Sitting of 2 November 1995

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Amendment proposed [26 June]: No. 1, in the preamble, page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
    `but not of their duty to use the land for educational purposes'.—[Mr. Cohen.]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question, That the amendment be made.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the state of British fishing. [38921]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has direct responsibility for fishing policy, holds regular meetings with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and I look forward to doing so as well.
    Mr. Mitchell: When he has finished expressing his gibbering gratitude to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for saving him from the iniquities of the days at sea limitation regime, will the Minister discuss whether it is right or reasonable that the country that contributes the majority of fishing waters and fishing stocks to the so-called European Community pool should be forced to make the biggest reduction in its fleet? Will he consider not simply decommissioning to make space for Spanish vessels but adopting a scrap and build policy to modernise the fleet so that we can catch our own fish?
    Mr. Hogg: The essential problem that the House must face is that there is excess fishing capacity measured against the available stocks. Judged according to that criterion, a policy of scrap and build is not manifestly sensible. We must reduce capacity, and the Government's policy of decommissioning is directed at achieving that objective.
    Mr. Harris: In the opinion of some fishermen—although they do not shout it from the wheelhouses—our hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries has not made a bad start in his new post. The fishermen and the NFFO particularly welcome the abandonment of the wretched days at sea legislation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend build on that start by accepting the offer from the chief executive of the NFFO, Mr. Barrie Deas, to open talks with the Government on the future of the industry?
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State are widely admired in the House and in the fishing industry. I suspect that that is why 134 Labour Members of Parliament declined to vote against the Government position when the matter was debated about 10 days ago. As to a specific meeting to discuss the way forward, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has frequent meetings that are designed to achieve that objective.

    Forests, Berkshire
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the percentage increase in forested land in Berkshire resulting from the Government's rural White Paper. [38922]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Madam Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Madam Speaker, forgive me. I apologise profusely and I shall continue to do so if that will make hon. Members happy.
    The Government would like to see a doubling of the area of woodland in England over the next half century. However, as the rural White Paper explains, that will depend on securing necessary changes to the common agricultural policy. There are no targets for individual counties.
    Mr. Rendel: What plans does the Minister have to try to encourage the reforestation of Britain and to increase payments under the farm woodland premium scheme to encourage farmers to plant their own land?
    Mr. Hogg: As the House knows, we already have a very generous grant system in place. Last year, we paid about £30 million in grants to woodland owners. We have led the way within the European Union in greening the common agricultural policy in that respect. The 1992 regulations reflected our own woodlands scheme which was introduced in 1988. As a result of a United Kingdom initiative, land that is used for forestry can now count against set-aside. They are major steps forward and I commend them to the hon. Gentleman.

    British Fruit and Vegetables
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by his Department to promote sales of British fruit and vegetables to British consumers. [38923]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): My colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote British fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very full reply. Is he aware, however, that the National Farmers Union is increasingly concerned about certain

    377
    European Commission proposals relating to the promotion and marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables? Does he agree that such proposals will seriously disadvantage the British grower and will he, therefore, assure the House that he will do all within his considerable power to ensure that there is a level playing field so that our growers are not disadvantaged?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his trenchant comments. I share his concern and that of the National Farmers Union that the proposals being initiated in Europe for the reform of the common agricultural policy on horticulture should be fair to Britain. We have already expressed concern about their definition of producer groups—that is our main concern. We are determined to secure a level playing field for our growers and, as far as possible, to end wasteful intervention. Those matters will all be taken forward in the negotiations.
    Mr. Pickthall: How far have we got in our defence of British lettuce growers against the unreasonable regulations proposed on nitrates in lettuce? When can we expect that preposterous idea to be knocked on the head?
    Mr. Boswell: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We take the matter seriously and believe that the proposals are not well founded scientifically. If they were implemented, they would certainly have serious effects on our lettuce growers; they would not contribute to health, as they would discourage the consumption of vegetables and fruit. We shall therefore pursue the matter vigorously in Europe. It has only just come back to us as a result of the report of the EC Scientific Committee for Food, which corroborated our view, and we shall pursue the matter vigorously over the coming weeks and months.
    Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will realise that some supermarkets—I shall name Tesco as their leader—have advocated the eating of Cox's orange pippins and other varieties such as Granny Smiths. That practice should be encouraged. Perhaps there should be an encouraging word from the Department to the supermarkets to increase public relations on the eating of English fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Boswell: The House will appreciate that we have to be a little careful in merely advocating the buying of British produce. At every possible opportunity, I shall be photographed eating an English apple—whether Cox's or otherwise. At every possible opportunity, I shall encourage British supermarkets to stock those varieties and I shall encourage everyone in the House and outside to proclaim their virtue to the customer, who will be well satisfied with them.
    Mrs. Golding: When will the Government stand up for British fruit growers? Not only do the Government support French nuclear testing in the Pacific but they stand by while the French dump their apple mountains in Britain. How many more of our apple orchards does the Minister want ripped out by desperate farmers? When will he do something to prevent that, or are the Government too afraid of offending the French?
    Mr. Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is a matter of regret that I have to dissent from almost everything she said—possibly, on reflection, she might do so herself. We have supported the interests of British growers. The
    378
    grubbing-up scheme was introduced—in the United Kingdom and elsewhere—with the support of our growers. It has helped to remove some of the tail end of the industry and we now have a modern, productive and efficient fruit production industry which is well marketed and receives a great deal of support from growers and retailers. We have every confidence that, through technology, marketing and the involvement of growers, together with the encouragement of our Department, we shall wipe the floor with our competitors.
    Mr. Pickles: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), when he visited my constituency without notice, he was told by growers there that, had it not been for the British Government's intervention, they would now be faced with the nitrates directive. Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of growers in my constituency? Thank God somebody stuck up for Britain, and it has benefited the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. As it happens, he represents my birthplace, and it is nice to receive compliments. We take the matter seriously, and use every opportunity to protect the interests of British growers. We will ensure that butterhead lettuce grown in Britain, whether in the constituency of my hon. Friend or in Lancashire, West, is available for the benefit of our consumers.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take to combat fraud in the common agricultural policy. [38924]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are seeking further reforms of the CAP to reduce the scope for fraud—in particular, to reduce dependence on export refunds and intervention. We also fully support Commission initiatives to apply financial penalties to member states where controls are found to be inadequate.
    Mr. Prentice: I welcome that answer as far as it goes, but what on earth have the Government been doing since 1979, given that the CAP has ballooned by 43 per cent. and that fraud accounts for £6 billion out of a budget of £33 billion? Is it not the case that the CAP is infested with fraudsters and cheats ripping off the rest of us, and that the Government have done far too little, too late?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's comments are uncomplimentary and unfair, because the United Kingdom has very much taken the lead in the European Union in tackling fraud. I invite him to cast his mind back to the Essen summit, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured far greater use of the European Court of Auditors and of the European Parliament in scrutinising financial management and bearing down on fraud.
    The hon. Gentleman's figure for the extent of fraud is without any foundation. The only basis on which one can estimate fraud is the reported number of incidents, and they bear absolutely no relationship to. the hon. Gentleman's figure. In 1994, member states reported irregularities of just over 1 per cent. of the CAP budget—

    379
    hardly the kind of excesses that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course all fraud is serious, and of course we are determined to continue to bear down on it in the European Union.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Members on the Government's action against fraud? Does he agree that, if the CAP is to be reformed, it is essential to continue to attack fraud?
    Mr. Baldry: I absolutely agree. Of course it is imperative that fraud is eliminated from the CAP or any other policy. The fight against fraud remains a high priority for us. We will continue to keep pressuring the Commission for action further to reform the CAP and to reduce instances of CAP fraud. The Council is negotiating reforms in the fruit and vegetable sector, and we fully support initiatives such as the black list, which is aimed at penalising those who perpetrate fraud.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1995. [38925]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: EC budget expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1995 will be about £28 billion. That is some £2.6 billion below the agricultural guideline.
    Mr. Darling: Given that the CAP costs families between £15 and £20 a week, is it not time to embark on a radical reform of the CAP? Can the Minister make a commitment that the Government will raise the matter at next year's intergovernmental conference with a view to amending, if necessary, those parts of the treaty of Rome that affect the CAP, so that the system is fairer, more efficient and less likely to lead to fraud, but leads instead to a reduction in expenditure for most people throughout Europe, including in this country?
    Mr. Hogg: The Government's position in support of their policy of reforming the common agricultural policy is extremely well known, and we take every opportunity to impress on the Council, the Parliament and the Commission the need for substantial reform—especially in the context of enlargement and also because of the ceilings of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The hon. Gentleman's advocacy of that policy would be more plausible if the Labour party manifesto of 1992 had touched on the subject at all, and if the party had dealt with the question at its party conference in September.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a remarkable. state of affairs that the policy should so totally lack credibility as to require satellite imagery to counteract fraud? Would not the best course of action for the Government be to tear up the CAP and to replace it with national efficiency payments for British farmers?
    Mr. Hogg: I regret having to disagree with my hon. Friend but I do so strongly in respect of his conclusions. Nor do I agree that the policy lacks credibility. The problem with the common agricultural policy is that, although the United Kingdom has serious criticisms to make of the policy, that position is not universally shared by member states. There is no consensus at the moment within the Council or the Community for substantial change.
    Mr. Tyler: Can the Minister estimate the proportion of the £28 billion that actually reaches farm incomes in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hogg: The figures are available; I would not want to give the hon. Gentleman a specific figure off the cuff, but I would be happy to do so in writing. One particular figure sticks in my mind, however. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1993 measured the total transfers by the taxpayer and the consumer in the context of agriculture, and found that only 50 per cent. of them went to farmers. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be more precise, I would prefer to write to him, to preclude the possibility of error.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend detect an certain irony in the fact that the most federalist policy in the Community is now being attacked by the most federalist parties among the Opposition? Does he agree that the real problem with fraud is that so many of our European partners seem to think it is perfectly all right to pass legislation without obeying it, whereas our party resists such legislation but then obeys it to the hilt? Surely that is the problem that is endemic in the whole European structure; ultimately, it is the problem with which we will have to grapple.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right on both counts, and his first point deserves reinforcing. The House will remember that the Leader of the Opposition said on 4 October 1994:
    "Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe."
    As I have already said in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), there is no general agreement in the European Union on the need for change. We will bring about change only by pressing for it vigorously all the while. It is quite plain from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will be in no position to do that.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister recall that, while his predecessors were telling the House that the MacSharry CAP reforms gave Britain all it wanted, the Labour party not only argued that they were inadequate but called for an end to state intervention buying of agricultural produce and an end to export subsidies on agricultural commodities? Will the Minister confirm that that is now the position of the British Government?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself. I have the 1992 Labour manifesto in front of me. It contained three paragraphs on the desirability of a ministry for women, and two sentences on the common agricultural policy—neither pointing in the direction to which the hon. Gentleman has just pointed.

    Black Market Milk
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to end the trade in black market milk. [38926]
    Mr. Baldry: Following investigations by MAFF and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, three producers have been successfully prosecuted for offences associated with illegal trading in milk. Cases against seven other producers are before the courts and further

    381
    investigations are in progress. These cases demonstrate the Government's determination to stamp out black market trading in milk.
    Mrs. Winterton: Cheshire farmers will be pleased that the matter of black market milk is being dealt with as it is, but is not the real problem the fact that the United Kingdom was dealt a bad hand in 1984 when quota allocations were made by the European Community and the fact that we are restricted to producing only about 85 per cent. of our liquid milk requirement? Is not only one of the ways forward the matter of being able to transfer quota across national boundaries? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he and the Government will put the matter before the European Commission to ensure that Cheshire farmers and other milk producers in Britain are not further disadvantaged in the future?
    Mr. Baldry: I hope that my hon. Friend will take back to Cheshire farmers the clear message that black market traders in milk will not get away with it. They will be detected, prosecuted and punished. Not only do they face the risk of penalty imposed by the courts, but the intervention board will impose a super-levy of 30p a litre on all undeclared deliveries of milk. I suspect that that will greatly exceed any fine imposed by the courts. The court fine and the super-levy will represent substantial penalties on any farmer tempted to indulge in trading in black market milk.
    Britain has never been self-sufficient in milk. When the quota was set in 1981, it in large part reflected the fact that the Labour Government in the mid-1970s did not adjust the green pound in a way that encouraged dairy farmers. I hope that my hon. Friend will remind her dairy farmers of that fact. Of course, we continue to press in Brussels for intra-Community trade in milk quotas as a means of allowing quota to go to those parts of the Community—
    Madam Speaker: Order. These answers are inordinately long. Back Benchers must be given an opportunity to ask questions. Such long answers from Ministers restrict Back Benchers' opportunities.
    Mr. Connarty: Is not one of the problems the fact that 70 per cent. of milk quotas in the United Kingdom both for sale and for lease are held by non-producers? The idea of quotas to help the producers and farmers has become so distorted now that quotas are just a commodity to be traded for cash. They are not about farm incomes and preserving the farms of this country.
    Mr. Baldry: That does not offer any excuse for trade in black market milk. We have always felt that we would wish to get rid of milk quotas altogether, but, so long as internal support prices in the Community encourage the production of dairy products for which there is no market, it will be difficult to do away with quotas altogether.

    Farms (Recycling)
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the farming industry to increase its level of recycling. [38929]
    Mr. Boswell: The Ministry has produced guidance for farmers on recycling of waste through its codes of good agricultural practice. Farmers can also take part in an industry-led recovery scheme for farm plastics.
    Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister is being complacent. There is a real problem with plastic packaging waste which is a by-product of modern farming methods. When will the Minister talk to colleagues in the Department of the Environment about measures to dissuade farmers from using so much plastic waste or to persuade them to recycle it? Or is the Minister going to wait until the whole country is knee-deep in plastic waste?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the farm films recovery service, which has a hotline and has been established to develop a service for farmers. I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for recycling. The opportunities are already available. I assure him that we already talk regularly, frequently and positively with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, which take the lead in waste disposal matters.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduce a comprehensive programme of recycling to recycle the garbage and claptrap spoken by Opposition Members? If they do that, every farmer will vote Conservative.
    Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that, during the development of the common agricultural policy, most of the traditional mountains have been removed, including butter, milk and cereals, but the mountain of unrecycled Labour waste and abandoned policies which are then reintroduced in a different form continues to no purpose.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, when I met the Ayrshire branch of the Scottish National Farmers Union, along with Sandra Osborne, the prospective Labour candidate and the next Member of Parliament for Ayr, the union said that it was keen to see farmers recycled? It is important to introduce an early retirement scheme, because the average age of farmers in Ayrshire is over 55. Why are early retirement schemes in place in other parts of the Community but not in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Boswell: In formulating our agricultural policies and selecting the European opportunities available to us, we clearly have to set our own priorities. Clearly, the early retirement of some of the more unwelcome Labour policies such as the minimum wage might be beneficial.

    Food Industry Deregulation
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are in place to enable further deregulation in the food industry. [38932]
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to deregulate the food industry. [38935]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): In addition to the very substantial progress already made by my Department in food law deregulation, we shall be proposing simplification of a large number of composition, labelling and additives regulations from 1 January 1996. In looking for further ways to simplify the law and reduce burdens on business, we shall also be making every effort to persuade our European Community partners of the benefits of deregulation.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst sort of regulation is that which regulates against imagined evils and dangers that hardly exist? I welcome the Government's moves on the deregulation of cheese. Will the Government start reviews of poultrymeat hygiene and meat hygiene to balance the costs of regulation with the injuries, illnesses or deaths from poison? We need a proper balance within the regulation of those industries.
    Mrs. Browning: The food law deregulation plan acknowledges that essential standards of food safety and consumer protection must be maintained—but I take my hon. Friend's point about getting the balance right, which we are certainly seeking to do.
    I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on Tuesday that we have consulted the industry on the deregulation of compositional standards in British territorial cheeses and they are all safe in our hands.
    Mr. Nicholson: The Minister is a doughty fighter and, in the spirit of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), I hope that she will convey some of her combativeness to her officials. Is she aware that, unless the numerous allegations made by Mr. Christopher Booker are either disproved or resolved—there is much more resolving to be done—considerable damage will be done to popular regard both for the European Community and for Her Majesty's Government?
    Mrs. Browning: We scrutinise carefully all reports in the press, wherever they come from, to see whether they are accurate and need further investigation or are simply examples of opportunistic journalism. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that, when I write in my capacity as a Minister to the editors of national newspapers seeking to correct scientific facts, those editors frequently fail to publish my letters.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When considering further deregulation in the agricultural industry, will the Minister take action to safeguard the doorstep delivery of milk which many people wish to see safeguarded?
    Mrs. Browning: Those of us who benefit from doorstep deliveries welcome and value that service. But it is not for Ministers to frogmarch milkmen up garden paths to deliver milk unless an order is placed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is surely wrong. There is no balance in the food industry. Does the Minister accept that, with regard to safety, we need more regulation, not deregulation? For example, over the years, Ministers from her Department have said from the Dispatch Box that bovine spongiform encephalopathy cannot enter the food chain; mad cow disease is not communicable to human beings. It clearly is. That calls for more regulation of the meat industry, not deregulation.
    Mrs. Browning: We take seriously BSE and all the scientific findings and investigations in that regard, and science does not support what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He is right to say that there is a need for balance, but the House must judge which is the party of over-regulation and which is the party of deregulation, based on what he has said this afternoon.

    Dairying
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector. [38933]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regularly meet representatives of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them. I have also had the pleasure of meeting in the last couple of weeks representatives of the Dairy Industry Federation and Milk Marque. Earlier this week, I attended the Dairy Industry Federation's annual lunch.
    Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the concern of the Cheshire dairy farmers about black market trading in milk, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), is shared by the overwhelming majority of Staffordshire dairy farmers? Only a few cases have reached the courts so far. Does my right hon. and learned Friend expect many more cases to reach the courts, and has he discussed that with the president of the NFU?
    Mr. Hogg: That is an important issue, on which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just spoken. There have been three prosecutions in the recent past, and the impact of the super-levy should act as a substantial deterrent. I very much hope that there will be further prosecutions if the evidence supports them. It is a serious matter against which we must strike.
    Mr. Stevenson: In his discussions with the NFU on the dairy sector, did the Minister discuss the fact that the cost of the dairy sector and the CAP is due to increase substantially in the next few years? Did he further discuss the fact that the Paymaster General attended a meeting in Brussels in July and accepted a 10.9 per cent. increase in common agricultural policy expenditure? Does that not mean that the Government's assurance that they intend to control the cost of the bloated CAP regime is not worth the paper on which it is written?
    Mr. Hogg: That is simply not right and, coming from the Labour party, it is not attractive, because between 1974 and 1979, when Labour had some responsibility for CAP expenditure, it quadrupled. The 1992 reforms are an important step in constraining expenditure. We have set guidelines within which CAP expenditure should stay, but we must go on pressing for reform, and we will do that. The dairy farmers that I have met recently have expressed themselves satisfied with the return from their sector.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we are the largest consumers of liquid milk in the European Union and that Lancashire housewives resent the fact that, while Lancashire farmers can produce the milk that they would wish to drink, because of the quota system, we have to import that milk?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. We are not self-sufficient in milk. The principal reason for that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in answer to a previous question, is that the agri-monetary policy pursued by the Labour party in the 1970s prevented the development of the British dairy industry to the extent that would otherwise have been the case. Hence, the 1981 base year was less favourable than otherwise one would wish. As to the future, in the long term we should like to

    385
    secure market circumstances leading to a phasing out of quotas and, in the interim, we should like to secure, although it will be a difficult negotiation, inter-European Union tradeability in milk quotas.
    Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that, under the common agricultural policy, we spend more than £3,000 million a year on support for the dairy industry? Although much of that money is spent wastefully, just 3 per cent. is spent on subsidies for school milk. Would it not be a disgrace if, as part of the public expenditure review, the Government cut that spending?
    Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that, applied in such a context, the word "disgrace" is simply absurd.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I seek a firm commitment from my right hon. and learned Friend? Does he agree that the United Kingdom has some of the finest grassland in the European Community, and that that grassland is ideal for dairy farming and milk production? Will he give an assurance that it is Government policy to increase the milk quota for United Kingdom dairy farmers for as long as quotas exist in the European Community—bearing in mind that we are not self-sufficient in milk?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right: we are not self-sufficient in milk, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have already given.
    I had the pleasure of visiting Cheshire last Friday, and of meeting many dairy farmers there. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the productivity and skills of dairy workers in his county. As for quotas, if it were possible, we would indeed wish to secure a larger quota, but when I ask myself whether we are likely to achieve it, the answer is "Probably not"—hence the importance that we attach to persuading the European Union to allow the leasing of quotas across EU national frontiers.

    Industrial Crops
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that the United Kingdom obtains its share of acreage agreed for industrial crops within the framework of the Blair House agreement. [38934]
    Mr. Baldry: We have made it clear that adjustments to area payments rather than quantitative limits are the better approach.
    Mr. Jones: Have we not missed the boat, because France and Germany have already increased their production up to the limits set in the Blair House agreement? Is that not a disgusting state of affairs for the European Community?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The European Commission is taking, or considering, action against states such as France that have taken a number of steps to encourage biodiesels by, for instance, allowing pilot plant status for commercial plants, illegal tax breaks and illegal subsidies to farmers. I think that ours is a far better approach.

    Countryside Policies
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to stimulate prosperity in the countryside, with special reference to small farmers in south Leicestershire. [38936]
    Mr. Boswell: The White Paper on rural England was launched jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 17 October. It contains a number of initiatives aimed at stimulating prosperity in the countryside generally.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that there are many small and medium-sized farmers in the attractive countryside of south Leicestershire in my constituency of Blaby. He will also know that, over the past three years, they have benefited from a real increase of approximately 60 per cent. in average farming income. Will he go further, and explain how those farmers will benefit from the provisions of the White Paper?
    Mr. Boswell: I know my hon. Friend's constituency well. Some 12 years ago, I represented the farmers there on behalf of the National Farmers Union; they are splendid people.
    The purpose of our policies is to benefit all farmers, large and small. Our policies take them all into account. The purpose of the White Paper, along with the documents that we have already published—for example, those on farm tourism and on diversification—is to stimulate the rural economy; the policy is based on agriculture, but involves all other kinds of commercial activity. It is also intended to sustain employment for the benefit of the nation generally.
    Mr. Morley: In what way does it help the rural economy for the recent White Paper to give clear encouragement to county councils to sell smallholdings? Does the Minister not recognise the importance of such smallholdings in enabling many young farmers to reach the first rung of the agricultural ladder? If they are sold, they will simply be bought by larger neighbouring farms, increasing the loss of farmers from the land.
    Mr. Boswell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take away the autonomy of county councils, many of which are presently under Labour control. Things have moved on, although the Labour party may not have noticed it. We have new farm tenancy legislation which provides many more opportunities for entrants to the industry. It will be for county councils to decide how best to use or reuse the resources that are currently locked up in farm smallholdings.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister seeks to stimulate further agriculture in Leicestershire or anywhere else, will he say whether he agrees with the EU budget that has just been published, which states that expenditure on agriculture for 1996 will be 34 per cent. more than last year? That is an increase of 34 per cent. on £9,000 million. Is it not sad that, on a day when Ministers are considering cuts in spending, the EU proposes to spend a third more on agriculture next year than it did last year?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend takes a particular view of the evolution of the common agricultural policy within the European budget, and I would not necessarily share all his views on that. My right hon. and learned Friend

    387
    the Minister has encouraged the publication of the document on CAP reform which we recently presented and which proposes to set up the most radical agenda possible for long-term reform of the common agricultural policy. We shall vigorously advocate that among our colleagues in Europe.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38951]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Eagle: If the disclosure of the amounts that are earned in parliamentary consultancies is such an unimportant detail, can the Prime Minister say why up to 100 Conservative Members are threatening to resign if the House forces them to share that information with their constituents? Is that why he will vote for secrecy? What do Conservative Members have to hide?
    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say to her that she should not believe all the nonsense that she reads in some newspapers about the proposed actions of my hon. Friends or, indeed, about anything else. The Nolan report is extremely important. I set up the committee because I believed that there was a problem that needed to be looked at dispassionately. It has produced its report and the Select Committee has examined it. In a number of ways, the Select Committee has gone beyond the Nolan report. It has done so with my support, and I look forward to Parliament approving its recommendations.
    Mr. Lord: Thanks to the national lottery and the millennium fund, there is now a great deal of money available for good works. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could set ourselves two very worthwhile targets to achieve by the year 2000? They are, first, by that time every inner city ought to be a decent place for people to live in and secondly, every secondary school ought to have access to a good, proper cricket square.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend plays to my instincts, as I think he knows, in this case. There is no doubt that the national lottery has exceeded the success that even we had forecast for it. It has already raised in excess of £1 billion for good causes and a very large number of organisations are now able to put in place facilities that millions of ordinary people will enjoy and would not have been able to enjoy but for the lottery. The point about the lottery is that, because of it, some areas of importance to our national life that are never likely to receive total priority in any public expenditure round will now have a guaranteed stream of future income for many years ahead, and millions of people will benefit from that.
    Mr. Blair: Having set up Nolan and having agreed to implement it, what possible justification will the Prime Minister give when he comes to the House on Monday, along with the Cabinet and Government, and votes down
    388
    its key recommendation—the simple honest requirement that Members of Parliament who have outside financial interests that are connected with their being Members of Parliament should disclose the amounts that they earn from them? Just what do he and his party have to hide?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear, when I established Nolan, that I thought that there was a matter that needed independent investigation. Lord Nolan did that. He said, when he replied, that he thought that there were matters that needed some further clarification. The Select Committee has done that. I have made it clear throughout that I support the broad thrust of what the Nolan committee recommended and I have said so on more than one occasion. I still hold to that.
    Nolan made 55 recommendations, 45 to the Government, almost all of which are already being implemented, and I thoroughly agree with that, and 10 recommendations addressed to the House. The Select Committee has accepted nine of those, and has gone further than the Nolan committee in respect of the 10th, and I agree with that.
    What is most important in the midst of this is the Select Committee's proposal to ban paid advocacy. That is entirely right, I support it, but if we do that, the income that hon. Members earn from other activities explicitly approved by Parliament seems to me to be a matter between them and the Inland Revenue tax inspectors.
    Mr. Blair: This has nothing to do with some detailed consideration of Nolan. It is to do with the squalid monetary interest of the Conservative party. That was Nolan's key recommendation. If now, in weakness, the Prime Minister goes back on his word to implement the report that he commissioned, it will leave a stain on his prime ministership and on his Government that will not be removed until this rotten Administration is swept from office.
    The Prime Minister: I think that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are serious matters about Nolan that deserve serious consideration, not the sort of short-term party political wrangling that we have just heard from him. On the substantive point, this is a serious matter for Parliament, with long-term implications, and it is a shame that he cannot understand that. I do not favour a wholly professional House staffed entirely by hon. Members who are professional politicians and nothing else. That is the route that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would wish to lead us down. He would then, no doubt, have his party thought police telling Labour Members what to do and issuing statements on their behalf, as he did last week. That is not the route for this House. He may find some short-term advantage in the line that he takes, but what he is proposing is bad for the future of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Blair: The Nolan committee is not stopping people from having outside interests. It simply says that we should be open and honest about them. The Prime Minister is a man saying today what he knows to be

    389
    wrong, and the question for him is this: when is he going to have the courage to stand up to his party and tell it what is right?
    The Prime Minister: We have gone further than Lord Nolan had on the matters that are undesirable. Rather than say simply, "Disclose income," we have banned the things that we believe to be wrong. That is what I propose to do. The Select Committee is right in banning paid advocacy. If it is wrong, it should not be done. If it is right, it should not be impeded for party political reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do.
    Lord Nolan considered whether hon. Members' assets and income should be disclosed and that would, of course, include not only matters such as directors' fees—[Interruption.] This is an important matter to the future of the House of Commons and it deserves to be seriously considered by the House, not just treated as Opposition Members are treating it.
    Lord Nolan considered the matter. He concluded, and I quote from the Nolan report:
    "No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that"—
    that is, disclosure—
    "might be necessary."
    Parliamentary rules already require all outside interests to be entered in the Register. That will continue. It will be published more regularly. The substantive point is clear. If it is wrong, it should not be done and the Select Committee proposes to ban the things that are wrong. If it is right, it should not be impeded, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
    Mr. King: May I correct my right hon. Friend in one respect, in that it was not Lord Nolan on his own but 10 members under his chairmanship who considered these matters and described in the report whether we should recommend a ban on paid advocacy? We said specifically at that time that we doubted whether it was practicable or whether it would be acceptable to the House. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an immediate ban on paid advocacy goes significantly further than Lord Nolan and his committee recommended? It goes to the heart of the issue of public concern, and should therefore be strongly supported.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and I sought to make that point a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is the case, but for his own party reasons, he and his colleagues are deliberately distorting the central aspect to be determined.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38952]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: No one would accuse the Prime Minister of being a professional politician. If hon. Members have outside consultancies, what is the Prime Minister's personal objection to them declaring how much they get? Why does he object to that transparency?
    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman why. I believe that it is right for the House to know what
    390
    interests Members of Parliament have. It is right that they should register the nature of those activities, as is proposed, so that the House knows about them. It is right that things which are wrong should be banned. Beyond that, hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as others.
    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who have written to me in recent days to describe the misery and torment that they and their families have suffered because of the activities of the Rev. Moon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's extraordinary court decision is yet another example of the contempt with which some members of the judiciary seem to treat the views of the House and of the general public?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to refuse the Rev. Moon entry into the country. I do not believe that his presence here would be conducive to the public good. If the Rev. Moon decides to make representations, of course they will be considered.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38953]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: As recently as 23 May, the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he favoured greater transparency in the affairs of Members of Parliament. He is now saying that he will vote for more secrecy. When will the Prime Minister, with all the dignity and authority of his office, lead the Tory party from the front rather than the rear?
    The Prime Minister: We all know the lines that the Opposition Front Bench have given to the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we are making much tougher and much more transparent the interests of Members of Parliament and we are banning the things that are wrong. That is the key point. If it is wrong, it should not be done, and the Select Committee is right to suggest a ban. The hon. Gentleman referred to 23 May. My activities and views have not changed. I foreshadowed them clearly and at some length in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 May, to which he has not yet replied.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that no one in Somerset need wait more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment? Does that not show the success of the Government's health reforms? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to drop his objection to fundholding?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the partisan proposals of the Opposition to turn back the clock on the NHS reforms are to be regretted, given the clear evidence of the success of those reforms. More patients are being treated, they have greater opportunities for treatment and they are treated more speedily. The Opposition's plans to scrap GP fundholding in the face both of the overwhelming evidence of its success and the opposition of GPs who are providing a better service because of it will be unacceptable to people up and down the country.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38954]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: As Tory Members of Parliament fight to save their second and third jobs, many people in my constituency want their first jobs. Is it not true that if Members of Parliament act as consultants, the public have the right to know whether they earn £50 or £5,000?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to touch upon the important issue of unemployment. However, he might more usefully have mentioned that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. from its peak—[Interruption.] it is interesting to note that Labour Members do not like hearing about the fall in unemployment—yet two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition raised the matter week after week. It is months since Labour Members have raised it, because they do not like the fact that it is going down in this country because of our policies, yet it is going up in other countries that follow socialist policies.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. We need to get on with the business question.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the second report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Motion relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
Motion relating to Select Committees.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. First, I want to ask him about the motion on Select Committees that we shall be debating on Tuesday. Will he provide us with relevant information so that we can consider in advance what will happen with the Select Committee that will have the responsibility for monitoring the new Department of the Office of Public Service? Will he make it clear that the Committee will be able to monitor all the activities of the Deputy Prime Minister?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is nodding—has passed all its stages in the other place, that there is no opposition to it and that there is co-operation among all those involved in the issue? As the House is not short of parliamentary time over the next few days, will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time to allow the House to reach a final decision on the Bill which, as I said, has widespread support? He would not be creating a precedent by doing so and I am sure that the Bill would be welcomed on both sides of the House and outside it.
Finally, what has happened to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, and why? Surely the House should have a full statement about the Bill, especially bearing in mind the amount of time spent on it in both Houses. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, that on every occasion during the past parliamentary year that an hon. Member has raised the issue of domestic violence and the women and children who are victims of it, the Minister responding has said that we should wait for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill? What will Ministers say now? Will the Bill come back to this House?
Mr. Newton: On the Select Committee proposals, which I said that I hope that we can discuss on Tuesday,
394
I hope to be tabling the relevant motion later today. It will make clear the terms of reference that we propose for the Select Committee with which the hon. Lady's question was especially concerned.
As for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, I refer the hon. Lady—as I recently referred the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—to what I said last week:
"It has been established over many years that the time available for private Members' Bills is set at the beginning of the parliamentary Session by a decision of the House."—[Official Report, 26 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1154.]
That remains the case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that I have met him, as requested, but had to explain that I saw no basis on which the Government could make special arrangements favouring one private Member's Bill over others. I should say, however, that I am extremely sympathetic to the Bill. I hope that it will prove possible for it to be passed speedily in the next Session of Parliament, given the extent of the agreement that is said to exist and which I hope does exist.
As for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has just answered a parliamentary question saying that the Lord Chancellor has listened to the concerns expressed about the Bill and is considering them. He goes on to say that the timetable is such, however, that it is now impossible to make further progress this Session and that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will continue to work on the Bill with a view to bringing it back before Parliament as soon as possible.
Mr. Roger Sims: When my right hon. Friend introduces Monday's debate on the Select Committee's report, will he explain how he reconciles the terms of the first resolution, which appears to preclude parliamentary advisers from speaking in the House on matters of which they have knowledge, with paragraph 22 of the report, which states that the Committee is not proposing such a ban?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course seek to cover that point in my speech on Monday. I can certainly confirm that the purpose of the Committee and the intention of the resolution is as described in the paragraph of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. The Committee specifically made it clear that it did not wish to deprive the House of informed contributions to debates initiated by others under those circumstances.
Mrs. Diana Maddock: Does the Leader of the House realise that women suffering domestic violence will be very disappointed by the answer that they have heard this afternoon and that, in fact, they will be very angry? Why should they have to wait when the matter has been before both Houses and there is time for us to discuss it this Session? Is not the Leader of the House aware that a majority of hon. Members wish the Bill to proceed?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have already said on the matter but, as this is an important part of the background to it, I will say that the Bill was introduced as an uncontentious Bill. It proceeded through most of its stages, thus appearing to confirm that it was uncontentious. It then manifestly became contentious, which changed the basis on which it had originally been introduced.
Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that John Sweetman, Companion of the Order of the Bath, has retired after 41 years' service of great distinction to the House, as set out partially in early-day motion 1557?
[That this House notes the retirement on 31st October of Mr. John Sweetman, CB, TD, formerly Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees; recognises his unique contribution over 41 years of service to the House in facilitating the parliamentary process at Westminster and in fostering the development of parliamentary government abroad; and expresses its appreciation of his pragmatic advice and good humour which will be missed by honourable Members and colleagues alike.]
Irrespective of the early-day motion, will my right hon. Friend consider finding a short time, perhaps at the start of public business in the near future, to enable the House to pay tribute to John Sweetman's work?
Mr. Newton: I shall give some thought to my right hon. Friend's latter point, but I shall no doubt be advised about setting precedents. Leaving aside the question of whether it is possible, I can tell my right hon. Friend, although it is probably indiscreet of me to do so, that I sought to find a way to add my name to that early-day motion, only to be advised that it was unheard of for Ministers to add their names to early-day motions. I therefore refrained from doing so. The reason why I wanted to add my name is that I would wish wholeheartedly to endorse the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to Mr. Sweetman.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I associate myself with the request made by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? I am pleased that the Leader of the House is going to consider whether the House can pay tribute to Mr. Sweetman. Opposition Members remember him not only for his ability—he was very helpful to many Labour Members—but for his good humour. He not only assisted many of us in the House but gave valuable advice to many Parliaments overseas. We shall certainly miss him after his 41 years' service to the House.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, would also want to associate yourself with those words. Even if I am unable to produce a positive outcome of my consideration, I very much hope that Mr. Sweetman will take what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by myself, and the warm way in which it has been received in the House, as a tribute in itself.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the role of the family in British society? He would probably agree that we have reached a watershed: should the role of the family be enhanced, or should it be undermined, which certainly seems to be happening in public debate? Does he not agree that it would be helpful to all parties concerned if the House met to debate that important issue so that we knew exactly where we stood?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall give consideration, as always, to what my hon. Friend says, but I certainly cannot hold out hopes of such a debate before prorogation.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Leader of the House advise me on the best way of raising the
396
procurement of military ambulances for the United Kingdom armed forces as a matter of urgency? He will be aware that there is a good deal of concern among the management and work forces of the Rover Group and Marshall SP in my constituency about the rumours that that very important purchase is to go to Steyer of Austria.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to comment on the outcome of any particular procurement exercise. The hon. Lady will know that such exercises take place within national and international rules, as I think I observed last week. However, I shall bring her question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to congratulate the BBC on 50 years of "Today in Parliament", as well as the editor, Mr. Geoffrey Sumner, and all the members of the team who produce it day after day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely splendid if the broadsheets started to carry proper parliamentary reports, as they used to?
Mr. Newton: I very much hope that those responsible will look very carefully at the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. As to the first part, I am sure that his words will be welcomed by those who work so hard to produce the programme, although not necessarily by all those who attend on it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Given the fact that on Monday we have the Tory snouts in the trough debate, and as the Prime Minister has now changed what was going to be a free vote into a test of his credibility, since every member of the Government will be expected to go into the Lobby behind him, is the Leader of the House prepared to comment on whether it would be a resigning matter should the Prime Minister be defeated?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated the view that he takes of the Select Committee's recommendations, which, as it happens—it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman—is exactly the same view that I take. It is especially important to note that the recommendations go so far beyond the recommendations of the Nolan committee itself, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a member of the Nolan committee, said. That is a very important factor. As for myself, I obviously very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends of all kinds will support motions which I have tabled on behalf of the Select Committee and which I believe are right.
Mr. Piers Merchant: In view of today's Court of Appeal decision in the case of Mr. Newbery, the 82-year-old man who shot at a persistent burglar in self-defence, will my right hon. Friend consider finding parliamentary time to debate the apparent conflict that has arisen between criminal and civil law in matters of self-defence?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will no doubt wish to study the judgment to which my hon. Friend refers. I recall, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend made some observations on that general point some weeks ago.
Mr. Keith Hill: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1556?

397
[That this House condemns unreservedly the show trials and death sentences passed upon Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-accused; calls upon the British Government to use all practical means at its disposal both directly and through the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to reverse these sentences; and calls upon Nigeria's military rulers to commute the death penalty.]
Is the Leader of the House aware of the sense of outrage felt on both sides of the House at the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues following a mockery of a trial in Nigeria? Is he further aware of the wide perception that the Government's verbal condemnation of the Nigerian military Government is quite inadequate and that a new and tougher Commonwealth sanctions initiative is necessary? Therefore, will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary attends the House to listen to hon. Members' views in advance of the Commonwealth summit at the end of next week?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's latter request. As to the principal issue, I repeat in quite strong terms that we deplore the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants following what we regard as a flawed judicial process. We understand that the sentences are subject to review by the provisional ruling council, and we urge that council to commute them.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the roads programme? Does he realise the concern that exists in Worcestershire about rumours that Her Majesty's Government are thinking of adopting the Labour party's policy and abandoning the roads programme in total? That would have very serious implications for the Worcester western bypass and the Wyre Piddle bypass in my constituency, and the Broadway bypass in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
Mr. Newton: If I understand my hon. Friend aright, he is inviting me to speculate on the outcome of the public expenditure round. I hope that he will understand that I do not feel able to do so.
Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1539?
[That this House urges the Home Secretary to transfer Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien from Whitemoor Prison to prisons in either Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic in view of their compelling compassionate circumstances. ]
Will the Leader of the House suggest to the Home Secretary that he should make a statement, I hope early next week, announcing the transfer of both men to prisons in either the north of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland? Not only is that in the interests of humanitarian justice and compassion, but it would help to redeem the somewhat tattered reputation of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring those remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is the Government's long-established
398
policy not to agree to prisoners transferring to another jurisdiction, except in very exceptional circumstances, if the result will be a substantial reduction in the time served. That general policy applies to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I warmly associate myself with the remarks made on both sides of the House about my near constituent and Ealing resident Mr. John Sweetman? I ask my right hon. Friend: could the House debate the work of the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow health agency next week in order to investigate the suggestion by some bureaucrat that the breast diseases unit at Ealing hospital should be transferred to hospitals nearer to central London many miles away, which would be inaccessible to my constituents? We cannot allow that to happen: the unit must remain at Ealing hospital.
Mr. Newton: I note, and I am sure that everyone will agree with, my hon. Friend's earlier remarks about John Sweetman. As to his latter comments, the obvious and proper course is for me to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary.
Mr. John Heppell: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about the monopolies that are being created within the brewing industry? As a result of recent mergers, two companies—Scottish Courage and Bass—control more than 50 per cent. of sales. That has caused anxiety and concern among local breweries, such as the Home Brewery, which is the only brewery still operating in Greater Nottingham.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are established procedures for considering the kind of complaint that he makes at the Office of Fair Trading and, where appropriate, at the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend noticed an article that appeared in The Times of 1 November under the heading "High Streets doomed"? Does he agree that the allegations in the article are serious? Does he consider it appropriate that time should be allowed for a debate on the future of the high streets in order to highlight both the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking and what further action might be appropriate in order to encourage retail sales in our high streets?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly give consideration to that request.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on security arrangements at 10 Downing street? On the assumption that the statement would be something more than, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, we are the softest touch of all," will he explain how people without passes will be restricted from wandering round 10 Downing street, and will he comment on the rumour that the intruder was not noticed because the place was simply full of people who did not know why they were there anyway?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question as, according to the accounts that I have seen, the intruder must have passed by the side of my office.

399
I can say only that the incident to which he refers is being investigated, and I am sure that the investigation will be thorough.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As it has been acknowledged since Adam Smith that capital taxation drives capital abroad, attacks enterprise and destroys jobs, and now that it is increasingly acknowledged that lower capital taxation could produce rises in tax yield and that the abolition of capital taxation could increase the yield of other taxes by more than the cut would seem to cost, can we have a debate on the effects of capital taxation? Would not it expose the truth about the Labour party—that Labour simply does not know what policies will make Britain fit to compete in the global economy?
Mr. Newton: I would have thought that the Budget debate, which is now less than a month away, might provide such an opportunity for my hon. Friend. As for the rest, however, he appears to be inviting me to pass from speculation on the public expenditure round to the other half of the Budget, and I will not do that.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that, although there is supposed to be a free vote on Monday, clearly it is a three-line Whip for the Government, which makes a mockery of the so-called free vote? Are we right to conclude that, when we look through the Division list on Tuesday we shall find that not a single Minister, however junior, voted against the line put forward today by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier. I certainly hope that everyone will feel able to support the motions that I have tabled on behalf of the Select Committee.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on social services on Lancashire, where the county council is currently destroying care in the community by completely mismanaging its social services budget? Is he aware that many elderly patients are being driven into county residential homes while the private nursing sector is being driven out of business by the county council?
Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend raised those points. Similar concerns are being raised in many places, including my own county. I shall certainly bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: As we are not allowed a debate on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill next week, may we have a debate on the protection of families against domestic violence and child sexual abuse? As the so-called controversial clauses are already enacted in the law of Scotland, why do not the Government for once stand up to a handful of extremist Back Benchers?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot add to what I said before, but I must underline the fact that the Government sought to advance the Bill on the original understanding that it was uncontentious. Clearly, having become contentious, it requires different parliamentary handling.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time as soon as possible to discuss waste in
400
local government? It would give me the opportunity to discuss two yawning examples in Lancashire. The first involves the Labour-controlled county council, where the director of education has sent out a letter trying to frighten governors and parents about next year's education settlement when he does not know any of the figures. Also, the leader of Labour-controlled Preston council, Valerie Wise, ousted the town clerk, which is costing more than £1,000 per week. Even though Valerie Wise was this week deselected in her own ward, the town clerk remains out of office.
Mr. Newton: It is clear that my hon. Friends believe that there is a good deal to be investigated in Lancashire. Apart from the point that I have already undertaken to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I will bring the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House intercede with Scottish members of the Front Bench to arrange a debate on the state of the funding of the court system in Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this morning, Falkirk court had to abandon its business because the procurator fiscal could not supply a member of staff to prosecute? At least 10 cases were abandoned, and people on criminal charges walked free from court because there were not enough staff. Obviously there is a serious problem in Scottish courts with rising crime and the underfunding of the court system.
Mr. Newton: I was unaware of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, but I have no doubt that they and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I too ask for a debate on the Government's road-building programme, which would give the opportunity to discuss a dispute concerning the M5 between the Highways Agency and its agents and Tilbury Douglas, which has indirectly affected the jobs of about 100 people from P. J. Burkes, a building contractor in my constituency? I understand that the problem can be resolved easily and quickly, and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend asked the appropriate Transport Minister to ensure that that is done as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do that.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary concerning the safety of people who are returned to Nigeria? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to make a statement to the House, particularly in respect of Abdul Onibiyo, who was deported from this country last week by immigration officials? His family have been left here, but are subject to deportation orders.
Mr. Onibiyo was taken to Lagos airport and handed over to local security officials, but he has not been heard of or seen since. That situation is causing great distress to the trade union that supported Mr. Onibiyo in his campaign against deportation and, obviously, to his

401
family. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the high commission in Lagos is contacted immediately to ensure that Abdul Onibiyo is in a place of safety in Lagos?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an immediate statement, but I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of the important situation in Nigeria.
Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the House adjourned at 8.31 pm last night after a one and a half hour debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in which a large number of hon. Members wanted to speak, to make constituency points. When so much time is available, what is the point of truncating the business of the House? If time is available, could the House debate the location of the next English national stadium, about which concern is felt on both sides of the House? The idea that it should be in Wembley, organised by a company that could not run a whelk stall, seems scandalous. Hon. Members in all parts of the House should have an input.
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I might say gently to the hon. Gentleman that there were recent debates on sport and on the national lottery, in either of which he could have raised those points. As to the first part of his question, arrangements for last night's debate were made through the usual channels for the convenience of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but part of the problem was that the preceding business was of unpredictable duration.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As it seems that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill will be reintroduced in some form in the next Session—although some believe that it should have been fully dealt with in this Session—could not the same be done for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill or for another Bill that would alter the Disability Discrimination Bill to embody the principles of the former Bill? As with the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill secured overwhelming support on Second Reading in all parts of the House, and there is massive support outside the House for its introduction.
Mr. Newton: Personally, I certainly share the hope that, if the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill has the general agreement that it is said to have, it will be possible for it to make rapid progress in the next Session. That is not something that I can determine as a member of the Government. On the latter point, the hon.-Gentleman has every reason to be aware that, even if the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill has become non-controversial, his Bill certainly has not and the same considerations do not apply.
Mr. Elliot Morley: May I welcome the Leader of the House's comments about the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? I do not know whether he is aware that I was one of the people who drafted the compromise that went to the House of Lords, with help from Home Office officials, which I and my hon. Friend appreciated.
Despite agreements and assurances from all
402
parties involved at that stage, when the Bill went to the other place, those agreements were reneged upon. It is clear that there are buffers and duffers in the other place who will never pass that measure unless the Government give it some time and support, which they have the power to do.
Mr. Newton: I cannot comment further on the question of providing Government time, which has repeatedly come up in this Session. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I was not a party to those discussions so I am not in a position to comment, except to say that I think that the way in which he put them was aggressive, to put it mildly. On my reading of the proceedings in the other place, some points were raised that even the proponents of the Bill acknowledged needed to be considered.
Mr. George Foulkes: With regard to next Monday's debate, is the Leader of the House aware that I heard him on the radio saying that he chaired the Select Committee as a Member of Parliament, not as a member of the Government? Will he therefore tell us what discussions he had with the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet before producing his final Chairman's report to the Select Committee?
Mr. Newton: I received representations from many colleagues in their capacity as Members of Parliament, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to give details at the Dispatch Box of conversations that I have had in the corridors of this place.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: We shall return to that issue on Monday.
In view of the reply that the Leader of the House gave me about the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, may I press him further? I am not sure that it is right for a reply about the future of the Bill to be given by written answer in the possibly unprecedented situation of a Government Bill completing all its stages and then being withdrawn at the last minute.
I have two specific questions. What happened to make the Bill contentious? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill did not change, but that what changed was the pressure from some of the extremists in his party? Secondly, what will happen to the victims of domestic violence in the interim before a new Bill is introduced? Is he aware that dropping the Bill at this stage is not in the interests of children who may be suffering from abuse? The Bill made new provision for the removal from a home of a suspected abuser, rather than requiring social services to remove a child who is being abused. It also made it easier to arrest those in breach of a court injunction.
As more damage will be done before the Bill can be brought back, can the Leader of the House say what the Government intend to do and tell us the time scale for the reintroduction of the Bill?
Mr. Newton: Not at present. I cannot add to what has been said this afternoon, which is that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will continue to work on the Bill with a view to bringing it back before Parliament as soon as possible.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that what Ministers say is not a matter for you. You have made that clear, as have your predecessors, on a number of occasions. If a Minister, be it the Prime Minister as in this case, or any other Minister, has made a remark about a Member that does not happen to be true, one would have thought that, once that had been brought to his attention, he would come to the House and say so.
On Tuesday, in reply to my question about French nuclear tests, the Prime Minister said:
"the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is".—[Official Report, 31 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 96.].
I make no reflection whatever on CND. I have a great deal of time for the organisation, certainly when it sticks to the particular business for which it came into existence. However, the fact is that I was never a member. I checked with CND in case I was on its membership list. Not surprisingly, the answer was no. I then telephoned No. 10 on two occasions. I spoke to a private secretary, who was very courteous and said that he would look into the matter.
On further occasions yesterday when I tried to speak to the private secretary, he was always out. So I went across to No. 10. I was allowed through on my Member's pass and I delivered a note to the door at 5.10 pm. I have not heard since from No. 10. It may not be a matter of great importance to you, for all I know, Madam Speaker, but the Prime Minister must know by now that what he said on Tuesday was not the position.
Surely, just because the right hon. Gentleman is Prime Minister does not mean that he should not come and correct a falsehood that he said to the House, I am sure inadvertently. What he said does not happen to be true and I see no reason why the Prime Minister should not come here and say so.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has corrected the mistaken impression himself. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity of so doing. I have often cautioned the House and all Members in it, whether they are Ministers or Back Benchers, that we have tremendous privileges here in freedom of speech and in speaking out, but those privileges have to be tempered with responsibility. Before we make accusations about each other across the Floor of the House, we all ought to get our facts right. It would enhance our debates here if we did that, and had more respect for the individual than I find has been shown generally in our debates in recent times.
Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 19 July I put a series of questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the issue of the headlamp scheme. At the end of the Session I received replies that said that I would receive answers on 16 October. On 16 and 17 October I
404
received some answers. Eight of the answers said that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), had asked the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to me. I still have not had answers to those questions.
Do we have a right to answers to our questions, or can they simply be lost in an executive agency? Or is the Education Minister so uncertain about whether the Prime Minister will announce education policy himself that he is unable to give me answers?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Questions must be answered within the rules of the House. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with me, I shall be pleased to take it up on his behalf and see what I can do to be helpful.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked you yesterday whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had yet written to you to substantiate the allegations that he made earlier in the week. Are you able to tell us yet whether you have received any such letter?
Madam Speaker: I have not received anything from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but I am informed by him that a letter is on its way.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WASTE PREVENTION
  Mr. Elliot Morley, supported by Ms Joan Ruddock, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Gary Waller and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to investigate what measures are needed to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; to take such steps as they consider appropriate in order to achieve that end; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 November and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  CHILD LABOUR
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, supported by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Neil Gerrard and Mr. John Austin-Walker, presented a Bill to give effect to Articles 1 and 2 of the 1973 International Labour Convention No. 138 concerning the minimum age for admission to employment by making it unlawful to employ children under the age of sixteen in a way that is inconsistent with their fullest physical and mental development; to require the Secretary of State to establish a system of regulation to ensure that the law concerning child labour is complied with; and to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament progress towards the elimination of child labour in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 November and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

  Parliamentary Procedure
  [Relevant document: The Eighth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1994–95, on 'Sitting Hours Reform' (HC491).]
  4.8 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:
  "(1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills).
  (2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
  (3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
  (2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:
  "(1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

  (a) the House otherwise orders, or

  (b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

  (2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
  (3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above."
  Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  (1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect:
  "(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill—

  (a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or

  (b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.

  (2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
  (2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  406
  (1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect:
  "(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
  (2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
  (3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

  (a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or

  (b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

  (4) Where a Member has given notice of—

  (a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

  (b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure,

  a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
  (5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put.
  (6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
  (2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)".
  (3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect".
  (4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours

  407
  after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).

  (2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

  (5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
  (6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur.
  (7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  "(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));".

  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  (1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.

  (2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

  (3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.

  (4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

  (a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and

  (b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,

  between eleven o'clock and three o'clock."

  (2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.

  (2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.

  (3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".

  (4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

  408

  (5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.

  (6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."

  (3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening".
  (4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
  (5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
  (6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

  (c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".

  (7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect:

  "When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed."

  (8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect:

  "When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed."

  (9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No: 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted.
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect:

  "The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker

  409
  has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."

  May I inform the House that I have selected for debate amendments (a), (b) and (c) to motion No. 4. At the conclusion of the joint debate on the motions and the amendments, I will put successively the Questions on motions Nos. 1 to 3. When we come to motion No. 4, I will invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to move amendment (a). If it is not agreed to, amendment (b) will fall. If amendment (a) is agreed to, I will invite the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (b). Once the House has taken a decision on the principle underlying amendments (a) and (b), amendment (c) will fall. Once the amendments have been disposed of, I will put the Question on motions Nos. 4 and 5.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your explanation of the sequence of events. But am I not right in thinking that amendment (a) and amendment (b), which is a consequential amendment, and amendment (c) are not necessarily mutually exclusive? All three amendments have in common the principle of additional time, or retaining time, for private Members' motions, but if (a) and (b) are carried, there will be four hours for such motions on Wednesdays and if (c) is carried there will be additional time on Mondays. Surely amendment (c) should taken as well, even if (a) and (b) are not carried?
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is rather more than a procedural motion. Of course, I understand that your view is prescribed by the rules of the House, but it is a matter of great import and I do not believe that the amendments are interchangeable. I hope that you will seriously reconsider the matter, because many of us believe that decisions affecting the House are being taken without proper consultation.
  Madam Speaker: In the light of what hon. Members have said, I am prepared to look again at the amendments. We shall proceed with the debate, I shall reconsider the matter and give my decision as soon as I can.
  Mr. Newton: It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the other four motions on related topics while you, Madam Speaker, are considering the other matters that have just been mentioned.
  Last December, the House approved a far-reaching package of reforms of the procedures of the House—some elements were expressed in Sessional Orders and others in understandings reached between the Government and the Opposition through the usual channels and recorded in a written answer—which gave effect to recommendations made by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House in 1992. I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who chaired that Committee. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today due to ill health.
  I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), with whom the agreement was negotiated. I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the
  410
  Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is present this afternoon and is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which has reported in such positive terms on the experiment that we conducted this Session.
  Our debate last December showed that there were reservations in several parts of the House—eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in a rare but memorable contribution—about the substance of the proposals. I believe—at least, I hope—that many of those reservations have now been overcome, and that the experiment is generally considered to have been a substantial success.
  I shall deal first with those elements of the reforms that depend on "best endeavours" and agreements through the usual channels rather than on Standing Orders. Voluntary timetabling of Bills, which is of fundamental importance to the success of the reforms as a whole, has worked well in practice. My perception, which I hope the hon. Member for Dewsbury will confirm, is that the Opposition have had the time they felt appropriate to debate the issues to which they attached importance—at least in general terms.
  At the same time, the Government's legislative programme has made progress without the House being kept up late and without the use of measures such as the guillotine. We are not proposing to put those arrangements in Standing Orders. This year's experience has confirmed the view that I formed in the course of our discussions last year: there is no sustainable halfway house between a voluntary agreement reached through the usual channels and something which, to all intents and purposes, is a guillotine.
  We have achieved a substantial reduction in late sittings. The average time of rising during the experiment has been significantly earlier—hon. Members who want the details will find them in the Procedure Committee's report—and the occasions on which the House has sat late into the night have been very few: only nine of the 131 sittings during the relevant period lasted beyond midnight. An evening which ends with a vote at 11.30 pm is now regarded as a late night; for the first two Parliaments in which I was present, that would have been regarded as an early night.
  We have also succeeded in keeping Thursdays almost entirely free of contentious business after 7 pm, which has been of material assistance to hon. Members when planning their constituency business on Friday and over the weekend.
  I have also been able to give the House much earlier notification of recess dates. The Easter and Whitsun recesses were announced just after Christmas and the dates for the summer recess were made known before the end of June. That was substantially better than in most previous years. I am not yet in a position to give the recess dates for the next Session of Parliament, but I hope that I shall be able to give some at a reasonably early stage when we resume.
  The House has been generous enough to accept that what I have been able to say on a Thursday about the business for the second week, even though by no means always complete, has helped Members in planning their weekend engagements, particularly when, as in almost every week, I have been able to give a pretty clear indication of the nature of the business on the Thursday, which is the important day for people's planning.

  411
  I want to explain to the House as briefly as I can the main provisions in the five motions amending Standing Orders. To a large extent, they simply restate the Sessional Orders under which this Session's experiment has proceeded.
  The first motion, on consolidation Bills and Law Commission Bills, restates the provisions of the Sessional Orders which provide expedited procedures for those law reform measures. The only new provision in the motion is that the question on Second Reading, as well as Third Reading, of a consolidation Bill will be disposed of without debate.
  I should emphasise that a different procedure applies to Law Commission Bills that change rather than consolidate the law. That is particularly important in view of some of the exchanges that we had only a few moments ago.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: With regard to the question on Second Reading of a consolidation Bill being put forthwith so that there is no debate, if amendments were tabled there would be the absurd situation that the House would go into Committee. That is rather odd because it would probably result in longer proceedings. I had experience of that only a few days ago when I was able to speak on Second Reading and comment on amendments that I had tabled. Had I been denied that opportunity, I would inevitably have had to make longer speeches on each amendment. That seems rather odd.
  In addition, on that occasion the Solicitor-General and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman wanted to compliment the Law Commission on its work, but if there were no Second Reading such an opportunity would be denied them.
  Mr. Newton: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to the resolution and comment on it later. But he is right that what I am proposing would deprive my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General of the opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I take this opportunity on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and myself, and no doubt the whole House, to express my thanks to Mr. Justice Brooke, the Law Commission and the draftsmen who served them so well for the valuable work that they do in keeping the statute book in good running repair.
  I emphasised that a different procedure applies to those Law Commission Bills that make some changes in the law rather than simply consolidate it. Those Bills will be referred automatically to a Second Reading Committee, but—this is an important point—the Government would expect, as at present, to respond to any request from the Opposition for a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House. The opportunities for hon. Members to scrutinise the details of those Bills in Committee—this may be of particular importance to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—and on Report will be exactly the same as for any other Bill.
  The second motion on money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions follows the Sessional Orders in providing that they will not be debatable if taken immediately after Second Reading of the Bill to which they relate. I think that it has been generally accepted that that was a sensible change made for the present Session.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been
  412
  occasions in the past when Second Reading debates have been extended, either to 11 o'clock or to midnight, so that all hon. Members who wished to speak could do so? That is a fairly cumbersome procedure. The big advantage of the money resolution was that an hon. Member who might be cut out of the debate could put pressure on others to shorten their speeches. There was always that safety valve. Why is it necessary to get rid of it?
  Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a matter of judgment, but the former arrangements led, in my view, to some highly artificial debating in respect of the relatively narrow terms of money and, especially, ways and means motions. I will not disguise my personal feeling that the change that was made was for the general convenience of the House, and that a greater application of arrangements for the Chair to limit the length of speeches has proved the right way in which to tackle the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that discussion of the monetary aspect of a Bill often allows hon. Members to make points that they would not normally make on Second Reading? With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his description of such debate as "highly artificial" reflects more his wish for his legislation to be passed speedily than the true interests of the Back Bencher who may have been squeezed out of an important Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Newton: I believe that the view that I have expressed is by no means confined to the Leader of the House. There was a general feeling that it was more convenient for the House to know when a Second Reading debate would end and when the votes would take place. I understand what the hon. Lady has said—and I respect her judgment, even if I do not agree with it—but I feel that the way in which to tackle this is to apply the so-called 10-minute rule to speeches, rather than extending debates into the night.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that some Bills involve important financial issues? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, for instance, was virtually predicated on finance, which may not have been a major feature of the specific Second Reading debate. The same applies to the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. Surely to make such a change because the majority view in the Government favours it is to reduce the opportunities for Back Benchers who wish to make specifically financial and sometimes crucial points.
  Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point, according him my usual respect. I feel, however, that a proper Second Reading debate—especially if the speaking rule that I mentioned is applied by the Chair—provides a perfectly adequate opportunity for hon. Members to make the points that they wish to make.
  I entirely accept that, in the end, the House must make a judgment, and decide whether it prefers my view and the view reflected in the Sessional Orders—which I am seeking to carry into the Standing Orders—or the view expressed by the hon. Members who have intervened during the past few minutes.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Newton: I sense, however, that we are about to hear from another hon. Member.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House accept that some of us hold the considered view, rightly or wrongly, that had Michael Foot and the late Jack Mendelson been confined to 10-minute speeches, this country would almost certainly have sent troops to Vietnam—rightly or, as some of us might think, wrongly? In the 1960s it was Michael Foot, Jack Mendelson and others who dissuaded the House of Commons from what might have been the wishes of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. In 10-minute speeches, neither Michael Foot nor Jack Mendelson, nor anyone else, would have had a chance.
  Mr. Newton: I often say at the Dispatch Box—and it is more than just empty words—how much I respect the contribution that the hon. Gentleman makes to our proceedings, although, again, I do not always agree with him. I acknowledge the judgment that he has made. I believe, however, that the changed arrangements—those involving the 10-minute rule, for instance, go back much further than any proposals for last year's Sessional Orders or the current Standing Orders—have been widely welcomed in the House as enabling more hon. Members to take part in many debates. I certainly would not think it right to propose a departure from those arrangements in response to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has just crossed my mind that when Labour get into government in a short time, Tory Members will not be able to make as much money on the side as they make now because of the Nolan restrictions. Even if we lose the vote on Monday, we shall bring in those restrictions in a fortified form. As they will not be able to make so much money, they will want to be in here kicking the ball about. Tory Back Benchers and members of the Government who will be Back Benchers—those who are not on the chicken run and are coming back—will come to this place at 8 o'clock at night and it will be shut.
  I do not want to sound like an advocate of what will be the new Opposition in a couple of years' time, but the Conservatives will be in one hell of a mess. They will not be making money out of directorships because of Nolan, and they will not be able to come here because the right hon. Gentleman is closing down all the opportunities to get stuck into the Labour Government. For the life of me I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman is digging a trench for himself.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue some of those points in a later debate. I await that with interest.
  The third motion, which deals with delegated legislation, restates the Sessional Order provisions for the automatic referral to Standing Committees of affirmative statutory instruments and for a limit of one and a half hours on debates on statutory instruments and EC documents. The Government will continue to respond positively to any reasonable request by the Opposition, as I think we have demonstrated this year, for an instrument to be de-referred. We will, of course, consider making more than one and a half hours available for debates on particularly important instruments by agreement through the usual channels.
  Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Newton: I will take my hon. Friend's intervention first, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
  Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of removing the powers of 20 hon. Members to object to affirmative instruments will be, technically, a diminution of the rights of Back Benchers to control the Executive?
  Mr. Newton: I do not agree. Arrangements for orderly debate in which as many Members as possible can take part provide an effective check on the Executive. The arrangements that we have made for dealing with statutory instruments, and especially our willingness to respond to representations about more time being required, deal effectively with my hon. Friend's concern.
  Mr. Gill: I understand that these powers have seldom, if ever, been used. What is the compelling reason to wipe them out of the Standing Order which will replace Standing Order No. 101?
  Mr. Newton: I have already demonstrated by what I said last year about Sessional Orders and by what I am saying here on the proposed Standing Orders that I have in mind the convenience of the House in providing what I think are generally regarded as proper opportunities for debate on both primary and secondary legislation. Certainly, the recommendations are the result of widespread consultation in the House and reflect the Procedure Committee's recommendations on these matters. I know that all those who have been concerned are conscious of the rights of Back Benchers and of the importance of ensuring that matters are properly discussed.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being very indulgent, and I beg his pardon, but it is important to consider these matters seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Is it not true that statutory instruments taken in Committee are frequently considered at enormous speed? Therefore, far from expanding the amount of time that is available for these debates, we may curtail it, and it is clear that there is to be no flexibility in relation to tabling motions on EC matters. Such flexibility would have been welcomed by many people because of the importance of so much EC legislation.
  Mr. Newton: I again note the views that are being expressed. On the question of instruments and sometimes other matters proceeding at a fair pace in Committees, may I say that that would normally be because those who are on the Committees—I think that it is well known that it is not always easy to find people who are keen to serve on such Committees—do not feel that they wish to take a great deal of time in discussions. It would certainly not be correct to draw the conclusion that somehow debate is being suppressed because some non-controversial orders go through a properly constituted Standing Committee with relatively little discussion. That would not be a right deduction.
  The fourth motion deals with private Members' business. The new arrangements under which private Members' business, except private Members' Bills, is transferred to Wednesday mornings, have—it is important that I should emphasise this—given private Members more time on the Floor of the House than the previous arrangements ever did. Since the experiment started, even allowing for the fact that morning sittings did not begin until the third Wednesday after the Christmas recess,

  415
  private Members made a net gain of eight hours' debating time. In a full Session, if we had had Wednesday morning sittings since November, that would have been a net gain of 19 hours. Just as important, the number of opportunities for Back Benchers to initiate a debate has doubled, and those opportunities occur more regularly and at a much more sensible hour.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that there may be more time for debate, but that there is far less time for any votes on issues that we have debated?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raises that point in one of the amendments on the Order Paper. Evidently, he will wish to make a speech and, no doubt, elaborate on that point.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House satisfy my curiosity? Are the Wednesday morning motions chosen by ballot, by alchemy or by Speaker's choice?
  Mr. Newton: As the decisions about Wednesday morning debates are taken under arrangements agreed by you, Madam Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to describe them in detail, but I understand that a balloting arrangement is involved.
  The motion provides for non-sitting Fridays each Session, which Members will be able to keep free for their constituency duties, and for the House to sit on Wednesday mornings for Adjournment debates initiated by private Members who have been successful in the Speaker's ballot. The Wednesday morning before each recess will be devoted to a general debate on
  "matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment",
  to which, of course, I as Leader of the House would expect to reply on the Government's behalf. That change was introduced in response to widespread requests in the House after the original main Sessional Orders were debated and decided. I was glad to make it, and it has worked well.
  The motion also takes up an idea that the Procedure Committee considered in its recent inquiry, but that it decided, in the event, not to pursue. I thought, however, that it was an extremely good idea and, with agreement through the usual channels, I have therefore included it in the motion. The idea is that the start of the sitting on Wednesdays should be brought forward to 9.30, with a clear-cut, half-hour suspension between 2 and 2.30.
  The reasons why I proposed that are obvious and I sense that some hon. Members who disagree with me on other points agree with me on that one. It brings the start of the sitting on Wednesdays into line with our practice on Fridays. It reduces, at least to some extent, some of the pressures of more than 12 hours' continuous sitting on the staff of the House, and it avoids what was sometimes an untidy junction between the morning sittings and Question Time in the afternoon. I emphasise that exactly the same amount of time will be available for private Members as at present.
  The motion also makes provision for up to three Wednesday mornings, between 9.30 and 12.30, to be devoted to debates on Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee. That reflects a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, but varies from it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) may wish to note. The Committee recommended that there should be six Select Committee
  416
  Wednesday mornings, but some practical difficulties exist in ensuring that those days are properly spaced throughout the Session, so I suggest, without having a closed mind for ever on this matter, that we should start with three and see how that works out. We have had those morning sittings only since January and it would be reasonable to proceed a bit cautiously with proposals for changing their character to the extent that that could mean.
  That argues in favour of starting with a relatively small number, although, of course, like everything else in these resolutions, it is a matter for the House to decide. It remains the case that, if hon. Members want to spend more time on Select Committee reports than the motion provides, there is the opportunity, even without changing the order further, the possibility of which will always be there, to apply for time to debate Select Committee reports separately from the three Wednesday mornings by entering the Speaker's ballot in the usual way.
  Finally, the motion takes the opportunity to make a minor amendment to the Standing Order governing Consolidated Fund Bills. The Standing Order has to be amended to remove the now obsolete provision for an all-night debate on the Adjournment after the proceedings on the Bill. I am proposing that we should also drop the requirement that the Bill should be the first Order of the Day since it can be, and often is, the first Order of the Day without being the first item of business. The requirement serves no useful purpose.
  The fifth motion—this re-enters the controversy raised a few moments ago—which allows the Speaker to make greater use of the power to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers follows the provisions of the current Sessional Order. I should remind the House that Front-Bench spokesmen will not be governed by a formal limit. They have been asked to endeavour to keep their opening speeches to 30 minutes and their closing speeches to 20 minutes. As I have now been speaking for some 25 minutes, partly because of interventions, the right thing for me to do now would be to sit down.
  Madam Speaker: I should tell the House that I have reflected on the amendments. As the House will know, amendment (a) is the paver for amendment (b). If amendment (a) is defeated, amendment (b) will automatically fall. If amendment (a) is successful, I will put the Question on amendment (b). Amendment (c) has virtually the same aim as amendments (a) and (b), but it deals with the Monday rather than the Wednesday option. I believe that the Question should be put on amendment (c) regardless of whether amendment (a) is defeated or amendments (a) and (b) are successful. I want to be helpful to the House so that there can be a Division on all of those.
  4.36 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am sure that the House—or at least my hon. Friends—will be grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that reconsideration of the amendments.
  This is one occasion on which I agree with the Leader of the House. That is not always the case, certainly not on all issues. I am one of those who believe that the experiment which has been conducted over the past year has been successful and I am willing to enable the experimental changes to be consolidated and put into the Standing Orders of the House.

  417
  Many hon. Members have looked with a great deal of relief at what has been happening over the past year. As the Leader of the House pointed out, the past year has seen a reduction in the finishing time and a different system and atmosphere on Thursday evenings. Hon. Members, especially those with non-London constituencies, have found it extremely beneficial to be able to return to their constituencies on Thursday evenings. It has meant that hon. Members have been able to carry out their job more effectively and efficiently.
  Mr. Gill: Clearly, the House is interested in the prospect of having more sociable hours. However, surely the main consideration for the House is the way in which it scrutinises legislation. Does the hon. Lady believe that the level of scrutiny of legislation is satisfactory, and does she consider that it has been improved or worsened by the changes proposed?
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall come to that point. First, I want to say that I do not think that these changes should be judged by what has happened in the past year alone. I believe that I differ from the Leader of the House in my views on this matter, but I do not believe that the past year has been a typical parliamentary year. We have not had the amount of controversial legislation that we might expect, for example, in the first year of a new Government.
  The amount of Government business and the number, complexity and controversial nature of that business have not been what it might have been in other years. Before we start judging the changes against the factors that I mentioned at the beginning, we should bear it in mind that the past year has not been typical. We must disentangle the benefits that the House has received as a result of the Jopling proposals from the incidental benefits that we have received because this has been a year of light business.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked the central question about whether the changes substantially affect the House's ability to scrutinise the Government and their legislation and to hold the Government to account. My view is that the changes make very little difference. There is a great need for reform of the way in which the House works. Many of us feel that we would do our jobs as Members of Parliament much more effectively and efficiently, and I do not believe that the one excludes the other.
  The Jopling proposals are really about making us work more efficiently—not necessarily about making us work more effectively. Other changes are required to bring about better effectiveness—including, for example, a greater use of Second Reading Committees. Other changes would also help to keep the Executive more accountable.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should be considering some of the other changes to which she has just referred? Would it not have been logical to try further experiments before consolidating the current experiments into our Standing Orders? It seems that everyone is saying, "We have had enough. We have done a little bit and we should stop here." In fact, some of the other areas that could be covered by experiments might prove to be more rewarding and effective than some of those that we are discussing today.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Jopling Committee reported on 18 February 1992, but we did not begin the experiment until December 1994. It would be foolish simply to continue with the experiment, because the House would never make a decision. I am optimistic that in future there might be more Members who would want to consider changes to our methods of working. However, in the meantime I would prefer to consolidate the changes that have been covered by our experiment, which I believe has been very successful, and then think about other changes. That would be better than continuing to have different sorts of experiments, one following on from the other.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the changes have deprived Back-Bench Members of an effective way of encouraging Governments, of all colours, to take on board what could be contentious legislation? Quite frankly, if the Abortion Act 1967 had not had time on a Friday and had not been able to go through the voting system, it would not be on the statute book today.
  Mrs. Taylor: I respect the views of my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in such matters. I accept what she says about the avenues open to Back Benchers having been diminished to a certain extent. However, I part company with her when she says that those were effective means by which Back Benchers could influence events. In response to her comments about pressure being put on Governments to provide time for votes on a private Member's Bill, she will realise that it has been made clear today that that is dependent on a Government's business managers. They make the decisions about providing such time.
  I do not believe that any of the losses in Back Benchers' rights are significant. Many of the proposed changes, in particular—I stress this because it is important—the much better use of Back-Bench time on a Wednesday morning, compensate for any losses in other areas. We should bear in mind the lack of effectiveness of the mechanisms that we are losing.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there not a distinction between the different Back Benchers in the House? Many more informal avenues are made available to Conservative Back Benchers than to Labour Back Benchers, who must make use of every available procedure to get their views across and to raise constituents' interests. Therefore, we should be careful about allowing some of those rights to disappear.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that Conservative Back Benchers, who will be in opposition after the next election, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Of course additional avenues are open to Government Back Benchers, but—I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—the mechanisms that have been lost to Back Benchers have not been used very often, and certainly have not been used effectively. I have looked at what has happened during recent years, but I cannot find any precedent for the effective use of the mechanisms that my hon. Friends complain we are losing.
  Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to intervene, but rather to make this point in my speech, but I feel it important at this time to point out that the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise issues of any nature have risen from 80 to 160. The number of

  419
  opportunities has doubled. It is wrong to suggest that hon. Members do not have the opportunity to hold the Government to account or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, to introduce private legislation. In fact, Back-Bench Members have double the number of opportunities.
  Mrs. Taylor: No doubt my hon. Friends will wish to take up the right hon. Gentleman's point later. I understand my hon. Friends' case to be that although Back Benchers may have gained in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, they have lost the right to vote on certain motions. That forms the basis of the amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends. I can remember when we had ballots for motions. I also remember that often there was an elongated debate simply to prevent the second debate taking place. It was using Back-Bench time to block another Back Bencher. I remind my hon. Friends that all was not sweetness and light with that system, nor were there many occasions on which a vote in those circumstances made a great deal of difference to any future decision.
  Mr. Dalyell: I refer my hon. Friend to an occasion on which I was instrumental—together with one or two colleagues—in keeping the House up all night in a very elongated debate. We might think that we were eloquent, but that was neither here nor there. The subject of the debate was Iranian sanctions. Because we kept talking and because the Government had a problem with a closure motion, it was the first occasion on which the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, did a U-turn. On the criterion of effectiveness, that debate—which was about not our eloquence, but the use of parliamentary time—was extremely effective.
  Mrs. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the unlimited time that used to be available for the Consolidated Fund debate. That is not a subject of the proposed changes; indeed, the procedure for that debate was changed a long time ago. We are not discussing it tonight and neither was it part of the experiment. We will not be voting on it tonight.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way for the last time. I do not want to abuse the time allocated to me under the informal arrangements.
  Mr. Spearing: I was rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments about motions. As the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we now have double the number of opportunities, so even if three quarters of the time used is not effective, surely opportunities must be made available for hon. Members to raise matters of great topical importance. Otherwise, debates on those matters would never happen.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is too pessimistic about the events of the past year. The Wednesday morning debates have been used to good effect by Back Benchers to raise exactly the sort of issues that my hon. Friend mentioned—for example, animal welfare, opencast mining, the problem of drugs in Scotland—which was debated last Wednesday—and the future of rugby, which was debated a few months ago and which appears to have altered some of the decisions being made at that time.
  420
  The changes that have been implemented during the past year have proved to be extremely effective. A large number of hon. Members have participated in the Wednesday morning debates. There have been 110 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates, with 634 speeches and interventions. For those hon. Members who do not have London constituencies or who are not London based, the use of a Wednesday morning rather than a Friday or a Monday afternoon is extremely valuable.
  Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that she has been talking about have more to do with creating the opportunity for individual Back Benchers to ventilate their particular concerns than they have to do with controlling the Executive or scrutinising legislation? I am sorry that she seems to want to talk about the general convenience of the House and the sweeties available to individuals rather than about the serious purpose of the House, which is to control the Executive and scrutinise legislation.
  Mrs. Taylor: That is why I said earlier that the Jopling reforms were not fundamental, which is how they are often described. I would be happy to consider other suggestions on how to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I do not think there is anything in the proposed changes that will make it difficult to achieve what the hon. Gentleman intends.
  I shall make a couple of other points about the changes. The informal agreements on future business and the fact that the Leader of the House has on occasion been able to provide us with information about that business has been helpful. We accept that he cannot always do that, and I think that he will agree that, when he has had to change the business or modify arrangements, having given us early warning, we have not complained.
  I hope that that will continue, although I want to make a small special plea about recess dates and constituency Friday dates, the non-sitting dates. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take proper account of the difficulties that face hon. Members when the arrangements do not coincide with school holidays. I do not see why we cannot be civilised when considering such dates and try to ensure that they are as convenient as possible for family life as well as for the arrangements of the House.
  Reference was made to the length of speeches, and the Lord President made a joke about Front-Bench speeches. That is one matter on which we have not succeeded as we could or should have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has been keeping a close watch on speeches and has produced a table showing the length of all Front-Bench speeches in the past year. [Interruption.] It is available, and if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to publish it, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not object.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Can we all get it?
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes, and representations can be made to any offenders, of whom there are probably more among the Conservatives than among Labour Members.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the important thing is not the length of speeches themselves but the need to take account of interventions? Interventions are one of the most important parts of the proceedings of the House. The worst thing about the

  421
  10-minute rule is that it discourages taking interventions. I do not think that Front-Bench Members should be criticised for taking a little longer if they give way several times. Of course, one or two put their heads down and do not give way at all.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has also calculated the number of interventions. There was no correlation between the length of speeches and the number of interventions accepted. While I accept that we have to be flexible and encourage interventions, we should not allow Ministers in particular to hide behind pre-arranged interventions to make the debate go in a particular direction.
  The changes have been beneficial. They are not dramatic or radical but they are helping to make Parliament work more efficiently. I agree that we have to do much more to make Parliament work more effectively but, in view of the experiment that we have undertaken and the responses that the Procedure Committee received from hon. Members showing that the changes are by and large popular, I commend the proposals to the House.
  4.53 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: In the 13 years that I have been Chairman of the Procedure Committee, many people will have heard me say that I have been struggling to drag the procedures of the House into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. I believe that the Lord President of the Council and the resolutions that we are discussing are the instruments to achieve that end.
  More people are coming to understand Parliament and respect the way in which we carry out our business. The House will know that the Procedure Committee agreed to monitor the working of the Jopling report, and the Leader of the House asked us to do a number of other things such as review setpiece debates. I remind hon. Members, and anyone outside who may be interested, of the responses that we received to our questionnaire.
  The figures in paragraph 7 of the report show that we received 524 responses. That figure has now risen to 530, which is a response rate of 82 per cent. That is larger than anyone would have imagined. Public relations companies say that it is a remarkable return.
  We divided the questionnaire into six sections, each examining a distinct aspect of the particular package of alterations to the Standing Orders. The vast majority of hon. Members—88 per cent.—expressed general support for the reforms. A similar number, just under 90 per cent., found the alteration to the House's sitting hours an improvement. Similar results were obtained to questions about changes to the pattern of business, the scope of short speech Sessional Orders and the early notification of business. More than three quarters, or 77 per cent., of hon. Members believed that the Sessional, or temporary, Orders should be turned into Standing Orders, which is what we are discussing today.
  I shall for a moment analyse some of the responses, because it is important to get them into perspective. Of the replies received, 255 were from Conservatives, which is approximately 78 per cent. of all Conservative Members; 200 came from Labour Members, which is 74 or 75 per cent. of their total; 18 came from Liberal
  422
  Democrats, which is 78 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members; and 20 were from members of other parties, which is the equivalent of 87 per cent. of their number. As I said, 88.7 per cent. of those who replied believed that in general the reforms were to be welcomed and should be implemented.
  We asked whether the introduction of Wednesday morning Adjournment debates were advantageous to the House. Eighty-four per cent. of Conservative Members, 88 per cent. of Labour Members and 83 per cent. of Liberal Democrats agreed that such debates were advantageous, and were to be welcomed. They accepted absolutely that they should become permanent.
  It is perhaps important to note that, if the House prorogues on 8 November—I understand that is much more than a possibility—it will have sat for 156 days in the 1994–95 Session, not counting eight constituency Fridays. That compares with 154 days with no sitting Fridays in 1993–94, 167 days in 1988–89 and 172 days in 1985–86, which were the third years of their respective Parliaments. Therefore, the notion that the reforms have drastically reduced the number of days that the House sits is incorrect.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In the survey circulated to hon. Members, there was no mention—was there?—of the change in the Sessional Orders now before us, meaning that both Law Commission Bills and consolidation Bills have been slipped on our agenda tonight very craftily, and that there will not be a Second Reading of consolidation Bills on the Floor of the House. Therefore, Bills coming from the Law Commission, such as the proposed Bill on divorce, will immediately be referred to a Second Reading Committee. That has been slipped on to the Order Paper today and has never been put to the House of Commons before.
  Mr. Skinner: Sneaky and underhand.
  Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps I may suggest to the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who sit below the Gangway, that they read our report, because what they say is not the case. Such matters were put in the questionnaire, and as I work through, I shall come to that, without any doubt.
  The shift to Wednesday morning debates—doing away with the Consolidated Fund, the end-of-term Adjournment debates and private Members' motions—has, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), meant that Members of Parliament have double the opportunities for debates.
  Much has been made about the claim that that change does not allow for a vote. I am informed that private Members' motions went to a Division on only about 12 per cent. of all occasions in the previous Session. The interesting fact is that at no time did the Government lose such a Division. So the concept—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: Not for the moment. If the hon. Lady sits down I shall give way to her soon.
  Therefore, the concept that having that vote is a great influence on the Government is just not the case.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Frankly, if 12 per cent. of occasions are sufficiently controversial to demand a vote, and if

  423
  those votes are a clear sign of how the House is moving, the Government do not have to be defeated on a particular vote to take note of the fact that they must respond to especial concerns in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been here long enough to know that all sensible Governments take very good note when sufficient numbers of Members vote on a particular private matter which happens to be contentious.
  Sir Peter Emery: I have been here slightly longer than the hon. Lady and I believe that it is much more important that Members should be able to hold the Government to account on more and more subjects on more and more occasions. It is quite surprising to discover how many hon. Members have spoken in Wednesday morning debates, and, indeed, to see the Government responses to a number of those debates. Such occasions have been much more use in holding the Executive to account, as was suggested earlier, than previous opportunities.
  Mr. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on votes, perhaps he should abolish the idea of having votes of confidence in the Government. I would have thought that, since 1945, there must have been a large number of votes of no confidence in the Government. I think that only one was carried. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to abolish that idea? There may have been votes on only 12 per cent. of occasions, but some of them were useful.
  Sir Peter Emery: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is slightly more intelligent than to think that votes of censure and votes on a private Members' motion are in any way comparable. He knows that they are not. He is not even making a debating point.
  I come to the next aspect of analysis: the reduction in late sittings. It is not very surprising that 90 per cent. of all respondents approved of the reduction. To the question whether they approved of non-sitting Fridays for constituency business, 88.7 per cent. of hon. Members responded in a favourable manner. To those Members who believe that that is an unimportant aspect, I refer them to paragraph 26 of the report, in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury is quoted—it is well worth repeating—as saying:
  "I really think that we should not be shame-faced about the House not sitting on Fridays … The idea that Members of Parliament are only working when they are sitting in the Chamber is total nonsense. There is a need for some political education and we have a responsibility to provide some of that political education."
  In other words, it is absolutely clear that there is work to be done in the constituency, and it should' be carried out.
  Sir Dudley Smith: This point is fundamental because the media consistently portray Members of Parliament scampering off as quickly as possible and voting for shorter hours. Anyone with a constituency outside London—if he is doing his job—knows that Fridays are essential because they are the only days of the week when a Member of Parliament has an opportunity of making contact with people who are also at work; in factories, schools and others places. If Members are restricted merely to visiting on Saturdays, proper contact cannot be made.
  Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend's point is relevant and important.
  424
  The Select Committee report comes into conflict with the Government over the timetabling of Bills, although it does not necessarily suggest that the process has not been a success in the past Session. It is interesting that only 18 per cent. of respondents felt that the voluntary timetabling of Bills should not be carried on for ever, while 65 per cent. felt that it had been successful. However there was a considerable demand—65 per cent. of respondents—for the timetabling of Bills to become part of Standing Orders. Of those wanting such a development, 69 per cent. were Conservative Members, 58 per cent. Labour Members, and 89 per cent. Liberal Democrats.
  So a majority of almost two thirds of Members were in favour of turning the voluntary agreement into a permanent arrangement. I think that the feeling behind that was that it was all very well last year, but the same position might not remain in future and ought to be made part of Standing Orders.
  I shall deal now with money and Ways and Means resolutions, statutory instruments and prayers, and European Community documents, which were all included in the report. Indeed, the Law Commission factor was there as well. Approximately, 78 per cent., 88 per cent. and 81 per cent. of respondents respectively believed that the existing arrangements should continue and be made permanent.
  The last two important aspects of the analysis were that 87.7 per cent. of respondents felt that the Speaker's ability to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches should be continued. I should point out that, when the speeches of hon. Members have been affected by major interruptions, the occupants of the Chair have been flexible in genuine cases, although they would not necessarily accept or admit it, but if hon. Members consider the question, they will see that there have been times when Members have spoken for much longer than the 10 minutes allowed.
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Sir Peter Emery: I have given way a great deal.
  The proposal that the Speaker should be given power to limit speeches to 10 minutes during 90-minute debates also met with massive approval. Indeed, there have been many excesses in 90-minute debates, when some hon. Members have spoken for 20 or 25 minutes and left no time for others.
  I believe that, on the whole, Members have very positively responded in support of the action that has been taken. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to carry through the recommendation that debate on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech should be cut for a day to allow for a major economic debate in the spring. I believe that that is a sensible suggestion, which I hope will be adopted in time.
  In conclusion, it is quite clear that reform can be attained only when the majority of hon. Members agree to it. There will always be one, two or a small handful of hon. Members who will object to any aspect of change.
  Mr. Skinner: The awkward squad.
  Sir Peter Emery: If ever there were a leader of that squad, it is the hon. Member for Bolsover, who is sitting opposite me now. I believe that a majority of hon. Members are in favour of the proposals on the Order Paper. I urge that they be carried, without amendment, into the Standing Orders of the House.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I strongly support all the changes that appear on the Order Paper today. I believe that they are a first and a minimalist step toward what I hope will be a fundamental root-and-branch reform of the way in which we do business in this place. I understand perfectly the honourable, respectable and good tradition of the "awkward squad" in this place. I hope that that will always be the case. There will always be a role for hon. Members who have bona fide reasons for giving the Government of the day a hard time. That is one of the functions of debate in this place.
  Having said that, I believe that people in the community find it difficult to understand the way in which the House does business currently. They find the procedures arcane, outmoded and inefficient. I pay credit to the Leader of the House for going the last mile in trying to ensure that the minimalist changes have a basis of consent. I hope that he will not give up on reform once he has banked the changes—because I hope that that is what will occur—this evening. I hope that it is just the beginning of a momentum for change that will ensure that the House of Commons is a modern Chamber that is fit to govern in the 21st century. Unfortunately, at present the public do not believe that that is the case.
  5.12 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: I wish to raise two points in the debate. I have already raised the issue of not sitting on certain Fridays with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by way of intervention. One may align that with the fact that we often have less urgent business on Thursday evenings, which allows hon. Members to return to their constituencies to perform their constituency duties properly. It does not take too much imagination to realise that, if the time of hon. Members is too restricted, they will not be able to make essential contacts with their constituents—including industrialists, schools and local government organisations—on a non-political basis.
  Consequently, the proposal is very welcome. I have been in this place for a long time and, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I believe that the change should have occurred years ago. I only hope that the next reforms will not be so long in coming.
  Mr. Dalyell: The people of Warwick and Leamington are not deprived of the hon. Gentleman's presence because of what occurs in the House of Commons on a Friday. If he wishes to return to his constituency, he is able to do so under the old system that we are abolishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "At 3 o'clock."] Exactly. Hon. Members are rarely prevented from returning to their constituencies on a Friday.
  Sir Dudley Smith: The answer is that one cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members are able to return to their constituencies on a Thursday evening, they may make appointments there at 9 o'clock or 10.30 the next morning. Many of us have not attended the Chamber on a Friday for that reason and, consequently, our attendances on Fridays are extremely poor. Because of constituency commitments, we are often unable to participate in the important and interesting debates on Fridays. That factor must be taken into account.
  426
  I support the reforms almost unreservedly, but I must address the question of time limitations on speeches, to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) referred. I hope that we shall not go too far in timetabling speeches. Despite what anyone says, that would discourage interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which are the kernel of our debates. Many effective and important interventions have been made over the years and they have always been part and parcel of the procedures in this place.
  Anyone who has had experience of parliamentary procedure on the continent will know that interventions are a fairly rare occurrence. Those who have had experience of parliamentary assemblies associated with international and European organisations will know that the practice of intervening in the speech of another is very much frowned upon, if not banned. Consequently, there is a set pattern of speech after speech without any of the variety and intensity of debate that occurs so often in this place.
  Our Parliament is often criticised for being confrontational because the parties sit opposite each other; we do not adopt the same soft line as the Europeans. I believe that that makes our debates a darn sight more interesting: they have flavour and they are often very pertinent indeed. One only wishes that Parliament received better media coverage generally so that we could put our case to the people. That could only benefit the institution of Parliament.
  By and large, I welcome the procedures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who said that the past parliamentary Session was not typical. I think it is very dangerous to measure procedural experiments in an untypical Session. I believe that it would have been better to allow the informal arrangements to continue for three or four years, perhaps trying a few more experiments and observing how they worked, and then include them in the Standing Orders. I realise that the Standing Orders may be changed in the future, but I believe that the House should be very cautious in accepting that all the reforms are beneficial.
  I welcome the fact that hon. Members may be able to leave the House at 7 o'clock on a Thursday night. That is a very sensible proposal. However, we must be very careful that that does not change the nature of the whole of Thursday. I have been surprised by how difficult it is to persuade people to attend meetings within the House—not in the Chamber—on a Thursday because they assume that they may be able to return to their constituencies on a Wednesday night. Therefore, Thursday becomes a quieter day. If one compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Thursday with Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday, one sees that there are far fewer hon. Members in the Chamber on a Thursday.
  Having business questions and then a statement on a Thursday leaves only two hours, or even less time, for debate. Therefore, there is a tendency not to have major debates on a Thursday—unless the Government are being particularly Machiavellian and want to squeeze the time

  427
  allowed for debate. The business on Thursday is less likely to have a three-line Whip and, for that reason, I suggest that we are changing the nature of Thursdays.
  Hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees may have noticed how reluctant Committees are to meet on Thursday evenings because other hon. Members are likely to have left the building. Committee members often find themselves wandering around empty corridors like ghosts. We must look carefully at the implications of the proposals for Thursdays. Perhaps business questions could be moved to Wednesdays to allow time for a guaranteed three-hour debate on Thursdays.
  There are two strong arguments for retaining the possibility of debating money resolutions. One hopes that there would be agreement among hon. Members, and no one would need to use the time allocated for money resolutions. However, if many hon. Members were competing to get into a debate, one could always make it clear that, if one's speech could not be squeezed in, one would speak on the money resolution. It was amazing how often Front-Bench spokesmen were prepared to give up a little more of their time to make sure that everybody got in. Money resolutions represented an important opportunity to guarantee that people got into the main debate. They were also a useful muscle for the Opposition. If there was a disagreement, the Opposition could threaten to debate the money resolution, and everyone would be delayed a little longer.
  The more those opportunities are reduced, the more hon. Members have to turn to more disruptive activities to get across the passions that they feel. It was a Conservative Member who picked up the Mace, but the more we remove the means of putting pressure on the Government, the more we encourage hon. Members in such activities as picking up the Mace. I urge the House not to remove all the ways for hon. Members to demonstrate rebellion and disagreement.
  I now refer to the motion for shorter speeches. One of the most disappointing developments since I have been in the House is that the debate often deteriorates in the evening, and restricting speeches to 10 minutes makes it worse. We might as well have a room upstairs where people can deliver a speech to a mirror, as once the 10-minute rule is imposed there are no interventions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the Chair could use its discretion, but all too often there is no chance of that, because hon. Members do not give way if they have only 10 minutes, so there is no question of the Chair exercising discretion. Matters would be greatly improved if speeches were 10 minutes excluding interventions.
  We have now removed all opportunities for Back Benchers to cause votes on motions. That is an amazing reduction in their powers. The Government have the right to table motions. The Opposition have Supply days and so do the minority parties, but Back Benchers will now have no opportunity to vote on a motion.
  There was a time when, if hon. Members put their names to an early-day motion, there was a chance that it would be debated. One trick that could be played if one came first in the ballot was to pick up an early-day motion that had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who had claimed to their constituents that they were in favour of it. One could then table a motion using exactly the same words, to find out whether they really supported the early-day motion to which they had put their name.
  428
  Now there will be no way for Back Benchers to test the opinion of the House. There will be cosy agreements between the Front Benches, but no rights for Back Benchers. I accept that it was unusual to come first in the ballot and that it was rare to have a vote, but the Government should consider finding some way of giving Back-Bench Members the right to table motions and have votes on them as a safeguard.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that only a few votes were taken on private Members' motions. However, on 1 July 1994, a majority in the Chamber supported the call for a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, and the Government did not dare divide the House because they would have lost. Apart from the Opposition, a commanding majority of Conservatives supported the idea of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, so the Government did not divide the House. To say that only 12 per cent. of motions resulted in votes hides the fact that on many occasions the Executive get the message and dare not have a Division.
  Mr. Bennett: I understand how the Government manoeuvred to avoid a vote, but real and direct pressure was put on the Executive by the possibility that there could have been one. The Leader of the House has to find a way of restoring that right to Back Benchers, either by accepting amendments (a) and (b) in my name or by considering the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we have ballots on Mondays. I do not mind whether it is Wednesday morning or Monday afternoon, but it is important to restore to Back Benchers the right to have votes.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to express my concern and that of all Back Benchers. The issue is clearly of considerable importance with the present balance of arithmetic in the House, but in future, if we have a balance of parties with no overall majority for the Administration, it will be even more important that Back-Bench groups can find opportunities to vote on important issues of principle. Therefore, there will be widespread concern on both sides of the House that the Leader of the House should listen to that point this evening.
  Mr. Bennett: We should also examine the ballot procedure. We were assured from the Chair that Madam Speaker has an arrangement for balloting for Wednesday morning debates. I make a plea that it should be more transparent.
  The old way in which hon. Members went into the Lobby, signed their names in the ballot book, and the raffle was carried out by the Chair, was a transparent procedure. One got a slot before announcing what one wanted to debate. It was a way of putting pressure on the Government. I remember at least one occasion during the last Labour Government when someone allegedly from the awkward squad came first in the ballot and there were frantic negotiations and deals struck between the Whips as to what motion that individual would table. None of that exists in the present procedure. If the majority of Back-Bench time is to be controlled by ballots run by the Speaker, other Members should know which hon. Members have put in their names, what they have selected and who has been successful or otherwise.

  429
  The Government should not stop the experiments; they should continue to have experiments, but they should not rush into making them permanent until we have had more time to see how they work in the long run. Particularly in respect of the rights of Back Benchers to cause votes, the Government should think again.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is important to remember that tonight's debate is the culmination of a number of occasions in the past 20 years when power has been taken from Back Benchers and handed to the two Front Benches. The practice has not been confined to the Tory party, as it is on this occasion—it happened under the Labour Government of 1974–79. Today we are removing a little more power from Back Benchers and handing it over to the Government of the day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the Consolidated Fund Bill. We could keep debate on it going ad nauseam through the following day, not because we wanted to be awkward but to stop some lousy Government business that would affect our constituents. On the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, we were extremely successful. Not only did we have a vote on the Consolidated Fund, but we stretched out all three stages of the Bill. Gradually such opportunities were whittled down, until the debate finished at 9 o'clock without a Division.
  Today's debate represents an extension of the exercise embarked on earlier this year when the Jopling proposals were introduced. Let us make no mistake about it. It is not about Labour versus Tory in terms of power. If Tory Back Benchers were worth their salt, there would be scores of them here today. They can see a Labour Government staring them in the face and they will not have the power that they had between 1974 and 1979 when they led the Labour Government a dance hour after hour through the night. I could recite all those occasions when Tory Back Benchers gave the Callaghan Government hell. That opportunity has been taken away. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I was in the House during those years. Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls the occasion in mid-1974 when Conservative Members, in opposition, kept the House going on a Consolidated Fund Bill so long that it was stopped only by the appearance of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. That was over the slag heaps affair. A Tory Government is removing that right.
  Mr. Skinner: That adds to my argument that Parliament is changing. Most members of the Government and many of our Front Benchers want that change, but it takes power from Back Benchers.
  When I first entered the House, there could be a properly designated Adjournment debate before every recess—it was the real thing and could not be stopped. If 50 hon. Members wanted to speak, the Government had to invoke the closure procedure to stop them. That meant that the Government had to keep their troops here.
  One weapon that Back Benchers have is the ability to occupy the Government's time and space. That applies to the Opposition in general, both Front Benchers and Back
  430
  Benchers. The only real power that they have is to show that they are not prepared to take Government proposals lying down.
  A good example of that involved Geoffrey Howe, when he was Leader of the House for a short spell. He did not like that job, which had been given to him by Margaret Thatcher. Many of us kept the Government up for several nights and Geoffrey Howe pulled up stumps. He was not having any more of that. That was another occasion when the Government decided to limit the power of Back Benchers.
  We have lost the ability to keep Adjournment debates going more than three hours. Such debates have been slipped into Wednesdays.
  Mr. Dalyell: In their reforms, Front Benchers are being dreadfully and pitifully naive. They are taking away not only the time of the House but the concentration of the civil service and of Whitehall on what occurs in the House. The Leader of the House should not be naive and simplistic. If Parliament matters less and less—some of us think that that is to the detriment of the country—that is one reason.
  Mr. Skinner: I absolutely agree. Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to money resolutions. Again, power has been taken from Back Benchers who, if they had not managed to participate in the Second Reading debate, had 45 minutes to raise issues. Again, that change does not affect Front Benchers. They still have their say, but Back Benchers lost another opportunity to contribute.
  As for Wednesday mornings, I applied for an Adjournment debate on French nuclear tests and the capture of the Rainbow Warrior. Many hon. Members were concerned about the events of that Sunday afternoon, and I raised them in the House on Monday. The Speaker more or less told me that if I made an application for an Adjournment debate, I would get one. I did—on a Wednesday morning.
  Under the old-fashioned system of winning a place in the ballot for a Friday or Monday, there would have been a three-hour debate. I got a quarter of an hour and was able to offer a couple of minutes to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and another hon. Member managed to utter a couple of sentences. If any 20 of us had been presented with the opportunity to ballot for a motion, there would have been a three-hour debate. In the old days, there could also have been a Division and the Government would have been even more embarrassed. Although it is argued that Wednesday mornings provide an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues, it is not the same as before, when I was able to table a motion about imported coal to which many other hon. Members could contribute.
  As for the four-day week, I understand the argument that there are things for an hon. Member to do in his constituency. My argument is that whatever gloss is put on it, the 4 million people who are unemployed will say, "Why can't Members of Parliament produce legislation for a four-day week, to mop up the unemployed and to give young men and women a chance to get a job?" That is one of the most important challenges that will face the next Labour Government.
  Tory Members will have given away all that parliamentary power, and they are losing their directorships under Nolan. God knows what they will do

  431
  with themselves at night. The Government will have got their legislation through at 8 pm and the House will not sit on Fridays—there may be another 10 Fridays off. Make no mistake: that will be the new Blair agenda.
  All the Tory Members who are not in the Chamber will wish that they had been here to battle for the cause of Back Benchers. They have thrown it all away. I am standing up for the rights of a few of us. We will divide the House tonight, but we will have one big laugh when they put pink curtains up at No. 10 Downing street and the Daily Mirror reporter is able to go in there any day of the week. Then again, he may not. Those days will be different from 1974 and 1979.
  Tory Back Benchers, with or without directorships, will rue the day that they shovelled away the power of Back Benchers. When a party is in opposition, it has loads of Back Benchers with loads of grievances. Labour Ministers will be arrayed on that Treasury Bench and they will be laughing all the way home. It will be left to me and my hon. Friends to carry the torch on behalf of Back Benchers, but we will not have the power that we used to have. Today, power is being taken from Back Benchers and handed to members of the two Front Benches, and there is no clear blue water between them.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put his finger on the point. There may be more time on Wednesdays and a more useful arrangement of time, but that time is for opinion rather than decision initiated by Back Benchers. My hon. Friend's example of a possible motion expressing an opinion about French nuclear tests will ring a bell in the minds of the public.
  Our ability to raise such matters and to threaten a Division is not for our benefit but for those whom we represent. Without that power, the House will not have the respect that it would otherwise enjoy. That is one reason why public esteem for the House has reduced. More and more, matters are fixed between members of the two Front Benches. I will deal with that when I respond to the lack of enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for my amendment on private Members' motions.
  Delegated legislation going Upstairs automatically by a Standing Order is dangerous, because the time allowed for such legislation is usually attenuated by the Chair after a little talk and takes up perhaps 30 seconds of the time of the House. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, it takes 20 hon. Members to stand up and say no. Some years ago, it was not difficult for one hon. Member, knowing that he had 19 supporters, to make representations, after which the statutory instrument might be dealt with on the Floor of the House or there would be discussion of it. That power is being removed without adding one minute to the time of Back Benchers.
  When the experiment was first suggested, many of us did not object to the Wednesdays. I am afraid that the speech by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee illustrated the problem with what is happening now. Doubling the time for Adjournment debates on Wednesdays is being used as an excuse for taking away private Members' power to speak and, more important, to divide. I hope that the media will not say that Members have endorsed the reforms. As far as Wednesdays go, I
  432
  am not a member of the awkward squad. By all means give us double the time, but do not reduce our power under this camouflage.
  Independent motions are part of the fabric of democracy and form part of our ancient parliamentary rights. A century ago, the time of the House was distributed fairly evenly between private Members' time, Government time and time for private legislation. The distribution varied from Session to Session, but since then private Members' time has been consistently whittled away with the connivance of Front Benchers on both sides, because it is in their interests to do that. Of course that prevents Members from representing the views of their constituents, often on non-party issues. The debates on private Members' motions will often bring out matters that have nothing to do with party opinion. Indeed, they can show the public that Members of Parliament are reasonable people of good sense, whose concerns mirror the public's concerns.
  I hope tonight for some reassurance to the contrary from the Leader of the House, because Front Benchers on both sides are diminishing the status of Parliament and of private Members themselves. That in turn diminishes the legitimacy of those who speak from the Front Benches, and people will begin to doubt whether it is worth entering Parliament at all.
  An important principle is at stake here. Until last year, on no fewer than 14 occasions in the year, Members successful in the ballot were able to debate a subject of their choice. The fact that that represented a tremendous threat to Front Benchers has been shown today in various ways. Often, a Member who has been successful in the ballot can be approached by other Members with more ideas touching on issues that affect the public. A thousand choices of subject present themselves in the early-day motions on our Order Paper, for instance. The Leader of the House is frequently asked for time to debate early-day motions, and in fact they are often debated: now that chance will go.
  We also often hear the Leader of the House saying that the question raised by an hon. Member is a matter of great public importance, and that he should take his chances in the ballot. After today, unless we can be reassured otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that.
  It is true, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, that private Members' time for Adjournment debates has been doubled. The modest amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests considering private Members' motions on four Wednesday mornings a year, which amounts to about half an hour a week. What is wrong with that? My amendment proposes four Mondays a year for this purpose, which amounts to no more than 20 minutes a week. My hon. Friends have already demonstrated that the Government are afraid of such motions, which is why, at the same time as doubling private Members' time to discuss subjects on the Adjournment, the Government are commuting our real power. There can be only one reason for eliminating that power: such debates really mattered.
  The Leader of the House should accept one or other of the amendments—I am not too bothered which. I have proposed Mondays because I think that voting at 7 o'clock on a Monday on a motion or a closure would be a better

  433
  time. Even a closure can be a bit of a threat, for reasons of which we are all well aware. I think that that would be more convenient than voting at 2 o'clock on a Wednesday, as proposed by my hon. Friend. But if my amendment falls I will support his, since Madam Speaker has been gracious enough to allow us to proceed at some stage to both. Perhaps the Leader of the House will concede my idea of Mondays, if only because they will involve only three hours, instead of the four and a half or five hours involved in the other amendment.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury is not here at the moment. I neither followed nor agreed with what she said. I would hope that no Government will reduce the powers of Members of this House, because by doing so they would reduce the powers of the electorate as well. If the Government do that, they are demonstrating an arrogance which our democratic traditions should not tolerate. I hope that none of us, when we leave this place, will be sorry that we connived at the change.
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It comes as a great shock to me to be called one of the awkward squad when, as hon. Members will know, I have been all my life the epitome of the gentle, calm and flexible politician. However, if I am to be awkward on this occasion, I hope that I shall do so with vigour and intent.
  I have been here a very long time and I think it patronising to suggest that those of us who object to some of these changes do so merely because we are used to the old ways and have nothing useful to contribute. It is suggested that our objections are based, not on an understanding of what the House of Commons should be doing, but on a wish to stay as we always have been.
  On the contrary, I believe that some of the problems raised this afternoon are fundamental. It is important to have extra time for Back Benchers, and I welcome Wednesday morning debates. Indeed, it would be ungracious of me not to, as I have been lucky enough to initiate one or two of them myself. But they should not be an alternative to allowing Back Benchers the muscle that goes with a vote. I am sure that the Leader of the House is not silly enough to think that they are an alternative. He must realise that Members of Parliament know the difference between a general debate and forcing the Government to take note of a vote which expresses the opinion of all parties.
  So why are we being told that these are minimal changes to which we should not object because they simply ameliorate the workings of the House and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), make it more efficient? That is not so. I do not mind people thinking me an idiot, but I do not want them to make it too clear. In this instance, the Leader of the House does himself an injustice. He does care about the rights of Back Benchers, but he cannot genuinely believe that we are so naive as not to be able to see what is happening.
  Front Benchers, for their own sensible and focused reasons, are bent on ensuring that there are ever fewer opportunities for ordinary Members to cause trouble. But trouble is what Parliament is all about. I have sat in the
  434
  European Parliament and listened to those well organised debates in which people read out speeches without accepting any interventions and then brief representatives of the media outside the Chamber, congratulating themselves on ably representing a democratic system when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.
  It is debate, fight and teasing out all the awkward things that people do not want known that is important about the Chamber. It has been like that for many centuries.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend remember the Member of the European Parliament who was least willing of all to give way at any time when she and I were indirectly elected MEPs? His name was Giulio Andreotti.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, and we all know that Mr. Andreotti was exceedingly good at organising procedure. Indeed, he made an entire career out of it. I was brought up by a man who believed in procedure because he understood that, when one was in a tight corner, having control of the standing orders was the way to limit any difficult debate. He understood that knowing how the standing orders operated gave one the power to control what was going on in any committee. That is a lesson that I have never forgotten.
  I agree with 10-minute limits on speeches when many people want to speak and when the debate lends itself to hon. Members making one or two individual points. That is fine. There is not a problem with that. However, it is not always suitable. In some debates, people have to have the time to make a thoughtful speech, to accept interventions and to develop an argument. That cannot always be done in a truncated speech.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only Members of the European Parliament but parliamentarians from various long-established democracies recognise that the rights that we have had in this place far exceed what they have? Is there not a danger that we shall go their way, in the sense of sitting shorter hours and putting much more emphasis on activities outside this place? What we have established over the years—a full-time Parliament which sits for far longer than other Parliaments in Europe—is being slowly eroded and undermined. That is not good for parliamentary democracy.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no accident that some people apparently spend an enormous amount of effort getting here and then cannot wait to spend all their time out on College green. I am old-fashioned enough to think that this is the place where we ask questions of the Government. If we have long recesses and ever longer periods when there is no one sitting in the House of Commons, Governments are not altogether unhappy because it means that they do not have to answer awkward questions. We are here to pose the awkward questions.
  There are already whole areas of legislation that slip through. The European Standing Committees are disgracefully undermanned and underwomaned. Many people who are well known outside the House on every television programme on the face of God's earth are rarely to be found in those boring old Committees in which a lot of the work is done hour after hour by people asking awkward questions and examining the implications of legislation.

  435
  I believe that the Leader of the House is genuinely trying to help, but I am so worried about the way in which the House of Commons is going that I believe that the time is coming for some of us to make our views painfully clear to the electorate. The House must never become merely a backdrop for a few hours of cable television. It must never ever become a Chamber to which people come only when they think that they have their soundbites and their colours correct. It must not become a place to which people come to deal with just one tiny aspect of a complicated subject.
  Parliament is dependent on the detailed knowledge and commitment of Members of all sorts of shapes and sizes. In the 30-odd years that I have been here, I have seen many people with diverse views, many of which I did not accept. They made complex speeches about aspects of legislation which I had not envisaged because I had no way of knowing the impact of a particular Bill. They succeeded in convincing the House of their view because they had something important to say. If we ever lose that diversity and become mere exponents of the brief intervention and the calm acceptance that Back Benchers are here merely as walk-ons, democracy will be damaged.
  It is not the noise that people object to in this place. It is not the shouting and the constant turmoil. It is the failure to understand that that turmoil frequently reflects genuine depths of feeling out in the country. If that ceased to be expressed, the silence would be deafening, and the result would be much more like anarchy.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is much in what she says with which I am bound to agree. I hope that the House will take notice of the advice that she gives from the standpoint of her long experience of parliamentary matters. I share her anxiety about the future of the House and the future powers of Back Benchers to express views and articulate the views of the people whom they represent. More and more I see the House becoming simply a rubber stamp for the Executive.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that I speak from a particular standpoint. During the past year or so I have put myself in a position in which perhaps few Back Benchers have previously found themselves. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the only thing that really mattered at the end of the day was the vote. That is correct. It is becoming more apparent that the views expressed in the House are perhaps listened to, but in great measure disregarded because for understandable reasons the Executive have a view as to which way they want to go and which way they want to take the country.
  Sometimes, as has been proved recently, the Executive want to take the country in a direction in which the country palpably does not want to go. My colleagues and I were able to stand up to the Government during the past 12 or 18 months because we knew that the people whom we represented thought that we were right in that great debate and that the Government were wrong. Yet throughout the debate it was apparent for all to see that the only thing that the Government recognised was, not the force of the argument—night after night my colleagues deployed an argument which was undoubtedly
  436
  cogent and irrefutable—but the force of the vote. The Government prevailed because they had more voting power than we so-called rebels.
  The single issue to which I have referred is not the point. The point is what is happening to our Parliament. It is relevant to consider what is happening to our Parliament in the context of the European Union. It is apparent for all to see—no one can argue about it—that what is decided in treaties has to go through the House even though the vast majority of Back Benchers may feel that it is wrong. By signing the treaties, the Government have signed away the right that we as Back Benchers previously had to decide matters.
  That was demonstrated on 24 November last year when I and eight of my colleagues had the party Whip withdrawn because we failed to support the Government in a vote to send £75 million more to the European Union. I venture to suggest that, had it been a domestic issue, we would not have been drummed out of the regiment. The Government had to deliver on that particular promise, as on all the other promises that they have made, because they have committed Britain and all the people whom we represent by signing the treaties. That is a particular development of the past 25 years. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, that is the wrong way for Parliament to proceed.
  I am worried about how difficult it will be to explain to our electorate exactly how little power we have here as Back Benchers. At present, by and large, the electorate feel that when they send us to Parliament we can have a great influence over what goes on here, decide matters on their behalf and ensure that their view is fully represented.
  We can certainly make representations, but I return to the point that ultimately the only thing that the Executive recognise is voting power. The measures that we are debating today will give more time for Back Benchers to ventilate their own private or constituency interests, but it will be at the expense of the time that we have as Back Benchers for scrutinising legislation and controlling the Executive.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I now call Mr. Rooker.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be registered that others of us were waiting to speak when you called the Front-Bench spokesman? Anyone looking for an example of Front-Bench fixing could find it in the way the two-hour motion was slipped through on a Friday. I must say to the House authorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I call Mr. Rooker.
  6 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and many of my other hon. Friends have made valid points this afternoon, as did the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I also recall many of the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the last Labour Government.
  While there has been an experiment this past year, what my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said was true. The parliamentary Session now coming to

  437
  an end has not by any stretch of the imagination been typical of previous Sessions during my 20 years in the House, and I suspect that the Session due to start on 15 November will not be typical either.
  We must make it clear to our constituents that we are the law-making authority. Nothing involved in the package affects the law-making process in terms of new legislation. That is sad; I wish that it were otherwise and that we could start to reform the House and produce quality legislation. A package of 24 items was announced and agreed last December and today we are dealing with just four or five. They are all important matters, but we are not dealing with some of them—for instance, the scandalous way in which we deal with European legislation. I understand from the Select Committee report produced in July, which I read in the recess, that hon. Members have often attended European Standing Committees and virtually been asked to agree legislation of which the text has not even been available. That practice must stop, as it is unacceptable. We need more time to tackle that problem.
  I have just one question of clarification to ask the Leader of the House. Will he confirm that the rule remains in force whereby, on Second Reading of a Finance Bill, the 10 o'clock rule does not apply, thus allowing any hon. Member who has not been called yet to stand in his or her place and be called to speak and continue the debate? I see that the Leader of the House nods in agreement. It is an important matter.
  I can think of only three cases in the past 20 years when an hon. Member has stood up at 10 pm, after the Front Benchers have sat down, and has said, "I demand my right under the rules to be called," and has been called by the Speaker. The House is not happy when that happens. I am one of the three people to have made use of that procedure, and I was not in the House's good books. I wanted to explain to my hon. Friends that there are procedures that they can use in the House if they have a mind to, but they do not. Sometimes procedures that are not used go by default. I should hate hon. Members to lose the opportunity of raising issues on Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Wednesday mornings have proved useful. I used one in March to raise the subject of domestic violence and was told by the Minister not to worry as a Bill was coming from the other place covering all the issues that I had raised.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I cannot give way, because, for obvious reasons, my time is limited.
  Change is slow to occur in this place. The sloth of this place is such that it took 34 months for us to begin the experiment proposed in the Jopling report. That is a thundering disgrace. I do not blame anyone in particular on either side of the House, but my example shows how slow the rate of change is in this place.
  Procedure is not a tool in itself; it is a tool that we use to help and represent our constituents. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is important. We must master the procedure, not let it control us; we must shape it, mould it and modernise it.
  438
  Life should be tough for Ministers. The 13-week recess belongs in a bygone age, and it will be when we have a change of Government. We need more reform than is proposed in the measures that we are discussing today. We must create a useful Parliament which holds Government to account, creates good quality legislation and allows those affected by our legislation to wield greater influence over our proceedings. None of those improvements will be achieved through the measures, which represent a tiny pinprick in a package of reforms that is long overdue.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Newton: I, too, have only a few minutes for my speech. We have been trying to allow as many speeches as possible in the debate. It is ironic that what has been said this afternoon contrasts with the cause of the earlier delay: the attempt to tease out an agreement. That period was uncomfortable for me because of the number of people who demanded the exact opposite of what has been demanded of me this evening. The great majority of hon. Members wanted the changes that we have made because they felt them to be right. While I do not dismiss—as I never seek to dismiss—points that have been made, we should be clear that the support expressed from the Front Benches and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) today is widely expressed around the House, and has been over many months.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take much time to respond to those who have spoken in support of the measures, but respond to those comments that were less supportive. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ensure that Madam Speaker's attention is drawn to some of the comments made about the Wednesday morning arrangements.
  I cannot recommend the amendments, or any variant of them, to the House. The Jopling report specifically recommended that private Members' business should be taken on a motion for the Adjournment, to ensure that no votes were taken during a morning sitting. That system has worked well and has commanded general support. I note the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but the transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings has, as has already emerged, given Back Benchers more time on the Floor of the House.
  There is no case to be made for providing a further four half-days. That would be contrary to the basis of the Jopling reforms, which were designed not to increase the amount of time that the House sits, but to decrease it to a more realistic level and provide a balance. In practice, the experiment has resulted in an increase in the time available for private Members' business.
  There is some irony in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) should have made the speech that he did. I find it difficult to think of anyone who has demonstrated more clearly the effectiveness of the Chamber and the role of the Back Bencher than my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends during our consideration of certain recent Bills. No one who has been in the House during the past two years could say that the influence of the House has diminished and that Whitehall and Ministers need not bother about it. That is an extraordinary description of the way in which I perceive

  439
  and feel that the place operates and is perceived. I am sorry that I have no time for further and fuller comment. I merely say that we also had a piece of vintage Bolsover.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 17.

  Division No. 227]

  [6.10 pm]

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Bates, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Horam, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jack, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Bowis, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clappison, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclennan, Robert

  Congdon, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Malone, Gerald

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Couchman, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Merchant, Piers

  Dicks, Terry

  Michael, Alun

  Dowd, Jim

  Miller, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Elletson, Harold

  Nelson, Anthony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Norris, Steve

  Evennett, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Faber, David

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Pawsey, James

  Forth, Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Radice, Giles

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Rendel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Gunnell, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sackville, Tom

  440

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tyler, Paul

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whitney, Ray

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomason, Roy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Madden, Max

  Barnes, Harry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Simpson, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Winnick, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Flynn, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

  "(1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &., Bills).

  (2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.

  (3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

  (4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and maybe decided at any hour, though opposed."

  (2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

  "(1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

  (a) the House otherwise orders, or

  (b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

  (2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

  (3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above."
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  (1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill

  (a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or

  (b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.

  (2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

  (2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 19.

  Division No. 228]

  [6.21 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Gale, Roger

  Alton, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Baldry, Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bates, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Horam, John

  Bowis, John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Jack, Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Knapman, Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Clappison, James

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Congdon, David

  Lidington, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Luff, Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclennan, Robert

  Couchman, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Malone, Gerald

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Elletson, Harold

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Evennett, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Norris, Steve

  French, Douglas

  Ottaway, Richard

  442

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Radice, Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Ward, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  NOES

  Austin-Walker, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Barnes, Harry

  Meale, Alan

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Simpson, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Winnick, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Flynn, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gunnell, John

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  (1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect:

  "(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.

  (2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.

  (3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

  (a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or

  (b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

  (4) Where a Member has given notice of—

  (a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

  443

  (b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure,
  a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.

  (5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put.

  (6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed."

  (2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)".
  (3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect".
  (4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).

  (2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

  (5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
  (6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur.
  (7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  "(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));". —[Mr. Newton.]

  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 14.

  Division No. 229]

  [6.32 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Alton, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Amess, David

  Lidington, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Luff, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Bates, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Malone, Gerald

  Body, Sir Richard

  Mandelson, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Merchant, Piers

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Michael, Alun

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Burt, Alistair

  Moss, Malcolm

  Butterfill, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Norris, Steve

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ottaway, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Page, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Paice, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Pawsey, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Pickles, Eric

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Rendel, David

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Duncan, Alan

  Sackville, Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Elletson, Harold

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Evans Jonathan (Brecon)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Spellar, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Evennett, David

  Faber, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Streeter, Gary

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  French, Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Thomason, Roy

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Tredinnick, David

  Gunnell, John

  Trend, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Tyler, Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Heald, Oliver

  Ward, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Watts, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Wells, Bowen

  Horam, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Jack, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wood, Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Yeo, Tim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Mr. Roger Knapman and

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  445

  NOES

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Cox, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Wilkinson, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Simpson, Alan

  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
  (1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.

  (2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

  (3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.

  (4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

  (a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and

  (b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,

  between eleven o'clock and three o'clock."
  (2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

  "(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.

  (2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.

  (3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".

  (4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

  (5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.

  (6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that
  446
  should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."

  (3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening".
  (4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
  (5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
  (6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

  (c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".

  (7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect:
  "When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
  (8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect:
  "When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
  (9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (2)(1), after `shall', insert:
  'except on four such days to be appointed by the House' —[Mr. Bennett.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 113.

  Division No. 230]

  [6.43 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Gale, Roger

  Barnes, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cox, Tom

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  447

  Rendel, David

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Nigel Spearing and

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennell.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Amess, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Baldry, Tony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Bates, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Luff, Peter

  Bowis, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Brandreth, Gyles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Malone, Gerald

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Burt, Alistair

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Butterfill, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Clappison, James

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Congdon, David

  Norris, Steve

  Conway, Derek

  Ottaway, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Page, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Paice, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Couchman, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Cran, James

  Rathbone, Tim

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

  Duncan, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Sackville, Tom

  Elletson Harold

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Evennett, David

  Spring, Richard

  Faber, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Forth, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Thomason, Roy

  French, Douglas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Trend, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Watts, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Wood, Timothy

  Horam, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Jack, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: (c), in paragraph (5), leave out
  'paragraphs (7), (8) and (9)'
  and insert
  'paragraph (7) shall be omitted, in paragraph (8) the words 'On four days other than Fridays' shall be omitted and the words 'On not less than four Mondays' shall be inserted, and in paragraph (9) the words from the first word 'House' to the first word 'Notice'.' —[Mr. Spearing.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 116.

  Division No. 231]

  [6.54 pm

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Boateng, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Michael, Alun

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Simpson, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Spellar, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Winnick, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Gunnell, John

  Mr. Nigel Spearing and

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Alton, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Horam, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jack, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bowis, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burt, Alistair

  Knapman, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Congdon, David

  Luff, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  MacKay, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Malone, Gerald

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Couchman, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Merchant, Piers

  Duncan, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Nelson, Anthony

  Elletson, Harold

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Norris, Steve

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Paice, James

  Evennett, David

  Pawsey, James

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Eric

  Rathbone, Tim

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Rendel, David

  French, Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Rooker, Jeff

  449

  Sackville, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Streeter, Gary

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Thomason, Roy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect:
  "The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."—[Mr. Newton.]
  The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 12.

  Division No. 232]

  [7.04 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Cran, James

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Elletson, Harold

  Butterfill, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  450

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evennett, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Norris, Steve

  French, Douglas

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Rendel, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hendry, Charles

  Sackville, Tom

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, Michael

  Spellar, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Spring, Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Streeter, Gary

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knapman, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Thomason, Roy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Trend, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Tyler, Paul

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Watts, John

  Luff, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Malone, Gerald

  Wood, Timothy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Martlew, Eric

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Merchant, Piers

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Michael, Alun

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Simpson, Alan

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Cousins, Jim

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mr. Tom Cox and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Standards in Public Life
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  7.15 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Before I open the debate, I should like to welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). For a long time, he sat—
  Mr. Giles Radice: Silent.
  Mr. Freeman: Literally silent, but it was a thoughtful silence. We welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. Although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I will differ on policy, one thing is certain: the debate may be frank, but it will be courteous.
  An all-day debate took place in the House on 18 May this year on the first report of the Nolan committee on standards in public life, so far as they affect the Government. Exactly two months later, on 18 July, the Government published their response to that report in the form of a White Paper and statements on the response were made here and in the other place.
  I announced then that it was the Government's intention to have a further debate in this spill-over period. The debate would cover the proposed rules for business appointments for former Ministers before they were introduced from the start of the new Session, and the White Paper as a whole. I am pleased to be able to honour that commitment today.
  I should like to make clear at the outset the very great degree of common approach between the Nolan committee and the Government. The Government's White Paper accepted all the major recommendations in the committee's report addressed to Government. Work on implementing a large number of those recommendations is now under way. Indeed, in some cases, it had already started before the White Paper was published.
  I emphasise the fact that the Government accept the seven principles of public life set out in the Nolan report. They are important and they are worth repeating. The principles, which the committee set out as an over-arching framework to its recommendations, were selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I am sure that the whole House will recommend and accept those seven principles. They are worth repeating constantly.
  We are confident that those in public life in this country already adhere to those principles to a very high degree, as the committee acknowledged in its report. But we believe that the acceptance and implementation of the committee's recommendations will help to provide public reassurance on that point in areas where there may have been confusion or doubt.
  I deal now with several specific and important issues to which I drew to the attention of the House in my statement on 18 July. I refer first to outside appointments taken up by former Ministers of the Crown. The Government believe that it is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience in government should be able to move into the private sector, not only to earn their living but to contribute to the United Kingdom
  452
  economy—a view that is shared by Lord Nolan and his committee. But it is equally important that, when a former Minister takes up a particular appointment, there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety.
  A balance needs to be struck, and I believe that the guidelines on the acceptance of appointments outside Government by former Ministers of the Crown, which I placed in the Library on Monday, achieves that. The key point is that we want those with experience of business, professions and other walks of life to come into Parliament and into Government, and then have the opportunity to return.
  The aims of the guidelines are to counter suspicion, however unjustified, first, that the statements and decisions of a serving Minister might be influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with a particular firm or organisation, and, secondly, an employer could make improper use of official information to which a former Minister has had previous access.
  The guidelines provide a means for former Ministers to ask the advisory committee on business appointments for its advice about any appointments that they wish to take up within two years of leaving office.
  That is not a statutory system—in fact, Lord Nolan and the committee came down in favour of an advisory system and not a statutory one—but the expectation is that all Ministers will ask the committee for advice. I should make it plain that I have authority only to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and the current Administration, but we expect that all Ministers, if they are placed in a position of wishing to take up outside appointments, will seek the advice of the committee. Indeed, that is the reason why the guidelines are cast in terms of the availability of the committee to provide advice. It is not a statutory, but an advisory system.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: I will certainly give way, but I should like first to finish the point because it is important.
  If a Minister chooses not to seek the advice of the committee, that will inevitably become public. The published reports of the advisory committee will ensure appropriate scrutiny. That is the sanction.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has placed great emphasis on advice, yet one of the Nolan committee's recommendations that touches on taking up appointments, and for which the committee made it plain that advice was not necessary, was that no Cabinet Minister should take up an appointment in business for three months, and that that should be automatic and not a discretionary matter. Why have the Government rejected that?
  Mr. Freeman: With great respect, the Government have not rejected that; they have accepted it, with one proviso—I am coming on to it—that there may well be circumstances in which the advisory committee might feel that even the three-month waiting period could be waived. The circumstances are very limited and special, such as a return to an occupation where there was absolutely no conceivable conflict of interest or, indeed, any possibility that there could be justifiable suspicion.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the fact that permanent secretaries—I suppose that there is some

  453
  analogy—typically wait three months. The reason for the three-month waiting period for Cabinet Ministers and for permanent secretaries as a general rule is that they are privy to information about policy across all Departments: Government policy as a whole. Junior departmental Ministers are normally privy only to the policies of their particular Department. That is the reason for the three-month waiting period.
  From my own experience, and in the experience of many right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I know that, when one moves from one Department to another, one's knowledge tends to stale remarkably quickly, because of the pace of modern life and modern government. I therefore believe that there is justification for the three-month rule, since general knowledge of policy will quickly stale.
  A two-year maximum waiting period applied to specific jobs for which departmental Ministers, including Secretaries of State, may have specific knowledge, as I say, may be caught in some limited circumstances—I hope limited circumstances—by a need to wait. That is because of their more specialist knowledge, experience and connections with prospective employers.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to delay the Minister on this point but I think that he is chopping logic. Either a provision is automatic or it is discretionary. Nolan recommended that it should be automatic that Ministers do not take up appointments in business for three months. The Government are providing the discretion to waive it. That is not an acceptance of the Nolan recommendation: it is a clear rejection of it. Indeed, it is less than candid to present it as the Minister has.
  Mr. Freeman: If, with the leave of the House, I am able to make the winding-up speech, I shall certainly reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will refresh my memory as to precisely what the Nolan committee said in relation to the three-month rule for Cabinet Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman speaks, it might provide him with an opportunity to develop the point further.
  The advisory committee will consider each request on its merits. It will ask the former Minister for details of the appointment, and also for details of any direct or indirect contact that he or she has had with the prospective employer or any of its competitors. There will be a standard form for such information, although Ministers will of course be able to supplement it with a letter.
  The advisory committee will then consider each appointment against tests to ensure that the appointment cannot be seen as being in some way a reward for past favours, that it will not give the prospective employer an unfair advantage through access to trade secrets of competitors or knowledge of unannounced Government policy, and that it will not give rise to justifiable public concern for any other specific reason.
  But in doing that, the committee will wish to be satisfied that any concerns are justified and not mere speculation. The committee will need to balance any points under those tests against the desirability of former Ministers being able to move into business or other areas of employment, or the need for them to be able to start a new career or resume a former one.
  454
  The advisory committee will be able to advise the former Minister that it sees no objection to the appointment, or it may recommend a delay of up to two years before it is taken up; or for a similar period, it may recommend that a former Minister should stand aside from certain activities of his employment or profession. One thinks, for example, of a solicitor.
  All former Ministers of Cabinet rank will be expected to wait three months after leaving office before they take up any appointment, unless the committee confirms that the proposed appointment is such that no considerations of improper advantage could apply. As I said earlier, if the committee considers that a longer waiting period is necessary, it will advise the former Minister accordingly. The committee will consider requests for advice in confidence and, of course, independently of the Government. Its advice will be made available for publication, but only when an appointment is taken up.
  I would expect it to become the practice that the employing organisation would refer to the advisory committee's advice when it announces that a former Minister is joining that organisation. The committee will produce an annual report summarising the cases with which it has dealt in the previous year. It is intended that the guidelines will come into effect from the start of the next Session of Parliament on November 15.
  The Nolan committee also made recommendations on the business appointments rules as they affect civil servants and special advisers. I intend to publish, for consultation, after the start of the next Session, changes to those rules, which will include bringing special advisers within them for the first time. We intend that the new rules, including those which affect special advisers, will come into effect on 1 April 1996, but I would expect any special advisers appointed between today and the end of March 1996 to agree to abide by the existing rules on a voluntary basis.
  Next I should like to mention the civil service code, the final text of which I announced on Monday. We have proceeded with particular care in this area. Our objective has been to maintain and build on the consensus which greeted the original draft code produced by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I repeat the congratulations that the Government gave the Committee on its draft at the time. I see the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), in his place and I repeat, specifically for his benefit and for those on his Committee, our thanks.
  Hon. Members will recall that we accepted the substance of all the recommendations of the Nolan committee on the code. Those were that the code should cover wrongdoing of which a civil servant is aware although not personally involved with; wider reporting of appeals by the civil service commissioners; a confidential appeal channel independent of a civil servant's line management; and introduction as soon as possible.
  We published a revised draft in July to allow the civil service unions and others the opportunity to comment on the text, as it then incorporated the results of the initial consultation, including the Nolan committee recommendations. In fact, the further consultation has resulted in only a few very minor drafting alterations. I believe that we now have a succinct statement of the constitutional relationships and values that civil servants

  455
  must uphold, which in all substantive respects commands near universal approval. That consensus is a precious asset, on which we should now build.
  We agreed with the Nolan committee's recommendation that the code should be implemented as soon as possible, without waiting for legislation. Subject to the necessary Order in Council, we shall introduce the code in December to take effect from 1 January 1996.
  I turn now to a point put to me by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in questions on my statement on 18 July. He asked whether the text that the Government had proposed for a revised first paragraph of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"—which, as hon. Members will know, is published by the Prime Minister—could be amended to indicate that Ministers would withhold information from Parliament only in exceptional circumstances.
  I have looked at "Erskine May" to see how far it has been a policy of successive Administrations to withhold information on certain matters. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) did the House a service in 1977–78 by putting a series of questions to the then Labour Administration, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a senior member, about departmental practice in withholding answers to questions. Such practice was extensive, and the results are summarised on page 292 of "Erskine May".
  Since then, there have been many advances towards greater openness and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that fact. Of course, the House would not have discussed the text of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" at all in 1978, as it was not published by any Prime Minister before 1992. The Security Service had not then been avowed. It has now been placed on a statutory footing and there is an oversight committee of parliamentarians. This is the first Government to set out a clear standard of open government and to refer disputes on the provision of information to the ombudsman to be tested against clearly expressed exemptions. All those developments have been initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  No Government in the world operates on a basis of total transparency. It would not serve the interests of good government to operate a policy of total openness about, for example, the operations of the security and intelligence services, matters of great defence or diplomatic sensitivity, or Cabinet proceedings. I believe that the House accepts that.
  It would be true to say that the occasions when information will be withheld are "exceptional": the intention is to be as open as possible. But we must invoke the precision of the Government's code of practice on access to official information in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" without implying that the code would be definitive in a court of law, or indeed in Parliament, where the balance of public interest will need to be considered case by case.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The White Paper on open government contains a reference to the fact that we may appeal to the ombudsman, but the new proposal does not. It appears to me that paragraph 27 is being loosened and that the interests of the House, as opposed to those of the Executive, were better served by the old rubric. The new form of words refers to
  456
  "withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
  That is the heart of political debate in this place. The Scott inquiry examined those issues carefully and it will release its report soon.
  Therefore, I believe that it is a little previous to suggest that this is the finished word on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I do not think that I have expressed vigorously enough my deep opposition to the idea that this is a weakening of that higher standard which requires Ministers to account truthfully to the House and to the public.
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I intend to propose an amendment to the text. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney asked me to reflect upon the published text and I shall now read my proposed change—which has been approved by the Prime Minister—into the record. I obviously welcome the comments and views of hon. Members.
  The new formulation of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" shall be as follows:
  "Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public and should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with established Parliamentary convention, the law, and any relevant Government Code of Practice".
  I have provided three references: first, established parliamentary convention—I have given the reference in "Erskine May"—secondly, the law; and, thirdly, any relevant Government code of practice. My hon. Friend has also drawn attention to the document on open government that we have published already. I hope that the amendment provides greater clarity. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt wish to study the record and perhaps reflect further upon the debate.
  My hon. Friend referred to the ombudsman. I believe that Ministers should be accountable to the House for their actions. I believe that the ombudsman has a role in examining the actions of Ministers and Departments with regard to openness and access to information by members of the public. However, if it is thought that a Minister has misled the House, he must come to the Dispatch Box and give an account of himself. The House, and not the ombudsman, must examine the evidence and bring him to account.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for living up to his promise and reflecting further on the wording of the proposed revised draft of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The crux of the matter is how the public interest is defined. I thought that the form of words proposed originally was very weak. It said that Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and withhold information
  "only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
  I think that the criteria that the Minister has submitted for judging the public interest are helpful; I shall certainly study them with great care. However, I remind the Minister of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills a few moments ago. We are living in the shadow of the Scott report and I believe that, when it is published, it will throw a great deal of light on how

  457
  public interest has been interpreted in the past and what is and what is not proper for Ministers to disclose to the House and to the public.
  Mr. Freeman: It is fair to say that, when the Scott report is published, studied and doubtless debated, we shall all have to reflect on what it says and on the sentiments and the wishes of the House in that regard. I cannot possibly anticipate what will be said.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect further on that point, and I have done so. The amendment to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" becomes effective immediately. Any further changes that may or may not be deemed appropriate will also become effective at the proper time. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister issuing instructions at the beginning of a Parliament and then forgetting about it; we have made an amendment that seeks to address the points raised and considered by Nolan.
  Dr. Tony Wright: I ask the Minister to reflect on what he said about Ministers' differing accountability to the House and to the ombudsman. In a number of instances, the ombudsman has been able to extract information from Ministers that Members of Parliament were not able to extract. That occurred most recently with the very important report about fraud in the Treasury. Is it not crucial that the same rules about openness should apply across the public arena, whether it is in relation to Members of Parliament or members of the public? Should not the guidelines reflect that fact?
  Mr. Freeman: The rules apply specifically to Ministers of the Crown. In terms of being called to account by Parliament, it would not be helpful if the ombudsman intervened and examined the alleged statement or misstatement. In my judgment, it better reinforces the accountability of Ministers if the Minister involved, either by personal statement or by debate, accounts to Parliament directly.
  As for the role of the ombudsman in relation to open Government, the record so far has been successful. It was a sensible and constructive move and I see no degree of confusion or irreconcilability between the role of the ombudsman in relation to Government Departments and accountability of Ministers for the veracity of what they say to Parliament. I hope that what I have just said will have shown the House the clear and satisfactory progress that we are making on developing the White Paper proposals in those key areas.
  One further part of the White Paper that I wish to mention briefly—as it takes up half the committee's recommendations addressed to Government—deals with quangos. The Nolan committee divided its recommendations into those that affected appointments to certain quangos—in this case executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies—and those that dealt with the general propriety of board members and, in one or two cases, the staff of those bodies.
  On appointments, the Government were able to accept virtually all the committee's recommendations, many of which in practice built on the public appointment unit's review of guidance on public appointments. That was issued at the beginning of the year, formed the mainstay
  458
  of the Government's evidence on public appointments and had already been agreed by Ministers by the time the committee published its report. The committee's main additional recommendations to that framework were that panels or committees with an independent element should be set up to advise on all appointments to executive NDPBs and NHS bodies; and that a new, independent commissioner for public appointments should be appointed. The essential principle of all such appointments is that they should be based on merit or qualification for the job.
  In their response, the Government set out in some detail the way that they envisaged the advisory panels working in practice. They proposed that such arrangements should be comprehensively in place by July 1996. The Government also accepted the proposal for the commissioner and in my statement of 18 July I announced that the post would be publicly advertised immediately. That duly happened, and the arrangements for appointing the commissioner are now well advanced. We should be in a position to announce the new commissioner later this month.
  On the general governance of quangos, the committee made a number of recommendations concerning the implementation of best practice procedures through, for example, codes of conduct and openness, building in each case on existing Government initiatives. The Government accepted those recommendations, and they are being implemented.
  Among the most important recommendations were those proposing a review of the legal framework governing propriety, accountability and the arrangements for external audit in public bodies. We expect to complete that review by the end of the calendar year. I know that many with interests in the area, including the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), contributed material to the review. We shall pay careful attention to what they have said, and publish proposals in a consultation paper.
  In his speech to the House on 18 May, my right hon. Friend and predecessor the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) paid tribute to the selflessness—a Nolan principle, as I have noted—of the large numbers of people who serve on public bodies for little or no remuneration. I should like to echo his remarks, and I am sure the whole House joins me in that commendation.
  We do not view non-departmental public bodies from the viewpoint of appointments or propriety alone. They exist to do a useful job; they are not set up when there is no need for them or kept needlessly in existence when their function is finished. Since 1979, we have abolished hundreds of NDPBs. I am pleased to announce that when annual figures are next published in December this year, they will show a further reduction of more than 100, which will mean a net fall of more than 40 per cent. since 1979, so I hope that the House will see that it is possible to combine economy and efficiency with the highest standards of propriety and that the Government are doing both.
  The Government have never been reluctant to take any steps necessary to improve the quality of the country's public life and public services. I hope that I have clearly outlined to the House how we are now doing that through our White Paper response to the Nolan committee and the current work to implement that response. I know that they

  459
  are issues of considerable importance to the House and I look forward to hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members accordingly. With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to points raised in the debate when we conclude it.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his kind remarks. Of the 16 years that I have been in the House, 13 have been relatively silent. I spent 10 years as the Opposition Chief Whip, one further year as a Whip and two years as the parliamentary private secretary to our former leader, Neil Kinnock. It could well be that already people are saying to themselves, "I liked him better when he was silent." I hope that is not the case. We shall see.
  I look forward very much to debating with the right hon. Gentleman these and others matters over the coming months, and I am sure that, as he says, even though we may differ—not violently but certainly substantially—at least the debate will always be courteous.
  I thank the Minister for fulfilling his promise in his statement to the House on 18 July 1995 at column 1473 first to publish a text for consultation on guidelines to Ministers accepting business appointments before introducing the rules at the beginning of the next Session; secondly, to have a debate on the White Paper as a whole in the spillover session; and thirdly, to consult on an extension of business appointment rules to Ministers' special advisers.
  The Minister was courteous enough to answer two written questions of mine on Monday 30 October and to place other material in the House of Commons Library. However, I have to say—I hope he does not think that I am being churlish—that the press had the information at 2.30 pm, but it did not come my way until 5 pm. I know that Madam Speaker, and I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker, will have some views on that, as Madam Speaker has expressed her views from time to time.
  The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), in opening the civil service debate on 23 March 1995, quoted the November 1994 report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil, which said:
  "The British Civil Service is a great national asset. Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors."—[Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 549.]
  Let me, on behalf of my party, wholeheartedly endorse that view.
  Before I was elected to the House, I spent 10 years in the private sector, nine years in the public sector and a number of years in the voluntary sector. I may be unique in that experience. Each sector has enormous strengths. Each has much to learn from the others. None has the monopoly of wisdom. In particular, the idea that the business culture is or should be paramount has in my view been profoundly damaging to our society and democracy. Hopefully, that short-sighted, arrogant philosophy has almost run into the sand. If not, it will do so shortly after the present Government are swept out of office whenever they have the courage to call a general election.
  460
  Let us make no mistake. We would not be having tonight's debate without the deliberations of the Nolan committee. The Prime Minister set up the Nolan committee only because his Government were sinking beneath a sea of allegations of sleaze. That was the act of a man desperate to sweep those allegations from the tabloid front pages into the long grass of the lengthy consideration by the Nolan committee.
  On 20 May, the Prime Minister announced to the Sunday newspapers:
  "I not only accept the broad thrust of Nolan's recommendations, I agree with Nolan."
  Many of us heard the Prime Minister say in the House today that he accepted the broad thrust of Nolan's recommendations. If he agrees with them, let the Prime Minister support Nolan and vote for the implementation of his recommendations in full on Monday night.
  Business appointments are a bone of contention. The Chancellor of the Duchy's predecessor claimed in his evidence to the Nolan committee that no change to the existing arrangements was required. Other parliamentarians, such as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and Lord Younger, were critical of the current position, and Nolan accepted their concerns. Nolan recommended, on page 54 of his first report that
  "a system similar to the civil service business appointment rules should apply to Ministers."
  Nolan helpfully set out the salient features of the civil service scheme on page 52:

  "i) all civil servants at grades 1 and 1A … and 2 … must submit their future job plans to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for approval …

  ii) they must seek approval both for their first job and for any others within two years of leaving the civil service."

  Bearing in mind that far more public concern had been expressed about former Ministers taking up appointments than about civil servants doing so, the innocent layman would expect the rules laid down for Ministers to be at least as stringent as those laid down for civil servants. On the face of it, that is not so. When the Chancellor of the Duchy issued guidelines on Monday, the words
  "must submit their future job plans"
  and
  "must seek approval for both their first job"
  had become "may seek advice" for Ministers. An obligation placed on civil servants had become an option for Ministers.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy said in his statement to the House on 18 July:
  "We accept the Nolan committee's recommendation that Ministers should be brought within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1473.]
  He claimed to be implementing Nolan in full. When the right hon. Gentleman briefed the press on Monday, he repeated that claim. When he spoke on television the other day, he made the same claim, yet it is clear that the scheme for Ministers is far weaker than that for civil servants—against the Nolan recommendation.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy will argue that is irrelevant, because, if a Minister did not seek advice—or having sought advice, did not heed it—that will seep into the public domain and lead to censure in the press. To

  461
  me, that "may" is dishonest. Loosely translated, it means that Ministers had better seek advice or else. If that is the case, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so? Would it not have been better to say, "Ministers will be expected to seek advice," or even, "Ministers should seek advice"? After all, in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the phrase "Ministers should" appears in almost every paragraph.
  If the Chancellor of the Duchy is looking for an effective sanction to buttress "Ministers should seek advice" rather than "Ministers may seek advice", would it not be far more satisfactory to place a duty or even an expectation on the business advisory committee to make it public that a former Minister had not sought advice—or having sought it, had not heeded it? That would be far better than the somewhat dubious practice of someone—not the Minister, of course—whispering behind a hand to some journalist, so that information seeps into the public domain.
  I still believe that the guidelines are unsatisfactory and I urge the Chancellor of the Duchy to withdraw them, even at this late stage, and to replace them with new guidelines that will fulfil his promise to implement Nolan in full—especially as the right hon. Gentleman reiterated that he is seeking to aid the Prime Minister in his determination
  "to uphold the highest standards in public life".
  After the Chancellor of the Duchy made his statement to the House on 18 July, two of his former colleagues took up lucrative business appointments. The former Foreign Secretary went to NatWest for a sum rumoured to be £200,000, for a three-day week, and the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), a former Minister for Export Trade, joined his long-standing friend and patron, Lord Prior, at GEC for more than £100,000.
  It is disturbing that both claim to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the advisory committee under the chairmanship of Lord Carlisle. It is difficult to disagree with the conclusion of The Guardian leader on 4 September:
  If the Whitehall machine gave Mr. Needham a clean bill of health then it is the system itself which is sick."
  If the Chancellor of the Duchy does not like The Guardian, perhaps The Independent has more credence. The headline to its leader the same day shouted "Nolan is not enough". The leader writer claimed:
  "Lord Carlisle has got it wrong. He should have insisted on a decent interval between Mr. Needham's period as a trade minister and his appearance on the GEC board … The Needham case is a timely reminder that, Nolan notwithstanding, the battle is not over yet".
  As to the civil service code, I congratulate the Government on seeing sense. The code is a major step in the right direction and although I share the fears of the Council of Civil Service Unions that the code does not go far enough, we nevertheless welcome it. Why should there be a new civil service code? Permanent revolution within the service has not only affected morale, leaving a pall of insecurity over its work, but has fragmented the service—which has diluted its sense of unity of purpose underpinned by common values.
  462
  More fundamentally, as the clash of cultures has deepened and become all-pervading, an increasing number of civil servants have complained of unwarranted pressure from a variety of sources. The code ought to help in that direction. It was seen as having several advantages. It was envisaged that the code would have
  "some clear public status, public endorsement going beyond the government of the day."
  The code would have far wider currency than existing documents, being available to all civil servants and to the public. The process of drawing up the code would itself encourage far wider public and parliamentary debate. The code would provide far greater clarity about the role, duties and responsibilities of civil servants. Finally, the code would be a unifying force in the increasingly heterogeneous civil service.
  I see two great advantages in the code. First, there is the onus placed on Ministers to read the code, to take notice of it and not to ask civil servants to act outside its provisions. The other advantage is the institution of an independent appeals procedure, which is wholly welcome. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said of the code on 18 July:
  "we still believe that legislation is necessary. If the Government were to press ahead with it, they would have our full co-operation."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1475.]
  That remains our position.
  It is revealing that the Government's first position was that the new code was not necessary. Fortunately, after the powerful inquiry conducted by the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Government saw sense, and some consensus has emerged from the subsequent consultations.
  I hear rather dark rumours to the effect that the Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend is to be abolished. The House would regret that. The quality of its work has been extremely high, and it has gained enormous respect throughout the civil service and in Parliament. The House will wish to join me in thanking my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee for its outstanding work.
  I have a few reservations about the code. It is arguable that it does not fully address the relationship between civil servants and Parliament, especially parliamentary Select Committees. Secondly, the code does not adequately deal with a civil servant's relationship with the public. It is possible, for example, that Scott will argue that civil servants have a duty to the public, interest over and above the duty that they have to Ministers.
  Finally, the Chancellor of the Duchy will agree that the acid test of the code's effectiveness will be how it is implemented and received in the civil service. He will know that the Council of Civil Service Unions argues with some force that central Departments in the civil service should issue detailed advice and guidance to departments on a wide range of issues.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy has been courteous enough to make an announcement to the House on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and we thank him for that. We shall study it with some care. Again, the House has Nolan to thank for developments on "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". Nolan recommended that

  463
  "the Prime Minister puts in hand the production of a document drawing out from 'Questions of Procedure for Ministers' the ethical principles and rules which it contains to form a free-standing code of conduct or a separate section within the new QPM."
  The Government responded by accepting Nolan's proposals, with some reservations, and producing a draft of the new ethical part of the QPM.
  There was some public criticism that the new draft would encourage ministerial secrecy. Nolan proposed a draft which included the words:
  "Ministers must not mislead Parliament. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public."
  The Government draft said:
  "Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public … withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
  Fears were expressed that Ministers could withhold information at will because they define the public interest.
  The Observer of 16 July revealed that the Cabinet had, the previous week, accepted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Duchy to delete the public interest defence. The Times of 11 July claimed that the new draft would be published immediately following Cabinet approval. On 18 July, in his statement to the House when responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, the Chancellor of the Duchy referred to Cmnd. 2290, "Open Government", for a further definition of when disclosure would not be in the public interest. There are more than four pages of exemptions in that document, which the right hon. Gentleman claims is still under consultation more than two years after publication.
  On 18 July, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
  "I shall come back to the House during the debate"—
  that is, this debate—
  "with perhaps more thoughtful proposals on how more generally we can either cross-refer or define those circumstances."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1484.]
  Now the Chancellor of the Duchy has fulfilled his promise. He has come back to us, and we shall study what he has produced with great care.
  It would have been possible to range even more widely over the subjects touched on by the Chancellor of the Duchy, but I know that other colleagues want to contribute to the debate. I shall therefore say only that we are indebted to Nolan for making the recommendations on the subjects before us this evening. I am glad that the Government have taken most of them on board. I should be glad to hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy has to say about my submission that his recommendation on business appointments is rather weaker than Nolan recommended. I look forward greatly to future debates on the civil service in this House.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I know that the whole House will join me in welcoming the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) back to a more audible role at the Dispatch Box. I appreciate his remarks about the work of the Nolan committee. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and I are the holders of a unique letter of appointment. Other members of the Nolan committee were advised of the expenses that
  464
  they could claim for. We were advised that, as we were already in receipt of public funds, no money would be available to pay us for any of our work.
  It would have been intolerable if Nolan's work had been consigned to the wastepaper basket. That is why I so greatly appreciate the role played by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. His was not the most exciting speech that I have ever heard in the Chamber—he quite properly eschewed that—but he took us meticulously through the range of issues with which he has been dealing. Problems of standards in public life, and the leadership that we in the House ought to exhibit, are sometimes the subject of brilliant illumination, but more often they are matters of painstaking attention to detail of the type that the Nolan committee has performed.
  Sometimes I think that these matters should not be the subject of so much party political exchange. This afternoon I resented the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He does no one any service by trying to turn these issues into acutely party political ones. On the contrary, they are in the main matters about which each and every Member of the House will have to make up his mind.
  The committee's first report included 54 recommendations, to which the Government's response has been effective, more than adequate and prompt. I should like to put that clearly on the record.
  I am glad that the Government accepted the recommendations about Ministers. I believe that that was right. I am not breaching any confidences by disclosing that there was a strong view across the Nolan committee that the procedures that existed for civil servants should be replicated as far as was sensible for Ministers. We recognised that there were differences for Ministers. Civil servants are in the main able to anticipate and plan their retirement. That is not always true of every occupier of the Front Benches.
  I thought that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was unkind in one respect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has said that Ministers may ask the advisory committee. He drew attention today to the word "may". He made the point that the committee was advisory and non-statutory. It seemed to me extraordinarily courteous of my right hon. Friend to say that he did not wish in advance to bind any other Administration that might at some long distant date possibly occupy the Government Benches.
  He discharged his responsibility clearly and personally on behalf of the Prime Minister to make it clear that Ministers in the current Administration would be required and expected to ask the advisory committee about any appointment. I want to hear from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland an unequivocal pledge that, if at any time in the future there were a Labour Administration, the same requirement imposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy would apply to any Minister leaving a Labour Administration.
  Mr. Derek Foster: I have no hesitation in giving such a pledge. I intended to say that I was grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for making it clear in his opening remarks about business appointments that

  465
  the Prime Minister and the Government would expect Ministers to seek the committee's advice. That was a useful clarification of the guidelines issued on Monday.
  Mr. King: I am grateful for that, as I know the whole House will be. The right hon. Gentleman may not be so pleased with what I am now about to say.
  I resented very much the remarks that he made in reference to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). They were quite uncalled for. Although there was a brief mention of the issue in the tabloid press and other newspapers, once people had considered the matter, they observed that in both cases my right hon. Friends behaved with propriety. That is a good test. It is not a current issue at present.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has gone to work for and make his experience available to a British bank operating in extremely competitive markets around the world. He will find George Shultz operating for the Americans. He will find French diplomats and politicians and German and Italian former leading Ministers who occupied different posts now seeking to assist their national economic effort.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney. He could easily have gone off and written a few more of the excellent thrillers that he writes—indeed, I am sure that he will. He will be working full time. However, he will make his contribution in the economic field.
  The real point that I want to bring out relates to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North. It is no secret—indeed, it is well known in the House and it is certainly well known in industry—that my right hon. Friend was an outstanding ambassador for Britain. He was a first-class Minister for Trade, many would say probably the best that we have had for a long time. He struck fear into our foreign competitors because he was extremely effective in the relationships that he established and the help that he gave.
  I listened to what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland had to say. I do not impugn in any way his patriotism, which I respect, but the people who would have been most pleased to hear what he said are our French and German competitors. They would have liked to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North told to do nothing for two years in the fields in which he worked.
  It was in the interests of our nation that, as soon as my right hon. Friend left his ministerial role, he should make himself available in the fields in which he had operated to maintain efforts in exports, provided that he did not discriminate unfairly between one British company and another. I am not aware of a single complaint from a British company. My right hon. Friend's assistance is to the benefit of Britain and many of our constituents who work in the factories that my right hon. Friend helped to obtain orders for in recent years.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North is good in exports, why should we wear a hair shirt as a country and ban him from taking any part in exporting? Why should he not do so, provided that he does not make improper use of information that he gained
  466
  as a Minister? Although the system is not yet set up, my right hon. Friend checked with Lord Carlisle to find out whether he thought that it was improper for him to act in that way. His energies will be employed to support British companies. I believe that that is absolutely right. If Opposition Members say that that is wrong, their views do not coincide with the best interests of Britain.
  Mr. Derek Foster: I have the highest regard for the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). We joined the House together. We were members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry together. He was a very good Trade Minister. However, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) shares the myopia of a good number of his hon. Friends in not understanding the outrage, not of Labour Members of Parliament—that is not of much significance—but of the people outside. They are tired of the long parade of former Ministers going to lucrative jobs in the City or elsewhere. They do not understand it, and they are fed up. That is the mistake that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is the mistake that his Government are making and that the Chancellor is making in providing a weak scheme.
  Mr. King: That was a monstrous intervention. The right hon. Gentleman talks about outrage outside as if it was not stimulated by the comments made in here. He is at it again. It is disgraceful. No one in America said to James Baker when he went to work for the company for which he now works that he must not do it. George Shultz, who was a distinguished Secretary of State, worked for Bechtel. My old sparring partner, Dick Cheney, the former United States Secretary of Defence during the Gulf war when I discharged the role of Secretary of State for Defence, is now president of a major international company called Haliburton, a United States company. No one in America suggests that he is feathering his nest. There is a respect for such people of ability, who made a sacrifice for a period.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland must know from his previous incarnation as Chief Whip that many people in the House make sacrifices to be Members of Parliament and represent their constituencies. They do not receive the financial rewards that they could enjoy in outside activities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney certainly made sacrifices for many years when he worked for his constituents and in the Government. Yet manifestly he is capable of making a much greater contribution and could have advanced himself considerably more than he did.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The United States has much tougher rules and regulations on employment after government service. The key is the rule about employment in a related field. The anxieties expressed are invariably about people going from a field of activity in government to a private sector company operating in a related field. In the United States, to do so is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that that is precisely the point that we have tackled in the Nolan committee. That is why we say that a system must be set up to make sure that there is no abuse. But if the matter is taken to the ultimate political correctness, it will be manifestly to

  467
  the disadvantage of this country. That is why I am attacking that attitude. I think that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland understands that point.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and, to some extent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), seem to be overlooking one fact. Part of the concern felt outside the House is due to the fact that people take up lucrative jobs to which they give a considerable amount of energy and enthusiasm while, at the same time, remaining as members of the legislature and receiving £33,000 a year. George Shultz is not a member of Congress; he has given up his role in government and the legislature.
  In Poland, where there is a developing legislature, if politicians decide to take jobs outside the Administration, they take only half their legislative salary. Such action gives a signal to the electors that the politicians have another interest. I am not trying to say that it is wrong for people to have other jobs—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a speech—he should be making an intervention.
  Mr. King: I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's drift. If he reads the Nolan report, he will see that we set out clearly at the start that we believe that this House is a better place and serves democracy better because its Members do not have limited backgrounds without a wider range of experience or the capacity to embrace other activities.
  Last night, in another place, Lord Jenkins made a speech on the Griffiths report, the Lords' version of the Nolan report. That experienced former Labour Member of Parliament and Minister, who subsequently joined another party, was passionately in favour of not having full-time Members of Parliament. He recognised the importance of having Members of Parliament with outside experience and interests to bring to the House.
  It should also be possible that ex-Ministers—but only subject to vetting—take up outside interests. It is right that the arrangements that we proposed and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted should be incorporated in the guidelines. This is the right step to take, so that the experience of those with outside interests can be used to benefit our country.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: If my speech concentrates mainly on criticisms or questions, I might give the distorting impression that I do not broadly welcome the Government's response to the Nolan committee's report. I welcome it because the committee has moved quickly, and across a broad canvas, to tackle matters of considerable significance to the running of our democracy.
  I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has given much time and effort in the past year to a job for which he received no pecuniary reward. Perhaps he, like the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), made sacrifices in order to carry out that job in the public interest.
  468
  I take issue with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater if he seeks to rest his argument too heavily on comparisons with the United States, which has a different political culture. In the United States, it is common for senior figures from industry to parachute into the executive arm of government and then return to industry. It is not—or has not historically been—so common in this country for such moves to be made.
  I strongly agree with my noble Friend Lord Jenkins that it is desirable for people with a wide experience of life outside Parliament to contribute to our debates in the legislature. I would deplore the development of purely professional Members of Parliament, who start as researchers, graduate up the ladder of preferment to Cabinet office, then move out into some other lucrative job. That would not produce a House of Commons that truly represented the nation's interests. There has been some homogenisation in the House since I first became a Member of Parliament nearly 30 years ago. There is less diversity of background among Opposition Members, and also among Conservative Members.
  The Nolan committee worked rapidly and carried out a firefighting job. Due to the tone of today's debate we have almost forgotten the circumstances in which the committee was set up. There was widespread concern about a number of highly publicised episodes involving Members of Parliament and Ministers, which caused the widest unease and created the sense that standards were slipping. There was a sense that many of the conventions on which our democratic workings rested were inadequate to cope with the temptations of modern, competitive, entrepreneurial life.
  Those concerns were justified. I note that the Nolan committee said that the majority of Members of Parliament were upright citizens and not reprehensible—I am sure that is true. But the spectacular cases that came to our notice—some of which are still under consideration in the Privileges Committee and some of which are under scrutiny in the Scott inquiry—made it imperative that the Government move quickly.
  We must not believe that the Nolan report, as published, can be the last word on the matter. The Nolan committee produced a good report quickly, but it was a report in time and we live in a fast-moving world, so we must return to reconsider some of the issues in a different context. The firefighting job, which was done so well by the Nolan committee, does not get to the root of many of the problems.
  It is not possible in the ambit of today's debate fully to explore the necessary alternative approaches, but I shall allude to them, as I did in my evidence to the Nolan committee. Today's world needs more checks and balances built into the system. We need greater scrutiny of Executive action by the courts—a trend that has already accelerated in the past decade—and a greater sense of constitutionalism underpinning the conventions that have been taken for granted and have been found inadequate.
  Constitutionalism requires the acceptance by all arms of government that there are limits to the power that the Government can exercise, and that those limits are defined by society, enjoy the acceptance of society and should not be transgressed. That sense does not permeate our system as it does those of most of the developed democracies.

  469
  We have sometimes taken pride in the fact that we have a flexible, quickly developing unwritten constitution. The down side of not having a written constitution is that there are no agreed norms of public behaviour on which we can rely.
  It is interesting to see from the agreed code of conduct for civil servants, one of the achievements of this exercise, how we are still hung up on the Victorian constitution and the concept that civil servants' first loyalty is to Ministers of the Crown. In a certain mechanical sense, that is undoubtedly true, but in any other country civil servants' first loyalty would be to a written constitution to ensure no transgression of authority and no unintended use of powers. At all times, that would be their overriding responsibility.
  I was interested to notice that we have taken a small step towards recognising some overriding responsibility that goes beyond that of loyalty to Ministers of the Crown—the reference in the code of conduct to loyalty being subject to the provisions of the code. That is a most helpful step, because it means that what Ministers see as being in the public interest is not the last word. The code defines general principles that could override the Minister's perception of where the public interest lies.
  I come now to some matters of detail that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify when he replies. He may already have made some announcements on these matters that I have failed to note. The first refers to the only matter in the report that deals with Members of Parliament—bribery. It states that the law on bribery as it impacts on Members of Parliament is rather obscure and the Select Committee, set up to consider standards in public life, asked that the matter should be referred to the Law Commission. The Government undertook to do that following the debate on the matter. We have had that debate, so I now ask the Minister whether the matter will be referred to the Law Commission. It would be helpful if it were.
  Mr. Mackinlay: It is interesting that, if the Law Commission proposes a Bill in respect of the bribery of Members of Parliament, following a decision of the House earlier this evening, the Second Reading of that measure will be taken not on the Floor of the House but in Committee.
  Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Gentleman says, that is interesting.
  I come now to the responsibility of the Prime Minister for his Ministers' behaviour. This is an area in which the Government appear to have rejected the recommendation of the Nolan committee. In paragraph 13, on page 49, the committee recommends that the first paragraph of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" should be amended to say that it will be for the Prime Minister to determine whether Ministers have upheld the highest standards in any particular circumstance.
  The reason given by the Government in their White Paper for departing from that seems specious and somewhat disturbing, not only theoretically but in practice. The reason given is that it will
  "go too far towards suggesting that the Prime Minister's relationship with his Ministerial colleagues is that of invigilator and judge. And it would not reflect the responsibility that Ministers should have to justify their conduct to Parliament."
  470
  That reflects a confusion among Ministers. Parliament has no role in appointing Ministers, nor any responsibility for the way in which they conduct themselves. It can show its displeasure and it may diminish a Minister's reputation, but it would be historically unusual for Parliament to eject a Minister on grounds of conduct. That responsibility lies with the Prime Minister, and that should not be avoided.
  However, that creates an immediate practical problem. If the Prime Minister shrugs off that responsibility and says that it is not for him, who is responsible for deciding whether the behaviour, against which a complaint has been made, is acceptable or unacceptable? That reflects a couple of unfortunate episodes involving the Cabinet Secretary in which he was called upon to investigate allegations of ministerial impropriety and to pronounce. That is a road down which we should not go. To have permanent secretaries or Cabinet Secretaries pronouncing on the behaviour of Ministers seems to be to ask them to exercise a political function or even a quasi-judicial function that will not strengthen the independence of the civil service. I ask Ministers to look again at that point rather carefully.
  With regard to the conduct of and procedure for Ministers—I am not trying to make fun of an earlier exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Secretary—I wonder whether there is a genuine confusion in the Government's mind on the question of accountability and responsibility. The new rules for the conduct of and procedure for Ministers that are set out in the Government's White Paper speak of Ministers being
  "accountable to Parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies".
  That seems on the face of it to be a clear statement, but it does not lie nicely with the statement made by the Home Secretary in the House on 19 October when he said:
  "I am personally accountable to the House for all matters concerning the Prison Service. I am accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the service. The director general is responsible for day-to-day operations."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 517.]
  If that kind of distinction made by the Home Secretary on that occasion between accountability and responsibility is sustained, it makes almost complete nonsense of the effectiveness of the new code of conduct and procedure for Ministers, which claims, I repeat, that Ministers are accountable not only for policies but for decisions and actions of their Departments and agencies. There is a need to clarify the exact rubric under which Ministers are acting in that area.
  With respect to the question of Ministers' business appointments, on which I intervened in the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I do not wish to labour the point, but it is clear that Nolan recommended that there should be an automatic waiting period of three months before Ministers took up their jobs. It made the point specifically and it was right to say that three months would not affect any question of misconduct—it would not mean that bad behaviour was less or more likely. But it referred to the perception of simply eliding the responsibility of Ministers into a new business job. It spoke clearly on that issue. There was no question of it being a discretionary matter on which advice should be sought. It was automatic.

  471
  In that, the Government seem to have departed from what was recommended, and that is a mistake. Whether we like it or not, even in the case of the most public-spirited Ministers who have, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), experienced sacrifice—I think that he meant financial sacrifice as Secretary of State for Defence because it is hard to think what other sacrifices were involved, although perhaps family life and a number of other things could be said to have been sacrificed—there is much to be said for an interval of three months. There is also much to be said for suggesting that it will not deprive the public of services of value if such a person takes a holiday for three months before taking up his new job.
  We have made remarkable progress on the civil service in recent months, but I do not think that that can be the last word. What we have is not exactly a whistleblower's charter. There are some interesting questions to be discussed about civil servants' duties. Under one of the provisions of paragraph 11 of the new code—as I read it—civil servants have a duty to disclose illegalities and criminal behaviour, but that is the extent of their disclosure duty. They are permitted to communicate observations of other behaviour that is outside the terms of the code, but they are not required to do so.
  It is at least arguable that, in the public interest, there should be a duty—I would not like to define it tonight—to disclose other matters that come to the attention of civil servants: behaviour that might not be illegal, but whose consequences might be hazardous to the public or the environment, for example.
  As the Minister said, much of the report is devoted to quangos. I probably would not do the House a favour by devoting a further 10 minutes to that subject; I shall simply say that, although admirable steps have been taken to ameliorate the current system, I do not think that setting up quangos to vet quangos is the whole answer. As the Minister will know, I consider that many of the responsibilities of quangos ought to be transferred to elected bodies as soon as possible, but it may be beyond the scope of this debate to explore the constitutional changes that would be necessary to achieve that.
  I feel that Parliament, rather than an appointed body, should vet some of the more senior appointments that are made—and may properly be made—by the Executive. I have in mind major jobs such as that of Director General of the Prison Service. If Mr. Derek Lewis, for instance, had had to give an account of himself to a Select Committee of either House, the arguments for and against would have been fully deployed and considered, and there would have been a greater degree of public consent behind his appointment. I suspect that, if that had happened, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Lewis's appointment would not have been unravelled in a manner which, whatever the outcome, could not have been other than embarrassing to the Government.
  Mr. Mackinlay: George Shultz's appointment had to be confirmed by Congress.
  Mr. Maclennan: To go through the procedure of advise and consent would be to risk falling into the trap into which—with presumption—I advised the right hon. Member for Bridgwater not to fall: the trap of trying to extrapolate from American experience and apply it here. Nevertheless, there is much to be said for adapting such a process of consideration.
  472
  I end as I began, by expressing my satisfaction that so much has been done in such a short time.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome the two new faces on the Opposition Front Bench. They have become "shadows", but I congratulate them on coming out of the shadows and emerging from the Trappist corners to which they were previously confined.
  I shall make a very short speech. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will be pleased about that, because he will be making his maiden speech, and should be given every opportunity. I shall confine my remarks to the civil service code, about which I spoke in our March debate.
  I welcome the draft code produced by the Minister on 30 October. In almost all material respects it is the same as the Civil Service Sub-Committee's code, as published in the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. I am pleased that it has been broadly supported both by the Government and by the Opposition parties, and endorsed by the Nolan committee, with minor but useful modifications. The main modification was that the draft civil service code should be revised to cover circumstances in which a civil servant, while not personally involved, is aware of wrongdoing or maladministration taking place. I consider that a sensible modification. Following consultation, the code has now been published by the Government and will begin to operate in 1996.
  There has been widespread support for the code due to the general recognition of the importance of an impartial, non-partisan and non-corrupt civil service. It is recognised that that is a priceless gift which is very important to our democracy. There was a feeling that, at a time of great managerial change, when the civil service was being fragmented, we needed to re-emphasise and endorse the underlying values that we had all accepted in the past.
  I am not making a party political point here, but when a party has been in power for a long time—as the Conservative party has—it is necessary to state again that the civil service is not the prerogative or preserve of any one party. That, too, was part of the motivation for the code. I suppose it is also true that civil servants occasionally begin to feel that, if a party continues to win elections, it will always do so, which can affect the advice that civil servants give to Ministers.
  The code has two main merits. First, it sets out clearly and in one place the responsibilities and duties of civil servants, and the responsibilities and duties of Ministers in relation to civil servants. That has not been done before. Secondly, it provides for the first time an independent appeals system for aggrieved civil servants, protecting them against misuse of their services by Ministers.
  I cannot pretend that it was merely the merits of our arguments that won the day. We have all described the Scott inquiry as hovering over Parliament, Government and the civil service like a cloud or a sword of Damocles. I think that the Government felt the need for a response to be prepared beforehand, which was very sensible of them. They therefore changed their mind about the code. After spending about 18 months arguing against us, and sending the head of the civil service to argue against us, they suddenly said, "Well, actually we have changed our

  473
  mind and we accept your position." I do not criticise the Government for that; in fact, I congratulate them on such sensible action.
  That emphasises the need for consensus in our views of the civil service. The principles that we have been discussing—the concept of an impartial, non-corrupt, non-partisan civil servant, for instance—should have the support of all parties in the House. The civil service is not the property of a single party, and it should not be made into a political football by Opposition parties either. It is very important to us. I firmly believe, and always believed while I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee, that there should be consensus for advances and reforms in the civil service. I tried to broker that. It broke down after 1992, but until then there was consensus, and it is important that such a consensus should again be built up and maintained. We set an example in the Sub-Committee which others have followed. I hope that they will continue to follow it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke of the possibility, which I think is now a probability, of the functions of the Sub-Committee being transferred to a new Select Committee. This is not the time to make jokes about why the new Deputy Prime Minister needs his own Select Committee, although I am sure that he does because he is such an important person. I hope that the new Committee will have all the functions of the old Sub-Committee and that none will suddenly fall by the wayside.
  In particular, I hope that the Cabinet Office will still be under the purview of that Committee. From time to time, we should also be able to look at quangos in the same way as the Sub-Committee looked at them. Nobody else will do that if we do not, and I see it as within the purview of the new Committee.
  Select Committees come in for a great deal of stick. I have read the brilliant, well written book by the political columnist of The Independent, Andrew Man. It is called "Ruling Britannia". I am not Mr. Marr's agent, but I advise hon. Members to read it. He says that Select Committees have not really proved to be a great success and that television and radio programmes are far more effective watchdogs of democracy.
  I see his point and I accept that the Select Committee system has faults. They are only as good as their members, but they have one priceless advantage over television and radio: we can send for persons and papers. We can call the head of the civil service to explain why he is not in favour of having a code of practice, and his arguments begin to sound rather silly. The head of the civil service will not appear on "Panorama" or "Newsnight" and will certainly not be investigated over a long period. We have that advantage and we must press it home because it is very important for our parliamentary democracy. We can also make lengthy and detailed investigations.
  The Nolan committee was set up because people were worried about standards in public life. That was damaging to our democracy and it is still potentially damaging. That is why it is important to get these matters right. Clearly, Monday's debate will be important. However, we must not go to the extreme of saying that no parliamentary weapon is any good at all. The Select Committee system is potentially a weapon of considerable value to Parliament and to our democracy.
  8.53 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: Having just voted for shorter speeches, I shall do my best to make one. It is not unusual for Governments to set up committees. Sometimes they do it because they want a committee to provide an answer that they already know, sometimes it is to kick an issue into touch and sometimes it is to avoid a crisis that is enmeshing them. Usually the reports from such committees gather dust because the crisis has gone and things have moved on. Nolan is different. There was a crisis and setting up the Nolan committee was certainly the response to it, but that committee is different because it has delivered and it will not go away. It has made an impact on the way in which we practise politics in Britain that will be there for ever. Out of one crisis and one set of circumstances, quite fundamental changes are taking place.
  Nolan responded with urgency and in a way that has enabled the Government to act quickly. Because the committee was set up on a standing basis, its influence will go on being felt in all the areas that it examines. That is one of the reasons for some Conservative Members in their private moments telling us that they find it hard to forgive the Prime Minister for setting the committee up in the first place. It is not just a source of immediate difficulty: it will be a source of continuing difficulty for them.
  There will certainly be continued displeasure by those isolated Conservative Members who brought the House into such disrepute that a system has to be put in place which will have the most fundamental consequences for the whole of our democracy. That is good, but some hon. Members, and especially some Conservative Members, will think that it is bad. From this small beginning something large is beginning to emerge.
  Nolan acted impressively and did in six months what the House has been unable to do over many a year. When I gave evidence, I could not persuade the committee to set up a public appointments commission to put the appointments to quangos on the same basis as those to the civil service, but the committee came close to what I wanted in the emergence of a proposal for a public appointments commissioner who will add an independent element to the process. What an indictment of the House it is that we have had to wait for Nolan to make proposals that over the years the House could have made on all the fronts and issues with which the Nolan committee concerned itself.
  In a statement about Members' interests which could apply across the board, Nolan says:
  "The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern."
  That is a masterly understatement on the nature of an institution which has caused this crisis to arise and which has required outside intervention to put it right. The partisan way in which the House is even now responding to Nolan underscores the point.
  For a long time, the Government simply wanted to brush aside all the concerns that hon. Members tried to raise about the issues with which Nolan was called upon to deal. The House and the Government refused to treat seriously Ministers going to boardrooms, patronage, quango appointments, the audit of public bodies or the

  475
  interests of Members. The Government's response was to say that those were not great concerns, but when the crisis mounted they began to make minimal adjustments.
  Statements started being made and papers produced of a minimal sort, but then the crisis got worse, until finally Nolan had to be invented. The Government, however, still took the same approach to the Nolan committee. They tried to persuade the committee that on those crucial issues they were right and those of us who had been saying something else were wrong.
  The Nolan report comprehensively rejected what the Government were arguing on the key issues of business appointments of Ministers, patronage, the need for an independent element in quango appointments and the need for external audit. To all those things, on which the Government had refused to move, saying that they were right and we were wrong, the Nolan committee said that it could not agree and made a set of recommendations far closer to what the critics had been saying than to what the Government had been defending.
  The high point of that process was reached when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's predecessor gave his evidence. What an experience that was. The following morning, the Financial Times talked about it being "breathtaking in its complacency" and Peter Riddell said in The Times:
  "David Hunt has seriously misjudged the Nolan inquiry. Over nearly two hours yesterday, his approach was a mixture of the blustering, the defensive and the partisan. He did not even seem to understand why it was necessary to set up the inquiry in the first place.
  That is bunkum and balderdash of a high order."
  It is no wonder that the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has gone—presumably to the great boardroom in the sky.
  Now the Government say—indeed, I heard the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying this all over the broadcast media yesterday—that they have accepted "all" the Nolan recommendations which apply to them; that was the theme. By this evening, however, the theme has changed ever so slightly. Now we are being told that the Government have accepted virtually all the Nolan recommendations which applied to them or, in one mode, all the major recommendations which applied to them.
  I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it should be put on record that in a whole lot of particulars, many of them important, the Government have chosen not to accept the Nolan recommendations. I will run through them quickly.
  The Nolan committee wanted to make the Prime Minister the judge of ministerial conduct. Indeed, the only underlined sentence in the Nolan report is on that very point. Nolan says that it is "axiomatic" that the Prime Minister is the judge of whether a Minister has behaved properly. What have the Government done? They say in their response that it goes "too far" to make the Prime Minister the judge of that, taking away the one underlined statement to be found in the whole Nolan report about the pinnacle of accountability in the system.
  Is that not revealing? It means that, so long as a Minister can get away with something politically in the House—and of course Ministers do so with majorities, as we have seen just recently—contrary to the Nolan
  476
  recommendation, there is no role for the Prime Minister in having to come to a view on whether the conduct is honourable and consistent with being a Minister.
  What about the three-month automatic waiting period for Ministers before they can take up business appointments? The Government response is to say that it "serves no useful purpose". Useful to whom? Useful to the public interest or useful to Ministers? Nolan said that there should be an appeal mechanism from Ministers to the Prime Minister and that, for the same reason as before, the Prime Minister should have a decisive role in relation to Ministers' ability to take up appointments and the conditions attaching to them. In their response, the Government say that there is "no constitutional need" for such a mechanism.
  The Nolan report says that Ministers should keep a register of hospitality and that the register should be made available to the public. The Government response is to say that "no useful purpose" would be served by keeping such a register. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster nods. I shall be happy to give him the references if he wishes.
  The Nolan report says that successful appeals under the civil service code should be reported to Parliament. The Government say that they should not and that we need to protect confidentiality. Nolan says that there should be regular surveys of Departments and agencies to ensure that they understand what ethical standards are and that those standards are being applied. The Government say that they should not be such surveys and that we should have "no prescription" on that matter.
  Nolan says that records of invitations and hospitality offers should be kept by all Departments and agencies. The Government say that there will be no central prescribing in such matters.
  Nolan says that reappointments to quangos should not be automatic. Indeed, that is so important that Nolan comments expressly and directly on the Government's own guidance for the health service. Commenting on the Government's national health service document, Nolan said:
  "Re-appointments should not be automatic. The performance of the post-holder should be reviewed. A balance should be struck between maintaining continuity on boards and recruiting new members to inject fresh ideas."
  The Government have said that reappointments will be automatic. There will not be an independent element at the reappointment stage. When one considers that some of the worst abuses of patronage involve people whose reappointments are now being made, one sees how important that is.
  I cannot resist quoting briefly from Simon Jenkins. Andrew Marr has already been recommended, but the Government will dislike it even more if I recommend Simon Jenkins. His splendid book, "The Nationalisation of Britain," is his verdict on the Conservatives' centralist years. Writing about Nolan in The Times, he says:
  "As for the 15,000 health authority posts that had to be filled in 1991, it was the most undignified case of catch-as-catch-can in the history of public patronage. On seeing his list, one health administrator paraphrased Wellington and hoped they would 'terrify the consultants as much as they terrify me."'
  They are the people who are now being reappointed. Nolan said that they should not be reappointed automatically; contrary to Nolan, however, the Government have said that they will be.

  477
  Nolan says that the Audit Commission should have the power to publish public interest reports on national health service bodies. The Government say that they are considering that. The Government say that because advisory quangos, nationalised industries, public corporations and tribunals are not covered "substantively" in the Nolan report, they will not be within the Public Appointments Commissioner's formal remit. Yet we know that the subject of advisory quangos is extraordinarily important. There are more than 800 of them and they are concerned with the safety of medicine, what goes into food, whether things are regulated for the environment, and so on.
  I shall not quote from it now, but there is a recent splendid report from Democratic Audit/Channel 4/Human Rights Centre, university of Essex entitled "Behind Closed Doors: Advisory Quangos in the Corridors of Power". It shows that there are important questions to be asked about the connections between those who sit on some of the important advisory quangos and the industries that they are regulating. The need for an independent element is crucial. The Government have taken the view, although they need not have done so, that advisory quangos will not be covered by the Public Appointments Commissioner.
  Nolan says:
  "The Public Appointments Unit should be taken out of the Cabinet Office and placed under the control of the Public Appointments Commissioner."
  The Government insist that that will not cover the PAU's role in advising the Prime Minister on a whole range of strategic appointments. However, we know from paragraphs 49 to 51 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that in a whole range of appointments the Prime Minister's is the key role. Yet the PAU and the Public Appointments Commissioner are not to have a role in that respect.
  We are told—this was raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge, Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—that openness codes were needed for bodies which fell outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Government say yes, but because they are outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction there is no right of appeal against the denial of openness. That is different from the situation in relation to bodies which fall within the jurisdiction. The sensible thing would have been to extend the jurisdiction.
  One of the obiter dicta of Nolan was that the ombudsman's jurisdiction should be extended. With great respect to Nolan, he got it wrong, but I know what he tried to say—that the ombudsman's jurisdiction should be devised in such a way that everything falls within it unless bodies are specifically excluded. The report actually put it the other way around, but that is what Nolan meant. That is what the Government are being asked to do, but no action has resulted.
  We had a welcome clarification today on the question of procedure for Ministers and the withholding of information in the public interest. It was extraordinary that the Government's initial response included a provision to allow Ministers to withhold information on a blanket public information ground. That flies in the face of what the Government have been trying to do in identifying the
  478
  criteria which would determine what the public interest was. I am glad that the Government have changed their mind about that.
  Contrary to what the Chancellor of the Duchy would have us believe, the Government have not accepted all Nolan's recommendations. Indeed, on that quick count, 14 recommendations have not been accepted.
  Finally, I want to make a general point. The Nolan committee rejected a statutory approach. It thought about it briefly, but said that we should continue doing things in a rather informal, British "good chaps" sort of way. I did not think that its rejection of a different approach was entirely convincing. There will be government by codes—probably there will be more codes than there are in the telephone directory. There will be codes for Ministers, civil servants, members of quangos and Members of Parliament—one has only to name it and there will be a code for it.
  In fact, had a statutory approach been adopted many years ago, many of the problems could have been avoided. For example, back in 1976 the House was advised by the Salmon Commission that it should put the case of attempting to bribe Members of Parliament on a statutory footing. The House ignored that recommendation.
  Some of the best things that Nolan said are about whistleblowing and its importance in ventilating concerns. I do not want to advertise my Whistleblower Protection Bill, but it contains a model of how codes must be supplemented by a framework and backstop of legislative protection. That is the model that we need, but instead we have a system that we make up as we go along. It is an informal system, but I want it to be on a more statutory basis.
  Disraeli once said famously that this country is governed not by logic but by Parliament. Nolan is a departure from the usual way in which things are done. It is the beginning of a constitutional reform mechanism. I should like it to be converted into a permanent, constitutional commission. If we do that, the series of crises which began this process may result in our ending up with a modern constitution.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: I agree with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that it is nice and, indeed, quite a relief to be out of the shadows. It is a great privilege to be speaking for the first time from the Dispatch Box, on such an important subject and in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who made a distinguished speech. On the Government Bench is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), whom I knew slightly in different—I would not say better—times. I look forward to many courteous exchanges with both Ministers.
  This debate, like the current controversy about the disclosure of Members of Parliament's outside earnings, has revealed that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma. The Government, correctly in my view, responded to public disquiet about sleaze by setting up the Nolan committee. In doing so, they raised immense public expectations that tough action would be taken. However, having tried to implement Nolan in full—I think that that is what he intended before the summer—

  479
  the Prime Minister has run up against the all-powerful right-wing road block which seems to call all the shots in the Tory party these days. For them, Nolan is in crucial respects a crackdown too far. As a result, Ministers are facing the dilemma of either backing away from Nolan on the crucial points to appease the party, in which case they will infuriate the public, as we have already seen, or implementing Nolan in full, in which case they will have much more trouble on their Back Benches.
  Surprise, surprise, our stalwart Prime Minister has chosen to swim with the tide of internal party opinion rather than stand up convincingly for the public interest. Caving in seems to have become a compulsive habit of his, whether on Europe, education vouchers, welfare cuts, asylum seekers or divorce reform. Instead of wanting to do what is right, he simply does whatever the right want him to do.
  It is hardly surprising, therefore, that on Nolan, whether in relation to jobs for the boys for ex-Ministers, as it is regarded by members of the public, or Members' disclosure of their outside earnings, the public are beginning to ask what on earth the Tories have to hide. Why will they not come clean? Why cannot ex-Ministers face the same requirements concerning their business appointments as civil servants?
  Let us not forget that it was the Prime Minister who set up the Nolan inquiry. I am sure that Conservative Members will reflect on the fact that we would not be here tonight—indeed, we would not be here next Monday night—if it were not for him. Let us also not forget why the Prime Minister took the action that he did. His Government seemed to be mired in sleaze. The reputation of public life looked set for ever to be tarnished by one revelation after another about this Minister or that wrongdoing. So the Prime Minister acted. He acted properly and well, and now I believe that Parliament, too, must act.
  On matters affecting standards in public life, which we are debating tonight, our decisions must do three things. First, they must place the greatest onus of responsibility on elected public figures to act, and to be seen to be acting at all times, with total propriety and openness. It is nonsense that civil servants who advise should be placed under greater constraint and obligation than Ministers who decide, yet that is being proposed in the business appointment rules.
  Secondly, the decisions taken must be completely clear and unambiguous: no "musts" becoming "mays", no woolly words, no clever drafting, no room for manoeuvre later and no get-out clauses. Above all, there must be no room for confusion in what is being proposed and what is being agreed. If there is, we will not be able to satisfy our third and most crucial duty, which is to ensure that what is done in the public's name and paid for out of the public purse is genuinely in the public's interest, not in the party's interest. That is especially important in relation to the growing army of special political advisers who are setting up shop in Whitehall.
  I refer now to the business appointment rules. I must say straight away that I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). I do so for very strong personal and constituency reasons, for it was the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North who took on and single-handedly fought off Chinese dumping of cheap
  480
  magnesium products in Europe, and thereby secured the important magnesium works in Hartlepool—no mean feat and achievement. I pay tribute to him quite sincerely for that because when others, including his officials, were not interested, he was.
  On the wider issue, there is no doubt about Nolan's intentions on the system for business appointments that should apply to Ministers. The report says:
  "The civil service system is tried and tested … it provides a strong reassurance to the public."
  It should be applied to Ministers.
  It is true that Nolan talks about applying the system "with some slight modifications", but members of the committee were clear about what that means—they said so in paragraph 36. Modification, they meant, was in respect of the role of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from the advisory committee on business appointments, not the general application of the system to Ministers.
  Nolan says on the narrower issue of the Prime Minister's role:
  "It might seem invidious…for Ministers who have just been dismissed by the Prime Minister to have to submit their future employment plans to the same Prime Minister for consideration."
  Given the circumstances in which many of the Prime Minister's right hon. Friends have had to be felled by the prime ministerial axe, one can understand why they might not want to have quite so much to do with each other in future.
  Indeed, one might also say that in certain cases—the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) comes to mind—submitting every subsequent job and each additional business appointment to the Prime Minister for his consideration would take a wholly disproportionate amount of the Prime Minister's time.
  We can put aside the Government's view on that narrow issue of appeal, although I take very strongly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who spoke with some force on the matter. The more important issue is whether the system as a whole in its basic operation for Ministers should be voluntary or mandatory, by which—incidentally—I do not mean statutory. I fully accept both Nolan's view and the Government's conclusion on that.
  In their original response, the Government seemed to accept the obligatory basis of the system in its application to Ministers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, they now seem to be saying that former Ministers may—rather than must—seek the advisory committee's view on their business appointments. That is a very important and fundamental shift by the Government away from what Nolan was proposing.
  Let us be clear about that. It was not a sort of take-it-or-leave-it service that Nolan had in mind for Ministers. It was a proper, open and transparent regulatory instrument to ensure that all Ministers and private businesses would not be involved in playing footsie under the table, swapping favours or scratching each other's backs when their new recruit was in a Government office.
  The only reason why the Minister has backtracked on this issue must be that some of his colleagues simply do not want to have to face the system. We must ask again: what have they got to hide? The scope for evasion under

  481
  the Government's modified proposals is great in our view, and the system simply will not command public confidence unless the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes it absolutely clear tonight that elected politicians are subject to the same discipline as unelected officials. I hope that he will promise to bring forward revised guidelines accordingly, or at least clarify what the Government have in mind, to the complete satisfaction of the Opposition and the general public.
  I now turn to the civil service and the civil service code. The code owes its existence to the strenuous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North, who chairs the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee. I pay tribute to his work and to that of the Committee. We strongly support the introduction of a code that sets out the principles and the framework within which civil servants undertake their duties. However, we believe that more specific guidelines are needed in addition to the general principles set out in the code if the code is to have real force and real bite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, the code must also be buttressed by legislation.
  I draw the Minister's attention to one aspect of the code. On page 59 of the report, Nolan makes a recommendation—it could be called the whistleblower's clause—which states:
  "We recommend that the draft civil service code should be revised to cover circumstances in which a civil servant, while not personally involved, is aware of wrongdoing or maladministration taking place".
  The Nolan committee also proposes deleting the words "within their control" from a sentence in paragraph 7 of the draft code, which reads:
  "civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of public money within their control".
  In other words, if civil servants know of examples of wrongdoing or maladministration outside their immediate purview or control, they should be able to blow the whistle. I am interested to know how the Government view that recommendation, as I believe that it has very important implications for the operation of the protections in the code.
  Let us put into perspective why such a code is needed. In comparison with many countries, our system of government is honest, open and untainted by corruption. I do not believe that anyone gains by pretending otherwise. I believe that our high standards owe a huge amount to the integrity and the devotion of the civil service. However, two serious problems have arisen concerning the civil service that must be borne in mind when considering the Nolan proposals and the draft code.
  The first is that, as a result of the Government's desire to marry the public service culture with that of the marketplace in the operation of government, the ethos and the standards of the former have suffered at the hands of the latter. That is not to say that the operations of the civil service are immutable for all time—I do not think that they are—or that public and private cannot combine; I think that they can and they should. However, the system must be policed and regulated very carefully in order to ensure that the standards of the public service are not undermined by some of the sharper practices of the private sector.
  482
  The second problem arises from the fact that the Government have been in power for 16 years. That is too long for most people, and it is certainly too long for Labour Members. When an Administration has been in office for that length of time—I shall express my point carefully—there is a temptation for Ministers and civil servants to cut corners, to take certain procedures for granted and to slide into relationships with outside interests about which they would be more wary in other circumstances. That is bound to occur by virtue of the longevity of the Government's term in office.
  Therefore, we must be very vigilant about using civil servants to perform party political tasks, such as writing conference speeches, briefing Government Back Benchers on party points and so on. I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should offer the House some reassurance on those points and outline what action the Government intend to take to curb any misuse or abuse of civil servants' time and talents for party political purposes.
  The right hon. Gentleman should also understand that senior civil servants have become understandably worried about their job security and the political pressures on them in the light of recent events. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of Derek Lewis's running of the Prison Service, but the manner of his sacking raises some important issues for the civil service and for its terms and conditions of employment which Nolan does not cover in the proposed code of practice.
  As we know, Mr. Lewis's appointment was summarily terminated in a letter from Mr. Richard Wilson, permanent secretary at the Home Office on 16 October. We all understood why he was sacked, but the contractual basis of his sacking was never made clear and it has not been made clear since.
  I put it to the Minister that, as a result of that action, any official at that level in the civil service now must consider him or herself at risk of similar treatment. Does the Minister agree that such a threat—and it is a threat as it has happened once and it could happen again—exerts an insidious political pressure on senior officials to toe the line, or, in the case of Mr. Lewis, to carry the can or be fired?
  If Mr. Lewis was not wrongfully dismissed—no doubt the Government will maintain that in response to the case that he is bringing—and he was not fired on the basis of his contract, the only way he could have been removed was by use of the royal prerogative.
  The Government have stated in the past that the Crown's power to dismiss at will will not be used in practice and that they will abide by ordinary employment legislation. As I have raised the issue with him tonight, it behoves the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position and give the House and the entire civil service an assurance that in future the Government will not use the royal prerogative to get rid of civil servants they do not like and whose faces do not fit.
  I shall now refer to special advisers. There is a further source of real concern about developments inside Whitehall which Nolan touches on but does not delve deeply into—the Government's use of paid, political so-called special advisers. Such appointments have been made by Labour as well as Conservative Administrations in the past. I willingly accept that, in appropriate cases,

  483
  they have a role to play, but the present Government are recruiting a veritable army of such people at enormous public cost, which is estimated at £1.5 million a year.
  In reply to a parliamentary question, the Prime Minister said that £9 million had been spent on such people since 1988. We are entitled to ask what all that money is being spent on, how those people fit into the civil service structure and how they can be properly covered by civil service procedures and the civil service code.
  Almost one third of the current flock of advisers have been taken on directly from Conservative central office. Are they helping Ministers in pursuit of better government, which would certainly justify the public expenditure involved, or are they merely assisting politicians in pursuit of their party careers, in which case the payment of their salaries should revert to Conservative central office?
  Nolan rightly brought special advisers within the scope of the business appointments system, and we welcome that, but further transparency is needed in their employment and use. They are causing increasing concern and alarm among many in Whitehall. They have extensive access to confidential information and knowledge of future policy developments. Their value to business is therefore immense, as has been amply demonstrated by the traffic of ex-special advisers into well-paid lobbying and consultancy jobs.
  Until recently, the Deputy Prime Minister's special adviser, Dr. Alan Kemp, was so useful to the private sector that he only worked for the right hon. Gentleman part-time, so that a business named Capita could employ Dr. Kemp the rest of his time. The company was simultaneously employing Dr. Kemp and tendering for lucrative Government contracts. That clear conflict of interests continued four years before it was stopped when the Cabinet Office rightly insisted this summer on ending that arrangement and forcing Dr. Kemp to choose between his public and business interests.
  Mr. Spearing: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of who has responsibility for the appointment of such persons—particularly the individual that he just mentioned—and for the terms of service that would allow split employment of that kind?
  Mr. Mandelson: Such appointments are made on the personal fiat of the individual Ministers concerned, which raises an important issue in the case of another individual. If the Duchy has any doubt about the need for closer examination of the role of special advisers and of how they operate within Whitehall, the right hon. Gentleman should consider that very special of special advisers, Mr. David Hart at the Ministry of Defence—the so-called triumphant ideologue at the heart of Government, as he has been dubbed. That rings a bell, and that is among the nicer things said about Mr. Hart by the Tory-supporting press.
  Mr. Hart has been at the Ministry of Defence for two years. He is apparently unpaid, yet he inhabits an office near the Secretary of State. Mr. Hart deals with a range of policy issues but his status is so ambiguous and arouses such suspicion that apparently he never attends meetings at which civil servants are present—no doubt so that they cannot question any advice that he gives. That itself raises a number of suspicions and sounds a number of alarm bells—that a special adviser cannot even sit down in the
  484
  same room as civil servants because of the nature of his appointment and because of the character of the man. Mr. Hart is referred to as "independent", which is more than can be said for the Secretary of State, who apparently jumps every time Mr. Hart opens his mouth.
  Mr. Radice: Did he write the Defence Secretary's conference speech?
  Mr. Mandelson: Mr. Hart is in such a privileged position that his security pass takes him to the heart of the Ministry of Defence and gives him access—ordered specifically and personally by the Secretary of State—to the Ministry's classified information.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North, not for the first time, is absolutely correct. Mr. Hart was involved in the preparation of the Secretary of State's disastrous speech at the Tory party conference, which alone should be ground enough for Mr. Hart's dismissal.
  Nolan should take a keen interest in such invisible but clearly highly influential individuals at the heart of the Government, if only because that particular individual is viewed within Whitehall as such a dangerous character that—I have this on good authority—even the Prime Minister has tried to have Mr. Hart removed from his job. Of course, the Prime Minister failed.
  Real civil servants, unlike the shadowy David Hart, are rightly respected for their loyalty and dedication to good government. They will no doubt serve the next Government with the same commitment and diligence that they do the present one. When we talk of the problems of maintaining standards of conduct in public life, we ought to understand that those problems would be much larger without the standards of integrity, independence and political neutrality that are the hallmarks of the British civil service.
  The Nolan committee's proposals in relation to Ministers and civil servants, and, as far as they go, to special advisers, will strengthen our system of government. They should be agreed and implemented in full by the Government. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the views expressed tonight by hon. Members on both sides, including those of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I hope that he will illuminate for us how the Government intend to implement Nolan in full, to the complete satisfaction of the British public.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Freeman: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his maiden speech in his new position. We welcome him to it and look forward to vigorous debates with him. I certainly did not agree with 98 per cent. of what he said—
  Mr. King: Ninety-nine per cent.
  Mr. Freeman: I stand corrected.
  One of the main thrusts of his speech was the idea that the Prime Minister had not displayed courage or conviction as regards Nolan. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Prime Minister who condemned the actions of some hon. Members, who set up the Nolan committee, and who then accepted its recommendations. [Interruption.] I shall deal in a moment with the point

  485
  made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). Therefore, there can be no criticism of the Prime Minister's actions: he has led from the front. He leads a united Cabinet, which has agreed in full the response to Nolan's recommendations for Government.
  Both the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool raised an important and serious point, which I shall attempt to deal with briefly but clearly. They said that the guidelines should compel former Ministers to seek the advice of the committee, and presumably—although the hon. Gentleman did not say this—to follow the guidance that it offers. That at any rate was the logic of his argument about those separate but related points.
  Nolan recommended an advisory system. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) implied that that system should march in step with the one for the civil service. I shall argue that it does—for instance, when it comes to the three-month waiting period. This is an advisory committee, which will report back to the Minister who seeks the advice. The hon. Member for Hartlepool did not suggest any sanction that could be imposed. Had he suggested one, I would have paid closer attention to rewording the document. There is no sanction, apart from the opprobrium of the House, the media and the public, if a Minister does not consult the committee or ignores its advice. That is a powerful sanction; I would argue that it is all that is required to be effective.
  I gave a pledge, matched by one from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy, that members of this Administration would consult the committee as and when appropriate. I hope that that statement will be taken at face value. I think that this will provide an effective system, just like the one for the civil service.
  Mr. Mandelson rose—
  Mr. Freeman: When the hon. Gentleman participates in future debates, perhaps he will keep a careful eye on the clock and divide the remaining time in two. Tonight he did not quite manage the mathematics, so I hope that he will allow me to answer the debate properly.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned page 59 of the Nolan report—whistleblowing in the civil service. I am sure that he has read our response carefully, but perhaps I can repeat, for his benefit, that the Government have accepted the relevant recommendation and have put the relevant mechanism in place. The civil servant will first consult his permanent secretary. If he is not satisfied with that reply, he will then be able to consult the civil service commissioners. That is an important new step. I welcome it and I know that the House will welcome it.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool referred—in the House, so protected by privilege—in an unsavoury and unsatisfactory way, to Dr. Kemp and Mr. David Hart. As I have worked with both of them, I shall respond. Let me first say a word about special advisers.
  The system was set up by a Labour Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition on the matter. The procedure is simple. It is not all Ministers but Cabinet Ministers who
  486
  appoint special advisers. They are civil servants covered by all the obligations imposed on a civil servant. For example, a special adviser is not allowed to campaign.
  Mr. Mandelson: What about Mr. Hart?
  Mr. Freeman: I shall come to Mr. Hart in a second. Special advisers cannot be overtly political. They cannot write in a journal. They cannot be prospective parliamentary candidates. Advisers employed on new contracts are now subject to the advisory committee on business appointments.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool will reflect on what he said about Dr. Kemp. I will read the record. I hope that he will take an opportunity to withdraw the hint of impropriety that he suggested in the activities of Dr. Kemp. That was not an honourable way to proceed, because the facts are otherwise. Dr. Kemp has behaved perfectly properly. He is one of the special advisers to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I also work closely with him. Dr. Kemp was appointed as a full-time special adviser to my right hon. Friend when he took up his responsibilities in early July. There are certainly no justifications for suggesting impropriety in his previous activities as a part-time adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry. Proper procedures were in place to make sure that that did not happen.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool was right to say that Mr. David Hart is unpaid. Therefore, Mr. Hart is not a special adviser but a political adviser—a personal appointment by the previous Secretary of State for Defence, renewed by the current Secretary of State. Mr. Hart works with civil servants. I was Minister of State for Defence Procurement for one year, during which time, I sought Mr. Hart's advice about procurement matters on several occasions. He works with the civil service, frequently attends meetings at which civil servants are present and provides valuable advice on saving money out of the defence budget.
  Mr. Mandelson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: No, I will not give way. I am answering the debate.
  Mr. Mandelson: Why did the Prime Minister try to get rid of Mr. Hart?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tried to get rid of Mr. Hart. There is not a shred of veracity in that suggestion. It is absolutely not true.
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on one point. I do not know why he received the answer to his written parliamentary question at 5 o'clock. I will look into the matter. I scrupulously try to make sure that hon. Members receive the correct information at 3.30 pm. Some of our systems for getting information to large numbers of hon. Members leave something to be desired, but it may have been our fault.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) dealt in a robust and admirable fashion with the implied criticisms of my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). I wish to put it on record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, a former Cabinet Minister, waited three months.

  487
  I remind the House of the tests. The tests were whether there was an act of favouritism, whether arty competitive knowledge was taken by the former Minister to the new job and whether there was any other specific, justifiable concern. The advisory committee on business appointments was not asked for informal advice because the system is not yet formally in place. However, Lord Carlisle, who chairs the committee, offered his judgment that the actions of my right hon. Friends were entirely consistent with what the committee would have advised.
  The word "lucrative" is often used in relation to jobs. It is a pejorative term which is not worthy of proper, rational discussion about the system. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland laughs. I am bound to say that the Labour party should exercise responsible leadership on the matter, as my right hon. Friend suggested. Perhaps we have to educate the public. We want former Ministers, Labour or Conservative, to return to the private sector for the good of the economy, and to be paid fairly and properly.
  Mr. Derek Foster: What the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail to understand is that the general public strongly favour the use of the word "lucrative"—£100,000 and £200,000 are regarded as substantial sums. That is particularly true when those sums are spoken of by a Government who are against the statutory minimum wage and who argue forcibly about low-paid workers being paid too much and pricing themselves out of a job.
  Mr. Freeman: I can do no more than repeat the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who said that all of us must understand the real world, and the salaries that are commanded and have to be paid in the private sector. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has experience of that. If a job is to be done properly in the private sector, it should be fairly and properly rewarded. Talk of taking lucrative positions does not help the public debate.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised a number of issues, including the three-month period. My expectation and presumption is that that period will normally apply. The Nolan committee has not described the subject in detail, but some civil servants have been allowed to take positions within three months—for example, vice-chancellorships of universities. There may be parallel circumstances that should apply to former Ministers. It would be wrong to omit from the guidelines and the operation of the advisory committee the ability to be flexible in some circumstances. However, the presumption is that the period will normally be one of three months. As the House will know, former Ministers receive redundancy payment that lasts for three months, so there is some symmetry and logic in the arrangement.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him, as I should, as a matter of courtesy, respond to the points raised. If there is time, I shall certainly give way to him.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for raising the subject of the bribery of Members of Parliament, and I shall refer his point to the Home Secretary, whose Department has responsibility for
  488
  such matters. I am not aware that the issue presents an immediate problem to the implementation of the Nolan committee's proposals, but I take his point seriously.
  There seems to be some confusion over the Prime Minister's responsibility. Obviously, Ministers must command the confidence of the House, and of the Prime Minister. If a Minister does not command the confidence of the House, he cannot sustain himself in the role of Minister. Such confidence must be sustained in the longer term—in politics I would define that as a matter of days, perhaps weeks. A Minister must command the confidence of the House—it may not agree with him, but it has long been the tradition that, in terms of his behaviour, a Minister must command the confidence of the House. Who sacks him? It is the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister can sack a Minister for other reasons. The Minister might still command the confidence of the House, but not that of the Prime Minister; the Minister may be incompetent or unable to do the job properly, or his or her face may not fit. I see no problem—one of the clear reasons that we gave for not making the Prime Minister the sole arbiter and judge was to reinforce the need for a Minister to be accountable to Parliament, but that in no way reduces the Prime Minister's power to move Ministers when they no longer command his confidence or are not doing the job properly.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the issue of accountability of Ministers and agencies. There seems to be much confusion about the underlying issues that needed to be considered or even reconsidered in relation to the responsibilities of Ministers and the chief executives of agencies.
  The key point is that agencies are part of the civil service; they are part of a Minister's Department. The Minister is fully accountable to Parliament for the work of the entire Department, including any agencies. A Select Committee—I think the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—has recently suggested direct accountability to Select Committees by chief executives of agencies. That takes us down a difficult path.
  At the moment, the Minister is fully responsible, including to the Select Committee, for the work of his Department. He does not have to accept the blame for every last action within his Department. That would be absurd. We would not have modern British Government under Labour or Conservative Administrations if that were the case. However, he is accountable.
  The purpose of the framework document in creating an agency was simply to define what responsibilities could be delegated to the chief executive of the agency. I do not claim that we have it right in the case of all 109 agencies. I want to consider the experience that has accumulated during the past few years to see where improvements can be made. We do not claim that everything is perfect.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talked about the civil service code, and I am grateful for his bipartisan approach. First, prodded by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, I confirm that we want a Select Committee to cover the Office of Public Service, and it may be that related matters can be added to that definition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue in his helpful role to the House—I do not mean that in a partisan way—if a new Select Committee is set up. I hope that that Select Committee will have a sufficient remit to consider all the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

  489
  My test of impartiality for a civil servant—it does not matter whether it is a permanent secretary or the youngest recruit—is whether he has the enthusiasm to work for an Administration run by different political parties. It is an important question. If I judge that the answer is no, that civil servant has crossed that line of impartiality, of objectivity, of service to the Crown but not to a political party. That is an important test. I believe strongly in an impartial civil service. It is not right—this is one reason for the civil service code commended by the right hon. Gentleman—ever to put a civil servant in a position where he is involved with, or supporting, a party political, narrow partisan activity, function or whatever. It is always a matter of balance and judgment, because hard-and-fast rules cannot be written, but I hope that I have given the thrust of my views.
  I conclude by referring to the contribution of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, which in turn was repeated by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. I had not realised, and I apologise, that he is a graduate of that distinguished academic institution, Desborough primary school and, what is more, Kettering grammar school. I am the Member for Kettering. My only regret is that Shirley Williams abolished Kettering grammar school—I hope much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood.
  Surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman criticised what he saw this afternoon as a partisan approach to the Nolan committee and then proceeded to make what I thought was largely a partisan speech. Nevertheless, he raised a number of important issues. I want to characterise the Government's response to that part of Nolan dealing with the role of Ministers—Government Nolan, as it is known—as a whole-hearted acceptance.
  Frankly, it is not fair—the hon. Gentleman was straining at gnats—for the him to characterise our acceptance as rather grudging. It is not grudging at all. Where there is good reason to differ from Lord Nolan's committee, we have spelt it out. Lord Nolan is not God. Neither is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater a heavenly body—at least not yet. To assume somehow that everything that Lord Nolan and his committee said, in a rapidly produced report, must be taken literally, is foolish.
  I shall read the record and, because of my high regard for the two academic institutions to which the hon. Gentleman went, I shall write to him with a full and proper response. However, I hope that the House is convinced that we have responded to Nolan promptly, whole-heartedly, with enthusiasm and, above all, correctly.
  Mr. Bowen Wells(Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Measles and Rubella Immunisation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: Towards the end of last year, more than 7 million children were vaccinated against measles and rubella. The official reason given by the Government—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Mr. Smith: As I was saying, the reason given by the Government was that we were facing a measles epidemic. The Department of Health predicted that
  "between 100,000 and 200,000 cases would occur. Thousands of children would have to be admitted to hospital with measles complications, such as pneumonia … around 50 children would die."
  That prediction would obviously frighten the toughest of families, but what is important is whether it reflected reality.
  Having spoken to many people—including many authorities on the subject—and read many research papers, I believe that there was no evidence to support the claim of an epidemic and its tragic consequences. If the Minister considers that I am wrong, will he please inform me where the documents for parents and doctors explain how those conclusions were reached? I have read the document for parents, and it gives no such information.
  Where in the research papers produced by doctors from the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, and in the paper by H. R. Hobad and others—listed by the Chief Medical Officer as being central to the Department of Health's policy—is it explained how those conclusions were reached? Will the Minister provide me with the calculations predicting such an epidemic in H. R. Hobad's paper? I want to be given the calculations, not the reading list that one doctor received when he requested the same information.
  I have repeated that demand because, if the Minister's recent reply is correct, the method of calculation suggests that there has been an epidemic just about every year for the past decade, which is clearly arrant nonsense. I am not the only person to conclude that the Department of Health was not telling the truth in predicting such an epidemic. Eminent people such as Dr. Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, stated:
  "If government doctors are allowed to get away with basing the mass campaign on a lie, it will be all the easier for them to be untruthful the next time that suits their purpose. Like any other doctor, they must recognise that it is no longer acceptable to lie to patients."
  That is even more worrying when we consider that, in one of her many press releases, the former Secretary of State for Health stated that the public
  "should be able to expect high standards of disclosure"
  with a health service that had "public confidence" and where the public were "well informed." We now know that that was a publicity stunt, because those aspirations were certainly not met in last year's measles vaccination campaign.

  491
  What about possible side effects after the injection? The Department of Health and Health Promotion Wales stated in the literature that they sent to parents:
  "Side effects are uncommon. They are usually very mild and disappear quickly."
  While the Department of Health carried out a scare campaign about the extent of the likely epidemic and the dangers of vaccination, it lulled parents into a false sense of security by giving them inadequate information. Professor Richard Moxon of Oxford university said:
  "The concerns expressed by these parents are very plausible. There is a horrendous gap in the country's research."
  I should like to mention a family in my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Gregory, whose child was vaccinated against measles and rubella. After a diagnosis of the child, their doctor recorded in her medical record that her ill health was the result of the vaccination. What is more, research that was conducted by the US Centres of Disease Control and Prevention identified 34 major side effects to MMR and DPT jabs.
  In March 1995, the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre published a paper in The Lancet; the Government were aware of the results in that paper in mid-1994, six months before the vaccination campaign. The paper reported the results of research in which the side effects of immunisation were actively looked for rather than relying on the previous passive system of reporting by doctors. By linking hospital admission records, the authors showed that the incidence of various side effects was higher and more serious than had been previously thought. Why did not the Government tell parents the truth and not put out the kind of nonsense that they obviously did put out?
  There is another reason for concern, because people such as Dr. Nicholson highlighted the fact that the measles-rubella vaccination campaign was an experiment. He stated:
  "In 1991, the Department of Health issued guidelines requiring all experiments in NHS patients to be reviewed in advance by local research ethics committees. No such committee approved this experiment."
  The fact that it was an experiment was made clear in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal, in an article written by the director of the immunisation division of the CDSC. She wrote:
  "The campaign approach for delivering vaccines has not been tried before in an industrialised country…the comprehensive surveillance system in place…will show the consequences of the campaign to be associated accurately."
  Will the Minister explain why that experiment did not go before any of the ethics committees?
  The mathematical model which it is claimed predicted the measles epidemic depends entirely on the rate of spread of measles among 10 to 14-year-olds being at least twice as high as the spread among five to nine-year-old children. Will the Minister please detail what empirical scientific evidence exists to support that assumption?
  I shall now deal with compensation for the victims of vaccine damage. As Rosemary Fox of the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children reminds us:
  "In 1979 a Royal Commission recommended that the Government should be strictly liable for vaccine damage—not only because this was morally right, when damage resulted from a scheme promoted by the Government, but also because it would show that the
  492
  Government had confidence in vaccination. Sadly, despite our long campaign to get the Government to compensate the injured, it has so far refused to do so."
  That is confirmed in an answer by the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, now the Secretary of State for Wales, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The Minister stated:
  "The payment is not compensation, but is designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families."—[Official Report, 27 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 643.]
  In order to qualify, the individual must have suffered severe mental or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more in cases where it could be sown that on the balance of probability, the damage resulted from any vaccination.
  We must remember that while it may not be too difficult to prove who is at fault in a road crash and to obtain compensation, it is extremely difficult to the payment for experiencing horrific physical or mental injuries is a mere £30,000. Will the Minister consider amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to ensure far more generous compensation, not payment, for those whose lives have been destroyed, and will he ensure that the period for which claims can be made is extended? Will he also consider introducing a Freedom of Information Act, as they have in United States of America, to make information about licensing and side effects of pharmaceutical products publicly available?
  I want to comment on the awarding of the contract to supply the vaccines. Will the Minister explain why the contract to supply approximately 8 million doses of vaccine, the cost of which must have been in excess of £100,000, was not advertised and put out to tender, as required by law, through the Official Journal of the European Communities?
  Does the Minister accept that an excuse of "extreme urgency" does not stand up to serious analysis? If he denies that, will he inform me when the Department of Health decided to run a massive campaign of measles and rubella vaccination? Was there a period of five months before the vaccination campaign? If so, that is not a case of extreme urgency. Does he accept that it still does not qualify as "extreme urgency" by the laws of the European Union, to which we are subject, as those are concerned with emergencies caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes?
  Will the Minister explain how the NHS Supplies Authority managed to equate "events unforeseeable" with the fact that the vaccine was needed precisely because the Department of Health claimed to have foreseen an epidemic? The Department cannot have it both ways—saying that the events were unforeseen and also that it had foreseen the events.
  Will the Minister inform me whether the companies offered the contract already had supplies of measles and rubella vaccine that were left over from 1992, and for which there was no demand? Even allowing for that, does he accept that more supplies were still necessary and that it was surprising that tenders were not sought from other companies in other parts of the world supplying the vaccine?
  Will the Minister inform me of the number of instances when financial penalties were applied to manufacturers of the measles and rubella vaccine used in the vaccination

  493
  campaign in November 1994, because of an identified fault in the supply of the vaccines or instructions as to their preparation? Will he confirm that one of his former colleagues, Baroness Hooper, an ex-Minister in the Department of Health, became a non-executive director of one of the two companies—Smith-Kline Beecham—that were given the vaccination contract just one month after the national campaign was launched? Will he also confirm that, since 1989, one of those companies—again Smith-Kline Beecham—made donations to the Conservative party totalling £110,000 and of £35,000 to that right-wing think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies?
  How does the Minister respond to the people who argue that vaccinations are not effective? For example, Wrexham general practitioner Dr. Joanna Cleeson was reported in The Guardian as stating:
  "These diseases declined before vaccination with improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition; vaccination has not affected the rate. Scarlet fever disappeared without a vaccine. Sweden does not have whooping cough or diphtheria jabs and their decline has been the same as in other countries."
  My position is one of concern that far too many components are given in one go, and I support the view of the national body, JABS—Justice Awareness and Basic Support—that vaccinations are not suitable for all children, that there should be health examinations before children are vaccinated, together with checks for signs or a family history of atopic reaction, and that vaccines should be offered separately if a child is felt to be at extra risk of side effects. Will the Minister comment on those demands?
  I want to comment on the response of organisations such as Gwent Community Health to concerns expressed by families in my constituency such as Mr. and Mrs. Gregory of Tredegar, when they feared that their child was dying as a result of the vaccination. They were treated with disdain by the representative from Gwent Community Health when they were in desperate need of support and guidance. I would have thought that their concerns should have been listened to, respected and acted upon, but the opposite was the case. So much for the principles of the NHS customer charter launched this year.
  The very same family also sent a report on vaccinations to Gwent Community Health, asking for its observations. They were told in March this year that the report had been sent to the relevant Government Department for comment. About six months later, I telephoned Gwent Community Health asking why Mr. and Mrs. Gregory had still not received a reply. A few days later, I received a copy of the reply, which was stamped 14 February 1995. Why did Gwent Community Health write to my constituents saying that it had sent the report to the Government and were awaiting a reply when it had received that reply a month earlier?
  Will the Minister investigate all the complaints that I have made against Gwent Community Health? If such an investigation is carried out, it will go some way towards proving that the current Minister for Health was sincere when he said in one of his press releases:
  "Health authorities need to show that they are listening to the views of local people."
  I am not alone in the belief that there should be a full public inquiry to examine these and many other issues raised by a number of eminent people. If the Minister
  494
  agreed to such an inquiry, he would be responding positively to promises made in many statements from the Department of Health about "honesty" and "accountability". That would ensure that the words of the previous Secretary of State for Health were a reflection of reality and not just a public relations exercise. The previous Secretary of State said:
  "the public are not just users of the NHS, but shareholders."
  If the Minister is unable to answer some of my questions for a variety of reasons, I am sure that they will be answered in writing in the next few days.
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on raising this important issue but I agree with very few of his conclusions. In fact, I advise him to be more careful about the sources for the information that he has put before the House.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, to many parents measles is an inconvenient and infectious disease from which many children suffer. To the World Health Organisation, measles is one of the main killing diseases of childhood and is responsible for at least 1 million childhood deaths each year. It is not a trivial illness and should not be underestimated. It can lead to complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis with the possibility of epilepsy and brain damage.
  Nor is it just a serious disease in developing countries. In the United States epidemic of 1989–91, 130 children died of measles and its complications despite the availability of modern intensive care facilities.
  Our record on measles in recent years has been good. Through our progressive efforts, such as the introduction of target-based payments for GP immunisation services, we have been able to raise immunisation coverage to levels well in excess of 90 per cent. Accordingly, target diseases have fallen to very low levels.
  That apparently satisfactory situation has led some people to think that measles is no longer a problem and that, because there have been so few deaths, we need not worry. We have not been complacent, because the pattern of measles is like a volcano—after years of smouldering it suddenly explodes, producing an epidemic. That is exactly what occurred recently in Holland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. When such epidemics occur now, they affect people who are older than those who used to catch measles, and for them the complications and chances of death are much higher.
  The reasons for the cyclical epidemics are well understood. With 90 per cent. vaccine coverage of the target population each year and 90 per cent. vaccine efficacy, only 80 per cent. of the population has full protection. Each year one accumulates 20 per cent. of the year's cohort as susceptible and, after about five years, the scene is set for a resurgence of measles.
  To use the volcano analogy again, over the past few years our measles experts in the Department of Health and in the Public Health Laboratory Service have been acting as seismologists. They have been collecting information and carefully monitoring the situation. Unlike a volcano, which cannot be prevented from erupting, we have the capacity to prevent a measles epidemic.

  495
  In 1993, using the most extensive surveillance data, two groups of scientists based at the Public Health Laboratory Service and at the university of Oxford gave evidence to the Department of Health's independent expert advisers—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—that a measles epidemic was likely. The estimated date for the epidemic was 1996 or 1997. The predictions of both groups pointed to between 150,000 and 200,000 cases and up to 50 deaths. The JCVI reviewed all the available data, which included the experience of other countries with measles epidemics, and took account of the experience of adverse reactions associated with the relevant vaccines.
  The committee agreed that it was right to prevent an epidemic when that could be done. It recommended that the most effective way to do so was to re-immunise all children aged five to 16 years simultaneously. That approach is fully supported by the World Health Organisation. Only last week, at a meeting of world experts on immunisation, Sir Gustav Nossal, chairman of the WHO scientific advisory group of experts and of the children's vaccine initiative, described measles immunisation campaigns as examples of a brilliant strategy appropriate to the purpose of preventing a disease causing 1 million deaths a year.
  Following the recommendation of the JCVI in late 1993 and its acceptance by Ministers, the Department of Health started to lay down plans to implement an immunisation campaign. By mid-1994, however, it became clear that there were important changes that meant that the planned timetable needed to be accelerated if an epidemic was to be averted. Measles cases in England and Wales were occurring at a higher frequency, and among older children, than in previous years. It also became clear that an epidemic was already occurring in parts of Scotland. During the winter of 1993–94, 138 young people were admitted with measles to one hospital alone in Glasgow. Since 1970, there has been only one occasion—1973—when epidemics occurred simultaneously in England, Wales and Scotland.
  In the light of those events, the group charged with implementing the measles campaign decided that there was no alternative other than to implement a campaign in the autumn of 1994 if an epidemic was to be averted. That plan had the full support of the chief medical officer and Ministers. I should point out at this stage that the only way to prove a prediction of an epidemic correct would be to let it happen. To do that would have been a gross dereliction of our responsibility for public health and would have been indefensible. Imagine the feelings of any parent of a child who died of measles if it transpired that the Department of Health knew that an epidemic had been predicted and efforts had not been made to prevent it.
  The hon. Gentleman has made much of an article written by a Dr. Richard Nicholson, whom he described as an eminent source. All the expert advice at my disposal leads me to believe that Dr Nicholson at least does not fully understand the technicalities of immunisation, of mathematical modelling or of vaccine manufacture. Furthermore, Dr Nicholson has made some allegations of impropriety by the Department of Health in the vaccine purchase arrangements and he has even gone so far as to suggest that the Department's staff deliberately misled the medical profession and lied to the public. These are very serious charges.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I will not, as I have very little time left.
  I unconditionally refute these allegations, and I regret that the hon. Member has made use of his position in the House, under parliamentary privilege, to repeat them. I hope that he will reconsider.
  Following the decision to implement the campaign in November 1994, the NHS Supplies Authority approached every vaccine manufacturer to alert them to the country's requirements and to establish their ability to supply the required amounts of vaccine.
  Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Sackville: No, as I have very little time and a great deal to cover.
  Only two manufacturers could provide the quantities of vaccine in the time available. Competitive tenders were sought and contracts awarded. The usual rigorous criteria for licensing and testing were applied. With only three months available to manufacture, pack, label, test and supply vaccine, the EC rules for awarding contracts in emergency circumstances were followed, and appropriately so. The price negotiated was close to the lowest paid worldwide, and far lower than that paid by any other industrialised country.
  At that stage, detailed market research was undertaken by the Health Education Authority to establish the information requirements for the campaign. Draft material was fully tested with parents and young people and evaluated in one district where a pilot immunisation campaign was run. A commercial sector advertising agency developed four different approaches for television advertising, and they were market-tested. The version that was used for the advertising campaign had by far the strongest support from parents.
  In advance of the campaign, studies were undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service to investigate adverse reactions in children receiving second doses of measles and rubella vaccine. Colleagues from the United States and the Netherlands provided evidence based on their experience with second doses of the relevant vaccines. All relevant evidence pointed to a very low likelihood of adverse reactions.
  The campaign was implemented in November 1994. In England, more than 7 million children were immunised, with school staff playing an essential part in ensuring the smooth running of the campaign. The results of the campaign have been excellent, with 92 per cent. of children aged between five and 16 being immunised. Since the campaign, the only two cases of measles that have occurred in the age groups covered have been in children who were not immunised in the campaign. A predicted epidemic has been averted.
  As with all immunisations, however, the possibility of adverse reactions is always taken very seriously. We recognise that under-reporting of adverse reactions occurs, but there is far less of a problem with the reporting of more serious reactions, and they are the ones that matter most. It must also be emphasised that over-reporting can and does occur. The fact that an event occurs after an immunisation does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the immunisation. It is very understandable that parents might make that association when faced with a problem in a child who had been immunised recently.

  497
  Doctors were alerted by the chief medical officer to report adverse reactions on yellow cards—the usual method—on three separate occasions before the campaign. In view of the high profile and magnitude of the campaign, it is surely reasonable to suggest that there was good compliance on reporting. Furthermore, professional staff of the Medicines Control Agency followed up serious reported cases to obtain detailed information on a child's medical history.
  Approximately 8 million children were immunised in the United Kingdom. A total of 2,735 reactions were reported among 1,202 children—a rate of one child affected with any reaction whatsoever for every 6,700 immunisations. Most of the reports were of minor conditions, many of which were unlikely to be linked to immunisation. There were no deaths. There were 530 reports of serious reactions—one for every 15,000 immunised children. One quarter of these reports were of immediate allergic-type reactions from which no serious or long-lasting effects are known to have resulted. In the remaining three quarters, there was a full recovery in those children with late onset reaction expected to have been caused by the vaccine.
  All those cases reported on the yellow card scheme, with a clear link between the reaction and the vaccine,
  498
  made a complete recovery. For children in whom recovery has been incomplete, the evidence did not support an association with the vaccine. All such reported conditions are known to occur in the absence of immunisation.
  Last November saw an outstanding public health exercise. Not only has a measles epidemic been averted, but measles is now at an historic low level in this country. As anticipated, adverse reactions were either trivial, or those that were serious occurred very rarely and were unlikely to be caused by the vaccine. Our actions were in full accordance with WHO policies. Knowing that an epidemic was imminent, it would have been indefensible not to implement this campaign.
  Since we ran the campaign, we have spent considerable time and resources ensuring that a full evaluation has been undertaken. The monitoring of adverse reactions has been a keystone of this work. I shall be placing a full report on the campaign in the Library.
  I regret some of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I reject his conclusions. I believe that we took the right action, that we took it at the right time and that we have achieved the right results.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [38600]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage on 1 November 1995,Official Report, columns 186–87.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department will be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 1 September following up a letter of 18 July concerning the case of Mohammed Nadeem, GV100/28257. [40731]

  Mr. Hanley
  The migration and visa correspondence unit replied to the hon. Member's letter of 1 September on 27 October. The delay in replying is regretted.

  Cyprus
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the names of those holders of British passports who went missing during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. [41178]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have no record of any single nationality British citizens still missing following events in Cyprus over the last 30 years. Under international law, British citizens with dual nationality are the responsibility of the country of their second nationality while in that country. The cases of dual nationals who went missing in Cyprus were submitted to the UN committee on missing persons by the Government of Cyprus. If there are dual nationals amongst those Cypriots known to be missing, they are not specifically listed as such.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ascertain the fate of those holders of British passports who went missing in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. [41176]

  Mr. Davis
  It is for the UN committee on missing persons to examine these cases. We have no locus to act for dual nationals in the country of their second nationality. The British High Commission in Nicosia remains in close touch with the committee and is ready to 376
  check with the committee that all cases of dual UK/Cyprus nationals brought to its attention are being examined.

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of the Attorney-General of 30 October 1995,Official Report, column 12, relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and if he will further indicate the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41207]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested will take some time to compile. I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  Zaire
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the alleged killings of peaceful protesters during a rally in Kinshasa, Zaire on 29 July. [40599]

  Mr. Hanley
  An unauthorised demonstration was held on 29 July in Kinshasa by the Unified Lumumbist party—PALU—close to the transitional Parliament buildings. Demonstrators clashed with the gendarmerie and, most regrettably, 10 people died: one gendarme and nine demonstrators.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information and representations he has received about the human rights situation in Zaire. [40598]

  Mr. Hanley
  Through the British embassy in Kinshasa we are in regular contact with a broad range of human rights organisations and political parties in Zaire. We receive information on a regular basis about human rights issues from non-governmental organisations, the press and political parties.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Zaire about protection of human rights in the country. [40600]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain concerned at the human rights situation in Zaire. Through the British embassy in Kinshasa we keep in close touch with the Zairean authorities over the need to improve respect for human rights, including issues that affect refugees in the great lakes region.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [39339]
  377
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [39341]

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November. [38959]

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

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [40813]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, column 324.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [40814]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, columns 324–25.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to public funds in respect of the Benefits Agency staff who travelled around Spain earlier this year explaining to resident United Kingdom citizens how to claim pensions and social security allowances; and if he will make a statement. [39051]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost to public funds in respect of the Benefits Agency staff who travelled around Spain earlier this year explaining to resident United Kingdom citizens how to claim pensions and Social Security allowances.
  A visit to Spain was made by Benefits Agency staff during the period 4 June 1995 to 8 June 1995. This was in response to requests from the British Consulate and customer representative
  378
  organisations to provide sufficient information to them to better understand and answer enquiries from Benefits Agency customers living in, or visiting Spain. The cost of the visit was less than £4,000.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [39560]

  Mr. Burt
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 for civil service manpower and pay bill and manpower plans for 1995–96 are set out in the Department's annual report, Cm 2813, copies of which are in the Library.

  A breakdown by grade and individual agency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce the statutory maternity pay rebate. [40093]

  Mr. Heald
  Any proposed changes in the level of reimbursement of statutory maternity pay paid by employers would be announced and would require primary legislation.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used by the vaccine damage payments unit to decide on the merits of claims and order of magnitude of payments arising from claims; and on what basis as to liability claims are made. [40273]

  Mr. Burt
  Vaccine damage payments are made by the Secretary of State under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and associated regulations. The Act and regulations set out the conditions of entitlement, including medical and disability conditions, which must be satisfied before payment is made. Where a claim is successful a single tax-free payment of £30,000 is made. The payment is made without acceptance of liability and does not affect the claimant's right to seek compensation through the courts.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the total number of individuals claiming housing benefit in each of the past five years; [40688]

  (2) if he will list the total sums of money paid in housing benefit in each of the past five years. [40686]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.
  379

  Housing benefit recipients and expenditure for Great Britain

  Year

  Recipients Thousands

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million

  1991

  4,030

  1991–92

  5,100

  1992

  4,326

  1992–93

  6,375

  1993

  4,533

  1993–94

  7,793

  1994

  4,650

  1994–95

  9,193

  1995

  4,734

  1995–96

  10,253

  Notes:

  1. Figures for number of recipients is taken from count made on last working day of May for each of the given years. Figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Expenditure figures for 1995–96 are the estimated outturn. Figures for other years are outturn.

  3. Sources of data: Housing Benefit Management Information System and the 1995 departmental report.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department is currently undertaking to investigate whether child maintenance payments set at too high a level can provide a work disincentive to some lone parents. [40316]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Department has an on-going programme for evaluating the effects of child support. Research by the Policy Studies Institute has already established that over 90 per cent. of parents with care who are not working have past work experience, and that maintenance provides an important incentive for those who want to return to work.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the parents with care who cease benefit claims after the intervention of the Child Support Agency reapply within a six month period. [40317]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he had in respect of the legal dispute between EDS and Computer Associates at the time of placing the Child Support Agency computer system with EDS. [40320]

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State had no information about any legal dispute between EDS and Computer Associates at the time of placing the child support computer system with EDS.

  Asylum Seekers>
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons receiving(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit he expects to lose their entitlement on 8 January 1996 as a result of the determination of a claim for asylum on or after 12 October 1995; and what would be the cost in 1996–97 of preserving that entitlement; [40612]

  (2) how many persons receiving income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, respectively, he expects to lose their entitlement on 8 January 1996 as a
  380
  result of having claimed benefit as asylum seekers on or after 12 October 1995; and what would be the cost in 1996–97 of preserving that entitlement. [40625]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: It is estimated that following an asylum decision in the period after 12 October, some 7,000 existing asylum seekers who applied for benefits before that date may lose their entitlement when the regulations come into effect. The gross cost of preserving those entitlements during any appeals process in 1996–97 is estimated at £15 million. This does not allow for those who may have lost their entitlement under the previous regulations.

  A further 6,000 in-country asylum seekers who are expected to claim benefit after 12 October may also lose their entitlement to benefits when the regulations come into effect. The gross cost of preserving those entitlements in 1996–97 is estimated at £30 million. This extra cost arising because their entitlements would have to be preserved during the initial decision making process as well as any appeals process.

  Asylum seekers are separately identified only in the income support scheme. Approximately 55 per cent. of asylum seekers in receipt of income support are also in receipt of housing benefit. Some 15 per cent. are also in receipt of council tax benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which countries have been notified to him by the Home Secretary as having(a) before 12 October 1995 and (b) on or after 12 October 1995 undergone a significant upheaval; and how many asylum seekers from each of those countries have claimed income support since 12 October; [40626]

  (2) if people claiming asylum while in Great Britain on or after 12 October 1995 as a result of a significant upheaval in their country of origin which occurred before 12 October will be treated as asylum seekers for purposes of entitlement to benefit. [40628]

  Mr. Evans
  I have not yet received notification of any upheaval list countries.

  Motability
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will receive a report from the National Audit Office on Motability and Motability Finance Ltd. [40929]

  Mr. Burt
  The status and timing of the report from the National Audit Office on Motability is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Earnings (Replacement Ratios)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the current replacement ratio of(a) a single person, (b) a married couple, (c) a married couple with one child, (d) a married couple with two children and (e) a married couple with three children and jobs paying at (i) 25 per cent. of median wages, (ii) 50 per cent. of median wages, (iii) 60 per cent. of median wages, (iv) 75 per cent. of median wages, (v) 80 per cent. of median wages and (vi) 90 per cent of

  381
  median wages. [41079]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Replacement ratios show potential out-of-work income as a percentage of in-work income. It should be noted that the figures provided for couples assume that only one partner is in work. The replacement ratio is likely to be significantly lower if both partners are in work.

  Changes made to the tax and national insurance systems and to the structure of income-related benefits since 1985 have led to a significant reduction in the

  Replacement ratios at various percentages of median earnings

  Percentage of median earnings

  Family Type

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  Single person

  85

  52

  42

  33

  30

  27

  Married couple

  94

  79

  64

  50

  47

  41

  Married couple with 1 child aged 3

  83

  80

  80

  68

  63

  56

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  87

  86

  85

  79

  74

  65

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3,8 and 11

  91

  90

  88

  83

  82

  77

  Notes:

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  2 Median earnings are £323.20 gross per week, based on all males in full-time work at April 1995 (New Earnings Survey 1995).

  3 Replacement ratios shown are based on in work and out of work income after the payment of housing costs. Out of work income figures used include the cash value of milk tokens and free school meals where appropriate.

  4 All family types shown are assumed to live in local authority accommodation and pay average rent, appropriate to family size, and average council tax. Families with children are assumed to work for 30 or more hours per week and have no childcare costs.

  5 Married couple examples assume only one partner working. All examples assume no income other than earnings, income-related benefits and, where appropriate, Child Benefit.

  6 All benefit rates used in the calculation of replacement ratios are for 1995–96.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the estimated cost of ending the capital and notional income testing rules for council tax benefit for retired people while retaining unchnged the present tests for actual income. [41035]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of removing the lower and upper capital limits and the tariff income rule for pensioners is £340 million in council tax benefit. This assumes that actual income from capital would be taken into account.

  Notes:

  1. Although the question refers to retired people, it has been interpreted to refer to people over 60 years of age and living in the community. The cost for those in residential or nursing care is not applicable, as these are exempt from council tax.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3. The estimate is based on data from the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Survey, adjusted to be consistent with reported data from the 1994 HBMIS dataset for council tax benefit.

  4. All figures are uprated to 1995–96 prices and benefit levels.

  5. Given the tenuous nature of the data and the methodology used to arrive at this estimate, the figure are broad order of magnitude as opposed to robust estimates.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the income support and housing benefit income of(a) a single person, (b) married couple, (c) married couple with one child, (d) married
  382
  numbers with very high replacement ratios of over 90 per cent. It is estimated that only a tiny proportion of the working population have replacement ratios of over 100 per cent.

  The new premium in family credit from July for those working 30 or more hours per week will further reduce the numbers with very high replacement ratios. In addition, a new in-work benefit aimed at couples and single people without children will be tested from October 1996 to examine its effects on increasing the gain from work, in the same way as family credit does now for families with children.

  couple with two children and (e) married couple with three children assuming an average housing benefit payment. [41080]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is provided in table 3.1 of the tax benefit model tables, a copy of which is in the Library.

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral answer of the Attorney-General of 30 October,Official Report, column 12, relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and if he will further indicate the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41213]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work-force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41112]
  383
  The Attorney-General
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of which countries he expects, on the basis of the information at present available to him, to make a declaration on 8 January 1996 for the purposes of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1995 that they have undergone events likely to give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution among their nationals. [40627]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We envisage that a declaration will be made only if a major upheaval occurs in a country. It is not proposed to make a declaration in respect of upheavals which have already taken place, since nationals of the country concerned who were present in the United Kingdom will have had adequate opportunity to claim asylum before 12 October. Under the draft regulations, the benefit entitlement of a person who claimed asylum before that date will be protected until a decision is taken on their claim.

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 448, if he will list (a) the consultants employed by the National Lottery Charities Board in the 14 months up to September 1995 and (b) the amounts paid to each firm. [39817]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: This is a matter for the National Lottery Charities Board, on which the hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executive. The National Audit Office has full access to contract and payment details.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 448, if he will specify the travel costs claimed by each member of the National Lottery Charities Board. [40659]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Of the £44,000 reimbursed to the chairman and members of the National Lottery Charities Board up to the end of September 1995, £21,000 was paid in travelling expenses for legitimate attendance at board meetings and journeys on official board business. These figures are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.
  384

  Michael Joseph McKenny
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release Joseph McKinney from Frankland prison; what is Mr. McKinney's date of birth; and how many years of his sentence he has served. [40450]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: The prisoner referred to was convicted under the name of Michael Joseph McKenny.

  Mr. McKenny was born on 7 February 1927. He has served eight years and seven months of a 16-year sentence. His final statutory parole review is due to commence in January 1996. If he is not released as a result of that review, his earliest date of release will be in January 1997.

  Metropolitan Police (Settlements)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid by the Metropolitan police in out-of-court settlements in each of the past three financial years and the current year to date. [41182]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 933. This information is recorded by calendar year, not by financial year. The amount paid in out of court settlements this year up to 31 October is £488.000.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend charges made upon London football clubs for police presence in or at stadiums to include all officers employed outside the ground in connection with matches; and if he will make a statement. [41179]

  Mr. Maclean
  Policing outside football grounds is part of the duty of the police to maintain law and order in public places and to keep traffic flowing. It would not be appropriate to make charges.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the payments to police forces made by each of London's Premier and Football League clubs in season 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date. [41181]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that the payments—which are not necessarily the same as the amounts billed—are those given in the table.

  Payments to Metropolitan police

  Club

  1994–95 season £

  1995–96 season1 £

  Arsenal

  332,659.52

  9,499.91

  Barnet

  49,524.31

  5,159.90

  Brentford

  69,016.21

  0.00

  Charlton

  25,427.74

  2,974.75

  Chelsea

  363,476.16

  21,187.40

  Crystal Palace

  183,057.73

  0.00

  Fulham

  35,513.76

  2,021.40

  Leyton Orient

  16,293.57

  7,023.21

  385

  Payments to Metropolitan police

  Club

  1994–95 season £

  1995–96 season1 £

  Millwall

  125,840.29

  29,625.22

  Queens Park Rangers

  100,058.84

  0.00

  Tottenham Hotspur

  161,127.84

  0.00

  West Ham United

  172,376.87

  0.00

  Wimbledon

  130,932.86

  28,443.58

  Total

  1,765,305.70

  105,935.37

  1 (as at 30-09-95)

  National Insurance Status
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from employers' organisations in respect of the Government's plans to make employers check on employees' national insurance status; and what proportion of these have been in favour of the proposals. [40968]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 270.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the disturbances that have occurred since Doncaster prison was opened; and if he will make a statement. [40955]

  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 2 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of disturbances that have occurred since Doncaster prison was opened.
  Doncaster prison was opened on 20 June 1994 and from that date until 30 September 1995, a total of 48 incidents of concerted indiscipline were reported to Prison Service headquarters.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who or what organisation initiated the litigation about the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation; and to what extent this litigation was funded out of public funds. [40705]

  Mr. Maclean
  The applicants in the application for judicial review were the Fire Brigades Union, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Women Teachers, Unison, GMB, the Royal College of Nursing, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the Prison Officers Association, the Civil and Public Services Association and the Trades Union Congress. After the House of Lords judgment, the applicants were awarded costs; these costs and the costs incurred by Government were met from public funds.
  386
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the police and medical authorities are co-operating sufficiently with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board concerning cases of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East. [40496]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the terms of the criminal injuries compensation scheme the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is exclusively responsible for the handling and determination of individual applications. The CICB reviews on an on-going basis the responses of the police and medical authorities to requests for reports. It advises that there are no significant problems in the Bolton, North-East area.

  Gambling
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions on the commercial promotion of gambling are currently in place; and what have been the changes in the last five years. [40750]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 prohibits, with certain exceptions, advertisements which inform the public of premises on which gaming takes place or which invites them to participate in such gaming. The main exceptions are:

  advertisements relating to incidental activities at non-commercial entertainments; to amusement centres and arcades; and to travelling showman's pleasure fairs;

  print advertisements relating to bingo which do not contain inducements;

  signs displayed on bingo premises giving information on prizes;

  signs outside casinos indicating that gaming takes place on premises.

  Section 10 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 provides a general prohibition on advertisements relating to particular betting shops. There are exceptions for advertisements which are published inside betting shops and those which can be seen from outside the premises, provided that they comply with certain restrictions which are prescribed in regulations.

  The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority responsible for drawing up and enforcing codes governing standards and practice for advertising and programme sponsorship on television and radio respectively. There is a general prohibition on advertising of betting and gaming in the advertising codes. This prohibition does not apply to advertisements relating to lotteries permitted under National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, or the football pools. In addition, the ITC and Radio Authority programme sponsorship codes prohibit betting and gaming companies from sponsoring television and radio programmes about certain activities related to the same form of betting or gaming as that in which the company deals.
  387
  Changes introduced in the last five years include:

  the Bingo Act 1992, which introduced a partial relaxation of restrictions on print advertising of bingo;

  the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1995, which gave betting shops greater freedom to advertise in their windows;

  changes to the ITC and Radio Authority advertising codes in December 1993 and April this year, respectively, to allow broadcast advertising of the national lottery;

  changes to the ITC and Radio Authority programme sponsorship codes in January and December 1994, respectively, to allow betting and gaming companies to sponsor certain types of programmes;

  changes, in April this year, to the ITC and Radio Authority advertising codes to allow broadcast advertising of the football pools.

  Prison Education
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate for spending on prison education for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 following the Woodcock and Learmont reports. [40461]

  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 the estimate for spending on prison education for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 following the Woodcock and Learmont reports.
  Budgets for education services are devolved to governors who base their spending plans on local needs taking into account the number of teacher contact hours which can be purchased from their education provider at the agreed contract price.
  The estimate for spending on prison education in 1995–96, including Public Library Authority library provision but excluding Vocational Training and Construction Industry Training spending, is £37,093,000.
  Estimates of expenditure for 1996–97 and 1997–98 will be determined as part of the strategic planning cycle on which negotiations are currently taking place. Final decisions will not be taken until shortly before the start of the next financial year.

  Prison Service Performance Indicators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to the Prison Service's key performance indicators; and if he will make a statement. [40454]

  Performance against key targets: 1994–95—Dispersals

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Frankland

  418

  0

  12.2

  20.0

  10

  32,662

  Full Sutton

  543

  0

  13.4

  25.1

  10.5

  31,509

  Long Lartin

  355

  0

  9.3

  22.3

  11

  29,437

  Parkhurst

  226

  3

  16.8

  17.6

  11.3

  32,947

  Wakefield

  696

  0

  4.9

  20.1

  11.6

  23,731

  Whitemoor

  474

  6

  23.4

  21.4

  10.3

  32,397

  Average

  452

  1.5

  13.3

  21.1

  10.8

  29,944

  388
  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 Mr. Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about proposed changes to the Prison Service's Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
  The Prison Service has achieved its existing targets on visits and trebling. The remaining indicators do not now fully reflect the impact of new work that the Service has taken on (for example, the mandatory drug testing programme). The Service is therefore committed to developing new indicators to reflect its performance across the range of its work.
  We are now considering what changes are necessary in the light of Sir John Learmont's recommendation on performance indicators.
  The Prison Service Framework Document requires changes to the KPIs to be approved by Home Office, Treasury and Office of Public Service Ministers.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the figures for each key performance indicator for each prison for the year 1994–95. [40453]

  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 figures for key performance indicators (KPIs) for the year 1994–95.
  The figures are set out in the attached tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House. Establishments are grouped by type to make it easier to compare performance between establishments of a similar kind.
  The tables do not include data on KPIs 3, 4 or 7. The target for KPI 3 was to ensure that the average number of prisoners held three to a cell intended for one was fewer than in 1993–94. The outcome was that there was no trebling in any establishment. On KPI 4, the target was to provide 24 hour access to sanitation in at least 3,500 more cells, thus ensuring that at least 95% of prisoners have access to sanitation at all times. This target is managed nationally, not locally, and the outcome was that 4,191 more cells were provided with 24 hour access to sanitation. On KPI 7, the target was to ensure that all prisons had the opportunity to exceed the minimum visiting entitlement throughout the year. This was achieved in full at all establishments.
  389

  Category B

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (week days)

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Albany

  415

  0

  6.5

  25.3

  11

  19,725

  Blundeston

  381

  0

  10.5

  23.3

  12

  18,873

  Dartmoor

  532

  3

  7

  23.7

  10

  16,384

  Garth

  505

  0

  5

  20.0

  9.1

  18,750

  Gartree

  275

  0

  3.6

  28.3

  12.3

  21,751

  Grendon (see also Spring Hill)1

  185

  0

  1.3

  28.6

  13

  19,121

  Kingston

  135

  0

  2.2

  26.8

  12.5

  23,226

  Maidstone

  459

  0

  6.3

  22.3

  11.7

  18,051

  Nottingham

  207

  1

  5.3

  25.8

  12

  24,775

  Swaleside

  502

  1

  11.8

  22.8

  10.5

  18,359

  Average

  360

  0.5

  6

  24.7

  11.4

  19,092

  1 Some establishments consist of a 'parent' establishment and one or more satellite establishments with different functions. Figures are shown separately except for combined figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 which are shown under the parent establishment.

  Open Prisons (Male)

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked weekdays

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Ford

  440

  0

  1.1

  37.3

  13.3

  10,357

  Hewell Grange

  164

  0

  1.2

  42.8

  24

  15,152

  Hollesley Bay (see also Warren Hill)1

  162

  0

  12.5

  38.1

  24

  22,124

  Kirkham

  521

  0

  0.2

  48.7

  13.5

  10,870

  Leyhill

  387

  0

  0

  40.0

  24

  14,634

  Morton Hall

  161

  0

  1.2

  46.0

  24

  14,286

  North Sea Camp

  204

  0

  0

  62.7

  16.5

  15,423

  Rudgate

  261

  0

  0.4

  47.2

  14

  13,937

  Spring Hill (see also parent establishment Grendon)2

  205

  0

  —

  39.4

  24

  —

  Stanford Hill

  361

  0

  0.8

  41.8

  14.5

  15,104

  Sudbury Foston

  422

  0

  0.2

  46.8

  14.5

  12,308

  Average

  299

  0

  0.6

  44.6

  18.8

  14,847

  1 Some establishments consist of a 'parent' establishment and one or more satellite establishments with different functions. Figures are shown separately except for combined figures for KPI 2 and KIP 8 which are shown under the parent establishment.

  2 Figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 are shown under the parent establishment.

  Female establishments

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Local

  503

  5

  37

  19.5

  9.8

  29,595

  Holloway

  64

  0

  75

  18.0

  11

  48,214

  Pucklechurch

  284

  2.5

  56

  18.8

  10.4

  38,904

  Average

  Closed

  Bullwood Hall

  121

  1

  16.5

  30.4

  12

  29,365

  Cookham Wood

  129

  1

  16.3

  29.3

  10.5

  24,167

  New Hall

  178

  3

  32

  29.4

  12

  26,633

  Styal

  235

  1

  14.5

  34.8

  13.3

  29,167

  Average

  166

  1.5

  19.8

  31.0

  12

  27,333

  Open

  Askham Grange

  114

  0

  1.8

  45.4

  24

  17,647

  Drake Hall

  224

  0

  1.8

  36.9

  24

  14,902

  East Sutton Park

  89

  0

  0

  36.8

  24

  19,149

  Average

  142

  0

  1.2

  39.7

  24

  17,233

  Average for all female establishments

  184

  1.2

  21.6

  31.2

  15.6

  25,713

  390

  391

  Young Offender Institutions

  Average Population 1994–95

  KRP 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  KPI 8: Cost per place £

  Closed

  Aylesbury

  219

  0

  45.2

  26.6

  9.3

  24,399

  Castington

  275

  0

  24.7

  25.2

  9.3

  17,667

  Deerbolt

  387

  5

  17.6

  24.8

  10.8

  16,630

  Dover

  272

  0

  12.9

  23.6

  9.3

  18,354

  Glen Parva

  769

  2

  23.7

  21.9

  9

  14,769

  Guys Marsh

  196

  0

  8.7

  41.6

  13.4

  16,667

  Warren Hill (see also parent establishment Hollesley Bay)1

  159

  0

  27.9

  8

  Huntercombe (see also Finnamore Wood)2

  197

  0

  21.2

  24.9

  11

  17,009

  Onley

  476

  2

  33.8

  23.4

  12

  14,038

  Portland

  369

  0

  10.6

  29.6

  10.7

  14,098

  Stoke Heath

  263

  1

  28.5

  28.6

  12.5

  16,667

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  0

  8.2

  29.7

  10.1

  24,176

  Werrington

  107

  9

  69.2

  42.1

  13.5

  21,239

  Wetherby

  137

  8

  21.9

  38.2

  12

  18,878

  Average

  286

  1.9

  24.2

  29.2

  10.8

  17,344

  1 Figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 are shown under the parent establishment.

  2 Some establishments consist of a 'parent' establishment and one or more satellite establishments with different functions. Figures are shown separately except for combined figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 which are shown under the parent establishment.

  Young offender remand centres

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Open YOI

  Finnamore Wood (see also parent establishment Huntercombe)1

  25

  0

  38.0

  —

  Hatfield

  161

  0

  8.7

  38.4

  13.3

  21,111

  Prescoed (see also parent establishment USK)1

  49

  0

  42.5

  18.8

  Thorn Cross

  167

  0

  13.2

  46.5

  12.5

  13,333

  Average

  101

  0

  11

  41.4

  12.9

  17,222

  Remand Centres

  Brinsford

  458

  3

  27.3

  23.7

  9.1

  20,253

  Feltham

  805

  0

  29.7

  30.4

  10

  18,472

  Hindley

  268

  1

  29.1

  22.7

  8.8

  23,220

  Lancaster Farms

  344

  0

  22.4

  23.5

  12

  22,281

  Low Newton

  248

  0

  22.2

  23.1

  9

  25,253

  Moorland

  485

  0

  29.3

  24.9

  11.5

  17,433

  Northallerton

  170

  0

  25.9

  23.5

  10.3

  32,432

  Reading

  177

  0

  25.4

  27.1

  10.5

  29,121

  Rochester

  257

  2

  26.8

  25.1

  11.5

  19,487

  Average

  357

  0.7

  26.4

  24.9

  10.3

  23,106

  Average for all YOI remand establishments

  283

  1.2

  23.9

  29.5

  10.8

  20,944

  1 Figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 are shown under the parent establishment.

  Category C

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked weekdays

  KPI 8: Cost per place £

  Acklington

  613

  2

  4.1

  26.6

  12.1

  13,757

  Aldington

  118

  4

  0.8

  31.4

  12

  17,293

  Ashwell

  384

  4

  2.9

  35.3

  15.5

  13,861

  Blantyre House

  94

  2

  0

  33.2

  15.3

  22,105

  Brockhill

  117

  1

  1.7

  34.4

  12.3

  20,497

  Camp Hill

  389

  1

  4.6

  28.0

  12

  17,271

  Channings Wood

  568

  6

  2.1

  29.3

  11.3

  13,805

  Coldingley

  283

  2

  7.1

  25.4

  13.5

  20,890

  Downview

  277

  4

  2.9

  32.3

  11.5

  20,906

  Erlestoke

  250

  3

  3.2

  30.5

  12.8

  20,000

  Everthorpe

  217

  2

  7.8

  29.7

  11.3

  18,447

  392

  393

  Category C

  Average population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked weekdays

  KPI 8: Cost per place £

  Featherstone

  574

  12

  3.8

  28.5

  10.4

  14,858

  Haverigg

  344

  5

  1.5

  36.6

  12.5

  18,136

  Highpoint

  602

  3

  6

  27.9

  13

  15,169

  Kirklevington

  76

  0

  0

  47.3

  24

  23,457

  Lancaster

  243

  3

  4.9

  26.9

  12

  16,016

  Latchmere House

  139

  0

  0

  55.9

  24

  14,765

  Lindholme

  545

  6

  2.4

  29.1

  15.3

  15,722

  Littlehey

  555

  4

  5

  32.3

  10.8

  14,334

  The Mount

  476

  3

  5.9

  26.9

  12.1

  14,876

  Oxford2

  77

  0

  0

  41.5

  17

  19,303

  Ranby

  335

  13

  3.9

  31.7

  13.3

  17,579

  Risley

  725

  3

  13.1

  28.5

  10.5

  18,117

  Send

  119

  1

  1.7

  34.9

  12.7

  22,124

  Shepton Mallet

  189

  0

  5.8

  27.5

  12

  24,684

  Stafford

  516

  1

  11

  25.3

  9.2

  19,291

  Stocken

  392

  0

  5.1

  34.0

  12.5

  16,414

  Thorpe Arch

  164

  8

  0.6

  34.8

  11.7

  22,289

  USK (see also Prescoed)1

  179

  0

  0

  32.3

  18.8

  20,661

  The Verne

  533

  4

  1.5

  31.5

  14.5

  14,855

  Wayland

  542

  1

  3.9

  26.6

  12

  13,793

  Wellingborough

  306

  4

  3.3

  29.6

  12

  16,667

  Whatton

  213

  0

  6.6

  31.1

  12.8

  17,593

  Wymott

  389

  0

  3.6

  36.6

  13.3

  10,907

  Average

  330

  2.9

  3.7

  32.2

  13.5

  16,330

  1 Some establishments consist of a 'parent' establishment and one or more satellite establishments with different functions. Figures are shown separately expect for combined figures for KPI 2 and KPI 8 which are shown under the parent establishment.

  2 Re-opened April 1994. Cost per place figure includes Bullingdon.

  Local prisons adult remands

  Average Population 1994–95

  KPI 1 Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as per cent. of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (week days)

  KPI 8: Cost per place (£)

  Bedford

  296

  2

  9.5

  22.9

  10.5

  24,422

  Belmarsh

  724

  0

  14.2

  15.7

  11.2

  26,397

  Birmingham

  778

  1

  12.2

  20.5

  6.9

  21,816

  Bristol

  456

  0

  7.2

  23.1

  11.8

  23,896

  Brixton

  605

  1

  14.9

  18.3

  8.6

  31,366

  Bullingdon1

  622

  0

  19.2

  24.2

  11.5

  19,303

  Canterbury

  259

  0

  5

  24.9

  12

  34,783

  Cardiff

  421

  0

  13.3

  23.3

  11.9

  28,399

  Chelmsford

  371

  1

  10.8

  16.1

  7.2

  33,068

  Dorchester

  202

  0

  3

  21.2

  10.3

  30,714

  Durham

  612

  4

  6.5

  19.0

  10.5

  22,446

  Elmley

  609

  1

  10.5

  22.5

  10.5

  18,009

  Exeter

  391

  1

  9.5

  22.6

  9

  27,660

  Gloucester

  248

  1

  16.1

  23.2

  9.5

  29,858

  Haslar

  126

  7

  0

  31.8

  12.3

  16,327

  Highdown

  584

  0

  12.2

  21.0

  11.5

  19,260

  Holme House

  613

  2

  8.6

  16.2

  9

  18,336

  Hull

  394

  1

  25.4

  21.0

  12

  34,146

  Leeds

  1,042

  0

  14.3

  15.5

  7

  19,675

  Leicester

  339

  1

  14.2

  22.7

  10

  42,784

  Lewes

  325

  1

  10.5

  18.6

  8.9

  22,572

  Lincoln

  609

  2

  6.7

  19.9

  11.2

  23,210

  Liverpool

  1,222

  3

  6.2

  17.5

  7.2

  18,371

  Manchester

  843

  1

  8.4

  20.3

  12.8

  20,188

  Norwich

  362

  2

  14.4

  23.1

  10.9

  30,584

  Pentonville

  720

  2

  12.8

  27.9

  10.5

  19,336

  Preston

  492

  1

  12.6

  18.4

  6.8

  28,180

  Shrewsbury

  276

  1

  11.2

  21.8

  10

  33,523

  Swansea

  211

  4

  16.6

  21.9

  12

  27,273

  Wandsworth

  907

  1

  16.3

  23.5

  10

  18,288

  Winchester

  385

  0

  9.6

  23.0

  8.8

  24,675

  Woodhill

  518

  0

  20.3

  24.0

  12

  24,735

  Wormwood Scrubs

  804

  0

  7.5

  15.2

  9.6

  29,132

  Average

  524

  1.2

  12.4

  21.2

  10.4

  23,408

  1 Cost per place figure includes Oxford

  394

  395

  Contracted out prisons

  Average Population 1994–95

  KPI 1: Escapes

  KPI 2: Assaults as a percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  KPI 8: Cost per place £

  Blakenhurst

  629

  0

  —1

  —1

  14

  17,874

  Buckley Hall2

  24

  0

  4.2

  —1

  13.5

  86,667

  Doncaster3

  557

  1

  33.8

  —1

  12

  18,040

  Wolds

  320

  0

  15.3

  —1

  13.8

  20,059

  Average

  382.5

  0.25

  17.7

  —1

  13.3

  19,627

  1 Regime hours not available in comparative form.

  2 Opened in December 1994. The KPI 8 figure reflects the general build up of population.

  3 Opened in June 1994.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [39461]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is responsible for the following appointments in South Yorkshire:

  one member of the selection panel on appointments of independent members to the South Yorkshire police authority;

  the board of visitors at the following prison establishments:

  Doncaster

  Lindholme

  Moorland Young Offenders Institution

  Hatfield Young Offenders Institution.

  The appointment to the selection panel is for two years. A new appointment is due on 8 August 1996. There is no salary but members are entitled to be paid allowances; the rates to be determined at the police authority's discretion. The Home Office recommends the allowances should be consistent with those paid to police authority members, that is £15 per hour up to a maximum of £120 per day and £3,000 per year.

  Members are appointed to the boards of visitors for a maximum period of three years to coincide with the triennial review date of that board. Appointments are made for varying periods of up to three years and new appointments are made as and when vacancies arise. Members are unpaid volunteers though they can claim for expenses they have incurred as a result of the performance of their official duties.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39571]

  Mr. Howard
  The only such bodies in South Yorkshire to which my Department makes appointments are the boards of visitors at the following prison and young offender establishments:

  HMP Doncaster;

  HMP Lindholme;

  HMP and Young Offenders Institution Moorland;

  HMYOI Hatfield

  396
  The national boards of visitors budgets for the financial years 1991–92 to 1994–95 were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Year

  Budget1

  1991–92

  378,000

  1992–93

  507,000

  1993–94

  734,000

  1994–95

  764,000

  1 These figures include the liaison section, which manages the administration of boards of visitors, and all local board expenses.

  The total number of national appointments to the boards of visitors were as follows:

  Year

  Appointments

  1991

  346

  1992

  350

  1993

  344

  1994

  243

  Total

  1,283

  The following table illustrates the appointments/reappointments during the last four years—1 January 1991 to 31 December 1994—in the South Yorkshire area.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total appointments

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  11

  11

  Lindholme

  2

  2

  2

  16

  22

  Moorland

  4

  —

  15

  —

  19

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  15

  —

  15

  Total

  6

  2

  32

  27

  67

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [39859]

  Mr. Howard
  I met the former Director General of the Prison Service 11 times in January, four times in both February and October, 10 times in March, once each in April, August and September, three times in both May and July and five times in June, an average of one meeting a week over the 10-month period. I met the chief
  397
  executive of the Passport Agency once in April. I had no meetings with the chief executives of the Forensic Science Service and the Fire Service College—the other Home Office agencies—during that period. I receive quarterly reports from the chief executives on the performance of their agencies.

  Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he last visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester; [39515]

  (2) on what dates during the last 12 months his Ministers have visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester. [39514]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend last visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester on 3 March this year. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) visited the centre on 3 May.

  Fire Services, Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to receive further representations on the re-structuring of the fire services in Wales. [39579]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The consultation period has ended and drafts of the orders containing the schemes which will establish the three combined fire authorities in Wales were laid in Parliament on 24 October. This stage could not have been postponed without putting the timetable for reorganisation at risk. For the future, if representations are made we shall consider them.

  Camden Hopscotch Asian Women's Group
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all grants given, and any future grants planned, by his Department to the Camden Hopscotch Asian women's group, indicating the amount and dates. [38131]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  From April 1992 to March 1995, the Home Office supported a project entitled training and employment opportunities for Bangladeshi women, which was run by the Hopscotch Asian women's centre. Payments of some £19,000, £32,000 and £38,000 in the three financial years were made under the ethnic minority grant to the Central London training and enterprise council, which acted on behalf of the Home Office in relation to the project.

  The Home Office has agreed to pay grant to Kingsway college, under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, in respect of a project to be run by the college for two years in association with the Hopscotch Asian women's centre. The maximum potential grant cost is £25,000 in 1995–96, and £50,000 in 1996–97.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Meeting Heads of Agencies
  Mr. Gordan Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times in each month of the current year she has met personally the heads of the 398
  agencies which report to her to discuss the work of those agencies. [39860]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the chief executive of the Royal Parks Agency once, in September. No such formal meetings have been held with the chief executive of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency although one is planned for November.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she 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 she is responsible. [39466]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have responsibility for two executive agencies: the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and the Royal Parks Agency. The information in respect of both agencies is as follows:

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Grade

  (a) Number 1994–95

  (b) Number 1995–961

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  6

  6

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  15

  17

  SEO and equivalent

  18

  20

  HEO and equivalent

  26

  30

  EO and equivalent

  47

  47

  AO and equivalent

  146

  144

  AA and equivalent

  209

  138

  Industrials

  55

  55

  Totals

  524

  459

  Notes:

  1Estimate.

  1. Information on the cost of staff by grade is not held.

  2. In 1994–95, the payroll cost of the staff listed above was 10,400,000 (as recorded HRPA Annual Report).

  3. In 1995–96, the estimated payroll cost for the staff listed above is £9,047,000 (as recorded in HRPA Sixth Corporate Plan).

  Royal Parks Agency

  List by grade of number and cost of staff

  1994–95 Actual

  1995–96 Estimate

  Number of staff

  Cost

  Number of staff

  Cost

  Grade 5

  1.0

  56,250

  1.0

  60,483

  Grade 7

  2.1

  95,003

  2.0

  88,493

  SEO

  4.2

  133,561

  4.0

  139,244

  HEO

  9.1

  215,834

  9.8

  262,792

  EO

  14.2

  279,927

  14.9

  292,752

  AO

  23.8

  347,219

  26.8

  355,803

  AA

  5.4

  56,775

  2.3

  22,305

  Typist

  1.4

  21,315

  1.5

  23,339

  Principle Park Manager

  1.0

  50,374

  1.0

  51,348

  Park Superintendent II

  3.0

  113,012

  3.0

  115,253

  Park Superintendent III

  8.0

  250,998

  8.0

  254,164

  Park Supervisor

  12.5

  306,345

  12.0

  311,265

  SPTO

  2.0

  34,078

  2.0

  35,355

  PTO

  0.5

  12,555

  3.0

  64,436

  HMCO

  1.0

  26,861

  1.0

  27,606

  BAND 14 (Gamekeeper)

  3.0

  64,009

  3.0

  65,124

  Chief Officer

  1.0

  51,779

  1.0

  81,215

  399

  Royal Parks Agency

  List by grade of number and cost of staff

  1994–95 Actual

  1995–96 Estimate

  Number of staff

  Cost

  Number of staff

  Cost

  Deputy Chief Officer

  1.3

  53,129

  1.0

  37,470

  Inspector

  6.8

  243,121

  7.5

  277,080

  Sergeant

  22.8

  735,901

  20.3

  693,144

  Constable

  143.4

  3,830,672

  139.4

  3,682,061

  Groom

  5.6

  48,283

  5.3

  54,380

  Total

  273

  7,027,001

  270

  6,995,112

ENVIRONMENT

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of tenants with registered fair rents at the end of each of the past five years. [40687]

  Mr. Clappison
  The estimates available for tenants in England are as follows:

  Private rented

  Housing Association

  1990

  1320,000

  —

  1992

  —

  4405,000

  1993

  2220,000

  4385,000

  1994

  3170,000

  4330,000

  1 Summer 1990.

  2 Average for financial year 1993–94.

  3 Average for financial year 1994–5.

  4 At 31 March.

  The estimates for private renters are from the 1990 private renters survey and, from 1993–94, the survey of English housing. Like all estimates from sample surveys, they are subject to sampling error. The estimates for Housing Association tenants are based on returns to the Housing Corporation.

  Living-over-the-shop Grant, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the applications for living-over-the-shop grant support was received for Clayton street and High Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne; how many dwellings units are proposed for these projects; and when he expects to make a decision on them. [40495]

  Mr. Clappison
  An SRB challenge fund plan to regenerate the Grainger Town area of Newcastle upon Tyne was received in the Government office for the nort-east on 27 October 1995. This plan includes a living-over-the-shop programme to bring city centre disused upper floors back into the use for residential purposes. A decision will be issued by the Government Office for the north-east as soon as possible. Approval of individual projects within the programme is subject to delegated arrangements which do not normally involve Ministers.
  400

  Ramsar Convention
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list candidate wetlands of international importance in the United Kingdom proposed for listing under the Ramsar convention. [40753]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are considering the sites listed which have been proposed for Ramsar listing by the statutory conservation agencies.

  Site

  County or region

  Site

  County or region

  Avon Valley

  Hampshire Dorset

  Greenlaw Moor and Hule Moss

  Borders

  Breydon Water

  Norfolk

  Westwater

  Borders

  Deben Estuary

  Suffolk

  Lake of Menteith

  Central

  Duddon Estuary

  Cumbria

  Castle Loch, Lochmaben

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dungeness-Pett Levels

  Kent, East Susex

  Lock Inch and Torrs Warren

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Foulness

  Essex

  Loch of Strathbeg

  Grampian

  Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Phase 2

  Humberside Lincs

  Muir of Dinnet

  Gramian

  Mersey Estuary

  Merseyside Chesire

  Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Lochs

  Grampian

  Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2

  Chesire, Shropshire, Staffs and Clwyd

  Loch Ruthven

  Highland

  Morecambe Bay

  Cumbria Lanes

  Moray Basin, Firths and Bays

  Highland

  Northumberland Coast

  Northumberland

  River Spey/Insh Marshes

  Highland

  Pevensey Levels

  East Sussex

  Firth of Forth

  Lothian

  Poole Harbour Somerset Levels

  Dorset Somerset

  East Sanday North Roe and Tingon

  Orkney Shetland

  Southampton Water and Solent

  Hampshire, Isle of Wight

  Inner Clyde Estuary

  Strathclyde

  Thames Estuary and Marshes

  Kent

  Rhinns of Islay

  Strathclyde

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the United Kingdom is designated under the Ramsar convention; and what percentage areas of their territories other EU member status have designated. [40752]

  Mr. Clappison
  Approximately 1.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom is listed under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance. Similar information is not readily available for other EU member states.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there is a timetable for the designation of candidate Ramsar wetlands included on the United Kingdom's shadow list. [40754]

  Mr. Clappison
  Including three sites in dependent territories, the United Kingdom has already listed 95 wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar
  401
  convention—far more than any other country in the world. A number of additional proposed sites are under consideration, but there is no firm timetable for future listings.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to development corporations in respect of(a) short-cutting or avoiding standard procedures for planning permission and (b) extending their spheres of influence beyond their recognised boundaries. [40709]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Urban development corporations are bound by the planning powers which are set out in sections 148 and 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. A corporation cannot use these powers outside its designated area.

  Charter Trustees
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will establish charter trustees to preserve the office of mayor of Beverley and the civic regalia; and if he will set out their duties and the manner of their appointment. [40595]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is our intention that charter trustees for Beverley will be established on 1 April 1996.

  The charter trustees will be the district councillors elected for wards wholly or partly comprised in the area for which charter trustees are established.

  As charter trustees, they will be required to hold an annual meeting at which the first business would be to elect one of their number as mayor and another as deputy mayor. They may also exercise powers to appoint local officers of dignity and may acquire and maintain historic or ceremonial property, except land, of the area for which they are established.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the appointment of charter trustees to preserve the office of major of Beverley will allow the post to be held as in the past in the absence of the establishment of a town or parish council; and what powers the major will have. [40596]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The charter trustees for Beverley may elect one of their number as town major and another as deputy mayor: it is not necessary for there to be a town or parish council in existence. The mayor presides at the meetings of the charter trustees but has no formal statutory functions. His role is representative or ceremonial.

  Local Government Reviews
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to direct the Local Government Commission to conduct reviews to establish the case for or against new parishes. [40597]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Commission is devoting its attention to the structure reviews of individual districts which we have directed it to carry out. When these have been completed, its next priority must be the periodic electoral reviews that it has 402
  a statutory duty to undertake. Against this background, we expect to direct it to carry out only a few, if any, parishing reviews over the next few months.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission to complete all outstanding local government district and other reviews. [40594]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We expect the Local Government Commission to complete the district reviews by 2 January 1996.

  Local Authority Crematoriums
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reasons he was unable to lay an order before Parliament relating to the sale of local authority crematoriums prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament. [40568]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 1995 provide for increases in the usable proportion of local authorities' capital receipts from sales of shops and car parks, as well as of crematoriums. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced the increases for shops and car parks on 23 March, and stated that they would apply from 1 September, so the regulations needed to come into effect by then. Discussions with local authorities were held before the regulations were laid, so as to ensure that the increases applied in as wide a range of circumstances as possible. The regulations were laid as soon as possible after those discussions.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he will issue in respect of the commercial development of crematoriums sold off by local authorities following the order of 2 August. [40569]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have encouraged authorities in considering any disposals to take into account the need to ensure competitive pricing and continuing quality of service.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the number of people currently regularly sleeping rough in central London; what was the equivalent figure in previous estimates; and if he will make a statement. [41130]

  Mr. Clappison
  Independent street counts of people sleeping rough are undertaken twice yearly in central London, co-ordinated by Homeless Network, the umbrella organisation for voluntary sector agencies helping street homeless people in the capital. The information requested is:

  Number of people sleeping rough in central London

  Percentage sleeping rough for more than one year

  May 1995

  270

  66

  November 1994

  288

  76

  May 1994

  268

  72

  November 1993

  287

  77

  June 1993

  348

  74

  403
  It is, however, likely that people sleeping out for a period of time will occasionally make use of hostel, nightshelter or winter shelter accomodation.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the rough sleepers initiative contained in the housing White Paper will be funded from local authority housing budgets. [41051]

  Mr. Clappison
  Decisions on future public expenditure commitments cannot be made before the Budget statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28 November 1995.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his timetable for publishing the Government's biodiversity plan; [40909]

  (2) what is his timetable for the biodiversity plan being approved by the relevant Cabinet committee; [40910]

  (3) what representations he has received from other Government Departments about the biodiversity plan. [40911]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to produce a national biodiversity plan when "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan"was published in January 1994. The plan contains some 59 board targets including a commitment to develop specific costed targets for key species and habitats for the years 2000 and 2010.

  A biodiversity steering group, chaired by my Department, with members drawn from all sectors was established to take forward work under the plan. The steering group, which has consulted all the relevant Government Departments, will submit its advice to the Government in a report to be published in December this year. I expect a Government response to the report to be made by the spring of 1996.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41125]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those employed for a period up to 12 months, but, exceptionally, up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Farm Safety
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss farm safety; and if he will make a statement. [38930]
  404
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since my Department took over responsibility for health and safety at work I have not met representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union. The Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive give advice and enforce the law in relation to farm safety. The Transport and General Workers Union is represented on the commission's agriculture industry advisory committee, which last met on 26 October.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the decision by the Shirayama Group to sell or lease county hall, London, to another hotel group; and how much is still owed by Shirayama from the original purchase price of the building. [41185]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. Proposals for the sale or lease of the Riverside building of county hall are a matter for the freehold owners, Shirayama. The terms of the sale, with which Shirayama has to date wholly complied, were that £50 million was to be paid on completion with a deferred payment of £10 million to be paid in the period 1997 to 2012.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are in place to secure the balance of the purchase price of county hall from the by Shirayama Group in the event of the building being sold or leased to a third party. [41184]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The deferred payment was secured by a legal charge on the Riverside building granted Shirayama in favour of the London Residuary Body or its successor.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what report has been made by English Heritage on the removal of the war memorial in county hall by the Japanese owners of the building; and if he will make a statement. [41188]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None, as far as I know.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has happened to the book of remembrance previously located adjacent to the war memorial on the principal floor of county hall, London. [41183]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that the book of remembrance is now located at the headquarters of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority on Albert embankment.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications have been made by the current owners of county hall, or their representatives, to remove or delist artefacts or listed features of the building. [41187]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None, as far as I know.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when English Heritage last inspected county hall, London, and submitted a report to his office. [41189]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 19 October. There is no requirement to report to me.
  405
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what licences have been applied for by the current owners of county hall, the Shirayama Group, in respect of sea mammals to be housed in the proposed aquarium on the site. [41186]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that the owners of county hall intend to open an aquarium on the site. If the proposed aquarium is to be open to the public for more than seven days a year, it would need to be licenced under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. It would be for the London borough of Lambeth to decide whether to issue such a licence. I understand that the council has not so far received an application from the Shirayama Group.

  If the owners wished to import for display at the aquarium any species covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild and Fauna and Flora, they would need to apply for an import permit from my Department, and, for some species, an exemption certificate permitting the display of such specimens. We have received no CITES applications from the group.

  Particulate Matter
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total and percentage source contributions to United Kingdom PM10 particulate matter from(a) diesel cars, (b) petrol cars, (c) petrol light goods vehicles, (d) heavy goods vehicles, (e) buses, (f) domestic heating, (g) bonfires, (h) power stations and (i) other industry. [41193]

  Mr. Clappison
  The most recently published UK inventory of emitted PM10 was published in the second report of the quality of urban air review group in December 1993, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Of a total of approximately 250,000 tonnes of PM10 emitted in 1991, diesel cars accounted for 1 per cent., petrol cars 9 per cent., petrol light goods vehicles 1 per cent., heavy goods vehicles 12 per cent., buses 2 per cent., domestic heating 47 per cent., power stations 7 per cent., and other industry 18 per cent. No information is available on the contribution of bonfires. These proportional contributions apply to the whole of the UK and do not reflect the relative contributions in urban areas or in periods of elevated pollution levels.

  Volatile Organic Compound Controls
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis small service stations will be excluded from the requirements of stage 1 VOC controls for petrol delivery; and when such controls will be introduced. [41192]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under the stage 1 of the EC petrol vapour recovery directive, member states are allowed to grant a derogation from the requirements of the directive to those service stations with an annual throughput of 100–500m3/year—those below this threshold are exempt in any case—which are located in a geographical area or on a site where vapour emissions are unlikely to contribute significantly to environmental or health problems. The implementation date for all other existing service stations of this size is 2004 and as such there is a nine-year delay before the derogation takes affect.
  406
  My Department is consulting industry and other interested parties on how this derogation should be applied.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1421 if he will list the outstanding responsibilities of the London Residuary Body. [41190]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The outstanding responsibilities of the London Residuary Body are to distribute to the London boroughs any remaining sums outstanding, and to make arrangements for the transfer of any residue rights and liabilities to successor authorities.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ask the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea to prepare the accounts of the London Residuary Body in 1995–96; and if he has set a date for the order to wind-up the London Residuary Body. [41180]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The London Residuary Body has an arrangement with the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea to prepare the residuary body's final report and accounts for 1995–96. As to the winding up of the London Residuary Body, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 July 1995,Official Report column 1421.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report column 334, regarding the future of Archway tower, what discussions his Department has had with estate agents regarding the disposal of the lease; and if he will make a statement. [41070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Letting agents appointed by Property Holdings continue to pursue a number of avenues for disposal and are in discussion with the landlords.

  Pollution (Central London)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the results of research undertaken by Warren Spring Laboratory in 1993 into personal exposure to pollution in central London. [41191]

  Mr. Clappison
  The results of the research were published in Warren Spring Laboratory report IR 353(AP) in November 1992 and LR 982(AP) in April 1993. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Mesothelioma and Asbestosis
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how the number of cases of mesothelioma and asbestosis reported in the London borough of Hillingdon exceeds the average figure for England as a whole during the past 25 years; and if he will publish the number of such cases reported for(a) Hillingdon and (b) England as a percentage of the population. [41074]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive maintains registers of deaths in Great Britain for which mesothelioma or asbestosis are mentioned on the death
  407
  certificate. Mesothelioma and asbestosis crude death rates per million population for males and females are given for the London borough of Hillingdon and for England as a whole in the tables.

  Mesothelioma

  Year of death

  Crude death rate per million population

  Hillingdon

  England

  Males

  1976–79

  15

  11

  1980–83

  11

  15

  1984–87

  33

  22

  1988–91

  43

  29

  Females

  1976–83

  3.2

  3.0

  1984–91

  4.2

  4.0

  Asbestosis

  Crude rate per million population

  Year of death

  Hillingdon

  England

  Males

  1978–91

  16

  7.7

  Females

  1978–91

  0.60

  0.75

  The mesothelioma register records a geographical code for area of usual residence at death from 1976 onwards, and the absestos register from 1978 onwards. The latest year for which complete data is available in 1991.

WALES

  Measles-Rubella Immunisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations led to the decision not to include details of each of the known side effects of immunisation in the booklet, "Measles—Why every child in school needs to be protected from measles this autumn," which was distributed by the his Department in Wales. [40658]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The content of the measles booklet was underpinned by research to establish what information parents regarded as most important. This research, conducted by the Health Education Authority, showed that parents were unaware of the seriousness of measles. The final leaflet which was approved by the Measles Immunisation Group, an expert committee comprising a wide range of NHS professionals, reflected parents' information priorities about the need for measles and rubella immunisation.

  Side effects from measles-rubella vaccine are rare, but the more common ones are covered in the booklet. Doctors were given more detailed information on the full range of possible adverse reactions. Parents were advised to discuss any further concerns with their family doctor.

  The measles booklet distributed in Wales was the same as that for the rest of the UK, except that it was bilingual.
  408

  Fire Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent extra resources are made available to fire authorities with a coastline. [41146]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no indicators specific to fire authorities with a coastline in the capital and revenue distribution formulae for 1995–96 and the proposed formulae for 1996–97.

  Motorway Surfacing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway there are in Wales, what percentage of them are surfaced by the new low-noise, no-spray tarmac and what plans he has for(a) all motorways (b) dual carriageways and (c) A roads to be so resurfaced. [41145]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 78 miles of motorway in Wales, of which 7 per cent. is currently surfaced with the new porous material. Further lengths will be resurfaced where the cost can be justified.

  The dual carriageway section of the A4042 Llantarnam bypass currently being constructed will also have the new surface. There are no further plans to use such a treatment elsewhere on trunk roads.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are to improve access to dialysis treatment for renal patients in mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement. [40919]

  Mr. Hague
  Though Wales has one of the highest access rates in Europe for renal dialysis, health authorities and NHS trusts will continue to assess the case for extra provision against need.

  In the case of Mid Wales, I understand that there is a possibility of introducing dialysis facilities at Bronglais general hospital, Aberystwyth along the lines of those currently being provided at West Wales general hospital, Carmarthen. There are also proposals to enhance the existing facilities at Shrewsbury.

  Environmental Industries
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote the growth of the environmental industries sector in Wales. [40962]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Continual efforts are made to highlight opportunities in all industrial sectors through a programme of company visits and awareness raising seminars. A major business and environment campaign is planned which will, among other things, demonstrate business opportunities in the sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the extent of the environmental industries sector in Wales; and if he will list the names of the companies involved. [40963]

  Mr. Jones
  This information is not readily available.
  409

  Charter Trains
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of increases in track access charges on special trains in and to Wales. [41466]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Charter train operators have had to face cost increases. In the past, British Rail provided these services on a marginal cost basis which in effect meant cross-subsidisation with taxpayers' money. Under the new arrangements, charges by Railtrack to charter train operators reflect the full cost of services provided.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Historic Buildings Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the current members of the Historic Buildings Council; what is their defined role and responsibility; who appoints each of them; and how often they meet. [39922]

  Mr. Moss
  The current members of the Historic Buildings Council are:

  Mrs. P. Wilson (Chairman)

  Mrs. D. Corcoran

  Dr. M. Gould

  Mr. S. C. McGuckian

  Ms J. Pyne

  Mr. D. Stelfox

  Mr. T. Brown

  Mr. C. Corry

  Dr. P. Mowat

  Mrs. F. Jay-O'Boyle

  Mrs. J. Smyth

  Mr. J. D. Thompson

  The functions of the council are as follows:

  (a) to give advice on the listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, or amendment of lists so compiled;

  (b) to give advice on the designating of conservation areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearances of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance;

  (c) to keep under review, and from time to time report to the Department on the general state of preservation of listed buildings;

  (d) to advise the Department on such matters relating to the preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest as the Department may refer to it;

  (e) to advise on applications for the exemption of listed buildings from capital transfer tax;

  (f) to advise on the issue of certificates stating that buildings are not intended to be listed;

  (g) such other functions as are conferred on it by any statutory provision.

  All members of the Historic Buildings Council are appointed by the head of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  The Historic Buildings Council usually meets on a monthly basis.
  410

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 1995,Official Report, columns 1119–20, if he will now confirm and update the figures on private patient income. [39952]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows income from private patients for each health and social services board for 1994–95. This information has been extracted from the 1994–95 accounts of the health and social services boards. These accounts are as yet unaudited and therefore the figures supplied may be subject to change.

  In my previous reply, I provided unaudited figures for trusts for 1994–95. The trusts accounts have now been audited and I can now confirm these figures.

  Private patient income for each health and social services board—1994–95

  Health and social services board

  Total private patient income 1994–95

  £

  Northern Board

  314,791

  Southern Board

  23,343

  Eastern Board

  0

  Western Board

  179,037

  Total — Northern Ireland

  517,171

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [39951]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested for health and social services trusts for 1993–94 and 1994–95 years is outlined in tables 1 and 2. For the years in questions there were no trusts in either the Northern or the Western health and social services board areas.

  Table 1: Private patients income 1993–94

  HSS Trusts

  Total private patient income £000

  Total income £000

  Private patient income as a percentage of total income Per cent.

  Eastern Board Area

  Belfast City Hospital

  412

  78,765

  0.52

  Eastern Ambulance

  1

  6,491

  0.02

  Greenpark

  315

  41,414

  0.76

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  1,308

  113,621

  1.15

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals

  463

  48,951

  0.95

  Southern Board Area

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  227

  42,048

  0.54

  Total—Northern Ireland

  2,726

  331,290

  0.82

  411

  Table 2: Private patients income 1994–95

  HSS Trust

  Total private patient income £000

  Total income £000

  Private patient income as a percentage of total income per cent.

  Eastern Board Area

  Belfast City Hospital

  426

  81,463

  0.52

  Down and Lisburn

  46

  75,649

  0.06

  Eastern Ambulance

  8

  7,052

  0.11

  Greenpark

  371

  44,953

  0.83

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  16

  17,429

  0.09

  North Down and Ards Community

  0

  31,485

  —

  North and West Belfast Community

  0

  65,192

  —

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  1,366

  121,370

  1.13

  South and East Belfast Community

  27

  75,286

  0.04

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospitals

  413

  52,269

  0.79

  Southern Board Area

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  142

  42,791

  0.33

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  0

  28,130

  —

  Community Newry and Mourne

  159

  39,344

  0.4

  Total—Northern Ireland

  2,974

  682,413

  0.44

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 the those agencies. [39857]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In January, I had one meeting with the head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. I met him again, once in February, twice in June and once in October.

  I met the chief executive of the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland in April 1995.

  Ballywalter Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to make secure the grounds of Ballywalter primary school. [39927]

  Mr. Ancram
  The South-Eastern education and library board has no plans to make additional security provision at Ballywalter primary school.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what method of appeal is available to property owners who dispute a historic building preservation order; and if the appeals body is independent of the Department of the Environment. [39920]
  412
  Mr. Moss
  There is no legislative provision giving a right of appeal against the decision of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to list a building as being of special architectural or historic interest. However, any person may make representations to the Department that a building should cease to be listed on the grounds that it is not of special architectural or historic interest, and such representations are carefully considered. Where an application for listed building consent to carry out alterations is refused, the applicant may appeal that decision to the Planning Appeals Commission, which is independent of the Department.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Historic Buildings Council has produced a register of the buildings currently listed with it for circulation to the public. [39921]

  Mr. Moss
  The Historic Buildings Council does not have a register of listed buildings. The official lists are prepared and held by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. A copy of the relevant lists is sent to divisional planning offices and district councils, where they may be inspected by the public. A full list is also available for inspection in the monuments and buildings record at the public office of the Environment Service of the Department at 5/35 Hill street, Belfast.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many properties have received historic buildings preservation orders since 1974 in(a) Belfast; and (b) Northern Ireland excluding Belfast; how many are grade A, and how many are grade B; what criteria are used to determine which grade; what criteria are used to reach decisions as to whether to list; and what process is undergone in determining the listing of buildings. [39919]

  Mr. Moss
  Since 1974 some 1,018 buildings in the Belfast area have been listed of which 35 are category A and 983 are category B. The number of buildings listed since 1974 elsewhere in Northern Ireland is 7,057 of which 157 are category A and 6,900 are category B.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is responsible for listing buildings of special architectural or historic interest; the criteria for listing include the building's age, condition, style, aesthetic quality, structural system, any innovatory architectural qualities, and its historic importance.

  The listing process includes a physical survey of the building, the application of the listing criteria and consultations with the local district council and the Historic Buildings Council.

  Ardmillan Bay (Pollution)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to clear up the environmental pollution at Ardmillan bay in Killinchy, County Down, and if he will make a statement. [39926]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has been investigating water quality in Ardmillan Bay, Killinchy and recently wrote to a developer who is responsible for a private sewage treatment plant discharging into the bay. Subsequently, the Department's environment service took a statutory sample of the effluent emanating from this treatment plant and enforcement action will be considered, as appropriate.
  413
  The environment service will continue to monitor the situation. The Department's water executive would be prepared to adopt this sewage treatment works and sewers if the developer brings these up to the required standard.

  Grant-giving Funds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [38605]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 30 October 1995,Official Report, columns 48–49.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [40859]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: 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 £

  Northern Ireland office and NI departments

  4,669–9,826

  4,669–10,279

  Agency

  4,669–9,826

  4,669–10,279

  Non-departmental public body

  4,669–8,878

  4,669–8,878 (currently under review)

  The highest full-time salary fell within the band:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Northern Ireland Office and NI Departments

  95,000–99,999

  95,000–99,999

  Agency

  52,704–62,817

  55,000–82,500

  Non-departmental public body

  95,001–100,000

  95,001–100,000

  Domestic Electricity Supply
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many households are estimated to be without a mains electricity supply. [41204]

  Mr. Ancram
  Figures from the 1994–95 continuous household survey suggest that 0.3 per cent. of households in Northern Ireland are not connected to an electricity supply. The 1991 census recorded a total of 530,000 households in Northern Ireland.
  414

  School Transport
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to have discussions with the education and library boards concerning open enrolment and related school transport policy. [40263]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have no plans for discussions with the education and library boards about open enrolment policy. However, my Department is currently engaged in consultations with board officials about the home-to-school transport arrangements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's 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. [40517]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information required to answer the question fully is not held centrally. Since 1992, the Department and its agencies have conducted periodic surveys of performance against the Government's target of 30 days for the payment of invoices. Four surveys have been carried out, covering all invoices paid during specific periods. Those surveys show the percentage of invoices paid within 30 days as follows:

  1991–92: 82.5 per cent.

  1992–93: 83.4 per cent.

  1993–94: 89.4 per cent.

  1994–95: 93.9 per cent.

  The target for this financial year is 95 per cent. A new survey is under way, but the results are not yet available.

  Information relating specifically to small businesses and for earlier years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Lord Chancellor is now responsible for four agencies: the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. Information relating to the Court Service is included above, as it became an agency only after the period covered by the information available; and information relating to the Public Trust Office is included up to the time it acquired agency status in July 1994. In respect of the Land Registry, the Public Record Office, and the Public Trust Office from July 1994, the question concerns operational matters on which the chief executives are best placed to provide answers. I have accordingly asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 26 October 1995, regarding the

  415
  number of invoices from small businesses which were not paid within 30 days of receipt over the last five years.
  The Public Trust Office became an Executive Agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department on 1 July 1994, prior to which the departmental Headquarters maintained these records on our behalf. We have maintained our own records since becoming an Agency and one month sample of invoices are checked each year to establish how many were paid on time. For the monthly sample for 1994 of 129 invoices 109 (ie. 85%) were paid within terms. Whilst this figure excludes HMSO invoices it does not specifically refer to small businesses, to do so would be at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mrs. Barbara Roche, 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 prompt payment of invoices due to small businesses.
  The Public Record Office has not systematically recorded its performance in paying invoices nor which of its suppliers are small businesses, over the last five years. The answer to your question could therefore be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  In eight months of 1994–95, it monitored its performance in paying invoices and found that 98% were paid within 30 days.
  Other occasional monitoring exercises over the last five years have produced similar results.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mrs. Barbara Roche, 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 instances in which the Land Registry has failed to pay invoices to small businesses within 30 days in each of the last 5 years.
  Records of the size of the supplier are not maintained and therefore I am able only to supply details of all late payments to both large and small businesses. These relate to credit periods up to and including 30 days. In the years 1993/94 and 1994/95 sampling indicated that the annual numbers of such payments were as follows:

  1993/94: 2019 (8 per cent.)

  1994/95: 2954 (10 per cent.)

  In the majority of these cases, payment was delayed whilst verification was sought relating to queries on the invoices. Payment was effected once such queries were satisfied.
  Details for the previous three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department how he proposes to proceed with the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. [41753]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill was timetabled to complete its stages in the House of Commons on the basis that it was uncontentious. This has proved not to be so. Contentious points have arisen during the last stages of this parliamentary Session. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has listened to the concerns expressed about the Bill, and he is considering them. The timetable is such, however, that it is now impossible to make further progress this session. My right hon. and noble Friend will continue to work on the Bill with a view to bringing it back before Parliament as soon as possible.
  416

  Information Technology Systems (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have been taken to secure the confidentiality of information technology systems, and accountability to the judiciary, in the course of the implementation of the Government's private finance initiative in the(a) county court system and (b) Crown court system. [39909]

  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 2 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the confidentiality and accountability of information technology systems introduced within the Government's Private Finance Initiative.
  Any contractor will have to ensure that information systems serving the county courts and the Crown Court provide confidentiality and support to all who use the systems. They will be operated within the framework provided by the appropriate Rules of Court and other legislation.

  Local Office County Court System
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what administrative processes and support functions are included in the statement of service requirements of the local office county court system. [39911]

  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 what administrative and support functions are included in the LOCCS Statement of Service Requirements.
  The Statement of Service Requirement for the Local Office County Court System procurement project requires bidders to submit proposals for:

  provision of the CaseMan service;

  provision of the County Court central information systems service;

  provision of the County Court Information Systems Development Service.

  Bidders may, if they choose, offer to provide other information systems services and other related support services to the Court Service and Lord Chancellor's Department, subject to the restrictions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the companies shortlisted for the bidding process for the local office county court system project. [39910]

  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.
  417
  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 the companies shortlisted for the LOCCS project.
  The following have been shortlisted for the Local County Court System (LOCCS) Procurement Project:

  Electronic Data Systems Limited;

  SEMA Group plc;

  Siemens Business Services Limited;

  Unisys Limited.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which companies have been shortlisted for the bidding process for the local office county court system; and what are the criteria for the involvement of the private sector in this process. [39913]

  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 2 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the companies shortlisted for the bidding process for the local office county court system and the criteria for private sector involvement in this.
  The Requirements of the Local County Court System (LOCCS) Procurement Project were advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community. The following have been shortlisted:

  Electronic Data Systems Limited;

  SEMA Group plc;

  Siemens Business Services Limited;

  Unisys Limited.

  Since the cost of meeting the requirements will exceed the Department's financial delegation the Government requires the Department to test the availability of private finance under the Private Finance Initiative. The fundamental principles of the Private Finance Initiative are that:

  the private sector contractor must assume genuine risk, and;

  value for money must be demonstrated for any expenditure by the public sector.

  Contracting Out (Court Service)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department at what stage in the process of the contracting out of services relating to the Court Service it is required under schedule 16 to the Deregulation and Contracting Oct Act 1995 that the senior judiciary be consulted; on what occasions such consultations have taken place; and in respect of which services. [39912]

  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 2 November 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the judicial consultation required under the above Act when contracting out services.
  418
  The Lord Chancellor is required to consult the senior judges before making an order under the provisions of Schedule 16 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1995. No such consultations have yet taken place.

  European Court Decisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of the Attorney-General of 30 October, column 12, relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, if he will list those European Court decisions relating to responsibilities of his Department over the past two years; and what was the estimated annual cost to public funds of each decision. [41219]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available. The question will be answered in detail by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the Army's personnel, pay and pensions administration. [41642]

  Mr. Soames
  As originally announced to the House by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 2 November 1993,Official Report, column 124, the Army's pay and personnel administration functions are to be considered for defence agency status. A prior options study is therefore being undertaken to determine whether agency status would be appropriate. If agency status is agreed, then the organisations that will be considered for inclusion within the prospective agency are the Army personnel centre, which now includes administration of Army pensions as well as pay and personnel, and which will be fully formed in Glasgow by mid-1997, and a substantial part of the Adjutant General's information centre, Worthy Down, Winchester.

  Phosphorous Canisters, Kintyre
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the wounding of Gordon Baillie of Kintyre by a phosphorous canister on 20 October. [40792]

  Mr. Soames
  We have been investigating the source and origin of the phosphorous devices which have been washed ashore recently. They are very old and decayed and have proved difficult to identify. Defence experts now believe that they probably formed part of the filling for second world war incendiary devices. There is no record of such devices being dumped but investigations are continuing.

  Gordon Baillie received burns to his right hand and arm on 20 October after handling one of these devices which had been washed ashore near his home. A Royal Navy explosive ordnance disposal team attended the scene within 20 minutes of the incident having being reported and dealt with the remains of the device. The local authorities in the area have issued extensive material

  419
  warning the public of the dangers, and the Royal Navy teams and other emergency services involved in the operation to dispose of these items are making every effort to eradicate the risk of such an incident occurring again.

  Disbanded Regiments (Funds)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how regimental funds of disbanded regiments are disbursed; and what regard is paid to outstanding liabilities before funds are so disbursed. [40392]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is set out in chapter 15 of the service funds Army regulations, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Outstanding liabilities should be identified and settled before its residual funds may be disbursed.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [38597]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for National Heritage on 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 186.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the Gurkha troops are in the ranks of the Parachute Regiment; [41097]

  (2) what percentage of the ranks of the Parachute Regiment are occupied by Gurkha troops. [41098]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no Gurkha troops currently serving in the Parachute Regiment.

  Armed Forces Medical Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of medical services for the armed forces. [40428]

  Mr. Soames
  Changes to the defence medical services, which were announced last year as part of "Front Line First", will be largely complete by April 1996. The resulting organisation will be able to meet the future requirement for efficient and effective medical support for the armed forces.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of(a) surgeons and (b) anaesthetists currently employed by the armed forces; what is the most current assessment of need for the Defence Medical Services for (a) and (b); and if he will make a statement. [40434]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 117 surgeons and 64 anaesthetists serving in the regular armed forces. The requirement for surgeons and anaesthetists from 1 April 1996 will be 116 and 95, respectively. The shortfall in anaesthetists is being addressed.
  420
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Cambridge military hospital and its present contribution to health services for the armed forces. [40432]

  Mr. Soames
  Closure of the hospital will take place by April 1996 as previously announced. Its health care services in support of the armed forces are being transferred progressively to the Royal hospital, Haslar, the Duchess of Kent military hospital, Catterick, and the Ministry of Defence hospital units, including that at the Frimley Park hospital, which are being established under the reorganisation of the defence medical services.

  Bases (US Use)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the change of control to the US Army intelligence and security command at Menwith Hill station falls within the remit of the terms of the War Office/US air force agreement of 11 December 1951. [40874]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment on the confidential arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America concerning the use of Menwith Hill station by United States forces. While Her Majesty's Government retain legal possession of the Menwith Hill site and control over the use that is made of its facilities, it is for the United States Department of Defense to decide the personnel assignment arrangements required to meet the operational objectives of the station.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there is any intention to use American security police in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence police at Menwith Hill station to secure this base. [40875]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what legal basis the National Security Agency of America is operating and controlling the Menwith Hill station base. [40876]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Government has made the site available for the use of forces of the United States of America by arrangements which are appropriate to the comity which exists between the two allied powers for their mutual defence and defence of their allies.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the National Security Agency of America operates at RAF Mildenhall, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Feltwell and RAF Molesworth. [40877]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Government have made these sites available for the use of forces of the United States of America. It is not our policy to comment in further detail on operational matters.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the commanding officers or heads of establishment at RAF Lakenheath; RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Molesworth. [40879]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Government have made these sites available for the use of United States forces. the names of the United States commanding officers at these bases are as follows:
  421

  RAF Lakenheath: Colonel D.F. MacGhee, United States air force

  RAF Mildenhall: Colonel J.W. Morehouse, United States air force

  RAF Molesworth: Lieutenant Colonel G.B. Evans, United States air force.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of the administrative arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the base at Menwith Hill station. [40880]

  Mr. Soames
  The site at Menwith Hill has been made available to the United States visiting forces and their civilian component in accordance with the agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic treaty of 1951 and other arrangements which are appropriate to the relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and the United States for the purposes of our common defence.

  Civil Trespass
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what powers the Ministry of Defence police have in respect of civil trespass. [40878]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry of Defence police have the same powers of arrest as the Home Department police force in respect of trespass. They also have powers under military lands byelaws.

  Royal Welch Fusiliers, Bosnia
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions took place between British commanders, his Department, the United Nations and UNPROFOR before the deployment of troops from the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde on the task set for the Royal Welch Fusiliers operation there; [41201]

  (2) what discussions took place between British commanders, the United Nations and UNPROFOR about changing the mandate of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde during the operation; [41200]

  (3) what mandate the Royal Welch Fusiliers were operating under when they arrived in Gorazde; and what changes were made, to that mandate during their deployment. [41198]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Welch Fusiliers, deployed to Bosnia as part of the British contribution towards UNPROFOR, were operating under the UN's humanitarian and peacekeeping mandate for the duration 422
  of their tour. Discussions took place both prior to and during their deployment on a range of subjects including the unit's tasks. Restrictions were subsequently placed on some operations in order to reduce the risk to the troops concerned.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment and armour the troops of the Royal Welch Fusiliers took into Goradze at the beginning of their operation; what additions were made; and for what reasons. [41199]

  Mr. Soames
  On deployment to Gorazde the Royal Welch Fusiliers were equipped with Saxon armoured personnel carriers, anti-tank weapons, 51mm mortars, general purpose machine guns and standard infantry small arms. This equipment was subsequently supplemented with heavy machine guns and smoke grenades to enhance the level of protection afforded to British troops.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what request was made by(a) his Department or (b) commanders of the Royal Welch Fusiliers for reinforcements or additional armaments during the Royal Welch Fusiliers operation in Goradze; and what was the response. [41197]

  Mr. Soames
  There were no requests for reinforcements. Additional armaments requested and supplied were heavy machine guns and smoke grenades.

  Telephone Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) the Army and (b) the Navy are permitted by his Department to monitor public cellphone networks; and if he will make a statement. [40970]

  Mr. Soames
  The services are permitted to conduct telephone monitoring where it is designed to ensure that security regulations are being observed by military users. These activities are governed by the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  European Armaments Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the conclusions of the meeting of 20 October of the Western European Armaments Group concerning the development of a European Armaments Agency. [40969]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At their meeting of 20 October, the national armaments directors of the Western European Armaments Group noted the considerable progress made towards developing the structure under which a possible European Armaments Agency could be established.
  423

TREASURY

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total tax relief paid to those in receipt of private medical insurance in each year since the introduction of the scheme; how much has it cost to administer the scheme in each year; and how many people have claimed relief; [37231]

  (2) what is the estimated annual cost to the Exchequer of the provision of private medical insurance as a perk to employed persons due to the tax exemption for those earning less than £8,500. [37233]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: Information on the total tax relief and number of people claiming the relief for private medical insurance premiums in each year since the start of the scheme, is given in the table.

  Tax relief on private medical insurance contracts for individuals aged 60 or over

  Year

  Approximate number of contracts

  Approximate number of individuals covered

  Cost of tax relief (£ million)

  1990–91

  350,000

  500,000

  40

  1991–92

  350,000

  500,000

  60

  1992–93

  350,000

  500,000

  70

  1993–94

  375,000

  550,000

  80

  1994–95

  375,000

  550,000

  95

  1995–961

  375,000

  550,000

  110

  1 Provisional.

  Changes in the scheme announced in the Finance Act 1994 included restricting the tax relief to the basic rate. This has meant that the total cost of the relief in 1994–95 and 1995–96 is lower than it would otherwise have been. Administrative costs were estimated to have been about £150,000 a year up to 1994–5 but, again as a result of the Finance Act, costs have now fallen to an estimated £50,000 in 1995–96. Information on the annual Exchequer cost of providing this relief to employees with earned income including benefits, of less than £8,500 a year is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings there have been since 1 September 1993 between the Chancellor or another Minister in the Treasury and representatives of private health insurance companies; and what was the subject matter of each meeting. [37232]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: Treasury Ministers have meetings with representatives of a broad range of commercial organisations from many sectors, including the private health insurance industry. Since 1 September 1993, a number of meetings with representatives from the private health insurance industry have taken place, covering a wide variety of issues.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been made of the cost of extending private medical insurance tax relief to those policies specifically designed to cover long-term care needs. [39382]
  424
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this stage of the Budget cycle.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent meeting with the Paymaster General and hon. Members concerning duty on tobacco products. [39287]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: I recently saw the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), Easington (Mr. Cummings), Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and heard their representations concerning duty on tobacco products.

  Oil Taxation Office
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed with the Inland Revenue's oil taxation office in Scotland(a) full time and (b) part time. [39663]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The Inland Revenue oil taxation office is located in London. It employs 41 full-time and two part-time staff, and deals with the corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax affairs of UK oil and gas producers and associated concerns. A number of Inland Revenue offices in Scotland are responsible for other oil-related matters. These include PAYE matters, the liabilities of divers, and the income tax and corporation tax liabilities of oil industry support concerns based in Scotland. The total number of Inland Revenue employees in Scottish tax and collection offices is approximately 5,700. No information is centrally available on the number of staff in Scotland whose work is related to the oil industry, and obtaining this information would involve disproportionate cost.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor Exchequer how many petitions for bankruptcy have been begun by his Department for businesses with under 500 employees in each of the last five years. [40504]

  Mr. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: The total number of petitions for bankruptcy in 1995 is two. No petitions for bankruptcy were begun in any of the previous five years.

  Late Payment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [40503]

  Mr. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: The Treasury aims to pay all legitimate invoices within 30 days, irrespective of the size of the business concerned. Records of the promptness of payment for the past five years are not maintained, but over the last three years the following percentage of invoices were not paid within 30 days.

  1993–94: 14 per cent.

  1993–94: 18 per cent.

  1995–96: 14 per cent.

  425
  Most of these invoices were delayed due to problems associated with the particular suppliers, such as an error in the invoice or failure to deliver the goods or service.

  Immoral Earnings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for failure to pay income tax and national insurance while living off immoral earnings in each of the last five years. [40579]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: This information is not available.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on the retail prices index of(a) raising insurance premium tax to 5 per cent., (b) giving a £50 rebate to each electricity customer and (c) raising fuel and tobacco duties by (i) 5 per cent. (ii) 3 per cent. in real terms. [40768]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The estimated RPI effects are:

  Per cent.

  RPI

  RPI Ex MIPs

  Raising insurance premium tax:

  to 5 per cent.

  0.03

  0.03

  £50 rebate to each electricity customer1

  Raising fuel duties:

  by 5 per cent. real (8.9 per cent, nominal)

  0.22

  0.23

  by 3 per cent. real (6.9 per cent, nominal)

  0.17

  0.18

  Raising tobacco duties:

  by 5 per cent. real (8.9 per cent, nominal)

  0.24

  0.25

  by 3 per cent. real (6.9 per cent, nominal)

  0.18

  0.19

  1 The size and timing of any effect of a rebate to electricity customers depends on how the rebate is effected. Assuming the rebate qualified as a price reduction for RPI purposes and that the full rebate was made to all households in the same quarter, then the effect of a £50 rebate to all domestic electricity consumers in the United Kingdom would be to reduce the all items RPI by between 1 and 1½ per cent, by the end of the quarter. A one-off rebate would have a temporary effect only; if there were no other changes the index would return to its previous level by the end of the following quarter.

  Housing Investment Trusts
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he proposes to make an announcement on the detail of the tax provisions for housing investment trusts; [40765]

  (2) if he will estimate the revenue cost in a full year of allowing financial institutions to invest in privately rented property through the housing investment trusts proposed in the paper, "Our Future Homes", assuming that the trusts pay no capital gains tax for gains within the trust and pay corporation tax at the rate of 25 per cent. [40766]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this stage of the Budget cycle.
  426

  Tax Simplification
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Inland Revenue on the report on tax simplification in accordance with clause 160 of the Finance Act 1995; and what is the estimated date of publication of this report. [40733]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue is preparing its report on tax simplification and this will be presented to Parliament and published before the Christmas recess.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed by businesses employing(a) 0–9 employees, (b) 10–99 employees and (c) 100–499 employees in each year since 1979; and if he will break these figures down by (i) region, (ii) ethnicity and (iii) gender. [40965]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on the number of people employed in workplaces with one to 10, 11 to 49 and 50 or more employees is available from the labour force survey for Great Britain, annually between 1984 and 1991 and quarterly from spring 1992 onwards. It can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Tax Bands
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of introducing a new 30 per cent. tax band on £3,000 of income above the basic rate band; and what would be the yield from introducing a 60 per cent. upper rate at a 40 per cent. rate limit of(a) £50,000, (b) £70,000 and (c) 100,000. [39105]

  Mr. Jack
  The full-year cost of introducing the 30 per cent. band at 1996–97 levels would be about £590 million compared with an indexed tax regime.

  The table gives the yield from introducing a new top rate of tax of 60 per cent. for taxable income above £50,000, £70,000 and £100,000. These estimates do not allow for any behavioural changes that might result from the introduction of the new tax rate.

  Lower limit of taxable income for 60 per cent, rate £

  Full year revenue yield at 1996–97 levels1 (£ billion)

  50,000

  4.3

  70,000

  3.1

  100,000

  2.2

  1 The figures include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are liable for income tax at the higher level; how many people would be taken out of higher rate tax if the basic rate limit was raised by(a) £500, (b) £1,000, (c) £1,500, (d) £2,000, (e) £2,500, (f) £3,000, (g) £3,500, (h) £4,500 (i) £5,000; and how much of the revenue cost of such a measure would be in 1996–97 and 1997–98 after indexation. [39097]

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that there will be 2.2 million higher rate taxpayers in 1995–96. Providing all of the details sought would involve disproportionate cost. The table gives available estimates for 1996–97 showing the
  427
  variation in the revenue costs and the numbers of people affected over the range of specified increases in the basic rate limit.

  Increasing the basic rate limit by1

  Full year revenue cost at 1996–97 levels2

  Number of people taken out of higher rate

  £

  £ million

  thousands

  500

  170

  100

  2,500

  770

  450

  5,000

  1,400

  760

  1 Compared to an indexed 1995–96 regime.

  2 The estimates include consequential effects on capital gains tax. They do not take into account any behavioural changes which might result from the introduction of the new regime.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are in receipt of profit-related pay; and how many of them are higher rate taxpayers. [39109]

  Mr. Jack
  There are around 2.5 million participating employees in about 10,000 live registered profit-related pay schemes. Reliable information on the distribution of earnings and the numbers of participants at each marginal tax rate is not available.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost in a full year of raising the threshold for inheritance tax by(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £60,000, (f) £80,000 and (g) £100,000, specifying in each case the number of people who would be taken out of tax by the measure. [39096]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year costs of increasing the indexed threshold for inheritance tax by the specified amounts, and the associated reductions in taxpaying estates, are given in the table:

  Raise IHT by threshold

  1996–97full year cost £ million

  Number of estates taken out of tax

  £10,000

  80

  2,500

  £20,000

  150

  4,000

  £30,000

  220

  6,000

  £40,000

  280

  7,500

  £60,000

  390

  9,000

  £80,000

  480

  11,000

  £100,000

  560

  12,000

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) of 11 February 1992,Official Report, column 430, on income tax liability as percentage of gross income. [39106]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates for 1995–96 based on a projection of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes are as follows:428

  Estimated number of taxpayers (thousands)

  Income tax liability as a percentage of gross income1

  Gross income over £100,000

  Higher rate taxpayers

  Less than 35 per cent.

  60

  2,190

  Less than 30 per cent.

  10

  1,970

  Less than 25 per cent.

  —

  1,360

  Less than 20 per cent.

  —

  180

  Less than 15 per cent.

  —

  —

  Less than 10 per cent.

  —

  —

  Less than 5 per cent.

  —

  —

  1Total income for tax purposes.

  Millionaires
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of millionaires in the United Kingdom. [39100]

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to assess precisely the number of living millionaires in the United Kingdom at any one time. The only available estimates are derived from inheritance tax data on a year-of-death basis. Relevant information for 1991–92 is given at the end of table 13.1 on page 128 of Inland Revenue statistics 1995.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the staff of the Treasury were on gardening leave on 1 October and at each previous quarter day from 1 October 1992; and what is(a) the maximum permissible gardening leave that the Treasury allows and (b) the average actually taken. [39333]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Details of the number of Treasury staff on gardening leave—those not working, but excluding those on statutory paid leave, maternity leave or long-term sick leave—by quarter from 1 July 1993 to 1 October 1995 is given in the table. The information for 1 October 1992, 1 January and 1 April 1993 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HM Treasury staff on "gardening leave" by quarter

  Headcount

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1 January

  —

  9

  8

  1 April

  —

  13

  21

  1 July

  6

  10

  19

  1 October

  6

  9

  8

  The marked increase on 1 April 1995 was a result of the Treasury further expenditure review. Following the Treasury's voluntary redundancy programme, the numbers have returned to the usual levels of less than 1 per cent.

  The Treasury does not set limits for the amount of time that staff are on gardening leave but the aim is to keep the amount to a minimum. To that end, we have set in place procedures to allocate project work to staff who are temporarily between postings.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list contracts(a) signed under the private finance initiative over the last six months and

  429
  (b) which he expects to be signed under the private finance initiative over the next three months, and if he will make a statement. [39344]

  Mr. Jack
  The two largest individual contracts that have been signed in that period are for the new national insurance recording system and the Midland Metro light rail project. In addition, the contract to supply a new train service on the Northern line was signed some six and a half months ago. In the next three months, contracts are expected to be signed for, among others, the first tranche of design, build, finance, operate roads, two privately financed prisons and two hospital projects.

  In addition to this, numerous small PFI deals have been signed at local level primarily in health sectors and information technology.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [39865]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Four executive agencies—the Royal Mint, the Valuation Office, Paymaster and the Central Statistical Office—are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. and learned Friend is in contact with the heads of these agencies as appropriate. To date this year, he has met personally the head of the Central Statistical Office.

  Retired People (Income Tax)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of persons over retirement age who paid income tax in the latest financial year for which figures are available; and how many were liable to pay more than £500 in income tax. [40706]

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that in 1995–96 there will be around 10 million people aged 65 or over, about 3 million of whom will pay income tax. Personal allowances available to people aged 65 or over ensure that only 1.8 million will be liable to pay more than £500 in income tax.

  Unemployment (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage unemployment has changed in each of the Sheffield parliamentary constituencies since July 1987. [40979]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Unadjusted claimant unemployment

  Parliamentary constituency

  Percentage change1 July 1987– September 1995

  Sheffield Central

  -33.2

  Sheffield Attercliffe

  -35.2

  Sheffield Brightside

  -32.9

  430

  Unadjusted claimant unemployment

  Parliamentary constituency

  Percentage change1 July 1987–September 1995

  Sheffield Hallam

  -31.8

  Sheffield Heeley

  -34.8

  Sheffield Hillsborough

  -30.9

  Total Sheffield constituencies

  -33.2

  1 The figures are based on unadjusted data and are therefore subject to seasonal influences as well as changes in the coverage of the count.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is the practice of his Department to give prior notice to right hon. and hon. Members when he or a Minister from his Department attends an official engagement or organises an official visit to their constituencies and if he will make a statement. [39156]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Arrangements are in place within my Department to give right hon. and hon. Members notice when I or any other Minister from my Department attends an official engagement or organises an official visit to their constituency.

  Prisoners (Immigration Status)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are in Scottish prisons for reasons related to immigration status. [38830]

  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. Malcolm Chisholm, dated 2 November 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of people held in prison for reasons related to immigration status.
  Information on the number of prisoners held in relation to immigration status is collected on a monthly basis. The average number in August 1995 was 27.

  New Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of land procurement, planning designing, constructing and fitting out the new Scottish Office building; how many additional jobs have been created, both directly and indirectly; what is his estimate of the additional accommodation costs or savings which will be achieved in each of the next 10 financial years; and if he will make a statement. [39165]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The building at Victoria quay was purchased by Property Holdings for incorporation into the government estate at a total cost of £46.925 million excluding VAT, which includes the site, construction and professional fees. Fitting-out costs of approximately £14.5 million for occupational services works are being met by the Scottish Office.
  431
  It is difficult to estimate the effect of the development on jobs. At the peak of construction activity, there was a work force of 600 on site and during fit-out, an average of 140. Fifteen hundred staff and contractors are working in the building and they and visitors to it will provide custom for local businesses.

  My Department estimates that running cost savings of about £3 million a year will be achieved from lower opportunity cost rentals than were payable on the buildings given up, economies of scale, the energy efficient design of the building and its flexibility to respond to changing working patterns. There will also be considerable gains to the operational efficiency of the Department due to the co-location of a large number of staff on a single site.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 those which involved the gel formulation; and if he will make a statement. [39195]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of deaths certified as being due to drug misuse for the years 1990 to 1994 is as follows:

  1990: 136

  1991: 125

  1992: 153

  1993: 209

  1994: 247

  With regard to the number of deaths which were related to the abuse of the drug Temazepam, figures where Temazepam was the sole cause of death are not available. However, for the year 1994 the number of deaths where Temazepam was found was 52. Figures for previous years and the percentage of those which involved the gel formulation are not available.

  All figures are contained in the report "Collection of Information on Drug Related Deaths by the General Register Office for Scotland", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [39183]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Because of the covert nature of the misuse, information on the precise extent of physical injury or damage resulting when Temazepam soft gelatin gel-filled capsules are injected is not held centrally.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [39520]
  432
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested is lengthy, I shall arrange for copies of the lists to be placed in the House Library.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish full constituency data for the new parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. [40207]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. The Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 gave effect to the proposals of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, copies of whose report have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The new constituencies do not come into effect, however, until the next general election. Until then, electoral registration officers have a statutory duty to publish registers according to the present constituencies, but they also make preparations to enable the registers to be adapted for use at the next general election.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of new electrically powered wheelchairs supplied by the national health service in Scotland over the past five years. [40260]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the overall number of powered chairs issued in the last five years is not held centrally. Details of the number of indoor/outdoor powered chairs and indoor powered chairs purchased since the provision of special funding in 1992 are set out.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Indoor/Outdoor

  313

  267

  286

  193

  Indoor

  497

  409

  187

  1 For six months 1 April 1995 to 30 September 1995.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will review the current criteria for eligibility for electrically powered wheelchairs to be provided by the national health service; [40259]

  (2) if he will relax the criteria to enable more national health service patients to qualify for electrically powered wheelchairs in Scotland in future. [40262]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The criteria to determine eligibility for the provision of electrically powered wheelchairs were established in September 1992 in consultation with the clinicians in the artificial limb and appliance centres. Following a review after practical experience of the arrangements, it was decided that these criteria had been too tightly drawn, and they were revised to embrace a wider range of patients. The revised criteria were agreed by all centres in 1994. In view of this recent revision, there are no plans for a further review at present.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of supplying electrically powered wheelchairs by the national health service in Scotland over the past five years; and what plans he has to provide finance for the next three-year period. [40261]
  433
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provision of patient-controlled electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs was announced in February 1992. Initial funding of £2.5 million was earmarked over the following three years to provide around 1,300 electrically powered wheelchairs for use both indoors and outdoors by severely disabled people. The level of funding to be provided in future years is still to be determined.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many category A prisoners are currently in the prison system in Scotland; and how many are in each sub-category. [38841]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: 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. Seamus Mallon, dated 2 November 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of category A prisoners held in prison; and the numbers in each sub-category.
  As at 20 October 1995 there were 20 category A prisoners held in Scotland. Category A is not divided into sub-categories in Scotland.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40748]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost to the Scottish Office of ministerial transport in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1991–92: £234,803

  1992–93: £224,163

  1993–94: £256,270

  1994–95: £292,143

  1995–96: £150,723 (6 months)

  No payments have been made to Ministers for the use of their own vehicles in the past five years.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of which local authorities have benefited from the additional £29 million supplementary capital allocation issued in six bidding rounds between 1991 and 1994 to enable authorities to tackle homelessness; and if he will set out the individual initiatives funded through the allocations, indicating for each individual project(a) the local authority through which the allocation is channelled, (b) the target client group, (c) the number of units provided, (d) the physical type of accommodation, (e) whether the project provides temporary or permanent accommodation, (f) the capital cost of each project, (g) whether the project was funded through the housing revenue account or the non-housing revenue account and (h) which of the six bidding rounds the project is funded through. [40641]
  434
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Between 1991 and 1993, a total of £22.6 million additional capital allocations were made available to local authorities in response to specific bids made by them. In 1993–94 and 1994–95, further supplementary capital allocations of £4.35 million and £2.62 million respectively were provided to allow authorities to accelerate or enhance the investment plans for the homeless contained in their housing programmes. Information on the distribution of these resources is set out in the table which follows. Detailed information on individual projects in the form requested is not held centrally.

  Additional allocations capital £ million

  Local Authority

  HRA

  non-HRA

  Financial year

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.040

  —

  1991–92

  0.050

  —

  1992–93

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.221

  —

  1992–93

  Roxburgh

  0.260

  —

  1992–93

  Tweeddale

  0.204

  —

  1991–92

  0.120

  —

  1992–93

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0.350

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  Falkirk

  0.654

  —

  1991–92

  0.302

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.100

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  Stirling

  0.260

  —

  1991–92

  0.200

  —

  1992–93

  0.110

  —

  1993–94

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  —

  0.228

  1992–93

  0.110

  —

  1993–94

  Nithsdale

  —

  0.100

  1991–92

  —

  0.400

  1992–93

  —

  0.130

  1993–94

  Stewartry

  0.085

  —

  1991–92

  0.125

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.100

  1994–95

  Wigtown

  —

  0.184

  1992–93

  —

  0.150

  1994–95

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  0.065

  —

  1991–92

  0.138

  —

  1992–93

  Kirkcaldy

  0.343

  —

  1991–92

  0.227

  —

  1992–93

  0.174

  —

  1993–94

  North East Fife

  0.165

  —

  1992–93

  0.080

  —

  1993–94

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  0.465

  —

  1991–92

  —

  0.075

  1991–92

  0.350

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  0.350

  —

  1994–95

  Banff and Buchan

  0.200

  —

  1991–92

  0.030

  —

  1994–95

  Gordon

  —

  0.150

  1991–92

  0.240

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  -

  1993–94

  0.050

  —

  1994–95

  435

  Additional capital allocations £ million

  Local Authority

  HRA

  non-HRA

  Financial year

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0.156

  —

  1992–93

  Moray

  0.125

  —

  1991–92

  0.090

  —

  1992–93

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.300

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  0.020

  —

  1994–95

  Caithness

  0.060

  —

  1992–93

  Inverness

  0.160

  —

  1991–92

  0.580

  —

  1992–93

  0.250

  —

  1993–94

  Lochaber

  0.045

  —

  1991–92

  0.227

  —

  1992–93

  0.200

  —

  1993–94

  Nairn

  0.220

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  Ross and Cromarty

  0.400

  —

  1992–93

  0.155

  —

  1993–94

  Syke and Lochalsh

  0.150

  —

  1992–93

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  0.275

  —

  1991–92

  0.346

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  -

  1993–94

  0.120

  —

  1994–95

  Edinburgh

  0.930

  —

  1991–92

  0.681

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.200

  1993–94

  —

  0.200

  1994–95

  Midlothian

  0.450

  —

  1992–93

  0.044

  —

  1993–94

  West Lothian

  0.208

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  0.250

  —

  1991–92

  0.200

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.220

  1993–94

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.124

  —

  1992–93

  Clydesdale

  0.040

  —

  1991–92

  0.270

  —

  1992–93

  0.110

  —

  1993–94

  —

  0.050

  1993–94

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0.032

  —

  1991–92

  0.292

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.130

  1993–94

  —

  0.132

  1994–95

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.285

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  0.120

  —

  1994–95

  Cunninghame

  0.144

  —

  1991–92

  0.405

  —

  1992–93

  0.156

  —

  1993–94

  Dumbarton

  0.413

  —

  1991–92

  0.247

  —

  1992–93

  0.080

  —

  1993–94

  East Kilbride

  0.130

  —

  1992–93

  Eastwood

  0.190

  —

  1992–93

  0.080

  —

  1994–95

  Glasgow

  0.900

  —

  1991–92

  0.775

  —

  1992–93

  0.250

  —

  1993–94

  0.600

  —

  1994–95

  Hamilton

  0.356

  —

  1992–93

  0.200

  —

  1994–95

  Inverclyde

  0.125

  —

  1991–92

  0.100

  —

  1992–93

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0.210

  —

  1991–92

  0.060

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  436

  Additional capital allocations £ million

  Local Authority

  HRA

  non-HRA

  Financial year

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.625

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.150

  1994–95

  Monklands

  0.350

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  0.250

  —

  1994–95

  Motherwell

  0.200

  —

  1991–92

  0.367

  —

  1992–93

  Renfrew

  0.318

  —

  1991–92

  0.600

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.016

  1992–93

  Strathkelvin

  0.160

  —

  1991–92

  0.050

  —

  1992–93

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.290

  —

  1992–93

  Dundee

  0.515

  —

  1991–92

  0.681

  —

  1992–93

  0.221

  —

  1993–94

  Perth and Kinross

  0.456

  —

  1992–93

  0.200

  —

  1993–94

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  —

  0.135

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  0.200

  —

  1994–95

  Shetland

  0.130

  —

  1992–93

  Western Isles

  0.120

  —

  1991–92

  0.220

  —

  1992–93

  Edinburgh

  0.930

  —

  1991–92

  0.681

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.200

  1993–94

  —

  0.200

  1994–95

  Midlothian

  0.450

  —

  1992–93

  0.044

  —

  1993–94

  West Lothian

  0.208

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  0.250

  —

  1991–92

  0.200

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.220

  1993–94

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.124

  —

  1992–93

  Clydesdale

  0.040

  —

  1991–92

  0.270

  —

  1992–93

  0.110

  —

  1993–94

  —

  0.050

  1993–94

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0.032

  —

  1991–92

  0.292

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.130

  1993–94

  —

  0.132

  1994–95

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.285

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  0.120

  —

  1994–95

  Cunninghame

  0.144

  —

  1991–92

  0.405

  —

  1992–93

  0.156

  —

  1993–94

  Dumbarton

  0.413

  —

  1991–92

  0.247

  —

  1992–93

  0.080

  —

  1993–94

  East Kilbride

  0.130

  —

  1992–93

  Eastwood

  0.190

  —

  1992–93

  0.080

  —

  1994–95

  Glasgow

  0.900

  —

  1991–92

  0.775

  —

  1992–93

  0.250

  —

  1993–94

  0.600

  —

  1994–95

  Hamilton

  0.356

  —

  1992–93

  0.200

  —

  1994–95

  Inverclyde

  0.125

  —

  1991–92

  0.100

  —

  1992–93

  437

  Additional capital allocations £ million

  Local Authority

  HRA

  non-HRA

  Financial year

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0.210

  —

  1991–92

  0.060

  —

  1992–93

  0.150

  —

  1993–94

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.625

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.150

  1994–95

  Monklands

  0.350

  —

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  0.250

  —

  1994–95

  Motherwell

  0.200

  —

  1991–92

  0.367

  —

  1992–93

  Renfrew

  0.318

  —

  1991–92

  0.600

  —

  1992–93

  —

  0.016

  1992–93

  Strathkelvin

  0.160

  —

  1991–92

  0.050

  —

  1992–93

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.290

  —

  1992–93

  Dundee

  0.515

  —

  1991–92

  0.681

  —

  1992–93

  0.221

  —

  1993–94

  Perth and Kinross

  0.456

  —

  1992–93

  0.200

  —

  1993–94

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  —

  0.135

  1992–93

  0.100

  —

  1993–94

  0.200

  —

  1994–95

  Shetland

  0.130

  —

  1992–93

  Western Isles

  0.120

  —

  1991–92

  0.220

  —

  1992–93

  1. HRA: Housing revenue account expenditure on authority's own stock.

  2. Non-HRA: non-housing revenue expenditure on other housing provision.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the health services that have been market tested by, or notified to, his Department and won by the private sector indicating(a) the location and (b) the organisation winning the tender. [40619]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The list of contracts won by the private sector following market testing in the NHS in Scotland is set out in the table:

  Health board area

  Service type

  Contractor (Number of contracts)

  Argyll and Clyde

  Hotel Services

  Mediguard (1)

  Painting

  John Miller and Son (4)

  Capital Decorator (2)

  Trident Main Services (1)

  Grounds Maintenance

  Russell Landscape (1)

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Hotel Services

  Mediguard (1)

  Painting

  Baxter and Gillespie (4)

  Moss Painting (2)

  Financial

  Bank of Scotland (1)

  Transport

  Cochrane Leasing (1)

  Turner Hire Drive (1)

  Vehicle

  Maconochies of Kilmarnock

  Maintenance

  (1)

  Supplies

  Meadowhead Stores (1)

  Dumfries and

  Estates

  Crossan Electrical (1)

  Galloway

  Maintenance

  Fife

  Catering

  Sodexho (1)

  General Ancillary

  Initial Healthcare (1)

  Mediguard (2)

  438

  Health board area

  Service type

  Contractor (Number of contracts)

  Grampian

  Domestic

  Mediguard (4)

  Car Parking

  Securiguard Ltd. (1)

  Internal Audit

  Coopers and Lybrand (1)

  Occupational Health

  RGIT Health Ltd. (1)

  Care Management

  CHS (1)

  Greater Glasgow

  Domestic

  Hospital Hygiene (2)

  Sunlight (1)

  Initial Healthcare (4)

  Olscot Ltd. (3)

  Catering

  Sodexho (1)

  Portering

  Sunlight (4)

  Mediguard (1)

  Hospital Hygiene (2)

  Olscot Ltd. (1)

  Painting

  HAT Painting Ltd. (4)

  McLean and Speirs Ltd. (3)

  Fitzroy Building (1)

  Grounds Maintenance

  P and D Services (1)

  CBC Lands Division (4)

  OCS Cleanmaster Ltd. (1)

  Financial

  Bank of Scotland (1)

  Highland

  Laundry

  John O'Groat Co. Ltd. (2)

  Lanarkshire

  Portering

  Sunlight (1)

  Pall Mall Services (1)

  Hospital Hygiene (1)

  Multi-Services

  Sunlight (1)

  Initial Healthcare (2)

  Catering

  Mediguard (1)

  Estates Maintenance

  Serco Services Ltd. (1)

  Painting

  HPC Coating (2)

  Bell Decorating (1)

  Lothian

  Multi-Service

  Sodexho (1)

  Domestic

  Initial Healthcare (1)

  Catering

  Sodexho (1)

  Mediguard (1)

  Hotel Services

  Initial Healthcare (1)

  Painting

  HAT Painting Ltd (1)

  Estates Maintenance

  Drake and Scull (1)

  Engineering

  Drake and Scull (1)

  Shetland

  Hotel Services

  Gardner Merchant (1)

  Tayside

  General Ancillary

  Talorplan (1)

  Car Parking

  Securicor Guard Service (1)

  Laundry

  Gordons (1)

  Wheelchair Technical Support

  Archibald Young (1)

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

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Since the enactment of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, there has only been one case of sequestration, in 1992, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland was the petitioning creditor.

  Anuual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals in(a) his Department,(b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies receive annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeding (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000each year since 1985–86. [40872]
  439
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: 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 individual in my Department or its agencies has received over £100,000 annual remuneration in the specified period. One employee in a non-departmental public body will receive marginally in excess of £100,000 in the financial year 1995–96.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the(a) lowest (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. [40873]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. On this basis, the information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Highest full-time salary £

  Lowest full-time salary £

  Department

  1994–95

  95,000–99,999

  4,000–4,999

  1995–96

  95,000–99,999

  4,000–4,999

  Agencies

  1994–95

  55,000–59,999

  4,000–4,999

  1995–96

  75,000–79,999

  4,000–4,999

  NDPBs

  1994–95

  95,000–99,999

  —

  1995–96

  100,000–104,999

  —

  The lowest salaries in the table are given to 16-year-olds in the most junior grades. Information on the lowest-paid salary paid in an NDPB could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurse Call Bell Systems
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines cover the operation of nurse call bell systems in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [39804]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for individual trusts in Scotland, in the light of local circumstances, to determine their operational arrangements for nurse call systems and to ensure that they are brought to the attention of their staff during training and ward orientation. Technical guidance on call systems is contained in health technical memoranda 2015 "Bed Head Services", a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make a statement for a second round of bidding under the Scottish renewables obligation. [41845]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Following a consultation exercise earlier this year about the first order, the proposed second order would oblige ScottishPower and Hydro-Electric to secure more—about 70 to 80 MW—of their output from 440
  renewable sources. The consultation exercise showed broad support for the Government's approach to developing renewable energy.

  The first order led to 30 quality renewables projects with a total capacity of 76 MW securing contracts with ScottishPower and Hydro-Electric. I am now minded to make a second order under the Scottish renewables obligation in 1996. I hope that this proposed second order will again attract technically sound and innovative projects which will be even more competitive on price. If so, the second order is likely to be about the same size as the first. I see this as an opportunity for the renewables industry to show that it is responding to the challenges which it faces.

  My Department will be issuing further guidance shortly for prospective applicants. The two Scottish public electricity supply companies are currently assembling information and guidelines for parties interested in submitting schemes into SRO2. Applicants are invited to make contact now with the relevant Scottish company ie the one in whose area the development is proposed, to discuss any aspect of the process.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households in Scotland are estimated to be without a mains electricity supply. [41203]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend does not make such estimates.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electromagnetic Radiation (Power Lines)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has been informed of on the relationship between electromagnetic radiation from power lines and cancer; and if he will make a statement. [39809]

  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent advice received about the alleged link between electromagnetic fields from power lines and cancer is a statement issued in March 1994 by the National Radiological Protection Board, based on a set of Scandinavian studies. These studies did not establish that exposure to EMF was a cause of cancer, although they provided some evidence to suggest that the possibility exists in the case of childhood leukaemia. A five-year study of the incidence of childhood cancers, taking into account a range of possible causes, is being conducted by the UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research, the results of which are expected in 1997.

  Trade Union Right Commissioner
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what overseas visits were carried out by the Commissioner for Rights of Trade Union Members and for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action during 1994–95; and what was the cost, duration and purpose of each visit. [40933]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.
  441

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet able to make a statement on the outline arrangements for the fourth round of bidding for electricity from renewable sources of energy, known as NFFO-4. [41647]

  Mr. Page
  Following consultation earlier this year with over 50 associations and individual bodies with an interest in non-fossil fuel obligation orders in respect of renewable energy, I can now announce my outline policy proposals.

  Government policy is to work towards 1,500 MW DNC—declared net capacity—of new renewables-based generation capacity in the UK by 2000—and I shall continue with this broad aim. From current assessments, my Department expects that a total of 900 MW will commission and generate electricity under the first three renewables NFFO orders in England and Wales, from current Scottish and Northern Ireland—Sottish renewable order and Northern Ireland NFFO—orders, from prospective future SRO and NI-NFFO orders, and from capacity built outside NFFO/SRO arrangements. On this basis, a further 600 MW would be required to deliver the 1,500 MW policy and it is likely that this will be met by future orders for England and Wales. However, the working assumption is that only about two-thirds of projects, and capacity contracted under future NFFO arrangements will proceed to commissioning, with the implication that the level of obligations set in future orders beyond NFFO-3 will need to be about 50 per cent. higher than the capacity likely to be commissioned. I therefore expect that new NFFO orders for England and Wales of about 900 MW will be required to deliver the 600 MW of operational capacity. To the extent that it appears in later years that more or less capacity will commission under earlier NFFO orders or outside NFFO arrangements, I shall take that into account in setting the policy for future NFFO arrangements.

  I have considered the representations made to my Department on past and future arrangements, and have taken into account the practical considerations in making a series of further orders. I propose to make a fourth renewables order—NFFO-4—in early 1997 in respect of the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales in their capacity as public electricity suppliers, and one further order in 1998. I currently expect each of these orders to be for approximately 400 MW to 500 MW of new capacity, but will review these levels in the light of further estimates of capacity likely to come forward under the third order—NFFO-3—the quality and cost of the proposal received, and the expected degree of convergence towards the market price represented by those proposals, relative to average and marginal prices paid under NFFO-3. This new round of bidding for electricity from renewables, launched today, is expected to stimulate further convergence between electricity prices under NFFO and the market price for electricity—bringing electricity from renewables closer to the point where they can compete in the open market against conventional generation. I expect proposals to be even more competitive than under NFFO-3. I will be taking into account estimates of the percentage of projects in each technology band likely to go forward to commissioning in NFFO-4, but on the basis of past
  442
  experience would expect the fourth order to lead to construction and operation of a total of 300 MW to 400 MW of new capacity from all technology bands.

  In setting out the prospective technology bands, I have taken into account the extent to which available resources have or would be taken up by existing NFFO contracts, the extent of demonstration provided by those contracts, and the Department's priorities attached to demonstrating the use of other renewable energy fuels and technologies.

  For the NFFO-4 order, I am considering separate bands for new generating stations, based on

  Wind power: split into two bands, ie large windframs and small-clusters/single-machines, but with the split point at less than the 1.6 MW DNC used for NFFO-3;

  Hydro: from stations with a total capacity of less than 5 MW DNC;

  Landfill gas: from licensed sites where tipping was being carried our prior to 22 July 1993;

  Energy crops and/or forestry waste: by gasification-by-partial-combustion or pyrolysis;

  Municipal and industrial waste by fluidised-bed combustion: including the use of non-gaseous sewage-matter (up to 10 per cent. on a dry-weight basis);

  Municipal and industrial waste with combined-heat-and-power technology: including the use of non-gaseous sewage-matter (up to 10 per cent. on a dry-weight basis)

  Agricultural and food-processing waste by anaerobic digestion: food-processing waste limited to a maximum of 20 per cent. on a dry-weight basis.

  During the parliamentary passage of the Environment Bill, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside stressed that the Government attached great importance to CHP schemes to help carry forward their energy efficiency policies. He explained that that was why the Government were seeking a power to include in a future NFFO/renewables order a technology band defined by reference to heat as well as electricity. The Environment Act, with the new power, became law before the summer recess. The new power enables me to consider a band based on municipal and industrial waste with combined heat and power. This gives generators with suitable schemes, with prospects of supplying substantial quantities of heat, the opportunity to bid into a specific CHP band. If suitable schemes come forward at a competitive price, I should be prepared to use the new power to include such a band.

  In order to promote diversity among developers of renewable energy projects, I reserve the right, as in NFFO-3, to limit the number of projects or capacity for which any particular developer can gain contracts in this fourth round of bidding.

  As with NFFO-3, my intention is that the NFFO-4 order should run for 15 to 20 years—as from early 1997. This would enable the RECs to offer generators premium payments for up to 15 years, with the difference between the NFFO contract price and the pool price being financed through the fossil fuel levy, paid by licensed electricity suppliers and reflected in electricity bills.

  I understand that the regional electricity companies expect to select projects through a competitive tendering process and that contracts will be offered to successful bidders at their bid price.
  443
  I am discussing prospective arrangements with the Director General of Electricity Supply and the regional electricity companies, to whom I shall in due course provide further guidance about my proposals in respect of the proposed NFFO—4 order. Confirmation of my outline policy proposals on NFFO—4, and the details of that further guidance to the RECs, will be published shortly in "Renewable Energy Bulletin No 6"—REB—6. I understand that the RECs expect to initiate the competitive tendering process shortly thereafter.

  Those project developers who have not already done so should contact:

  Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau, ETSU, Harwell, OXII ORA

  (tel 01235 432450 or 433601, fax 012335 433131 or 432923 to put their name on the mailing list for REB-6. In addition, those project developers who have not already done so should also register their interest in NFFO-4, by letter or fax to:

  Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd

  Bamburgh House

  Market Street

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  NE1 6BH

  (fax 0191 210 2888 or 0191 210 2887)

  Generators with existing NFFO contracts need not register with the NFPA, as they will automatically be sent a copy of the information notes.

  The Office of Electricity Regulation has considered what site-specific evidence of the extent of the renewable energy resource it will require from developers when making their technical submissions for NFFO-4. I understand that Offer has decided that:
  developers of wind projects will be required to submit evidence of site wind resource over a minimum period of 12 months, which must include at least 13 weeks continual measurement on site which shall include measurements made over a winter period;
  developers of hydro projects will be required to submit evidence of site hydro capacity based on:

  i) the mean flow data for the water course covering a period of at least 15 years, available from the Institute of Hydrology; or

  i) 15-year rainfall data from a given catchment area, making due allowance for adsorption, run-off and evaporation rates, to calculate the river flow at the off-take point for the generating station; or

  iii) on-site data over a period of two years, normalised to the mean average rainfall over a period of at least ten years.

  developers of landfill gas projects will be required to submit evidence of on-site pumping trails over a period of not less than 30 days of continual measurement.

  The municipal and industrial waste with combined heat and power—MIW/CHP—band is intended for schemes which are capable of delivering substantial qualities of heat. I understand that, to this end, Offer has decided that developers of MIW/CHP schemes will be required to provide evidence of conditional contracts to supply heat—such contracts to be conditional upon their schemes being awarded NFFO contracts and going forward to commissioning—when making their economic/commercial submissions to Offer. The
  444
  existence of such contracts will form a part of Offer's will-secure test for CHP schemes.

  Developers will wish to ensure that they can meet these resource-determination/heat-contract requirements, when preparing their submissions.

  The document "Consultation on the NFFO Process—A Summary Report (1995)", which summarises the 53 written submissions, is available from the Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau at ETSU, at the above address.

  The Government expect to decide the policy for the proposed NFFO-5 order after making the NFFO-4 order, in the light of the circumstances at the time. The NFFO-5 order will not necessarily have the same size or technology bands as the proposed NFFO-4 order.

  In line with my Department's policy of stimulating use of electronic communications, this statement is being made available via the Internet on the DTI world wide web "server" at "http://www.dti.gov.uk/nffo".

  Covert Operational Procurement Exhibition
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) financial and (b) other assistance is given by Her Majesty's Government to the COPEX arms exhibition. [40095]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: No Her Majesty's Government financial or other assistance was given to the covert operational procurement exhibition which was held between 31 October and 2 November 1995 at Sandown park.

  Chemical Weapons Bill
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the outcome of the consultation on the draft Chemical Weapons Bill which was published by his Department on 19 July. [41649]

  Mr. Lang
  A revised draft taking account of the comments we have received has been published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Industrial Regeneration Funds
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for allocation of funds from the EU's Resider II programme to United Kingdom steel regions, following his Department's announcement of the UK's share of the EU industrial regeneration funds; and if he will make a statement. [40834]

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission's proposals of 4 October for the use of the European structural funds community initiatives reserve include an extra 60 mecu for the United Kingdom, and Gibraltar, for Konver, Resider, Rechar and Retex together.

  In accordance with articles 11 and 29a of Council regulations 4253/88, as amended by Council regulation 2082/93, the Commission's proposals and draft guidelines for the use of the reserve are to be submitted to the management committee for Community initiatives for an opinion, and for information to the European Parliament; and may then be amended. Only after that will member states be invited by the Commission to send applications

  445
  for assistance. At that stage, which is unlikely to be reached for some months, the Government will decide how they propose to use whatever definitive allocations to the UK have been decided.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force, and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41114]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Breakdown by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—that is, normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Lloyds Bank and Trustees Savings Bank Merger
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects a decision to be made on whether to refer the merger of Lloyds bank and the Trustees Savings bank to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he make a statement. [40948]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently considering the proposed merger and will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board Of Trade how many small businesses in each sector of the economy there were in each year since 1979. [40966]

  Mr. Page
  The most recent estimates of the number of small businesses by sector were published in "Small and Medium sized Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1993" which is in the Library of the House. There are no comparable figures for earlier years.

  Ethnic Minority Business Initiative
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to replace the ethnic minority business initiative. [40964]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has no plans to replace the ethnic minority business initiative following the transfer of funding from the Home Office to the single regeneration budget. Financial support for ethnic minority initiatives continues to be available within the single regeneration budget administered by the Department of the Environment via regional Government offices. Business links have been established to provide a range of help to individual businesses, including ethnic minority businesses.
  446

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money(a) in real terms and (b) when adjusted for inflation has been invested in the loan guarantee scheme in each year since 1982–83. [40967]

  Mr. Page
  The table gives Government expenditure for each year, net of premium income and recoveries, in actual value and adjusted for inflation.

  Small firms loan guarantee scheme net expenditure

  £million

  Actual

  Adjusted to 1994 values

  1982–83

  10.8

  19.1

  1983–84

  27.2

  46.2

  1984–85

  32.9

  53.2

  1985–86

  27.1

  41.3

  1986–87

  11.5

  16.9

  1987–88

  3.5

  5.0

  1988–89

  3.8

  5.1

  1989–90

  5.6

  7.0

  1990–91

  16.5

  18.9

  1991–92

  27.5

  29.7

  1992–93

  19.2

  20.0

  1993–94

  12.8

  13.1

  1994–95

  16.2

  16.2

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running cost limit for 1995–96. [41650]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—programmes and administration—will be increased by £9,512,000 from £1,233,829,000 to £1,233,341,000. This net increase results from:

  (i) the take up of running costs and capital end-year flexibility (£9,470,000, including £200,00 machinery of government transfer from class XVIII, vote 1);

  (ii) expenditure relating to the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory (£1,633,000);

  (iii) capital-related expenditure on videoconferencing (£1,000,000); and

  (iv) other miscellaneous changes (£169,000);

  offset by a reduction in provision to offset a corresponding increase on class IV, vote 4, £2,760,000. This increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Within this total, the gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by £49,665,000 from £314,962,000 to £364,627,000. This change comprises:

  (i) the take up of £6,157,000 in running costs end-year flexibility as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82 offset by £1,253,000 for an increase in VAT refunds (£53,000) and the reclassification of expenditure (£1,200,000).

  (ii) £1,006,000 in respect of the contractorisation of the National Physical Laboratory.

  447

  (iii) machinery of government transfers from the former Employment Department (class V, vote 1) in respect of running costs (£38,849,000) and the Office of Manpower Economic (£1,573,000); and

  (iv) machinery of government transfers from the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service (class XVIII, vote 1) of £5,580,000 offset by transfers to class XVIII, vote 1 from class IV, Vote 1, of £2,247,000.

  As a result of related machinery of government transfers, the DTI also becomes responsible for administering the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service running cost limit of £22,978,000.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 10 (Office of Gas Supply), will be increased by £1,188,000 from £5,352,000 to £6,540,000 and the gross running cost limit by £1,054,000 from £5,136,000 to £6,190,000. The increase is required for additional staff and running costs—as reflected in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Gas Bill—for the additional duties placed on the director general by the licensing provisions of the new gas legislation.

  Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 2 (science programme) will be increased by £8,606,000 from £1,284,246,000 to £1,292,852,000. This increase results from the take up of £5,606,000 in capital end-year flexibility as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82 and of £3,000,000 which is sought to take forward initiatives to strengthen partnerships with industry. This latter increase will be offset by a reduction in the end-year flexibility entitlement on class XVIII, vote 1 (Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service) running costs.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many households in England and Wales are estimated to be without a mains electricity supply. [41202]

  Mr. Page
  According to the English house condition survey of 1991, some 2,000 dwellings were without a mains electricity supply. The Welsh Office estimates that in 1993, less than 0.1 per cent. of households in Wales had no mains electricity supply.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the performance of the Patent Office since it became an agency. [41648]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Since the Patent Office became an agency in 1990, it has consistently met its financial objectives and has successfully introduced accruals accounting. It has reduced overhead costs—that is, the cost of common services, by 46 per cent. over five years—and has substantially reduced its overall cost base. Through savings passed on to the customer, fees have been held steady for the last three years. In addition to these financial improvements, it has focused heavily on quality and standards of service to its customers and was awarded a charter mark in 1993.
  448
  The Patent Office's performance as an agency has won recognition both within the UK and overseas. In recent years delegations from many different countries—Japan, China, Korea, the former Russian States, New Zealand, Canada and the USA—have visited the office to learn about its management and operational procedures. I therefore welcome the fact that Vice-President Gore referred specifically to the success of the British Patent Office as an executive agency in his decision to make the US Patent and Trademark Office the first of a series of agencies to be transformed into a performance-driven, customer-oriented organisation.

HEALTH

  Contraception
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have faxes; and what proportion of general practitioners were faxed with details of the warning on the seven brands of contraceptive pill. [39969]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' advice on oral contraceptives was sent by the Epinet electronic communication system to all directors of public health, who were asked to activate their established cascade arrangements to forward the message to: all family health services authorities to forward to all general practitioners; family planning doctors and nurses; medical directors of all hospital units within the district to cascade to appropriate hospital consultants in particular: obstetricians and gynaecologists; and the chief executive of the health authority. The detailed arrangements for cascading messages are determined locally. Precise information on the number of general practitioners who have faxes and the proportion who received details of the advice by fax is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asthma
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that asthma attacks increase with increases in car pollution, with particular reference to nitrogen dioxide. [39892]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest report of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", was published on 19 October. One of the report's main conclusions was that most asthmatic patients are unaffected by exposure to such levels of non-biological air pollution as commonly occur in the United Kingdom. A small number of patients experience clinally significant effects which occasionally require an increase in medication or attention by a doctor. In commenting specifically on exposure to traffic, the report stated that there was a consistent, although modest, association between exposure to traffic and asthma prevalence in children. Traffic pollution was a plausible explanation though socio-economic and other environmental factors could also play important roles. The report also concluded that nitrogen dioxide levels are
  449
  unlikely to be an important influence on daily variations in asthma occurrence.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been made to the NHS helpline in the Trent regional health authority area for each month since its establishment; and how much has been spent in establishing, publicising and administering the helpline. [39444]

  Mr. Malone
  The tables detail the number of calls which the Trent regional health information service have received since its inception in April 1992 to September 1995 and the full contract price paid to Nottingham community health national health service trust to provide the service.

  The contract price includes the cost of publicising and administering the service. There was an established local health information service in Nottingham prior to the establishment of the national HIS network. The contract price for 1991–93 includes a sum of £66,000 to upgrade accommodation, furnishings and IT software prior to Nottingham community health NHS trust taking responsibility for providing the regional HIS.

  Illustration of the number of calls received by Trent Regional HIS since it was established in April 1992

  Month

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  April

  130

  837

  849

  1,604

  May

  141

  702

  864

  1,799

  June

  118

  731

  1,349

  1,893

  July

  134

  685

  1,052

  1,734

  August

  129

  735

  1,033

  1,717

  September

  285

  941

  1,715

  1,917

  October

  294

  750

  2,111

  n/a

  November

  393

  747

  1,951

  n/a

  December

  217

  466

  1,162

  n/a

  January

  529

  700

  2,023

  n/a

  February

  1,386

  780

  1,776

  n/a

  March

  1,110

  980

  1,916

  n/a

  Total

  4,866

  9,054

  17,801

  110,664

  1 To date.

  Illustrates the contract value between Trent regional health authority and Nottingham community health NHS trust for the provision of the regional freephone HIS

  Year

  Value of contract

  1992–1993

  £177,181 Includes £66,000 contribution towards upgrading accommodation, furniture and IT software.

  1993–1994

  £137,859 Includes £13,810 for an ethnic development outreach worker in Leicester.

  1994–1995

  £149,637 Includes £14,402 for an ethnic development outreach worker in Leicester.

  1995–96

  £155,193

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of active registrations of capitation 450
  patients for dental treatment in (a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield family health services authorities in the age categories (i) nought to two years, (ii) three to five years, (iii) six to nine years, (iv) 10 to 14 years, (v) 15 to 17 years and (vi) under 18 years as at 30 June for each of the last four years; and what was the take-up for each age group per 100 local population for each of the years. [39469]

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

  Salisbury National Health Service Trust
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration underlay the decision of Salisbury NHS trust to defer non-urgent elective admissions from Bath and Wiltshire health commission until April 1996; for what reasons it was able to admit similar patients referred by fundholding general practitioner practices; and what representations(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive have made to the Salisbury trust about this issue. [40714]

  Mr. Sackville
  Non-urgent elective admissions from the health commission for Wiltshire and Bath have not been deferred until 1996. Patients from general practitioners whether fundholders or not are having routine operations at the trust. Routine admissions have been slowed to take account of an unexpected 15 per cent. increase in activity. The national health service executive is working closely with the trust to monitor progress.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40741]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Information for financial years 1991–92 and 1993–94 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the financial year 1990–91 I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 13 December 1993,Official Report, column 474. No allowances have been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles.

  Financial year

  Total amount (£)

  1994–95

  280,536

  1993–94

  281,174

  Blood Service Staff
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the amounts awarded in each of the last three years in performance-related pay to management at the National Blood Authority's plasma fractionation centre; [40700]

  (2) if he will list the amounts awarded in each of the last three years in performance-related pay to management at each of the National Blood Authority's establishment. [40701]
  451
  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the National Blood Authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. J. Adey, the chief executive of the authority, for details.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and total year's experience there of employees who left the national blood transfusion service over the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [39810]

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 496 staff left the national blood service in the year ending 31 March 1995. Their length of service with the national blood service was as follows:

  Number

  Less than a year

  136

  At least 1 year, but less than 5 years

  190

  At least 5, but less than 10 years

  90

  At least 10, but less than 15 years

  25

  More than 15 years

  55

  I understand this staff turnover to be within the normal range in the service, in any one year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on central functions of his Department on(a) staff salaries, (b) consultancy fees, (c) redundancies and (d) recruitment, in each of the last five years. [40695]

  Mr. Sackville
  Separately identifiable running cost expenditure by the Department of Health and its agencies on staff salaries, consultancy fees and recruitment is shown in the table.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Staff salaries

  103

  114

  127

  117

  113

  Consultancy fees

  18.4

  24.3

  18.4

  15.9

  18.5

  Recruitment

  —

  —

  0.80

  0.53

  0.37

  Live births to girls aged under 16 and conceptions to girls aged under 16 leading to maternities or to abortions under the Abortion Act 1967, by health region of usual residence 1985–94

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  England and Wales

  n/a

  1,401

  9,194

  1,365

  9,135

  1,303

  8,782

  1,261

  8,382

  1,317

  England

  n/a

  1,306

  8,684

  1,271

  8,590

  1,215

  8,246

  1,190

  7,922

  1,234

  Health Region:

  Northern and Yorkshire

  n/a

  229

  1,422

  244

  1,329

  199

  1,371

  233

  1,339

  240

  Trent

  n/a

  149

  994

  156

  961

  152

  927

  135

  907

  146

  East Anglia and Oxford

  n/a

  106

  813

  106

  816

  99

  720

  94

  749

  103

  North Thames

  n/a

  135

  942

  130

  936

  132

  900

  125

  823

  121

  South Thames

  n/a

  144

  995

  134

  963

  136

  863

  131

  861

  121

  South and West

  n/a

  132

  980

  117

  1,018

  127

  928

  120

  918

  129

  West Midlands

  n/a

  172

  1,215

  157

  1,155

  160

  1,111

  138

  1,029

  160

  North West

  n/a

  239

  1,323

  227

  1,412

  210

  1,426

  214

  1,296

  214

  Wales

  n/a

  95

  510

  94

  545

  88

  536

  71

  460

  83

  452
  The Department has had no compulsory redundancies. The cost of voluntary early requirements in 1994–95 was £700,000.

  Cambridge Military Hospital
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what additional resources will be made available to(a) North Hampshire health commission or (b) Bath and Wiltshire health commission to take account of the cost of transferring care for NHS patients from the Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot, and the RAF hospital, Wroughton, to NHS provider units. [40715]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am aware of the difficulties faced by North and Mid Hampshire health commission following the decision by the Ministry of Defence to close the Cambridge military hospital. The health commission has kept me in close touch with its programme for reproviding the Cambridge military hospital services.

  The implications for the NHS of the closure of the MOD hospitals are currently being discussed between the health commissions and the NHS executive.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Cambridge military hospital and its present contribution to health services for NHS patients. [40433]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given today by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The local health authorities are currently working closely with local national health service trusts and general practitioners to ensure that there is no break in local services and these services are provided to patients charter standards.

  Conceptions and Births
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) conceptions and (b) births by region and nationally, among girls under the age of 16 years in each of the last 10 years. [40683]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Full data for 1994 are not yet available.
  453

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  Conceptions

  Live births

  England and Wales

  8,634

  1,306

  7,822

  1,426

  7,254

  1,314

  7,243

  1,403

  n/a

  1,353

  England

  8,111

  1,231

  7,362

  1,335

  6,786

  1,241

  6,790

  1,325

  n/a

  1,251

  Health Region:

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,413

  265

  1,274

  245

  1,156

  233

  1,160

  243

  n/a

  201

  Trent

  898

  152

  849

  160

  828

  173

  818

  156

  n/a

  164

  East Anglia and Oxford

  724

  84

  642

  111

  583

  97

  522

  97

  n/a

  90

  North Thames

  845

  118

  839

  130

  790

  120

  755

  143

  n/a

  121

  South Thames

  904

  136

  773

  150

  762

  129

  812

  150

  n/a

  137

  South and West

  938

  117

  778

  120

  695

  125

  717

  117

  n/a

  127

  West Midlands

  1,046

  136

  987

  171

  922

  157

  911

  190

  n/a

  200

  North West

  1,343

  223

  1,220

  248

  1,050

  207

  1,095

  229

  n/a

  211

  Wales

  523

  75

  460

  91

  468

  73

  453

  78

  n/a

  102

  >

  Boundaries are as at 1 April 1994.

  Data for England and Wales do not include evente to mothers who are normally resident outside England and Wales.

  Conceptions not leading to maternities or to abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 are not included in the statistics, as information about them is incomplete.

  Burials and Cremations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bodies were buried or cremated by local authorities under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 in each of the past five years. [40587]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been killed by someone who has recently had psychiatric care(a) in 1995 and (b) in each year since 1979. [41109]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Chilled Foods
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Ministry is taking to ensure that chilled foods are safe to eat when bought.from retailers. [38928]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are committed to maintaining high standards of food safety. Revised Food Safety (Temperature Control) Regulations 1995 were brought into force on 15 September 1995. Under the regulations, chilled foods which are likely to be harmful to health, because they support either the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms or the formation of toxins, must be kept at a maximum chill temperature of 8 deg. C. This requirement applies to food retailers. The regulations are enforced at local level by environmental health officers employed by local authorities.

  Neuroleptic Drugs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the results of the prescription and use of neuroleptic drugs for mentally ill people. [39668]

  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction of neuroleptic drugs has been one of the most significant advances in psychiatry, facilitating the introduction of modern methods of care and enabling many mentally ill people to lead fuller and more productive lives.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died following 454
  inappropriate prescription or dosage of neuroleptic drugs in each year since 1992–93. [39669]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on 27 April,Official Report, column 621.

  Neurosurgical Units>
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of neurosurgical facilities in Sussex. [39801]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 8 June,Official Report, columns 307–308.

  Power Lines
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his assessment is of the risk to health of electromagnetic radiation from power lines; and if he will make a statement; [39800]

  (2) what research has been performed on the relationship between electromagnetic radiation from power lines and cancer; and if he will make a statement. [39803]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, columns 1274–75.

  Nurse Call Bell Systems
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines cover the operation of nurse call bell systems in NHS trust hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [39802]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for individual trusts to determine operational policies for nurse call systems in the light of local circumstances. Technical guidance is published in health technical memoranda 2015 "Bed Head Services", a copy of which will be placed in the Library shortly.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average pay rise of NHS chief
  455
  executives for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [39806]

  (2) what guidelines are in effect concerning the salary and employment conditions of NHS trust chief executives; and if he will make a statement. [39807]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on average pay rises of national health service chief executives is not available centrally. For those staff employed on the national terms and conditions for general and senior managers, basic salaries were last increased by 2.2 per cent. from 1 September 1994. The effect on the pay scales is set out in health service guideline, HSG(95)7, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS trust boards are accountable for the proper appointment, appraisal and remuneration of their senior executives and, as in all their functions, boards must have regard to the public service values of accountability, probity and openness enshrined in the codes of conduct and accountability issued to NHS boards in April 1994. The code of accountability requires all national health service boards to establish a remuneration and terms of service committee to exercise proper control of executive board members' remuneration.

  Needles
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make needles for the use of administering insulin available on prescription; and if he will make a statement. [39805]

  Mr. Malone
  Disposable syringes with attached needles are already available on general practitioner prescription.

  Hospitals (Voluntary Fundraising)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total income to the NHS from voluntary fundraising in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [40431]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the final destinations of all blood products from United Kingdom donors which have been sold abroad; and if he will make a statement; [40435]

  (2) if he will list all blood products by type, from United Kingdom donors, which have been sold by Bio-Products Laboratory; and if he will make a statement. [40436]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Bio-Products Laboratory, which is part of the National Blood Authority, offers surplus blood products for sale abroad only after national health service demand is satisfied. The only blood product where present availability significantly exceeds NHS demand is albumin, although small quantities of factor 8 and factor 9 are sometimes surplus to NHS requirements. The products are exported worldwide. This avoids waste of a valuable resource and keeps down costs to the NHS. The alternative would be destruction.
  456

  Medical Cost Inflation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define medical cost inflation; and what has been the rate of medical cost inflation in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [40416]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no measure of medical cost inflation. Health service specific inflation is calculated as a combination of hospital and community health services pay and price inflation. Pay inflation is defined as the change in units costs for HCHS staff weighted by the share of expenditure on each staff group. Price inflation is defined as the change in the prices of goods and services in the health service weighted according to the share of expenditure on each area.

  The table shows HCHS inflation from 1984–85 to 1993–94.

  Year

  HCHS inflation estimate

  1984–85

  5.8

  1985–86

  4.9

  1986–87

  7.0

  1987–88

  8.5

  1988–89

  10.6

  1989–90

  6.3

  1990–91

  8.7

  1991–92

  10.1

  1992–93

  6.9

  1993–94

  3.4

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the regional variations in the percentage of general practitioners that have become fundholders. [40920]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby South (Mrs. Beckett) on 24 May,Official Report, column 597.

  Anderson Fabry Disease
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment is available through the national health service for patients with Anderson Fabry disease; at which NHS trusts treatment can be obtained; and if he will make a statement. [40921]

  Mr. Sackville
  Anderson Fabry disease is a rare inherited disorder of metabolism for which there is no known cure. Treatment of the various symptoms of the disease is a matter of clinical judgment and varies according to the individual case. The availability of services for such treatment is a matter for local determination.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people of pensionable age have made formal complaints of wrongful detention under the mental health Acts in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [40922]
  457
  Mr. Bowls
  We do not collect this information, but I am advised by the Mental Health Act Commission, which has the statutory duty of protecting the interests of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, that in its experience it is extremely rare for a patient to be detained illegally.

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many orthopaedic operations will be subcontracted to other hospitals by Bradford Hospitals NHS trust; [41072]

  (2) what has been the percentage change in funding available to Bradford hospital NHS trust in the current financial year; and what has been the increase in operations required to be carried out. [41071]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are matters for Bradford Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Rodney Walker, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are awaiting hip replacement operations in Bradford; and what is the average waiting time. [41075]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Bradford health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Zahida Manzoor, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timescale for recruitment of the target number of orthopaedic surgeons required by Bradford to meet the demand for orthopaedic operations. [41073]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham CBE, chairman of the authority, for details.

  GP Lists
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from their doctor's list by decision of the doctor in each of the last five years. [37636]

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were removed from general practitioner lists by family health services authorities; and if he will indicate the reasons for their removal in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [40664]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Available data held centrally relate only to the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 and are contained in health service indicators, a copy of which is in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid
  458
  to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies. [41078]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1 November by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 324.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [41077]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1 November,Official Report, column 324 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the compliance costs for small businesses of regulations introduced since April 1992. [40480]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available. As part of its approach to producing good regulation, the Government have adopted the deregulation task force's principle of "think small first" which means making sure that regulations will not have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. The Government have incorporated the "small business litmus test" as part of the compliance cost assessment procedure to give practical effect to this principle which is carried out on all regulatory proposals which impact on business. The results of the test are included in individual compliance cost assessments on regulatory proposals which are available in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulations carried into law since 1979 have been identified by the deregulation unit as suitable for repeal. [39845]

  Mr. Freeman
  We have identified over 1,000 regulations for amendment or repeal, but information about the date each regulation was carried into law is not centrally held. By adopting the deregulation task force's principles of good regulation—"think small first", proportionality, and goal-based regulation—we aim to get regulation right first time. We believe that the effects of legislation should be regularly monitored and reviewed and changes made if they are justified.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [38596]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 1 November,Official Report, columns 186–87.
  459

  Recruitment
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have been received in the last five years for civil service posts at executive officer grade or above from applicants aged over 45 years; and how many of those were from women. [40212]

  Mr. Horam
  Since 1991 such departments and agencies have been responsible for their own recruitment, within the framework laid down by the civil service order in Council 1995 and the recruitment code issued by the Civil Service Commissioners. Figures on applicants are not centrally collected. However, in the past five years among external applicants to "fast stream" posts, the average proportion of women applicants has been 41 per cent., and in the last year women have made up 10 per cent. of external applicants for posts at the current grade 5 level and above. No figures are available about the number of applicants aged over 45 years.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of applications for civil service posts at executive officer grade or above in the last five years by persons aged 45 years or older were successful; and how many of those were from women. [40213]

  Mr. Horam
  Figures on applicants are not centrally collected. However in the last five years more than 18 per cent. of entrants to the civil service at executive officer level and above have been age 45 and over.

  Year

  All entrants at EO level and above

  Of whom aged 45 and over

  Of whom over women

  1990–91

  8,524

  1,344

  173

  1991–92

  7,041

  1,228

  165

  1992–93

  5,845

  1,037

  163

  1993–94

  5,159

  1,055

  114

  1994–95

  4,322

  998

  139

  I can add that over the last five years, in external recruitment to "fast stream" posts, women have formed an average of 41 per cent. of applicants and 37 per cent. of successful applicants. In the last four years, women have made up 45 per cent. of successful external applicants for senior appointments. Equivalent figures are not available about the number of applicants aged over 45 years.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been(a) applied for and (b) spent under objective 3 of the European structural fund. [40932]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994:

  (a) applied for from the Commission, final total - £352,842,016

  (b) paid to applicants so far—£290,645,724

  460

  1995:

  (a) applied for from the Commission so far—£207,949,790

  (b) paid to applicants so far £139,068,016

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions her Department has had with lending banks and building societies regarding the provision of student loans. [41131]

  Mr. Forth
  Such talks have taken place and are continuing. It would be premature to discuss the details now, but any announcement relating to them will be made to the House at the appropriate time.

  Skill Needs Survey
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what was the original date for intended publication of the "Skill Needs in Britain 1995" survey; and when it is now expected to be published. [40931]

  Mr. Forth
  It was originally planned that the work of this survey should be completed by the end of September. It is now expected that the contractor will publish the report in December.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Egg Production
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in getting the Commission to move forward its review of the use of battery cages in egg production. [38927]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has pressed Commissioner Fischler to bring the matter forward during 1996. The Commissioner has indicated that he will try to do this.

  Western Waters
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in securing adequate control measures for access to the western waters. [38937]

  Mr. Baldry
  The agreement at the Fisheries Council last week was a considerable negotiating success in which our essential concerns were met. The control arrangements which will operate in western waters from 1 January 1996 are realistic and will allow effective monitoring and control with a significantly reduced burden on fishermen compared with what would have resulted from the Commission's original proposals.

  Fishing
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to involve United Kingdom fishermen in discussions on future developments in the industry. [38938]
  461
  Mr. Baldry
  I hold frequent meetings with representatives of the fishing industry and it is my intention to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on a regular basis as well as visiting ports and meeting local fishermen.

  Norwegian Territorial Waters
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels have fished in Norwegian territorial waters in the past three years; and what estimate he has made of the number of fishing vessels from other member states of the European Union fishing those grounds. [38940]

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of UK vessels that have fished in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone are:

  284 in 1992

  271 in 1993, and

  248 in 1994.

  We are seeking from the European Commission equivalent figures for other member states.

  Mushrooms
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to promote British mushrooms. [38941]

  Mr. Boswell
  We promote mushrooms and all other British produce at every opportunity.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate the EU Commission has published about CAP spending in 1996; and what is the legal limit of such spending. [38943]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1996 draft budget for common agricultural policy expenditure has been set at the level of the guideline of 40,828 million ecu or £34,069 million. This is the legally binding ceiling on CAP expenditure.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of CAP fraud were recorded in the EU in 1994. [38945]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994, there were 1,610 cases, valued at £313 million, of CAP irregularities, which include fraud, reported across the Community.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the CAP in 1996. [38950]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1996 draft budget for the common agricultural policy has been set at the level of the guideline of 40,828 million ecu, £34,069 million. The CAP also imposes a cost on consumers but the scale of this cannot be assessed in advance.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the average change in the price of foodstuffs arising from the common agricultural policy. [41448]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Recent reports that the prices of milk, sugar and beef are more than doubled by the common agricultural policy are exaggerated and misleading. They appear to be based on an inaccurate 462
  understanding of the OECD's consumer subsidy equivalent. This is a measure of the subsidy element in farm gate prices and relates to the degree to which farm gate prices exceed reference or "world" prices. The recently published estimates wrongly apply the CSE percentage for various commodities to retail prices instead of to farm gate prices. Because the farm gate price is only a fraction of the retail price, the effect of the CAP on the latter is necessarily considerably lower. This would be smaller still if it were possible to take account in calculating CSEs of the fact that world prices would be higher in the absence of the CAP.

  We have placed in the Library a note demonstrating that overall costs of the CAP to United Kingdom citizens in 1993 were about £4 per person per week, of which about £3 is due to higher food prices. Even this estimate is likely to be on the high side because the effects of the CAP on world prices have not been taken into account. However the cost of the CAP, and its effect on food prices, is one of the reasons why the Government are pressing for its reform.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the level of hill livestock compensatory allowances. [38946]

  Mr. Boswell
  On 26 October, I met the members of the Hill Farm Advisory Committee. The level of hill livestock compensatory allowances was discussed. Later today, Agriculture Ministers will meet representatives of the farming unions in the context of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands which considers the rates of payment and conditions for the HLCA scheme in the approaching year. In addition, officials have met a number of other organisations whose members have an interest in the HLCA scheme to hear their views on this subject.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in the importance of hill livestock compensatory allowances to the maintenance of communities in remote areas. [38949]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is difficult to determine precisely the importance of hill livestock compensatory allowances to the maintenance of communities in remote areas. However, the deadline in the labour force on agricultural holdings in the less-favoured areas over recent years has been slower than the decline in other areas. The contribution which the HLCA scheme makes to hill farm output has declined from 9 per cent. in 1992–93 to 6 per cent. in 1994–95. Other direct subsidies are now much more significant than they were; direct headage payments to livestock farmers in the hills and uplands are expected to amount to £615 million, of which £107 million will come from HLCA payments.

  Fish Conservation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that control systems applicable to fish conservation measures are equally applicable throughout EU countries. [38947]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission is responsible for ensuring that member states have in place effective
  463
  systems for monitoring compliance with the common fisheries policy. its powers of audit were enhanced in 1993 and the Commission will shortly be reporting on the enforcement performance of member states during 1994.

  Dairying
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the dairy industry to discuss employment levels in the industry. [38948]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister regularly meets representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the dairy sector, to discuss issues of importance to them.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are in place to prevent meat from animals with tuberculosis from entering the human food chain. [38931]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 deal comprehensively with the meat supply aspects of this important issue of food safety and consumer protection in Great Britain.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural land is currently in food production; how many acres this represents; and if he will make a statement. [39340]

  Mrs. Browning
  The provisional results for England from the June 1995 agricultural census show an estimated 8,818,000 hectares, of land to be devoted to crop production, involving bare fallow, grassland and rough grazing. This is 90 per cent. of agricultural area. The remaining 10 per cent. 995,000 hectares is accounted for by set-aside scheme land, woodland and all other land on agricultural holdings.

  Statistics of previous years are available in "The Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will apply to the structural fund for a subsidy for British fishermen for loss of fishing opportunities owing to inadequate quotas. [40601]

  Mr. Baldry
  Structural fund assistance may be used only to finance measures to offset the loss of income suffered as a result of a temporary cessation of fishing activities caused by unforeseen and non-repetitive events. Under the principle of relative stability, the UK has a guaranteed percentage share of the annual total allowable catches agreed in EU and north Atlantic waters. But the actual level of TACs reflects the pressure of fishing effort on available stocks. The UK is providing a total of £53 million for decommissioning to help reduce this pressure.
  464

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all Forestry Commission woods currently for sale in England; and if he will make a statement on the targets for the disposal of land by(a) area and (b) projected income. [40675]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary for Scotland 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 1997–98, the Forestry Commission plans to sell about 15,000 hectares of forest land in each of the next three years, and expects to receive a total of about £60 million from the sale of forest land and surplus properties during that period. The Commission expects about 15 per cent. of these sales to be in England.

TRANSPORT

  Road and Bridge Maintenance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of kilometres of motorway renewed, (b) the number of kilometres of trunk road renewed, (c) the number of bridges assessed for structural capacity and (d) the number of bridges strengthened by his Department in each of the financial years since 198990 including plans for the current year. [41194]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 2 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, if he will list (a) the number of kilometres of motorway renewed, (b) the number of kilometres of trunk road renewed, (c) the number of bridges assessed for structural capacity and (d) the number of bridges strengthened by his Department in each of the financial years since 1989–90 including plans for the current year.
  The information requested for financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 can be found in "Transport Report 1994—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97", Cm 2506, presented to Parliament in March 1994. For subsequent years the figures are as follows:-

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 plans

  Motorway renewal (nlks1)

  234

  277

  134

  Other Trunk Road renewal (nlks1>)

  293

  563

  261

  Bridges assessed

  1,793

  1,254

  820

  Bridges strengthened

  46

  164

  86

  1 Nearside lane kilometres.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1995 to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice),
  465
  Official Report, column 865, what percentage of people taking the driving test fail after the (a) first, (b) second, (c) third, (d) fourth, (e) fifth, or (f) at their sixth or subsequent attempts. [41058]

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

  Letter from B. L. Herdan to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of people taking the driving test who fail. We do not routinely collect this information as it does not directly affect the operation of the Agency.
  For consistency of testing, and in fairness to the candidate, it is preferable if the examiner is not made aware of the number of previous attempts a candidate has made at a test. The overall failure rate on driving test in the last two financial years was:

  1993–94: 52%

  1994–95: 53%

  As part of our third Customer Survey, completed in March this year—the results of which were published in July, we asked a random sample of all our customers whether it was their first test or a repeat attempt. Of 1,187 people in the sample who had recently taken their driving test, 29% (340) had just failed and of these failures 26% (88) were at the first attempt, 34% (114) at the second, 21% (72) at the third, 9% (30) at the fourth, 6% (19) at the fifth and 5% (17) were at their sixth or subsequent attempt.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the results of his survey on illegally operated heavy goods vehicles; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [41196]

  Mr. Norris
  A report on the Vehicle Inspectorate's survey of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles will be made available by the end of this year. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Artillery Ranges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1995,Official Report, column 1323, when he will write to his hon. Friend; [41034]

  (2) when his research project at the Transport Research Laboratory on the effects on drivers of sudden noise from artillery ranges will be completed. [41132]

  Mr. Watts
  The Transport Research Laboratory has completed its research programme and expects to finalise its report shortly. The Highways Agency will provide my hon. Friend with a copy of the report as soon as it is available.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of contracts awarded and their value for major improvement schemes on the trunk road and motorway network in each financial year since 1989–90, including plans for the current year. [41195]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  466
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 2 November 1995:
  As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, to list the number of contracts awarded and their value for major improvement schemes on the trunk road and motorway network in each financial year since 1989–90 and our plans for the current year.
  The number and value of contracts for major improvement schemes awarded in each of the past 5 financial years is shown in the table below. The contracts included are those worth in excess of £5m and the total contract values are those at the time of contract award.

  Financial year

  Number of contracts

  Value of contracts

  1990/91

  27

  £515m

  1991/92

  20

  £500m

  1992/93

  14

  £543m

  1993/94

  29

  £762m

  1994/95

  13

  £555m

  Our plans for the current year are set out in Annex B of the Agency's Business Plan for 1995/96 a copy of which I enclose for your information.I also enclose a copy of the first Annual Report of the Highways Agency which sets out the progress made in the first full year of its existence.

  Shipping (Waste Audit)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce mandatory checks, by way of a waste audit, for all ships calling at British ports. [40412]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: 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. David Hinchliffe, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about mandatory checks, by way of a waste audit, for all ships calling at British Ports.
  Internationally agreed regulations within the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) require that properly maintained oil record books are available for inspection on ships. Oil tankers are required to carry records of their cargo and bilge pumping operations whilst other ships are required to have a record of bilge pumping. To ensure that these requirements and other safety measures are met, the United Kingdom (UK), in co-operation with European neighbours, has introduced port state control procedures. Under these procedures port state control inspectors can, by examining the book, trace the fate of all oils loaded on board ships.
  Recent amendments to the international regulations (MARPOL 73/78) include a requirement for garbage record books. The UK has been at the forefront of that development and it is anticipated that requirements will be transposed into UK statute when they come into effect in 1997. Other recent amendments to MARPOL 73/78 will call for additional monitoring of potentially polluting shipboard operations. The effects of those amendments will be audited to establish whether further controls are necessary.

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department,

  467
  (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [40869]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly the highest and lowest full time salaries fell within the following bands:

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  Central Department

  Highest

  95,000 to 99,999

  95,000 to 99,999

  Lowest

  under 5,000

  5,000 to 9,999

  Agencies

  Highest

  100,000 to 104,999

  100,000 to 104,999

  Lowest

  under 5,000

  under 5,000

  Information for non-departmental public bodies is not immediately available and I will write to you separately with those figures.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [40868]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: 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 pension scheme, staff receive benefits in accordance with the scheme rules which have been deposited in the Library of the House. In the Department and its agencies only one person currently receives an annual remuneration above £100,000. This was also the case in 1994–95 and 1993–94. Before that no-one received £100,000 or more. No one has received £200,000 or above.

  Information for non-departmental public bodies is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member separately with those figures.

  Oil Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to prevent tankers dumping oil at sea following the recent pollution incident at Flamborough Head. [39337]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: 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. Elliot Morley, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the recent pollution incident at Flamborough Head.
  The UK operates routine aerial surveillance to detect and deter illegal discharges. This was identified by Lord Donaldson in his report on the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping as an important tool in deterring vessels from discharging illegally.
  468
  The UK, as a member of the Bonn Agreement, works closely with other contracting States to conduct joint surveillance of the North Sea. At the forth North Sea Conference in June, Ministers agreed to work on ways of making aerial surveillance a more effective deterrent against illegal discharges. The UK is also committed, together with other North Sea states, to the aim of designating the North Sea a special area for the purposes of oil pollution. Special area status will mean that all oil discharges in the North Sea will be illegal once the agreement is implemented.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been killed while travelling on board United Kingdom ferries over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [40303]

  Mr. Norris
  Four.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are employed on ferry safety inspections; and if he will make a statement. [40304]

  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 2 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of staff employed on ferry safety inspections.
  All Marine Safety Agency (MSA) surveyors, with the exception of fishing vessel surveyors, are available to carry out port state and flag state inspections, but the number of surveyors engaged on inspections will vary from district to district according to the availability of ships for inspection and other duties. Surveyors are not restricted to carrying out inspections within one district. Concentrated inspections involve surveyors from outside the region in which the inspection takes place and the team inspecting fish factory ships anchored off Lerwick may be comprised of surveyors from regions outside Scotland. For this reason, it is more accurate to give figures not by district, but for the MSA as a whole.
  In 1994/95, 75 MSA surveyors were engaged in survey and inspection work, out of a total of 129 surveyors in post.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to limit night flights in the south-east; what is(a) the current and (b) the proposed fine for flying at the wrong hours and on the wrong course. [40712]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend may specify restrictions on aircraft taking off or landing at aerodromes designated for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The only airports so designated are Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. For all other airports, such as Luton and London City, night restrictions may be imposed voluntarily by the airport operator or may be imposed by planning conditions.

  Since 24 October 1993, night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted have comprised a maximum number of movements which can be made at each airport each season with a quota, related to an aircraft's noise classification on take-off or landing, as a supplementary control designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. The movements limits and quotas apply during the night quota period from 2330 to 0600. There are also restrictions on the noisiest types of aircraft from 2300 to

  469
  2330 and from 0600 to 0700 to provide further protection. Further details are set out in the annex to my announcement of 16 August 1995, a copy of which was placed in the House Library. Monitoring returns are provided by the airport companies to their respective airport consultative committees.

  At the designated airports, my right hon. Friend also prescribes noise preferential departure routes and sets noise limits for departing aircraft. There are no statutory powers to penalise poor track keeping on the noise preferential routes. Financial penalties for infringements of the noise limits are imposed by the airport companies under their charging powers. The financial penalties for breaches of the night noise limit-102 PNdB, 89 dBA—are £500 for exceeding the limit by 3dB or less and £1,000 for breaches of more than 3dB. On 3 October, we published a consultation paper proposing a 2dB reduction in the night limit and a 3dB reduction in the daytime limit plus an improvement in monitoring efficiency by increasing the number of noise monitors and improving their location.

  City of Nottingham Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes will take place on transport matters when the city of Nottingham becomes a unitary authority; and if he will make a statement. [40914]

  Mr. Norris
  On becoming a unitary authority, the city of Nottingham would become a highway and traffic authority, with direct responsibility for the local roads in its area. In exercising these and its existing responsibilities we would expect the new authority to work closely with its neighbours at the strategic level to deliver improved local transport services.

  Robin Hood Railway Line
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on the Robin Hood railway line of price competition between bus companies covering the route; and if he will make a statement. [40913]

  Mr. Norris
  I am aware of the very keen price competition between bus operators covering the route of the Robin Hood line, in particular between Hucknall and Nottingham. Nottinghamshire county council, which has sponsored the reopening of the Robin Hood line, is closely monitoring the position.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money(a) his Department, (b) the EC, (c) the county council, (d) local councils and (e) other partners have put into the Robin Hood line to date; and what amounts will have been paid by the completion of the line. [40987]

  Mr. Norris
  The capital cost of constructing stages 1 and 2 of the Robin Hood line has been around £23 million. My Department has so far provided £6.5 million from the coal regeneration fund towards the construction of stage 2 and £367,000 towards the construction of Bulwell station in stage 1. Around £4.5 million is expected from the EC and the majority of the remainder 470
  has been provided by Nottinghamshire county council, which is the sponsor of the scheme, with contributions from the district councils. My Department is currently considering the case for further resources to cover capital cost increases on stage 2.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policies exist or are proposed to transfer the functions of traffic wardens to local authorities. [40983]

  Mr. Norris
  The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for the decriminalisation of most non-endorsable on-street parking offences and for local authorities to take over enforcement responsibilities from traffic wardens. The new arrangements apply in all London boroughs, although traffic wardens continue to enforce parking controls on red routes. The Government published guidance in May this year for local authorities outside London on how to apply to the Secretary of State to take on this responsibility.

  Local Authority Transport Policy Funding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have taken place in the Government's policy on financing local authority transport policies since 1979. [40981]

  Mr. Norris
  The most recent change in the Government's approach to the financing of local transport was the introduction of the package approach to funding in 1994–95. This enables local authorities to submit bids for packages of measures covering all forms of transport, and to do so in partnership with each other if they wish.

  Information on earlier changes to the local transport financing system could be produced only at disproportionate cost. My Department publishes guidance on funding to local authorities in its annual transport policies and programme circulars, copies of which are deposited in the Library of the House.

  Nottingham Light Rapid Transit System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions are outstanding by his Department that are delaying the building of the light rapid transit system in Nottingham. [40984]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has, at present, no outstanding decisions to make on the Nottingham express transit scheme. DOT officials have provisionally agreed Nottingham's section 56 appraisal and look forward to working closely with the recently appointed NET project development group over the coming year. Government funding for this scheme will of course depend on confirmation of the case for funding, the resources available at the time and the quality of competing bids for other local transport schemes.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what grant-giving funds his Department is
  471
  responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38610]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to the answer given by the Minister for National Heritage on 31 October 1995,Official Report, columns 186–87.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring is in place to ensure that any fracturing of the strata due to compressive forces, or from other causes, as a result of the construction and subsequent use of the new Severn bridge is brought to(a) his Department's and (b) public attention; what investigations were undertaken prior to its construction to determine the risk of damage to underlying strata and fresh water resources; and what indemnity has been agreed to cover any such damage and for the Government to undertake corrective measures. [40139]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William Ross, dated 2 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 guarantees or undertakings for compensation where given by the Government to (a) contractors, (b) companies and (c) consultants involved with the construction and use of the new Severn Bridge crossing in respect of (i) pollution and (ii) future pollution to the supply of fresh water from the aquafissure Big Spring Severn Tunnel for supply to industrial and commercial undertakings.
  No guarantees or undertakings for compensation were given by Government to any of the contractors, companies or consultants involved in the construction and use of the new Severn Bridge in respect of pollution or future pollution to the supply of fresh water from the Great Spring.
  Any claims for compensation arising out of a breach of the Concessionaire's obligations under the Concession Agreement would be met by the Concession Company, Severn River Crossing Plc, under the terms of its Concession Agreement with the Secretary of State.
  This situation applies both during the construction period and for the duration of the subsequent operation period which under the terms of the Concession Agreement is for a maximum of 30 years from April 1992.
  Guarantees, undertakings and assurances in relation to monitoring and/or compensation were however given during the passage of the enabling legislation, the Severn Bridges Act 1992, to third parties who could be adversely affected by any pollution to the fresh water in the Great Spring that was attributed the construction of the new Severn Bridge. Such parties included British Rail, Welsh Water, NRA and Messrs Whitbreads.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what guarantees or undertakings for compensation were given by the Government to(a) contractors, (b) companies and (c) consultants involved with the construction and use of the new Severn bridge crossing in respect of (i) pollution and (ii) future pollution to the supply of fresh water from the aquafissure Big Spring Severn tunnel for supply to industrial and commercial undertakings. [40142]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  472
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William Ross, dated 2 November 1995:
  As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring is in place to ensure that any fracturing of the strata due to compressive forces, or from other causes, as a result of the construction of, and the subsequent use of the new Severn Bridge is brought to (a) his Department's and (b) public attention; what investigations were undertaken prior to its construction to determine the risk of damage to underlying strata and fresh water resources; and what indemnity has been agreed to cover any such damage and for the Government to undertake corrective measures.
  Monitoring systems are in place to monitor the effects of the new bridge on both the Severn Rail Tunnel and the Great Spring. These are provided by Severn River Crossing (SRC) Plc under the terms of the Concession Agreement. The regular and frequent results of the monitoring exercise are provided to all parties concerned including their Government Agent on behalf of the Secretary of State. There are no specific arrangements to bring the results of the monitoring to the attention of the public.
  The Government commissioned consultants to report on the risks and likelihood of damage to the Great Spring prior to the project being put out to tender. The Consultant's view that the risks would be minimal was accepted.
  It would be for SRC to take corrective action should any damage occur as a result of a breach of their obligations under the Concession Agreement. The Concessionaire is required to hold the Secretary of State fully protected and indemnified in respect of any such damage.
  If no breach was involved then the onus and cost would fall on the Government.

  Traffic Generation Report
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes evaluated or re-evaluated so far in the light of the traffic appraisal unit's guidance following the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report on traffic generation have been treated as complex or less complex in terms of guidance. [40588]

  Mr. Watts
  So far, the Highways Agency has considered 56 schemes in the light of the SACTRA report on induced traffic. The provisional assessments indicate that 12 are complex, 26 are intermediate and 18 are simple.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many schemes currently in the national road programme he expects to categorise as complex when they are evaluated in the light of the guidance from the traffic appraisal unit following the SACTRA report on traffic generation. [40590]

  Mr. Watts
  In respect of the national road programme as a whole, the Highways Agency is undertaking SACTRA-induced traffic assessments for all schemes at the appropriate stage in their preparation. So far, 12 of the 56 schemes considered have been provisionally assessed by the agency as complex. But it would not be right to extrapolate that trend to the whole programme, in which there are approximately 300 active schemes. The induced traffic assessments have to be done on a scheme-byscheme basis and we will not know the overall picture until this work has been completed.
  473

  Solent Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the inspector considering the Western Solent inquiry has, if the Western Solent comes under the control of a competent harbour authority, to direct that authority to make arrangements for the transfer of buoyage and the waiving of light dues for Isle of Wight ferries and other vessels. [40369]

  Mr. Norris
  The inspector would have no powers to direct any harbour authority to arrange for the transfer of buoyage responsibilities or the waiving of light dues for any vessel.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels on the United Kingdom register of fishing vessels are owned by interests based in the Netherlands. [39364]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  474
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 2 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about he number of UK registered fishing vessels owned by interests based in the Netherlands.
  Unfortunately this information is not available. When the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993 came into force on 21 March 1994, the only eligibility requirement for companies wishing to register fishing vessels on the UK register was that they be incorporated in a member state of the European Economic Area with a place of business in the UK. It is therefore no longer necessary for the Register of Shipping and Seamen to know the nationality of shareholders and thus the information you require is not collected.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to the sixth report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, "The Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Exceptional Hardship", HC270. [41506]

  Sir George Young
  The Government responded yesterday to the Chairman of the Committee. A copy of the response has been placed in the Library.

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

School Playing Fields
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many local authorities and grant-maintained schools have sold their playing fields during the past five years, and whether they will take steps to stop this practice.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, our policy is that playing fields must be retained where needed, and we shall retain statutory minimum area standards for them. While we do not collect information from local education authorities about disposals, grant-maintained schools may only dispose of a playing field with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Since 1990 eight grant-maintained schools have sold part of their playing fields.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, which is rather akin to the parson's egg. I am sorry that he was not able to state that the policy of selling playing fields has been stopped because Miss Gillan, the schools Minister, said in October, when launching the Our Schools, Your Schools policy, that school sports facilities and premises are important resources. Does the policy which my noble friend outlined line up with that expression of the Government's policy? Further, will my noble friend confirm that the Sports Council can veto any sale of school playing fields it considers unsatisfactory?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on my noble friend's second point, I can give an assurance that although the Sports Council does not have a veto, following my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's policy statement in the summer, he has announced that the Sports Council should have the status of a statutory consultee on all planning proposals affecting playing fields.
As regards the first point, there may be occasions when it is necessary and when there are positive benefits in selling sports fields to allow consolidation of sports fields somewhere else or to make other provision for sports facilities. To have an absolute blanket ban on all disposals would be the wrong way to proceed. However, I can assure my noble friend that, as I made clear in my original Answer, we will maintain the minimum area standards for playing fields, and those will be retained in full.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the policy of the Government, far from being to discourage the sale of playing fields
1496
above the minimum level of provision, has been, during the whole course of this Government's life until last summer, to encourage, and even to insist upon, local authorities selling any land available above the minimum level? Does he agree that if local authorities were unable, as they were in many cases, to put roofs over the heads of children or repair decaying buildings, they were exhorted by the Secretary of State to sell the land and use the money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness gives a slightly misleading picture. Since 1991—and similar regulations were in force before then—we have had regulations which provide for minimum area standards. Thereafter, it is a matter, in the case of LEA schools, for the LEA to decide what is appropriate and what ought to be disposed of. LEAs can make up their own minds. In the case of grant-maintained schools, if they wish to sell land surplus to requirements they can do so but they need to seek the permission of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the proper management of a local authority's estate is properly the business of that authority and that the exchange of some part of a playing field for other assets may well be very worth while and in the interests of the community as a whole?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That was the point I was trying to convey to my noble friend Lord Caldecote and to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the young male in particular—this is not a sexist remark—has an enormous amount of aggression to get rid of, and if he cannot get rid of it in organised games he gets rid of it in much less desirable ways?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the noble Baroness. I hope that she will endorse our policy on sport and, particularly in the light of her remarks on aggression, our policy on boxing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the sale of a playing field with planning permission enables the purchase of another playing field without planning permission and the investment of a large amount of money in equipment and accommodation to the benefit of the schoolchildren in question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There would not be many cases where a local authority sought to sell playing fields without planning permission. It is obviously the planning permission which adds value and allows local authorities to make alternative provision, which might be in the form of improved indoor or all-weather sports facilities or in the form of further provision elsewhere.
Lord Howell: My Lords, while it is encouraging that the Prime Minister has issued a document, Sport: Raising the Game, is it not deplorable that not one word of apology has yet been made for Circular 909, on the basis of which playing fields were sold off? Perhaps I may inform the Minister that 5,000 playing fields have been sold off and a further 1,600 are under threat. Is it

1497
not regrettable that he does not have those figures at his disposal since there is a national register which makes the situation clear? When is Circular 909 to be withdrawn? It is still in place. Why did the Prime Minister say that schools selling off playing fields can now keep all their capital receipts instead of half, as if that were an encouragement? Most important, where will local authorities and schools find the land, most of which is now under concrete, and where are they going to get the money to create the new playing fields which the Government very properly want?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Lord. The latest figures show that there are some 78,000 pitches in England. I apologise to the House for giving only the figures for England. Fewer than 3 per cent. of those pitches are under threat of development. I can also assure the noble Lord that records show that playing fields owned by schools or local education authorities are much less likely to be sold off than others.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, now that the Prime Minister has given priority to this matter, would it not be a good idea to make it a rule not to sell any more playing fields until we have renewed some of our efforts in this country and shown some of the sporting instincts which we encouraged in the rest of the world?
Lord Henley: My Lords, for the reasons given both by myself in various answers and by my noble friend Lord Elton, it would be wrong to have a blanket ban on sales. Often sales can lead to further and better provision elsewhere.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in view of the fact that we may be disenfranchising hundreds of youngsters who want to play games and take exercise by depriving them of school playing fields, would it not be better if the Secretary of State called in all applications from local authorities to buy playing fields from schools?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that would be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As I made clear, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has proposed that the Sports Council should always have a statutory consultee status on any planning applications that relate to playing fields. That allows valuable points of the kind to which my noble friend refers to be made.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, here are last night's European football results: Blackburn Rovers nil, Legia Warsaw nil; Glasgow Rangers nil, Juventus four. Is the Minister aware that no less a person than Bobby Robson on Radio 4 this morning agreed that until we have better facilities and training in our primary schools, we are unlikely to improve on disastrous results like those? Will the loss of over 5,000 playing fields since 1979 contribute to our recovery?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is rather ridiculous. To blame the Government
1498
for our results in the European Cup, or any other competition, really goes beyond what one can accuse the Government of getting right or wrong.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there have been any sale and lease-back arrangements of playing fields so far as concerns GM governors? In such circumstances are those governors able now to retain 100 per cent. of the proceeds instead of having to share them 50–50 with the local authority?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any such proposals. If there are, I shall write to my noble friend.

Yorkshire Coast: Oil Pollution
3.11 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cause of the oil pollution incident along the coast of Yorkshire at the end of September, which killed or injured at least 1,500 sea birds, has yet been discovered.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, no. Samples of oiled feathers were sent for analysis but there is insufficient information to identify the polluter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I extend good wishes to him as this is the first occasion on which he is replying to Questions for the Government. I am sure that there will be many future occasions. Since the Marine Pollution Control Unit is reported to have taken samples from the slick, what progress is being made with the method known as fingerprinting, introduced some years ago, whereby an individual vessel's cargo of oil, and its oily wastes, can be identified?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words.
As he said, fingerprinting can identify the area of the world from where the crude oil comes. The Marine Pollution Control Unit and the European Union are carrying out a project to compile a database at the Institute of Offshore Engineering at Heriot-Watt University.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since there is a suspicion that on this occasion the pollution was caused by deliberate discharge, is the Minister satisfied that the port facilities available to ships wishing to discharge oil are satisfactory? Have the Government considered including the cost of discharge in other port fees so that there is less incentive for ships to discharge at sea?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, regarding port waste facilities, consultation is being carried out between the ports, shipping and waste industries as well as with representatives of environmental concerns on how best to reduce waste discharges from ships. We hope to announce a decision shortly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to the Minister.

1499
Is the Minister aware that out of 139 illegal discharges around Britain's coasts over a period of four months up to September of this year, only three ships were detected? Does the Minister agree, therefore, that some urgent action, preferably through the International Maritime Organisation, is required, first, to enable us to designate these particularly sensitive areas; secondly, to engage in rather better and more effective aerial surveillance; thirdly, to ensure that there is a better means of identifying the ships in question, including numbering, the identification of the owners of cargo who could have an effect in this regard and the involvement of insurers, which is also required?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I shall try to answer all the noble Lord's questions. Aerial surveillance has been increased by 25 per cent. following the Donaldson Report. There has also been more aerial surveillance at night when most of the incidents occur. We are looking at the possibility of transponders being used. However, that is another area where full international co-operation is required and that all takes time.
Successful prosecutions depend upon securing good evidence; and that is what we hope to obtain.

OSCE Mission in Grozny
3.16 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reports they have received about the work of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Grozny.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have been kept fully informed of the work of the OSCE assistance group in Chechnya by the OSCE Chairman in Office and by the leaders of the assistance group who report to the Permanent Council in Vienna.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what information do the Government have about the circumstances in which the Russian appointed mayor of Grozny incited 150 people to attack the OSCE mission and the mysterious car accident in which a truck rammed the vehicle in which the chairman of the OSCE mission was travelling? Does the Minister know whether those attacks on the OSCE mission have caused us to downgrade our presence in Grozny? In those circumstances, are we able properly to view the mounting violence which is taking place on both sides? How do we judge that in the light of the Russian decision to denounce the treaty that they signed only in July on force reductions and demilitarisation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I counted five questions from the noble Lord. However, I shall do my best to give him the feel of the answers, and to answer the most important two. The decision by Mr. Gantimirov, the mayor of Grozny, to surround the OSCE mission and prevent staff leaving
1500
caused the federal authorities great embarrassment, as we know. The Russians have apologised and the Chechen Provisional Government annulled Gantimirov's order to suspend the work of the mission. It is quite clear that the Russians want to get the OSCE mission going again.
There have been various incidents, including the grenade attack in Grozny on 7th October on the Chairman in Office. That is why the Chairman in Office and the EU presidency reminded the Russians of their responsibility for the safety and welfare of all members of the assistance group. Three members of the group were removed as a precautionary action. We are reviewing whether OSCE has done enough on security to allow our member of the group to go back. When we come to a proper decision—and we have sufficient information, I can assure the noble Lord—we shall see whether it is possible to participate again, as we wish, in this mission.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that free and fair elections can be held in Chechnya next month, given the deteriorating situation there? What position will the Government take should the outcome of that election be a vote for independence? That was one question in two halves.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is getting canny! Obviously we cannot be satisfied yet that there will be free and fair elections. However, further work is being done on that at present. We have to look very carefully at what is going on there. There is no way in which the kind of attacks on civilian life which have become commonplace can be allowed to continue with free and fair elections being held at the same time. We continue to support every effort to secure a negotiated settlement. I hope that we shall soon see a greater degree of abiding by the ceasefire by all parties.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, in the interests of negotiating a settlement, will my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government be prepared to suggest to the Russian Government that a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya would be the best way of restoring peace and tranquillity to the area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that we are in a position to judge the matter. We have said that there is, of course, a role for the Russian Government because there is a role for keeping peace. But the way in which actions are continuing there at the moment give us great cause for concern. We all wish to see the formal negotiations on the implementation of the military agreement start as soon as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister think that, in the light of the serious developments and the continuing violence in Chechnya, the Council of Ministers of the OSCE should take notice of the situation? It should ascertain whether there are any

1501
further actions which it should take, either generally or specifically under the Budapest Declaration issued by the OSCE last December.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that that is exactly what they are doing.

Bananas: Retail Pricing Policy
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to declare that Lady Waverley is the High Commissioner for Belize, a Caribbean banana-producing nation state.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the loss-leading banana pricing strategy of United Kingdom supermarket multiples undermines the policy of the Government and the European Union on the banana regime.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the retail price of bananas is a commercial matter for the supermarkets themselves. We are watching the situation carefully. We will continue to support the banana regime of Lomé.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to the Question at such short notice. Within the European Union, Her Majesty's Government are stalwart supporters of the Caribbean countries and are to be congratulated on that. Is the Minister aware that the banana market is being manipulated by supermarkets in a cavalier fashion? That is a total disregard for the consequences and undermines the good work of the Government. It is only a matter of time before low prices will be borne by Caribbean farmers, so spreading social and economic disaster for the Caribbean nation states. Does the Minister agree that economic development, through fair trade not aid, is the long-term solution for the promotion of democracy, poverty alleviation and sustained growth?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government are committed to the European banana policy because it protects Caribbean banana production. However, it also supports the banana growers' efforts to improve their own efficiency and competitiveness, particularly in the Windward Islands, both bilaterally and through the European Community. We agree that trade is exactly what the islands need. However, until that industry is made more efficient and competitive, we will have to go on supporting it. As regards the activities of the supermarkets, all of which seem to be engaged in that pricing policy, it is a commercial matter. It would not be appropriate for the Government to start to interfere in such commercial matters.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the situation involves apparent predatory pricing by powerful supermarkets which have no concern whatever
1502
for the effect of their policy on some of the poorest farmers in the world whose only cash crop is bananas? Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any evidence that the dollar banana exporters who are opposed to the European banana regime are playing any part in the matter? Further, if it is shown that predatory pricing or other forms of market manipulation are involved, will the Government consider using their powers under the competition and fair trading legislation to intervene?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, there is no evidence that the dollar producers are involved in the commercial decision by various UK supermarkets to reduce the price of bananas to 19p per pound. It is far too early to say whether the predatory pricing will bring down the overall cost of bananas to supermarkets. However, I should have thought that, with distribution and transport costs so high, they would not be able to continue indefinitely selling at 19p a pound and buying at 30p a pound. Therefore, the retail price reductions are being borne by the supermarkets; they are not affecting the import price at present and therefore there is no immediate effect on the banana growers themselves. However, having been involved with the issue for nearly 10 years, I can assure the noble Lord that I am watching the situation extremely carefully.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the European policy on bananas— which she has assured your Lordships that we support—stipulates any particular size or shape of banana? In other words, do the bananas have to be straight or are they allowed to develop in any shape which nature provides for them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the whole policy allows the natural development of bananas; the thickness of their skins is entirely a matter for the banana grower.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government resisted the policy of the European Union which has caused the cost of orange juice to consumers to increase by about 40 per cent. because non-Community oranges were banned?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am all for increasing the intake of vitamin C, but frankly bananas and orange juice are two different commodities.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, returning to bananas, is my noble friend aware that severe restrictions still exist on the importation of Latin American bananas? Does she agree that the consumer interest for Britain would be vastly increased if the restrictions were relieved and importation was on a free and fair basis?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend knows well that we have helped the Caribbean banana producers because they have no alternative crop possibilities. That is why we have been involved in helping them to modernise their industry, to get better and more efficient production and, where the land will permit, to diversify. I do not believe the assistance that

1503
has been given to the Caribbean banana producers is something that we should stop. I agree that we should have the choice which we already have, as my noble friend will find if he does the shopping on a Saturday morning.

Business of the House
3.29 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that this is the right time to rise since I wish to raise a question on Business. To explain myself, at the end of a particularly unpleasant programme on Channel 4 last evening on Lords' declaration of interests and the Griffiths Report, it was stated that this House would be considering the orders to implement Griffiths on Monday next. First, I should like to know whether Channel 4 had some prior knowledge of next week's Business not available to your Lordships or whether it was simply idle speculation on the part of the programme makers.
If it has been decided that we should deal with the orders next week, I sincerely hope that the usual channels will reconsider the decision. I believe that to take the orders next week would be a serious abuse of the procedures of this House. If we took the matter early next Session, that would be acceptable. In saying that, I have to tell the House that I am not against the Griffiths recommendations, but I believe that this House should not be stampeded into making a decision next week on such a vital change to our procedures, when a decision made early next Session would be just as effective and would not cause resentment. After all, if we take the orders next Monday, or even next Tuesday, people will hardly have had the opportunity to read in proper detail the debate of only yesterday.
Furthermore, if Members wished to move amendments, they would certainly not be able to move considered amendments, or move them in time for other noble Lords to consider them and their reactions to them. I sincerely hope, therefore, in the interests of good order and good procedure in this House, that if Channel 4 has got it right—and I sincerely hope that it has not—the matter will be reconsidered.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I believe the situation to be as I tried to explain it and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees tried to explain it in yesterday's debate. I assure the noble Lord that the purpose of yesterday's debate was to take the mind of the House. I was pleased, and I hope the House will agree with my diagnosis, to find that the overwhelming consensus in the House was to accept the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. I also felt that there was an overwhelming consensus that the report should lead to the bringing forward of the appropriate resolutions as soon as possible.
I also gave a clear undertaking that I would consult, not only with my opposite numbers on the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but with the Convenor and any other individual Members of this House who wanted to express an opinion. I said that
1504
in the light of those discussions the usual channels would come to a judgment about what appeared to be the wish of this House as to when the resolutions should be introduced.
I have been involved in one or two other matters this morning; therefore I must confess to the House that I have not yet had an opportunity to consult even my opposite numbers as soon as I should have wished. I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so in very short order. We shall then come to a judgment. Equally, the strong expression of opinion that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will weigh very heavily with us and we shall try to give it the consideration that it deserves.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House just heard from my noble friend was a personal expression of opinion and in no way represents the view on this side of the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with permission, I have to say to the noble Lord that I received a number of expressions of opinion from Members of the party opposite in agreement with the noble Lord's view. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has another view, and it is for everybody concerned to try to come to a judgment as soon as possible.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has an individual view, not only on this matter but on certain other topics that come before the House with great regularity. As always, I am obliged to listen to the views of the noble Lord. I listen to them carefully, and pay due attention when he expresses them. However, I am bound to say to him that, so far as we are concerned, in the debate that took place yesterday there was an overwhelming majority among those who spoke—I understand that it was 22:2—for approval of the report. There was a clear feeling that we should "get on with it", the report having been approved.
I do not understand my noble friend's statement that he needs time to study the language of the proposed Motions. They are in the last report of the Procedure Committee, which was an annex to the one that we debated yesterday. Nor, with great respect to my noble friend do I think that he, with his vast parliamentary experience, will need a great deal of time to assimilate the effect of the debate. It was not one in which there was such disparity of view that extensive study is necessary. I make it perfectly clear that I hope that this matter will be dealt with soon. I had understood that it would be dealt with on Monday. If that is still the view of that part of the usual channels, then it is a view that this part of the usual channels certainly supports.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that certain adjustments have to be made in the light of the discussion yesterday, some of them proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths? These have to be reflected in the form of orders, which in due course I hope to support. But surely it takes a little time to assimilate these. Can my noble

1505
friend the Leader of the House give the assurance that due consideration will be given to what I believe are four areas of adjustment?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can only add that if it proves that the House as a whole, in spite of the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would like to proceed along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggests, it would be subject to advice from the learned Clerks that any appropriate adjustments to the proposed resolutions could be made satisfactorily and in time. I do not think any of us would subscribe to the view that resolutions of this House, whether they concern legislation or any other matter, are improved by undue hurry. Equally, if we are ready, there is no reason to take longer over it than we need.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. We hope that the matter will be dealt with as soon as possible.
I gave notice to the Government that I wished to ask what would happen to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, on which, as noble Lords know, a great deal of time was spent in this House. Great interest was shown in the legislation, which is a matter of great concern. We understand that it is not to be proceeded with in the House of Commons. What will be the future of this very important Bill?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the expression of opinion that the noble Baroness gave in the first part of her contribution.
So far as the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill is concerned, perhaps I may take the opportunity to express the appreciation of the Government for the amount of time and trouble that was taken over this extremely important Bill—I agree with the noble Baroness—during the course of its consideration in this place using the special procedures. I venture to suggest that the special procedures, in this case as in many others, proved to be of the greatest possible success. The level of technical debate, in so far as I am qualified to judge these matters, which is not very far, was extremely impressive. It is a great tribute to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the amount of pitch-rolling, if I may put it that way, that he undertook was crowned with such success at least in this place.
Speaking for the Government, we are very clear that this Bill addresses a subject that needs addressing, and urgently. It was inserted in the timetable on the clear understanding that my noble and learned friend had built a consensus about the terms of the legislation. It was therefore planned as a piece of uncontentious legislation. There have been many accusations, and justified ones, about the role of the press in our national life. I have to say that the ill-informed attentions of a national newspaper about this Bill has—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Name it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am perfectly willing to name the newspaper if the noble Lord wants
1506
me to. It is the Daily Mail. Those attentions have alerted Members of the other place into expressing reservations about the Bill.
My noble and learned friend is therefore faced with a situation whereby, because of the procedures we decided in perfect good faith to adopt in this House, the Bill will now run out of time in this Session. I express the view of Her Majesty's Government that this is a very great pity. My noble and learned friend will now be faced with the task—which I am perfectly confident that he is more than capable of fulfilling—of rebuilding a consensus and finding the best way of reintroducing this Bill as soon as possible so that we can address what is clearly an urgent problem.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1995
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 1lth July 1995 be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1995 be approved.
I do not think that I shall be obliged to detain your Lordships long today on these new minerals regulations. They are technical; they are non-controversial; and they update the current regulations, which were issued in 1971. They have been the subject of full consultation with industry, local authority groups, environmental groups and representatives of land owners, in which there was widespread support for them to be brought up to date. They modify and adapt provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is necessary to do this because mineral working, unlike other forms of development, is partly operational development and partly use of land.
Regulation 1 is introductory.
Regulation 2 ensures that, in general, minerals development is not to be regarded as a "use of land". This will prevent mineral working from gaining "established use rights", but it is considered to be a "use of land" for the purpose of discontinuance orders.
Regulation 3 ensures that, for the purposes of the time limit on planning permissions within which development must be begun, minerals permissions cannot be considered to have begun until the actual winning and working begins. It also deals with compensation for loss in respect of buildings, plant and machinery following an order revoking or modifying a minerals permission. That means that no compensation can be claimed for buildings and equipment which can be put to other beneficial use.
We have consulted fully on these regulations. There was widespread support for them to be updated and for them to adopt the provisions of the 1990 Act. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 11th July 1995 be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the regulations. As he said, they are uncontroversial, proper consultation has been engaged in and there is widespread support for them. I am very happy to welcome them from these Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on report.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The page and line refer to Bill (176) as first printed by the Commons.]
  Clause 87, page 63, line 43, leave out '(1)(c)' and insert '(1)(b)(ii) or (3)(b)'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, Clause 87 consolidates Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as amended by Section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. The consolidation has failed to reproduce the amendment made at subsection (3) of Section 30 of the 1995 Act, which is consequential on the change made earlier in Section 30.
  The amendment is pure consolidation. I can advise your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is content that it is pure consolidation. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1508
The purpose of the Bill is to restore the position which existed in Northern Ireland until 1989 that all fixed sentence prisoners, regardless of the nature of their offences, became eligible for release at the half-way point in sentence. The Bill would secure that in future, in Northern Ireland as in all other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, all fixed sentence prisoners will be required to serve a minimum period of 50 per cent. of their sentence.
In addition, the Bill provides that those so released will, like their counterparts in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions, be on licence for a period. They will be liable for recall by the Secretary of State if they present a risk to the safety of others or are likely to commit further offences.
Currently, remission is limited to a maximum of one-third of sentence for serious terrorist offenders under Section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. This provision re-enacted Section 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Prior to 1989 all prisoners in Northern Ireland were granted one half remission.
Noble Lords will recall the background against which Section 22 of the PTA was introduced. On Remembrance Day 1987 there was the attack in Enniskillen which resulted in 11 deaths. The year 1988 saw the deaths of six soldiers after a "Fun Run" in Lisburn and the deaths of eight soldiers whose coach was attacked at Ballygawley, County Tyrone.
There were also attacks on civilians by loyalist and republican terrorists, including incidents in which the Provisional IRA killed a six year-old boy and his parents by "mistake" and similarly murdered three civilians in Londonderry with a bomb meant for the security forces. In total, during 1988, 94 people lost their lives.
The situation in Northern Ireland is now very different. The cease-fires have been maintained for more than a year and the risk of scheduled offenders committing further terrorist-related offences is greatly reduced.
Against this background, in August of this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he would seek early legislation to enable those serving sentences for terrorist offences to be released on licence after they have served 50 per cent. of their sentences.
The Bill before the House today meets that commitment both in content and in timing. The Bill has been brought before the House at short notice to respond in a timely way to the changes that I have described and not, I stress, for any other purpose.
I should like to explain briefly the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 mitigates the effect of Section 14 of the Emergency Provisions Act 1991. That section restricts remission for those offenders convicted of a scheduled offence and sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of five years or more to a maximum of one-third.
Subsection (2) provides that such prisoners will be released on licence on the date on which they would have been eligible for release on remission had they

1509
been sentenced for a non-scheduled offence. In effect, under current rules this means at the half-way point of their sentence.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to revoke a licence if it appears to him that the licensee's continued liberty would be a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences. This is a necessary safeguard. But it is not intended as a punishment for minor misdemeanours. Instead, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland assured Members in another place, the power will be used only where a licensee appears likely to commit further serious offences.
Subsection (4) allows a person whose licence has been revoked to make representations in writing to the Secretary of State. It also requires that he is informed of the reasons for his recall and of his right to make representations. The Secretary of State gave an undertaking also that, as is the case currently with those serving life sentences, that information will be given in writing to the prisoner.
Subsection (6) applies where a person is convicted of a further offence committed while on licence and has the effect that a person may, and if the offence is a scheduled offence must, be required to serve the outstanding portion of his sentence before commencing the new sentence.
Clause 2 provides for commencement by statutory instrument. This is a necessary provision to ensure that prisoners can be released in an orderly way. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to implement the Bill as soon as practicable and certainly in time to enable prisoners to be released before Christmas.
Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to suspend the scheme should changes in circumstances make it necessary and later to revive it. The suspension of the scheme will not result in the recall of those prisoners already released on licence. Recall may be ordered only where it is justified in individual circumstances.
Clause 4 provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used in suspending the scheme but allows an exception in cases of urgency.
There are 471 prisoners to whom Section 14 of the EPA currently applies. If the scheme were introduced in early December, more than 90 prisoners would be released before Christmas. A further 88 would be released during the following year. In total, around 340 prisoners will have been released by the end of the decade.
This Bill is not an amnesty, nor is it a concession or reward to terrorists. Instead, it is a measure that is proportionate to the improvement in the security situation in Northern Ireland that we have all been so pleased to see over the past year. It is in line with the Government's commitment to make changes which are consistent with the gradual return to normality, but without putting the public at needless risk. I believe the measure will have a positive, beneficial impact in Northern Ireland.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
3.53 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we support the general thrust and purpose of the Bill. Indeed, Dr. Mowlam in another place called for a move along these lines, as I did in your Lordships' House as long ago as June of this year.
Before I come to the detail, we have a duty to reflect on a wider context. Prisoners convicted of what are by definition serious criminal offences are to be released as of right after serving one half of their sentences. For victims, those with broken limbs and wounded hearts, there will be no remission and no licence. Therefore this measure is justified only as part of a wider process which we hope will bring continued peace. We should not forget those who did their duty and discharged it properly—police officers, prison officers and, in particular, the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Without that duty being properly discharged, there would be no such defendants.
The Bill passed through another place in all its stages as recently as Monday last. It is likely to do so in this House today. The precedents for legislation as hurried as this are not historically encouraging. One needs only to think of the Official Secrets Act at the beginning of this century or, more recently, the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Government's view, plainly expressed by the Secretary of State in another place, is that it is not possible, given the hurried timescale, to accept any amendments. Therefore, I shall look at the detail of the Bill, ask for some clarification, seek some undertakings and welcome others.
We need to understand what the Bill does. It does not bring the regime in Northern Ireland into consonance with the regime in England and Wales. It offers, as of right, licence—that is, release—after half a sentence has been served. At the beginning of October this year the present Home Secretary said,
"Five years should mean five years … no more automatic early release—no more half-time sentences for full-time crimes".
That was said within the past four weeks. Last Thursday, in its original draft form—not the form eventually considered by another place—this Bill offered a completely opposite view. One is entitled, on a sensible basis, to ask what the Government's committed approach is to penal policy. Is one to take it that the present Home Secretary agrees with this measure?
I repeat that what is being offered is supported on this side; but not on the false basis that it is simply putting Northern Ireland in the same position as England and Wales. Any person in England and Wales serving a sentence of imprisonment of more than four years is not entitled to release, as of right, after serving 50 per cent. of that sentence.
Clause 1(2) states,
"A person to whom this section applies shall be released on licence".
In other words, it is a mandatory direction giving an "as of right" entitlement to a convicted prisoner. There is no reference to any condition being imposed on such a

1511
licence. I believe it to be the Government's view that no such conditions will be imposed. That may be acceptable, but it should be out in the open. As I understand it, and the Minister will correct me if I misapprehend, there are to be no conditions of reporting or, as far as I can discover, even of residence. That is to say, a convicted prisoner, released as of right after half a sentence has been served, will have no obligation to live within any part of the United Kingdom; he will be able to live in any country in the world which is willing to receive him. It is well known that a release on licence in England and Wales commonly carries conditions such as reporting to a designated officer, conditions of residence and so forth.
Clause 1(3) is far too widely drawn. In another place my honourable friend Mr. Worthington drew the attention of the Secretary of State to the shoddy drafting. The Secretary of State is entitled to revoke a licence if a person is likely to commit a further offence. On one absurd hypothesis that could include an offence such as drinking after hours. I am obliged that the Minister in your Lordships' House has made it plain that the word "serious" ought to have been included, or at least she has given the undertaking that only a serious offence will qualify for revocation of a licence. One does not want to carp, but the legislation should have been put in proper order on its full face rather than needing undertakings.
The drafting of subsection (4) seems almost wilfully perverse. It states:
"If a person's licence is revoked—

(a) he may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State … and

(b) he shall as soon as is practicable be informed of the reason for the revocation".

My Lords, the cart is well and truly stuck before the horse. I am obliged for the adoption in another place by the Secretary of State and for the repetition in your Lordship' House of the undertaking that the reasons for revocation will on every occasion be in writing.
There are other questions. Is it envisaged that legal aid should be available for a released person who is likely to have his licence revoked so that there may be the study of reasons and the drafting of representations? The Secretary of State here is given draconian powers over an individual who has been released. There ought to be at least some thought about a judicial or quasi-judicial component in the revocation process. There ought to be some redress on the merits, not simply on procedural grounds or the usual narrow judicial review grounds. I would ask the Minister to consider with some care whether or not this aspect should not be looked at as part of the general review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of which, incidentally, I would welcome some further news as to the date of the review, the terms of reference and the persons who are likely to undertake that review.
Why is Clause 2 necessary at all? The Bill, if it passes through your Lordships' House today, will have been hurried. Why is a statutory instrument in respect of commencement necessary if the intention is that 90
1512
persons or so should be released to their homes by Christmas? I have understood no reason from the Minister why that should be required. The power is given to the Secretary of State to suspend the entire scheme. There is only one circumstance in which I could understand such a suspension being required; namely, the virtual total breakdown of the present peace process and ceasefire. If that were to occur, would it not be inevitable that Parliament would be virtually immediately recalled? Why are these powers required? It might be of interest to your Lordships and indeed a wider public if the Minister could indicate the longest sentence which is presently being served and which has been imposed judicially on a defendant who is likely to be released this year.
Those are questions which I hope I have put forward in a non-partisan way in a desire to he helpful in a rather brief scrutiny of this hurried legislation. I recognise, of course, that it is part of a wider process involving not simply the release on licence but, where appropriate, the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland on humanitarian grounds. We welcome the burden of this legislation. There are questions which I have sought to put, generally of course. We shall not seek to put any handicap in the way of the passing of the Bill.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I give an unambiguous welcome to the Bill and say in advance of any other observations I intend to make that the Government will have the support of these Benches in putting the Bill through all its stages this afternoon. It has not come too soon. As the noble Baroness knows, it is a subject in which I have taken a considerable personal interest and in which I have been involved in discussions with both former loyalist and republican paramilitaries.
The case for the Bill does not simply rest on grounds of penal rationality or of common humanity but also that it represents in its context an important step forward, or at least the assurance of not stepping backwards in the so-called peace process. I do not think that any of your Lordships should underestimate the significance of the matter of prisoners. Indeed, I am tempted to say that the more we see deadlock on the issue of so-called decommissioning and the surrendering of armaments and munitions, the more important it is that we have some progress on the matter of prisoners.
It is a common feature of longstanding, deep conflicts when they end that some reconciliation has to be reached on the question of prisoners. That was the case in South Africa; that is currently the case in the Middle East; and it will have to be part of entrenching any future settlement in Northern Ireland. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. But it is true that for both the republican and loyalist former paramilitaries the prisoners represent their core constituency. Those are the people who in their own terms need to see that out of the peace process there is something for them. I believe that fair and humane treatment of prisoners makes one of the building blocks towards some kind of proper political progress.

1513
I also welcome the Bill because it clears up a rather disturbing confusion that had arisen between the statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in August that he intended to bring forward this legislation and the speech of the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference. Many people in Northern Ireland had been reassured by the Secretary of State's statement of intent on remission but were then confused by the Home Secretary's words to the Conservative Party faithful. Noble Lords will recall that at the conference Mr. Howard said that there should be no more half-time sentences for full-time crimes. I am very gratified to see that the good Dr. Jekyll, in the shape of Sir Patrick Mayhew, has triumphed in this argument over Mr. Howard, or should I say Mr. Hyde. It is good to see that the argument has been won by the Northern Ireland Office and not by the Home Office.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, there are aspects of the Bill which are profoundly unattractive. I should like to refer to one of them, which is Clause 1(3). In defining the conditions under which the Home Secretary can recall prisoners to gaol and revoke their licences it uses the words:
"if it appears to him that the person's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences".
That is left to the judgment and discretion of the Secretary of State.
That is a most extraordinary provision to have in a Bill brought before a British Parliament. It really seems to belong much more in one of those Ruritanian dictatorships as powers of a shadowy minister of-the interior. Why on earth could the Bill not simply say that the licence would be revoked in the event of an offence being committed? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. If we have to have such a clause, at least the word "serious" should be attached to it. In terms of the traditions of British rights and freedoms it is not an acceptable clause. I very much regret that the Government, perhaps in the mistaken belief that it would help to build support for the provision among those who might be apprehensive, have included the clause as it is presently expressed.
In conclusion, I very much hope that this is not the end to careful and controlled progress on the issue of prisoners. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that any question of a general amnesty for the foreseeable future is absolutely unthinkable. A great many of these prisoners are in prison for most grave and serious offences which have left a trail of misery, death and injury behind them. It would not be acceptable that there should be some general forgiveness of prisoners.
However, there are things that can be done within the British tradition of penal policy which would be quite reasonable to put into effect. For instance, I hope that the Government will be much more generous this year as regards Christmas parole. I believe that I am right in saying that last year there was a reduction in the number of loyalist prisoners who were released for Christmas. There does not appear to have been any case of
1514
seasonable parole having been abused or broken by a prisoner. That gives us some scope for humanity on these issues.
Finally, the signing by the Republic of Ireland of the European convention on the transfer of prisoners comes into effect shortly. That provides both an opportunity and a danger over the transfer of prisoners so that they can be near their families in the way that the Ferrers Report suggested. The opportunity is that Anglo-Irish co-operation, which has been one of the great features of the Government's achievements on the framework document and subsequently, will be able to flourish on this issue. The danger is that the Government may not grasp the opportunity and that their policy on the transfer of prisoners—led, of course, by the Home Office and not by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—will lead them to become isolated on this issue.
I welcome this Bill. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to indicate the general direction of the Government's thinking on some of these wider penal issues.
4.12 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I do not oppose this Bill, but that is on the basis that it is merely to bring the law in Northern Ireland in line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that it does not altogether do that, but I am told that that is the basis behind this piece of proposed legislation. Again, I understand—I hope that it will be reaffirmed—that no bargain has been made with any terrorist organisation to bring in this measure. I condemn terrorists of all shades of opinion. Too often people here and elsewhere are inclined to brand one lot of terrorists as being distinct from another lot. They are all criminals and ought to be treated as such. As someone said, there is to be remission here for those who have committed crimes, but there is no remission for the widows and children of those who have been murdered or maimed. For them, there is no kind of remission.
I am glad that there are provisions in this Bill for the recall of prisoners on licence who commit further offences or who otherwise appear to be a danger to the public. But what worries me is that it appears that any prisoner is entitled automatically to release after 50 per cent. of his sentence has been served. That is different from the rest of the United Kingdom. It means that there may be prisoners who have committed a very unwholesome crime or who are known to be dangerous individuals, and they are entitled to automatic release. It may be possible a little later on to recall them, but heaven knows what they may have done in the meantime. Therefore, I am not quite happy about this right to remission.
As the noble Baroness said, there may have been fewer murders committed recently, but there is still a great deal of terrorist activity going on. There is a great deal of Mafia-style activity such as drug dealing, the beating up of ordinary members of the community and sometimes some who are transparently innocent of any transgression. So do not let us run away with the thought

1515
that there is no longer any terrorist activity. In fact, I am reliably informed that since 1969, 1,800 terrorist murders remain unsolved. I hope that we shall be told that the RUC will continue to investigate and seek out the perpetrators of these crimes, for a crime is a crime, no matter when it was committed; no matter by whom it was committed; and no matter on what pretext.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, of necessity, I must repeat some of the points made by previous speakers. This is a short Bill with very few clauses. However, those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years are not very concerned about the legalistic and libertarian approach. What is at the back of our minds is the number of people we have seen brutally murdered and maimed in the campaign over the past 25 years. I believe that the Government should be very careful to prevent this legislation being seen as a further concession to the IRA.
I find myself in great difficulty. I do not reject this Bill or support it, but since its contents have become known, I have been in constant touch with many people in Northern Ireland. They are as apprehensive as I am that this legislation will be seen as yet one more concession to terrorism. The Government have explained that it cannot be seen in that way and that it is a matter of bringing the situation for Northern Ireland prisoners into line with prisoners in Britain.
Perhaps I may try to describe the emotional effect of this legislation. The noble Baroness has said that 90 prisoners will be released before Christmas. They will be released back into the community of Northern Ireland. They will probably walk down the same streets, shop in the same shops or drink in the same bars as their victims or their relatives. One must take into account at all times how those victims who have been maimed, or the relatives of victims who have been killed, will feel over the Christmas period to know that the murderers of their husbands, or sons, or daughters, or those who carried out maimings on their family, have been released for Christmas. As has already been said, there will be no Christmas joy for the relatives of those so brutally murdered.
I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. I myself could not believe the figures that were announced by the honourable Member for Strangford in another place. He said that there are still 1,800 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland over the 25-year period. It is such a small place with a population of 1.5 million people and yet there still remain 1,800 unsolved murders. I shall ask the same question which was asked by a Member of another place. Are the RUC and the security forces still pursuing those murderers and investigating them, with every intention of bringing them to justice, no matter what the paramilitaries may say, or whatever concessions may be demanded? Will the RUC continue to pursue those who are responsible for these serious acts and bring them before the courts of justice? I think that there is a precedent for that. In South Africa in 1989, 11 members of the so-called "white security
1516
forces" were responsible for the murder of innocent people who were members of the ANC. The new government in South Africa have made certain that, irrespective of the years that have passed, those responsible will be brought before the courts of justice to answer for their crimes. I must advise the noble Baroness that my comments are made irrespective of the legalistic approach that may be taken with regard to this legislation.
I read the Irish Times today before coming to this House. All sorts of threats are being made by Sinn Fein: that the peace process is in danger and seems to be stalling; and that the Government are not moving quickly enough in terms of prisoners and have made no further concessions in relation to the decommissioning obstacle. We have been reading about such matters for several months but I honestly believe that the Government have made concession after concession to the forces of violent republicanism in Northern Ireland.
I conclude by making a heartfelt appeal to the Government. I believe that this question has already been asked today by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Is there any possibility of a list being printed in Hansard or supplied to us personally of those—I believe that they number 90—who are to be released, of the crimes for which they were sentenced and for how many years. It appears that they must have been sentenced for more than five years if they were sentenced since 1989. It may be said that there will be reluctance to include such information in Hansard, but when those prisoners are released, the information will be known throughout Northern Ireland. Everybody will be able to identify them. Therefore, I advise the noble Baroness that she should be very careful when giving advice to the Secretary of State in relation to such releases. She should take into account at all times the sad and sorry Christmas facing many people in Northern Ireland.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill. Its genesis is undoubtedly the very welcome and, I hope, increasingly sustainable improvement in community relations in Northern Ireland. The inclusion of prisoners who have been convicted of serious terrorist offences within the broadly UK-wide remission of sentence arrangements will be wholly appropriate. It will be backed up by the safeguards of both the power to revoke licences and the jeopardy of having to serve the remission period tacked onto the front of any subsequent reconviction and imprisonment.
I am speaking as a former criminal justice social worker and prison social worker in Scotland. I believe that the Bill will affect the conditions of imprisonment of fewer than 500 prisoners overall. Non-scheduled offenders in Northern Ireland are already being released on licence at half-sentence. The system for the supervision of licensees is already in place. My main worry is about the process of revocation of a licence and the licensee's subsequent return to prison. I recall being involved in the revocation of two young offenders' licences. It was procedurally fortunate that the offenders

1517
in both cases had committed further offences which formed fairly solid evidence that they were not keeping to the conditions of the licence.
Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the very subjective reasons for revocation mentioned in Clause 1(3). First, I am focusing on the operational difficulties in interpreting those conditions and coming to a decision to seek revocation. The statement,
"if it appears to him"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"that the person's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences",
is very loose and liable to wide variations of interpretation and misinterpretation. In the worst case scenario, there may be little defence against the accusation that the supervisor does not like the licensee or is generally prejudiced against him or her.
Secondly, I am focusing on the possibility that the paramilitary friends of a licensee may attempt to lean on and influence the supervisor or his or her department in a more organised way than is likely in the case of a purely criminal licensee.
I am in no way opposing the Bill, but I believe that it is important to raise possible operational problems in advance. I should be happy in the future to learn that there have been no problems of the nature that I have described, but that will undoubtedly depend on the continuing success of the ceasefires and progress within the peace process.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, in common, I believe, with thousands of other citizens I have the uncomfortable feeling that the pragmatism and even perhaps the almost excusable pernicketiness of politics and their expediencies are being used to override, to disregard and to produce an unwelcome rejection of the normal order of laws, justice and society upon which we are dependent as a nation and certainly as a House.
One has the uncomfortable feeling that the very great pressures to which a government in very great difficulty—I would not underestimate that difficulty—are responding are not the best of reasons for producing this legislation. They are certainly not responding for reasons of justice. Almost impossible pressures and persuasions are being used—not only by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Enormous pressures are being generated in the United States and applied directly or indirectly to this sovereign nation. I therefore find it uncomfortable that something like a Christmas box of freedom and family participation should be given in a hurry to people who have inflicted such great evil upon their own people, their own country and the unity of this nation.
I am sorry for the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. I can sympathise with and understand the frontal presentation which they have to put on this Bill today, but it is a matter of great regret, a matter to be deplored and something of which I believe that we cannot in our heart of hearts ever be proud.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, partly because of the brevity of his intervention and partly because I think that there is quite a lot in what he said.
This is a sad day—not so much because of the content of the Bill, but because of the manner in which it is being rushed through both Houses of Parliament with the most enormous speed and without any opportunity for scrutiny. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, feels much the same about the Government's action in this regard. Except in times of grave national emergency—and this is not one of them—our normal practice in this House—I cannot speak for the other place—is to debate at length on Second Reading the broad principles of the changes proposed by a Bill and then, after a week or more usually a fortnight for reflection, to go through the Bill line by line with a toothcomb in Committee and then, after a further week or fortnight for reflection, to do the same at Report and possibly to do the same again on Third Reading. What a contrast to what is happening today! I must add, however, that I do not blame the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in any way because I know that the matter is not in her hands. Having got that off my chest, I must reluctantly acknowledge that this is not the first time that governments have broken our unspoken rules and conventions—and it will not be the last, I fear. So there it is.
Now to the substance of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us that it may be seen in Northern Ireland as a concession to terrorists. The noble Lord speaks with great knowledge and experience and I have a feeling that he is most probably right.
On a more precise note, one has to be uneasy at the possibility that the original gross sentences, if I may so describe them, that were imposed may have reflected the trial judge's assumption that the convicted individual would have to serve at least two-thirds of the gross sentence originally imposed. Therefore the original sentence might have been shorter than one imposed upon another individual, who had been convicted of an identical crime hut whose motives were mercenary rather than political or quasi-political. This will mean that terrorists, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, will spend less time in prison than non-terrorists for identical crimes, which hardly seems fair.
Against this, the change will bring the practice in Northern Ireland partly into line with mainland practice. (I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for pointing out that it does not do so entirely: I had thought that it did but, with his considerable knowledge, he has reminded us that is not the case). This partly harmonising integrationist effect can only be welcomed.
Also integrationist in its effect is the unspoken message in the Bill that terrorist crimes are not, as terrorists nearly always claim, less ignoble than other crimes. To rob a bank, and wound one of the tellers in the process, to obtain money for Semtex, is not in any

1519
way less wicked than to rob a bank and wound one of the tellers to obtain money for heroin or to buy a fast sports car.
One would be happier if these partly harmonising, integrationalist aspects of the Bill were deliberate rather than an accidental by-product of the main proposals. However, if—and it is a very big if—the Bill should help in any way to achieve an honourable and enduring settlement, it may yet be worth while. We shall have to wait and see.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, may I first thank noble Lords who offered their support for this Bill, understanding the implications it has in building and trying to consolidate the peace process which, fortunately, in the main continues in Northern Ireland, though I would be the first to acknowledge—and as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell—that this is not a total peace. There are incidents of violence which are totally unacceptable and bear no credit to those who obviously must authorise them. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the longer term that the RUC is committed, absolutely and utterly, to bringing criminals to justice.
We have heard today in your Lordships' House about concerns for a process which is extremely difficult, but we continue to work with the utmost commitment to try to ensure that the future of the people of Northern Ireland is infinitely better than the past which they have suffered. If there is to be a peace, it has been earned and deserved by the people of Northern Ireland. The politicians are tasked to sort it out, and that is a high mountain to climb.
Let me immediately assure the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, that there are no Christmas boxes in this Bill; there is no reaction to pressure from those outside the Province. We are grateful for the friendship of those who help us to build an economy which allows us to bring jobs to Northern Ireland so that the prosperity that peace can bring can be shared by all citizens of the Province. But the policies, the building of them and their operation are all the responsibility of the British Government. I stress that wholeheartedly.
It may be that the families of these people, which include innocent young children, will have the benefit of a better Christmas if this Bill goes through your Lordships' House. For the innocents we offer that. But I join wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in praising those who have protected the innocents for so many years in extremely difficult and often for them tragic circumstances. We should remind ourselves that there is no remission from the wheelchair for those who have suffered, nor from the grave.
We are reverting to a situation that was there before the terrible year of 1988. We are not trying to rewrite tremendous policies. There is an enormous amount of work to do as we build this peace. But in this instance we are trying to build for the future step by step. We are not taking hazardous risks, nor putting the majority of the people of Northern Ireland in danger. I agree with
1520
the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that it is good that we can continue to make small moves which bring not only greater normality to Northern Ireland but an ease of living for the people. We can see much of that now: you can drive down roads and visit people without being stopped frequently. People are beginning to have the sort of life which we who have not suffered like those in Northern Ireland take for granted.
I am delighted by the announcement today of the relocation of a third Army unit from the Province. It was not a political decision—a security decision—but another small move in the right direction. I must add this: I assure the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that there are no rewards and no deals. But there is a prospect of peace, which we have all worked to build, on the horizon.
Noble Lords have asked many questions. I appreciate fully that, while supporting this legislation, they want to question the manner in which it was brought forward and the wording. People who have lived in Northern Ireland through the years of the troubles desperately pray that there is not a reversion to full-blown terrorism, but we have to offer to the people who may suffer if this happened the protection of the ability to suspend this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked me many questions. I shall try to be helpful. I apologise if I do not answer all of his questions. There are indeed no licence conditions other than those appearing on the face of the Bill. That means that a licence may be revoked only where the person's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or where it is considered that he would be likely to commit further offences.
I understand that the offences justifying recall were also of considerable concern to Members in another place. As I said in introducing the Bill, the offences that are contemplated are serious offences, not trivial or inconsequential offences. I hope that the House will be reassured by the undertaking given by my right honourable friend to that effect.
There is no formal definition of a serious offence. In this context it might include offences of violence or offences preparatory to acts of terrorism. However, the Secretary of State must judge whether offences which are likely to be committed are serious within all the circumstances of the case.
It may be that down the road we will see parole boards; we will see a difference; we will see the parity with Great Britain that people would welcome. But at this stage I believe that the move that has been made allows for the protection of the people of Northern Ireland. It gives me satisfaction to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that provision is made under legal aid for those contemplating legal action in respect of decisions affecting personal liberty. So there is no need to make a special provision on legal aid.
Noble Lords asked why the Secretary of State should have the power to revoke licences. In Northern Ireland there is no parole board or other independent body to exercise discretion in these cases. The House should be reassured that any recall decision made by the Secretary

1521
of State may be subject to judicial review. The noble Lord asked whether a judicial element could be included to oversee recall more directly. That is not appropriate. The Secretary of State is responsible for public safety through the management of sentences.
I was asked why Clause 2 permits the Secretary of State to set a date for the commencement of the Act. That will allow orderly implementation of its provisions. We obviously could not predict when Royal Assent would be given. The scheme will involve releasing a large number of prisoners on one day, and so there needs to be an operational element involved.
I was asked what is the longest sentence being served by a prisoner to be released this year. I do not have the figures, but the longest possible sentence for a prisoner who will be released this year is 12 years, but I do not know the length of the longest sentence to which the legislation will apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the important issue of the emergency powers review. Arrangements for the review are a matter primarily for the Home Office. Discussions are continuing to select a suitable person to lead the review and to draw up his or her terms of reference. There is a need to start the review as soon as possible. Considerations are at an advanced stage. We hope that an announcement will be made in the near future. We expect the review to take about nine months to complete, which would allow a report to be available by August next year when, in the light of the report's conclusions, consideration will be given to the future of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about extended parole in future. Although fewer prisoners were released last Christmas, that was not because of changed criteria but because fewer prisoners met the basic eligibility criteria in respect of the time served. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was worried about whether automatic release would increase the danger of further offences being committed. The answer is no, because although release is automatic, the licence arrangements will allow recall where there is evidence of genuine risk to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked a question which is uppermost in the minds of people who live and work in Northern Ireland: what will happen if prisoners meet victims? That is a pragmatic question which I fully understand. I have been with people in Northern Ireland when we have walked past others and I have felt that the hair of those people has literally stood up on the back of their necks. There is no need for words or questions, because one understands their deep, gut reaction. Much courage and bravery is required from everyone in Northern Ireland if we are to build on the achievement—I say that it is an achievement—of having 15 months without the enormous carnage that the Province has seen in the past. So I do not believe that it would be helpful to publish a list of prisoners. We want to ease the situation—I know that the noble Lord was not suggesting this—not to build on, and encourage the hatred, fear and nervousness that is already in people's minds. We want to ease that feeling.
1522
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that terrorist matters are crimes. There are no political prisoners. The matter that gave me the coldest feeling in the whole of my 22 months in Northern Ireland was the statement that someone was killed because it was thought that he was a Catholic, as though that made it acceptable to kill. We must always remember that crimes carried out for such reasons are major crimes. I can assure the noble Lord that that is so. I appreciate his concern at the speed of the legislation, but we are not trying to rewrite, we are trying to revert. I hope that he will accept that it is one small step which will allow us to build for the future. It is not, as I said, done as a gesture, or as a reward, or under pressure from any outsiders. The concerns of the Province are the concerns of those of us with responsibility for it, and I can assure your Lordships that I regard it as a privilege to be a Minister in Northern Ireland at the present time. We are the ones responsible for ensuring that the future of the people of Northern Ireland and their children is a bright one. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may revert to four questions. First, are we to take it that the present Home Secretary endorses the Bill? Secondly, do I understand it correctly from the Minister that legal aid and advice will be available for people in the position as provided by Clause 1(4); that is, considering reasons and making representations before one gets to judicial review? Thirdly, am I right in my proposition, which I believe has had no dissent from the Minister, that anyone serving a sentence of more than four years in England and Wales has no automatic release as of right after 50 per cent.?
Finally, cannot the Minister assist us a little further, and with a little more precision, as to when the long overdue review is to be launched. We discussed the question of the review—I see the noble Lord, Lord Holme, nodding in assent—substantially before the Summer Recess, when we were told that things would be afoot. I must limit my questions, because the Minister, with her usual courtesy, has answered most of the rest of them.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering all his questions. As I said, noble Lords asked me a considerable number of questions. I stress that the Home Secretary's proposals, which are aimed at protecting the public, something to which he is unswervingly committed, do not affect those prisoners who fall within the ambit of the Bill. This is Northern Ireland legislation, reflecting the situation in Northern Ireland.
I am not sure whether it is a disadvantage that I do not have the noble Lord's knowledge of the law in England and Wales, but I do not. I will have to confirm to him the position in England and Wales, because I do not have that knowledge. I stress again that legal aid is available in Northern Ireland in cases of personal liberty, and that will cover the situation about which he asked.

1523
I thought that I had made it clear that, although the review of the emergency provisions is not being led by the Northern Ireland Office, progress is being made. The firmest date I gave was for when the work could be done and we could be looking at a report at the end of August. But appointments and terms of references still have to be drawn up.
I am fortunate that I can now extend my knowledge of the English and Welsh law by saying, yes, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was correct on that point and it would have been wrong of me to doubt it. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 30th October), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
4.51 p.m.
Report received.

Gas Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before five o'clock.

  Hong Kong: Entrenchment of International Covenants
  Hong Kong: Entrenchment of International Covenants
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  National Security: Lords Debates
  National Security: Lords Debates
  "Mental Health and Stress in the Work Place": Booklet
  "Mental Health and Stress in the Work Place": Booklet
  Secondary Care Agency for the Armed Forces
  Secondary Care Agency for the Armed Forces
  WEU: Satellite Systems
  WEU: Satellite Systems
  Listed Buildings: VAT Liability
  Listed Buildings: VAT Liability
  EC Treaty: Article 73(b)
  EC Treaty: Article 73(b)
  European Space Agency: Activities
  European Space Agency: Activities
  European Space Agency: Budget
  European Space Agency: Budget
  Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill: Timetable
  Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill: Timetable
  A.303 Planning Conference
  A.303 Planning Conference