europe convention on extradition. The convention lays down a common standard and common procedures for handling extradition requests between European countries which have signed and ratified it.
    Under the convention, there is no requirement for a requesting state to make a prima facie case in support of an extradition request. All that the requesting country has to provide is an authenticated copy of an arrest warrant, a statement of the offences for which extradition has been requested, a copy of the relevant laws in the requesting country, and identification evidence. This material is usually considered by a court, in England and Wales a magistrates court, before a decision is made to issue an arrest warrant.
    Under the Extradition Act 1989, which implements the UK's obligations under the European convention, there is an alternative procedure which may be used in emergencies—for example, where a fugitive offender is likely to leave the country.
    Under the emergency procedure, the requesting country can, through Interpol channels, request the provisional arrest of a fugitive. The requesting country must provide evidence that a case exists which is sufficient for a Bow

    371
    street magistrate to issue a provisional arrest warrant. It should be noted that a decision by a court to issue a provisional arrest warrant is not a final decision. The requesting state has to back up the request with full supporting documents. If it does not, the arrest warrant will be discharged.
    Once the fugitive is arrested, the requesting country has to provide documents in support of its extradition request within statutory deadlines. In the case of European convention countries, the documents must be provided within 40 days.
    A country can issue an Interpol red notice, which alerts other countries that a person is wanted in that country to face charges, and should be arrested if located. The UK often receives such requests from other countries for British and other nationals. Indeed, the majority of requests we receive—around 70 per cent. of all cases—are initiated by an Interpol red notice and a provisional arrest.
    As my hon. Friend will appreciate, extradition requests, by their very nature, involve individuals who have already crossed international boundaries. It is an essential element in the success of the fight against crime internationally that those individuals wanted in connection with criminal offences in one country can be arrested before they have a chance to escape to yet another country.
    In this connection, my hon. Friend has questioned why he was not notified if the Spanish authorities had renewed their extradition request for Mrs. Price. He will appreciate that, by their very nature, extradition requests involve alleged offences against a person who has crossed international boundaries. Great care is therefore taken that the person is not alerted, in order to preclude any risk that he or she will flee the country. I make those general points by way of background, because they are pertinent to the case of Mrs. Price.
    Mrs. Price was the subject of an extradition request from Spain to the UK in 1993. The request from Spain was made through the emergency procedure for Mrs. Price's provisional arrest to face charges relating to the trafficking of 940 kg of cannabis. The Spanish provided information about the drug trafficking operation, and stated that an arrest warrant for Mrs. Price and others had been issued in Spain on 8 October 1992. That information was put before the magistrate at Bow street magistrates court, and he was invited to issue a provisional arrest warrant. He issued the warrant on 7 January 1993, and Mrs. Price was arrested on 13 January.
    As is usual in such cases, the Spanish authorities were notified of Mrs. Price's arrest, and were informed that they had 40 days in which to provide documents in accordance with the European convention on extradition in support of their extradition request. However, the Spanish authorities failed to send the necessary supporting documents within the 40 days, as required under the international convention, and Mrs. Price was discharged.
    I pause at this stage to make two points in answer to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. As he is aware, the United Kingdom Government were concerned that what I have called the emergency procedure was used when there was, as it turned out, no evidence that Mrs. Price was an emergency case—that is, that she was about to flee the country—and when the Spanish authorities had not finished preparing the paperwork.
    372
    The then Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), informed my hon. Friend by letter of those concerns in the following terms:
    "We share her solicitor's concern that Mrs. Price was detained for so long in respect of an extradition request which was not pursued—although I must stress that in acting as they did the Spanish authorities did nothing that they were not entitled to do—and we will be registering this concern with them."
    We wrote to the Spanish authorities about that aspect of the case in May 1993, and received confirmation from Spain that our concerns had been noted, together with an explanation as to why the Spanish authorities had not followed up the extradition request. They decided to await the outcome of the trial of Mrs. Price's co-defendants, which took place in May 1993. Had they been found not guilty, no doubt the request for Mrs. Price would have been dropped. In fact, the four defendants were convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and fined 65 million pesetas—or £336,000 in real money.
    My second point is to stress that Mrs. Price was released from custody, and the provisional arrest warrant discharged, solely because Spain did not produce the necessary documents within the time limits. At no time was the Spanish request refused, and it was open to Spain to make a second request to the United Kingdom or to any other country where Mrs. Price was found. Those points were explained to my hon. Friend at the time.
    In his second reply of 22 April 1993 to letters from my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde stated:
    "As you know Mrs. Price was discharged by the Metropolitan magistrate at Bow Street as the Spanish authorities decided not to pursue Mrs. Price's extradition at this time".
    I repeat and emphasise that the Spanish authorities did not drop Mrs. Price's case: they simply decided not to pursue it further at that time. I emphasise that point, because it appears from correspondence sent on behalf of Mrs. Price to the Home Office that Mrs. Price was under the misapprehension that the discharge of the provisional arrest warrant in 1993 was the end of the matter, and that the Spanish authorities had given up their intention to seek her extradition. That was and is not the case. If Mrs. Price was advised differently, I am sorry to say that she was badly advised. We, for our part, stated the matter clearly in the letter to my hon. Friend.
    The Interpol red notice for Mrs. Price's arrest continued to be in force, and it was on that notice that Mrs. Price was arrested in France on 5 October this year. As her extradition was not rejected by the United Kingdom, there was no reason why that should not have occurred. The United Kingdom police were not acting on that notice, because, as is usual practice in such cases, once a provisional arrest warrant has been discharged by the authorities of a state, the requesting authority must make a request with full supporting documents the next time it seeks extradition from that state.
    The French authorities were perfectly entitled to act on the Interpol red notice. Had the United Kingdom authorities been put in a similar position, they would have acted in the same way—and rightly so. It is in the nature of the emergency procedure that action must be taken on Interpol information. No consideration can, or indeed should, be expected to be given to detailed facts, such as whether a person is only on a day trip. All sorts of false stories could be given by those fleeing justice.

    373
    The procedure provides opportunities in court and, by way of representations to Ministers at a later stage, for deciding such issues. I put it to my hon. Friend that, if we were to change the procedures to accommodate those views, we would fundamentally undermine the workings of Interpol.
    In Mrs. Price's case, the next stage under the convention is for the requesting state, Spain, to submit all the necessary documents to the French authorities within 40 days, and for the French authorities to consider the request. I understand that the French authorities have received some papers from Spain, and are now in the process of considering them. If, for any reason, the Spanish request cannot be complied with, no doubt Mrs. Price will be free to return to the United Kingdom.
    However, I must emphasise that those matters are for the Spanish and French authorities. It is not for the United Kingdom to intervene, any more than a foreign country would attempt to intervene in or influence a request from a second country to the United Kingdom about a national of that country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has raised a number of other concerns in the past, and he did so again this evening. He is concerned that 18 months had elapsed since the date of the alleged offence to the date of the request from Spain to the United Kingdom in 1993. My hon. Friend may be aware that undue delay in making a request is a factor to which Ministers and the courts must have regard when considering whether to make an extradition order in any particular case.
    However, undue delay must take into account, among other factors, the time required for the police and prosecuting authorities to pursue their inquiries and go through the proper procedures. When the crime is serious or when, as in this case, a number of individuals are involved, the time for completing those procedures may be quite lengthy. In this case, Ministers and the courts never addressed the issue, because the warrant was discharged after 40 days.
    My hon. Friend has also expressed concern that Mrs. Price is being held in custody in France, and, if returned to Spain, may be held for some time in prison on remand there. The question of bail is, of course, a matter for the courts in those countries, in the same way that the decision whether to bail a French or Spanish national charged with offences in the United Kingdom or wanted for extradition would be a matter for our courts. A key issue, of course, is whether the offender will answer to that bail at the relevant time, but that is not the only issue. Courts will also have regard to the seriousness of the offence and any likely sentence if found guilty.
    What is called "Euro-bail" would be a benefit only in cases where the only reason for not granting bail is the likelihood of absconding. As such, it is of limited application, and raises more problems in relation to the harmonisation of judicial decisions across Europe than any remedy it might provide. Bail is at present a question for the French courts, and I do not believe that we should seek to interfere in their decision. We would resent it if they tried to interfere in any decision that we might make.
    374
    What the United Kingdom can do in this case—and what we are doing—is provide consular support to Mrs. Price and her family. I am pleased that my hon. Friend paid a generous tribute to the Foreign Office, which is often maligned in the House—at times, by this Minister. British consular officials became aware of Mrs. Price's arrest when her husband sought help from the honorary consul in Dunkirk. He was then referred to the British consulate-general in Lille.
    Mr. Price went to the consulate-general on 6 October where he was helped with the formalities of applying for a permit to visit his wife. On the same day, Mrs. Linda Trigot, the pro-consul, applied to the court for a permit to visit Mrs. Price. Later on 6 October, Mrs. Trigot was told by the social worker at the prison that Mrs. Price was very upset, and wanted to see a consular officer. On Monday 9 October, Mrs. Trigot contacted the Substitut General, Mlle Woyal, at the Court of Appeal, and asked for authority to make an early visit to Mrs. Price. That was exceptionally granted by telephone, and the visit took place later that day. During the visit, Mrs. Trigot handed over clothing for Mrs. Price that had been left by her husband.
    Mrs. Trigot delivered a second parcel of clothing on 17 October, and a third was delivered to Mrs. Price on 27 October.
    Mr. Price has contacted the consulate-general on numerous occasions since his wife's arrest. He has been given information on the French legal and prison systems. He was also told how he could send money to his wife for prison comforts, either through the FCO or direct through the French post office.
    On 20 October, consular staff checked with the Court of Appeal on whether Mr. Price's visit permit had been issued. Mlle Woyal said that she was not in a position to make a decision as she had not yet completed her study of the documents that she had received from Spain. She did, however, call back later that same day to say that she would allow the visit, which was arranged for 26 October. Mr. Price called the consulate-general on 26 October to say that he had seen his wife, who was well.
    I understand that Mr. Price is now anxious to obtain a permanent visit permit. As he has been advised by the consulate-general, that is a matter for Mr. Price's private French lawyer, Maitre Robert Thompson, to pursue. I understand that Maitre Thompson is in contact with Mrs. Price, and visited her on 20 October.
    I can assure my hon. Friend, as he will be aware from the catalogue of concern that has been displayed by the Foreign Office in its contacts with Mr. and Mrs. Price, that consular staff will continue to help where appropriate.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied, from the full and detailed explanation that I have given him, that all the proper procedures have been carried out in the United Kingdom; that we believe that Spain and France are following the procedures in the European convention; and that the British Government, through our consulate-general's office, are giving every assistance to Mrs. Price.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Ernest Saunders
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest estimate of the cost to the legal aid fund for Mr. Ernest Saunders' appeal to the appeal court; and what income Mr. Saunders disclosed in his application. [39611]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I do not consider it appropriate for me to speculate on the likely cost of this case while it is in progress. Because of the confidentiality provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988, I cannot disclose any details of the application.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department if Mr. Ernest Saunders received legal aid in his case before the European Court. [39612]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. UK legal aid is not available for applications under the European convention on human rights and Mr. Saunders is not legally aided by the Council of Europe.

  Court Circuits
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reorganise the Wales and Chester circuits, causing north Wales to be attached to the north-west circuit, and south Wales to be attached to a south-west of England circuit. [39872]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 1 November 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about plans to reorganise the Wales and Chester Circuit.

  There are no plans to reorganise the Wales and Chester Circuit in the way described or to create a North West Circuit or a South West of England Circuit.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to carry out public consultation on the future of the current circuits of England and Wales; which circuits are involved; and when the consultation will take place. [39867]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the 246
  Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked him to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 1 November 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about public consultation on the future of the current Circuits in England and Wales.

  At the beginning of this year I commissioned a review of the internal management structure of the Court service. As part of this review, I am consulting interested parties about whether they would favour any marginal changes to current Circuit boundaries. The review of the management structure is being carried out in full consultation with the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society and other agencies. A questionnaire will also shortly be circulated to major court user groups. Further consultation will be carried out during November and December, and again in the New Year, after the review team has reported to me.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what review has been carried out on the future of the Wales and Chester circuit; if he will make a statement. [39868]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 1 November 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about a review of the future of the Wales and Chester Circuit.

  A review of the internal management structure of the Court Service was commissioned at the beginning of the year. The review, which is due to report by Christmas, is considering the future role of Circuit Administrators, as well as all other management tiers in the Court Service. However, no review of Circuits themselves is contemplated.

  Illegal Immigration (Employer Sanctions)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate has been made of the possible impact on the costs to the court system from the introduction of employer sanctions in respect of unlawful employment of illegal or other immigrants. [40230]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Discussions are under way with the immigration and nationality department on the likely number of cases which would enter the court system as a result of proposed measures to prevent illegal working. Such cases would be dealt with in magistrates courts, with appeals going to the Crown court.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much to date has been paid in legal aid to each of the lawyers representing the Maxwell brothers. [39566]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 24 October,Official Report, column 506.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his office makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annul budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39433]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The non-judicial non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, and the appointments made to them in each of the last four years are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace

  Barnsley

  2

  0

  0

  16(1)

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Rotherham

  3

  0

  1

  16(2)

  0

  Sheffield

  6

  1

  0

  16(1)

  0

  Advisory Committee on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  South Yorkshire

  2

  0

  13(3)

  0

  0

  1 Figures in brackets show the number of renewed appointments in the preceding figure.

  The bodies do not have separate budgets.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times in each month of the current calendar year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39858]

  Mr. John Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four agencies. In the current year, the Lord Chancellor and I met the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry in January; the chief executive of the Public Record Office in January and in July; the chief executive of the Public Trust Office in February and in June; and the chief executive of the Court Service in July. There was a meeting between the Lord Chancellor and the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry in June, which I was unable to attend. I have had no separate meetings with the agency chief executives to discuss the work of the agencies, but I attended the headquarters of Her Majesty's Land Registry in January in my capacity as the Lord Chancellor's Minister responsible for environmental issues, to witness the signing by the chief executive of the agency's declaration of corporate commitment on energy management.

  Public Appointments (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due and the salary. [39429]
  248
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The non-judicial public appointments for which my Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire are those made to the following bodies:

  The South Yorkshire Advisory Committee on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  The Barnsley Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

  The Doncaster Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

  The Rotherham Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

  The Sheffield Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

  Appointment terms are variable but are generally for a period of six years. Roughly half the members are replaced every three years. Salaries are not paid.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40518]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not held centrally. According to the best information available, no such proceedings have been begun by the Department in the past five years.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39492]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four executive agencies-the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office. The question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executives of the agencies are best placed to provide the answer and I have accordingly asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about Court Service staff numbers and cost.The Court Service was established on 3 April 1995. There are therefore no figures for staff numbers or cost before this date.Numbers of staff in the Court Service by grade as of 26 October 1995 are as follows:

  Number

  Grade 2

  1

  Grade 3

  2

  Grade 4

  3

  Grade 5

  12

  Grade 6

  44

  Grade 7

  121

  SEO

  246

  HEO

  783

  EO

  1,951

  AO

  4,922

  AA

  494

  Support Grades

  2,045

  249 This makes a total staff complement of 10,624, including part-time staff and those staff on maternity leave or other career breaks.The current projected paybill for the Court Service for the financial year 1995–96 is £180 million. To divide this further by grade would take up disproportionate time and cost.
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated I November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question requesting a list, by grade, of the numbers of staff in HM Land Registry and their costs for (a) 1994–95 and (b) estimated figures for 1995–96.I can provide the following information:

  1994–95

  1995–96 (estimated)

  Staff numbers (average number—Civil Service full time equivalents

  8,585

  8,221

  Staff costs (including Social Security and other pension costs)

  £146,278,000

  £144,352,000

  A breakdown by grade could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated I November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply, in respect of the Public Record Office, to your question about the numbers and cost by grade of staff of executive agencies for which he is responsible.Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for Public Record Office staff numbers and paybill are set out in the Departmental Report of The Lord Chancellor's and Law Officer's Departments (Cm 2809), copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 24 October, regarding the numbers of staff and their cost for the financial year 1994–5 and the estimated figure for the current financial year.The estimated outturn for 1994–5 and plans for 1995–6 for this Agency's manpower and paybill are set out in my annual report, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department (ii) agencies (iii) non-departmental bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40818]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In addition to the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. He also 250
  has responsibility for the Legal Aid Board and the Northern Ireland Court Service. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, the chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office have been asked to reply direct. This answer is, however, given on behalf of headquarters and the remaining agencies, the Legal Aid Board and the Northern Ireland Court Service.

  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the highest salary in payment in the Lord Chancellor's Department's headquarters falls within the £95,000 to £99,999 band in both 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  In the Court Service, which did not become an agency until April 1995, the highest salary in payment in 1995–96 falls within the £75,000 to £79,999 band.

  In the Public Trust Office the highest salary in payment in both 1994–95 and 1995–96 falls within the £55,000 to £59,999 band.

  It has not been possible in the time available to identify the lowest salaries actually in payment either in LCD headquarters or the agencies. But the lowest starting pay of the most junior grade at age 16 falls in band £4,000 to £9,999. There has been no increase in these rates of pay since April 1994.

  The highest salary in payment to staff of the Northern Ireland Court Service in both 1994–95 and 1995–96 falls within the £60,000 to £64,999 band: the lowest salary which has been in payment for both years falls within the £5,000 to £9,999 band.

  In the Legal Aid Board, the lowest salary in payment in both 1994–95 and 1995–96 fell within the £5,000 to £9,999 band. The highest annual salary in 1994–95 fell within the £75,000 to £79,999 band. In 1995–96, the highest salary in payment falls within the band £65,000 to £69,999, with a possible additional bonus payable at the end of the year.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the (a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in the Land Registry in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96.It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £5,000-£9,999

  1995–96: £5,000-£9,999

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £65,000-£69,999

  1995–96: £65,000-£69,999

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply in respect of the Public Record Office, to your question about the lowest and highest full-time salaries paid to employees in 1994–95 and 1995–96.251 It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £ 10,000-£14,999

  1995–96: £10,000-£14,999

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £60,000-£64,999

  1995–96: £60,000-£64,999

  The Keeper of Public Records' salary is published in the Public Record Office's Annual Report, a copy of which is deposited in the Library of the House.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department and (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40817]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In addition to the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. He also has responsibility for the Legal Aid Board and the Northern Ireland Court Service. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, the chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office have been asked to reply direct. This answer is, however, given on behalf of headquarters, the remaining agencies, the Legal Aid Board and the Northern Ireland Court Service.

  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the department, agencies and non-departmental bodies. As members of the principal civil service pension scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules, which have been deposited in the Library of the House. There are no individuals in the headquarters of the Department, the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, the Legal Aid Board or the Northern Ireland Court Service whose total remuneration packages in the years in question exceeded £100,000, excluding pension benefits.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the number of individuals in the Land Registry whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96.Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in HM Land Registry. As members of the Principal Civil Service Pensions Scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the Scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House. There were no individuals within the Land Registry whose annual remuneration, excluding pension benefits, has exceeded £100,000 in the years mentioned.I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.252
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 November 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply, in respect of the Public Record Office, to your question about the number of individuals whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000.Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Public Record Office. As members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the Scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The number receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits in the years in question was (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Know-how Funding
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total sum spent by the know-how funds in(a) Estonia, (b) Latvia and (c) Lithuania and (d) Georgia in each of the last five years; and what is the expected total in the next two years. [40667]

  Mr. Hanley
  Know-how fund expenditure to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Georgia was as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ million 1995–96 (planned)

  Estonia

  0

  0.008

  0.359

  0.310

  0.691

  0.695

  Latvia

  0

  0

  0.326

  0.259

  0.915

  0.695

  Lithuania

  0

  0.006

  0.404

  1.058

  0.900

  0.695

  Pan Baltic

  0

  0.036

  0.360

  0.627

  0.603

  0.625

  Georgia

  0

  0

  0.026

  0.071

  0.496

  0.600

  Total

  0

  0.050

  1.475

  3.800

  3.605

  3.310

  Discussions about future spending are currently under way.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lobbies
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee for what reasons microphones are not allowed to be used at lobbies held in Westminster Hall by speakers, and what considerations underlie permission to use microphones as granted to the House authorities. [40372]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Lobbying is normally carried out in Central Lobby, but in view of the problems posed for disabled lobbyists, the authorities controlling Westminster Hall have agreed that mass lobbies by disabled people may take place there. This is designed to replicate the facilities offered in the Central Lobby, not a meeting room. The microphones and loudspeakers are for the House authorities to let lobbyists know which hon. Members are present and which part of the Hall they will be in.

  Air Travel Costs
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what rebate agreements with airlines have been reached in respect of air travel costs. [41059]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am pleased to announce that on 13 June, following negotiations between the House and British Airways, the Administration Committee endorsed a proposed agreement, whereby BA is willing to assist the House in reducing its air travel costs, in return for the House dealing with BA as a preferred airline, and subject to a certain minimum flown revenue.

  Most BA flights on parliamentary business booked through the Palace of Westminster travel office since 1 April by hon. Members, their staff or Officers or staff of the House will count towards a percentage rebate on a sliding scale—the greater the flown revenue, the greater the percentage—as well as actual—rebate. All BA worldwide scheduled services in certain classes are covered, including club world, eurobudget, shuttle services and full economy class UK domestic fares. A complete list of eligible fares is available from the travel office.

  It is important to stress that there is no element of "exclusivity" about this agreement. Individual hon. Members or Select Committees who, for example, prefer to deal with other carriers or travel agents, or who wish to take advantage of a group deal with another carrier are, of course, still perfectly free to do so. However, I would hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind that if they do book a BA flight through the travel office, it could now assist the House in being able to keep its air travel costs down.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39485]

  The Attorney-General
  The chief executive of the executive agency for which I am responsible, the Government Property Lawyers, will write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. Horner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 October 1995:
  The Attorney-General has asked me to reply to your question about Executive Agency Staff. I am pleased to provide the details below for the Government Property Lawyers Agency:

  Grade

  Number

  Cost £

  a) Financial Year 1994–95

  3

  1

  78,028.67

  4–7

  45.15

  1,998,153.06

  254

  Grade

  Number

  Cost £

  Executive Grades

  37.12

  713,190.47

  Support Grades

  22.75

  293,048.37

  Typing and Messengerial Grades

  21.83

  286,130.40

  Total

  127.85

  3,368,550.97

  b) Financial Year 1995–96 (estimated)

  3

  1

  70,963.64

  5–7

  41.97

  1,892,336.76

  Executive Grades

  36.65

  735,750.24

  Support Grades

  23.6

  323,552.37

  Typing and Messengerial Grades

  21.17

  297,171.01

  Totals

  124.39

  3,319,774.02

  The information has been given in the above form to avoid identification of individuals.

  Late Payments (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney General how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40533]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible make every effort to settle invoices promptly, including those payable to small businesses. The specific information requested is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40534]

  The Attorney-General
  No such petitions have been presented by the Law Officers' Departments in their own behalf.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has presented bankruptcy petitions on behalf of other Departments for which it acts. Information as to the number of employees affected is not maintained in the Treasury Solicitor's Department's records.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised by increasing the standard rate of VAT to(a) 19 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. per year. [40666]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures published in the Treasury's "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" indicate that increasing the standard rate of VAT by one percentage point is estimated to raise £2,540 million. This implies the following:
  255

  New tax rate percentage

  Estimated extra revenue £ million

  19

  3,810

  20

  6,350

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the cost in 1996–97 and a full year of raising the threshold for registration for VAT for small businesses by(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £50,000 and (f) £60,000.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Costs have not been calculated for the exact thresholds specified. Calculations have been done for the full-year revenue effects of raising the VAT registration threshold to the following levels:

  VAT registration threshold

  £60,000

  £75,000

  £100,000

  Revenue effect (£ million)

  -£120

  -£245

  -£425

  It should also be noted that the EC sixth VAT directive restricts increases in the VAT threshold to those which "maintain its value in real terms".(2) what assessment capital gains taxation 1979.he has made of the amount of avoidance for each year since [38866]

  Windfall Taxes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement in his Department's policy in respect of windfall taxes; and if he will make a statement. [40827]

  Mr. Jack
  It would be inappropriate to comment on tax matters at this stage in the Budget cycle.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been undertaken on the revenue effect of lowering the level of excise duty on beer, on sources of tax revenue other than excise duty and directly associated VAT. [38476]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Government costings of a cut in beer duty, published in the tax ready reckoner, allow for the direct effects on indirect tax revenues when consumers switch expenditure from other goods to beer. These calculations make use of a model developed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, based on detailed data on how demand for individual goods and services has responded to price changes in the past.

  Following through the impact on other sources of tax revenue would require assumptions about the stance of fiscal and monetary policy. It is that overall policy stance that is the prime determinant of the effect on receipts, which would require simulation on a macro-economic model, such as that of the Treasury.

  The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association has published its own estimates of the effect on government
  256
  revenues of a reduction in beer duty, most recently in "A New Deal: A Memorandum to HM Treasury", June 1995.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of income from taxes on beers, wines, spirits, tobacco and cigarettes for the current year. [40604]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The summer economic forecast published in June estimated revenues for the current year to be as follows:

  £ billion

  Beers (and ciders)

  2.7

  Wines

  1.2

  Spirits

  1.9

  Tobacco

  7.3

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the amount of corporate taxation avoidance for each year since 1979; [38865]

  (2) what assessment capital gains taxation 1979. he has made of the amount of avoidance for each year since 1979. [38866]

  Mr. Jack
  We continue to monitor examples of the exploitation of tax regulations which result in tax loss. Analysis of these is one of the key factors in determining each year new policies designed to counter avoidance.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers on PAYE have gross incomes(a) under £10,00, (b) £25,000 (c) £50,000, (d) £75,000, (e) £100,000, (f) £125,000, (g) £150,000, (h) £175,000, (i) £200,000 and (j) over £250,000, specifying in each case the average amount of income subject to PAYE. [39113]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates for 1995–95 are given in the table.

  Range of Gross Income

  Taxpayers with a source of income subject to PAYE Thousands

  Gross Income1 £ million

  Average PAYE income £1 2

  £0-£ 10,000

  8,000

  54,800

  5,780

  £10,000-£25,000

  11,200

  179,000

  15,100

  £25,000-£50,000

  2,400

  77,800

  30,200

  £50,000-£75,000

  240

  14,500

  54,000

  £75,000-£100,000

  70

  5,610

  72,300

  £100,000 and over

  80

  14,800

  147,000

  Total

  22,000

  346,000

  14,400

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as national savings certificates.

  2 Main and subsidiary source schedule E income, occupational pensions, other schedule E income and taxable expenses and benefits.

  257
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the basic rate of income tax would be increased to raise an additional £1,000 million in revenue; how much the basic rate of income tax would be increased to raise this sum if the spread of all taxation was consistent with that on 1 June; and if he will make a statement. [39293]

  Mr. Jack
  The basic rate of income tax would need to be raised by about ½p.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 and a full year of widening the 20p band of tax to the degree necessary to make half of all taxpayers liable at the 20p rate of tax; and if he will indicate the upper limit of the 20p rate that would be necessary to achieve this. [40775]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The lower rate band would need to be widened to £8,500. The direct revenue cost would be about £4.1 billion in a full year at 1996–97 income levels. This estimate includes consequential effects on the yield of capital gains.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for(a) the number of higher rate taxpayers and (b) the total number of taxpayers on gross incomes of between £31,000 and £40,000 in £1,000 bands. [40786]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Provisional estimates for 1995–96 are given in the table.

  Range of gross income1 £

  Number of taxpayers in 1995–96 Thousands

  Higher rate taxpayers in 1995–96

  £31,000-£32,000

  170

  160

  £32,000-£33,000

  120

  120

  £33,000-£34,000

  120

  120

  £34,000-£35,000

  110

  110

  £35,000-£36,000

  120

  120

  £36,000-£37,000

  90

  90

  £37,000-£38,000

  80

  80

  £38,000-£39,000

  70

  70

  £39,000-£40,000

  60

  60

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as national savings certificates.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 and a full year of reducing the number of people paying tax at the higher rate to(a) 2 million, (b) 1.5 million, (c) 1 million, (d) 0.75 million and (e) 0.5 million indicating in each case the upper limit for the 25p rate. [40776]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Estimated full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table.

  Reduction in the number of higher rate taxpayers to

  Full year revenue cost at 1996–97 levels £ billion

  Basic rate limit assumed

  2 million

  0.4

  26,500

  1.5 million

  1.3

  29,800

  1 million

  2.3

  35,300

  258

  Reduction in the number of higher rate taxpayers to

  Full year revenue cost at 1996–97 levels £ billion

  Basic rate limit assumed

  0.75 million

  3.0

  40,300

  0.5 million

  3.6

  46,300

  Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 11 February 1992 to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke),Official Report, column 429, on the effect on Treasury revenues of introducing limits on allowances and reliefs, including in the calculation only those allowances and reliefs taken at the marginal rate. [39099]

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that at 1995–96 levels of income the introduction of the upper limits specified would yield the following:

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs1 £

  Yield in full year £ million

  9,000

  560

  10,000

  490

  11,000

  430

  12,000

  380

  13,000

  340

  14,000

  310

  15,000

  290

  16,000

  260

  1 Including only allowances and reliefs given at marginal rates.

  The number of people who would be affected are as follows:

  £ Thousands

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs1 £

  Basic rate taxpayers, lower rate taxpayers and non taxpayers

  Higher rate taxpayers

  9,000

  50

  180

  10,000

  30

  140

  11,000

  30

  110

  12,000

  20

  90

  13,000

  10

  80

  14,000

  10

  70

  15,000

  10

  60

  16,000

  10

  50

  1 Including only allowances and reliefs given at marginal rates.

  Fewer than 10,000 basic rate taxpayers would become higher rate taxpayers.

  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such a limit.

  Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the full-year cost of abolition of(a) capital gains tax and (b) inheritance tax. [39103]
  259
  Mr. Jack
  Receipts from capital gains tax, excluding tax on gains of companies, and inheritance tax are forecast to be £1.1 billion and £1.6 billion respectively in 1996–97.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimate of the amount of public sector capital investment which will have been approved under the private finance initiative by the end of 1995; to what extent the estimate has changed; and if he will make a statement. [39345]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on private finance projects is assembled in the form of total contract values rather than specifically public sector capital investment. Information on the numerous smaller contracts is not kept centrally, but at the last Budget the Chancellor announced that contracts with a capital value of £5 billion were due to be signed in this financial year. We are on target.

  Excise Verification Officers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many excise verification officers were deployed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [40208]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is not available in the format requested. In the financial year 1993–94 and 1994–95 some 250 staff years were assigned to single market excise work; the majority of these were specially trained excise verification officers. In the financial year 1995–96 an additional 12 staff years were designated to counter excise offences.

  National Grid Flotation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the agreements reached between the Inland Revenue and the regional electricity companies over tax liabilities in relation to the flotation of the National Grid, with particular reference to letters of comfort issued by the Inland Revenue. [40571]

  Mr. Jack
  The tax affairs of particular companies are a confidential matter between those companies and the Inland Revenue.

  Termination of Employment Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost in 1994–95 of tax relief given at a rate of(a) 40 per cent. and (b) 25 per cent. on the first £30,000 of payments made on termination of employment. [39142]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The total cost of tax relief on the first £30,000 of payments made on termination of employment is estimated to be about £1,600 million in 1994–95. A breakdown of this figure at each marginal tax rate is given in the following table:

  Cost of tar relief

  £ million

  Lower rate of 20 per cent.

  50

  Basic rate of 25 per cent.

  800

  Higher rate of 40 per cent.

  750

  Total

  1,600

  Private Finance Panel
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the names, declared interests, date of appointment and reason for selection of the members of the Private Finance Panel [39381]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The current members and main interests of the Private Finance Panel are:

  Sir Christopher Bland

  Chairman, NFC Plc, Life Sciences International plc and Hammersmith Hospitals Trust.

  Mr. Malcolm R.Bates

  Deputy Managing Director, GEC; Non-executive Director, Enterprise Oil.

  Mr. Allan Gormly CBE

  Chairman, Royal Insurance Holdings plc; Joint Deputy Chairman, Trafalgar House plc; Director, National Grid Co. plc, BPB Industries plc, Brixton Estate plc, Eurorail Ltd.

  Mr. Hugh R. Jenkins

  Chief Executive, Prudential Portfolio Managers; Director, Prudential Corporation; Member, DoE Property Advisory Group.

  Mr. Pen Kent

  Director, Bank of England.

  Ms Sheila V. Masters

  Partner, KPMG Peat Marwick; Non-executive Director, Bank of England; Non-executive Member, Inland Revenue Management Board and NHS Policy Board.

  Sir Brian Pearse

  Chairman, The Housing Corporation, Lucas Industries, British Invisibles and Young Enterprise. Director, Smith and Nephew plc, Financial Reporting Council, BOTB, London First Centre.

  Mr. Neville Simms

  Group Chief Executive, Tarmac plc; Non-executive Director, Courtaulds plc.

  Mr. Alastair Ross Goobey

  Chief Executive, PosTel Investment Management; Non-executive Director Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society; Non-executive Director, TR Property Investment Trust.

  Mr. Murray Stuart

  Chairman, Scottish Power; Deputy Chairman, Audit Commission; Director, Hill Samuel.

  Mr. Steve Robson

  Director (Finance, Regulation and Industry), HM Treasury.

  All the members were appointed in November 1993, with the exceptions of Sir Christopher Bland (November 1994), Mr. Ross Goobey (September 1995) and Mr. Stuart (October 1995).

  The panel was selected, in discussions between both the previous and present chairmen and myself, in order to bring a mixture of experience and expertise to the task of promoting the progress of the private finance initiative.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions have taken place, and with whom, about extending private medical insurance tax relief to
  261
  those policies specifically designed to cover long-term care needs; [39383]

  (2) what representations have been made to his Department concerning extending private medical insurance tax relief to those policies specifically designed to cover long-term care needs. [39384]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The Treasury receives representations from, and has discussions with, many individuals and organisations with regard to taxation issues including tax relief for policies covering long-term care.

  Taxation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his best estimate at 1995–96 prices and in cash terms for the total amount of(a) direct and (b) indirect tax paid since 1945 by (i) a married man on average earnings with two children where only the man is working and (ii) a single person on three quarters of average earnings. [40781]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Tables showing the burden of direct taxes and indirect taxes on various specimen households since 1978–79 are shown in the tax-benefit reference manual, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. Comparable figures for both direct and indirect taxes are not available for earlier years.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of companies receiving corporation tax repayments in excess of £250 million in 1994–95 or the latest available year. [40785]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Information held centrally shows that no repayment of corporation tax exceeded £250 million in 1994–95, the latest available year.

  Company Dividends
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take on the use of special dividends in relation to takeovers and mergers. [40779]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Dividend policy is a matter for the private sector companies concerned.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the latest available year for estates valued at over(a) £2 million, (b) £3 million, (c) £4 million,(d) £5 million and (e) £6 million, (i) the number of estates notified for probate, (ii) the inheritance tax raised and (iii) the value of exemptions. [40784]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Provisional estimates for estates applying for grants of representation where death occurred in the financial year 1991–92, and where the net estate was valued at 2£
  262
  million or over, are given. Figures for more recent years are not available.

  1991–92

  (i) Number of estates applying for grants of representations

  217

  (ii) Inheritance tax liabilities

  140 £ million

  (iii) Total capital value of exemptions and reliefs1

  £390 million

  1 Including value of IHT threshold.

  A further breakdown of estates over £2 million cannot be reliably estimated and, in any case, the numbers involved may be too small to give adequate protection to the confidentiality of individual estates.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the recognition of states and boundaries following policy decisions taken in respect of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. [40703]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom recognised the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia on 15 January 1992, the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on 7 April 1992 and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 8 April 1993. The United Kingdom does not recognise the statehood of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—Serbia and Montenegro. Succession issues, such as the division of assets and liabilities, will be resolved after the conclusion of the peace process.

  United States of America
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received regarding United Kingdom citizens refused entry or re-entry into the United States of America at United States' ports of entry in the last five years; and how many of these involved United Kingdom citizens seeking to return to the United States of America after a visit to Canada. [40692]

  Mr. Hanley
  Eleven and none respectively.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Foreign Affairs Council of 2 and 3 October. [40111]

  Mr. David Davis
  The outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council of 2 October was recorded in a letter from the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the hon. Member for Boothferry, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Bankruptcy Petition
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40524]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested will take some time to obtain. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Late Payments (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40523]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office—diplomatic wing and Overseas Development Administration—is committed to the CBI prompt payment code. This requires all invoices to be paid within the agreed credit period, or within 30 days of receipt where no credit period has been agreed. The following table shows the percentage of all invoices not paid on time by the diplomatic wing, the Overseas Development Administration, and the executive agencies Wilton Park and the Natural Resources Institute. Separate figures for small businesses' invoices are not available.

  Per cent.

  DW

  ODA

  WP

  NRI

  1991–92

  14

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  9

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  1993–94

  5

  13

  12

  n/a

  1994–95

  8

  13

  5

  4

  1995–96

  18

  27

  10

  28

  1 April-September.

  2 April-late October.

  British Citizens Overseas
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in descending order the estimates he has available of(a) the number of British citizens resident in each overseas country, (b) the number of such citizens registered to vote in United Kingdom elections and (c) the percentage which this is of (a), with overall totals. [40227]

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated number of Britons resident abroad as at end December 1994 in descending order by country is below.

  In 1994 18,552 overseas electors were registered to vote in United Kingdom elections, representing 0.017 per cent. of the total number of Britons resident abroad.

  Estimated number of Britons resident abroad as at end December 1994

  Number

  Australia

  3,400,000

  Canada

  3,000,000

  264

  Estimated number of Britons resident abroad as at end December 1994

  Number

  USA

  1,448,000

  South Africa

  1,080,000

  New Zealand

  400,000

  Spain

  300,500

  Irish Republic

  200,000

  Germany

  152,088

  Italy

  91,000

  France

  65,901

  Kenya

  49,073

  Netherlands

  44,672

  Greece

  40,530

  Israel

  38,500

  Saudi Arabia

  32,500

  India

  30,110

  Zimbabwe

  30,000

  Portugal

  25,600

  Belgium

  25,000

  Cyprus

  20,000

  Denmark

  18,573

  United Arab Emirates

  18,500

  Japan

  17,000

  Norway

  14,000

  Tanzania

  12,000

  Sweden

  10,927

  Zambia

  10,000

  Switzerland

  9,079

  Brazil

  9,050

  Malaysia

  8,600

  Nigeria

  8,400

  Antigua and Barbuda

  7,676

  Barbados

  7,500

  Philippines

  7,500

  Indonesia

  7,000

  Singapore

  7,000

  Austria

  6,500

  Oman

  6,500

  Bahrain

  6,331

  Bahamas

  6,000

  Botswana

  6,000

  Brunei

  6,000

  Chile

  6,000

  Swaziland

  6,000

  Argentina

  5,800

  Thailand

  5,600

  Malawi

  5,500

  Jerusalem

  5,000

  Poland

  5,000

  Trinidad and Tobago

  5,000

  Turkey

  4,200

  Egypt

  4,000

  Kuwait

  4,000

  Libya

  4,000

  Luxembourg

  4,000

  Malta

  4,000

  Mexico

  4,000

  Jamaica

  3,600

  Qatar

  3,500

  Lebanon

  3,482

  China

  2,850

  Colombia

  2,500

  Czech Republic

  2,500

  Romania

  2,500

  Russian Federation

  2,500

  Hungary

  2,300

  Ivory Coast

  2,000

  Venezuela

  2,000

  Peru

  1,962

  Ghana

  1,700

  Uganda

  1,700

  Finland

  1,600

  265

  Estimated number of Britons resident abroad as at end December 1994

  Number

  Pakistan

  1,600

  Mauritius

  1,500

  Papua New Guinea

  1,500

  Sri Lanka

  1,500

  Sierra Leone

  1,350

  Cuba

  1,275

  Jordan

  1,200

  Namibia

  1,200

  Uruguay

  1,100

  Morocco

  1,054

  Belize

  1,000

  Costa Rica

  1,000

  Grenada

  1,000

  Korea

  1,000

  Mozambique

  1,000

  Nepal

  850

  Yugoslavia

  814

  Ecuador

  800

  Guyana

  800

  Iceland

  800

  Ukraine

  800

  Vietnam

  700

  Zaire

  700

  Croatia

  694

  Seychelles

  650

  Bolivia

  600

  St. Lucia

  600

  Syria

  600

  Fiji

  550

  Gambia

  550

  Lesotho

  550

  Bangladesh

  540

  Sudan

  500

  Ethiopia

  450

  Tunisia

  450

  Yemen

  425

  Angola

  400

  Iran

  400

  Guatemala

  390

  Cambodia

  338

  Panama

  334

  Honduras

  250

  Algeria

  247

  Solomon Islands

  230

  Senegal

  206

  Cameroon

  200

  Madagascar

  200

  Paraguay

  200

  Slovakia

  200

  Slovenia

  200

  Vanuatu

  200

  Nicaragua

  177

  El Salvador

  172

  Bulgaria

  150

  Kazakhstan

  150

  Burma

  123

  Albania

  120

  Estonia

  75

  Lithuania

  75

  Tonga

  74

  Mongolia

  70

  Uzbekistan

  56

  Azerbaijan

  50

  Latvia

  40

  Macedonia

  40

  Belarus

  30

  Total

  10,829,503

  French Nuclear Testing Programme
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between French and British officials on the environmental effects of the French nuclear testing programme. [40197]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: British officials have discussed with French counterparts a number of aspects relating to the resumption of French nuclear testing, including the environmental effects.

  Ken Saro-Wiwa
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Nigerian military Government about the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa; and what representations he has received about the case. [40622]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: We and our European Union partners have raised this case with the Nigerian Government many times. We deplore the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants following a flawed judicial process and urge the Nigerian authorities to commute these sentences. We have received a large number of representations on the case, from Members of both Houses and members of the public.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library a copy of the Oftel submission which she has received and which relates to digital broadcasting. [39925]

  Mr. Sproat
  Oftel has agreed that the contents of its submission in response to digital terrestrial broadcasting (Cm 2946) may be made public and I have today placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what allocation of national lottery funds has been made to date to organisations and projects in the Cannock Chase district council area. [40203]

  Mr. Sproat
  Figures for national lottery funds broken down by district council areas are not currently available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to allow the Library Association access to national lottery funding. [40252]

  Mr. Sproat
  All bodies, including the Library Association, can apply for national lottery funding. All applications are judged against the criteria of the distributing bodies and decisions about awards are for them to make.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the European Union legislation
  267
  that applies to the capping of public expenditure grants to organisations which are in receipt of national lottery money; and if she will make a statement. [39070]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am not aware of any such legislation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the projects which have received lottery funds and have consequently been excluded from receiving public funds for which they would normally be eligible. [38345]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: I know of no such projects.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received from Wales concerning the operation of the national lottery. [39576]

  Mr. Sproat
  The national lottery is an outstanding success and has become the focus of a great deal of attention. Bearing this in mind, a large number of representations concerning the operation of the national lottery have been received from all of the United Kingdom. The Government have always stated that they will be keeping all aspects of the lottery under review and such representations as I have received are a useful contribution to this process.

  Late Payments (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how often her Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40515]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is committed to the payment of invoices within agreed contractual provisions or within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice or delivery, if later. While the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, the following has been produced on the basis of a sample of invoices received by the Department of National Heritage:

  Year

  Invoices received

  Payment delayed

  Percentage paid on time

  1993–94

  291

  42

  85.6

  1994–95

  1,323

  124

  90.6

  1995–96

  243

  12

  95.1

  Our records cannot be used to determine "small businesses". There are no comparable departmental figures for earlier years as the Department's payment system was not in place until 1993, following the establishment of DNH in April 1992.

  The Royal Parks agency and Historic Royal Palaces agency do not currently hold records that could provide the information requested, it could only be provided at disproportionate cost. An examination of invoices for goods and services paid by the Royal Parks agency during October 1994 indicated that 96 per cent. were paid within the 30-day credit period allowed.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by her Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40516]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since the establishment of the Department of National Heritage in April 1992 no such petitions have been raised.

  Mediaeval Boat Hull, Bedwin Sands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance her Department has given to the archaeologists' attempts to raise a mediaeval boat hull from the Bedwin Sands in the Severn estuary; and if she will make a statement. [39572]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on 30 October 1995,Official Report, on 30 October 1995, column 95.

  Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to connect libraries to the Internet; and if she will provide funding to ensure that customers have free access to the service. [40253]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am considering the use of new technology in public libraries as part of the on-going public library review, and this topic will be covered in a ministerial statement on the outcome of the review, later this year. However, connection to the Internet, and policy on whether to charge for public access, is a matter for individual library authorities.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many libraries in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands have been closed over the past five years. [40249]

  Mr. Sproat
  I do not hold this information for England. Questions about public libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for their respective Secretaries of State.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received in respect of the future of the libraries in the United Kingdom. [40255]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have received representations on both the Aslib report, which is a key element in the public library review, and the KPMG/capital planning information report on the scope for contracting out in public libraries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to make a further statement to Parliament on these by the end of the year. We have also received a number of representations relating to the Library Association's current campaign. Questions about public libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for their respective Secretaries of State.
  269
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of the collapse of the net book agreement on the range of books library suppliers are able to offer libraries. [40251]

  Mr. Sproat
  The net book agreement was a voluntary arrangement in which the Government played no part. It is to early to tell what effect the removal of the agreement will have on the book market and on the range of books offered by library suppliers.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many mobile libraries operated in(a) the United Kingdom (b) the west midlands during (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for each of the next two years; [40254]

  (2) how many libraries in the United Kingdom now open for more than 60 hours per week; and how many opened for more than 60 hours per week during (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94. [40248]

  Mr. Sproat
  Such information is contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's public library statistics, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The latest actual information is for 1993–94, but estimates are available for 1994–95.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many libraries in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands she expects to (i) close or (ii) reduce the service they provide over the next two years. [40250]

  Mr. Sproat
  In England such matters are for local authorities to decide. Questions about public libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for their respective Secretaries of State.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Immigration (Employer Sanctions)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list employers' organisations and other bodies which have made representations about his proposals for the introduction of employer sanctions to deter the employment of illegal immigrants or of those legally here but with a prohibition against working; and if he will place in the Library copies of the representations. [40228]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have received written representations from the Institute of Directors and from the St. Albans branch of Amnesty International. It would not be appropriate for me to place copies of these letters in the Library.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has available as 270
  to the scale of the problem of employers taking on illegal workers. [40229]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No such estimates are available, but in 1994 over 10,000 people were detected by the immigration service working while either here illegally or here legally but prohibited from taking work.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department fo businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40520]

  Mr. Howard
  Information is not recorded in the form requested.

  Late Payment (Small Business)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years.[40519]

  Mr. Howard
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Departments and their agencies are required to provide details of their payment performance in their annual reports. In its 1995 annual report the Home Office reported that 92 per cent. of all valid invoices were paid within 30 days. There is no reason to believe that analysis of payments made to small businesses would show a different percentage.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40811]

  Mr. Howard
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. This provides the following information:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Lowest bands

  Home Office

  5,000–10,000

  5,000–10,000

  Agencies

  5,000–10,000

  5,000–10,000

  NDPBs

  5,000–10,0001

  5,000–10,0001

  Highest bands

  Home Office

  95,000–99,999

  100,000–105,000

  Agencies

  125,000–130,000

  130,000–135,000

  NDPBs

  95,000–99,999

  95,000–99,999

  1The figure for NDPBs is an estimate.

  Travel Document Section
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the main recommendations of the recent efficiency review of the
  271
  travel document section; when those recommendations are to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [40852]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The following main recommendations of the efficiency review of the travel document section have been accepted and take effect from today: that cases should be allocated on arrival to dedicated teams within the section which should retain responsibility for processing the application from start to finish. Applications should be acknowledged and an indication given of the time likely to be needed to process them. Mandatory issues should be given priority and completed with the minimum of delay. Management information systems should be improved.

  Two other main recommendations will be implemented as soon as the preparatory work, including consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has been completed. These were: to introduce an improved travel document; in connection with the improved travel document, to review and redesign the application form.

  The travel document section must retain its responsibility to consider applications for documents carefully and to check for signs of abuse, but I am satisfied that these recommendations will produce a better service for applicants entitled to a Home Office travel document.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and(c) non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) 100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40810]

  Mr. Howard
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies or non-departmental public bodies. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which had been deposited in the Library.

  There are only a few exceptions in my Department. One person was paid at a total rate of more than £100,000 in 1992–93, and two actually received more than £100,000 in 1994–95. Five people will have in effect been paid over £100,000 by the end of the financial year 1995–96, and one further person was paid at a rate of more than £100,000 for part of the year.

  No individual has earned or will earn in excess of £200,000 or £300,000 in the period specified.

  Police National Computer
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for recording cautions on the police national computer. [41372]
  272
  Mr. Maclean
  From 1 November, the police service will record all cautions administered for reportable offences on the Phoenix database of the police national computer. This will ensure for the first time that police will have access to records of cautions administered by other forces as well as those issued by their own force.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police stations have opened in each year since 1979. [40468]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations in each English county(a) are open 24 hours per day and (b) have restricted opening times. [40467]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contractual provisions exist for overcrowding in(a) Her Majesty's prison Wolds, (b) Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst and (c) Her Majesty's prison Doncaster; and if he will list in each case the occasions on which they were overcrowded and details of any additional payments made to the contractors. [40465]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about overcrowding in the contractually-managed prisons.There is no contractual provision for overcrowding in Wolds or Blakenhurst prisons. In the contract for Doncaster prison, there is provision for the Prison Service to ask the contractor to accommodate 1,169 prisoners.Hitherto, it has not been Prison Service policy to overcrowd new prisons. In line with this policy none of these prisons have been overcrowded, although all prisons, whether in the public sector or the private sector, occasionally hold small numbers of prisoners above their normal capacity for operational reasons.No additional payments to cover overcrowding have been made to any of the contractors.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assumptions he has made about the number of policemen and women who are to be recruited into the service as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement at the Conservative party conference being out on foot patrol at any given point in time. [40475]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. There will be extra funding available to enable chief constables to recruit an
  273
  additional 5,000 officers over the next three years. The deployment of officers is an operational matter for chief constables.

  Sheehy Reforms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the benefits and disbenefits of the Sheehy reforms. [40473]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's decision on police pay and conditions of service, following the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, was informed by detailed recommendations by the police negotiating board, whose careful consideration of each of the proposed reforms took account of their implications for the efficiency management of the police service.

  Some of the immediate benefits of the Government's reforms were a more streamlined management structure, new pay structures, a rationalisation of an outdated system of allowances, new arrangements for the management of the payment of overtime and a reform of the rules governing pay while on sick leave.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalty he has imposed on the contractors of Her Majesty's prison Doncaster for exceeding the number of assaults allowed for in the contract. [40464]

  Population in Doncaster prison on the last day of the month by type of custody, October 1994-September 1995

  Type of custody

  Last day of month

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Sentenced

  Fine defaulters

  Total

  1994

  October

  366

  158

  197

  14

  735

  November

  379

  151

  232

  9

  771

  December

  366

  134

  208

  4

  712

  1995

  January

  404

  150

  203

  5

  762

  February

  397

  159

  218

  4

  778

  March

  391

  151

  228

  6

  776

  April

  346

  132

  265

  7

  750

  May

  354

  134

  269

  9

  766

  June

  303

  162

  257

  11

  733

  July

  338

  133

  281

  12

  764

  August

  376

  143

  231

  5

  755

  September

  340

  162

  227

  15

  744

  Prison Population Estimates
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his estimates for the prison population for each of the next five years following his recent announcement; and what are the previous projections. [40460]

  Mr. Maclean
  The most recent projections of long-term trends in the prison population to 2002 were published in Home Office statistical bulletin 4/95, a copy of which is in the Library. A White Paper will be
  274
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about assaults at Doncaster prison.No penalty has been imposed on Premier Prison Services Ltd in relation to the number of assaults at Doncaster prison. The total number of assaults on prisoners and staff in the first year of operation did not exceed a level which would be consistent with the population mix and the likely incidence of assaults in a newly opened prison.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners there were in Doncaster prison in each of the past 12 months. [39563]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 81 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners there were in Doncaster prison in each of the past 12 months.The information requested (for the last day of the month) is given in the attached table.
  published early in 1996 setting out full details of the Government's proposals and an assessment of their implications.

  Prison Health Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his department in regard to supporting and encouraging the working of local community health councils with hospital services within the prison department; and if he will make a statement. [39755]
  275
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about policy on the support of local community health councils working with health care services in the Prison Service.
  276
  The local community health councils are groups of lay people who operate in the National Health Service. They have a wide remit which involves among other things, inspection of hospital services and patient advocacy.
  A similar function is carried out within prisons by Boards of Visitors, which are appointed by and report directly to the Home Secretary. All aspects of prison life including prison health care centres are open to Boards of Visitors and they fulfil the same role as the local community health councils with regard to prisoners.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39565]

  Mr. Howard
  The chief executives of the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College, the Director General of the Forensic Science Service and the temporary Director General of the Prison Service have advised me that the information available is as shown in the tables.

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Grade 5

  1

  73,000

  1

  75,000

  Grade 6

  3

  156,000

  3

  161,000

  Grade 7

  10

  400,000

  10

  41,200

  Senior Executive Officer

  16.66

  502,000

  16.66

  517,000

  Higher Executive Officer

  54.54

  1,463,000

  54.54

  1,507,000

  Executive Officer

  170.17

  3,556,000

  170.17

  3,663,000

  Administrative Officer

  650.13

  10,156,000

  650.13

  10,461,000

  Administrative Assistant

  557.42

  5,444,000

  3737.88

  37,423,000

  Personal Secretary

  7.04

  137,000

  7.04

  141,000

  Typing Manager

  2

  45,000

  2

  46,000

  Typist

  22.92

  347,000

  22.92

  357,000

  Support Grade Band 1

  18.46

  316,000

  18.46

  325,000

  Support Grade Band 2

  78.33

  928,000

  78.33

  956,000

  Total

  1,591.67

  23,533,000

  1,772.13

  26,044,000

  1 Staff figures are average full-time equivalents. The figures for 1994–95 are actual, and those for 1995–96 projected.

  2 Total cost includes NI and Superannuation.

  3 The increase in numbers and resources at the AA Grade is due to a projected 16 per cent, increase in passport demand from 1994–95 to 1995–96.

  Fire Service College

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number ofstaff1

  Total cost2 £

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Grade 5

  1

  61,099

  1

  61,099

  Grade 6

  1

  48,266

  1

  48,266

  Grade 7

  4

  157,090

  2.5

  98,181

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  55,964

  3

  83,947

  Higher Executive Officer

  6

  143,195

  6

  143,195

  278

  Fire Service College

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number ofstaff1

  Total cost2 £

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Executive Officer

  16

  283,943

  15

  266,196

  Administrative Officer

  33

  412,152

  33.5

  418,397

  Administrative Assistant

  8.5

  85,135

  9.5

  95,150

  Deputy Commandant

  1

  69,960

  1

  69,960

  Assistant Chief Officer

  2

  84,769

  2

  84,769

  Senior Divisional Officer

  1

  41,090

  1

  41,090

  Divisional Officer II

  5

  145,813

  3

  87,488

  Assistant Divisional Officer

  2

  54,235

  2

  54,235

  Fire Superintendent

  1

  25,934

  1

  25,934

  Support Grade Band 2

  5

  57,338

  5

  57,338

  Professional and Technical Officer

  3

  57,811

  3

  57,811

  Graphics Officer

  1

  21,341

  1

  21,341

  Technical Officer 1

  2

  33,231

  2

  33,231

  Technical Officer 2

  3

  37,881

  3

  37,881

  Personal Secretary

  4

  61,948

  4

  61,948

  Typist

  6

  83,268

  5

  69,380

  Messenger Manager

  0.5

  6,813

  0.5

  6,813

  Occupational Health Adviser

  1

  28,369

  1

  28,369

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  23,905

  1

  23,905

  Higher Information Officer

  1

  22,947

  1

  22,947

  Information Officer 2

  2

  34,038

  2

  34,038

  Librarian

  1

  23,538

  1

  23,538

  Assistant Librarian

  4

  68,513

  4

  68,513

  Nurse Manager

  1

  14,230

  1

  14,230

  Nurse

  1

  12,893

  1

  12,893

  Assistant Nurse

  1

  9,404

  1

  9,404

  Shop Manager

  1

  13,963

  1

  13.963

  Shop Assistant

  2

  19,178

  2

  19,178

  Principal Lecturer

  2

  82,325

  3

  123,472

  Senior Lecturer

  4

  142,119

  2

  71,060

  Lecturer

  20

  610,443

  19

  579,921

  Head of Department 6

  1

  52,101

  1

  52,101

  Head of Department 5

  1

  41,697

  1

  41.697

  Head of Department 4

  1

  45,137

  1

  45,137

  Head of Department 3

  1

  41,157

  1

  41,157

  Deputy Chief Fire Officer3

  1

  122,922

  1

  122,922

  279

  Fire Service College

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number ofstaff1

  Total cost2 £

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Group Fire Control Officer3

  1

  40,378

  1

  40,378

  Station Officer3

  16

  655,559

  16.5

  676,045

  Divisional Officer I3

  5

  278,576

  3

  167,148

  Divisional Officer II3

  12

  622,912

  13

  674,822

  Assistant Divisional Officer3

  36

  1,598,290

  25

  1,109,923

  Sub Officer3

  1

  36,262

  1

  36,262

  Grade 7 (CS)

  1

  44,809

  1

  44,809

  Industrial Staff

  41.5

  463,815

  40.5

  452,639

  Station Officer

  0

  0

  2

  59,799

  Total

  268.5

  7,177,540

  253

  6,473,932

  1 Staff figures are full-time equivalents.

  2 Total cost for 1994–95 assumes that the 2.2 per cent, increment for 1994 has been consolidated, therefore irrespective of any other increase for 1995–96 the cost figures are the same. Total cost includes NI and Superannuation.

  3 Staff seconded from UK Fire Brigades but included in overall Fire Service College paybill.

  Forensic Science Service

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2

  Grade 3

  1

  n/a

  1

  n/a

  Grade 5

  5

  n/a

  5

  n/a

  Grade 6

  9

  n/a

  9

  n/a

  A3 Senior Forensic Scie4ntist

  18

  n/a

  17.8

  n/a

  A2 Senior Forensic Scientist

  37.5

  n/a

  47.5

  n/a

  A1 Senior Forensic Scientist

  137.5

  n/a

  130.9

  n/a

  B2 Forensic Scientist

  55.1

  n/a

  77.7

  n/a

  B1 Forensic Scientist

  92.8

  n/a

  75.4

  n/a

  C2 Assistant Forensic Scientist

  102.3

  n/a

  104.4

  n/a

  C1 Assistant Forensic Scientist

  65.6

  n/a

  145.4

  n/a

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  Higher Executive Officer

  3.5

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  Executive Officer

  12.2

  n/a

  10.6

  n/a

  Administrative Officer

  34.4

  n/a

  33.8

  n/a

  Administrative Assistant

  27

  n/a

  25.7

  n/a

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  n/a

  1

  n/a

  Personal Secretary

  21.8

  n/a

  19.6

  n/a

  Typist

  13.7

  n/a

  13.9

  n/a

  280

  Forensic Science Service

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grades

  Number of staff1

  Total cosf2

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2

  Support Grade Band 2

  24

  n/a

  28.7

  n/a

  Support Grade Band 1

  3

  n/a

  3.3

  n/a

  Students

  6

  n/a

  10

  n/a

  Casuals

  8.5

  n/a

  14.5

  n/a

  Total

  682.7

  16,525,000

  783.2

  £18,080,000

  1 Staff numbers are full-time equivalents at 20 March 1995.

  2 Total cost include NI and Superannuation.

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Grade types

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Number of staff1

  Total cost2 £

  Prison Service grades3

  27,980

  532,200,000

  28,520

  542,100,000

  Non-industrial grades4

  7,750

  129,400,000

  8,000

  133,600,000

  Industrial grades5

  2,880

  40,500,000

  2,930

  41,300,000

  Other costs6

  n/a

  2,600,000

  n/a

  2,600,000

  1 Staff numbers are expressed as full-time equivalents. 1995–96 staff averages are subject to revision in the light of additional security requirements.

  2 Total cost include pay, allowances and overtime (where applicable) but not indirect staff costs or employer's contributions to NI and superannuation. 1995–96 costs are exclusive of 1995 pay awards, which are not yet completed.

  3 Prison Officers, governors and operational support staff.

  4 Executive, administrative, office support and specialist staff.

  5 Includes Farms and Gardens (agricultural) staff.

  6 Other costs includes advances of salary and early retirement.

  Council Tax (Non-payment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were serving a sentence of imprisonment for the non-payment of their council tax as at 10 October. [39753]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were serving a sentence of imprisonment for the non-payment of their council tax as at 10 October.The latest available information is for 30 September 1995. On that date there were no prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of council tax.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Immigration Advisory Service calling for detained asylum seekers to be entitled for their detention to be reviewed on a weekly basis by adjudicators of the
  281
  Independent Appellate Authority; what has been his response to such representations; and if he will make a statement. [40443)

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: There is no record of any representations from the Immigration Advisory Service calling for a change in policy on the review of detention.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the post of Director General of the Prison Service is to go out to open advertisement; and what qualities he will seek in the successful applicant. [39841]

  Mr. Howard
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Custody Statistics
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners now held in custody have currently served(a) at least 30 years, (b) at least 25 years and (c) at least 20 years continuously in custody. [39813]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. William Powell, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many prisoners now held in custody have currently served (a) at least 30 years, (b) at least 25 years and (c) at least 20 years continuously in custody.The information is not available in the form requested as detailed information about a prisoner's movements is not available centrally. The available information relates to those prisoners whose date of sentence was 20, 25 or 30 years ago. Provisional information for 30 September 1995 shows that two hundred prisoners were sentenced more than 20 years ago, eighty four of whom were sentenced more than 25 years ago and twenty five more than 30 years ago.

  Rapists
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male prisoners are currently serving life sentences for rape; and how many of this group are repeat offenders. [39601]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many male prisoners are currently serving life sentences for rape; and how many of this group are repeat offenders.The latest available information is for 31 December 1994. On that date there were 188 males in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving a life sentence for rape. Information on the number of repeat offenders is not immediately available. I will write to you again with this information as soon as possible.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of people who have had one or more limbs amputated as a result of injecting the gel formulation of the drug Temazepam during each of the past five years; [39184]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the number of deaths in each of the past five years which were related to the abuse of the drug Temazepam; what estimate he has made of the percentage of these which involved the gel formulation; and if he will make a statement. [39196]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 27 October Official Report, column 849.

  Crime Prevention Agency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the structure of the new Crime Prevention Agency announced in his speech of 12 October; what type of body will be in charge of it; from which institutions or bodies staff will be recruited or seconded; and which existing organisation will become part of the agency or have staff transferred to it. [39961]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: I will announce the details shortly.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into how other EC countries deal with prostitution, kerb crawling and soliciting. [40577]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: We have not commissioned any research into how other EC countries deal with prostitution, kerb crawling and soliciting.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for(a) soliciting, (b) prostitution and (c) kerb crawling in each of the last five years. [40578]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The information is given in the table:

  Number of persons prosecuted for certain offences 1990–19941

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution (Sexual Offences Act 1985 Sec

  21

  90

  71

  70

  6946

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution(Street Offences Act 1959 Sec 1)

  10,612

  10,262

  9,584

  8,094

  7,177

  Kerb-crawling (Sexual Offences Act 1959 Sec 1)

  1,377

  1,323

  1,005

  777

  1,113

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make kerb crawling and soliciting recordable offences. [40580]
  283
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Loitering and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution is already a recordable offence. Kerb crawling currently is not, but I am considering whether it should be.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the Street Offences Act 1959 and other relevant legislation in relation to soliciting, prostitution and kerb crawling. [40581]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: We believe that the law in relation to soliciting, prostitution and kerb crawling is generally effective, and we have no plans to review it.

ENVIRONMENT

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what grant-givings funds his Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38599]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the shire counties' budgets for 1994–95, ranking them in order from the largest increase from the previous year to the lowest. [38580]

  Mr. Curry
  The requested information is as follows:

  Budgeted net revenue expenditure

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Percentage increase

  Essex

  916,746

  982,211

  7.14

  Surrey

  535,000

  572,750

  7.06

  Hampshire

  875,167

  935,579

  6.90

  Durham

  365,992

  389,621

  6.46

  Cleveland

  403,791

  426,835

  5.71

  Devon

  594,059

  627,715

  5.67

  West Sussex

  403,140

  425,376

  5.52

  Hertfordshire

  597,422

  630,259

  5.50

  Hereford and Worcester

  372,435

  392,602

  5.41

  Derbyshire

  557,568

  587,507

  5.37

  Humberside

  575,933

  606,678

  5.34

  Norfolk

  437,460

  460,128

  5.18

  Cambridgeshire

  389,192

  408,758

  5.03

  Dorset

  353,565

  371,071

  4.95

  Avon

  568,892

  596,863

  4.92

  East Sussex

  416,519

  436,567

  4.81

  Isle of Wight

  78,453

  82,192

  4.77

  Cornwall

  288,045

  301,500

  4.67

  Cheshire

  587,400

  614,817

  4.67

  Kent

  964,833

  1,009,770

  4.66

  Berkshire

  462,846

  484,287

  4.63

  North Yorkshire

  398,478

  416,497

  4.52

  Somerset

  271,355

  283,277

  4.39

  Gloucestershire

  306,610

  319,546

  4.22

  Lincolnshire

  363,829

  378,808

  4.12

  284

  Budgeted net revenue expenditure

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Percentage increase

  Wiltshire

  324,509

  337,855

  4.11

  Oxfordshire

  326,569

  339,789

  4.05

  Lancashire

  922,071

  958,568

  3.96

  Shropshire

  243,991

  252,945

  3.67

  Staffordshire

  598,753

  620,712

  3.67

  Bedfordshire

  352,922

  364,872

  3.39

  Northamptonshire

  365,499

  377,582

  3.31

  Warwickshire

  288,276

  297,600

  3.23

  Cumbria

  310,634

  319,506

  2.86

  Buckinghamshire

  417,377

  428,000

  2.55

  Leicestershire

  554,101

  567,888

  2.49

  Nottinghamshire

  675,158

  690,281

  2.24

  Suffolk

  371,517

  378,750

  1.95

  Northumberland

  189,168

  191,127

  1.04

  Total

  18,025,275

  18,866,689

  4.67

  Source:

  Revenue account returns (RA94 and RA95).

  Note:

  Net revenue expenditure is financed through revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates, council taxes and withdrawals from financial reserves. Much of the increase in net revenue expenditure in shire counties between 1993–94 and 1994–95 can be attributed to the increased responsibilities associated with care in community.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of revenue support grant paid to each shire county in 1994–95, indicating the percentage movement from the previous year. [38577]

  Mr. Curry
  The requested information is as follows:

  Revenue support grant

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Percentage Movement

  Avon

  210,349

  231,066

  9.85

  Bedfordshire

  164,372

  177,975

  8.28

  Berkshire

  184,157

  201,220

  9.27

  Buckinghamshire

  174,081

  192,144

  10.38

  Cambridgeshire

  150,499

  170,425

  13.24

  Cheshire

  222,981

  250,838

  12.49

  Cleveland

  211,432

  224,906

  6.37

  Cornwall

  111,153

  126,130

  13.47

  Cumbria

  127,558

  140,367

  10.04

  Derbyshire

  211,990

  241,693

  14.01

  Devon

  223,173

  252,314

  13.06

  Dorset

  114,032

  129,889

  13.91

  Durham

  164,275

  190,899

  16.21

  East Sussex

  152,910

  171,660

  12.26

  Essex

  386,223

  442,710

  14.63

  Gloucestershire

  111,708

  122,009

  9.22

  Hampshire

  336,625

  379,960

  12.87

  Hereford and Worcester

  130,194

  147,936

  13.63

  Hertfordshire

  229,600

  264,788

  15.33

  Humberside

  265,891

  284,832

  7.12

  Isle of Wight

  31,407

  36,160

  15.13

  Kent

  412,997

  464,268

  12.41

  Lancashire

  395,532

  434,853

  9.94

  Leicestershire

  249,061

  263,909

  5.96

  Lincolnshire

  151,147

  166,940

  10.45

  Norfolk

  161,305

  183,904

  14.01

  Northamptonshire

  160,797

  168,255

  4.64

  Northumberland

  80,335

  93,093

  15.88

  North Yorkshire

  135,319

  154,182

  13.94

  Nottinghamshire

  275,171

  295,627

  7.43

  285

  Revenue support grant

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Percentage Movement

  Oxfordshire

  106,485

  124,175

  16.61

  Shropshire

  97,225

  107,978

  11.06

  Somerset

  97,912

  110,209

  12.56

  Staffordshire

  245,106

  273.345

  11.52

  Suffolk

  140,224

  154,330

  10.06

  Surrey

  147,217

  178,522

  21.26

  Warwickshire

  94,198

  106,115

  12.65

  West Sussex

  126,131

  153,329

  21.56

  Wiltshire

  117,024

  129,615

  10.76

  Total

  7,107,796

  7,942,570

  11.74

  Source:

  Revenue account (RA95) return.

  Note:

  Revenue support grant is calculated as the difference between an authority's standard spending assessment and the sum of the income from its council tax, assuming that its tax was set at the council tax for standard spending, and its share of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates. At national level, the change in the amount of RSG reflects changes in each of these elements. The differential increases in RSG between authorities will reflect changes in assessed need function and in the size of their own taxbase. Between 1993–94 and 1994–95 in particular, total RSG increased through the fall in the yield of the NDR, and the increase in SSA necessitated by increased responsibilities for local authorities associated with care in the community. In shire counties, the latter amounted to some £350 million.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that counties that become unitary local authorities in 1997 do not lose the financial contributions they currently receive in respect of their sites and ancient monuments record; and if he will make a statement. [40008]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Revenue support grant allocations are made using a formula to assess relative expenditure need for each authority to provide its services to a standard level. It will therefore continue to be applied to authorities affected by an order for structural change taking account of their provision of both "county" and "district" functions.

  Health and Safety Appeals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to create an appeals tribunal to hear appeals for environmental information and health and safety information. [39361]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under current plans, proposals for a tribunal will be included in the Government's legislative proposals to create a new access right to health and safety information. I cannot anticipate when parliamentary time will be available to create the new right, as I advised the hon. Member in Committee on 13 June.

  Rental Accommodation
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in London for rent in the(a) public and (b) private sectors are currently unoccupied. [39614]

  Mr. Clappison
  The numbers of local authority and housing association dwellings in London that were vacant 286
  on 1 April 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, were as follows:

  Number (per cent, of stock)

  Local authority dwellings1

  All vacants

  18,675 (2.9)

  of which management vacants2

  10,485 (1.6)

  Housing association dwellings3

  All vacants

  7,896 (4.3)

  of which management vacants2

  3,193 (1.7)

  Source:

  1Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  2Available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  3Annual Housing Corporation HAR10/1 returns. The figures are not grossed up to take account of the small number of associations which did not submit a return.

  The information which is available on private sector vacant dwellings, other than those of housing associations, does not identify separately those which are for rent.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39851]

  Mr. Gummer
  In the current year I have met the head of the Building Research Establishment once, the head of the Planning Inspectorate twice and the head of the Security Facilities Executive once. I have not met the heads of the two other next steps agencies for which my Department is responsible in the current year—the Buying Agency and the QE II Conference Centre.

  Pollution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of(a) nitrogen oxide, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) volatile organic compounds and (d) black smoke emissions in the atmosphere in 1983 and 1993. [39889]

  Mr. Clappison
  National emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds and black smoke in 1983 and 1993 are presented in the table.

  Thousand tonnes

  National Emissions

  Pollutants

  1983

  1993

  Nitrogen Oxides

  2,331

  2,347

  Carbon Monoxide

  5,065

  5,641

  Volatile Organic Compounds

  2,384

  2,418

  Black Smoke

  511

  444

  Source:

  National Environmental Technology Centre, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he had to simplify and clarify the measures of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen used in the United Kingdom. [39899]
  287
  Mr. Clappison
  My Department publishes data on UK emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen annually in accordance with international guidelines set out by the intergovernmental panel on climate change and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. A simple interpretation of the carbon dioxide data is given every six months in the Department's climate change newsletter.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on siting pollution monitoring sites in order to register typical readings. [39900]

  Mr. Clappison
  Monitoring stations are sited taking into account independent expert advice in order to provide a comprehensive picture of air pollution across the country. Sites are selected according to the following criteria:

  —urban background sites give information on the exposure of large numbers of people over significant periods of time;

  —kerbside sites give information on the highest, albeit transient, levels of traffic-related pollution to which the public are exposed;

  —hot spot sites are selected to find locations where the highest levels of pollution may occur after rigorous screening exercises using diffusion tubes.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what representations he has received from local authorities asking him to use his powers as set out in the Environment Act 1995 to enable them to stop vehicles and test their emissions. [40363]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have received a number of representations from local authorities concerning powers to stop vehicles and test their emissions. There are no plans to change the law which only permits police officers to stop vehicles. However, enabling regulations could be made under section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 to permit local authorities, with police support, to carry our emissions checks on vehicles using the road. We are currently consulting with interested parties on how this might be done in practice.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what proposals he has to introduce air quality standards to allow him to use powers contained in the Environment Act 1995 to set up air quality management areas. [40362]

  Mr. Clappison
  The national air quality strategy will include proposals for air quality standards. The strategy will be published for consultation under section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 within the next few months.

  Canals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the result of the Government's efforts to encourage greater use of canals. [39980]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The management and operation of canals rests with the British Waterways Board and a range of other public and private bodies. One of the board's objectives is to promote the maximum use of the waterways for leisure, recreation and amenity, and where appropriate for freight transport.
  288
  There are over 150 million visits each year to the country's canals for boating, walking, angling and other pursuits. Last year, there were around 250,000 boating holidays on canals, a further increase of nearly 5 per cent. to 29,767 in the number of private pleasure boats licensed for canals, and BWB opened its second national waterway walk on the Kennet and Avon Canal.

  There are also a number of Government programmes, including the single regeneration budget challenge fund, city challenge and urban development corporations, which encourage canal-side and related development. These programmes have contributed to the creation of jobs in the communities served by canals.

  Pleasure Boats (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies towards speed limits for pleasure boats and holiday cruisers on inland waterways and rivers. [40030]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Navigation authorities use their byelaw-making powers to determine speed limits for pleasure boats and holiday cruisers on their waterways. The limits are set at levels which suit local circumstances, following consultation with user groups.

  Planning Application
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those planning applications since 1987 which he has chosen not to call in for his own decision despite being urged to do so by the Countryside Commission. [40477]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Noise Disturbances
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has with regard to which local authorities have environmental health departments operating a 24-hour service in respect of noise disturbances. [40485]

  Mr. Clappison
  Of 328 local authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which responded to a survey by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in December 1994, 117 operate a 24-hour noise service. A further 134 operate a range of partial "out of hours" services, including responding to complaints on certain nights of the week and following up complaints received during normal working hours. The ability to respond will depend on staff resources in relation to the number and nature of complaints. The same survey indicated that target response times for domestic noise complaints were as follows:

  Authorities (Per cent.)

  Immediate response

  9

  (2.7)

  Within 24 hours

  51

  (15.5)

  Within 2–7 days

  206

  (62.8)

  Longer than 7 days

  9

  (2.7)

  Prioritised response service

  49

  (14.9)

  289
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current position regarding proposals to introduce a fine for noise disturbances during the night and to empower environmental health officers to confiscate equipment; and if he will make a statement. [40486]

  Mr. Clappison
  The proposal to introduce a new night noise offence, punishable either by a fixed penalty or prosecution, was one of nine recommendations of a working party set up last year to review the effectiveness of the current neighbour noise controls. A further recommendation was to clarify current legislation by providing a specific power to enable temporary confiscation of noise-making equipment which would give a stronger legal basis for existing practice. The recommendations and conclusions of the working party were published in a consultation paper in March.

  We are currently considering both the written responses to the recommendations in the consultation paper and the results of recent trials of the proposed new night noise offence. We hope to announce shortly how we propose to take forward the recommendations.

  Swinden Quarry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations that urged him to call in for his own decision the application by Tilcon Ltd. to continue quarrying at Swinden in the Yorkshire Dales national park. [40476]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following organisations wrote to the Secretary of State requesting him to call in for his own determination the planning application to extend Swinden quarry.

  The Countryside Commission

  The Council for the Protection of Rural England

  The Council for National Parks

  Skipton Civic Society

  The Open Spaces Society

  The Ramblers Association

  The Craven Green Party

  The Yorkshire Dales Society

  CRATER (Craven Residents against Tilcon's Extension Request).

  Water, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Servern Trent Water company's utilities programme for water metering in that part of the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area served by company; and if he will make a statement. [40215]

  Mr. Clappison
  Severn Trent Water does not supply water in any part of Doncaster metropolitan borough council's area. The company does, however, provide sewerage services, which are not metered, in a small part of the council's area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Yorkshire Water company's290
  utilities programme for water metering in that part of the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area served by the company; and if he will make a statement. [40216]

  Mr. Clappison
  Yorkshire Water has a programme of metering new or substantially converted domestic properties and extending metering to all commercial premises in that part of Doncaster metropolitan borough council's area served by the company. Yorkshire Water also offers a voluntary meter option scheme. This policy applies throughout the area served by the company.

  Living over Shops Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment if he will publish a list of all living over shops schemes so far approved together with the planned and outturn expenditure on LOTS grants for each year the scheme has operated. [40490]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department allocated £25 million to its three-year flats over shops programme—£5 million in 1992–93, £10 million in 1993–94 and £10 million in 1994–95. Outturn expenditure was £4.021 million, £9.456 million and £8.729 million, estimated, respectively.

  Details of individual schemes are not held centrally. However, an estimated 1,500 additional housing units have been created by the programme in over 150 local authority areas.

  Thirty-eight schemes to bring empty property over commercial premises back into use are being funded by the Department's housing partnership funds in 1995–96.

  Coal Mines
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what comparisons he has made of health and safety procedures and monitoring between the present privately owned collieries and those formerly state owned. [38683]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The Health and Safety Executive inspectorate of mines makes regular inspections of coal mines. All mine operators are subject to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. These Acts apply to mines irrespective of ownership arrangements.

  Environment Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Environment Council of 6 October. [40110]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 24 October 1995,Official Report, columns 523–34.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how often his Department and each
  291
  agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years; [40525]

  (2) how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Departmental payment records do not identify the size of businesses paid. However, latest records show that 92 per cent. of all bills have been paid within the agreed credit period, or within 30 days where no credit period was agreed. The Department has no record of beginning any petitions for bankruptcy against businesses of any size in the last five years.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the application of the Sandford principle into regional planning guidance. [40414]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This principle is already reflected in regional planning guidance for those regions which contain national parks.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will revise PPG17, sport and recreation, in order to take PPG9 and the European habitats directive into account; and if he will make a statement. [40415]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  PPG9 on Nature Conservation gives guidance on planning and nature conservation, including advice on the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which transpose into domestic law the requirements of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Although we see no need to revise PPG17 in this connection, we intend shortly to commission research into its effectiveness.

  American Bullfrogs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he plans to take to prevent American bullfrogs from entering British waterways. [40413]

  Mr. Clappison
  The north American bullfrog is covered by the provisions of section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to release, or allow to escape into the wild, any animal which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain. A person found guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000; or on conviction on indictment to a potentially unlimited fine.

  We are consulting English Nature, our statutory scientific advisers, about recent reports of small numbers seen in the wild.

  Enterprise Zone Scheme
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update his answer to the hon.292
  Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 14 April 1993, Official Report, column 530, on the total cost of the enterprise zone scheme. [40767]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Approximate costs in 1995–96 prices are given in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Capital allowances(1)(2)

  Rates relief(3)

  1981–82

  28

  11

  1982–83

  26

  22

  1983–84

  21

  26

  1984–85

  34

  35

  1985–86

  88

  45

  1986–87

  81

  61

  1987–88

  50

  78

  1988–89

  134

  88

  1989–90

  95

  114

  1990–91

  104

  107

  1991–92

  17

  78

  1992–93

  16

  37

  1993–94

  —

  26

  Notes:

  All figures are adjusted to 1995–96 prices.

  1 The method of calculating capital allowance costs has been revised by the Inland Revenue and is subject to continuing review. The estimated costs incurred in 1993–94 are not yet known.

  2 The basis for estimating capital allowances has been substantially revised by the Inland Revenue. This has required an updating of the data in the earlier answer.

  3 The cost of rates relief from 1990–91 is based on estimates following the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40822]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands.

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Lowest salary

  Departments

  6,000–6,500

  6,000–6,500

  Agencies

  6,000–6,500

  6,000–6,500

  Highest salary

  Departments

  95,000–99,000

  195,000–99,000

  Agencies

  70,000–74,000

  70,000–74,000

  1 1995–96 salary dependant on the Government who are expected to implement the recommendations of the Remuneration Committee.

  The remuneration of the highest paid employees of non-departmental public bodies include a performance bonus awarded retrospectively, so it is not possible to provide an accurate figure for 1995–96. The highest paid employee in 1994–95 received £117,000 inclusive of a

  293
  performance-related element. Information on the lowest pay rates is not held centrally.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–96, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40821]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House. No one in the Department or its agencies received annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits, in the years in question.

  It is estimated that two individuals in non-departmental public bodies earned in excess of £100,000—but less than £200,000—in 1994–95 and 1995–96. No individuals earned in excess of the specified sums in other years.

  Ministerial Information Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the steps taken in each Government Department to establish a MINIS system or its equivalent. [40364]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Private patients income1

  1993–94

  1994–99

  NHS Trust

  Private patients £000

  Private patients as a percentage of total income

  Private patients £000

  Private patients as a percentage of total income

  Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust

  234

  0.423

  265

  0.457

  Clwydian Community NHS Trust4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wrexham Maelor NHS Trust

  538

  1.096

  547

  1.030

  North Wales Ambulance Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  0.164

  Gwynedd Community NHS Trust3 4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwynedd Hospital NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  191

  0.316

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  0.002

  1

  0.002

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  85

  0.230

  115

  0.299

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  81

  0.357

  99

  0.428

  Derwen NHS Trust3 4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

  62

  0.205

  64

  0.206

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  96

  0.231

  83

  0.198

  Morriston Hospital/Ysbyty Treforys NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  293

  0.471

  Swansea NHS Trust

  201

  0.385

  147

  0.271

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  220

  0.362

  373

  0.583

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  201

  0.221

  211

  0.226

  Nevill Hall NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  171

  0.420

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Llandough NHS Trust

  44

  0.096

  34

  0.067

  Velindre NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  113

  1.068

  Rhondda NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  0.058

  294
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 1995 to his previous question on the subject of Government's management information systems, Official Report, column 5.

WALES

  Holt's Field
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the protection of residents in conservation areas for which planning consent has been refused and who are faced with eviction by prospective developers, with particular reference to the case of Holt's Field, near Swansea; and if he will make a statement. [40147]

  Mr. Hague
  Control of demolition within a conservation area is provided by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. There are no powers under the Act to give protection to residents who are faced with a court order for their eviction. Eviction of the residents of Holt's Field is a matter between the owner of the land and the residents and is ultimately one for the courts to decide. It is not an issue in which I can intervene. Under legislation contained in part III of the Housing Act 1985, a local authority has a duty to secure accommodation for all households accepted as unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, and in priority need of accommodation.

  Private Patients (Income)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by trust in each region, details of income from private patients for 1993–94 and 1994–95(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of total trust income. [39950]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:
  295

  Private patients income1

  1993–94

  1994–952

  NHS Trust

  Private patients £000

  Private patients as a percentage of total income

  Private patients £000

  Private patients as a percentage of total income

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust3

  n/a

  n/a

  106

  0.223

  South East Wales Ambulance Trust4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance Trust3 4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Consists of money received from NHS patients paying for accommodation in single rooms or small wards (Section 63 NHS Act), private in-patients (Section 65), private non-resident patients (Section 66) and accommodation and services provided under Section 58 of the NHS Act 1977. Overseas visitors (Section 121, not eligible for free treatment have been excluded (as they are charged NHS patients).

  2 1994–95 figures are provisional.

  3 These Trusts did not become operational until 1 April 1994.

  4 These Trusts do not provide private patient services.

  Measles Immunisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current known rate of the occurrence of measles in Wales. [40646]

  Mr. Richards
  There were 16 notifications of measles during September 1995 and 10 during the first three weeks of October 1995—the latest date for which information is available. In the same months during 1994, the number of measles notifications were 57 and 78 respectively.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40502]

  Mr. Hague
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, such petitions would be initiated only in exceptional circumstances and the number of cases is therefore likely to be small.

  Nurse Training (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was allocated to the training of nurses in Gwynedd for the last year for which figures are available. [40382]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1994–95 £2,552,010 was allocated to the centrally planned and funded training of nurses in Gwynedd under "Towards 2000" arrangements. Figures relating to costs of locally funded training are not available centrally.

  Postgraduate Nurses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses are currently receiving grants for the full cost of training in postgraduate courses and what was the equivalent figure for 1990. [40383]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Opening Ceremonies (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of each opening ceremony for new hospitals or new facilities for hospitals in Gwynedd during the last three years; and what was the total cost. [40384]
  296
  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Re-admitted Patients
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were re-admitted to hospital within one month of their discharge in the last year for which figures are available. [40385]

  Mr. Richards
  Information for 1994–95 is not available centrally. Data on the rates of unplanned re-admission to hospital are being collected for the first time in 1995–96. The data will be published in future, provided the information is of sufficient reliability.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40501]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments are required, however, to provide details of their overall annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1994–95, the Welsh Office, including its agency Cadw, paid 95 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice. The Department's published figures for the three preceding years were 87 per cent. 76 per cent. and 65 per cent. respectively.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all Forestry Commission woods currently for sale in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the targets for the disposal of land by(a) area and (b) projected income. [40672]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Scotland gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 25 October at columns 685–87. As set out in the Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98, the Forestry Commission plans to sell about 15,000 hectares of forest land in each of the next three years, and expects to receive about £60 million from the sale of

  297
  forest land and surplus properties during that period. The Commission expects about 15 per cent. of these sales to be in Wales.

  National Health Service
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of NHS nurses, (b) the number of NHS general and senior managers, (c) expenditure on administration, (d) the number of patients on the waiting list, (e) the number of operations cancelled on the day of or day after admission to hospital, (f) the

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd Mid

  Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Nursing and Midwifery staff1:

  30 September 1990

  3,174

  2,043

  4,014

  1,912

  4,777

  677

  30 June 1995

  3,239

  1,997

  3,440

  2,011

  4,768

  711

  NHS general and senior managers2

  30 September 1990

  49

  34

  54

  21

  32

  16

  30 June 19953

  151

  125

  165

  61

  196

  17

  Expenditure on administration4:

  1990–91 (£000)

  9,821

  6,793

  11,503

  6,117

  12,504

  2,412

  1994–95 (£000)5

  16,792

  11,658

  17,220

  9,984

  20,091

  3,973

  Number of patients on the waiting list6

  In-patients:

  30 Septemer 1990

  5,941

  4,288

  9,714

  3,360

  7,913

  2,224

  30 September 1995

  6,185

  3,500

  6,252

  2,486

  6,165

  1,717

  Day cases:

  30 September 1990

  1,435

  824

  1,221

  313

  550

  803

  30 September 1995

  2,788

  3,148

  2,814

  756

  2,747

  1,212

  Out-patients:

  30 September 1990

  10,607

  5,480

  11,949

  5,033

  18,385

  3,318

  30 September 1995

  13,300

  9,486

  16,393

  7,482

  19,040

  2,616

  Number of patients treated privately in NHS facilities:

  In-patients:

  1990–91

  419

  348

  106

  244

  173

  159

  1994–955

  403

  152

  149

  132

  199

  35

  Day cases:

  1990–91

  129

  151

  105

  117

  126

  85

  1994–955

  118

  102

  114

  148

  191

  41

  Out-patient attendances:

  1990–91

  3,167

  1,839

  78

  367

  692

  1,489

  1994–955

  2,190

  1,308

  149

  231

  294

  1,008

  Hospital beds by category1:

  Acute:

  1990–91

  1,234

  669

  1,395

  648

  1,739

  263

  1993–94

  1,244

  694

  1,332

  597

  1,448

  263

  Geriatric:

  1990–91

  509

  377

  601

  382

  709

  126

  1993–94

  457

  337

  553

  348

  768

  114

  Maternity:

  1990–91

  115

  48

  144

  80

  192

  40

  1993–94

  106

  48

  118

  70

  174

  40

  Psychiatric:

  1990–91

  496

  466

  980

  442

  1,319

  31

  1993–94

  361

  374

  627

  406

  1,087

  21

  Other:

  1990–91

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  Total:

  1990–91

  2,362

  1,562

  3,120

  1,552

  3,959

  460

  1993–94

  2,168

  1,454

  2,630

  1,420

  3,499

  438

  Number of hospitals:

  31 March 1991

  24

  12

  18

  18

  30

  3

  31 March 1995

  22

  12

  15

  14

  26

  3

  298
  number of patients treated privately in NHS facilities as in-patients/day-patients/out-patients, (g) the number of hospital beds by category and (h) the number of hospitals (i) for 1990–91 and (ii) at present for (A) the Welsh health authority areas and (B) Wales. [40795]

  Mr. Richards
  The available information is given in the table. Figures for NHS trusts are included in the health authority areas in which they are situated.

  Information on the number of operations cancelled on the day or of day-after admission to hospital is not available centrally.
  299

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  WHCSA8

  Wales

  Nursing and Midwifery staff1:

  30 September 1990

  1,059

  4,309

  3,043

  10

  25,017

  30 June 1995

  928

  4,399

  3,501

  74

  25,068

  NHS general and senior managers2:

  30 September 1990

  26

  92

  67

  46

  436

  30 June 19953

  53

  290

  107

  153

  1,357

  Expenditure and administration4:

  1990–91 (£000)

  2,850

  18,006

  9,934

  7,370

  87,310

  1994–95 (£000)5

  4,265

  29,766

  15,535

  18,473

  147,757

  Numbers of patients on the waiting list6:

  In-patients:

  30 September 1990

  40

  8,567

  7,188

  —

  49,235

  30 September 1995

  325

  7,316

  6,680

  —

  40,626

  Day cases:

  30 September 1990

  17

  2,070

  208

  —

  7,441

  30 September 1995

  —

  4,296

  848

  —

  18,609

  Out-patients:

  30 September 1990

  1,385

  19,410

  15,836

  —

  91,403

  30 September 1995

  1,591

  21,724

  16,700

  —

  108,332

  Number of patients treated privately in NHS facilities:

  In-patients:

  1990–91

  —

  118

  193

  —

  1,760

  1994–955

  —

  246

  47

  —

  1,363

  Day cases:

  1990–91

  —

  8

  504

  —

  1,225

  1994–955

  1

  602

  72

  —

  1,389

  Out-patient attendances:

  1990–91

  —

  1,163

  917

  —

  9,712

  1994–955

  1

  1,184

  235

  —

  6,600

  Hospital beds by category7:

  Acute:

  1990–91

  194

  1,672

  1,241

  —

  9,056

  1993–94

  201

  1,486

  1,177

  —

  8,441

  Geriatric:

  1990–91

  193

  443

  471

  —

  3,811

  1993–94

  187

  432

  404

  —

  3,600

  Maternity:

  1990–91

  35

  137

  125

  —

  916

  1993–94

  32

  113

  104

  —

  806

  Psychiatric:

  1990–91

  475

  951

  463

  —

  5,623

  1993–94

  395

  803

  510

  —

  4,584

  Other:

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  1993–94

  —

  —

  22

  —

  44

  Total:

  1990–91

  896

  3,203

  2,300

  —

  19,415

  1993–94

  815

  2,834

  2,217

  —

  17,475

  Number of hospitals:

  31 March 1991

  14

  16

  16

  —

  151

  31 March 1995

  13

  14

  14

  —

  133

  1 Whole-time equivalents. Excluding pre-registration learner nurses.

  2 General managers, senior managers and health authority managers, due to the extension of terms and conditions of service a number of staff from within the administrative and clerical and other staff groups have been reclassified as managers. Managers from all disciplines may be included.

  3 Whole-time equivalents (Wte). Figures for East Dyfed include staff who worked for Pembrokeshire Health Authority and Dyfed FHSA. Total includes 39 Wte staff in NHS Ambulance Trusts who cannot be assigned to individual health authority areas.

  4 Senior managers and administration/clerical staff costs. Data for East Dyfed includes Dyfed FHSA expenditure.

  5 Provisional.

  6 By area of intended treatment.

  7 Average daily available beds.

  8 Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  300

  Dental Services (Wales)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been deregistered from NHS dentists since July 1982. [40796]

  Mr. Richards
  Information supplied by the family health services authorities shows that 52,781 patients in Wales have been deregistered since 1 August 1992.

  This is a cumulative total and does not indicate how many of those patients subsequently registered with another dentist. Statistics published by the Dental Practice Board indicate that, at the end of June 1995, the number of registered patients in Wales was 35,891 higher than at 30 June 1992.

  Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the costs of introducing fundholding since 1991. [40797]

  Mr. Richards
  Reimbursement to general practitioner fundholders in respect of expenses covered by management allowances totalled £8.9 million for the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40857]

  Mr. Hague
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. The figures are:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Welsh Office

  Highest salary

  95,000–99,999

  95,000–99,999

  Lowest salary

  4,000–4,999

  4,000–4,999

  Agency

  Highest salary

  45,000–49,999

  45,000–49,999

  Lowest salary

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  NDPBs

  Highest salary

  75,000–79,999

  80,000–84,999

  Information on the lowest salary is not held centrally.

  Disabled Drivers Assessment Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to come to a decision on the application by the Wales Disabled Drivers Assessment Centre to develop a purpose-built new centre at Rookwood hospital on land adjourning the artificial limb and application centre. [40853]

  Mr. Hague
  The location of the Wales Disabled Drivers Assessment Centre is a matter for that organisation. The use of the Rookwood hospital site is a matter for the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals in(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40856]

  Mr. Hague
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme, rules, which have been deposited in the Library of the House. No staff in the bodies in question received annual remuneration excluding pension benefits above £100,000.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what decision has been reached as a result of the consultation on the "prescribed period" for Wales in part III of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994. [41353]

  Mr. Hague
  I have carefully considered the responses which I received. All of them argued that the period should end after 31 March 1997, but there were different views about what the end date should be. I have had particular regard to the views of the new councils that will have to operate the regulations.

  Having consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, we have decided that the period should end on 30 September 1997 and my right hon. Friend will amend the regulations accordingly.

  Simultaneously, I have considered the responses to a separate consultation exercise on the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation for Loss of Remuneration) Regulations which will be made in due course by my right hon. Friend. Here, too, our decision is that the prescribed period in Wales should end on 30 September 1997.

  The changes I have announced will give Welsh councils more time to implement redundancies which result from local government reorganisation and to harmonise terms and conditions. I would not expect this additional time to mean that there would be an increase in the number of redundancies attributable to the reorganisation or that more staff would suffer a reduction in salary because of the reorganisation. Accordingly, the additional funding which I provide during 1996–97 and 1997–98 will not go beyond the bids which the new councils have recently submitted to me.

  I shall announce my decisions on funding for transitional costs in 1996–97 and subsequent years after the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Pembrokeshire National Park
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his decision on the Pembrokeshire coast national park variation order submitted to him by the Countryside Commission. [41354]
  303
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has today confirmed, with modifications, the order to vary the boundaries of the Pembrokeshire coast national park.

  In 1989, the Countryside Commission, predecessors of the Countryside Council for Wales, submitted an order to the Secretary of State recommending that the boundary of the national park should be revised at 23 sites. It was proposed that at 15 sites land would be added to the park and at eight sites land would be removed.

  The modifications made to the order following a public inquiry mean that 10 new ares will be added to the national park including land at Pencelly Forest, Castlemartin and Brandy Brook valley and its tributaries. Seven areas of land will be removed, including the Texaco and Elf refineries. At six sites, including Marros and Gelliswick bay, the existing boundary will remain.

  Copies of the decision letter to the chief executive of the Countryside Council for Wales and the inspector's report have been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that the management structure of Scottish Nuclear should include a director whose sole responsibility is nuclear safety. [38751]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The safety procedures and management structure of all nuclear undertakings in the United Kingdom are subject to scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate under the terms of nuclear site licences. It would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene in these matters.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38607]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, on 31 October 1995, c.186–87.

  Special Needs and Sheltered Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he next plans to meet the chairman or chief executive of Scottish Homes to review its policy of exclusion against the funding of new-build special needs and sheltered housing in peripheral housing estates where no such provision exists; if he will commission a study into the effects of elderly and disabled people having to move away from their own communities to obtain suitable accommodation; and if he will make a statement; [39172]

  (2) when he next plans to meet the chairman or chief executive of Scottish Homes to discuss the need for sheltered and special needs housing in large peripheral
  304
  housing estates with particular reference to Foxbar, Paisley; and if he will make a statement; [39178]

  (3) when he next plans to meet the chairman or chief executive of Scottish Homes to discuss its policy on sheltered housing; and if he will make a statement. [39177]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Homes regularly and I shall be meeting the board again early in the next year.

  As Scottish Homes made clear in its May 1995 policy statement "Removing the Barriers—Housing for Older People", its policy is to focus resources primarily on the provision of accommodation capable of being adapted for a range of changing needs. This policy was significantly influenced by the many responses received to Scottish Homes' May 1993 consultation paper, "Housing for the Elderly in the 1990s". The decision at a local level on what priority to give to the provision of special needs and sheltered housing is made in the light of local needs and demand, working with community care strategic planners such as local housing and social work authorities, and health boards, and taking account of the views of elderly people themselves on whether they wish to remain within their communities.

  Orlit Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special assistance is currently available to the(a) landlords or (b) owner-occupiers of Orlit-type houses which have major structural defects; and if he will make a statement. [39200]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In 1984 a scheme under the Housing Defects Act 1984 was introduced to help owners of defective homes, such as the Orlit, bought from a public sector authority before 26 April 1984. The scheme, which provided for assistance by way of repurchase or reinstatement grant, ended on 30 November 1994.

  Assistance for owner-occupiers remains available in the form of discretionary improvement grant from the local authority if the house has become unstable and various conditions of the grant scheme are met. Landlords are responsible for carrying out any necessary works to their own stock from within the resources available to them.

  Flooding, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the Collier street, Johnstone, Park avenue and South End, Paisley, to discuss the effect of the 1994 floods with tenants and residents; and if he will make a statement. [39181]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend recently visited Paisley on other matters, but he has no plans to visit Collier street, Johnstone or the Park avenue and South End areas of Paisley.

  The hon. Member will be aware that the Secretary of State will be meeting him and other members of the Paisley South End flood action committee on Wednesday 1 November to discuss matters arising out of the 1994 floods.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric to discuss the abolition of standing charges on fuel bills; and if he will make a statement. [39203]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. representatives of the two Scottish companies from time to time. The charges is a matter for the companies Electricity Regulation.

  Drug Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the detailed arrangements for drugs rehabilitation services which have been put in place in mandatory drugs testing prisons in Scotland referred to by the Minister of State in his statement of 18 October,Official Report, column 302; and what measurements of efficiency are being made. [39812]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Timothy Rathbone, dated 1 November 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the arrangements for drug rehabilitation services in those Scottish prisons involved in the first phase of mandatory drug testing.Mandatory drug testing will be introduced in Scottish prisons on a phased basis as and when each establishment is ready to begin and has the appropriate programmes in place to assist those prisoners with drugs problems. The first phase of testing will begin in Edinburgh and Cornton Vale prisons early next year.Edinburgh Prison operates a drug reduction programme consisting of education and counselling and offers detoxification under medical supervision. A multi-disciplinary approach has been adopted, and the treatment offered reflects best practice in the wider community, consistent with the constraints of a prison setting. The programme was evaluated by Glasgow Caledonian University which found that it was effective in reducing the amount and frequency of drug misuse, resulting in harm reduction and the promotion of healthier lifestyles. The programme also won the Scottish Health Management Efficiency Group's "Partnership in Health Care Award" in 1993–94. Prisoners also receive a comprehensive information and training programme on HIV and AIDS within 2 weeks of admission.Cornton Vale Prison (for women) currently has a drug education programme in place for all prisoners which reinforces the work of the full-time addiction worker, trained prison staff and community-based workers who deliver individual and group counselling. Plans are being taken forward to develop further support programmes, including drug reduction and detoxification, to meet a wide range of the women's needs, prior to the introduction of mandatory drug testing.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39861]
  306
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet the chief executives of the agencies for which I am responsible as and when it is necessary for the efficient discharge of business.

  Late Payment (Small Business)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40512]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department has carried out an annual check of payment performance since 1991–92 but does not distinguish between small and large firms.

  The overall results for the last four years show a steady improvement in the percentage of supplier payments made within the period stipulated in the contract, normally 30 days:

  Year

  Percentage of payments paid on time

  1991–92

  82

  1992–93

  85

  1993–94

  89

  1994–95

  96

  The figures for the larger agencies of the Scottish Office for the last two years are:

  Percentage

  Agency

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Scottish Agriculture and Science Agency

  92

  97

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  93

  99

  Historic Scotland

  94

  100

  Scottish Prison Service

  86

  89

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission woods currently for sale in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the targets for the disposal of land by(a) area and (b) projected income. [40674]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 25 October,Official Report, columns 685–87. As set out in the Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–99, the Forestry Commission plans to sell about 15,000 hectares of forest land in each of the next three years, and expects to receive a total of about £60 million from the sale of forest land and surplus properties during that period. The Commission expects about 70 per cent. of these sales to be in Scotland, as most of the Forestry Commission's land is in Scotland.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much income has been accrued; and how much land has been sold under the Government's forestry disposal programme in each year since 1992–93 and in the current year to date. [40669]
  307
  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area sold hectares

  Income £ million

  1993

  10,589

  9.9

  1994

  14,950

  17.4

  1995

  10,808

  12.1

  1996 (to date)

  5,364

  6.6

  Scottish Office Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of those staff that are women in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [39394]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: As the information requested is lengthy, I shall arrange for copies of the figures to be placed in the House Library.

  Scottish Office Energy Division
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed with the Scottish Office Energy Division on(a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis. [39664]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: At 25 October 1995, there were 22 permanent staff in the Scottish Office energy division. Twenty-one of these were employed on a full-time basis and one on a part-time basis.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the chief executives of local enterprise companies who sit on the boards of such companies, indicating their incomes. [38444]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: Relationships with the local enterprise companies are an operational matter for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. I have asked their chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

TRANSPORT

  Oil Slicks
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil slicks have been reported in seas around the British Isles, annually, for the last five years. [40405]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  308
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.

  The number of reports of oil pollution in the seas and around the shores of the UK, as compiled by the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea (ACOPS), is as follows:

  Year

  Total reports

  1990

  791

  1991

  705

  1992

  611

  1993

  676

  1994

  540

  Total

  3,323

  Ship Discharges
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will increase air surveillance resources to combat illegal discharges at sea; [40411]

  (2) how he will improve the policing of vessels at sea to combat illegal discharges. [40407]

  Mr. Norris
  We are working closely with other states which are party to the Bonn agreement to make aerial surveillance an even more effective deterrent against illegal discharges by ships. The number of hours flown this year—1995–96—by Coastguard agency aircraft has been increased from 800 to 925 on a trial basis, and the benefits will have to be assessed.

  The Marine Safety Agency is taking forward work on transponders which identify a vessel automatically. We are also working with our Bonn agreement partners to find other ways of making it easier to identify and prosecute offenders.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many prosecutions have been brought in each of the last five years in respect of illegal discharges of oil or other pollutants in United Kingdom waters; and how many were successful; [39767]

  (2) whether his Department has yet located the container of toxic lindane which was lost in the channel several years ago; and if he will make a statement. [39618]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as these deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.MV PERINTIS, a Panamanian registered and Indonesian owned general cargo container vessel, capsized and sank in UK waters in the English Channel on 13 March, 1989. The lindane container had been stowed on the upper deck and its contents of 5.8 tonnes was packaged in 50 kilogramme sealed polythene bags inside fibre board drums.309 The container was located in French waters during this early afternoon of 15 March, and by early evening, a French tug took it in town bound for Cherbourg. From that moment, it became the responsibility of the French authorities. At 11.45 on 16 March, the French authorities reported that the lindane container had been lost under tow some 15 nautical miles north of Cherbourg. It was never relocated.Over the next few weeks, the French Navy carried out very extensive surface and sub-sea searches for the lindane container but without success. In addition, seawater monitoring was conducted over a much longer period, however, only normal background levels of lindane were ever detected.There have been 38 prosecutions brought in respect of illegal discharges by vessels in UK waters since 1990, these were brought by MPCU and Port and Harbour authorities, 36 were successful. There were 16 in 1990, 2 in 1991, 5 in 1992, 2 in 1993, and 11 in 1994.During this period the MPCU referred 23 cases to the Treasury Solicitor for prosecution action if appropriate. Of these, 8 are still open.Since 1990 55 cases have been referred to vessels' flag states for further action. Of these 9 were prosecuted and fined and 32 are still open. Of the 9 prosecuted 3 had been referred to their flag state before 1990.
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on British reception facilities within ports and their operations within the Marpol convention; [40409]

  (2) if ships failing to discharge waste at British ports will be notified to the next port of call with details of waste volume at time of departure; and if he will introduce penalties for discrepancies which occur between the ports; [40404]

  (3) if he will include reception facility fees within harbour dues; [40410]

  (4) if he will place a statutory duty on port authorities to develop waste management plans, certified by the Marine Safety Agency. [40408]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is undertaking a consultation exercise to consider these and a number of other initiatives to reduce the amounts of waste discharged into the sea from ships and to increase the amounts discharged into port waste reception facilities. We will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase penalties for illegal discharge by ships in British waters. [40406]

  Mr. Norris
  The penalties for illegal discharges by ships are a matter for the courts. The level of fines is not restricted by statute, except on summary conviction in magistrates courts or their equivalent, where the maximum is kept under review. In 1994, we introduced legislation imposing strict liability on all shipowners for pollution damage caused by persistent oils in United Kingdom waters.

  Trains (Bicycles)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has commissioned, undertaken or been informed about on the effect on cycle carriage of the £3 per journey charge for bicycles on regional railways; and if he will make a statement. [40499]
  310
  Mr. Watts
  None. The carriage of bicycles on trains, and any charges made, are operational matters for individual train operators. The franchising director will require franchisees, through the franchise agreement, to carry bicycles where practicable and to ensure that any charges made are reasonable.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of respondents in respect of each of the public consultations in relation to the current night flights regulations, in January 1993, October 1993, November 1993, March 1995 and June 1995, in relation to Heathrow airport; in each case how many respondents were(a) seeking an increase, (b) seeking a reduction and (c) supporting the night noise levels proposed in the consultation papers concerned; and if he will subdivide the totals in each category according to number of airlines, number of air transport bodies, number of hon. Members, number of local authorities, number of resident associations and environmental groups, number of members of the public and others. [39346]

  Mr. Norris
  The total number of responses received to each of the consultations, analysed by category of respondent, is set out in the table. These do not relate only to Heathrow. The consultations concerned proposals for a regime of new restrictions on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports which included a number of discrete elements. Many of the comments in the responses related to more than one of these airports without necessarily focusing on the night noise levels at Heathrow as an issue separate from the other elements of the proposals.

  It is not normal departmental practice to provide any form of written summary or statistical analysis of responses to a consultation when the responses are publicly available. All the responses to the November 1993 consultation paper, the March 1995 consultation paper and to the supplementary paper of June 1995, other than those where the author has requested confidentiality, are so available.

  Responses to the January and October 1993 consultations have not been made available as the respondents were not given the opportunity to state whether they would object to their responses being copied or otherwise disclosed. An analysis of the responses to the January 1993 consultation in relation to "night noise levels" at Heathrow as requested would not seem appropriate as the consultation, and the responses, were concerned with the whole night restrictions regime, many aspects of which are interrelated—for example, the size of the noise quota is related to both the length of the night quota period and to the QC classification of aircraft. The main points raised in the responses to the January 1993 consultation and the decisions of my right hon. Friend in the light of these responses were announced on 6 July 1993, Official Report, columns 71–73. The October 1993 consultation was limited in time and extent: it was primarily focused on the proposal to specify the maximum number of movements for the winter season 1993–94 in the light of the judgment given on 29 September 1993.
  311

  Responses received

  Main January 1993 consultation

  W 1993–94 October 19934

  S 1994 Two phases of

  W 1994–to S 1998 November 1993

  W 1995–1998 March 1995 consultation

  W 1995–96 to S 1998 June 1995 supplement

  Members of Parliament and MEPs (other than letters

  covering constituents views)

  19

  —

  1

  3

  2

  6

  Airport consultative committees.

  3

  3

  24

  24

  3

  2

  Local authorities, Parish and Town Councils, and local authority associations.

  69

  19

  43

  254

  262

  34

  Environmental and other local groups

  59

  5

  18

  28

  43

  29

  Aviation and acoustical consultants.

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Airlines

  63

  4

  14

  27

  38

  14

  Airport and aviation bodies.

  5

  2

  5

  4

  25

  2

  Airlines and airport users and other aviation interests.

  17

  5

  10

  13

  10

  7

  Responses from people living around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

  31,823

  —

  3149

  3279

  3308

  3661

  Responses from people living elsewhere

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Petitions (and signatures lodged in bulk)

  42,762

  —

  —

  41,029

  4421

  135

  1 Short consultation.

  2 One from outside London area.

  3 Number of letters not number of signatories.

  4 Not verified.

  [Excludes late responses]

  Railtrack (Fly Tipping)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the duties of Railtrack in respect of fly tipping on its land; and if he will make a statement. [39814]

  Mr. Watts
  The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 contain provisions to control fly-tipping. Railtrack's duties in respect of fly-tipping on its land are no different from any other landowner, in that there is no general obligation to remove fly-tipped material. However, if the nature on location of fly-tipped material posed a risk to the safe operation of the railway or to public health and safety, appropriate measures would be taken by Railtrack.

  Regarding the case of litter more generally, we are considering whether an order is needed to clarify duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, following transfer to Railtrack of operational railway land. As a

  Road accidents

  Accidents at sea1

  Aircraft crashes in UK airspace

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1979

  6,645

  3,357,789

  —

  —

  48

  36

  1980

  6,239

  329,625

  —

  —

  32

  44

  1981

  6,069

  326,551

  —

  —

  57

  73

  1982

  6,150

  336,285

  —

  —

  26

  28

  1983

  5,618

  310,679

  —

  —

  71

  37

  1984

  5,788

  327,276

  —

  —

  41

  44

  1985

  5,342

  320,819

  —

  —

  77

  111

  1986

  5,618

  325,275

  —

  —

  69

  59

  1987

  5,339

  316,070

  —

  —

  49

  27

  1988

  5,230

  328,042

  —

  —

  286

  58

  1989

  5,554

  347,649

  —

  —

  72

  130

  1990

  5,402

  347,500

  —

  —

  42

  101

  312
  contractual matter, station leases granted by Railtrack already include a provision requiring the train operators to clean the stations for which they are responsible.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of Eurotunnel to discuss its future; and if he will make a statement. [40165]

  Sir George Young
  I met representatives from Eurotunnel on 23 October.

  Accidents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured (i) in road accidents in the United Kingdom, (ii) at sea in United kingdom territorial waters and (iii) in aircraft crashes in United Kingdom airspace in each year since 1979. [39977]

  Mr. Norris
  Available information is shown in the following table.
  313

  Road accidents

  Accidents at sea1

  Aircraft crashes in UK airspace

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1991

  4,753

  316,830

  53

  816

  21

  75

  1992

  4,379

  317,558

  21

  862

  41

  81

  1993

  3,957

  313,163

  21

  656

  24

  67

  1994

  3,807

  323,476

  27

  640

  37

  45

  1 The sea figures include all deaths and injuries on UK registered vessels at sea, whether or not in UK territorial waters. They also include casualties in foreign vessel incidents in UK territorial waters, though this element may be incomplete. No information is available on foreign flag vessel accidents prior to 1991.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list in tonnes the quantity of freight lifted on Britain's railways in each year since 1988–89; and if he will make a statement; [40239]

  (2) if he will list in tonnes/kilometres the quantity of freight moved on Britain's railways in each year since 1988–89; and if he will make a statement. [40240]

  Mr. Watts
  The quantities of freight lifted on Britain's railways in each year since 1988–89 are as follows:

  Year

  Million tonnes

  1988–89

  149.5

  1989–90

  143.1

  1990–91

  138.2

  1991–92

  135.8

  1992–93

  122.4

  1993–94

  103.3

  1994–95

  97.3

  Source:

  tsgb, 1995.

  In tonne-kilometres, the quantities of freight moved on Britain's railways in each year since 1988–89 are as follows:

  Billion tonnes-kms

  1988–89

  18.1

  1989–90

  16.7

  1990–91

  16.0

  1991–92

  15.3

  1992–93

  15.5

  1993–94

  13.8

  1994–95

  13.0

  Source:

  tsgb, 1995.

  The Government believe that privatisation of the railways offers the best prospect for addressing the long-term decline of the rail freight industry.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers competent harbour authorities other than Trinity House have to waive light dues. [40368]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to require Trinity House to 314
  waive light dues for (a) Isle of Wight ferries and (b) other vessels. [40367]

  Mr. Norris
  Under present legislation the Secretary of state has no powers to require Trinity House lighthouse service to waive light dues in relation to any vessel.

  Road Casualties
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will estimate the cost of(a) a fatality, (b) a serious injury and (c) a slight injury on the road, taking into account the costs of the police, the courts and medical care. [40264]

  Mr. Norris
  The costs of police and courts, together with insurance company administration and property damage, are not calculated according to casualty but per accident—which may involve more than one casualty. The resulting estimated accident costs in 1994 were(a) fatal: £913,100; (b) serious: £108,100; (c) slight: £10,600.

  Ferry Inspections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ferries have been inspected by the Marine Safety Agency leaving the United Kingdom; what proportion of those were found to be defective; and if he will make a statement. [40302]

  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. Graham Allen, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of ferries inspected by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA).Unannounced inspections are carried out by MSA surveyors at least twice annually on every UK registered and foreign flagged passenger ferry operating from UK ports. In addition, UK registered ferries are surveyed thoroughly every twelve months by the MSA.With regard to your query relating to the number of ferry inspections and the proportion of inspections during which deficiencies were identified, I would refer you to my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent North, Ms Walley, on 22 March 1994, which can be found in Hansard volume 257 columns 222–223. A copy of each of the tables referred to in that reply is attached.

  Rail Passenger Journeys
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of passenger journeys made on Britain's railways in each year since 1988–89; and if he will make a statement. [40242]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is as follows:
  315

  Million

  Year

  Number of passenger journeys

  1988–89

  763.7

  1989–90

  758.3

  1990–91

  762.4

  1991–92

  740.8

  1992–93

  744.8

  1993–94

  713.2

  1994–95

  702.2

  This information can be found in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1995", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Uninsured Motorists
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the number of motorists who are uninsured; how many accidents took place in the last three years where the culpable driver was uninsured; and what plans he has to increase insurance holidays. [40710]

  Mr. Norris
  Industry estimates are that 4 to 6 per cent. of motorists are uninsured, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has supported an estimate at the top of this range. Information on the insurance status of motorists involved in accidents is not collected; the Motor Insurers Bureau handled 39,000 cases on average in each of the last three years under the uninsured drivers agreement, although in a significant proportion of such cases insurance cover is subsequently shown to have been in place. A number of possible measures for tackling the problem of insurance evasion are currently being considered by my Department and the other interested parties such as the police and the insurance industry. In addition, measures aimed at reducing evasion of vehicle excise duty, such as the introduction of wheelclamping, are expected to have a beneficial effect on compliance with compulsory insurance requirements.

  London-Tilbury-Southend Line
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current level of subsidy provided for the operation of the London-Tilbury-Southend line. [40297]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish),Official Report, 13 July, column 706. Negotiations between the franchising director and the British Railways Board on the support appropriate to each individual train operating company are yet to be completed. I will write to the hon. Member when the level of support has been agreed and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the level of subsidy projected for the operation of the London-Tilbury-Southend line for the next financial year; [40296]

  (2) what is the projected year-on-year level of subsidy to be provided to the franchise operator of the
  316
  London-Tilbury-Southend line; and if any subsidy will be guaranteed throughout the life of the franchise. [40295]

  Mr. Watts
  The level of subsidy to be contractually agreed for the full franchise term is currently the subject of commercial negotiations between the franchising director and bidders for the LTS rail franchise. Final bids were submitted to the franchising director on 27 October, and he expects to award the franchise in December.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many petitions for bankruptcy has been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40506]

  Mr. Norris
  Records are not kept in the form requested.

  Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment last met; and what plans have been made for the future work programme of the committee. [40500]

  Mr. Watts
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment last met in May 1994. No decisions have yet been taken on the committee's future work programme.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration will be given to including within the work programme of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment the assessment of the impact of noise from highways and the justification for various means of ameliorating this nuisance. [40498]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1989 the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment was asked to review the Department of Transport's methods for assessing environmental costs and benefits, including the impact of noise. The committee's report, "Assessing the Environmental Impact of Road Schemes", and the Government's response were published in March 1992. Subsequently, the Department's guidance on the assessment of environmental impacts has been updated—volume 11 of the design manual for roads and bridges. Also research is on-going into the valuation of nuisance, including noise, in the home, due to road traffic.

  I have no plans currently to ask SACTRA to revisit this issue.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40505]

  Mr. Norris
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  M66
  Mr. Charles Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects completion of the M66 Manchester outer ring road. [39986]
  317
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: Spring 1999.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total projected cost of the Newbury bypass before its postponement in December last year; and what is the total projected cost now, under the current tendering process. [40583]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to hon Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Rendel, dated 1 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railway and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what was the total projected cost of the Newbury Bypass before its postponement in December of last year: and what is the total projected cost now, under the current tendering process.You will appreciate that due to the imminent tendering process, there is some commercial sensitivity attached to the previous tender prices received last year. However, for the current tenders, we now expect the cost excluding land and VAT to be about £60m. This figure has increased slightly since last December due to increases in construction prices.
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected total cost of the current tendering process itself for the Newbury bypass. [40584]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: 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 Rendel, dated 1 November 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 is the projected total cost of the current tendering process itself for the Newbury Bypass.Costs to the tenderers are unknown to us, and the cost of our own staff time is relatively small and not easily identifiable, but the estimated cost of our Consultants time in preparing new tender documents and assessing them, and the cost of printing the tender documents is about £100,000.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Jewellery Industry
  Ms Short
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the effect of EU regulation of the jewellery industry on the position of British manufacturers in the foreign market; what review he is conducting; and if he will make a statement. [40751]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of any EU regulations pertaining to the jewellery industry which substantially affect the position of British manufacturers in foreign markets. The Government have listened carefully to the views of British jewellery manufacturers during negotiations on the proposed directives on the marking of articles of precious metal and on nickel in jewellery, and to their concerns
  318
  about the implications for Hallmarking Act 1973 of the judgment of the European Court in the Houtwipper case ECJ 293/93.

  HMSO
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages in the privatisation of HMSO. [40479]

  Mr. Horam
  The future of HMSO has been examined in depth several times in recent years, against the background of changing markets and a developing business structure. The most recent examination found that privatisation is feasible and that there should be sufficient interest to maximise proceeds through competitive tender.

  Coopers and Lybrand is now considering urgently options for the future of HMSO, with a view to privatisation, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced last month. We are consulting the authorities in this House and the other place on the necessary safeguards to protect the continued high standards of HMSO's service to Parliament before taking a decision on the way forward.

  HMSO's core market in the public sector is shrinking and it faces intense competition from the private sector. At the same time, it is constrained by having to operate from within government: it cannot trade in wider markets, nor can it diversify or raise investment capital as easily as its competitors. Unless these constraints are removed there is a real risk of the business declining. An early privatisation, subject to the needs of Parliament being met, would open up opportunities for the business.

  Lancashire Constabulary
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of performance against the standards set out in the citizens charter of the Lancashire constabulary [40474]

  Mr. Horam
  Lancashire constabulary applied for a charter mark this year. Assessment involves evaluation against all six citizens charter principles plus three more: user satisfaction, measurable improvements in the quality of service, and innovative enhancements to services at no extra cost. An announcement on those organisations which have been successful will be made in December.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39853]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Since assuming my new responsibilities, I have met the chief executive of the Civil Service College for discussions on one occasion.

  I have yet to meet the other agency heads in person. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met the chief executives of the

  319
  Chessington Computer Centre and of HMSO for discussions in August, and again in September; and the chief executive of the Central Office of Information in October.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service has met the chief executives of all the agencies reporting to me at least once each in the course of the year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39493]

  Mr. Horam
  As this question concerns a purely operational matter, I have asked the chief executive of each agency concerned to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Dr. E. C. McCloy to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:
  I am replying to your question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in so far as it relates to my agency. The information you asked for is in the attached schedule.
  The following information is available in respect of 1995–96.

  1995–96 Numbers

  Estimated cost £

  1994–95 Numbers

  1994–95 1salaries £

  Grades 3–7

  20

  1,186,745

  20

  —

  Executive Grades:

  8

  168,856

  7

  —

  Secretarial/Clerical:

  25

  451,160

  24

  —

  SOHAs

  9

  277,844

  9

  —

  OHAs

  24

  584,344

  19

  —

  OHPs

  8

  189,316

  11

  —

  OHNs

  6

  57,797

  10

  —

  SPTOs

  2

  63,278

  3

  —

  HPTOs

  2

  41,558

  2

  —

  Total

  104

  3,020,898

  105

  —

  1 Detailed analysis for 1994–95 salaries not available.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1995:
  I have been asked to reply, in respect of HMSO, to your Question (No 301) to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about staff numbers and costs.
  I should explain initially that for some years now HMSO has been maintaining its own pay and grading system, which is quite different from the standard Civil Service grading arrangements. Apart from my own post, which is a Civil Service Grade 2, about two thirds of HMSO's staff are on job evaluated paybands and the remainder is made up of mainly operational staff and others who are in single status grades. Average staff numbers in 1994 and 1995 (forecast) were as follows:

  HMSO Payband

  1994

  1995

  Payband 20

  2

  3

  Payband 19

  1

  0

  Payband 18

  4

  3

  Payband 17

  3

  2

  320

  HMSO Payband

  1994

  1995

  Payband 16

  6

  5

  Payband 15

  8

  7

  Payband 14

  17

  13

  Payband 13

  35

  34

  Payband 12

  18

  26

  Payband 11

  57

  62

  Payband 10

  100

  118

  Payband 9

  179

  182

  Payband 8

  253

  285

  Payband 7

  331

  300

  Payband 6

  128

  122

  Payband 5

  270

  276

  Payband 4

  337

  288

  Payband 3

  147

  128

  Payband 2

  32

  36

  Payband 1

  27

  19

  Non-banded staff

  951

  960

  Total

  2,907

  2,870

  Staff costs, including employer's contributions for national insurance and superannuation, were £75.1m in 1994, and are forecast to be £70.9m in 1995. HMSO's financial year runs from January to December.

  Letter from Elizabeth Chennells to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:
  Your written question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the staff numbers and costs for Executive Agency staff refers. Agency Chief Executives have been asked to reply to you directly. I am replying on behalf of Dr Hickey, Chief Executive of the Civil Service College, who is currently away from the office.The information that you require is attached. Because of the method the College uses to maintain its records for staff costs, a breakdown of costs by grade is not readily available. However I have included the total staff costs for the College for 1994–95 and our expected costs for 1995–96.

  Civil Service College

  Grade

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number

  Cost £000

  Number

  Cost £000

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  3

  —

  4

  —

  Grade 6

  19

  —

  18

  —

  Grade 7

  77

  —

  75

  —

  SEO

  11

  —

  13

  —

  Senior Librarian

  1

  —

  1

  —

  HEO

  16

  —

  17

  —

  EO

  45

  —

  43

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  —

  1

  —

  AO

  76

  —

  73

  —

  AA

  3

  —

  4

  —

  SGB1

  3

  —

  3

  —

  SGB2

  10

  —

  14

  —

  Personal Secretary

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Typist

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  280

  6,878

  280

  7,324

  321
  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:

  STAFF NUMBERS AND COSTS AT THE CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTRE

  I refer to your enquiry to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding staff numbers and their cost for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  As the detail of staff numbers and cost by grade is not readily available and a disproportionate cost would be involved in collecting the data the response is limited to providing aggregate numbers and costs for the two financial years. The figures are as follows:-

  Year

  Average No. of (full-time equivalent) staff in post

  Annual cost £

  1994–95

  395.5

  8,484,447

  1995–96

  385

  8,519,620

  Letter from Kim Bright to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:

  "To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for (a) financial year 1994/95 and (b) the estimated figures for the year 1995/96 for each executive agency for which he is responsible."

  (a.) As at 31 March 1995

  Staff

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  Grade 6

  3

  Grade 7

  13.5

  Senior Psychologist

  1

  Higher Psychologist

  4

  SEO

  6

  HEO

  7

  EO

  24

  AO

  38

  AA

  14

  SPS

  1

  PS

  1.5

  Typist

  6

  SM3

  1

  SGI

  3

  SGII

  8.5

  Total

  133.5

  Cost £2.328 million.

  (b) Approximately 135 staff

  Cost £2,833 million.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 October 1995:

  STAFF NUMBERS AND COSTS

  You asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for information on the number and cost of staff, by grade, for the last and current financial years.

  As this is an operational matter I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Central Office of Information.

  At 31 March 1995 there were 486.39 staff in post and at 30 September 19995 there were 452.42. A breakdown by grade is given in the attached table. Salary costs quoted include superannuation and National Insurance costs. Staff numbers in each grade include part-time staff.

  I hope that this information meets your needs.
  322

  1995–96 Grade

  Total salary cost £

  Number in Grade

  Average staff cost £

  Chief Executive

  71,715

  1.00

  71,715

  Grade 5

  248,785

  4.00

  62,196

  Grade 6

  671,484

  13.00

  51,653

  Grade 7

  1,233,043

  30.65

  40,230

  Supervisory Engineer (SIO)

  0

  0.00

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  397,546

  12.00

  33,129

  Senior Information Officer

  3,271,929

  103.81

  31,518

  Senior Engineer (IO)

  0

  0.00

  0

  Engineer (IO)

  0

  0.00

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  515,014

  19.00

  27,106

  Information Officer

  2,418,583

  95.30

  25,379

  Librarian

  26,539

  1.00

  26,539

  Assistant Information Officer

  209,158

  11.00

  19,014

  Executive Officer

  828,970

  41.00

  20,219

  Personal Secretary

  202,019

  11.00

  18,365

  Vaultkeeper

  0

  0.00

  0

  Assistant Librarian

  22,723

  1.00

  22,723

  Support Manager 3

  35,594

  2.00

  17,797

  Typist

  118,421

  7.00

  16,917

  Administrative Officer

  1,209,726

  72.66

  16,649

  Support Grade; Band 1

  90,270

  6.00

  15,045

  Support Grade: Band 2

  174,979

  14.00

  12,498

  Administrative Assistant

  65,347

  7.00

  9,335

  Total

  11,811,845

  452.42

  1994–95 Grade

  Total salary cost £

  Number in Grade

  Average staff cost £

  Chief Executive

  71,984

  1.00

  71,984

  Grade 5

  247,713

  4.00

  61,928

  Grade 6

  677,885

  13.00

  52,145

  Grade 7

  1,203,404

  29.65

  40,587

  Supervisory Engineer (SIO)

  38,569

  1.00

  38,569

  Senior Executive Officer

  364,874

  12.50

  29,190

  Senior Information Officer

  3,443,567

  112.82

  30,523

  Senior Engineer (IO)

  54,057

  2.00

  27,028

  Engineer (IO)

  145,055

  6.00

  24,176

  Higher Executive Officer

  515,732

  20.00

  25,787

  Information Officer

  2,370,873

  99.92

  23,728

  Librarian

  25,957

  1.00

  25,957

  Assistant Information Officer

  245,240

  12.00

  20,437

  Executive Officer

  886,623

  44.00

  20,151

  Personal Secretary

  220,063

  13.00

  16,928

  Vaultkeeper

  18,397

  1.00

  18,397

  Assistant Librarian

  22,013

  1.00

  22,013

  Support Manager 3

  34,478

  2.00

  17,239

  Typist

  128,821

  8.00

  16,103

  Administrative Officer

  1,185,717

  75.00

  15,810

  Support Grade; Band 1

  87,047

  6.00

  14,508

  Support Grade: Band 2

  193,923

  14.50

  13,374

  Administrative Assistant

  70,734

  7.00

  10,105

  Total

  12,252,726

  486.39

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total costs of running his office since his appointment, broken down between(a) establishment costs, (b) equipment costs, (c)

  323
  refurbishment costs, (d) running costs, (e) entertainment costs, (f) stationery costs, (g) rental costs and (h) other costs. [39647]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Expenditure directly incurred in the running of my office during July, August and September 1995 was as follows:

  £

  (a) Establishment costs1

  86,360

  (b) Equipment costs

  19,860

  (c) Refurbishment costs

  0

  (d) Running costs2

  8,940

  (e) Entertainment costs

  0

  (f) Stationery costs

  6,100

  (g) Rental costs

  3—

  (h) Other costs

  3—

  Total

  121,260

  1 Direct staff costs.

  2 Running costs not covered by categories (a), (e) and (f), principally transport.

  3 Rental and other costs (e.g light and heating) are incurred within the costs of the office as a whole and cannot be separately identified.

  Ministerial Information Systems
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer,Official Report, column 823, what sums have been spent on introducing the computerised interdepartmental desk diary system. [40004]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 30 October 1995,Official Report, column 6.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40530]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40529]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department's performance in respect of the payment of invoices from its suppliers is published in the annual department report, Cm 2820.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40843]

  Mr. Horam
  I am also answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.
  324
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band.

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (i)

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  (ii)

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  (iii)1

  0–4,999

  0–4,999

  1 Information refers to the research councils sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology which transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry on 5 July 1995.

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band.

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (i)

  115,000–119,999

  120,000–124,999

  (ii)

  70,000–74,999

  65,000–69,999

  (iii)1

  100,000–104,999

  100,000–104,999

  1 Information refers to the research councils sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology which transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry on 5 July 1995.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many individuals in(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40842]

  Mr. Horam
  I am also answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.

  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme or equivalent, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which have been deposited in the House of Commons Library. The numbers receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits are as follows.

  The Department has a nil return for the period 1985 to 1991 in all categories. The statistics for the remaining years are:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  (ii)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  (iii)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  The executive agencies for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responsibility all have a nil return for the period 1985–86 to 1995–96 in all categories.

  The NDPBs' have a nil return for the period 1985–86 to 1993–94.
  325

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i)

  1

  1

  (ii)

  Nil

  Nil

  (iii)

  Nil

  Nil

  1 Information refers to the research councils sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology which transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry on 5 July 1995.

DEFENCE

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40531]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The payment of the vast majority of the Department's bills and those of its agencies is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is responsible for paying its own bills. I have asked the chief executives of these agencies to reply.

  Letter from Peter Trevelyan to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 November 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence how often his Department and each Agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last 5 years. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency, responsible for paying the vast majority of MOD bills, I have been asked to reply. I understand MOD Agencies which pay their own bills will reply separately.The statistics which are readily available to the MOD payment office at Liverpool go back two and a half years. During this time 99.99% of bills have been paid within 30 days of receipt. Some low value bills are paid locally throughout MOD, but information about these is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 November 1995:
  1. You asked the Secretary of State for Defence how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last 5 years. I am replying for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, formerly the Defence Research Agency.2. Assuming that the 30 day period is measured from the point at which a validated invoice is passed to our bill paying section for action, then virtually all bills are settled within 9 days. We make no distinction in this process between small and large businesses.

  Defence Expenditure (NATO Countries)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of gross national product is spent on defence in each of the members of NATO. [40704]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in the "Statement of Defence Estimates 1995", page 82, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the military hospitals at(a) Aldershot, (b)
  326
  Woolwich, (c) Wroughton and (d) Halton close; and on what date the (i) Royal Naval hospital Stonehouse and (ii) RAF Hospital, Ely will close. [40759]

  Mr. Soames
  The service hospitals at Aldershot, Halton and Wroughton will close by April 1996. The sale of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich to the NHS took place on 30 August this year. The hospitals at Stonehouse, Plymouth, and Ely closed in March this year and in 1992 respectively.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many national health service patients have been treated as in-patients at(a) the Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot, and (b) the RAF Wroughton hospital, near Swindon, in each year since 1991–92 and in 1995–96 to date; and how much was paid by NHS purchasing authorities to each of these military hospitals in each of those years. [40758]

  Mr. Soames
  The figures are as follows:

  CMH Aldershot

  PARAFH Wroughton

  1991–92

  5,980

  2,218

  1992–93

  6,248

  2,293

  1993–94

  8,345

  2,486

  1994–95

  5,744

  2,366

  1995–961

  1,386

  544

  1 As at 1 October 1995.

  These patient numbers were contained within the required training margin for military medical personnel and therefore were treated at no cost to health care purchasers.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information or data Her Majesty's Government have received from French nuclear tests conducted at(a) Reganne in 1965–66, (b) Mururoa in 1966 to the present, (c) Fangataufa since 1966 in regard to Euratom treaty, articles 34 or 35. [40593]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library copies of all memoranda of understanding signed with France in regard to co-operation on nuclear weapons since 1965. [40591]

  (2) what technical data or other information his Department has received from France on the parameters, reasons for and outcome of French nuclear tests conducted this year as part of existing nuclear co-operation agreements with France; [40592]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 24 October 1995,Official Report, column 587.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by
  327
  his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40532]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and, while detailed research could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost, a limited inquiry has been made within the time available. This found that there did not appear to have been any instances in any of the years in question.

  Low Flying
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning low flying in Wales; and what is the minimum height permitted for such flights. [40847]

  Mr. Soames
  Low flying is permitted throughout the United Kingdom, except in controlled airspace, over major conurbations and in other locations which are to be avoided for safety or environmental reasons. The normal minimum height for military fixed-wing aircraft, except light propeller driven aircraft, is 250 ft minimum separation distance. A small amount of operational low flying by such United Kingdom military aircraft is permitted down to 100 ft minimum separation distance in three tactical training areas, one of which is in central Wales. Light propeller driven aircraft are permitted to fly to a minimum height of 50 ft. There is no minimum height restriction for helicopters.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his German counterpart concerning low flying by British aircraft over German territory; and what is the minimum height permitted for British aircraft flying in Germany. [40845]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no such recent discussions. The normal minimum height permitted for Royal Air Force fixed-wing aircraft flying in Germany is 1,000 ft; however, a lower limit of 500 ft is permitted for a number of major NATO exercises.

  Tornado F3
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the Tornado F3 upgrade with EJ200 engines. [40851]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There is no current requirement to upgrade the Tornado F3 with EJ200 engines.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has examined the interoperability of US F-16 aircraft with Britain's air-to-air refuelling systems. [40849]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is currently evaluating a proposal to upgrade the Tornado F3's weapons systems. As a routine part of our evaluation process, we are examining the comparative costs of alternative options, including acquiring F-16 aircraft from the US. In assessing these alternatives we will take full account of all relevant factors, including the need for air-to-air refuelling.
  328
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum flying height of the Tornado F3. [40850]

  Mr. Soames
  The Tornado F3 is cleared to fly at a maximum height of 50,000 ft. In practice, however, the actual operating ceiling will be determined by a range of interrelated factors, including weapon and fuel load, environmental conditions, and others.

  Housing Stock
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's current policy in respect of the married housing stock. [40855]

  Mr. Soames
  We are continuing to consider possibilities for transferring ownership of the married quarters estate to the private sector. We expect to be in a position to clarify the way ahead before the end of the year.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) independent advisers and (b) companies who are providing advice concerning his Department's (i) housing stock and (ii) surplus land; and if he will make a statement. [40854]

  Mr. Soames
  For management of my Department's housing stock, a number of individual consultants have been employed on a contract basis by the Defence Housing Executive. The principal companies providing advice on the possible transfer of ownership of the married quarters estate to the private sector are Nat West Markets (financial advisers), Herbert Smith (legal advisers) and Savills (property advisers).

  Independent advisers who have contributed in the past year to our consideration of proposals for the married quarters estate are:

  Mr. David Dugdale

  Mr. David Hart

  Mr. Douglas Hogg

  Sir Nigel Mobbs

  The Lord Poole

  In respect of surplus land, no single adviser or company provides advice on all cases. Consultants are appointed, where necessary, to provide advice on such matters as development potential, planning issues and marketing. No central record is maintained of all such current contracts.

  Contractorisation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military and (b) civilian jobs have been replaced under his Department's contractorisation programme. [40844]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department's budget holders operate within financial allocations, which cover a range of operating costs, including military and civilian staff. Since April 1992, some 26,000 posts have been reviewed under the competing for quality programme, resulting in a reduction in the overall number of MOD posts of nearly 17,500. Details of the breakdown of posts between military and civilian staff are not held centrally.

  Air Defence Capability
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has carried out in the last three years of the United Kingdom's air defence suppression capability; and if he will make a statement. [40848]

  Mr. Soames
  We keep our SEAD—suppression of enemy air defences—assets under constant review to ensure that we maintain our capability against current and future radar threats.

  Practice Flights (Wales)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total number of practice flights over Wales by the RAF in each of the last five years. [40846]

  Mr. Soames
  Records are not maintained of the total number of training flights conducted over specific areas.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39856]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I and my predecessor have frequently met the heads of the agencies which report to us to discuss the work of the agencies concerned. My Department is of course in regular contact with the agencies and I am briefed on major developments.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by grade the number of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39486]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for civil service staff numbers and pay bill are set out in annexes 5 and 6 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2803, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade and individual agency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the number of payments made under the arable area payments scheme of(a) less than £25,000, (b) between £25,000 and £50,000, (c) between £50,000 and £75,000 and (d) above £1 million for the latest year for which figures are available. [39885]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives the number of payments in England by county and banded by size of payment. It is not possible to identify separately the number of payments above £1 million for reasons of confidentiality.
  330

  Arable area payments 1994—number of payments by county

  County

  Below £25,000

  £25,000-£50,000

  £50,000-£75,000

  Avon

  346

  33

  6

  Bedfordshire

  380

  104

  42

  Berkshire

  151

  55

  20

  Buckinghamshire

  427

  125

  34

  Cambridgeshire

  1,580

  313

  129

  Cheshire

  935

  21

  3

  Cleveland

  181

  29

  7

  Cornwall

  1,608

  47

  4

  Cumbria

  877

  9

  3

  Derbyshire

  683

  67

  15

  Devon

  2,550

  75

  12

  Dorset

  542

  98

  42

  Durham

  526

  87

  21

  East Sussex

  334

  55

  23

  Essex

  890

  375

  156

  Gloucestershire

  735

  127

  53

  Greater London

  43

  12

  0

  Greater Manchester

  130

  9

  1

  Hampshire

  438

  146

  82

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,790

  178

  42

  Hertfordshire

  223

  145

  58

  Humberside

  1,501

  406

  123

  Isle of Wight

  94

  15

  11

  Kent

  678

  179

  71

  Lancashire

  441

  23

  7

  Leicestershire

  795

  190

  75

  Lincolnshire

  2,448

  482

  230

  Merseyside

  157

  17

  2

  Norfolk

  2,277

  373

  134

  North Yorkshire

  2,617

  419

  94

  Northamptonshire

  504

  223

  69

  Northumberland

  548

  191

  50

  Nottinghamshire

  727

  181

  63

  Oxfordshire

  493

  176

  94

  Shropshire

  1,395

  160

  28

  Somerset

  1,134

  85

  23

  South Yorkshire

  386

  86

  30

  Staffordshire

  721

  74

  25

  Suffolk

  1,475

  368

  118

  Surrey

  153

  36

  8

  Tyne and Wear

  81

  24

  4

  Warwickshire

  609

  165

  59

  West Midlands

  85

  9

  2

  West Sussex

  328

  87

  26

  West Yorkshire

  319

  49

  15

  Wiltshire

  622

  189

  93

  Total

  35,957

  6,317

  2,207

  Payments are shown against county of the main holding.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the amount paid under the arable area payments scheme for the latest year for which figures are available. [39884]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives the total arable area payments claimed in 1994 on land situated in each county of England. The total amounts paid will have been slightly lower because of reductions made for various reasons. However, since such reductions normally have to be calculated on the basis of the total claim, which may include land in more than one county, it is not possible to give figures for the total amounts paid on a county basis.

  Total payments claimed £

  Avon

  4,740,888

  Bedfordshire

  20,579,153

  331

  Total payments claimed £

  Berkshire

  11,841,859

  Buckinghamshire

  17,644,628

  Cambridgeshire

  62,314,987

  Cheshire

  7,853,495

  Cleveland

  5,046,152

  Cornwall

  11,250,044

  Cumbria

  4,152,384

  Derbyshire

  10,035,857

  Devon

  18,390,558

  Dorset

  16,999,055

  Durham

  13,025,550

  East Sussex

  9,557,599

  Essex

  58,827,843

  Gloucestershire

  26,546,974

  Greater London

  1,415,166

  Greater Manchester

  1,634,561

  Hampshire

  34,732,756

  Hereford and Worcester

  29,629,509

  Hertfordshire

  21,526,960

  Humberside

  62,523,576

  Isle of Wight

  3,000,696

  Kent

  36,657,080

  Lancashire

  5,268,782

  Leicestershire

  31,904,533

  Lincolnshire

  107,101,476

  Merseyside

  3,013,057

  Norfolk

  68,895,924

  North Yorkshire

  65,185,535

  Northamptonshire

  35,852,850

  Northumberland

  27,953,889

  Nottinghamshire

  29,100,997

  Oxfordshire

  37,018,288

  Shropshire

  24,570,683

  Somerset

  14,238,260

  South Yorkshire

  14,057,997

  Staffordshire

  14,422,395

  Suffolk

  58,461,539

  Surrey

  4,477,063

  Tyne and Wear

  2,829,561

  Warwickshire

  25,109,362

  West Midlands

  1,718,520

  West Sussex

  14,479,976

  West Yorkshire

  7,593,090

  Wiltshire

  36,257,406

  Total

  1,119,438,513

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40536]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Ministry has served one petition for insolvency during this period. It is not known how many people the company employed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many staff are currently employed by the Contributions Agency in identifying those evading their proper social security contributions; and how many he expects will be employed following 332
  the implementation of the business unit implementation exercise for the reorganisation of offices; [39971]

  (2) what has been the cost of the employment of consultants in connection with the business unit implementation exercise for the reorganisation of Contributions Agency offices; what consultation has so far been undertaken with local authorities, citizens advice bureaux and local chambers of commerce in this connection; and what overall budget savings are expected from the exercise. [39972]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 31 October 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency. I have been asked to reply to your questions about the cost of consultants in connection with the Business Unit Implementation exercise for re-organisation, what consultation has taken place with various bodies, expected overall budget savings, and the numbers of staff employed in identifying those contributors evading contributions. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.I am unable to provide the cost of consultants used in connection with the Field Operations Business Unit Implementation as this information is subject to commercial confidentiality provisions.The Agency proposes to reduce its Field Operations network from the existing 248 offices to approximately 115. The proposed Field network is being developed in consultation with local management, staff and Trade Unions. A decision on specific locations will not be taken until this process is complete. Thereafter the business community, including Local Authorities, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Chambers of Commerce and Members of Parliament will be fully consulted before implementation takes place.Precise details of savings cannot be determined during the planning and development stage of the re-organisation. However it is estimated that there will be significant savings in management costs. Savings in accommodation and related costs will also be captured as the new Field network is implemented.The Agency has responsibility to ensure compliance with the law in relation to National Insurance contributions. Non-compliance is not solely due to evasion but is frequently the result of lack of awareness or genuine error. Because of this, it is impossible to estimate the proportion of work or staff directly dealing with evasion. Of the Agency's current total Field force of 3093 staff, approximately 1300 are employed on inspectorate duties which bring them into direct contact with employers and the self-employed. It is not anticipated that inspectorate numbers will significantly change as a result of the Business Unit Implementation process.I hope that this reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any more assistance.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average time taken by the Child Support Agency to make a maintenance assessment; and if he will make a statement on how this meets the set targets; [38813]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the basis for the time period set out in the guidelines, of the Child Support Agency within which the claimants assessments should be completed. [38814]
  333
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 31 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the time taken by the Agency to clear maintenance assessments.
  Due to the nature of the child support work, and the varying level of co-operation experienced, reaching a full maintenance assessment will, on average, involve a period of months rather than weeks. The Agency has, however, sought to introduce a number of operational improvements to ensure that straightforward cases, in which both parents co-operate with the Agency, are cleared quickly. Where both parents co-operate,we would hope that an assessment is completed within 6 to 12 weeks of the maintenance application form being issued.
  At present, including the less straightforward cases, the average time taken by the Child Support Agency to make a maintenance assessment is approximately 30 weeks. This information is taken from a five per cent. statistical sample carried out on 31st May 1995.You asked about performance against the set target. From April to August this year just under 50 per cent. of applications received since the beginning of October 1994 had been cleared within 26 weeks. These figures do not currently take account of all the cases cleared, for example, where "good cause" has been accepted and a reduced benefit direction has been issued. We expect more comprehensive figures to become available within the next two months.I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number(a) invalidity/disability premium claimants for fit for (a) work and (b) for light work in the past 12 months for each of his Department's benefit offices covering the Doncaster and Mexboroguh area; and what was the comparative figure for the previous 12 months. [39561]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefits is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number (a) of invalidity/disability premium claimants found fit for (a) work and (b) for light work in the past 12 months for each of his Department's benefit offices covering the Doncaster and Mexborough area; and what was the comparative figure for the previous 12 months.

  Invalidity Benefit was replaced by Incapacity Benefit from 13 April 1995. Disability premium is payable as part of Income Support. A customer who receives Incapacity Benefit may also receive Income Support which could include a disability premium.

  Information is not available in the form requested. Statistics are only available for the numbers of customers failing the All Work Test on a national basis from 13 April to the end of June this year. They are available at a local level from July 1995. Figures are not available to show the breakdown into Incapacity Benefit or disability premium as separate statistics are not kept on the type of benefit entitlement at the time of the decision.
  334
  The number of customers failing the All Work Test from July to September, in the Mexborough and Doncaster area, are as follows:

  Mexbourgh

  Doncaster

  July 1995

  10

  11

  August 1995

  20

  50

  September 1995

  40

  87

  The Doncaster figures include both Doncaster West and Doncaster East Benefits Agency offices.

  The Incapacity Benefit scheme does not have a category of "fit for light work" as it is based on either the customers Own Occupation or All Work Tests.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual expenditure on social security benefits for people in employment for the latest available year broken down by(a) family credit, (b) income support, (c) housing benefit and (d) council tax benefit. [38612]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Benefit expenditure on people in employment 1994

  £ million

  Benefit

  Estimated annual expenditure

  Family Credit

  1,480

  Income Support

  617

  Housing Benefit

  697

  Council Tax Benefit

  137

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  2. The expenditure figures for income support, housing and council tax benefits have been estimated by calculation from the number of cases in receipt of benefit and the weekly amount of benefit in payment at a point in time in May 1994. They may not therefore represent actual spending through the year.

  3. For the purposes of the calculations referred to in note 2 above 'people in employment' have been defined as cases where either the benefit claimant and/or his/her partner have earnings from employment or self-employment.

  4. It is possible for one person to receive more than one of the benefits listed above.

  5. Figures for family credit refer to estimated expenditure in 1994–95.

  Source:

  1995 Social Security Departmental Report.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1994. Housing Benefit MIS 1 per cent. sample.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of reduced earnings allowance awards in each year since 1991, and this year to date(a) nationally and (b) in each of his Department's benefit offices covering the Doncaster and Mexborough postal districts. [39040]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Available information is set out in the table. Rother and Dearne district office includes Rotherham north and south, Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Wath-on Dearne.
  335

  Total of new reduced earnings allowance awards

  Part 19911

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Part 19952

  Great Britain

  2,904

  6,047

  3,179

  3,570

  2,608

  Doncaster District Office

  10

  11

  7

  24

  26

  Rother and Dearne District Office

  5

  42

  7

  27

  13

  Note:

  1 October to December 1991.

  2January to September 1995.

  Source:

  BA CDU 100 per cent. count subject to amendment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the changes there will be in the levels of indebtedness among benefit recipients who make up the shortfall in rent demanded by the landlord from their disposable income, following the capping of housing benefit. [38898]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the total amounts paid to recipients of housing benefit in(a) Manchester, (b) Blackburn, (c) Burnley and (d) Liverpool in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1993–94; and if he will estimate the amounts likely to be paid out this year; [39842]

  (2) what were the total amounts paid to recipients of housing benefit in Blackpool in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1993–94; and if he will estimate the amounts likely to be paid out this year. [39843]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Expenditure on housing benefit

  £000s

  1991–92

  1993–94

  Blackburn

  18,466

  25,235

  Blackpool

  18,619

  29,872

  Burnley

  10,225

  14,216

  Liverpool

  127,599

  164,600

  Manchester

  213,383

  254,638

  Note:

  Figures relate to local authority areas.

  Estimates for expenditure during 1995–96 are not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1480–81, (1) if he will exempt private sector accommodation identified by local authority social services departments as consistent with strategies for care in the community; [40426]

  (2) if he will exempt accommodation provided by a social services authority. [40427]

  Mr. Evans
  We are considering the situation as regards private sector accommodation which is consistent with social services' strategies for care in the community and accommodation which is provided by social services authorities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that asylum seekers who have been victims of torture will not have their welfare benefits withdrawn. [40060]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Government referred proposals affecting the benefit entitlement of asylum seekers and other persons from abroad to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. We will consider the position fully once the committee has reported on its consultation exercise.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the current benefits system to ensure that self-employed persons are able to claim benefits on becoming unemployed. [40145]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Current policy will be carried forward in the new jobseeker's allowance from October 1996. Payment of class 2 national insurance contributions on earnings from self-employment will not enable a self-employed person to gain entitlement to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance. Self-employed claimants will have access to income-based jobseeker's allowance in the same way as other claimants.

  Changes to the availability for work rules will, however, recognise the growth in self-employment. As now, all claimants will have to be available for employed earner's employment, but under jobseeker's allowance, people who have been self-employed will be able to limit their jobsearch to self-employed opportunities in their usual occupation for up to 13 weeks at the beginning of their claim.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for business with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40510]

  Mr. Burt
  No statistics are held to identify the number of employees involved when a winding-up petition is filed against a business by this Department.

  Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people are currently claiming hardship allowance. [40425]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  For the quarter ending August 1995, 12,417 16 to 17-year-olds were receiving hardship allowances. This figure is provisional and is subject to amendment.

  Late Payments (Small Business)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40509]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  337
  The methods of recording suppliers and payments does not allow for separation into different categories of suppliers, such as small businesses.

  Since 1992, the Department has conducted an annual exercise to establish what proportion of bills for goods and services have been paid timeously, that is within any special terms agreed, or, if none exists, within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice, whichever is the later. Details of the percentage of payments made timeously from 1992–93 are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Department of Social Security HQ

  90

  97

  89.5

  Benefits Agency

  93

  95

  96

  Contributions Agency

  93

  99

  99

  Resettlement Agency

  96

  87

  98

  Child Support Unit1/Child Support Agency

  95

  90

  96

  Information Technology Services Agency

  96

  95

  99

  War Pensions Agency

  part of BA

  89

  96

  Departmental total

  94

  94

  96

  1 child support unit did not exist post 1992–93.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) 16 and (b) 17-year-olds are currently available for work and not in receipt of benefit. [40439]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest available labour force survey for Great Britain shows that, in summer—June to August 1995—there were 180,000 16 to 17-year-olds who were unemployed'. However, of these, 91,000 were still in full-time education and around a further 55,000 were either receiving benefit direct or their parents were receiving benefit on their behalf. Of the remaining 34,000, there is no information on their personal financial circumstances although many will be living as part of their parents' household. In addition, significant numbers move into youth training shortly after registering at the careers office.

  Notes

  1 The Labour Force Survey uses the International Labour Organisation's definition of "unemployed", i.e. people who were without a job, were available to start work in the next fortnight, and had either looked for work in the last four weeks, or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies, (iii) non-departmental bodies in (1) 1994–95 and 2) 1995–96. [40820]

  Mr. Burt
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salaries fell within the following bands:338

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (i) Department

  15,000–9,999

  25,000–9,999

  (ii) Agencies

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  (iii) Non-Departmental Public Bodies3

  5,000–9,999

  5,000–9,999

  1 There were 10 people in the Department whose salary fell just under £5,000.

  2 There were 12 people in the Department whose salary fell just under £5,000.

  3 Information refers to those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1994".

  The highest full-time salaries fell within the following bands:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (i) Department

  95,000–99,999

  95,000–99,999

  (ii) Agencies

  85,000–89,999

  80,000–84,999

  (iii) Non-Departmental Public Bodies1

  70,000–74,999

  75,000–79,999

  1 Information refers to those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1994".

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96. [40819]

  Mr. Burt
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. As members of the principal civil service pension scheme, staff may receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which had been deposited in the Library of the House. No member of staff has received remuneration above £100,000 in the years in question.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dumped Armaments
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the locations in Northern Ireland where old armaments have been washed up on the shoreline in the past 10 years. [39643]

  Mr. Moss
  No old armaments are recorded as having been washed up on the shoreline in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents have been reported by fishermen in Northern Ireland of catching dumped armaments in their nets in the 10 years. [39625]

  Mr. Ancram
  Such information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Armaments caught in fishermen's nets may come from a number of sources other than dumping, including shipwrecks or bombing.
  339
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the fish caught for consumption in Northern Ireland is caught in or around the Beaufort dyke area. [39639]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is estimated that, of the total quantity of fish landed into Northern Ireland in 1994, less than 4 per cent. was caught in or around the Beaufort dyke area. No information is available on how much of this is consumed in Northern Ireland.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of armaments washed up on the shoreline in Northern Ireland can be identified as having drifted out of the Beaufort dyke munitions dump in the last 10 years. [39638]

  Mr. Moss
  No armaments are recorded as having been washed up on the shoreline in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many phosphorus incendiary bombs have been washed up on the Antrim coast in the past 10 years. [39641]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has no record of phosphorous incendiary bombs having been washing up on any part of the Northern Ireland coast in the past 10 years. However, early in May 1993, the Department began to receive reports that a number of unidentified phosphorous canisters were being washed ashore, mainly in County Antrim.

  Although there is no record of the number washed ashore, the Department has arranged for the recovery and safe disposal of 84 such objects in 1993, six in 1994 and one to date in 1995.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishermen in Northern Ireland have reported injuries caused to themselves or crew members of their trawlers due to handling weapons and dumped armaments which have become caught up in their fishing nets in the past 10 years. [39640]

  Mr. Ancram
  We are not aware of any such cases.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishermen in Northern Ireland fish in or around the Beaufort dyke area. [39642]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is estimated that 33 Northern Ireland fishing vessels employing about 150 fishermen fished in and around Beaufort dyke in 1994.

  Electricity Prices
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost per unit of electricity in Northern Ireland for(a) domestic users and (b) business users. [39636]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on unit electricity charges for domestic and business users is set out in the monthly and quarterly billed tariffs booklets published by Northern Ireland Electricity plc. I have arranged for copies of the April 1995 booklet to be placed in the Library of the House.
  340
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the differential betweensss electricity prices in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. [39631]

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the Northern Ireland Committee on 21 June that the Northern Ireland electricity system, because it was small, dispersed and isolated, was inherently high cost by British isles standards, but that the growing divergence currently being experienced is more due to falling prices in Great Britain than to rising prices in Northern Ireland.

  The Northern Ireland electricity supply industry is at present in transition, but it is making steady progress towards mirroring the characteristics of the lower cost industry in Great Britain. Recent developments which will help reduce the differential include the reallocation of sulphur quotas and the decision of British Gas to support the development of a natural gas industry in Northern Ireland, as this will reduce the cost of the gas supply to the Ballylumford power station. The 1997 Northern Ireland Electricity price reviews and the introduction of more competition should also have a favourable impact on prices. The latest comprehensive statements on the size of price differential is based on 1994–95 data and are contained in the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland's memorandum submitted to the Northern Ireland Committee earlier this year and the paper published in June 1994 entitled "Northern Ireland and Great Britain's Electricity Prices". Copies of these are available in the Library of the House.

  Drug Addicts
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registered drug addicts in Northern Ireland are under the age of 18 years. [39632]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of registered drug addicts in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years. [39635]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of registered drug addicts in Northern Ireland as at 31 December of each of the past 10 years was as follows:

  1985: 29

  1986: 36

  1987: 32

  1988: 35

  1989: 38

  1990: 48

  1991: 51

  1992: 60

  1993: 80

  1994: 87

  Gas supplies
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the availability of gas in Northern Ireland to(a) domestic users and (b) industrial users. [39630]

  Mr. Ancram
  British Gas is in the process of laying an undersea pipeline from Scotland to Northern Ireland to supply its Ballylumford power station and it has recently
  341
  announced plans to lay a pipeline from there which will enable it to supply natural gas to consumers in the greater Belfast area. A gas supply to industrial, commercial and domestic consumers is expected to be available at the end of 1996. I intend to present legislation at the beginning of 1996 to facilitate this development.

  Drug-related Offences
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the number and nature of arrests for drug-related offences in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; [39627]

  (2) if he will list the number of arrests in each of the last 10 years for offences regarding the possession and selling of (a) heroine, (b) cocaine, (c) ecstasy and (d) cannabis in Northern Ireland. [39634]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government, together with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, are committed to tackling all aspects of the drug problem in Northern Ireland. During the past year, the number of officers in the RUC drugs squad has increased by 15 per cent. and the post of head of drugs squad has been upgraded to detective superintendent. There are now more than three times the number of drugs liaison officers as there were last year, an increase from 18 to 60.

  In addition, I recently established the central co-ordinating group for action against drugs of which I am chairman. This group comprises top level representatives from Northern Ireland Government Departments, the medical profession and the RUC and will co-ordinate Government action on all aspects of the campaign against drugs.

  The RUC collate figures showing the number of persons arrested for drugs offences. A breakdown by drugs trafficking, possession, or type of drugs is not available.

  The number of persons arrested for drugs offences, and the number of persons proceeded against at court for drugs offences, are set out in the tables.

  Number of persons arrested in Northern Ireland for drugs offences 1985–1994

  Numbers

  1985

  316

  1986

  304

  1987

  223

  1988

  432

  1989

  440

  1990

  429

  1991

  453

  1992

  610

  1993

  976

  1994

  1,196

  Persons proceeded against at court for drugs offences Northern Ireland 1993 and 1994

  1993

  1994

  Males

  471

  573

  Females

  25

  37

  Total

  496

  610

  "Persons proceeded against" refers to persons prosecuted for drugs offences at Juvenile, Magistrates' or Crown Courts and for whom a result has been obtained ie guilty or not guilty.
  342
  Figures cannot be provided prior to 1993 on grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Executive Agency Staff Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by grade the number of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39519]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for civil service manpower and pay bill are set out in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments' annual report, Cm 2816, copies of which are available in the Library. A breakdown by grade and individual agency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity Generation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the companies who run electricity generating power stations in Northern Ireland and (b) the names of the power stations run by each company. [39629]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Premier Power Limited

  Ballylumford

  Coolkeeragh Power Limited

  Coolkeeragh

  NIGEN Limited

  Kilroot

  Belfast West

  Dental Health Education
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions are in place to educate children about dental health in schools in Northern Ireland. [39644]

  Mr. Ancram
  The statutory Northern Ireland curriculum makes provision for health through the health education cross-curricular theme and the programme of study for science, which all pupils of compulsory school age must follow. The objectives of the cross-curricular theme include the teaching of the skills necessary to make informed decisions about health. The science programme of study requires pupils at key stage I—age four to eight—to be taught about personal hygiene, of which oral hygiene is a part.

  In addition, the staff of the health boards' community dental service, which is responsible for screening pupils at intervals during their school careers, take the opportunities offered by their school visits to talk to pupils and teachers about dental health generally.

  Nuclear Waste
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance he will give the European Commissioner for the Environment and Nuclear Safety, Ms Ritt Bjerregard, in her investigation into
  343
  allegations that nuclear waste was dumped in the seas off the Irish and Scottish coasts in 1981 by the British Government. [39626]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no nuclear industry in Northern Ireland, and no radioactive waste from Northern Ireland has been dumped into the seas off the Irish and Scottish coasts at any time under an authorisation from the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, no assistance which could be afforded to the European Commissioner.

  Drug Education
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to educate schoolchildren in Northern Ireland on the dangers of drug abuse. [39633]

  Mr. Ancram
  In schools, the statutory Northern Ireland curriculum make provision for drugs education through the programme of study for science and health education cross-curricular theme. Both of these are compulsory and apply to pupils throughout their period of compulsory schooling from age four to 16. The Department of Education issued guidance on dealing with drug-related incidents in the form of a circular in 1992.

  A new and comprehensive package of advice and guidance will be issued to schools in the spring of 1996. The pack will contain an expanded circular, guidance on preparing drugs policies and on the place of drugs education in the curriculum, and a detailed working manual for schools on dealing with drug-related incidents.

  Fluoridation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has of public support for the fluoridation of the water supply in Northern Ireland. [39619]

  Mr. Moss
  Health and social services boards are required to consult their resident populations about any proposal to fluoridate a water supply. In four of the five consultations they have carried out to date, a clear majority of the responses received were in favour of fluoridation. Further consultations will be carried out in the near future.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the past five years. [40510]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94 and 1994–95, the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments paid 95 per cent. and 94.7 per cent. respectively of their bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he wilt list all Forestry Commission woods currently for sale in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the targets for the disposal of land by(a) area and (b) projected income. [40673]

  Mr. Ancram
  State forestry in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the forest service of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. In the current year, the following woods have been on offer for sale:

  Bann Woods South

  Castleward (Ballynacraig)

  Castleward (Castleward)

  Ecclesville.

  The forest service is currently undergoing a prior options study under the Government's "next steps" initiative. Future disposals policy and targets will be determined by the outcome of that study.

  Royal Mail (Redundancies)
  Ms Mowlam
  to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of redundancies in Northern Ireland Royal Mail for each of the past five years. [39628]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Post Office tells me that the number of redundancies in Royal Mail Northern Ireland, all of which have been achieved on a voluntary basis, in each of the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  1991–92: 5

  1992–93: 21

  1993–94: 23

  1994–95: 20

  1995–96: 7 (to date)

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Prospects
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss Britain's industrial prospects. [38666]

  Mr. Lang
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet representatives of the CBI from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Trans-channel Electricity Link
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the trans-channel electricity link has been used in the last 10 years to import from and export to France. [38669]

  Mr. Eggar
  Since it was commissioned in 1986 the interconnector has normally supplied baseload electricity from France to England.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his governmental responsibilities. [38670]
  345
  Mr. Lang
  My Department's objective is to help United Kingdom business compete successfully at home and abroad. It also aims, through the Office of Science and Technology, to strengthen the UK's science engineering and technology capability and to maximise its contribution to national economic performance and quality of life. The drive to enhance the UK'S international competitiveness, to which the whole Government is committed, is central to the Department's work.

  Vehicle Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department gives to inward investment from the vehicle industry. [38671]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Inward investment by vehicle companies may be eligible for a variety of forms of support, depending on the circumstances and proposed location, in common with inward investment by companies in other sectors.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he is taking to assist small business. [38672]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A complete outline of the range of initiatives introduced is published in "Small Firms in Britain 1995", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  The business link network is the single most important industrial initiative to be introduced by any UK Government. The national launch of the network took place on 31 October and by the end of the year every business in England will have access to the wide range of services available to assist their prosperity and growth.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses have been established since 1992. [38674]

  Mr. Taylor
  Estimates for business starts in England and Wales are produced by Barclays and Natwest banks. These show that in the two and a half years to end June 1995 approximately 1 million new businesses started up.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department issues to employees of small businesses regarding(a) rights at work and (b) terms and conditions of maternity pay. [40543]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department produces a comprehensive range of free booklets describing the rights of all employees under employment legislation. The booklet"Maternity Rights" was produced with the Department of Social Security, which is responsible for the maternity pay provisions, and the Health and Safety Executive, and gives information about all aspects of the statutory maternity provisions.

  Mrs Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses there have been in Britain in each of the last 17 years; and, of these, how many had between(a) one and nine employees, (b) 10 and 99 employees and (c) 100 and 499 employees. [40545]
  346
  Mr. Page
  Estimates of the number of businesses with fewer than 500 employees in the United Kingdom since 1979 are given ih the table. Separate figures are not available for Britain.

  At the end of 1993, 791,000 businesses had between one and nine employees, 185,000 had between 10 and 99 employees and 14,000 had between 100 and 499 employees; the remainder have no employees. There are no comparable figures for earlier years.

  Table 1: Number of businesses in the UK 1979–1993

  Thousands

  Year

  Number of businesses

  1979

  2,420

  1980

  n/a

  1981

  n/a

  1982

  n/a

  1983

  2,880

  1984

  n/a

  1985

  n/a

  1986

  3,230

  1987

  n/a

  1988

  3,680

  1989

  3,830

  1990

  3,780

  1991

  3,600

  1992

  3,510

  1993

  3,570

  Note:

  n/a not available.

  Source:

  Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the UK, 1993.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the number and proportion of small businesses which(a) have debt financed over five years and (b) have debt financed by overdraft; what comparable figures are available for European competitor nations; and what plans he has to ensure that longer-term financing is available to small businesses. [40537]

  Mr. Page
  A number of different surveys confirm that there has been a marked trend away from overdrafts towards term lending among small and medium-sized enterprises in this country in the last few years. According to figures produced by the British Bankers Association, term lending now accounts for 61.7 per cent. of total lending to SMEs compared to 40 per cent. in 1990. The Government welcome this trend and hope it will continue.

  As regards the situation in other European countries, a recent survey carried out by 3i found that an average of 29 per cent. of SMEs are reliant upon overdrafts.

  Although the Government believe that finance for any business venture is a commercial matter for the banks and other financial institutions, we continue to point out to SMEs the dangers of an over-reliance on short-term debt finance and to encourage them to consider longer-term alternatives. In appropriate cases, term loans over periods of two to seven years are available under the Government's small firms loan guarantee scheme.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with regard to the small firms Ministers' network announced by his
  347
  Department on 12 October on (a) what role each Minister will play, (b) how many times per year the network plans to meet, (c) when it last met, (d) what objectives have been set and (e) what effect the network will have on the public purse. [40539]

  Mr. Page
  The first meeting of the small business Ministers took place on Monday 30 October. It is envisaged that the full team of Ministers will meet approximately every six months with individual bilateral meetings being arranged as necessary to discuss specific issues.

  The aim of the group is to discuss how each Department can develop its own programme to help small businesses and how such a programme can be taken forward.

  The group itself will not have a direct effect on the public purse.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses have failed within three years of starting up in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion this is of the total of new small businesses. [40544]

  Mr. Page
  Official estimates for business survival are produced from the VAT register and are given in the table. Figures for business failure rates are not the same as deregistration rates as many deregistrations are for reasons other than business failure.

  Table 1: Deregistration rates of businesses registered for VAT

  Year

  Number deregistering within 3 years (thousand)

  Per cent. deregistering within 3 years

  1980

  57

  36

  1981

  57

  37

  1982

  63

  38

  1983

  69

  38

  1984

  71

  39

  1985

  71

  39

  1986

  72

  38

  1987

  78

  37

  19881

  94

  39

  1989

  110

  43

  Note:

  1 Deregistration rates for 1988 onwards will be inflated by additional deregistrations following the VAT threshold increase in 1991.

  Source:

  DTI Small Firms Statistics Unit.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current estimate of the number of small businesses in each London borough. [40546]

  Mr. Page
  The best estimate of the number of small businesses by London borough is given by the number of VAT registered businesses. A copy of the most recent figures "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analysis 1992–1993" is in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of the bankruptcy of small businesses as regard(a) write-off of tax debts, (b) tax relief to creditors on their losses in the bankruptcy and (c) the cost of statutory redundancy payments to the work force. [40548]
  348
  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  South Western Electricity
  Ms Church
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the National Consumer Council on behalf of consumers about the bid for South Western Electricity by Southern Company. [38673]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Nuclear Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to privatise the nuclear industry. [38675]

  Mr. Eggar
  Preparations are in hand to transfer the United Kingdom's advanced gas-cooled reactor and pressurised water reactor nuclear power stations, together with their liabilities, to the private sector. It is our intention that this sale should take place in the summer of 1996.

  This sale will bring many benefits. In private ownership, the holding company will be free to compete, both domestically and overseas. Privatisation will provide powerful incentives for the two subsidiary companies to benefit their customers by raising efficiency and reducing costs. Our proposals will make for a more competitive nuclear generation sector operating to continuing, rigorous safety standards and will strengthen the ability of British companies to market nuclear services abroad. At the same time, the changes in the fossil fuel levy and the equivalent step in Scotland will bring significant benefits to consumers.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to privatise the nuclear industry. [38677]

  Mr. Eggar
  Preparations are in hand to transfer the United Kingdom's AGR and PWR nuclear power stations, together with their liabilities, to the private sector. It is our intention that this sale should take place in the summer of 1996.

  This sale will bring many benefits. In private ownership, the holding company will be free to compete, both domestically and overseas. Privatisation will provide powerful incentives for the two subsidiary companies to benefit their customers by raising efficiency and reducing costs. Our proposals will make for a more competitive nuclear generation sector operating to continuing, rigorous safety standards and will strengthen the ability of British companies to market nuclear services abroad. At the same time, the changes in the fossil fuel levy and the equivalent step in Scotland will bring significant benefits to consumers.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional measures he is taking to ensure that safety standards are maintained in the period prior to privatisation of the nuclear industry. [38685]

  Mr. Eggar
  The independent Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate continues to monitor closely the safe operation of all the United
  349
  Kingdom's nuclear installations. The Government will not permit any weakening of the existing regulatory regime or of the current safety standards in force.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new initiatives he is taking to improve competitiveness in British industry. [38676]

  Mr. Lang
  Improving UK competitiveness is at the centre of my Department's work. We are pursuing a wide range of initiatives, including the extension of the benchmarking approach into the service sector; encouraging innovation and improved supply chains; expanding support for small businesses through the opening of more business links; and export promotion.

  Government-owned Companies (Exports)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the level of United Kingdom exports from Government-owned companies. [38678]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government are offering the best ever package of support to British exporting companies, regardless of ownership or sector. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the British Overseas Trade Board annual report and forward plan, which details our support. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the President of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry. [38679]

  Mr. Lang
  I am due to address the national conference of the Confederation of British Industry on 14 November. The latest CBI survey shows continued growth in manufacturing output, investment and exports. In 1996 the CBI expects manufacturing output to grow by 4 per cent.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of current cable television investments in the United Kingdom. [38681]

  Mr. Taylor
  Investment of some £2 billion in 1995 will bring total cable investment in the UK to £5.2 billion. The recent cable communications exhibition showed the extent of the industry and its suppliers.

  Engineering Exports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of United Kingdom engineering exports. [38684]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is published by the Central Statistical Office in overseas trade analysed in terms of industries, business monitor MQ10, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Insurance Company Funds
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to regulate the use of insurance company funds. [38686]
  350
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We propose to update the annual returns which insurance companies are required to make to the Department, and to make some technical amendments to the regulations on the value placed on insurance companies' assets. Interested parties are being consulted on these proposals.

  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in real terms of the prices of(a) electricity and (b) gas for use by domestic consumers since these industries were privatised. [38687]

  Mr. Eggar
  Since privatisation in 1990, domestic electricity prices, including VAT, have increased by 2 per cent. in real terms. Excluding VAT, they have fallen by 6 per cent. in real terms.

  Since privatisation in late 1986, domestic gas prices, including VAT, have fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms. Excluding VAT, they have fallen by 23 per cent.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with chairmen of the privatised utilities. [38688]

  Mr. Lang
  I meet the chairmen of privatised utilities from time to time to discuss a range of matters of common interest.

  Export Markets (East Timor)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if export licences have been applied for or granted for the export of logging trucks to East Timor. [40373]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None in the period 1990 to 1995. Examination of manual records for earlier years would entail disproportionate costs.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the postal services. [38920]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide letter and parcel service with daily delivery to every address in the country at a uniform and affordable structure of prices.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance the Government will give to regional electricity companies in respect of tax liabilities arising from the flotation of the National Grid. [40567]

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Internal Market Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Internal Market Council of 9 October. [40112]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Internal Market Council scheduled for 9 October was cancelled. The next IMC is on 23 November.

  Research Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Research Council of 30 October'. [40113]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Council agreed to increase the budget of the EU fourth framework programme for research and technology development by 6.5 per cent. to reflect the accession to the EU of Austria, Finland and Sweden. A number of member states, representing a blocking minority of votes, including the UK, formally indicated that any further decisions made by the Council for supplementary financing for the programme should be contained within the European Union's current financial perspectives.

  The Council also decided that the International Association for the Promotion of Co-operation of Scientists from the new independent states of the former Soviet Union should continue in operation until the end of the fourth framework programme in 1988, and agreed a position for the EU at the meeting of the International Thermonuclear Reactor Council in December 1995.

  The Commissioner for Research and Education introduced a Commission communication setting out the EU' s approach to scientific and technological co-operation with third countries. The Commissioner for Industry briefly reported on the work of the Commission's research-industry task forces. These two issues will be the subject of further analysis and discussion by member states during the Italian presidency in the first half of 1996.

  BMARC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will rescind his decision not to release documents to the former director of BMARC, Mr. John Anderson, and if he will make a statement. [39014]

  Mr. Lang
  The court considering my application for disqualification of Mr. Anderson from acting as a company director, has ordered disclosure of certain documents and other material"as are presently in the hands of the Inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Astra Holdings Plc."
  All such documents have been supplied to Mr. Anderson.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40508]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on the number of petitions for bankruptcy initiated by my Department could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, my Department would initiate such proceedings only in exceptional circumstances and the number of such actions begun in each of the last five years is therefore likely to be very few.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) liquidations, (b) administrations, (c) receiverships and (d) company voluntary arrangements businesses employing under 500 people have experienced in each year since 1985. [40541]
  352
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information available is published in table 2 of the Insolvency Service general annual report fort the years 1989 and 1994, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information by size of business is not available. However, over 99 per cent. of businesses employ less than 500 people.

  Company Rescue Procedures
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to encourage insolvency practitioners to undertake the London approach with small businesses, allowing a company to work out an informal arrangement with creditors while being protected from them. [40542]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department has no such plans. I am keen to encourage the use of company rescue procedures, such as company voluntary arrangements and administration orders, wherever appropriate.

  In April 1995, the Insolvency Service issued a consultative document on proposals for adding a 28-day moratorium on creditors' actions to the existing company voluntary arrangement procedure. It would give a company in financial difficulty a breathing space to put rescue proposals to creditors and was developed with the small company particularly in mind.

  Illegal Immigration (Employer Sanctions)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from organisations representing small businesses about the burden on them of his proposals to fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. [40540]

  Mr. Page
  No representations on this issue have been received.

  This proposals is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40507]

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in common with other Government Departments, surveys of the DTI's payment performance have been carried out annually since 1991–92. Since then, the proportion of bills paid to all suppliers by DTI and its agencies within 30 days, or within the agreed credit period, has been as follows:

  1991–92: 80 per cent. Proportion

  1992–93: 90.5 per cent. Proportion

  1993–94: 90per cent. Proportion

  In 1994–95, following Treasury guidance, a new more rigorous system of sampling was introduced and the figure for that year was 84 per cent. I do not regard this performance as satisfactory and a target of 95 per cent. has been introduced for 1995–96.

  Jewellery Industry
  Ms Short
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make it his policy to accept annexe III of the draft directive on precious metals only if traditional marks remain permitted; and if he will make a statement; [40720]

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government intend to support the draft precious metals directive; and if he will make a statement; [40719]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the views of jewellery manufacturers and retailers on the proposed European directive on precious metals; and if he will make a statement. [40716]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government attach great importance to the maintenance of traditional Assay Office marks and will continue to press for these to be permitted, within the terms of any directive. However, he will continue to oppose the adoption of any precious metals directive which includes manufacturer marking on this basis of self-certification, as in annexe III of the current draft. Manufacturer marking on this basis is an inadequate form of consumer protection. The Government have consulted the British jewellery manufacturers and retailers throughout negotiations on the directive.

  Ms Short
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment has been made of the likely effect of the Houtwipper decision in the European Court of Justice on the British jewellery industry; and if he will make a statement; [40717]

  (2) what review his Department has undertaken of the Hallmarking Act 1973 in following the Houtwipper judgment in the European Court; and if he will make a statement. [40718]

  Jonathan Evans
  The Government are considering what the implications of the Houtwipper judgment, ECJ 293/93, might be for the Hallmarking Act 1973 and the British jewellery industry, having regard to the industry's concerns about the need to avoid confusion among customers in the marketplace, and to progress on negotiations on a draft directive to harmonise laws on the marking of precious metal articles.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38609]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage on 31 October 1995.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of inward investment in the United Kingdom, and what is the average figure for the EU. [38680]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The stock of inward direct investment in the UK in 1993—the latest available year—was £120 billion. It is estimated that the total stock of 354
  inward direct investment in the EU Twelve in 1993 was about £410 billion. The average of the EU Twelve was about £34 billion.

  Former Coalfield Areas
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regeneration of the former coalfield areas. [38668]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade announced a package of measures totalling £200 million to help areas affected by pit closures. The major elements of this package were £75 million for training and enterprise councils, to be focused on training and business start-up measures and a £75 million English partnerships programme for factory and site provision. Assisted-area status was also granted to eight travel-to-work areas affected by pit closures.

  This framework of regeneration measures is now in place in all areas and major projects are under way.

  Electronic Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the country of origin and the destination of the electronic batons which were covered by trans-shipment licences issued in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994. [40375]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers of my hon. Friend the Minister of Science and Technology to her on 15 June 1995, Official Report, column 603 and his letter to her of 3 August this year. No such licences were issued for these goods in 1994.

  "The Torture Trail"
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost in damages and legal fees of the Department's unsuccessful libel action brought by Martyn Gregory, in relation to his programme "The Torture Chamber". [40374]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: I assume the programme to which the hon. Member refers is "The Torture Trail". I refer her to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 27 October 1995, Official Report, column 826. In addition, the Department's own costs, including calculation of value of time spent on the matter by officials, are estimated at £31,500.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the practice of successive administrations not to disclose details of export licences has precluded providing information on the country of origin and destination of goods which are the subject of trans-shipment licences on every occasion that applications for such information has been made over the last five years. [40376]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: To ascertain whether the practice has precluded provision of such information over the last five years would involve

  355
  disproportionate cost. In the event of any such requests, I would expect these details to have been refused in line with the practice of successive Administrations.

  Personal Travel Times
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what values for personal travelling time are given in departmental assessment methods for(a) bus passengers, (b) pedestrians, (c) motorists and (d) cyclists. [39791]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Departmental assessment methods use values for savings in personal travel time, rather than a value of personal travel time itself. A saving of one hour of personal travel time for bus passengers or motorists is valued at £3.15 in 1994 prices. The value used for time savings to cyclists and pedestrians is double that for users of modes.

HEALTH

  GP Lists
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the frequency of patients being removed from their doctor's list, at the decision of their doctor, over the last five years; and if he will publish this research; [37639]

  (2) if he will instigate research into the removal of patients from doctor's lists and differences between regions, patient types and age groups and other relevant statistics. [37641]

  Mr. Malone
  Family health services authorities have delegated responsibility for the provision of general medical services in their area, including registration with and movements between general practitioners. In carrying out their responsibilities, family health services authorities themselves are best placed to recognise the need to commission research. Family health services authorities are increasingly encouraging general practitioners and patients to participate in conciliation processes which help avoid the need for removal action.

  Manchester Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments were made to(a) the chairman and (b) the chief executive of Manchester FHSA when they left that authority in 1992; and if he will make a statement. [38299]

  Mr. Malone
  No payment was made to the chairman of Manchester family health services authority upon his resignation from the authority in May 1992. The chief executive received an employment termination settlement of £58,081.

  Besselarr Clinical Research Unit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current research the Besselarr clinical research unit based at Leeds is carrying out for his Department; and what research they have carried out during the last 12 months. [39567]
  356
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 October,Official Report, columns 35–37.

  Malaria
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the incidence of cases of malaria reported in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [39501]

  Mr. Sackville
  The cases reported to the malaria reference laboratory of the public health laboratory service and the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine for the United Kingdom for the period August 1994 to July 1995 are shown in the table.

  Total all malaria

  August 1994

  228

  September 1994

  222

  October 1994

  171

  November 1994

  176

  December 1994

  132

  January 1995

  124

  February 1995

  92

  March 1995

  98

  April 1995

  85

  May 1995

  173

  June 1995

  259

  July 1995

  218

  These figures reflect the seasonal pattern in the numbers of United Kingdom citizens visiting malarious regions. The Government recommend that all travellers to malarious areas should seek advice from their doctor on measures to prevent malaria, including the use of appropriate prophylaxis.

  Private Patient Income
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by trust in each region, details of income from private patients for 1993–94 and 1994–95(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of total trust income. [39955]

  Mr. Sackville
  Details for 1993–94 will be placed in the Library. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Westminster Hospital
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what future plans are being considered for the former site of the Westminster hospital. [40238]

  Mr. Malone
  North Thames regional health authority is marketing the site. My hon. Friend may wish to approach the chairman, Sir William Staveley, for details.

  Pharmaceutical Industries
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when, and for what purpose, he, his Ministers, or his officials last met representatives of the pharmaceutical industries. [40694]

  Mr. Malone
  There are regular contacts, at both ministerial and official level, between this Department and a wide range of representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many petitions for bankruptcy have been began by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40522]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often his Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40521]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department and its agencies regularly monitor their overall payment performance, the results of which are as follows:

  Since 1991–92 the Department, excluding its agencies, has carried out annual surveys to ascertain the percentage of invoices paid within the agreed credit period, or where no credit period has been set, within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice. The Department's payment performance, against these criteria is as follows:

  1991–92: 85 per cent.

  1992–93: 90 per cent.

  1993–94: 87.1 per cent.

  1994–95: 91.9 per cent.

  Information is available for the Department's agencies only in respect of 1994–95. Details are as follows:

  NHS estate management and Health Building Agency—85 per cent. of payments were made within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice.

  NHS Pensions Agency—the average time taken to pay suppliers was six days from the date of receipt of an invoice.

  Medical Devices Agency—all invoices are paid promptly on receipt of a valid invoice. The agency which was established in September 1994 is due to publish its payment performance in its next annual report.

  Youth treatment service—the average time taken to pay suppliers was 11 days from the receipt of the invoice.

  Medicines Control Agency—the average time between receipt of a valid invoice and payment was 20 days.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were killed in each of the past 10 years as a result of the use of(a) heroin and (b) paracetamol and substances containing paracetamol among other drugs. [40668]

  Mr. Bowis
  Data for 1993 and 1994 are not available.

  Data for previous years are published in table 10 of the publication, "Mortality statistics, injury and poisoning, England and Wales", Series DH4, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Donations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of moneys donated by(a) private individuals, (b) private companies and (c) charitable or voluntary organisations to hospitals and other NHS bodies in each of the last three years. [40794]
  358
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the losses made by the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital from the collapse of its joint business venture in building a super-incinerator; and if he will make a statement on the impact of these losses on patient services. [40798]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Royal National Orthopaedic hospital national health service trust is taking action to minimise the loss arising from its failed joint venture and to prevent any similar situation arising again. The loss to date stands at £3,492,000. The NHS executive is working with the trust to ensure that the impact of the loss on patient services is minimised.

  Joint Business Ventures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial impact of joint business ventures on NHS trusts. [40799]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a matter for individual national health service trusts whether they enter into joint business ventures. Trusts must satisfy themselves that any such venture is value for money and secures benefits for the NHS, in terms of either additional income, increased quality of service or access to private sector expertise, which would not be available to the trust operating alone.

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking in respect of bed losses in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [40800]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of beds needed by each individual hospital cannot be determined centrally. Decisions about bed stocks need to be made at local level, based on contracted work loads and taking account of local circumstances, such as the local rate for emergency admissions, the level of day case treatments and the availability of alternative services, such as hospital at home schemes.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the prevalence of under-bedding in the NHS(a) by category of hospital and (b) by region. [40801]

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts regularly review the availability of beds to ensure they are matched to demand and to secure the best use of available resources.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40867]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band:
  359

  1994–95:

  £5,000.00-£9,999.00

  1995–96:

  £5,000.00-£9,999.00

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95:

  £95,000.00-£99,999.00

  1995–96:

  £95,000.00-£99,999.00

  GP Recruitment, London
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes in respect of general practitioner recruitment in inner London. [40829]

  Mr. Malone
  We have made available £15 million this year and plan to make available £20 million next year to support a package of initiatives designed to recruit and retain high-quality general practitioners in inner London. These initiatives have been drawn up in collaboration with local family health services authorities and general practitioners.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals in(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40866]

  Mr. Sackville
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff received benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which had been deposited in the Library. Excluding the benefit of pension contributions, no member of staff employed directly by the organisations mentioned received annual remuneration above the sums specified in the years in question.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of hospitals in meeting the patients charter target for trolley waits. [40802]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since April 1995 there has been a patients charter standard that a patient admitted to hospital via an accident and emergency department can expect to be given a bed a soon as possible, and certainly within four hours. From April 1996 this standard will be improved to two hours. Information relating to performance on this standard will become available in due course.

  London Initiative Zone
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the underspend on capital spending by London initiative zone in each year since 1992(a) in total and (b) by family health services authority; and if he will make a statement. [40828]
  360
  Mr. Malone
  London initiative zone funding began in 1993–94. The information for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  Reasons for the underspends included: delays and setbacks in finding suitable sites and securing planning permission; and adjustments inevitably needed when managing a complex capital programme over a six-year period. Capital underspends will be carried forward as part of ring-fenced funding of the development programme. The relevant funds will be spent on LIZ capital projects. In its third year, overall management of the LIZ capital programme continues to improve, in terms of both smaller projects and larger schemes requiring input from a number of different agencies.

  London Initiative Zone: Capital Expenditure: variance against plan

  FHSA

  £,000 1993–94

  £,000 1994–95

  Barking and Havering

  (594)

  (24)

  Camden and Islington

  (458)

  (1,720)

  City and East London

  1741

  (1,803)

  Enfield and Haringey

  128

  (1,236)

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  —

  (689)

  Brent and Harrow

  (501)

  (2,102)

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Harrow

  (1,340)

  (3,876)

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  (460)

  (1,909)

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  —

  11,362

  Bexley and Greenwich

  (1,192)

  (370)

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  (1,628)

  (1,261)

  Croydon

  (2,264)

  Total FHSAs

  (5,404)

  (15,892)

  Note:

  Figures in brackets represent underspends. All underspends are ring-fenced and carried forward in 1995–96 and future years. Figures at 1 are overspends and affect the total underspend for all FHSAs.

  Source:

  Thames RHAs.

  Hospital Wards
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital wards are presently closed in(a) London and (b) England. [40830]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Staff Cars
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State fGr Health how much has been spent by(a) trusts, (b) district health authorities, (c) regional health authorities and (d) in total on cars for staff within the NHS in each of the last five years. [39652]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), gave her on 25 May, Official Report column 776. These replies cover the total expenditure on cars for the period 1991 to 1993. The expenditure on staff cars by regional health authorities in the year 1993–94 fell by £332,881 to £5,053,065. The expenditure on staff cars by district health authorities in the year 1993–94 fell by £17,071,191. Expenditure on staff cars by national health service trusts rose from £24,010,267 to £47,219,792, with

  361
  the growth in the number of trusts from 156 in 1992–93 to 292 in 1993–94, an increase in expenditure on cars of about 5 per cent. per trust. The total expenditure on cars for staff was £76,271,287 in 1993–94, as against £70,465,834 in 1992–93. The provision of lease cars for NHS staff working in regional and district health authorities and for those working in NHS trusts on Whitely terms and conditions are governed by section 24 of the general Whitley Council handbook. Under these arrangements, employees contribute to costs of lease cars according to the amount of private mileage included in the lease car contract. The figures do not take account of employee contributions for private use of lease cars, since this information is not held centrally. In some cases, cars are offered to trust staff as part of remuneration packages. A survey on the use of lease cars in the NHS was carried out by the general Whitely Council management side secretariat during June 1994. The replies showed 62 per cent of cars being used by nurses, midwives and doctors.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average size of classes in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Doncaster in January; and what was the figure for the previous 12 months. [38633]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average size of single teacher classes in maintained schools in Doncaster local education authority area

  Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994

  27.5

  21.1

  19951

  28.1

  21.4

  1 Provisional.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure adequate funding for long-term research projects in United Kingdom universities. [38912]

  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has allocated £636 million for support for basic research and the research infrastructure in English universities and colleges this year. It is for institutions themselves to decide how to spend their funds and what priority they attach to long-term research projects.

  Barnsley-Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the employers in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area who have been given the investors in people award; and if she will list the employers who have currently made a commitment to meeting the standard. [39454]
  362
  Mr. Paice
  The companies in the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council area who have been recognised as investors in people are:Bridon Ropes, JI Case, Reed Northern Newspapers, HMP Lindhome, Barnsley College, ACE Conveyor, Apollo Travel, Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, BYDA, Chamber of Commerce and Training, Doncaster Careers, G Page Holdings Look and Learn. Mercedez Benz, Rossington Comprehensive, Russell Eaton, The Hayfield School and the Weldrick Group.

  Companies in the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council area who have made a commitment to investors in people are:
  ABB Passenger Services Ltd, Addspace/Coltran, Amocura, Barnsley Benefits Agency, Barnsley Hospital, Barnsley NHS Trust, Benefits Agency Doncaster, BMBC Catering, BTCV (Charity), BTCV (Enterprise), Care Homes Thorne, Doncaster College, Dunlop Slazenger, Grampian Country Foods, Haslam Homes, Hepworth Building Products Barnsley, Hepworth Building Products Doncaster, Hepworth Refractories, Hoyland Fox, KOYO, Lyons Cakes, Midland Bank Data Centre, Moorlands Prison, MP Burke, Naylor Brothers, Pilkington, Pindar Nursing Home, PLM Redfearn, Ardsley Moat House, Benton House Nursing Home, Billington Structures, BLP Group, BMB Builders Merchants, BMBC TES, Cambertown, Cameron Motor Services, Campsmount School, Danum Hotel, Doncaster Health Authority, Dunstan Brearley Travel, DVBS, Edfington School, FM Ball, Fosters Bakery, Fox's Music, Kostal, Monkton Coke, Northern College, Perry's, Priory School, Regent Hotel, Siddall & Hilton, SPG, Spring Choice, Sue Ryder Home, Sqllow Wood Nursing Home, Syndicate Group, Taylor Bracewell, Tranmoor Primary School, Walter Frank, Willis Supermarkets, Winterbottom Wire, Regency Doors, The Dome and Yorkshire Traction.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much funding the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has allocated to childminders undertaking the national vocational course in child care and education; [39478]

  (2) if the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC assists childminders undertaking the national vocational qualification course in child care and education at (a) level 2 and (b) level 3. [39476]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when her Department last checked the credit rating of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; and if she will make a statement. [39542]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department for Education and Employment carries out an assessment of Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council's financial viability on an annual basis.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what facilities are available to(a) her Department and (b) training providers to check the changing credit rating assessments of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC. [39510]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not undertake credit rating checks on Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council. An annual assessment of financial viability is made, and the financial status of the TEC is continually monitored by qualified accountants within the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Copies of the TEC's annual accounts are placed in the Library. Copies are also lodged with Companies House and these are available to training providers. Information

  363
  is also provided by credit rating organisations in the private sector which offer assessments of TECs as part of their normal business. It is for individual training providers to decide if they need a credit rating assessment for Barnsley and Doncaster TEC.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current percentage pass rate at Barnsley and Doncaster TEC of general national vocational qualification students; and how this compares with previous results. [39470]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is operational information on the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council and the question would be best addressed to the TEC to answer.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many training weeks(a) were promised and (b) were undertaken for (i) employment training, (ii) youth training and (iii) other programmes for the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC for each year since its inception. [39464]

  Mr. Paice
  Since the inception of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC the total number of training weeks for employment training, youth training and other programmes allocated and paid for against the contract is as follows:

  Contract year 1991–92

  Programme

  Allocated

  Delivered

  Youth training

  237,801

  229,578

  ET participation

  130,000

  126,889

  Source:

  GOYC Management Information/invoice records data.

  Contract year 1992–93

  Programme

  Allocation

  Delivered

  Youth training

  236,577

  228,023

  ET participation

  118,953

  118,953

  Source:

  GOYH Management information/invoice data on ROCs.

  Contract year 1993–94

  Programme

  Allocation

  Delivered

  Youth training

  226,407

  212,028

  Training for work participation

  136,032

  136,032

  Source:

  RHOMIS/invoice data.

  Contract year 1994–95

  Programme

  Allocation

  Delivered

  YT, youth credits and modern apprenticeships

  204,837

  194,540

  Training for work participation

  140,897

  139,101

  Source:

  RHOMIS/invoice data.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the budget agreed with the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 broken down by programme area. [39475]
  364
  Mr. Paice
  The agreed budget for Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is as shown in the table:

  £ thousands

  Programme

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1. Standard programmes

  Youth programmes

  10,902.7

  10,750.8

  Accelerated modern apprentiships

  n/a

  95.8

  FE development fund

  n/a

  110.8

  FE competitiveness fund

  n/a

  378.0

  Work related further education

  1,010.0

  n/a

  Careers guidance

  359.4

  397.2

  Careers libraries

  16.7

  16.9

  Work experience

  n/a

  25.6

  Training for work (including allowances)

  13,786.3

  10,358.0

  Employer investment in people

  532.1

  678.4

  Childcare

  129.4

  177.8

  Learning for work

  78.1

  n/a

  Skills for small businesses

  n/a

  72.4

  Management fee

  1,917.9

  1,906.3

  2. Coal programmes

  Training for work (including allowances)

  3,925.6

  2,100.0

  Management fee

  83.0

  83.0

  These are Department for Education and Employment budgets only.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met representatives of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC to discuss its budget. [39523]

  Mr. Paice
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment does not meet representatives of Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council to discuss its budget. Officials from the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside meet TEC representatives monthly.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were trained by Barnsley and Doncaster TEC in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [39452]

  Mr. Paice
  The total numbers starting youth training and training for work in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area are given in the table:

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC total starts in year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Youth Training

  5,070

  5,370

  Training for Work

  10,040

  7,360

  Source:

  TEC Management Information Returns.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take steps to ensure the continued existence of GCSE examinations in Cornish. [40489]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for the GCSE examining groups, as independent commercial enterprises, to decide which subjects outside the national curriculum they wish to offer at GCSE. The Government cannot and should not require the groups to continue to offer a particular subject.

  Workfare
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on workfare. [38682]

  Mr. Forth
  The term "workfare" can mean many things. As I understand, it usually refers to a universal compulsory work creation programme. We must be clear that the Government cannot create jobs; only the economy can do that. The Department's priority is to get unemployed people into jobs, and we have a wide range of provision to help them.

  Unemployed people must make every effort to get work and it is right to require them, if necessary, to undertake appropriate action to do so. The Government have always made it clear that they do not rule out the use of targeted compulsory work experience programmes if it is shown that these help people back to work. We believe it is right to require activity that is focused firmly on what is most appropriate to the individual's circumstances.

  Education Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Education Council held of 23 October 1995. [40115]

  Mr. Forth
  On 23 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) attended the Council of EC Education Ministers. The Council adopted a decision allowing the conclusion of a bilateral agreement in higher education and vocational training with the United States. The Council and the representatives of the Governments of the member states adopted a resolution on the response of education systems to the problems of racism and xenophobia and the Council also agreed conclusions on social participation as a factor for quality in non-university education.

  Political agreement was reached on a bilateral agreement in higher education and vocational training with Canada which will be taken as an "A" point at a future Council.

  Ministers received information from the European Commission on the European Year of Lifelong Learning; multimedia education software; and the forthcoming Commission White Paper on education and training. The presidency reported on preparations for the Euro-Med conference to be held in Barcelona on 27–28 November.

  After the conclusion of Council business, a meeting was held with Education Ministers of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe to discuss prospects for their eventual participation in EC education, training and youth exchange programmes.

  Stapio Insecticide
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 145, what materials are disclosed on the invoice held by the Treasury Solicitor as having been used to spray the Grays unemployment benefits office on 8 October 1991; [40223]
  366
  (2) what properties are claimed for the chemical compound Novastet in relation to extermination of cockroaches and other insects; and if she will make a statement; [40224]

  (3) if it was an implied condition for the contractors who sprayed chemicals at the Grays unemployment benefit office on 8 October 1991 to have public liability insurance; and if she will make a statement; [40225]

  (4) what was the nature of the insect infestation as a result of which the Grays unemployment benefit office was sprayed on 8 October 1991. [40226]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D.J. Lifton to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 1 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about Grays Unemployment Benefit Office (UBO).

  You asked what materials are disclosed on the invoice held by the Treasury Solicitor as having been used to spray Grays UBO on 8 October 1991. The invoice does not make reference to materials and I attach a copy (Annex 1) for information.

  You also asked what properties are claimed for the chemical compound Novastet in relation to the extermination of cockroaches and other insects. The Chief Executive's letter to you of 5 October provided a copy of the latest manufacturer's Data Hazard Sheet for Novastet.

  You asked whether it was an implied condition for the contractors who sprayed chemicals at Grays UBO on 8 October 1991 to have public liability insurance. I am advised that it was not.

  Finally, you asked what was the nature of the insect infestation which led to the spraying at Grays UBO. I am advised that the insects were black beetles.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: Invoice from CDR services to Grays Unemployment Benefit Office, Essex, dated 14 November 1991

  Date

  Description

  Price

  VAT

  Total

  U.B.O. Grays.

  8 October 1991

  Spraying to de-infest fleas

  £191.35

  £33.46

  £224.71

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to make training and enterprise council board members more accountable to the community. [40424]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are already accountable to their local communities in a number of ways. The contract Government have with TECs requires them to publish summaries of their corporate and business plans, to hold public meetings at least annually and to publish an annual report. All TECs have endorsed the TEC National Council framework on local accountability to which they are required to have due regard under their contract.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how individual training and enterprise council board members' activities are monitored to ensure they are in the public interest. [40420]
  367
  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies. The activities of the directors are a matter for the TECs themselves in compliance with company law. The Government contract with TECs requires them to maintain a register of directors' interests, which is open to regular inspection by staff from the Government regional office. All TECs have endorsed the TEC National Council framework on local accountability and the Cadbury code on corporate governance to which they are required to have due regard under their contract.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the Confederation of British Industry's review of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies, "Making Labour Markets Work", and its recommendation in respect of enhanced local democracy. [40440]

  Mr. Paice
  In July this year the Training and Enterprise Council National Council published a "Framework for the Local Accountability of TECs in England and Wales". The framework, which is based on the principles of openness, integrity and accountability, covers the issues relating to local accountability addressed by the Confederation of British Industry in its 1993 report, and in particular the recommendation that the council develops a voluntary code of practice. TECs are required by their contract with Government to have due regard to the framework. Local enterprise companies in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the merger arrangements between training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce. [40423]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government have agreed to a pilot programme of voluntary mergers to test local initiatives which build on the existing strengths of training and enterprise councils and chambers. So far five proposals for merger have been approved.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to(a) increase the numbers of directors on training and enterprise boards, (b) maintain a register of board members' interests, (c) appoint directors for specific terms of office and (d) ensure that directors receive initial training. [40419]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no plans to increase the number of directors on the boards of training and enterprise councils. The contract the Government have with TECs requires them to maintain a register of the declared interests of directors. As private companies, the organisation of TECs is set out in their articles of association. These require the directors to seek re-election by the membership every three years. Induction training is a matter for each TEC board.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what actions she plans to take to promote women, representatives of ethnic minority groups and the voluntary sector becoming involved in training and enterprise council boards of directors. [40421]
  368
  Mr. Paice
  As private companies, training and enterprise councils are responsible for the appointment of their directors. The Government's contract with a TEC requires at least two thirds of the directors to be chairmen, chief executives, senior partners or top operational managers from the private sector. The remaining directors should have equivalent status and be drawn from education, economic development, trade unions, voluntary organisations or the public sector. Directors are appointed as individuals and not as the representatives of another organisation. The Training and Enterprise Council National Council framework on local accountability, endorsed by all TECs, expects boards to have the necessary breadth and balance to reflect the priorities of the local community and economy.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons undertaking employment training and training for work schemes left without a qualification in the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [40438]

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

  Employment training/training for work England and Wales—Percentage of leavers without a full qualification or credit towards one

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  67

  1991–92

  63

  1992–93

  59

  1993–94

  56

  April 1994-January 1995

  52

  Source:

  ET and TFW National Follow-Up Surveys.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she plans to take to promote employment training and training for work within the ethnic minority community; and how she plans to pursue an improvement in qualification pass rates. [40418]

  Mr. Paice
  Training for work, which replaced employment training in April 1994, is delivered locally by training and enterprise councils. They have contractual obligations to promote equality of opportunities for all their activities. To help them meet these obligations, the Department has recently issued an updated equal opportunities good practice guide.

  The Department recognises the importance of qualification and monitors closely the achievement rates of the ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority communities. TFW's main focus, however, is on jobs and we have set each TEC targets that reflect this. TECs are paid substantial premiums for trainees requiring basic literacy and numeracy or for whom English is a second language.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how she plans to prevent abuse of output-related funding schemes within training for work; and if she will make a statement. [40422]
  369
  Mr. Paice
  Output-related funding in training for work provides an effective incentive to produce results for participants in the form of jobs and qualifications. Any specific allegations of abuse are investigated. The Department has stringent audit requirements in its contracts with TECs. Measures have been taken to assist awarding bodies to enhance their verification of NVQs within training for work.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by her Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40528]

  Mr. Forth
  I know of none.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how often her Department and each agency within it has failed to pay invoices due to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last five years. [40527]

  Mr. Forth
  Information in the form requested is not available. In the Department and its agencies, over 95 per cent. of bills are paid within 30 days.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in her (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40863]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £6,773—£9,499

  1995–96: £6,928—£9,716

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95: £95,000—£99,999

  1995–96: £95,000—£99,999

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals in(a) her Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, received annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000 (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in each year since 1985–86. [40862]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Other than pension contributions, benefits in kind are not normally paid to staff in the Department, agencies and NDPBs. As members of the principal civil service pensions scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme's rule, which has been deposited in the Library.

  The numbers receiving annual remuneration above the sums specified, excluding pension benefits in the years in question, was: (i) nil, (ii) nil, (iii) nil.

  Skills Shortages
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment her Department has made of skills shortages experienced by British exporters. [40538]

  Mr. Paice
  In. October 1995 10 per cent. of manufacturing firms, of which the majority of companies surveyed are exporters, expect skill shortages to limit output over the next four months. This is similar to recent quarters and well below the levels observed in the 1980s.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment her Department has made of the impact of(a) skills training and (b) management training on the likelihood of small businesses surviving. [40547]

  Mr. Paice
  The "Winning Report", published by DTI and CBI in 1994, shows that training is increasingly a key element in business success. On small firms, the 1994 skill needs in Britain survey provides clear evidence that smaller businesses need to improve management and skills training. The last two competitiveness White Papers have announced measures to encourage training in small firms.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future administration of teachers' pensions in England and Wales. [41373]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I announced on 7 June 1995 that we were inviting expressions of interest for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. In the light of the expressions of interest that we received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that we should proceed to the next stage and invite some of the companies concerned to tender for a contract. Inviting tenders will give the companies the opportunity to show whether they could administer the scheme at lower cost and to the required standard. The taxpayer is entitled to the best possible value for money in the administration of the scheme.

  We are inviting six companies to tender: Abbey National Benefit Consultants Ltd., Capita Group Plc, Colonial Mutual Group (UK Holdings) Ltd., CSL Group Ltd., Hartshead Solway Ltd. and ITnet Ltd.

  All six have declared that they would: intend to seek a fee for administering the scheme that was lower than the expected cost of keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector; and agree in any contract to provide a standard of service and performance that was at least as high as that which the Teachers' Pensions Agency would provide.

  We shall let a contract only if it would be better value for money than keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the scheme continues to operate smoothly and without interruption. We continue to expect that any contract would start in the latter part of 1996.
  371
  We are advised that staff of the Department for Eduction and Employment who transferred to a contractor would be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. All six companies say that they would intend to keep the core administration of the scheme at its current location in Darlington. All six see possibilities for introducing new business.

  We shall lay a draft order under section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 at the start of the coming Parliamentary Session. It will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. Once approved, it will allow my right hon. Friend to authorise a contractor to administer the scheme.

  I reaffirm that a contractor would not be allowed to use data on teachers for purposes other than administering the scheme. All the companies have declared that they would keep data concerning members of the scheme confidential.

  I also reaffirm that any contract would concern only the administration of the scheme. Whether or not we let a contract, the scheme itself will stay in the public sector, on its current statutory basis.

  Letting a contract would not affect the size of safety of teachers' pensions. The scheme has no real pension fund. Instead payments are made to and from the Exchequer; and the Exchequer guarantees, in effect, the payments to which retired teachers are entitled under the regulations that govern the scheme.

  We shall shortly invite representatives of teachers and their employers to comment on a draft statement of the service that any contactor would have to provide in administering the scheme. Similar invitations will go to the staff of the TPA itself and to the six companies that we are inviting to tender. We shall take careful account of all the comments that we receive before finalising the statement.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by individual case the number of industrial tribunal and fair employment applications lodged against each(a) college and (b) university in England for each year since 1990; how many cases have been upheld against the colleges and universities; how many cases have resulted in a settlement which has involved payments being made by an education and library board or university; and if she will make a statement. [39508]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the industrial tribunals has now passed to my Department. Information about individual parties to industrial tribunal cases is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a list of the(a) regional, (b) full-time and (c) part-time chairs of industrial tribunals stating in each case their previous or past occupation and positions and any relevant interest they have declared. [40494]

  Mr. Evans
  I have been asked to reply.
  372
  Responsibility for the industrial tribunals has now passed to my Department. A list of all industrial tribunal chairmen, giving their previous occupations, will be placed in the Library at the earliest opportunity. Details of positions held and any relevant interests they have declared could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training and Employment Grants Scheme
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on how the training and employment grants scheme operates in Scotland; what criteria are used to assess entitlement; how post codes are used to identify eligible areas and if he will make a statement. [39294]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The training and employment grants scheme is operated by Scottish Enterprise through its network of local enterprise companies. The scheme is designed to increase access to employment opportunities for young and long-term unemployed people, and to enhance their employability through the provision of training and work experience. The scheme operates in selected postcode areas of Scotland where employment opportunities are generally low and unemployment high. The designation of the eligible areas for TEGS is a two-tier process. The first tier ranks every postcode in the SE area based on levels of unemployment. Three factors are applied: the proportion of unemployed people in the area, numbers of long-term unemployed males and the rate of change in the numbers of long-term unemployed males. The second tier relies on judgments by LECs based on their knowledge of local needs and unemployment patterns using a number of criteria which focus on linking unemployed people into the wider economy.

  Unemployment (Carers)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what analysis she has of current levels of unemployment among(a) male and (b) female carers and past carers. [38546]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available information from the labour force survey shows that in spring 1995 there were 23,000 International Labour Organisation unemployed women who stated that their previous occupation was a care assistant or attendant. The number of ILO unemployed men whose previous occupation was in these categories is too few to provide a reliable estimate.

  Information is also available from the autumn 1994 LFS, which shows that there were 68,000 men and 246,000 women who said they were economically inactive—not in employment or ILO unemployed—because they were looking after a dependent adult relative.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional revenue
  373
  is allowed to local education authorities over the capping levels to provide the additional services to meet local demands? [38789]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the 1995–96 capping criteria even those local education authorities budgeting above their standard spending assessment were able to increase their budgets
  374
  by a minimum of 0.5 per cent. over the previous year. Within its overall budget, it is a matter for each authority to decide on its relative priorities in the light of local needs.

  We will announce our provisional decisions on the local government finance settlement for 1996–97 and our intentions for capping shortly after the Chancellor's Budget statement. We will consult authorities and others on our proposals at that time.

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

Lord Eames
The Most Reverend Robert Henry Alexander Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, having been created Baron Eames, of Armagh in the County of Armagh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Blease and the Lord Weatherill.
Lord Vernon Lord Vernon— Took the Oath.

Organophosphates: Australian Judgment
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the award made to a sheep shearer by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia (October 1995) for damages for chronic ill health caused by his exposure to sheep which had been treated with the organophosphate Diazinon.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, none. The plaintiff's exposure to Diazinon in the Australian case was the result of a failure to take basic occupational hygiene measures during the shearing process, and the United Kingdom health and safety legislation is already sufficient to prevent this when properly complied with. The plaintiff's long-term symptoms were typical of those experienced by some people after short duration, high level exposures leading to acute poisoning.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I must confess that it is a little disappointing, but I did not expect much more. In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government and manufacturers failed to warn farmers and doctors until 1991 of the acute effects, commonly known as dipping flu, I again ask the noble Lord to look seriously at the cases of the people who believe they have been affected by organophosphates. Is he aware that not one of them has been approached by either the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Health to see what they are suffering from, and the epidemiological study which is now in progress will not cover those people?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall bring the remarks of the noble Countess to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health. I do not have an answer to the question she raised.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, besides the case in Australia, a sheep farmer in this country was awarded damages for OP poisoning by an industrial tribunal in Newcastle in December 1994? Since that poisoning took place during the years when
1420
the Government imposed compulsory sheep dipping, does the Minister agree that the Government's arguments that these products are safe look increasingly threadbare?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, organophosphorus is a very toxic substance. It is a nerve poison of some known potency. It is necessary to be extremely cautious when using it. However, if used safely, like many other medicines and insecticides it is safe.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he tell the House how many of the 90,000 sheep farmers have passed the test of competence introduced by the Government as a safety measure?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, anyone who purchases OP sheep dips these days has to have that certificate of competence. So far as I am aware, to date about 12,000 people have that certificate. However, we are certain there is no route whereby OP sheep dips can he purchased without one.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that organophosphate resins are not used on milking dairy cows? Will he accept the danger, however remote, of contamination as a result of using that process?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, OP pour-ons are used, and have been used for a long time, on dairy cows. They are put on straight after milking so that there is no risk of contamination at milking time. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, hygiene standards in dairies are very high these days; otherwise, contamination of the milk with bacteria would be picked up in the dairies and would result in the farmer facing unpleasant financial consequences.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not only sheep farmers but also dairy farmers believe that they are suffering from organophosphate poisoning? Tests with sheep dip prove that the organophosphate remains in the sheep's wool until at least 10 weeks after dipping. Is it not carrying belief a little too far to consider that a dairy farmer can work in an enclosed milking parlour within about eight hours of pouring an organophosphate product on to the back of his cows without being affected? What tests have been undertaken to prove that the product is absolutely safe?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware that any problem with cows has been brought to our notice resulting from use of organophosphorus pour-ons. Regarding the alleged chronic effects of organophosphorus compounds, the noble Countess will be aware that we are currently spending £0.5 million on the study to find out whether there are any such effects. To date, we have no evidence that there are.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, having listened to the marvellous campaign waged by the noble Countess, and having heard the Minister, I am more convinced by the noble Countess's allegations than by the Minister's defensive replies. Instead of waiting for complaints to

1421
be made to them, is it not time for the Government to approach farmers in order to investigate the allegations and do something positive?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I said, we are spending £0.5 million on the matter. I congratulate the noble Countess on her campaign which she has waged long and hard. I have listened to it with great interest over many years. It is no mean compliment to her efforts that we are spending £0.5 million in pursuit of a symptom which we have no evidence exists.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Auckland
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they will table for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Auckland.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, no formal proposals have been tabled. However, the Commonwealth Secretary-General has proposed that the theme for the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland should be "Fulfilling the Harare Declaration". That should be considered under three headings: advancing Commonwealth fundamental political values; promoting sustainable development; and facilitating consensus building.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. The Commonwealth has gained an enviable reputation as a powerful tool for good. Given Britain's policy of matching secretariat contributions at 30 per cent., does the Minister accept that there is a double negative effect if contributors reduce their pledges? What can be done to encourage the new rich members of the Commonwealth to increase their contributions?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Government pay 30 per cent. of the secretariat's assessed budget. The ODA contributes 30 per cent. towards the cost of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, which is the aid wing of the Commonwealth secretariat.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will work with his fellow heads of government for practical proposals under each of those headings and in particular for Commonwealth support for enhanced co-operation between Commonwealth governments to promote good government in all member states.
I am sure that the noble Viscount will concede that the Commonwealth is not only about money.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the role of the UK in the Commonwealth conferences remains important? Will he tell your Lordships' House what action Her Majesty's Government will take in bilateral contacts at the Auckland meeting in order to persuade Gambia, Sierra Leone and, above all, the Government of Nigeria that
1422
continuing membership of the Commonwealth is consistent only with making real progress on the Harare Declaration?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Government are totally against any countries which are militarily directed. However, it is felt that there is a greater chance of improving government by assisting through the Commonwealth rather than by refusing such assistance.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I do not press the Minister for a substantive reply. However, will he convey to the Prime Minister that many of us believe that as regards Nigeria, a constructive proposal should be put forward rather than sitting back and doing nothing? A possible proposal could be to send a Commonwealth delegation—we sent such a delegation to South Africa some years ago—in order to seek to discuss with General Abacha the requirement that Nigeria should return to democratic rule and to proper civil rights within a lesser period than the three years now proposed.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. I shall relay it to the Prime Minister.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will there be consideration at the Auckland summit of new members coming into the Commonwealth who have not hitherto had any connection with it? If that is so, will such membership involve accepting Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth? What will that entail; and what are the figures?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have received a number of applications from other countries for membership of the Commonwealth. We believe that the Commonwealth should contain only countries which have some historical link with either Britain or other Commonwealth countries; it is not a totally British preserve. If there is no historical link between that country and the Commonwealth, the matter will need careful consideration.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, reverting to the Minister's earlier supplementary answers regarding this Question, does he agree that the financial measures which the Government take in support of strengthening the Commonwealth are a fraction of the money that is wasted in the European Community?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as regards Europe, we limited our contribution in Edinburgh, which was a great achievement.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister has placed emphasis on the importance of shared values in the Commonwealth. Will he accept that for the Commonwealth to continue emphasising the importance of human rights while doing nothing effective about the situations in Nigeria, The Gambia and Sierra Leone and, worse, actually admitting to membership at this juncture

1423
the Cameroons with its human rights record is diminishing the concepts both of human rights and shared values?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that we can do more through the Commonwealth by not cutting off those countries from the Commonwealth and trying as best we can to improve good government.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend who is to represent the United Kingdom at the conference to approach the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth in order to seek the inclusion on the agenda of a proposal to obtain the agreement of the Heads of Government to press the United Nations Security Council to consider, as a matter of urgency, what further steps can be taken to implement the Security Council's recommendations in Resolutions Nos. 541, 550 and 939 on the problem of Cyprus?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, while the situation is primarily the concern of the United Nations, representations may be made to the Secretary-General by anyone for a matter to be included on the agenda.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I may have misheard the Minister but will he emphasise the importance of keeping channels of communication and dialogue open at all times?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not worth thinking twice about the idea of refusing entry to the Commonwealth countries which do not share the history of the British Empire? Now that Namibia has joined the Commonwealth, would it not make good sense if Mozambique were also to apply to join? That would make a complete Commonwealth bloc across the bottom of southern Africa, with South Africa itself and the states immediately to the north.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, Mozambique's application raises a major issue of principle. There is no precedent for accession to the Commonwealth by a country which has no direct or indirect historical links with Britain or another Commonwealth country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in this country there is continuing great support for the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that on two occasions in the past year—the arrest of the Spanish fishermen by Canada and the French nuclear tests—the impression has been given that the views of the Commonwealth have not been properly taken into account? The impression has also been given that this country has supported policies which may be inimical to the Commonwealth itself and to certain countries of the Commonwealth. Will the Minister try to ensure that this matter is addressed and, we hope, resolved at the conference?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take the Commonwealth very seriously, are supportive of it and will do everything that they can to help.

Air Traffic Control Incident, 6th October
3.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have inquired into the failure of the air traffic control computer system in southern England on 6th October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the national air traffic services have investigated the incident and have ascertained that the failure of the air traffic control system on 6th October was caused by a computer software problem relating to the printing of flight data.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware of the replies given on the subject to my Question some years ago by my noble friend Lord Brabazon, the then Minister concerned, that expensive new equipment was about to transform the situation? Is he further aware that the situation was duly transformed later? Is there no standby reserve system to eliminate the great inconvenience imposed on the travelling public in perfect flying conditions, including great congestion at the airports and missed connections?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend was right in quoting the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. There has been ongoing and continued investment, in both computer hardware and software systems as well as in radar services training. That has culminated in the construction of an entirely new all-route centre at Swanwick. The sums involved have been considerable. We continue to place great emphasis on having an extremely reliable air traffic control system, as I believe we now have. Instances when that system fails, in however small a way, are extremely rare.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is idle now to talk in this day and age of a national air traffic control system? Europe is only a regional issue, but in Europe there are 34 systems; 52 air traffic control centres; 18 hardware suppliers; 20 operating systems; and 70 programing languages. Is it any wonder that European air traffic control is in a shambles? Would not the best way to deal with the matter be carefully to investigate the possibility of a unitary system?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are a number of systems and of administrations responsible for air traffic control across Europe. Considerable emphasis has been put into harmonisation and integration programmes. One notable programme, EATCHIP, which has been heavily supported by the United Kingdom, has produced considerable results. Since 1990 we have seen a 25 per cent. increase in the traffic which can be accommodated and a decrease of 20 per cent. in the length of delays. Those are considerable achievements. We see the value

1425
of harmonisation of systems across Europe, but I do not believe that that necessarily means one overall master system.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that EATCHIP—yet another of those awful acronyms for European Air Traffic Control Harmonisation and Integration Programme—is a far better way towards safer skies in this rapidly expanding area which affects millions of travellers, especially during peak holiday times, rather than the proposed single European authority? That would be just another authoritative centralising body which would be seriously vulnerable to disruptions.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that harmonisation programmes have shown what can be done. Considerable emphasis is put on harmonising the systems and there would be real difficulties with having one system. However, we have shown that with considerable political will we have achieved reduced delays and increased air traffic control availability. Those should be our aims and we shall continue to pursue them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give the House an indication of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the extension of Eurocontrol? It has been in existence for some time; but, speaking of only 10 years ago, its development was obstructed by the Government at that time.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Eurocontrol has played a considerable role, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

Criminal Case Sentencing: Public Reaction
3.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposal of the Minister without Portfolio in his speech at Blackpool on 10th October 1995 that members of the public should let judges know if they are dissatisfied with sentences in individual criminal cases now represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I consider that, in the passage referred to, my right honourable friend was not seeking to express a policy of Her Majesty's Government. To achieve the appropriate balance, I should point out that my right honourable friend included reference to expressions of praise and not dissatisfaction only. My right honourable friend also cautioned that, before reaching a view, the public should remember that the judge will have heard all the evidence in a particular case.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord's reply and thank him for it. Does he regard it as rather unusual that a Minister made
1426
a speech on a matter as sensitive as this which is not, as I understand it, the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
In the light of that, does he not have regard to paragraph 87 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers, a copy of which was placed by the Prime Minister in the Library of the House? It indicates that Ministers making speeches outside their own departmental responsibilities must consult the Minister who is directly responsible. Did the Minister without Portfolio consult the noble and learned Lord before making that speech? Many of us will be interested in his reply.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is possible for people to make a speech without enunciating a policy. I believe that is what my right honourable friend did on this occasion. It is not my practice to disclose consultations between myself and other Members of the Government.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I endorse every word that fell from my noble and learned friend, could he perhaps tactfully suggest to the right honourable gentleman concerned that his suggestion will not be universally approved or welcomed by members of the judiciary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it depends on whether the expression is one of praise or dissatisfaction. Not long ago, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, kindly passed on to me his observation of a particular case, saying how well the judge had performed. I was extremely happy to pass his comments on to the judge, and I am sure the judge appreciated them. I am sure that judges, like all others, are very glad to receive appreciations and praise from others. On occasion, I welcome hearing such myself.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, did not Dr. Mawhinney in terms urge the public to,
"let judges know when you are dissatisfied with their sentence because that does have an effect"?
Was he not whipping up write-ins to bring pressure to bear on judges to give tougher sentences, when it is the judges who know all the facts of a particular case and the history of a particular offender? What does the noble and learned Lord advise judges or magistrates to do if, as a result of the exhortations of Dr. Mawhinney, they receive a mail bag attacking a particular sentence as too soft? Does he advise judges to reply with a justification for their decisions or to cause offence by ignoring the letters?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I occasionally receive letters about judicial sentences. My method of dealing with them depends to a good extent on the tone of the letter. Sometimes it appears that the writer is in ignorance of some important fact, often as a result of a rather shortened account of the circumstances in the newspaper. I then write back explaining that position. If, on the other hand, the letter is in the nature of abuse, which sometimes descends on all people holding public office, the appropriate response might be a rather cool acknowledgement.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, with respect, my question to the noble and learned Lord did not relate to

1427
how he deals with his correspondence. My question was: if Her Majesty's judges receive an avalanche of critical letters as a result of the exhortations of Dr. Mawhinney, how does the noble and learned Lord advise them to deal with them—with a reasoned defence of their sentencing decisions, or not?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I had intended to answer the noble Lord's question by stating what I myself do. I believe that those who hold Her Majesty's commission as judges are well able to decide how to handle their correspondence. I suggested the sort of approach that I take, which might well commend itself to judges who receive some correspondence.
So far as I am concerned, the number of such letters is not very large. Everyone has to realise just what a lonely and responsible job passing sentence is. It is not a light matter. Therefore, the latter part of Dr. Mawhinney's advice should be well taken into account before anyone thinks of writing; namely, they should recollect that the judge has heard all the evidence in the case. If they wish to make observations, they should keep that very firmly in mind. I am sure that Dr. Mawhinney would not support the idea of abusive letters, whether they come in an avalanche or otherwise.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend agree that it would be sensible for us all to bear in mind the impact that the powerful air of Blackpool is notorious for having on the balance of certain people's minds?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend will have more experience of that than I.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether "judges" in this context includes magistrates? Will he agree that if the public started writing letters to unpaid magistrates, there could be a real difficulty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the speech included not only professional judges but also lay judges; that is to say, magistrates. I take it that correspondence addressed to magistrates would be handled on their behalf by court officials. That would he the appropriate way in which a response might be put forward on their behalf. But again, the principles would be the same as I enunciated earlier.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that Parliament has laid down very stringent restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment? They are to be found in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as amended by the Act of 1993. In short, they provide that,
"the court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion… that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or … where the offence is a violent or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm".
1428
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that for observations such as were made by the Minister to go out to the public can only tend to confuse and mislead, the public not knowing of the restrictions that Parliament has imposed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that Dr. Mawhinney's speech went into the same level of detail as that in my noble and learned friend's question. It may very well be that, at least in some of the instances, the factors to which my noble and learned friend referred should be taken into account. As I said before, the business of passing sentence is not by any means to be taken lightly. It is full of restrictions, if one cares to look at it in that way. Maxima are usually prescribed; and indeed in cases of driving, minima may also be prescribed in relation to suspension and endorsement. These are complicated matters. I do not believe that my right honourable friend intended to go into that level of detail in his remarks in Blackpool.

Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Declaration and Registration of Interests: Procedure Committee Reports
3.20 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion refers to two reports from the Procedure Committee, both concerned with only one subject, the declaration and registration of interests. The first of the two reports is the committee's third report, which includes an annex containing the report made to the committee by a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths.
I do not propose to attempt to speak about the content of the report of the sub-committee, especially as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, is to speak next. Instead I will confine myself mainly to a few remarks which it is perhaps more appropriate for me to make as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Indeed, your Lordships will no doubt think that it is in fact my duty to put forward the feelings and proposals of the committee.
First, I must say that the Procedure Committee was immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the members of his sub-committee. The subject matter of their inquiry was a difficult one and they must be congratulated on having produced such an admirable and thorough report. Indeed, when the Procedure Committee considered what recommendation to make to the House in relation to the report, the whole committee agreed to welcome the report and to suggest that the House should adopt its recommendations.

1429
The Procedure Committee's conclusions in relation to the sub-committee's report appear in the committee's fifth report, which is the second of the two reports referred to in my Motion. That report includes in an annex the text of a note by the Clerk of the Parliaments indicating how the sub-committee's recommendations might be implemented, in particular those recommendations concerned with the institution of a register.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Committee on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, is proposing to consider matters relating to this House in the near future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has indicated that it would not cause his committee any difficulty if the House were to accept the recommendations of the sub-committee in whole or in part in advance of that consideration.
The Procedure Committee accordingly concluded that, if there were general support in the House, it would be right for the recommendations to be implemented without delay. One particular advantage of that approach would be that the House would have experience of the operation of the new arrangements when considering any proposals which might be made by the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. It would also show, as one would expect, how very seriously the sub-committee and indeed the House itself have taken the whole matter, in some respects choosing to go further than the first report of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
If it becomes clear as a result of this afternoon's debate that it is the general wish of the House to proceed with the implementation of the sub-committee's recommendations, then the House will be invited either in the remaining days of this Session or very early in the new Session to agree to the necessary order or orders. That would enable us all to reflect upon what has been said in this debate and to take into account points that noble Lords will have made.
There are just one or two other observations of a more general nature that I should like to make. They are points which are perhaps rather more for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the leaders of the other parties and the Convener of the Cross-Bench Peers than for me as the Chairman of Committees. I make them simply as a Member of your Lordships' House rather than in any other capacity. I offer them simply as personal views. I take full responsibility for them and they have no greater authority than that.
I am conscious, as no doubt we all are, that not all Members of your Lordships' House approach these proposals with enthusiasm, even though some at least of those Members are prepared to go along with them— albeit with a measure of reluctance. If adopted, they will amount to a departure of some significance from our previous procedures. There is also the perfectly valid point that your Lordships have been forthcoming in declaring interests where appropriate in accordance with our existing practice.
1430
However, we are all of us, I am sure, conscious of at least two points that have been mentioned in the course of our consideration of these matters. One is that among people generally there is a greater expectation these days that there will be more disclosure rather than less; and that it would be wrong not to take account of public opinion. The other is that the public perception of Parliament is such that some people find it hard to distinguish between the two Houses or to understand why there should be different rules. But I submit that it has to be borne firmly in mind that there are, of course, clear differences between your Lordships' House and another place, most notably perhaps in its composition and the fact that this is, in substance, a voluntary Chamber. There are other obvious differences as well.
I hope very much that, if your Lordships decide in due course to adopt these proposals, Members of your Lordships' House who are not enthusiastic about them but are prepared to go along with them will not feel inhibited from taking part in our proceedings in the future. I have long felt that one of the great strengths of this place is that Members have outside interests and we are able to draw upon the extensive expertise of so many Members, with wide experience of so many matters outside the House. It is of great benefit to the House and therefore to the nation that such knowledge is made available. It would be a great loss if we (the House and the nation) were to be deprived of the service performed by those Members. So, as just one Member of your Lordships' House, I hope very much indeed that those Members will not feel inhibited from continuing to take part and will keep giving us the benefit of their wisdom, guidance and knowledge gained from their outside interests.
My Lords, I commend the reports to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Third and Fifth Reports from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House and of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Declaration and Registration of Interests (HL Papers 90 and 98).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following are the reports referred to:

Third Report from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House
DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
The Committee has received the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed "to consider the practice of the House in relation to financial and other interests of members, and in particular the case for a register of interests, and to make recommendations". The Committee expresses its gratitude to the Sub-Committee, and its Chairman, Lord Griffiths, for undertaking this enquiry. The Committee will meet again after the summer recess to give further consideration to the recommendations made in the Report. The Committee hopes that time may be found for a debate on the Report as early as possible thereafter.
In the meantime, the Committee would like members of the House and others to have the opportunity to study the Report, which is accordingly printed as an Annex to this Report.

Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House
DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
The Committee has given further consideration to the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed, under the chairmanship of Lord Griffiths, "to consider the practice of the House in relation to financial and other interests of members, and in particular the case for a register of interests, and to make recommendations". The Report was printed as an Annex to the Committee's Third Report (HL Paper 90).
The Committee welcomes the Report, and recommends that its recommendations be adopted by the House. Annexed to this Report is a note prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments suggesting what procedure might be adopted.
The Committee understands that the Committee on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan, expects to consider issues relating to the House of Lords in 1996. Lord Nolan has indicated to the Leader of the House that it would not cause his committee any difficulty if the House were to accept the recommendations of Lord Griffiths' Sub-Committee in whole or in part in advance of that consideration.
The Committee accordingly considers that, provided that there is general support in the House it would be helpful if the recommendations were implemented without delay, ideally from the beginning of the next session of Parliament. The Committee therefore hopes that a general debate on the Report will be held as soon as possible. In the event of there being general support for its recommendations, the order or orders implementing them should be brought before the House before the end of this session, and on that occasion the House could divide, if it were so desired, on the recommendations as a whole or on any details to which exception was taken.

Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House

  Annex
  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
  1. The Sub-Committee's Report recommends, in paragraph 38, revised guidance in relation to Lords' outside interests. This could simply be adopted by the House and thus included in the next edition of the Companion.
  2. Paragraph 46 recommends the institution of a register covering "any arrangements, such as consultancies, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services, or any similar arrangement; and any financial interest in a business involved in Parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients". Subsequent paragraphs elaborate on this recommendation, and allow for the voluntary registration of other interests. An order of the House would initially be appropriate for establishing such a register. Subsequently, once experience of the arrangements had shown whether any amendments were desirable, the arrangements could be incorporated in a Standing Order. The initial order might be along the following lines:
  "That there shall be established a register of:
  1) any arrangements, such as consultancies, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services, or any similar arrangement; and any financial interest in a business involved in Parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients; and
  2) any other particulars which members of the House wish to register relating to matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way in which they discharge their Parliamentary duties.
  The register shall be maintained under the authority of the Clerk of the Parliaments by a Registrar appointed by him.
  Arrangements falling within category (1) shall be registered within one month of being made.
  The register shall be available for public inspection in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Registrar.
  The register shall also be published annually. The annual edition shall include all arrangements registered since the previous edition and all continuing arrangements unless their termination has been notified to the Registrar.
  The operation of the register shall be overseen by the Committee for Privileges."
  3. The final sentence of the above should suffice to deal with matters of detail such as the form of publication of entries in the Register, which could be considered and approved by the Committee for Privileges.
  4. Paragraphs 54 to 59 of the Sub Committee's Report deal with the enforcement of the obligation to register. It is proposed that alleged failure to register should be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges. Arrangements relating to sub-committees are normally the responsibility of the parent committee rather than of the House, so it would be appropriate for the House simply to give the Committee power to delegate this matter to a sub-committee. An order along the following lines would be appropriate (and might be added to the order set out above):
  "The Committee for Privileges shall investigate, and report to the House on, any allegation of failure to register interests within category (1); provided that the Committee shall first satisfy itself that an allegation has sufficient substance to warrant investigation.
  The Committee may remit any or all of the matters covered by this order to a sub-committee.
  In considering any of the matters covered by this order, the Committee and any sub-committee shall not sit unless three Lords of Appeal be present."
  3.28 p.m.
  Lord Griffiths: My Lords, perhaps I may commence my short introduction of the sub-committee's report by expressing the thanks of the sub-committee to all those noble Lords—some 50 of them—who gave us the benefit of their advice in writing. I must also thank those who responded to our request to come and assist the committee with oral evidence. We are most grateful to all of them for all the help that we received in what we found to be not an easy task.
  The committee commenced its deliberations, with the assistance of an excellent paper produced by the Clerk of the Parliaments, by reviewing the past practice of the House which eventually led to the present guidance on declaration of interests which was last revised in 1990. It then proceeded to receive oral evidence. At the end of the reception of the oral evidence, the first report of the Nolan Committee was published on 11th May. We naturally paid the closest attention to its contents and particularly its recommendations for the other place. But we were conscious that the composition, the traditions and the practices of this House are different to those of the other place. We therefore approached our task not by seeking to transpose the Nolan recommendations (with slight amendments) to this House, but to consider what was best for this House.
  The last major review of practice in relation to Members' interests was carried out by a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee over 20 years ago, in 1974. That was in response to the decision of the other place

  1433
  to introduce a register of Members' interests. The sub-committee made no firm recommendation as to whether or not there should be a register. It may be fair to sum it up by saying that it wobbled slightly against it. The sub-committee concluded that,
  "Declaration should be the basic practice of the House for making known the personal interests of Peers when these are relevant to debate. A register, if adopted, should be treated as supplementary".
  With some minor modifications that remains the recommendation of the sub-committee. However, the report contained the following trenchant passage, where it stated that the 1974 sub-committee,
  "find it inconsistent with the traditions or proper function of the House that any Peer should act in the House as a paid agent of someone else or that he should continue to act in the House in any cause for which he has recently been a paid agent, whether or not his interest is declared".
  The report therefore endorsed what was then the entry in the Companion, which stated,
  "It is, however, considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation, in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward".
  "Considered undesirable" is our language for, "It is out of order" or "You should not".
  In the present guidance the word "specific" is introduced; and the guidance now reads,
  "but it is considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation if he is acting or has acted personally in direct connection with it for a specific fee or reward, or to vote on a Private Bill in which he has a direct pecuniary interest".
  That has apparently been interpreted as meaning, "Whereas you may not accept a specific fee—say £1,000—to speak on a specific occasion in favour of a specific measure, it is permissible to receive a general retainer". That means merely this: that it is perfectly all right to speak seven times for £14,000, but not once for £2,000. I cannot believe that that was the intention sought by the introduction of the word "specific". Indeed, I had the matter looked up and the earlier advice had been thought by some to inhibit those who were professionally qualified from speaking on behalf of members of their profession. That is why it was amended by introducing the word "specific". How it was thought that that had been achieved is not for me to say; but that is the history behind the matter.
  We then considered the present position and in the past 20 years there have been three developments that were never faced by those who considered the revision in 1974. First, there has been a greatly increased public interest and awareness of the behaviour of those in public life; secondly, there has been a great growth in the parliamentary lobbying industry; and, thirdly, there has been the emergence of the profession of parliamentary consultant.
  The Nolan Committee, by an analysis of the register of the other place, found that around 30 per cent. of the Members of that House were paid parliamentary consultants. As we have no register, we had no means of knowing with any certainty how many Members of this House hold such consultancies. I doubt that it is anything like as much as 30 per cent. of Members; I
  1434
  expect it to be a fraction of that, around 1 or 2 per cent. No doubt there are some, and that was certainly a development that we had to consider.
  Building on past traditions of the House, of which I have already spoken, the majority of us concluded that the guidance on declaration of interest should now be founded on two fundamental principles:
  "(1) Lords should act always on their personal honour; and,
  (2) Lords should never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising Parliamentary influence".
  I should have thought that was self-evident. Starkly, I would say, "You must not sell parliamentary influence".
  There is nothing wrong in a Member of this House accepting an appointment as a parliamentary adviser to a company or an institution. The Member may be able to give wise and valuable advice on the workings of this House and how best to approach matters if Parliament is considering something of particular interest to that organisation. But if the Member accepts such a position, he should not play any parliamentary part in furthering the interests of the organisation. If he does, he will be perceived by the public outside as selling his voice and, worse still, selling his vote. Of course he may not be doing that; he may be speaking from conviction. But the price is too high to permit it to be paid.
  The sub-committee therefore recommends extending the guidance to make it clear that those who accept parliamentary advisory posts— "parliamentary consultancy" is the term of art that has now emerged —should not speak, vote, lobby or in any other way use their parliamentary position to further the interests of their client. That we have spelt out in the guidance.
  At this point I wish to make it as clear as I possibly can that this inhibition applies to a very narrow group of persons. As has already been said, it is of the essence of the value of this House that we draw on the experience of the Members. Some noble Lords have said to me, "But I have a consultancy. I am an engineer. I advise a large engineering conglomeration. Does this mean that when a matter comes up in Parliament that affects its interests I cannot speak because I have a consultancy?" Of course not. That is not the type of consultancy one is speaking about. That is not a consultancy one enjoys because of one's membership of this House. It is a consultancy one enjoys because of one's expertise and skill as an engineer. Of course one must place one's knowledge and expertise at the disposal of the House. But naturally one will declare one's interest before doing so. That has been the practice of this House from time immemorial and we have no intention of changing that at all. We are just aiming at this narrow group.
  We also feel that this should extend to those who have interests in parliamentary lobbying companies. They too, if they hold such a position, should not take part in parliamentary affairs on behalf of a client. That is the effect of the extension we recommend in the wording of the guidance.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the register. In so far as those who hold parliamentary consultancies or analogous arrangements or are members of lobbying companies, our recommendation is that there should be

  1435
  a mandatory obligation to register them. They register them and then everyone knows that when something comes up that affects their client they are offside; they must not speak. We had a very long debate—and views were divided—on the advisability of requiring noble Lords to register their interests on a very much wider scale, similar to that in the other place. The majority of us considered that we could not recommend such a mandatory register. For the most part it would have little relevance to the activities in this House of very many noble Lords. It would undoubtedly be a great intrusion into privacy affecting not only them but their families; and, regrettably today, be open to abuse. On the other hand, we recognised that there are many noble Lords who are very active in the House and who might well wish to lay before the public all their various outside interests. We therefore thought that the right course was to recommend that there should be a voluntary register in which one could put down one's interests but that there should be no compulsion to do so.
  Finally, there is the question of discipline. As noble Lords will know, the Nolan Report recommended that an ombudsman be appointed to oversee affairs in the other place. We did not think that there was any necessity for this House to adopt an ombudsman. We believe that the matter can be perfectly satisfactorily investigated and dealt with by the Committee for Privileges and—perhaps I am not the best person to say this—we thought that there was a real advantage to this House in having Law Lords available to sit upon any such committee. They are, after all, judicially trained and they are not the most active of parliamentarians, as noble Lords will have judged from this performance. We did not think that there was any necessity for having an ombudsman and we felt that the matter could be perfectly satisfactorily dealt with by a sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges. If there was a complaint that a Lord had failed to declare an interest or failed to register when he should have done, it would go to the sub-committee which would investigate it; first of all in private to see if a prima facie case could be made out, as a lot of damage could be done by purely mischievous allegations. If, however, the committee was satisfied that there was a prima facie case, the matter would be investigated in public and the noble Lord would have the opportunity of defending himself or of being professionally defended if he so chose. We thought that that would be the most satisfactory way of handling procedures. Of course one cannot expel a Lord if he is found to be in breach but we were satisfied that the shame of any such public finding would be a more than adequate sanction. We are hopeful that such a procedure will never be necessary.
  I conclude by expressing my own personal and deep thanks to the Clerk of the sub-committee, Mr. David Beamish, who gave so much help throughout our procedures and in drafting the report. Lastly, as always, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who came to my rescue and corrected my grammar. In one of the first recommendations about the register that I, not David Beamish, had drafted:
  1436
  "The House should institute a register covering 'any arrangements, such as consultancies, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services, or any similar arrangement'".
  I had a short note from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, castigating me quite rightly about the grammar and suggesting that it would be much improved if it read,
  "any Parliamentary consultancies, or any similar arrangements, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services".
  I gratefully accept that, and commend it to your Lordships.
  3.47 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, implied that he was not a very frequent parliamentary performer. If he will forgive the undoubted impertinence, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that, on the basis of his exposition to us this afternoon, that is a very great pity. If that is the only way we can bring him into regular contact with the Chamber, I hope that we will be able to find him some more investigations to pursue on our behalf.
  This afternoon's debate is on a subject of very great interest and importance to the House. The recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, if implemented, as the Lord Chairman said, would represent a very substantial departure from our custom and as such would be bound to affect the ethos and atmosphere of this place. For that reason alone it is right that we should examine these proposals with care and due deliberation. However, we cannot help but be aware of the climate in which the noble and learned Lord's report has been published. In that climate it is clear that Members of both Houses of Parliament will increasingly be expected to demonstrate to the public at large that they are not abusing their positions. It is therefore equally important that our judgment this afternoon should reflect the second consideration at least as much as the first.
  So I do believe that we are all the more fortunate that the noble and learned Lord undertook the difficult and delicate job of chairing the sub-committee. I can think of no one whose experience and clarity of mind better suited him to the task and I hope, as a result, that our own deliberations this afternoon will reflect his clarity and judgment. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that the House is greatly in the noble and learned Lord's debt and also, of course, in the debt of the other members of the sub-committee. I should also like to express my appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has conducted the Procedure Committee's deliberations and the helpful way he has introduced the debate this afternoon.
  Any noble Lords who have taken the trouble to read my evidence to the sub-committee will perhaps have observed that all my instincts in the matter of declaration of interests are conservative with a small "c". It has always seemed to me that in matters of this kind the simplest rules are the most practical and that to expect noble Lords to declare an interest before

  1437
  speaking, so long as the declaration was pretty specific, had the merit both of simplicity and clarity. After all, in a House with few rules, which relies on courtesy and give and take, our present procedure is entirely consistent with our traditions and transgressors feel the displeasure of the House very keenly and tend not to re-offend. So, when I couple these considerations with the very great difficulties of drawing up rules of a more elaborate nature —and they are, as the sub-committee found, mostly difficulties of definition—I would instinctively be inclined to argue for a continuance of the status quo. After all, the noble and learned Lord found little evidence of wide abuse of the system, as he has told us this afternoon.
  However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in the present climate, this is no longer a sustainable option. We need to be able to find a system that inspires confidence in the public but which at the same time preserves, as far as possible, the ethos and effectiveness of this place. I would suggest to your Lordships that it would be difficult to find a better solution than the one the sub-committee recommend, particularly in the central matter of a register of interests.
  The recommendations which the sub-committee has made, and which the Procedure Committee has endorsed, I believe take as full account as is possible of the nature and circumstances of your Lordships' House. The sub-committee recognised the significance of the fact that noble Lords do not receive a salary and will therefore have other sources of income. It also acknowledged how desirable it was that the House should not be deprived of the benefit of the wealth of experience of many walks of life which noble Lords bring to our proceedings. In the words of the sub-committee,
  "it would be absurd if the only members able to speak on a particular subject were those without any involvement in it".
  With these points in mind, the sub-committee, I believe, wisely reserved its most stringent recommendation for what, if your Lordships will forgive me, I characterise as "taxis plying for hire". The sub-committee said, quite unequivocally, that,
  "Lords should never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising Parliamentary influence".
  I do believe that that must be right. After all, if it was right in 1974, it is no less right today. It would surely be against all the interests of this House for any noble Lord to sell both his voice and vote. The sub-committee therefore recommends that Peers should register—this appears in paragraph 60 of the report—
  "any arrangements, such as consultancies, whereby [they] accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services, or any similar arrangement".
  Such registration would enable the House to judge whether any noble Lord was seeking to exercise parliamentary influence in relation to such an arrangement.
  Of course, a register of this type of interest will be effective only if noble Lords comply with the requirement. The sub-committee observe that it is doubtful whether the House has the power to suspend or expel its Members; so there can be no question of
  1438
  absolute compulsion. But the prospect of having one's actions investigated by a sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges—particularly one which contains three Law Lords, also Members of your Lordships' House—and the consequences of having any failure to comply reported on publicly to the House will, I venture to suggest, be a most compelling incentive.
  Those recommendations of the sub-committee, which the noble and learned Lord has outlined to us so far, as I understand it, are intended to allay public suspicion that any Member of this House should deliberately exploit his position in Parliament for private gain by offering his services for hire. I am persuaded that they can be made to be effective in that objective and I do hope that in due course your Lordships will agree to adopt them.
  In respect of other interests, such as outside employment or directorships not arising from membership of the House, the sub-committee, as the noble and learned Lord told us, acknowledged that hard and fast restrictions would be inappropriate. I believe that what he set out today is a clarification of present practice, which your Lordships should greatly welcome, as I welcome the proposal that noble Lords should be—I believe that this is from paragraph 60—
  "especially cautious in deciding whether to speak or vote in relation to interests that are direct, pecuniary and shared by few others".
  As I say, these recommendations seem to me to strike a balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the House, and indeed the public, will be aware of any interest relevant to their assessment of a noble Lord's words or actions and, on the other hand, not needlessly deterring noble Lords from giving the House the benefit of their experience.
  I have already referred to the difficulties of definition. The noble and learned Lord's sub-committee acknowledged them and it judged that it would be virtually impossible to define the circumstances in which noble Lords should feel inhibited by wider interests from speaking or voting, and that this in the first instance should be left to the conscience of the individual. I believe that in principle this must be right. The details of interpretation and implementation of all these new proposals will be delicate. However, I do not believe that your Lordships will feel that this is entirely a weakness. So much of the practice of your Lordships' House is determined by self-regulation, by precedent and by accumulated wisdom. The learned Clerks are available to advise, and I believe that, over time, our practice will evolve and develop. Moreover, I have no doubt that in due course we may find it appropriate to take stock of what the effect of these proposals may have been if your Lordships feel able to implement them.
  As I have previously said, I feel a personal sympathy with those of your Lordships—and I know that they are not to be found only on the Benches behind me—who consider that the changes we are debating today are unnecessary and will sadly alter the character of your Lordships' House. But to those noble Lords who are of that mind I would say this: the noble and learned Lord's sub-committee was charged with seeking a solution to a problem which, albeit in my view one, above all, of

  1439
  misperception rather than practical substance, we simply cannot afford to ignore. The membership of the sub-committee was drawn from all quarters of the House and from all shades of opinion on the subject. It took extensive evidence, as the noble and learned Lord told us, from both inside and outside the House and deliberated with care on what it heard. It was able to make recommendations which the Procedure Committee was, with unanimity, able to endorse and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon, has kindly indicated to me are regarded by his committee as a positive response to public concern.
  Of course, in due time it may be that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will wish to consider the arrangements which prevail in your Lordships' House, and it will he, as I made clear when I repeated a Statement in your Lordships' House at the time of the announcement of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, quite within its remit for it to do so. But I for one am, as I hope your Lordships know, a believer in the sovereignty and independence of Parliament and of this House in particular. If we can ourselves formulate and adopt safeguards which will satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his colleagues, then I for one would feel so much the better. Indeed, if I may say so without too much risk of impertinence, the difficulties which have been experienced in another place in attempting to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life go a long way towards persuading me that we should persist in seeking our own way forward if we can.
  I hope that the sense of today's debate will deliver a clear message on this difficult question. There will be many members of the public watching for our reaction today. If the message is one of approval of the sub-committee's report, it will enable us to proceed to introduce appropriate resolutions very soon. The timing would depend on further consultation in all parts of the House, through the usual channels and with the Convenor of the Cross-Benches. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree to proceed along the lines which the noble and learned Lord proposes in the light of the expressions of opinion to which we shall listen with great interest this afternoon.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have already spoken, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, the Chairman of Committees. I am grateful also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who set out the substance of his report's recommendations with a clarity which did not seem to brook a great deal of argument once he had sat down. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for outlining the Government's response to those proposals.
  I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and his colleagues most warmly for their work
  1440
  in producing these comprehensive and useful reports. It must have been a difficult and onerous task and the whole House owes them a debt.
  This is an important issue. Certain new procedures may be introduced and it is therefore right that the House should be treating the matter as seriously as it clearly is today. We on this side of the House welcome the report and the recommendations. It has tackled some delicate and serious issues in a considered manner and will, I hope, lead to a useful and informed debate in the House today. We accept the report and recommendations as a package. That is not to say that everybody on this side of the House agrees with all of the recommendations; nor is it to say that there are not matters which we would wish to have included in the report but which do not appear there. However, it would not be a productive use of your Lordships' time if I were to argue about that which is not in the report but which should be. It is much more important that I should make our attitude absolutely clear in respect of the recommendations which do appear in the report and, as far as they are concerned, we accept them.
  There are three issues that we have to consider in this afternoon's debate. The first is the question: was there a need for such a report on the House of Lords? On this side of the House we are agreed that there was a need to look at the issue of Members' interests and we are pleased that noble Lords now have the opportunity to consider and debate the reports. However, I do not think that we should exaggerate the scope of the problem in this House; nor do I think that we should minimise it. The public perception of politicians, particularly it must be said in another place, now seems to be at an all-time low. Without introducing any party dissent into the debate, I do not think that that perception will be enhanced if the House of Commons accepts the recommendations of the Conservative majority on the Select Committee and rejects one of the main proposals of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
  I do not believe that there are many offenders against the existing rules in your Lordships' House. By and large, noble Lords can be trusted to behave as they should, but that is not really the point. The fact that most behave underlines the need to try to deal with the minority who do not. The way to preserve the good apples in the barrel is to deal with the rotten ones; not to pretend that they are all perfectly ripe and ready for eating. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, told us, the last time that this question was looked at in detail was in 1974 when the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Procedure of the House stated:
  "Lords speak always on their personal honour",
  and further stated that it is,
  "undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation, in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward".
  At that time, that was generally accepted as sufficient guidance. Since then, however, there have been substantial changes in public opinion. There has been intense and critical media observation and an enormous growth in lobbying companies. All of those factors have led to the need to look at the guidelines afresh. There have been a number of undesirable incidents, with the

  1441
  result that suspicion of politicians has increased. Some of the activities have prompted deep public concern and have led to demands for greater openness as well as the tightening up of standards of behaviour for those in public life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, was given the arduous duty of looking at standards within the House of Commons, and the Committee on Standards of Conduct in Public Life published its first report in May.
  This House is a vital and active legislative body. Accepting the differences between the two Houses—and there are differences—I think that the public have a right to expect similar standards of objectivity and transparency here to those in another place. It is because of that that I was reassured when this House decided to appoint the sub-committee in December 1994,
  "to consider the practice of the House",
  along similar lines to the Nolan Committee.
  However, it is important to emphasise that the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, is not made in response to the setting up of the Nolan Committee, but was our own attempt in this House to renew public confidence in the legislators here and to consider how we manage our affairs with respect to parliamentary standards as a whole. On that point, I was pleased to read the Nolan Committee's statement:
  "It is relevant that Peers do not receive a salary—only an attendance allowance—and it is therefore implicit that a Peer has other sources of income. The question of Peers' outside interests must therefore be approached from a quite different starting point".
  With respect, I think that that is precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and his colleagues tried to do, and they succeeded. The report was confined to an investigation of what may be appropriate for this House and no other. We are not the same as the other place and it is right that the differences are recognised at the outset. Therefore, on the first point I conclude that an investigation was, indeed, necessary.
  Secondly, against the background that a report was necessary, we must ask whether the proposals which have emerged are sensible for this House. The annex to the report is a useful outline of how the recommendations will be implemented. Perhaps I may spend a moment detailing what the report says. It calls for the institution of a register whereby:
  "First, any arrangements, such as consultancies, whereby members of the House accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing Parliamentary advice or services, or any similar arrangement; and any financial interest in business involved in Parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients"
  would require registration.
  In respect of that part of the report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, used the word "mandatory" this afternoon. If it is not exactly compulsory—very little is compulsory in your Lordships' House—it would nevertheless place noble Lords under a duty to register and non-registration would be a serious matter and one for the Committee of Privileges. Given the self-regulatory nature of this House, I read that recommendation as virtually imposing an obligation to register on those who fall within the description set out in the report.
  1442
  Secondly, the report recommends that there should be a voluntary registration of,
  "any other particulars which members of the House wish to register relating to matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way they discharge their Parliamentary duties".
  Some of the provisions are thus to be virtually compulsory while there is to be a voluntary approach to the rather broader issues.
  I note that when reviewing the issue of "personal honour", the sub-committee tightened up that part of the old advice. It now states:
  "Lords should act always on their personal honour",
  as opposed to,
  "Lords speak always on their personal honour".
  That is a significant change of verb and I am sure that it was intentional.
  Secondly, the report now states:
  "Lords should never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising Parliamentary influence".
  The report goes on to state,
  "we do not expect Lords to have any difficulty in identifying a 'financial inducement'."
  I hope that the report is not over-confident in its expectations, but I am sure that noble Lords will respect the wishes of the House as a whole and continue to act on their personal honour.
  The report goes on to outline the practice of the House and advises—and these are very important words indeed—that noble Lords
  "should not speak, vote, lobby or otherwise take advantage of their position as members of the House on behalf of their clients".
  As the noble Lord has said, this would primarily affect noble Lords working for lobbying organisations or being paid directly for parliamentary services.
  I am not sure that the report looks closely enough at those who are employed as directors of companies who may be able to participate in matters that affect the interest of those companies. The report says again that,
  "the decision rests ultimately with Lords themselves".
  We on this side of the House would have preferred it if this aspect of the report had been tightened up but, in the interests of good government—if I may put it that way—we accept the report as a package and would support it.
  We would like to see a greater obligation to register or disclose non-pecuniary but relevant interests, to try to avoid confusion. I would underline the advice of the report that noble Lords should make a declaration whenever they are in doubt. I am sure that that is sensible and right.
  I emphasise that, although we have some reservations on this side of the House about the strength of the recommendations of the report—particularly so far as the register is concerned—we welcome it, as a package, and are grateful for the guidance it has given. The report has gone a long way—although not all the way—towards meeting public concern about greater transparency by its legislators. I am grateful for all the work that has gone into producing these important proposals, and I am sure that we will all, in due course,

  1443
  appreciate the candid disclosures that we will get from our colleagues. Only with greater openness can we expect to recover the confidence of the people we serve. These are not revolutionary proposals. They are useful and helpful changes to our procedures which should go a long way towards meeting public concern.
  The central principles upon which the report and its recommendations are based are really those on pages 16 and 17. They are perhaps worth looking at and quoting.
  "the practice of the House is based on the principle that Lords should act always on their personal honour."
  I think every noble Lord would accept that.
  "Accordingly, Lords should never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising Parliamentary influence."
  The second principle is:
  "Lords who have a direct financial interest in a subject on which they speak should declare it, making clear that it is a financial interest. They should also declare any non-financial interest of which their audience should be aware in order to form a balanced judgment of their arguments."
  Those two points seem to me to be almost unarguable; they go to the heart of the report itself. If the House accepts those as principles that we are in favour of, and principles that we should be trying to uphold, then what follows from that are the specific recommendations set out in the report.
  My Lords, so far as this side of the House is concerned, I commend the report to the House.
  4.13 p.m.
  Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we all are, and certainly should be, grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and his committee for having moved so expeditiously in this matter and produced a report which is in all respects sensible and in most respects clear. I would like to place on record that I found the committee a most courteous and perceptive body before which to appear.
  The first question is whether we can match the expedition of the committee by proceeding to adopt its recommendations—on the run, as it were, following directly from this debate—and have them in place, more or less, for the beginning of the new Session. The advantages of this course are, first, that it would put us ahead of the game, leaving the other House, as it appears, somewhat floundering behind us. Secondly, it would mean that we had firmly occupied a defensive bit of centre ground so that when the Nolan Committee comes to pronounce on matters relating to your Lordships' House in May or June it may well be, but obviously not certainly, disposed to endorse what we have done. Thirdly, I know that there are noble Lords who regard this as rather nasty medicine to swallow and, on the whole, nasty medicine is best swallowed fast. I am therefore inclined to this course provided that it carries broad agreement across the House. If there is widespread dissent, we shall have to take it a little more slowly. In any event, we must be prepared to deal with the second Nolan Report in six or seven months' time.
  As to the merits of the issue, I have somewhat mixed and cautious feelings. Although some change in our procedure is inevitable—and probably desirous—I am
  1444
  concerned about the growth of the lobbying industry. It is curious how the less industrial a process—whether it is football, film-making or tourism—the more inclined it is to incorporate "industry" in its nomenclature. The growth of the lobbying industry, as it is coming to be called, has been massive during my period—now, unbelievably 47 years—in one or other House.
  It was disclosed that 30 per cent. of Back Bench Members of the House of Commons held parliamentary consultancies of one sort or another; in other words they were paid to exercise parliamentary influence on behalf of some outside interest. I found that a revelation, and not a very reassuring one. I do not know what the percentage is in your Lordships' House. I hope and believe that it is substantially lower, hut it certainly exists. So there is a problem here, one which affects, in varying degrees, both Houses of Parliament.
  The existence of the problem can only he denied by those who are prepared to say that there is nothing discreditable in Peers or Members standing up in Parliament and making a speech, asking a Question or moving an amendment, not because it is in accordance with their interest or conviction, not because it affects their constituents, if they have constituents, but because they are paid to do it. That denigrates Parliament at a time when the last thing that Parliament can afford is further denigration.
  Therefore, there is indisputably a problem, which cannot be met by a complacent refusal to change. Nor can it be met by just talking defiantly about honour. For my taste, there was rather too much talk of honour in some of the evidence to the Griffiths Committee. Honour is important, but it should be like conscience—a still, small voice. If it is talked about too much it becomes at once pretentious and suspect. I think Emerson got it unforgettably right with his spoons. I do not think that noble Lords need the quotation.
  So we need something more than a severation of honour. It is easier to diagnose the problem than to solve it in a way that does not run us up against other undesirable consequences. The major danger I see is that of the further professionalisation of politics. We have moved a long way towards making politics a tight little occupation with a career structure almost as rigid as that in a building society or a high street bank. You begin as a research assistant and work your way from a bad seat to a good seat; a parliamentary private secretaryship; a period in the Whips' office; a parliamentary secretaryship; a minister of stateship; and a little further, if you are lucky. But all the time you are terrified of falling off the ladder. In the course of that progress you will have acquired few skills other than that of manipulating the political process, and very little width of knowledge. That is a large part of the reason for the startling figure of 30 per cent. of Back-Benchers holding lobbying consultancies.
  The products of the new system feel an entitlement to a standard of living higher than a parliamentary salary provides or, to be frank, is ever likely to provide, but they have precious little to sell except their knowledge of the processes of Parliament. Those developments have not been conducive to the production of statesmen

  1445
  of wide knowledge and generous ideas. I should be strongly opposed to carrying it further. I should be opposed to anything which made politics in your Lordships' House, or in the other place, less attractive to those with interests beyond self-advancement and the political rat race.
  The Griffiths Committee has done its best to steer a difficult course between the Scylla of restoring public confidence after a few nasty shocks and the Charybdis of making this House a place from which people with wide interests will be tempted to seek leave of absence. That is why I support the broad thrust of the committee's recommendations and think it best to implement them quickly.
  I turn to the important question of whether there are relevant differences and, if so, to what extent between this House and the other place. One obvious similarity is that we are both components of Parliament with certain responsibilities for legislation and for public policy. However, set against that, there are at least two significant differences. The first is that we are not merely in practice but in theory and in concept an amateur Chamber.
  I believe strongly, as my previous remarks must have indicated, that MPs should be allowed to engage in reputable outside activities. Indeed, in some ways the more outside the better, for it is the inside ones—using the parliamentary position—which have caused the trouble. Although I believe that, I can conceive that some people, mistakenly but not irrationally, might take a different view about the other place. They might be attracted by a full-time Chamber. Mind you, it would need to be much smaller and there would still be disadvantages. But they could be hoping that some future government and Parliament—again, I think, mistakenly—might be tempted to go for that.
  That is just not remotely possible for your Lordships' House as at present constituted—and, let me add, quite independently of what is or is not done about hereditary peerages. You cannot have an unpaid House, which is a full-time House, unless you elevate inherited wealth into an absolute qualification for membership, which would seem rather contrary to a move to make an inherited peerage an absolute disqualification. In addition to that, and beyond that point, you have also many life Peers—often but not always Cross-Bench Peers—who have been sent here specifically because of the nationally valuable outside jobs they do, and the occasional—often very occasional—shafts of wisdom and experience they bring to your Lordships' debates. You cannot sensibly describe the raison d'être of their peerages. We should therefore be careful of making these very occasional attendants fill in forms in such detail that it will take them more time to fill in the forms than they habitually spend in the House in the course of a year.
  I have no objection to a man who has spent his lifetime in an industry speaking from the point of view of that industry, even if he has a financial interest in it. What I object to is someone without such a background, without such a commitment, being a hired advocate either here or in the other place. The profession of well-paid advocate is of course an honourable one, and
  1446
  its practitioners have played a notable role in the life of both Houses of Parliament. But the place for practising paid advocacy is the courts and not the legislature. Here, Members should speak according to their views, and not according to their fees. Some of these principles are easy to recognise but more difficult to define; some of the dangers are real, but the Griffiths Committee has done a good and sensitive job. We should support it, at any rate on an experimental basis, and see how things work out between now and the next stage of the Nolan Report.
  4.26 p.m.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I intervene briefly. Sadly, I have not known a time when the reputation of Parliament has been at a lower ebb. That has serious implications for democracy. It is far easier to lose freedoms than it is to regain them, and the greatest threat to freedom is, and always has been, apathy, and, more seriously, apathy fuelled by cynicism.
  When I speak to audiences outside your Lordships' House—specifically in schools—I always remind them of the words of Plato, which I hope I may be permitted to repeat this afternoon, and I had better make it politically correct for your Lordships House:
  "The penalty that good men and women pay for failing to participate in public affairs is to be governed by others worse than themselves".
  In that connection, and as a former Speaker, I hope that I may be permitted to say that much of the present cynicism of politicians in the other place is misplaced. There is no country in the world where constituents are more personally represented than they are by Members of Parliament, or by a more dedicated group of men and women.
  The days are long past when Members of Parliament paid an annual visit to their constituency. I took the trouble this morning to go to the postmaster and check with him the volume of post into this place. When I first entered the House in 1964, I had a third share in a secretary. She sacked me after two years when she became too busy. In those days we had 7,000 letters a day in and out. The postmaster this morning told me that today there are 40,000 letters in to both Houses and 20,000 letters go out of this place. It is very expensive to write to Members of Parliament and even to Members of your Lordships' House, and it is also expensive for us to reply.
  I do not detect the same cynicism about this House by the public. In fact my suspicion—I may be biased—is that we are held in high esteem. That may be because we are not paid, we come to Parliament for motives of service; and, secondly, because your Lordships are in close touch with the world outside. That is specifically true of Cross-Bench Peers who are here only because of their outside interests. So we are able, and we do, speak from personal experience, and are therefore perceived by members of the public to be more in touch with the real world than the professional politicians in the other place. They have become increasingly professional and I have indicated the volume of their work.
  If he will forgive me for saying so, I well remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, often used to ask me when I was a Whip, "What are you doing this

  1447
  afternoon?" I would reply, "I am very busy". He would then say, "Get up the West End and find out what they are saying about this. Go on! Find out what they are saying and come and tell us". In those days we were in very close touch with what "they" outside used to think. However, I believe that that is no longer possible.
  I regret the need for a register of interests but, given the publicity of the very few cases of unacceptable behaviour and given the fact of Nolan, I believe that it is now not only essential but that it is also a protection for us. What would be unacceptable—though this was not recommended by the committee of the noble and learned Lord—would be figures. I hope that that will never be suggested by the noble and learned Lord's committee, but, if it were, it would deter many distinguished and valuable future Members of this House who might find that to be an unacceptable barrier to coming to join us. Therefore, this House and the whole country would be deprived of their expertise and of their knowledge.
  I cannot speak for the Cross-Benches because, as your Lordships well know, we are all individuals. But I wholly subscribe to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said and what the Leaders of the other parties said. I would go as far as to urge the House to accept the report without substantial amendment or, at any rate, amendments of substance. I believe that it strikes a fair balance and that it will be perceived by members of the public outside to be right and fair. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and other speakers have said, I believe that that might cause the Nolan Committee when it comes to consider this House to say, "This is fair enough". Above all, I hope that it will not become a subject of controversy as Nolan has become in another place and that we shall have the report in place and in our Standing Orders early in the new Session of Parliament.
  4.32 p.m.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, would like to start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, for introducing his report to us this afternoon. Perhaps I may tell him—and we know from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that judges like to be praised from time to time—that I thought it was an extraordinarily clear and well-argued report which set out the case very well indeed. I should like to begin by saying that I very much hope that your Lordships will accept the recommendations as they have been presented. I should also say that I see from all the arguments that have already been adduced by my noble friend the Leader of the House and by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lords Jenkins, that they should be implemented as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so. We should have the opportunity of seeing them in place before there can be any question of a further inquiry from the committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
  I would not in any way wish to go over the detailed comments which have already been made, except perhaps to add this gloss. One of the reasons that I agree so much with the report—although I recognise that it
  1448
  enters new territory and that there will be new rules in your Lordships' House—is that I believe that it builds on the past. The recommendations made in 1974 have been taken into account and the two main principles which are set out and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, quoted (which appear in the "Summary of Conclusions") are a very valuable starting point.
  Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that I do not agree with his unhappiness regarding the use of the word "honour". In my experience today, it is a word which has almost gone out of use. If many people were asked to define it, I strongly suspect that they would find it quite difficult to do so. I believe that it is a most useful word to have at the beginning. It stands for a very high principle. It is one I am sure that Members from all parts of your Lordships' House will recognise.
  The second principle which I also believe to be most helpful is the one of self-regulation. That is one of the great strengths of your Lordships' House. I believe that the recommendation that a Member of this House accused of malpractice should be investigated by a sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges—and I agree with its composition—is a means of self-regulation which the House will recognise as being the right way to go forward. It follows on all our procedures. Once we were to get away from the principle of self-regulation, I think that we would weaken what goes on in the House.
  I am also very pleased that the committee in its report did not find any evidence of malpractice in your Lordships' House. One of the most distasteful aspects of what lies behind the setting up of this committee and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, especially with regard to your Lordships' House, has been the fact that a number of unsubstantiated allegations have been made. In my book, I am afraid that unsubstantiated allegations fall into the same category as anonymous letters. I believe that it is most dangerous. If someone has reason to believe that another person has acted improperly, then he or she should say so; otherwise, the remarks should be withdrawn.
  All of that is very damaging to your Lordships' House. I am glad—and I believe that I heard him correctly—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that he did not believe that there was widespread evidence of it at all and, further, that he believed, as certainly I do, that there are very few Members of your Lordships' House who are involved in lobbying as described in his report. It is most important to keep a sense of proportion and balance over all such matters.
  As it is topical at the moment, perhaps I may say that I have great concern about the Channel 4 television programme which I believe is to be broadcast this evening. I am bound to say that I was astonished this morning when I inquired whether it was possible to see it. I was told that my noble friend the Chief Whip had tried to do so but that he was told:
  "Channel 4 doesn't send out transcripts of current affairs programmes, except to journalists".
  That is an extraordinary case of double standards. There is certainly one rule for the rich and one for the poor; or, indeed, for the haves and have-nots. At any rate,

  1449
  I do not feel that that in any way contributes to the betterment of public life. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The position that she referred to has been severely aggravated by some of the press quoting from the programme. Is my noble friend aware that the Guardian this morning made an allegation that I made remarks about one of my noble friends which is absolutely untrue? Had I been asked anything about my noble friend, I would have said that he was a man of the highest integrity. That type of allegation made by the press and distorting the programme is extremely damaging both to this House and the debate.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I am deeply disturbed as I have read the report about my noble friend Lord Boardman and I consider it to be quite disgraceful. It is that kind of allegation which brings not only your Lordships' House into disrepute but also the whole working of Parliament. If this programme is to appear, it seems to me that everyone who is involved in it ought to have the opportunity at least to view it so that they may draw their own conclusions and comment on them. It is even more aggravating to be asked to comment on something one has not seen at all. I hope, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Boardman, that following upon the statement which appears in today's issue of the Guardian—the content of which he has just declared is not true—he will take legal advice on his position or at least make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about it.
  No serious evidence has yet been produced as regards malpractice in this House. Whatever may be said, it is important for us in your Lordships' House, and indeed for those in another place, to recognise that standards in public life in this country are considerably better than those in a great many other countries in the world today. It is indeed almost impossible to open a newspaper without reading of resignations and of serious allegations against high ranking members of other governments. It does no service to this country, let alone to Parliament, to suggest that similar activities are going on here. I do not believe that they are. It is quite wrong to imply that and to try to find evidence of something which is not happening.
  I fully support what has been said by other speakers and by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as regards the work of your Lordships' House. Anyone who has been here for any length of time is aware of the long hours that noble Lords both in government and opposition put in, working on Bills and serving on committees, and the tremendous amount of work which is done voluntarily by Members from all parts of your Lordships' House in sponsoring parties on behalf of good causes. I venture to suggest that there is not one of us present today who has not done this on innumerable occasions and has looked on it as part of our obligations to this House and as something we are glad to do. It is important to keep a balance here.
  1450
  I started by saying that I supported the recommendations and I hope that the whole House will do so too. It is a matter of great regret that the House should find itself in this position but I suspect that it comes about, at least in part, from what might be described nowadays as the much higher profile of your Lordships' House. That is thanks, largely, to the House's effective work in its committees and in amending legislation.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said in introducing this debate, and as others have said, your Lordships' House is unique in the experience which it offers. I do not believe that there is another legislative Chamber in the world which could match its total experience from all parts of life. It would be tragic if those who willingly gave their time to take part in the business of the House felt unable to do so because the recommendations of the committee deterred them. As it is, I believe that a balance has been kept. It seems to me that if we accept the recommendations, the House will be seen to be taking the whole issue of malpractice seriously.
  We live in a world in which disclosure is regarded as important. It will continue to be regarded as important. However, I believe that we are keeping a balance between what needs to be done in today's world and what must not be done to discourage Members of your Lordships' House who take part in the business of the House from continuing to do so. Were that to be the case, I believe it would seriously damage your Lordships' House. As it is, I believe that outside the Chamber this report will be seen to be constructive, fair and workable. I hope that your Lordships will accept it and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as is practicable.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I, too, offer my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, under whom I had the privilege to serve, with other noble Lords, on the sub-committee during the earlier months of this year. However, at the outset I make an immediate declaration of brevity on behalf of my throat.
  The report is, of course, a compromise and that compromise in itself represents the broad spread of all those who served on the committee and all views within your Lordships' House. I believe that it is an even better report because of that compromise. All and sundry who were involved in the report had at some point or another to give; on no occasion that I can remember did anyone take.
  I believe that there is one feature of this debate which is in a way unfair both to this Chamber and to another place; namely, that there have been huge changes in the application of advocacy, lobbying, advice and legislation in the past 40 years. This has resulted in people focusing on parliamentarians in both Chambers. That was not called for or asked for but it has come about. Blame to date, in the eyes of the public, has been entirely attached to the Chambers and not to other forces.

  1451
  All governments of all persuasions are not entirely guilty of all the legislation which they bring before Parliament. I can think of one or two good examples where the fourth estate had as much responsibility as any voter in a voting booth. I think of the numerous occasions on which the subject of dangerous dogs has appeared in one form or another on the Order Paper of both Houses and in the form of a Bill. For that I hold no government of any period since the Second World War in any way responsible.
  There is a huge body of legislation which has grown inexorably over the years. There has been a demand for it outside Parliament which has grown with every passing year. This involves not only primary legislation but also a huge welter of regulation; much of it, recently, has been European regulation. This is to many groups—businesses, individuals, charities, interest groups, environmentalists and others—often inexplicable and unexplainable. One takes this legislation to London and one seeks advice on it. One is directed by a friendly adviser to someone who may well demand a considerable sum to provide one with advice obtained closer to the Palace of Westminster. One is then taken, groomed, to the Palace. All of these influences have nothing to do with Members of this House but they land on the doorstep of Members of this House and as a result the forces grow inexorably.
  I wish to mention briefly the television programme broadcast tonight. If it was a cookery programme being broadcast by Channel 4, it would not be considered a success if, because there was not sufficient time to broadcast what happened in the kitchen, the recipe was presented as a fait accompli and was declared to be delicious. If this debate could have been included in the programme, as it is in a sense the most important part of the process, the programme would have been a rather more admirable one to observe and criticise one way or the other.
  Your Lordships' House fulfils many useful purposes, above all else that of improving legislation, and providing an opportunity for all governments to accept improvements, and even the chance occasionally to think again. The next step beyond the proposals that are recommended in this report of your Lordships' sub-committee fills me with some concern. The proposals which are before us today are essentially voluntary and have been strengthened and toughened, but we have reached a river or a bridge, or perhaps even a bridge to go over a river, and the next stage will, I fear, involve regulation, prohibition and possibly exclusion. That is a possibility which concerns me very deeply, because eventually that road leads to the exclusion of knowledge and, to put it somewhat tritely, a position where people are encouraged to pursue a Minister across the car park of your Lordships' House to ask a question rather than the question being answered within the Chamber of your Lordships' House, for which many hundreds of years ago a system was devised in order to keep the business and the state of the nation within the public domain and in one place.
  I abhor anything which drives debate out of your Lordships' House. However, I believe that these proposals champion not regulation but the better
  1452
  alternative, based on the fusion of those two sturdy planks, common sense wedded to honour. Together the two are worth three.
  4.51 p.m.
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I was a member of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. I should like to pay tribute to our chairman's wisdom and patience in dealing with what was a very difficult task, on which originally the members of the committee held a number of different and disparate viewpoints. He guided us with considerable patience to a point at which we could agree what was in a sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, a compromise position.
  Like most other members of the committee, I regret the necessity for change. The idea of acting on our honour is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young said, an attractive principle, and one which I wish could prevail still in this House. However, there are many pressures on us in the world today, not the least of which is the openness that society now expects from those who are involved in its governance. Also, this Chamber is now composed of people from more disparate backgrounds than those from which its Members were originally drawn. This used perhaps to be a very much more homogeneous Chamber, where people could rely on each other and on common standards of honour and behaviour.
  There is also the question of commercial pressures exerted upon people nowadays, which perhaps did not exist to such an extent, particularly in this House, when people could rely on private incomes. Action that may be perfectly appropriate in the commercial world may not be appropriate when one plays a part in the governance of the country.
  In our report we have therefore tried to strike a balance. On the one hand, this is an unsalaried House, and one to which many Members never come at all. Therefore, it is unfair to impose too rigorous a register. It is nevertheless important, on the grounds of openness, that there is a register at least of those interests which relate directly to the business of the House. On the other hand, we have tried to eliminate the "hired gun" (or "hired taxi" as the previous speaker put it), people who are willing to promote any cause for which they are paid. Such activities are, we believe, contrary to the traditions of the House, which is enriched by personal experience and knowledge and the interests of its Members but which should not allow those Members to advocate any cause for which they are paid. We have tried to distinguish sharply between those who are paid merely to give advice and those who are paid to advocate a particular cause for some financial inducement.
  There are two major qualities of this House. First, as I said, there is the wide range of knowledge and experience which noble Lords bring to debate. Secondly, there is the fact that we act upon our honour and with courtesy and consideration for other Members of the House. One of the other consequences of financial

  1453
  pressures is that people may be driven to act with discourtesy and without regard to other Members of the House.
  One of the possible consequences of financial pressure is that, as well as distorting a particular line of argument, Members might be led to attempt to show that they are giving value for money by, for example, putting down large numbers of Questions for Ministers, at considerable expense to taxpayers, by arguing at inordinate length for one or many detailed amendments to a Bill, or indeed by making speeches at greater length than is appropriate in this Chamber. Those are practices which we have attempted to discourage by our proposed revisions to the existing guidance.
  I support the conclusions of our committee and hope that they will find favour with the House in as short a time as is practicable.
  4.54 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the billing of the TV programme to which my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Hesketh referred, "Dispatches", reads:
  "How peers have used their position … to pursue their own and others' commercial interests".
  That billing belies the assurance given to me that it was to be a serious and well-balanced programme when, having no interest to declare, I agreed to be interviewed. Much to my relief, the appointment for the interview was cancelled.
  I mention that only to say that I knew—I am not all that naïve—that I would be asked about abuse of position for profit by certain noble Lords, all of whom were known personally to me. I went to those noble Lords and made direct inquiries. I told them why and went into great detail. I want to tell your Lordships that as a result I was wholly satisfied that none of the allegations was well-founded. I would have said so on the programme tonight if the interview had not been cancelled.
  I would also have said that, having attended this House off and on since 1981 I know roughly the interests and consultancies of most noble Lords who speak in this House, put down Questions and so forth. I have never become aware of any abuse. I agree that under any regime, even the one proposed in the report, it is possible that on rare occasions there can be an abuse. In this House there is always the question of enforcement and the sanctions available which does not arise in another place. Had I had the interview I would also have said that on television tonight.
  Up to now there has been a phalanx of what I might call, with the greatest respect, Establishment evidence. It all points one way: let us accept the report lock, stock and barrel, and get on with it. I have another view. It is not so very different but it is slightly different. It is quite different from the phalanx of the evidence, because I have nothing to do with the Establishment and never shall have.
  Like other noble Lords, I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and to all members of his sub-committee for their services. That
  1454
  is no trite acknowledgement; it is sincerely meant. I congratulate them on having managed to produce a report which serves as an essential basis for our discussions. However, I want to draw a distinction, which has not as yet been made between the recommendations as to declarations of interest, as supported in an elegant and eloquent speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, which would not in any way alter the nature of this House, and the recommendations as to registration, which assuredly would.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is not in his place, but perhaps someone can help me; I believe that I have this right. He suggested that we should proceed with caution and a little more slowly. If I have that right, I agree with him.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, he said the exact opposite.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I believe that I am right. If no one agrees with me at all, that does not mean that I am wrong. Another view must be put. One cannot just pass this issue on the nod on Establishment support. Some other argument has to be put before the House.
  No case has been made out for voluntary registration, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Wakeham in his evidence, or in the form proposed in paragraph 46 of the report, with ancillary implementing provisions for keeping the register and enforcement. I refer to paragraphs 48 to 59. That would assuredly change the nature of this place and the way it operates, in particular by using the Committee of Privileges as a disciplinary tribunal with complex and elaborate rules, but without any available sanction save (as stated in paragraph 57 of the report) the stigma of publicity. My Lords, watch it! Just imagine a false charge of misconduct. Imagine the impact of the publicity regarding this misconceived complaint on the noble Lord and on the dignity of your Lordships' House. The mind boggles.
  I suggest that the proposal of the Procedure Committee in its Paper 98 that the recommendations of the sub-committee regarding registration be implemented without delay should not be accepted by your Lordships and that the matter should be remitted to the Procedure Committee for further consideration and report in the light of this debate. That would permit further debate in the next Session of Parliament and a free vote on implementing orders to which amendments could be tabled.
  The recommendation of the Procedure Committee is wholly unusual because adoption of the recommendations on registration involve a fundamental change of principle as to the nature of the House and the way in which it operates. Furthermore, no reasons whatever are given as to why there is urgency to adopt the recommendation save that Paper 98 states that its adoption in whole or in part would cause no difficulty to the Nolan Committee.
  The Nolan Committee is a wholly independent inquiry. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is much to be congratulated on his choice of chairman:

  1455
  he is a fair man of total integrity, an ultimate professional, who listens to evidence and argument without hint of preconception. It may not be supposed that adoption or rejection of the sub-committee report in whole or in part by your Lordships could give rise to any difficulties either way. The Nolan Committee has the wider remit. It is due to investigate in 1996. Surely there is no way in which adoption or rejection of the report on limited terms of reference could pre-empt or forestall Nolan. In any event, I ask your Lordships this question. It has not been considered. Could it be appropriate to lay implementation orders, as proposed in Paper 98, before the Nolan Committee has reported and your Lordships have considered implementation?
  Although the Procedure Committee welcomes the report of the sub-committee as a compromise, as indeed it is, which could be made to work, as indeed it could, the Nolan Committee may well conclude that the onus of justification as regards registration has not been discharged. The position of the distinction between the two Houses will be fully understood, and the Nolan Committee will take note of the absence of any evidence of interest misconduct in your Lordships' House, to which my noble friend Lady Young referred, and to the fact that, in the absence of available sanctions, in practice no further effective enforceable procedural safeguards may be afforded other than now obtain—by speaking and acting on honour, and accepting the substance of recommendations as to declarations of interest.
  It appears from the deliberations that the report was not unanimous. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, moved to reject proposals which are now recommended. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who wished to establish a comprehensive compulsory register along the lines of another place, moved to reject the proposals for the voluntary register. Those motions to reject were manifestations of the only available means by which any minority or dissenting opinion could be expressed.
  The Cross-Bench Peers were consulted on three occasions. In evidence, they expressed no support for the register or for any departure from the practice of relying on honour. I mention that expressly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, stressed that he expressed his personal view. It is a view which any of us can express; I do the same. However, the Cross-Bench Peers, when consulted on three occasions, did not support these changes or see any need for them.
  My noble friend the Leader of the House was of the same opinion. In his evidence he said that having made exhaustive inquiries he was satisfied that the practice of speaking on honour was generally observed and was wholly sufficient to meet the case. He did not believe that noble Lords were breaking the rules. As regards the register, he did not regard it as the necessary panacea.
  1456
  I shall be delighted to conclude, but I have with considerable reluctance to deal with paragraphs 6 and 7 of the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend will forgive me, I feel that I should do so. It was stated that four Peers had received direct or indirect financial benefit for asking questions or for rendering other unspecified parliamentary services, assumed later, by answers 72 and 73, to be the lobbying of Ministers. There was also the assertion of belief, founded only on hearsay and suspicion of a client who is not prepared to identify the four Peers and whom the noble Lord was not prepared to name, that this type of behaviour was "widespread". That comes from answers 80 and 81. Reading the evidence of the noble Lord as a whole, in particular answers 70 to 76, neither suggestion of misconduct was substantiated. Your Lordships may well think that this unwise, unfortunate, unwarranted aspersion upon the integrity of this place should not only be disowned but relegated to oblivion.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he give notice to my noble friend—who is at the moment in Sub-Committee E of the European Communities Committee—that he was going to refer to him? I just ask that for information.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I state no. Why should I? It is a public report, I quoted from the paragraphs; I have stated them accurately. Why should I give notice? No. If I am found to he at fault, I will apologise, but I see that I have done no wrong at all.
  5.11 p.m.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Campbell both challenged the issue as to whether there was any evidence of abuses by Members of your Lordships' House. I support that challenge. I know of none. If there is no such evidence, then the justification for imposing a system of registration disappears. That is the issue which your Lordships' House is called upon to consider tonight.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, in what I hope he will allow me to say was an admirable and delightful speech, advocated that there should be an early introduction of registration in a modified and moderate form. I wish to say a word about that form in a moment. However, unless there is real evidence that there have been abuses, it seems a pity and somewhat damaging to the reputation of your Lordships' House that we should introduce a system of registration for which there is no apparent need. I hope, therefore, that in considering the matter your Lordships' House will take the view which I personally take that if there is no real evidence of abuse, then it is wrong and foolish to introduce a complex and complicated system of registration.
  Before I continue on the aspect of registration, I wish to say how delighted I was with one passage in the report which stated that they (Peers) should not read out extended briefing material from outside. In this House

  1457
  we have all suffered from colleagues who have done that and I hope that that gem, taken from the report, will have considerable effect.
  I return to the issue which to me personally is the most important: whether registration should be imposed, even in the modified way which the noble and learned Lord indicated. If there is to be registration, there will be real difficulty as to what is to be registered. It is all very well to suggest, "Oh, well, it will be on a voluntary basis. Any noble Lord who feels he ought to register or would like to register can do so, but there will be no absolute compulsion". However, that is building up an embarrassing situation for many noble Lords who will have to decide for themselves whether they should register any particular transactions with which they have been concerned. Why should we impose that difficulty upon them? I agree that it is better to have it on a voluntary basis than on a compulsory one—though how compulsion would be imposed is an interesting question on which I shall not waste time in speculating. The system whereby all noble Lords will have to ask themselves: "Should I register this action of mine?", is difficult, particularly as no clear guidance has been given or could be given as to what is the issue on which it is necessary to register.
  I therefore firmly join my noble friends who have just spoken in saying that I hope that, for the time being at any rate and until there is evidence of abuse which requires it, registration of interests is not to be imposed nor, indeed, to be made possible. That is an important point and in due course your Lordships' House will have to judge it as the outcome of the debate.
  It has been a most interesting and important debate. I must confess that it leaves me believing still that the rule that Members of your Lordships' House speak from their personal honour and not after registering their interests of one kind or another is real. The proposed registration, though modified, undermines the system which has existed for many years in this House that we accept that each of us speaks honourably from our own point of view and each of us honourably tries to tell the truth and put issues fairly. I merely add that registration does not seem to me to stand up. No evidence has so far been adduced to make it stand up and I hope that we shall reject it.
  5.18 p.m.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I believe that the House will agree that, as one might have expected, that was a notable and remarkable intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He has given much pleasure and enlightenment to the House in the past. For my part, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Weatherill, both in the substance of what he said and, I hope, in brevity.
  I was initially not convinced of the need for any change in the procedures of this House at all. I thought that the current arrangements were perfectly satisfactory, that noble Lords spoke and acted on their personal honour and that they always declared an interest, if they had one. That view is based on familiar arguments, many of which have been rehearsed today:
  1458
  the difference between the two Houses in matters of both remuneration and the provenance of their presence in Parliament.
  There is one small point upon which perhaps I may be enlightened at some stage in the evening. I detected in at least one speech and possibly two some doubt about whether the House had the power to suspend or remove its Members. I know of no possibility that that could happen and I hope that the matter will be made clear before the debate is over. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, among others, touched on the point and I felt that the problem with any form of registration is that it would make it less likely that noble Lords would be required to and moved to speak upon their personal honour. That would be a great shame. In making this point, I place great reliance on the evidence given to the sub-committee by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
  It was suggested by several noble Lords; namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and more recently the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the problem in this House is greatly exaggerated—if indeed the problem to which we refer ever really existed at all. I tend to endorse that view. However, it is very important to state that this view is not universally held. It is not the universal perception. I refer to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the programme to be shown on Channel Four tonight. Incidentally, if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, told the researchers of this programme what he intended to say, I suggest that he need look no further for the reason why his interview was cancelled! The trails for the programme that we have seen give rise to considerable cause for concern. Many of us who watch the programme tonight will be interested to see whether it maintains the standards of accuracy and impartiality that we have come to expect from television journalists.
  I read the sub-committee's report with great interest. I find it extremely persuasive. I find the arguments put forward regarding the perception that standards of conduct in public life have declined very persuasive indeed. Paragraph 43 of that report refers to sanctions that might need to be imposed on people who do not sign the register. I find slightly ironic the passage that states,
  "the good sense of Lords and their personal code of honour is the best guarantee of registration".
  It seems somewhat odd that a noble Lord's personal code of honour is not enough to ensure his proper behaviour in this House, but is strong enough to persuade him to submit fully to the discipline of such a register should it be introduced. However, that is not a point of primordial importance. I suggest that if a sub-committee as distinguished and thoughtful as that presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, recommends a register, your Lordships might find it possible to accept the proposal, if not with enthusiasm then at least with equanimity.
  However, I make one important observation. Paragraph 44 of the report states:

  1459
  "it is by no means clear that full disclosure of financial matters unrelated to Parliamentary business is relevant to the public interest".
  I strongly endorse that view. Indeed, I go further. I hope that when we come to establish such a register, if indeed we do, it will not require financial details or the quantum of remuneration to be disclosed at all.
  The Nolan Committee recommended that Members of the other place should be required to declare in the register their annual remuneration in respect of consultancy agreements. As we know, that has given rise to a great deal of controversy in and outside the other place. Paragraph 52 of the sub-committee report states that,
  "The basis of this recommendation is that a member receiving £1,000 a year is less likely to be influenced in his conduct than one receiving £20,000 a year".
  I find that a somewhat dubious proposition, but I shall go no further on the subject.
  That aspect apart, it is clear that the recommendation of our own sub-committee is that noble Lords with consultancies should not seek to exercise parliamentary influence. Therefore, by extension, there is no need for disclosure similar to that required by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, for the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said in his extremely interesting contribution to this debate, it would discourage many people of experience and qualifications from giving this House the benefit of that experience.
  That leads me finally to the fifth report of the Select Committee, which makes recommendations regarding the way in which we should now go forward. The report recommends that much can be done by standing order. It even includes what is presumably a provisional draft of what such a standing order might look like. We must examine that wording with very great care when the time comes to do so. I do not believe that the wording in the report at the moment quite meets the case.
  However, as other noble Lords said, the House must be grateful to my noble and learned friend for his chairmanship of the committee, and grateful to the sub-committee as a whole for its careful and detailed examination of this problem and for its thoughtful and constructive conclusions. After all this, I still find it sad that we should need such a register in this House. Nevertheless, if that is what is required to satisfy public concerns about the integrity of Parliament—concerns that are as important as that integrity itself—we should be prepared with some reluctance to accept it, provided that in due course we examine the small print very carefully indeed.
  5.26 p.m.
  Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, emphasised in his impressive speech that it is a longstanding custom of this House that noble Lords speak always on their personal honour. It is also a longstanding custom of this place that interests are declared where appropriate. It may then be asked: why do we need a register? What is the matter with the status quo? I am bound to admit that I have some sympathy with that argument.
  1460
  As already mentioned, there is also the character of this House to consider. We are part-time and unpaid. Some noble Lords attend regularly; others attend occasionally when they have special knowledge of the subject being debated. As we all know, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience in this House on virtually every subject under the sun. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, stated, in that respect this House is more representative these days than another place. I say that with no disrespect to the other place, in which I had the privilege of serving for 28 years. The fact remains that that is essential to our character and it is one of our great strengths. That could be said to be another argument for maintaining the status quo.
  On the other hand, there are powerful arguments the other way. They all come under the general heading of, "Politics is the art of the possible". We live in the age of Nolan, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to express it in that way. There is some concern about a decline in standards in public life. It is nothing like as great as is often suggested in the media and other sources, which take a perverse delight in knocking British institutions, always focusing on the bad and neglecting the good things in Britain. Nonetheless, there is a problem and we should be unwise to ignore it. It is far better to nip it in the bud.
  Then there is the very impressive and weighty report of the noble and learned Lord's recommendations. It is to be noted that on the noble and learned Lord's committee there is a wealth of knowledge and experience from members who have served for many years in both Houses of Parliament. I do not believe that we can brush on one side a report of that kind. Then there is the Select Committee on Procedure which recommends that the report should he adopted. Here again, we have a large and very representative committee.
  But what perhaps has impressed me most in this debate is the strong consensus that is emerging. My noble friend the Leader of the House commended the report to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, as Leader of the Opposition, agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as leader of his party, agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, admittedly speaking for himself but as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, agreed. It seems to me of great importance that when we are dealing with matters concerning the constitution or procedure, we should, if possible, proceed by consensus. That consensus appears to be present, though, of course, one or two noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, have their reservations. I believe that those are powerful reasons in favour of adopting the Griffiths Report.
  I have one detailed criticism which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter a moment ago. I am doubtful about a voluntary register of wider interests. I should prefer the register to be restricted to parliamentary interests. If there is a combination of compulsory and voluntary elements there is a danger of misunderstanding and confusion as well as of unfair criticism. Let us take the example of Lord A, who declares all his interests, both parliamentary and otherwise; and Lord B, who declares just his

  1461
  parliamentary interests. It would be easy for someone ill disposed towards your Lordships' House to draw an invidious comparison and ask, "Why has not Lord B declared all his interests? What does he have to hide?" In fact, it would be an unfair criticism because Lord B has complied with what the House requires. But the criticism could be embarrassing to him and his family.
  Therefore I should prefer to see the register restricted to parliamentary interests. It would then be the same for all. But I certainly do not want to spoil the consensus that is emerging. Unless there is strong agreement within the House on that point, I would not propose to pursue it.
  In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will feel it appropriate to accept the recommendation for a register and to adopt the new procedure early in the new Session.
  5.32 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when I first took my seat in your Lordships' House nearly 20 years ago, it was a different place and operated in a different climate of public opinion from that which we find today. I shall speak more about that in a moment. Then, as now, the House was made up of men and women who among them were able to produce knowledgeable contributions based on the experience of what my noble friend Lord Dean has just called "every subject under the sun". That was widely valued both by the government of the day, the country at large and abroad. For example, the reports of the Select Committee on the EEC were eagerly awaited not only here but in Brussels and the capitals of member states as an invaluable contribution to the debate on any particular subject.
  Even then of course we were the subject of some mockery. But there was nothing new in that. After all, it was many years before that W. S. Gilbert wrote that:
  "the House of Peers did nothing in particular but did it very well".
  That, incidentally, always struck me as sitting rather oddly with the Parliament Acts, but I shall let that go.
  Over the years two things have changed. One is the introduction of a larger proportion of life peers, who have been a widely acknowledged asset to the House, and on many occasions have filled in the gaps in our expertise. "Working peers" is a term that had virtually no currency then. I believe that it has meant too that we have become a much more political House and that has tempered the cold logic on which we mainly used to base our counsels. The other change is the prurience—I can think of no other word—of the media. How often does one pick up a newspaper today to read an article and discover that Mr. or Mrs. X is doing something or other? Invariably somewhere in the article X's age is stated, whether or not his or her age is germane to the subject of that article. I detect the same thing happening more and more with regard to X's earnings. Both those matters are defended by the media as the public's right to know, that being determined of course by the media, which more and more seek to set public opinion.
  1462
  It is against that background that I shall consider the report of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. How far do we believe that the public's right to know extends? I believe that the committee headed by the noble and learned Lord has the answer as right as it could do. We have always believed in that much quoted phrase "a peer speaks always on his personal honour". The fact that peers now act always on their personal honour is I believe an added benefit.
  It follows that any pecuniary interests should be declared when they are pertinent. When they may be pertinent is left to the individual peer. It is possible, either through oversight or inattention to detail, to transgress that simple rule.
  I am not the only sinner in the Chamber. Only last week I kicked myself for not declaring an interest on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Gas Bill, having earlier used what some may call a belt and braces approach by having declared my interest at every earlier stage of the passage of the Bill—even though I had been told in Committee that, so far as the main Opposition spokesman was concerned, he felt that once per Bill was sufficient. On previous occasions when I have transgressed in the Chamber I have been taken aside by a noble Lord and told very firmly what I had done wrong and not to do it again. In other words, what my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal calls the accumulated wisdom of the House came into play. I am sure that many noble Lords will have had that experience. It did not happen last week, my Lords. One rather wonders why.
  That incident illustrates very well the problem of the interpretation of standing orders. I believe that one way to improve the situation would indeed be to have a register of interests, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, has promoted. Like the report, I should like the interests declared to be those which are both paid and unpaid. I very much take the point that unpaid interests are extremely difficult to define.
  In my research for this debate I looked up the unpublished report of the 1974 Procedure Committee on the subject of registration of interests. In it I came to a memorandum by the then Clerk Assistant which well illustrates the problem. It says:
  "If an interest may be 'indirect' there is no limit to a Lord's possible interest: it may extend to the interest of his kin, his friends and his business or professional associates. If an interest may be 'non-pecuniary' it is, again, virtually limitless. Indeed, his most important interest may be social rather than pecuniary.
  A simple illustration is that of a disabled peer. He may promote legislation (and vote on it), ask questions and move motions relating to Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons. He does so, no doubt, for the benefit of his fellow men who are disabled and he does not regard any benefit which may incidentally accrue to himself. Is he to declare his interest each time he speaks? Is the father of a mongol child to declare his interest whenever he promoted the welfare of mongol children? If so, a Bishop must declare his interest in the Church; a farmer his interest in the land; a teacher his interest in education; a trade unionist his interest in his union and so on. The term 'interest' then reverts to its respectable 18th century sense. It becomes something at least not to be ashamed of and may even be something to be proud of. But it is hardly worth declaring".
  I am sure that a register of interests will become a useful working document for noble Lords as well as a source of information for interested people outside the

  1463
  House. I therefore like to think of it in two sections. The first would be a list of Peers followed by their interests; the second, which I regard as much more valuable, would be a list of activities, at least in broad terms, under which would be the names of appropriate Peers. For instance, under the title "Horticulture"—a paid interest of mine—I would find my name with other Peers who had similar interests to declare; under "Opera"—I have the honour to be president of Somerset Opera—I would find my name with possibly a totally different set of noble Lords who might, for all I know at the moment, be both paid and unpaid. That too should be shown in the register.
  However, I had some difficulty when I came to paragraph 38 of the report, around which much of the debate has centred this afternoon. There have been enough quotes from it already and I shall not trouble the patience of the House by reading it again. Unlike another place, noble Lords are not paid as Members of this House; we must earn our living elsewhere.
  I can see that if a noble Lord is the director or employee of a multi-client lobbying company, it would be inappropriate for him to speak on behalf of one of his clients because it would be impractical, if not impossible, for him to declare his interest in the register. Clients of the lobbying company no doubt come and go and it would be impossible to keep the register properly up to date.
  Where a single company or charity is involved, there is no reason why the Peer in question, having first declared his interest, should not speak from the knowledge gained in his employment. These days that employment may be occasioned in part by previous experiences in your Lordships' House. Having said that, I still believe that it should not apply to lobbying. I am sure that general comments should be permitted though I am certainly not in favour of tabling amendments or instigating debates, with the possible exception of probing amendments which are a valuable instrument of your Lordships' procedures. How that can be excised from the general run of my suggestions, I do not know.
  I began by referring to the valued expertise of this House. That expertise is provided by individual Peers who have gained it through their employment, their hobbies or their other interests. I do not believe that we should do anything to prevent that expertise, however it is accumulated, being made available to the House. That really would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  5.42 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that he had been a Member of this House for 20 years. I am conscious that in contrast I have just over one year's service in this place and it is therefore with some sense of trepidation that I approach this subject at all, conscious as I am of the greater experience of all those around me on both sides of the Chamber.
  I start by doing something that has not been done this afternoon; that is, declaring an interest in that some years ago I wrote and had published a book on lobbying.
  1464
  In saying that, it may be thought that I am furthering that interest in attempting to publicise that book and obtain more sales. However, I can assure your Lordships that that is not my intention because the book is out of print.
  Having declared an interest, I should also make a confession. I was asked to take part in an interview for a television programme to be shown this evening. It was arranged many weeks ago and I had to think hard about its substance. I took part in the interview. I am nervous now, in view of what has been said about it, as to whether or not my recollection is accurate. As far as I can remember I made three points. The first was the one contained in the Griffiths Report; that is, that Members of this House should not accept any financial inducement for exercising their parliamentary influence. My second point was that I supported the introduction of a register; and my third point was that, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of any abuses such as have been alleged.
  Some time ago, not long after I took up my place in this House, I was walking along the street outside my home when I was approached by somebody who said, "You have done alright for yourself". I asked what was meant and the individual, who I think was unknown to me, said, "You are on the make just like everybody else". We had a brief discussion about the nature of the unpaid service in this House and the size of the daily allowance for attending here. However, he was not convinced and went off muttering that I was "on the make".
  It is partly for that reason, but also for wider reasons, that I support the proposals in the Griffiths Report. In one or two instances I should like them to go a little further, but believe that they would represent an enormous aid to us in improving the public perception of what we do and how we conduct ourselves. It is not that the proposals would help us to understand each other; that is unnecessary. They would enable the wider public to have a better perception of what we are about and what interests we have. I hope that we shall be able to move quickly towards accepting the proposals. I am aware that we may have to look at them again when the Nolan Report comes along and also when the Commons finally decides what its reaction is to be.
  Both Houses need similarly high standards. It may not be of benefit for one House to be significantly different from the other in its approach. Provided that we bear in mind the different characters of the two Houses, we should not find ourselves with a Trojan horse in one House or the other which would undermine the standards of either. Having said that, if we can take the lead and set high standards quickly, that may be salutary for the other place.
  "Lobbyists" have been described in terms such that it has become a dirty word. I am not here to defend lobbyists. I have criticised them on many occasions. They are not all bad, though some of them do not behave as they should. The Griffiths Report—I have some difficulty in this regard—clearly identifies lobbyists, consultants and so forth. But I am not totally clear whether there is a distinction between a lobbyist

  1465
  or a lobby firm and a large company which has its own public affairs department. In some ways they would behave similarly, though in the Griffiths Report they are treated differently. As I say, I have some difficulty with that concept.
  I turn to the question of the register. The register I should most like to see is a register of lobbyists and a code of conduct for lobbyists. If such an innovation occurred, it would improve the image of those lobbying firms which try to behave in a reputable manner and therefore isolate those which do not behave in that way. If there was a code of conduct to which they had to adhere as a condition of obtaining access to the Palace of Westminster, that would not be a bad thing.
  The case for a register should depend primarily on the declaration of financial interests. I appreciate the force of the argument about other interests, but for the same reason as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I find it difficult to see how one can put the whole range of non-financial interests into a register. I should therefore prefer the register to be confined to financial interests.
  There are good arguments as to why there should be a register. As we all know, it is impossible to declare an interest when one is voting; it is difficult to declare an interest when one is asking a parliamentary Question. Those two reasons alone—though there are others—provide a case for introducing a register. The other reasons would include the fact that abuses in the other place have come to light—I believe they are well documented—and the public believe that those abuses cover all of us in this building, even those of us in your Lordships' House. A register would help us to reduce some of the criticism that we receive from outside.
  In any case I am not clear in my own mind what is the difference in principle between declaring an interest when making a speech here and registering that interest in a document which can be published annually, as in another place. Those are very similar activities. One of them is clearer and one of them is more susceptible to examination and can make up for a failure to declare an interest when one is making a speech. However, the principle is the same. Therefore, the suggestion in the Griffiths Report that there should be a register does not represent any new principle. It simply accepts present behaviour and says, "Let's put it down on paper so that the wider public can have a look at it". I appreciate that it is not all that easy for the public to get hold of the Register of Members' Interests in the other place. It is even harder for us to expect the public to peruse Hansard in the detail necessary to pin down our interests. That is why I would support a register.
  I am not totally happy about the voluntary nature of part of the register. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to an engineer. If someone is an engineer and is making a living out of being an engineer by working for an engineering firm there is nothing wrong with that individual declaring an interest in that he derives a substantial income from being an engineer. I see no problem in that. Therefore, I should like the register to be a little wider. I do not see why being an
  1466
  engineer should be a voluntary declaration whereas working for a lobbying firm should be a compulsory one. I see the two as being broadly similar.
  I am not saying that the register we would have would be identical to that in another place, but some of the difficulties of keeping a register seem to be more theoretical than real. In practice it is not very difficult to keep a register. The register in another place records foreign visits when they are paid for by foreign governments. That is not a bad thing. I believe that there were six headings in the old register in another place.
  Having made a few suggestions about how I would like some minor changes, I very much welcome the work that the noble and learned Lord and his committee have put into this report. It takes us a lot further and I hope that the House will quickly support and implement the proposals.
  5.52 p.m.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, having heard what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale had to say about the quote he gave us, it seems to me that whenever I make a speech about the Navy I should declare the fact that I have a naval pension.
  I entered the House nearly 30 years ago because my brother died somewhat earlier than expected. It happened to coincide with my leaving the Navy and I had to get a job. As some of your Lordships will know, the younger sons of Peers never have any money, particularly if they go into the Navy for the first part of their lives. I have always had to earn my living. Roughly speaking, for the first eight years in your Lordships' House—that was up to about 1975—I was doing what I call my apprenticeship. That is the great strength of the hereditary peerage, although that is not the subject of this debate. That enabled one to size up whether one would be able to make a decent contribution.
  One can make a decent contribution only if one has a job which gives one knowledge which is of use to the House from time to time when certain subjects are debated. And so I changed my job to come down to London. My previous job had been in Manchester and one could not serve this House from Manchester. Having worked for a company and having also seen how trade associations worked, I realised that it was much better to work for a trade association because it would be more general in its coverage, one's knowledge would be greater and the subject matter which related to the business of this House was much more likely to come up in that way. I deliberately chose that course in order to provide this House with some useful contribution by myself. Noble Lords may ask, "Why on earth did you do that?". I did it because my noble father was a distinguished parliamentarian in both Houses. He had two elder sons who, for very good reasons which need not worry us now, did not make their way to this House. I thought that he would like it if I carried on his tradition. I suspect that that applies to several of my noble colleagues.
  I had to have a job and I chose one which I thought would complement in the best possible way whatever I contributed to the House. I came upon, as one would,

  1467
  the various rules of the House about declaring interests. I endeavoured to do that whenever it was relevant. It quite often was not relevant in a direct way because the trade association for which I worked covered only a fairly narrow front. It is worth digressing very briefly to say that I thought that a previous job that I had earlier, which had been paid for by the Government, should have the Addison Rules applied to it. When I got that job I consulted the then Leader of the House, Lord Shackleton, and said, "Should I apply the Addison Rules to my job?". For various reasons, it was not a straightforward nationalised industry job, for which the Addison Rules were devised. He said, "I see the difference. Use your common sense and your straightforward knowledge of what you think would be right". That was the answer.
  I mention that and I mentioned the other point because when we tackle the problem of declaring interests and saying what we do we all do it for two reasons; first, because the rules say that if one is paid for something one has to declare it, which makes a lot of sense. I do not think anyone deliberately avoids that, although sometimes, as some noble Lords have mentioned, it comes up during the course of proceedings on a Bill. However, one does not mention it every time there is a new amendment. Secondly, we do so because it is terribly important for the House to know where noble Lords have obtained their knowledge from.
  I was on the central executive committee of the NSPCC when the Children Bill was going through the House. I was not paid, but that is not the point. However, I would always mention the NSPCC because people would then know that I knew a little more about various factors in the Children Bill than I would have done if I were talking just because I had brought up a family of four and had 14 grandchildren. It was much more relevant to have been on the central executive committee of the NSPCC. That needs to be thought of in the context of what we are talking about.
  When I was working for my trade association, which looked after the manufacturers of biscuits and cakes, I discovered to my surprise that there was not a proper focused voice in the House for the CBI. I thought that the captains of industry would fill that gap but they did not. The captains of industry are usually too busy. When they are not too busy they are not inclined to take part in the nitty gritty of going through amendments during the various stages of a Bill. It is not their way of life. I deliberately offered my services to the CBI in order to help it. As most noble Lords will know, for most of the 1980s I did just that. After I had been doing it for about three years representatives of the CBI said, "We think we should pay you. You are being terribly helpful". That was kind of them. After a little thought I said, "Well, why not?", particularly as I was about to retire from my full-time job. It helped to have the extra cash. So I made an extra point of saying that I was declaring an interest. Before the payments were made, I had always said that I was advised by the CBI because that gave credibility to what I was contributing to the particular activity. I believe that is a sensible way to do things.
  1468
  Having observed and listened to your Lordships and to your Lordships' predecessors over the past 30 years or so, I would say that everyone else does much the same thing. I could not find an easy example where people did not declare an interest when it was the proper thing to do. What one does may be well known; for instance, there is no point in saying that one is chairman of Vickers because everyone will know that. That kind of thing is taken care of in any event.
  I shall not continue my own history. I ask noble Lords to forgive me for doing so but it gives point to what we are talking about. I applaud the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, because he has tried to steer the right course. I suspect that it will be wise for us in, say, three or four years to take out the Griffiths Report and dust it down to see whether it can he improved because, in the nature of things, matters do not turn out as expected. Look at all the legislation that never worked out as expected by the people who planned it. Basically, I am in favour of the report. I very rarely agree with noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench but I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He said that he thought that the report was not revolutionary. I do not believe that it is. It is a natural development of what most of us have been doing in any event. We may not have written down that we are closely connected with the NSPCC, or whatever, but we have told the House about that in order for it to know what we are talking about.
  The only matter which I believe will be disadvantageous is this. I have had, happily, a long life in your Lordships' House and I have been able to grow up with the system. I am very happy to adjust myself to whatever happens and that will not he a problem. However, I fear that a young Peer coming to this House in his late forties, as I did, might attend for the apprenticeship phase and say, "Yes, that would be a nice thing to do. I shall adjust my life in order to be able to do it", which, in effect, is what I did. I do not believe that such a young Peer would be so enthusiastic if he had all kinds of pressures on him created by the Griffiths requirements and the way in which they had developed. Perhaps he would not be so enthusiastic because of the appalling effects on the freedom of assemblies such as your Lordships' House, which are continually being impressed on your Lordships by the media people who have been mentioned. They are doing so much harm to this country. We must find a way of dealing with the media people. In the meantime, let us have the Griffiths Report.
  6.3 p.m.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, some years ago a Motion was moved in your Lordships' House that speeches should be shorter. But shorter than what? The noble Lord did not say. He said that they should be shorter, and the House agreed. I can be much shorter than I would otherwise have been because, quite clearly, the debate so far has revealed a remarkable consensus to which I subscribe and which I hope will continue until the end of the debate. I offer my unstinted praise, as others have done, to all concerned for having

  1469
  reached recommendations which are the subject of very great delicacy, and which can be accepted without demur in all quarters of the House.
  Apart from saying that, I wish to say only one thing of substance. I slightly differ from those who have spoken before where the emphasis has been on the freedom of each House to be different from the other. That is so, and of course we can be different from each other; but we tend to forget how similar we are, and we do so at our peril.
  For example, we sit roughly the same hours, the same days, the same months of the year and so on. We have, by the rule of comity, conventions by which we do not, for instance, quote directly from a speech in the other place unless it has been made by a Minister. There are also the important rules on sub judice and the mentioning of proceedings before a court, which is not allowed in both Houses. We wish to speak as similarly as possible on that subject, and endeavours to that end have recently been made in this House. There are other similarities which are too banal to mention. Let us by all means have differences which reflect our composition and so on, but do not let us wish to be wilfully different.
  It is in that context that I so much welcome the recommendations which, so far, seem to have been entirely successful in their reception in this House today. They are not too different from those which are, or are in the process of being made, in another place. It would have been unacceptable to the general public, and very difficult for people to understand, if the other place had a register and we had not. The registers are going to be different, and quite rightly so. They will reflect the differences between the two Houses. In my view, there would have been an unacceptable divergence of practice if one House were to have a register and the other House were not to do so.
  Finally, I wish to make a small correction to the evidence which was given to the sub-committee. I refer to that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, on behalf of the Cross-Benchers. I say this with her permission. She correctly reported my view that the introduction of a register of interests is,
  "an essential part of a defensive position against mischievous media representations".
  I stand by that. But then she went on to attribute to me the view that,
  "since so many peers had come up from the House of Commons…standards had changed".
  I never said any such thing. I would have been horrified if I had heard myself do so. I am delighted to have this chance of putting the matter right.
  6.8 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too should like to welcome the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and also that of the Select Committee. It could hardly be a worse time to deal with this issue because standards in public life are under remorseless attack; some of it altruistic and some much less altruistic, in fact, I would say, distinctly anarchic. I am glad to see
  1470
  that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is in his place. So far as I can see, he has made, by his wholly unsubstantiated allegations of widespread dishonourable conduct among Members of this House, his own characteristic contribution to the debate.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not give me notice of what he has just said. I understand that another noble Lord set that example. Perhaps I may advise the House that what has just been said is wholly untrue, as is made perfectly plain in the evidence which is set out on page 14 of the noble and learned Lord's report where I made my position perfectly clear. I was certainly guilty of an error of judgment in thinking that a document that I was giving to the sub-committee would remain confidential, as I had wished. I made it perfectly plain in my oral evidence to the sub-committee that the paragraph in question,
  "was not included to make allegations of breaches of the rules of the House"
  and I explained why. I also apologised to the House as soon as I could for any inadvertent blemish to its reputation. With great respect, I think it wholly inappropriate of the noble Lord, especially without notice, to take the opportunity of this debate to make a statement of that kind. It is not worthy of the noble Lord.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am sorry but I simply cannot accept what the noble Lord has just said, and I shall explain why. First, we were debating the report in which the noble Lord's evidence was printed, so it is obvious that we were totally free to discuss what was in the report. The noble Lord presumably had a copy of the Whip and of the Order Paper telling him what would take place. Secondly, having earlier said that he was sorry that he had not realised that he would be exposed for having made those allegations, and having refused to reveal who made the allegations to him, the noble Lord said perfectly clearly in answer to the Chairman of the Committee on questions 80 and 81 that he believed that dishonourable conduct is widespread in this House. The noble Lord has not withdrawn that allegation which I think is a very serious one. Indeed, it is part of the reason for this debate.
  At any rate, it is not only such allegations which have made the attacks on public standards so serious. I think that standards in public life have fallen in various areas. One unfortunate example relates to standards in the City of London. Such things have undermined public confidence in our institutions.
  I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne that we should try to keep the Nolan Committee out of this. I am afraid that I have found the Nolan Report (which of course I have read) to be shortsighted and seriously defective in its recommendations. It seems to lack the intellectual independence and vigour that I would have expected of it. I fear that it may well lead to further falls in standards in public life because it may well reduce even more the expertise in another place, partly because of its recommendation for the declaration of quantum of reward and partly because I suspect that it will make

  1471
  people even more reluctant to seek to become a Member of another place than is already the case. I must say that after 16 years as a Lobby correspondent observing Members of another place, the more I have seen of them, the more I have admired them and the less I have envied them. I admire them for working jolly hard to get there and jolly hard to stay there. I admire them for doing a great deal for remarkably little in return. That said, it is a sad fact that public confidence has been gravely undermined.
  I wish that we had tackled this issue much earlier. A noble Lord opposite said that it would be nice if we could give a lead to Parliament as a whole on this question. To some extent that is what we are doing.
  Two thoughts condition my feelings on this issue. First, I believe that all of us who are Members of this noble House are immensely privileged. We are privileged to have the opportunity to debate great issues with the government of the day and in having a responsibility, shared with another place, for legislation. That privilege applies as much to the most distinguished of our hereditary grandees as it does to the most recently created working Peer. My own definition of a "working Peer" is not someone who works more or less hard or effectively than anyone else, but someone who has been sent here not as a reward for distinguished public service in the past, but in anticipation of making a modest contribution to the conduct of affairs of state in the future. Furthermore, not only are we privileged, but we are seen by those outside this place—and by those in another place—to be privileged, and we must all be aware that that is not a privilege that is universally accepted as justified.
  That leads me to my second thought on the proper behaviour of legislators generally, and of Members of this House in particular. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to this. It is not really a matter of how we see ourselves; it is every bit as much a matter of how we are seen. Having read the complete evidence of the 50 Members of this House who gave evidence to the sub-committee, I was struck by how often it was said that the fact that we act on our own "honour" is enough. Sadly, I do not think that that is sufficient to allay the concerns of those outside the House.
  I have only one other point to make. The report has two separate strands. One relates to guidance for behaviour and the other to a register of interests. I find it confusing that those strands are not woven more closely together. Frankly, if it is necessary—and I wholly accept that it is—that there is proper declaration of our interests (whether financial or external), it must make sense that the items in the register of interests should also cover those items that will be declared by way of a declaration of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made that point effectively. By way of example, I am an unpaid chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and I would always regard it as appropriate to declare that fact if speaking in a debate on rural matters. I believe that the register of interests should be more widely drawn. I am perfectly happy that it should be voluntary in its wider context, and I shall he putting down all my interests. Of course, that does not mean that I shall not declare them in a debate when
  1472
  appropriate, but I hope that such a register may make it less necessary to bore the House quite as often as one does now because one will know that they are included on the register.
  I hope that the House will accept the report and implement its recommendations speedily. By doing so, we shall do much good for ourselves and perhaps for Parliament as a whole.
  6.17 p.m.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I strongly support the Select Committee's recommendations. It seems to me almost miraculous that an agreed conclusion was reached and I pay the highest tribute to all those who served on it. With great speed and some delicacy they have managed to extract the one single form of relationship from the many broader issues of financial interests on which it has proved so difficult to make progress in the past. I refer to the matter that is causing the most public concern currently; namely, paid parliamentary consultancies. It is to that matter that the sub-committee largely confined its attention and proposals.
  In the quite recent past I have had some experience of this question. A few years ago I was approached and asked to succeed my noble friend Lord Mottistone who, as he has just told your Lordships, for some years had advised the Confederation of British Industry in your Lordships' House. My noble friend did so in a way which the House found wholly acceptable. He referred as often as necessary, but no more than necessary, to the interest that he needed to declare. On the kind of matters on which my noble friend tended to intervene I believe that the House found it useful to hear the views of the CBI as did the Government. The CBI benefited not only from what influence my noble friend was able to exert in Parliament, but also from the advice that he offered it on how to conduct its relationship with Parliament.
  I felt honoured to be offered the opportunity to succeed my noble friend. I felt that I would be doing, for what I think I can safely say was a relatively modest remuneration, a useful, worthwhile and respected job for the benefit of the House and an institution whose views I largely shared and whose contribution to our national life I considered undeniable. However culpable that might be thought now, that is how I felt. In the event, however, I found it by no means as easy as my noble friend had appeared to find it to handle references to his—now my—relationship to the CBI when speaking in your Lordships' House. Indeed, so keen was I to avoid laying myself open to the charge of failing to declare an interest that I committed the opposite error of making too many references to the advice that I was giving and taking from the CBI.
  That culminated in an occasion, on the Second Reading of a Bill, when I managed to create with some the deplorable impression that the CBI had a special right to have its views heard in your Lordships' House, thereby provoking one of my noble friends to make a savage assault on it for its presumption and some acute heckling during my own speech from the Front Bench opposite.

  1473
  That was enough for me. I considered that I was missing my step on the narrow line between failing to declare an interest, on the one hand, and creating the impression that a body whose advice one was taking had a special right to influence legislation on the other.
  At the time I would have welcomed a register. It might have reduced what I felt was the need for too frequent declarations of interest. With persistence I might have acquired the adroit skills of my noble predecessor, but I strongly doubt it.
  By the summer of 1994 the issue was on the move. The Nolan Committee was in the offing. The subject was plainly going to be reviewed. I resigned, suggesting to the CBI that it might like to await the outcome of the Nolan Committee's deliberations before deciding whether to appoint a successor. It did not appoint a successor, and I am informed that it is unlikely to do so. If it does it is likely to be on different terms. I will be the last of an unregenerate line, like someone who held a rotten borough for the single year of 1831.
  The contract that I had with the CBI fell into the category of general reward or retainer. It was not specific. I am not sure whether such a distinction is a very natural one. The Procedure Committee of the House wishes to ban the use of all paid consultancies for the purposes of exercising influence, irrespective of the terms on which they are undertaken. I believe it is right. The distinction was not well known, not easy to deduce from a cursory reading of the rules and, what is more, not all that easy to adhere to.
  An institution such as the CBI has a sophisticated and well-developed knowledge of how to deal with Parliament. It knows how to draw up an appropriate long-term contract. Not all other bodies who might wish to have their views reflected in Parliament, which is quite proper under the existing rules provided it is done on a sufficiently long-term basis, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, explained to us, necessarily have such knowledge. Indeed, in practice they often wish to see their views advanced on an ad hoc basis in response to the issues of the day as they arise—something which does not lend itself to compliance with the existing rule.
  Another recommendation in the report which I welcome is that it would be extremely valuable to have an officially and explicitly acknowledged source of advice for noble Lords in this field, where much discretion will still need to be exercised by noble Lords. I agree with the committee that that advice could best come from the Clerks of Parliament, who have always been with us. The new development would he that, specifically in this context, noble Lords would be encouraged to consult them should they feel the need for advice.
  One recommendation, however, gives me pause for thought. The Select Committee, understandably, considers it desirable to establish a mechanism whereby any charges of infringement brought against individual Peers can be investigated. Only in that way, it argues, can this House demonstrate the commitment with which we are seeking to uphold the highest standards of
  1474
  conduct. Peers under investigation would have rights of cross-examination, and so forth, and to be represented by counsel.
  The committee expressed the expectation that such proceedings would very rarely be instituted. We must all hope as much. The prosect of such investigations, with the full legal panoply, brings to mind nothing so much as the old right of Peers to be tried by their peers, now abolished and not seen in action since before the war.
  The Select Committee proposes changes to rules which for some time many have felt to be unsatisfactory, and which are surely unacceptable in today's new climate. The proposed changes go to the heart of the issue that has caused the most public concern. There is every chance that they could, by themselves, be sufficient to establish and maintain acceptable standards of conduct. I believe that they should be given that chance.
  6.25 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may, as everyone else who has spoken in the debate has done, express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, to his committee, and to all who contributed to the report we are discussing, for the enormous amount of hard work they have done, for the evidence they gave, and, above all, for the concentration that they must have given to the presentation of the report and the sifting of the evidence.
  My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to his apprenticeship. It is perhaps significant that I have my usual position of tail-end Charlie in the debate. A mere 34 years ago I was in roughly this position when the late Lord Boyd of Merton made a significant maiden speech. And who gave the reply? None other than the grandfather of the present Lord Privy Seal. That started my apprenticeship in 1961. In 1971 I began a more serious apprenticeship. If your Lordships glance at paragraph 7 of the conclusions on page 5 of the report you will see some hints which I take on board and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, hopes that we will pay attention. The paragraph says, among other things, that Peers should not read out lengthy speeches.
  Part of my apprenticeship 18 years ago took place on the Benches opposite when we were dealing with the fascinating Patents Bill. If any of your Lordships wish to go into the fascinations of polytetrafluoroethene and other activities in the pharmaceutical and patent lines without resorting to reading you might get into singular difficulty. On that occasion the Government and all noble Lords who contributed to the proceedings were in similar difficulties. So perhaps from time to time your Lordships reading out lengthy briefs will be tolerated. We wonder whether the complicated speech that is being made with such inordinate concentration will have any effect upon the rest of your Lordships. Will it influence the debate? Will it influence other Peers, let alone the Government? After a long apprenticeship, I have my doubts.

  1475
  Paragraph 48 of the report contains the two words, "public perception". They struck a chord in my mind. To whom is the public perception attributable? Is it the makers of the programme which some say, if I am quick, I may have the opportunity to glance at tonight? Who are the public? Do we assume that the anecdotal "public" have the right idea, the wrong idea, or perhaps a false idea of the powers and abilities of your Lordships to influence one another?
  Three points interest me. At paragraph 10 of his evidence my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal referred to the encyclopaedic knowledge of the Whips about everybody's business. Perhaps he was too tactful to mention the derived knowledge of the whole House. When some Members of your Lordships' House—and I am guilty of being one—rise to their feet, there is what I would describe as the Calgary Stampede from the Chamber for tea, dinner, or other refreshments, because noble Lords know that the noble Lord will still he speaking when they get back. My noble friend is too tactful to say that but people lobbying for outside interests might take that on board.
  At paragraph 35 of the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, there is an interesting duel with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The noble Lord, Lord Richard—I hope I quote him correctly—said that if Peers owned half of Scotland the question of set-aside or forestry would enter into the calculations. The noble Lord knows his geography. If your Lordships have the chance to examine his motorcar in daylight you will see that he does know his geography and does know Scotland. Those of us who come from Scotland may have interests to declare. If one is a farmer, set-aside is somewhat compulsory, but we do not gain any benefits from it, except possibly appalling weather.
  Most of Scotland is classified as a disadvantaged area so far as concerns stock. So it must follow that all farmers in Scotland are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory payments. Forestry receives an unbelievable amalgam of tax, finance and grants; there are also the environmental and ecological considerations. If one comes from Scotland and says that one is a farmer or involved in forestry, I hope that that will be enough for any noble Lord to say in the House. We need guidance as to what should go into a register.
  Another interesting aspect of the duel between the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh appears at paragraph 36. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, may have gone a little towards the reductio ad absurdum when he suggested that if one took too narrow a view of who might and who might not speak, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for example, would never be allowed to speak, which would be a loss to your Lordships' House. Many noble Lords have made that point today.
  I was interested to read paragraph 146 of the evidence on page 29. My noble friend Lord Hesketh mentioned one aspect of the declaration of interests. He mentioned that it might be a little one-sided. He may have a point.
  I hope that I have not detained your Lordships too long. I wonder whether the public perception of your Lordships' House could be a two-edged weapon. I join
  1476
  with all noble Lords who say that a register is desirable, but even with my long experience I shall need guidance. The much appreciated assistance and guidance that I will need to fill in my entry for the register will come from the Clerks to whom we all owe an enormous debt. I hope that we will not owe them a bigger debt when the register comes to be filled in. I can assure noble Lords that my imagination is already twinkling as regards all the direct and indirect financial benefits I might be able to include. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, for producing a marvellous report and the entire team—if I may call it that—for the effort put into it.
  6.33 p.m.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as one member of the team of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I join, as I believe that is the right thing to do, in the appreciation expressed on all sides of the House for the work done by the noble and learned Lord. He showed great patience and skill, particularly in the early stages of the committee, because it got off to a rather slow and uncertain start. The noble and learned Lord found us occasionally to be an unruly group, but he kept us in order, he persuaded some of us out of our more unreasonable positions, he took a great interest in the detailed drafting, and he brought us through to a large measure of success. Plainly, the House owes him a great deal.
  In his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord used one phrase which succinctly summed up his view, strongly expressed in the committee, and therefore the view of the committee itself, when he said that the report's message is that we must not sell parliamentary influence. If that is the thought which lies behind our debate today, and determines the way we always behave, I do not believe that Members of the House will go wrong.
  I welcome what was said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—widely endorsed by other speakers—that any necessary order should be brought forward without delay to implement the views of the House. I confess that I believed initially that we should wait for the further report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and only then decide what course we should take, but I have been persuaded otherwise and I now join those who believe that the sooner we put our own affairs in order, if that is what we will be doing, the better. We should do it now of our own volition rather than later if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, judges that that is what we should do.
  Although I believe that we should put our House in order on the basis of views expressed today and the noble and learned Lord's report, we must at all times remember—I wish to return to this point—why the Nolan Committee was appointed. Here I use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, himself. It was:
  "To ensure that the people of this country have confidence in the way in which public affairs are conducted".

  1477
  That is the real answer to arguments about perception: the people of this country should have confidence in the way that we conduct our affairs. If there is a fault in any direction—leaning one way or another—it should be to be doubly sure that that is indeed the case.
  We should not forget that this House is the second Chamber in our parliamentary system. It would diminish us to pretend in some way that Nolan does not apply to us. Perhaps I may refer to an exchange that I had with the Leader of the House when he gave evidence on 1st February, and thank him for the outcome. At question 13 on page 4 of the oral evidence I asked him whether he saw any objection to the annual information sheet which sets out membership and attendance statistics containing also a list of declarations made by Peers in the Official Report.
  The noble Viscount's reply was equivocal, cautious, and in fact discouraging, but on 23rd February he wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, saying that on further reflection he saw no objection. I welcome that. The intention behind my question might seem to have been overtaken by the report of the sub-committee and today's debate, but my present view is that such information should be brought together and printed. It would take little effort. It would be information that noble Lords had given to the House, which had already been published and was widely available.
  As page 22 of the Procedure Committee's report makes clear, in the sub-committee I moved an amendment to the draft report to establish in the House a comprehensive register along the lines of the one that has operated in the other place for over 20 years. The case for such a register is set out briefly in my amendment and is put more eloquently in paragraph 43 of the report. I heard no arguments in the sub-committee and have heard none today that persuade me I am wrong. As I have said, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are two Houses of the same Parliament. We both legislate. That is the heart of the matter. If the public are entitled to know the interests of Members of one House, they are entitled to know the interests of the Members of the other.
  The point was made well by the sub-committee of the Procedure Committee which reviewed these matters in 1974. It is referred to in the first paragraph at the top of page 12 of the present report. The paragraph starts by saying that one of the differences between the Lords and the Commons is that your Lordships are not paid. It then continues:
  "but the Sub-Committee regard this are irrelevant for…responsibility and registration of interests should go with power and not with the payment of salaries".
  This is the position under our constitution. Why else have we spent long hours this Session considering the Environment Bill, the Gas Bill, the Criminal Injuries Bill and many others? Why else shall be debate the Queen's Speech in a fortnight's time? We are not paid—I believe that the expression an "amateur House" is a rather unfortunate one—but that is irrelevant. We have power and the public has the right to scrutinise those who exercise it, whether in this House or elsewhere.
  1478
  There are other arguments against the register which I find strange. Twenty years ago the Procedure Committee referred to this Chamber as being,
  "of a unique kind because of its capacity to manage its own affairs".
  There have been references today—absolutely rightly—to the fact that the report of the sub-committee refers to noble Lords acting on their "personal honour". I agree with all that. But then we come to the argument that the idea of a comprehensive register is somehow impractical because it could not be made compulsive. But if we are right to claim that we manage our own affairs and intend to continue to do so, and if we argue that Peers for the most part act on their own honour, why should we suddenly assume that if the House decides to have a comprehensive register Members acting in self-interest, self-regulation and on their honour would then not sign a register?
  Of course, the House of Commons has the right to expel a Member for declining to register his interests. But I do not believe that that is a sanction which makes registration effective in another place. I have always doubted whether such a sanction would work. Certainly when I was a Member of the other place—and a strong supporter of the register—I would not have voted for expulsion. So, whatever the arguments against a comprehensive registration, I do hope that that will not be one of them.
  There are other arguments that I have heard which I also find to be unconvincing; for example, that it would be difficult to keep such a register up-to-date. Again, in that respect, I do not see that Members of your Lordships' House are less capable of keeping a register up to date than Members of another place. The most powerful argument—and it is one that was put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in his opening remarks, and is also a thought which lay behind a number of remarks of those who do not very much like the report—is that some Members would simply stay away if they had to register their interests in that way.
  It is a matter of judgment. I have great respect for what my noble friend said; and, indeed for other views expressed in the House. However, I find it difficult to believe that those Members of your Lordships' House who have something important to say would stay away from this place and not speak simply because they were required to put into a register no more and no less than what is put into the register available in another place.
  Perhaps I may just remind noble Lords that the register in another place requires a Member to declare his remunerated directorships, but not to say how much he is paid in fees. It requires gifts to be registered but not those under £125 in value. A Member in another place registers land or property of substantial value, but not his own house and no figures are put on anything that he registers. I have to say that all this seems to me to be incredibly painless. I do not understand why Members of this House who did not find it difficult to register interests when they were Members of another place would find it so difficult to do so in your Lordships' House, as it was something which once came naturally to them.

  1479
  The most powerful case against a register—and I refer briefly to the matter in closing—is that the vast majority of Members of this House behave honourably at all times and do not confuse their public duties with their private interests to personal advantage. That is a view expressed in the House and one which I share. I do not dissent in any way from that thought. But our reputation is not simply in what we are but in what we are seen to be. If we wish to maintain—and, indeed, enhance—the standing of this House, we must be open and transparent. The time has past when confidence in ourselves absolves us from reassuring others.
  I believe that one day there will be a comprehensive register of interests in this House. I would prefer it now as a result of this debate rather than later as a result of external pressure. I fully accept that there has been and still remains a wide diversity of interests here. Others have agreed to move from the positions that they hold to make a compromise, to make concessions. Such matters are personal and not party ones in this House. For that reason, as a signatory of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, I am happy to support its recommendations. I will support any orders or resolutions put before the House and shall not in any way seek to amend them.
  6.46 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as another member of the Griffiths Committee I should like to add my tribute to those already expressed to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he conducted his sub-committee and brought it to a successful conclusion. It must have been quite a culture shock for the noble and learned Lord. I say that because I do not believe that he was used to the way in which the more active politicians among us behave. When he observed the affectionate slanging matches between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord appreciated immediately the extent to which they were affectionate as well as being slanging matches. When I congratulated the noble and learned Lord after the report had been completed on the way in which he had achieved such a degree of unanimity, he said, "Well, of course, we all moved, didn't we?" But he then looked at me and said, "You didn't move, you swayed". I am satisfied with that description of what happened during the course of the committee.
  Perhaps I may begin by stressing one thing that the committee was not and never set out to be. This debate takes place in the context of a great deal of public discussion about the extent of abuse of parliamentary procedure and of abuse in terms of standards of life both in this House and in another place. It was not a muck-raking committee. It was not a committee of investigation into abuse. We had no resources and no desire to do so. It was not part of our terms of reference and we did not do it, except on the occasion when it was thrust upon us by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Even then, I believe it is fair to say that we gave the minimal response on questioning to the allegations that he made. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which there is a great deal of abuse in this
  1480
  House. We do not know from any investigations that we carried out. Indeed, we do not know more than any other Member of this House knows.
  During the course of this debate a number of speakers said that they believed the extent of abuse is very small. I believe that they are probably right. After all, we do not know as a result of the inquiry of the Griffiths sub-committee and it was never our intention to know. The recommendations that we made in committee were not in any way dependent upon the allegation that there is widespread abuse in this House; they are dependent on a much more important matter, which is the reputation of this House with the public, the people who rely on Parliament for democratic legitimacy in this country.
  The second point concerns the so-called differences between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Of course there are differences between the two and it is true that the Members of this House are unpaid and that therefore we have to earn a living outside the House. However, to counter that, those who really have to earn a living outside can perfectly well take leave of absence and be absolved of all responsibility for declaration. However, the important matter for the public is not the composition of this House but the responsibilities of the House—the fact that we are a legislative Chamber and all legislation has to pass through this House, as it does the House of Commons. It would be a grave mistake if we were to rely on differences of composition to justify differences in the way in which we conduct ourselves in public and the standards that we adhere to. I emphasise that we should not seek to hide behind differences in composition in considering the issues before us today.
  The third point I wish to make concerns declaration and registration. Noble Lords—in fact, only two—have said that although they accept the need for declaration of interest, they do not see the need for registration of interest. I simply do not understand that. Declaration and registration are part of the same thing. They are part of the same transparency and openness but applied for different purposes. It is not possible for most people observing the activities of Parliament to look through Hansard to discover what is or is not being declared. All they can see is the result of what happens in Parliament, whether in this House or in the House of Commons. The registration of interest on the other hand is a more publicly available record of the way in which Members of both Houses—I hope—approach their business and the influences upon them. Therefore it serves a different but complementary and necessary purpose in Parliament in both Houses.
  There appear to be some difficulties about definitions of interest. I do not appreciate those difficulties. Of course there will always be problems at the margin. There has always been a distinction in this House between those interests which have been defined in the Companion as being direct, pecuniary and shared by few others, and those which are not. We legislate for local government to distinguish between a general interest such as that of being a council tenant and voting on council house rents and a specific interest, for example as regards contracts, which means that a councillor has

  1481
  to leave the room and not take part in any debate or decision on that subject. If we can achieve this in legislation for other people, surely we can do it for ourselves.
  The noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Reay, both described their interest as paid advisers to the CBI. Let me say immediately that in my view both of them have always behaved totally honourably in accordance with the rules of the House, as existing at that time and at this time. I have never had any doubt about their integrity in that matter. However, I note that the CBI has ceased to pay an adviser after the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I wonder whether the CBI, like the local authority associations for example, and many other bodies, could not get on just as well without paid advisers by having people who take an interest because they are concerned through their convictions about the interests of the CBI, or indeed any other body.
  We should not think that if—as I hope—we accept the recommendations of the Griffiths sub-committee, that is the end of the matter. It is not the end of the matter for one simple reason which is beyond our control; namely, that the Nolan Committee will investigate the House of Lords in the course of the next year and will report to us. There are significant differences between what is recommended in the report before us and what Nolan has so far recommended, and we may well have to look at the recommendations again.
  The first area where I believe we are entirely right and Nolan is wrong is that Nolan bans any payment from political consultancy. I believe that is wrong for the reason that political consultants and political lobbying firms often serve smaller clients and more short-term interests, whereas the large clients employ their own internal public affairs managers and are not proscribed as Nolan would have the lobbyists proscribed. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Dubs and others who said that lobbying is an essential part of our political process. I do not believe it should be identified purely as being lobbying by lobbying firms; it is and should be much wider than that.
  The second area where I believe the recommendations before us are right is where—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said—we propose to ban selling parliamentary activity. The Nolan Report does not propose that. It bans payment from lobbying firms but it does not go so far as to say that receipt of money from other organisations or companies should be accompanied by a ban on parliamentary activity. I think that is wrong, and this matter will have to be resolved in the end. I believe that in the end we shall have to accept that the references in the Griffiths Report to similar arrangements to political consultancies or the phrase, "interests which are direct, pecuniary and shared by few others" will mean that the ban on certain parliamentary activity will have to be extended in due course. The general public do not and will not distinguish between an interest which is a landowning interest or a large-scale shareholding or industrial interest, and an interest which comes from lobbying. If people are to gain financial benefit from activities of
  1482
  Parliament, the public will expect them—I believe rightly—not to take part in parliamentary activities. We shall have to face that matter again in due course.
  We do not recommend that there should be a declaration of amounts that are paid. That is probably right. I am sure that the House would not find that acceptable at the moment. We shall wait to see what happens in the House of Commons on Monday. As regards the scope of the register, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to that at great length. He knows that I agree with him on that point. Again, we shall have to wait to see what happens. I suspect that the limited register which is proposed will prove to be skimpy although I would certainly encourage my noble friends to make voluntary declarations of interest. I suspect that there will not be a great deal to that matter and we may have to rethink it.
  As regards enforcement, what is proposed is about the furthest we can go when one bears in mind the fact that we cannot exclude Members of this House because they are here by Writ of Summons. We are proposing that that should be undertaken by the Committee for Privileges on the condition that three Law Lords should be present at any adjudication. The important point about that provision is that it constitutes self-regulation and there is no equivalent of the ombudsman who is to be appointed to oversee standards in the House of Commons. I welcome the commitment to self-regulation in this House, and I hope it will continue. I am not sure that that will be the case, but the only chance of it being established and continuing is if the recommendations of the Griffiths Committee are implemented quickly. I hope that by the time we have the results of the Nolan investigations, we have had an opportunity to say, "This is how our own reform has worked out in practice and this is the answer that we can give from real knowledge to whatever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his colleagues may say". Timing here is of the essence.
  The report of the Procedure Committee suggests that if there is general support in the debate, we should move forward to incorporate the recommendations. It will be agreed that there has been general support for the proposals in the debate. There have been 24 speeches and only two—those of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter—opposed significant parts of the recommendations, and those parts are confined to the matter of registration.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord ignores the excellent speech of the noble Baroness.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, it seemed to me that she concluded in favour of the recommendations. She is indicating her assent now.
  There were one or two differences of opinion about wording. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, himself indicated that, after consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, he wished to make some textual changes in one case. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, disagreed with some of the wording but did not propose to press the point. However, in general, only two noble Lords out of all those who have spoken

  1483
  expressed unyielding opposition to a significant part of the report. As proposed in the annex to the Fifth Report of the Procedures Committee, they have the opportunity to express that opposition by voting against the second and third Motions which would be put before the House.
  Action is needed. There can be no doubt about that. Action is possible because we have a three-part package to be put before the House. I believe that it is in both the immediate and long-term interests of this House that we deal with the matter as swiftly as possible. I say that not at all in the sense that we should be seeking to appease the media. I shall not join in attacks on the media because I believe they perform a necessary function and usually perform it to a very high standard. Those we have to be concerned about are not the media but the public, and the public expect us to behave as a responsible House of Parliament. This report gives us an opportunity to do so.
  7.1 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have found it extremely interesting. In particular, I have been struck by the way in which all noble Lords who have spoken, whatever their viewpoint, have sought to make a constructive response to the proposals before us.
  I suggest that that says much for the excellent job done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and his sub-committee in producing their report. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who this afternoon gave tremendous clarity and life to the rather dry words of the original report. I shall recommend to my Back-Benchers, many of whom have not yet seen the report in detail, that they read his speech in Hansard.
  Of course there are plenty of good reasons for opposing the proposals that we are debating today. First, no change is necessary because there is no evidence of any abuse. There are unsubstantiated allegations, and there are the contrived and mischievous interpretations indulged in by the media. That is not an attack on the media, more a concern or perhaps even more an observation. There is nothing more than that.
  I can assure your Lordships that the Government Chief Whip in this House gets to know a great deal about what goes on here—perhaps not everything—and I know of no improper behaviour of Peers in respect of their activities in the House and any financial interests they may have.
  Secondly, this is an amateur House, in the true sense of the term, if I may borrow the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, disagreed with that description. It is perhaps a professional House made up of amateurs. Such rules as may be appropriate for the salaried representatives of the people in another place are not necessary for your Lordships. I disagreed strongly with that part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in what was otherwise an excellent speech, In which he said that the two Houses should have similar arrangements. That point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
  1484
  Noble Lords receive no salary, participating in parliamentary life from a sense of public duty and service. The wisdom and experience acquired in other walks of life enrich our proceedings. It would be a great loss were endless scrutiny of Peers' private affairs to deter those who, not being professional politicians, make such a unique and valued contribution.
  To return to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, he suggested that there was little to distinguish in principle between registration of an interest and declaration of an interest before participating in a debate. Without wishing to spoil what has been a good-hearted debate this afternoon, I disagree fundamentally with both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on that point. To me the difference is very clear. It is for that reason that I am very glad that the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, did not recommend compulsory registration of interests other than those which have been described as paid advocacy.
  To those of us who are not professional politicians the prospect of being obliged to disclose all our financial interests, including those which may have no relevance whatever to our activities in Parliament, is one which may altogether deter participation in your Lordships' House. By contrast, the requirement to declare an interest in a debate permits a noble Lord to choose on each occasion whether or not he wishes to participate.
  The third point that I wish to make is that these proposals will be difficult to interpret. As a Chief Whip I am particularly conscious that I am likely to receive endless visits from Back-Benchers seeking advice as to whether their particular interests should preclude them from taking part in a particular item of business. I suspect that my noble friends the Chief Whips on the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches, if I can call them noble friends in this instance, would join me in saying that it is a headache that they will not relish. However, I am delighted to hear that my noble friend Lord Lyell will go direct to the Clerks with his concerns about registration rather than come to me.
  The House will now realise that I believe that much of what is proposed is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and nasty medicine. However, I believe that we must put our doubts on one side. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier today, Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. The world has changed and we must recognise the way we are seen by others. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made the point about how we are universally perceived. It was a point that was made rather more forcefully by my noble friend Lord Marlesford who said that public confidence has been undermined.
  I join with my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree in saying that much doubt surrounds some of our most cherished institutions. The denigration of our national institutions. including Parliament, is one of the unfortunate features of our age. I deeply regret that. However, this report gives us, in the House of Lords, an opportunity to declare ourselves in favour of the highest standards of probity in parliamentary life. For that reason we must support the proposals and do our utmost to make them work effectively.

  1485
  It is in the traditions of your Lordships' House that we seek our own solutions and that we operate by agreement and, if necessary, by compromise. Compromise was a word which was central to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hesketh. I pay tribute to both him and my noble friend Lord Pym, who sat on the sub-committee in a non-partisan way, as did other members of the sub-committee, purely with the very best interests of the House at heart.
  I hope that the fact that most speakers today have, by and large, found the proposals bearable will encourage others of your Lordships to give them your support in the interests of good order and consensus. I say "by and large" because I am conscious that two of my noble friends—my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter—expressed grave reservations about certain aspects of the report and how it will be implemented. I take those reservations seriously.
  I wish to deal with one point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who suggested that we should not proceed to implement those recommendations in advance of scrutiny of our practice by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I sympathise with some of his views. However, on that point I cannot agree. As my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has said that implementation of the recommendations before the House today would not inhibit his committee in any way but that on the face of it they were a positive response to public concern about the integrity and probity of those in Parliament. That being so, I believe that it would be far preferable to pursue our long and constructive tradition of self-regulation rather than wait to be instructed.
  It is not for me to answer the debate today. That distinction rests with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I have no doubt that subsequently there will be need to give further consideration to the views expressed by your Lordships before any decision is taken about what further action may be required.
  Perhaps I may say a few words about the powerful speech of my noble friend Lady Young. She referred to the television programme to be screened on Channel 4 this evening. I very much agree with the concerns expressed: that it is most regrettable that allegations should be made in this way and propagated by the press with no opportunity given for the other side of the question to be examined. Until I have an opportunity to view the programme, I believe that I can say little more than that it appears to have all the hallmarks of mischief making. I am rather confirmed in that opinion by the fact that the makers of the programme showed such poor judgment as to cancel their interview with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
  I have no doubt that what is said today will not be the end of the story. It is a difficult subject as the protracted discussions in another place have demonstrated. I know that what the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, proposed is a compromise between those who want no change and those who wish to see
  1486
  all our financial affairs, no matter how unrelated to our parliamentary activities, catalogued and scrutinised. I realise that a compromise never truly pleases anyone. But I do not invite your Lordships to be pleased with what is proposed; rather, I urge the House to support what is achievable. This proposal is achievable. I believe that it has been well supported this afternoon and should continue to be supported.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him to accept that, in view of what has been said, I defer to the sense of the House.
  7.12 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate in a number of ways to which I shall refer in a moment. It has been a major occasion for the House and a very valuable debate. In a debate in which 24 Members of your Lordships' House have taken part, I believe that I should not be forgiven if I referred by name to every Member's speech. Therefore, I ask the forgiveness of those whose speeches I do not refer to by name. In particular, I ask the forgiveness of the Members of the three Front Benches and of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers for not referring to their speeches in detail.
  However, this I do say. One of the remarkable features of the debate has been the way in which the speeches from the three Front Benches and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, have provided collective leadership to this House. It is remarkable because I do not believe that that often occurs. It is remarkable, too, because I venture to say that it is in accordance with the finest traditions of this House when it comes to regulating and ordering the procedure and rules of order of the House. It is a collective leadership and a collective form of order which we in this House pursue and benefit from.
  There is another remarkable feature of the debate. Although a number of arguments ran through many of the speeches, a particular thread ran through a great many. Time after time, noble Lords stated that there was no evidence of abuse. I venture to agree with that assertion. The remarkable aspect is that noble Lords who expressed strong reservations, and noble Lords who are in favour of implementing the recommendations of the report of the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, have stated that too. There has been a general acknowledgement that there has been no evidence of abuse. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, we have no means of knowing whether or not there is a measure of abuse. But the fact remains that there has been no evidence of abuse. It is not without significance that both noble Lords who expressed strong reservations and noble Lords in favour of going ahead with the proposals have made that statement. Therefore notwithstanding that fact, noble Lords from all sides of the House wish on the whole to proceed with the recommendations. That thread arose—if I do not mix my metaphors too much—first, in the speech of my noble friend Lady Young; and other speeches followed.

  1487
  In their speeches, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have performed a real service to the House with assiduity, as they customarily do. They have expressed opinions of value. Whatever position one takes, they have expressed views which cannot and should not be ignored, and which should be expressed because they exist. As at Question Time and on other occasions in your Lordships' House, once again they have performed what I would say is a real service to your Lordships' House.
  A number of individual, specific points have been raised. Perhaps some of them do not apply on this occasion. Therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, I shall not deal with them all. However, there are some which should be mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised the point about whether or not there is a power to suspend a Member of the House. I find it difficult to give an answer to that question off my own bat. However, to an extent only, an answer is to be found in paragraph 54 of the report of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. It states that the legal position is doubtful—although I paraphrase, I hope that I do not do so inaccurately—and it should be assumed that there is no such power. I add the observation, "so far as it goes", because there is no conclusive, absolute definition in answer to that question. If I may say so to your Lordships, it seems fairly safe for our purposes at least for the time being, unless anything more tangible emerges, to adopt that assumption. I cannot take the matter further than that, but I hope that that is of some help to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
  A number of other specific points have also been raised. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to some difficulties which could arise, if your Lordships decide to accept the recommendations and proposals, in interpreting what amount to declarations of interest of a particular kind. He instanced the case of a father who had been supporting the interests of mongol children, having a mongol child himself, and whether that person should declare an interest. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to forgive me but I cannot tonight off the cuff—and nor, I suspect, could many of us—give a definitive answer. If such a case arises and there is difficulty, the interpretation will develop in the course of the conduct of our affairs. It is inevitable that we could not predict all the instances that might arise so we cannot define them. There are bound to be occasions when points come up for interpretation.
  Other points also were mentioned. As I have already indicated, and I hope that it is acceptable to your Lordships, I shall not deal with them at this time. They might arise if and when the resolutions are placed before your Lordships or, if the resolutions are passed, they might arise in the course of the development of our proceedings.
  I will say this, in attempting to draw conclusions from the debate. As has already been pointed out, among the 24 Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debate, two of the speakers expressed the strong reservations to which I have already referred. The other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken have formed what I venture to conclude has been
  1488
  a general consensus around the House on the way in which we should proceed. Having listened to the debate, which I very much enjoyed, I find myself unable to escape from the conclusion that the consensus is in favour of the recommendations of the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the Procedure Committee's recommendations to your Lordships. If I am wrong in drawing that conclusion, I shall be corrected. In those circumstances, I should have thought that if your Lordships pass the Motion this evening it would be right to proceed to introduce into your Lordships' House the practical aspects of those recommendations.
  There is one other consensus which I think emerged, again a general consensus, and I suggest that it is fair to draw a conclusion about it. It is that if it is right that there is a general consensus on the principle, there is also a general consensus that we should proceed with all due practical speed. That again has emerged tonight throughout your Lordships' House. If that is right, then, subject to the passing of tonight's Motion, we can feel that the House would wish to proceed in that way.
  I had not intended to speak for as long as this; in fact, I advised those who asked me that I should finish within 10 minutes. I am sorry to have exceeded my own time limit. For the third time tonight, I ask your Lordships' forgiveness and I commend the Motion to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Since there are no amendments, I have been advised that I should say a few choice words at this time and not later.
This has been an interesting Bill, not only of interest to us parliamentarians, but a Bill in the public's interest. The debate has been characterised by a common purpose: to give the General Medical Council the powers it needs to deal with doctors whose performance is, in the words of the Bill, "seriously deficient".
We know the famous quote of George Bernard Shaw that professions are a conspiracy against the laity, but he also said of the medical profession:
"Like other professions [the medical profession] consists of a small percentage of highly gifted persons at one end, and a small percentage of altogether disastrous duffers at the other".
I hope that with the introduction of these new procedures the few disastrous duffers will be quickly weeded out and that the profession's efforts can be concentrated on ways of ensuring that the vast majority of very competent and committed doctors are assisted and encouraged to maintain their medical excellence.
The NHS is the largest employer of doctors and it has a major role in ensuring that they are encouraged to keep up to date with the latest techniques, drug therapies and treatment protocols and that high standards are achieved and maintained. The NHS needs to develop a climate of

1489
opinion which is both sympathetic to doctors but is also able to take decisive action when practice is poor. It also needs to encourage other colleagues to be vigilant before patients suffer or extreme sanctions are needed.
I think we can detect the first signs of a global warming in the medical world and we should welcome and encourage the new impetus given by the GMC in dealing with problem doctors. The GMC's guidance Duties of a Doctor, issued in October, exhorts the medical profession:
"to treat every patient politely and considerately; … to keep professional knowledge and skills up to date; … [and] to recognise the limits of professional competence".
Those are three aspects of medical practice which are very pertinent to this Bill and I am sure that your Lordships will welcome the clear statement by the General Medical Council that doctors must protect patients when they believe that a colleague's conduct, performance or health is a threat to them. As the GMC says,
"The safety of patients must come first at all times".
Another sign of global warming is the Joint Consultants Committee which has recently recommended action when clinical audit has revealed unsatisfactory practice. It is important that poor performance is picked up early and at every opportunity. The Chief Medical Officer has recently published his contribution to the subject entitled Maintaining Medical Excellence. Despite the common purpose which we share in the Bill, we have vigorously debated important points of principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with her razor-sharp intellect, has pushed for clarity—as she so often does—on the meaning of "seriously deficient performance". I am aware that I have failed totally to satisfy her, but I am sure that she will recognise that clarity in legislation often emerges with time and usage. The decisions of the Committee on Professional Performance will be published and a body of case law developed. With time, the definition will be clearer to us all. The GMC and the NHS Executive will want to ensure that user-friendly guidance is provided both to the public and those in the NHS who deal with complaints and disciplinary matters. This guidance will need to be ready for the start of the new procedures in early 1997.
The noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, quite rightly explored the reasons why the Bill provided for hearings of the Committee on Professional Performance to be held in private, unless the doctor wishes a public hearing—as, of course, he or she is entitled to do in the interests of open justice and under the European Convention on Human Rights. The General Medical Council has undertaken to review the position after the committee has been hearing cases for three years. Leaving this matter to rules approved by the Privy Council with the further scrutiny of Parliament allows for flexibility. But there should be no fear that embarrassing decisions will be hushed up. The GMC intends that all findings of seriously deficient performance will be made public.
1490
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in her usual decisive and probing way, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have both questioned the arrangements for cases to be transferred between the GMC's conduct, health and performance procedures. I hope I have been able to reassure them that these matters can be left to rules. The GMC has assured me that its rules will enable the swift passage of cases between the conduct and performance procedures.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, on his last day in this House, reminded us that even the Church of England has much to learn in the field of discipline and adjudication and that there is a strong case for compassion in these new procedures. But the GMC's overriding concern must be the need to protect the public. My noble friend Lord Milverton, through his own telling experience, reminded us that even Peers may suffer poor treatment.
My noble friend Lord Harmsworth, in probing the voluntary removal procedures, focused our minds on the structure of Clause 2. With his intervention, we were able to improve the wording of the clause to make it clear that doctors cannot use it to frustrate an investigation into their conduct or performance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the problem of ensuring that doctors undertake remedial training when this is necessary. We do not consider that the Bill needed to include a power to make remedial training a condition on a doctor's registration. However, the Committee on Professional Performance will be able to impose such a condition where the doctor refuses to take remedial action and where there has been no improvement in performance.
The scope of the Bill has been widened with the co-operation and encouragement of all parties. We have been able to include two important measures: one to protect the interest of the public by extending the GMC's powers to impose interim suspension until the outcome of the case is decided; the second to aid the treatment of the doctor in the health procedures. At present a doctor is required to go before the health committee each year while under suspension. The Bill will enable the committee to suspend the doctor indefinitely while giving the doctor the right to a further hearing once every two years.
I should also particularly like to mention the very knowledgeable and wise contributions from the past presidents of the GMC—the noble Lords, Lord Richardson and Lord Walton. At times it has been difficult to find anything further to add to what they have said.
I hope that Sir Robert Kilpatrick will see the passing of this Bill as a fitting tribute to his presidency of the General Medical Council. I know that the work he has started will be ably taken forward by his successor, Sir Donald Irvine.
Finally, I should like to thank the officials who have helped me with this Bill and for the co-operation I know they have given to Members of this House seeking information. They have worked with diligence. They

1491
suffered the inconvenience of some of your Lordships' rather strange timekeeping—or, I should say, lack of timekeeping. I am grateful to them for their patience.
We have discussed this Bill thoroughly. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Your Lordships' scrutiny has again demonstrated the importance of this House as a revising Chamber. The Bill, although small, is important, in that it marks the determination of the General Medical Council to grasp thorny issues in the interests of patients and the good name of the medical profession. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Baroness Cumberlege.)
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, since this Bill was first introduced in another place, we on these Benches have supported its principles. We now wish it a smooth passage on to the statute book. The General Medical Council has rightly recognised the need to extend professional self-regulation so that an assessment can be made and, if necessary, sanctions be applied to a practitioner whose professional performance may be deficient. That is clearly appropriate today, when the increased use of medical technology and rapidly expanding scientific knowledge, together with rising levels in patients' expectations, place new demands on doctors.
We have been very grateful for the detailed and helpful briefings and background information that the GMC provided. We were particularly grateful for the way in which some of the points that we on this side of the House made in debate have been incorporated in its new guidance to the medical profession—even though none of our amendments was successful.
Noble Lords will be aware, as the Minister reminded us, that the General Medical Council has in the past few weeks fulfilled an earlier commitment to issue new professional standards of guidance. This comprehensive pack of booklets called Duties of a doctor replaces the old "blue book" which was discussed at length and in various contexts at earlier stages of the Bill.
The new guidance contains new duties. For example, one of the important issues that we on these Benches and other noble Lords raised at Second Reading and in Committee is the difficulty of regulating that area of a doctor's performance that relates to a doctor's personal behaviour, to his or her personal "bedside manner". It is something that may be of great significance to a patient. I am therefore very pleased indeed that the new guidelines strongly emphasise these matters. In fact, the headline principles included in every booklet and on the front cover of the folder containing them, include the following points:
"In particular as a doctor you must … respect patients' dignity and privacy; listen to patients and respect their views; give patients information in a way they can understand; respect the rights of patients to be fully involved in decisions about their care".
Although these principles are not enshrined in the legislation, the new guidance goes a long way towards meeting the concerns that we raised at earlier stages.
1492
I am less happy that the specific issues we raised about methods of financing the remedial retraining for defaulting doctors have not been resolved. Noble Lords will remember that I, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, introduced amendments in Committee to try to ensure that no doctor should have to pay personally for retraining, and that the cost should be borne by public funds. Even at this very late stage, there still seems to he an anomaly in the Bill; namely, a hospital doctor can have his or her retraining fees paid by the employing NHS trust, but a general practitioner may have to pay up to £20,000 from his or her own budget for the retraining. I understand, from a conversation today, that the British Medical Association and the Department of Health are still in discussion regarding this situation. I hope that it can he satisfactorily resolved before the Act comes into operation.
It is also disappointing that the attempts of my noble friend Lord Rea at Report stage to try to rationalise the somewhat cumbersome procedures of the General Medical Council committee structure was resisted; although I must say on my noble friend's behalf that he is grateful for the Minister's replies to his queries which she was kind enough to pass to him in correspondence. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be present tonight. He feels that many of the points he raised were covered in the correspondence from the Minister. I thank my noble friend Lord Rea for his support during the passage of the Bill. He is certainly not at the disastrous end of the spectrum of medical practitioners but he does have longstanding experience in general practice and wide connections in the medical profession. These provided a useful touchstone against which we could evaluate some of the proposals.
I also thank the Minister for her very clear explanations at every stage of the sometimes complex procedures for which the GMC provided and which clearly govern all the instances that might arise. I thank her, too, for her helpful response to our amendments. It was noticeable that in several of her replies—indeed, the noble Baroness herself mentioned this in her remarks this evening—the Minister emphasised that she and the Department of Health are relying on the General Medical Council to fulfil informal understandings about some of the necessary regulation that must he complied with; for example, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to review the "in camera" committee proceedings after three years.
We must all have confidence that the GMC will be able to make the new law effective, in spirit as well as in practice. There is every chance that the Bill will improve the regulation and, indirectly, the performance of the medical profession, as well as improving patients' confidence in their ability successfully to protest at inadequate treatment. The front cover of Duties of a doctor has the following noble aspiration:
"Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and wellbeing. To justify that trust, we as a profession have a duty to maintain a good standard of practice and care and to show respect for human life".

1493
Those are very welcome sentiments. We hope that the Bill will ensure that they are put into practice. I wish it every success.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I welcome the passing of this Bill. It has been of great comfort to all of us who are interested in it that it has support on all sides of the House, and also that it originated from the General Medical Council itself. I add my congratulations to Sir Robert Kilpatrick for the great work that he did in getting this Bill placed before the House.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay: we are sad that we were not able to resolve the problem of who pays for a general practitioner's retraining. However, you cannot win all the time. I thank the Minister particularly for the way in which she guided the Bill through this House. She is always patient, even when she cannot give us what we want.
I should particularly like to thank her for the long letter that she wrote to me in reply to the point that I raised on Report about the interval that ensues after a doctor has been in front of the Professional Conduct Committee and before he can be brought before the Professional Performance Committee. I quite understand what she says—that the matter would then have to go back to the assessment committee and the doctor would have to be given another 28 days' notice of a meeting. I understand from her letter that the rules of the GMC will make certain that he can go from the Professional Conduct Committee direct to the screener for the Professional Performance Committee. That ought to make the hiatus between the two hearings shorter. When there is something wrong with a doctor's performance, I was concerned that he should be allowed to practise for a fairly lengthy time before coming before the Professional Performance Committee. So I am pleased that the time has been shortened.
I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness the Minister very much for the way in which she has conducted the passage of the Bill. I wish it well.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the Commons amendment ordered to be printed.

Disability Discrimination Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to, with other amendments agreed to with amendments, and with the remaining amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement; the Commons reason and amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  China: Opposition to Population Policy
  China: Opposition to Population Policy
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Mr. Chen Ziming
  Mr. Chen Ziming
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  Overseas Development Administration Cash Limit
  Overseas Development Administration Cash Limit
  EU Council Forthcoming Business
  EU Council Forthcoming Business
  Commonwealth Development Corporation External Finance Limit
  Commonwealth Development Corporation External Finance Limit
  HMSO: New Supply and Service Agreement
  HMSO: New Supply and Service Agreement
  Farmers' Tractors: Regulatory Provisions
  Farmers' Tractors: Regulatory Provisions
  Pilots: Age Limit
  Pilots: Age Limit
  Network SouthEast: Performance Figures
  Network SouthEast: Performance Figures
  Greenwich: Bypass Proposal
  Greenwich: Bypass Proposal
  Firearms Certificates: Renewal
  Firearms Certificates: Renewal
  Local Government Reorganisation: Costs
  Local Government Reorganisation: Costs
  UN Conference on Women, Beijing Platform for Action
  UN Conference on Women, Beijing Platform for Action
  Children from Homeless Families: School Attendance
  Children from Homeless Families: School Attendance