Sitting of 23 November 1995

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

  SESSIONAL RETURNS
  Ordered,
  Returns for Session 1994–95 of—

  (1) Business of the House;

  (2) Closure of Debate and Allocation of Time;

  (3) Private Bills and Private Business;

  (4) Public Bills;

  (5) Sittings of the House;

  (6) Special Procedure Orders;

  (7) Standing Committees; and

  (8) Select Committees in the same terms as the Orders made on 14th December 1994; and

  (9) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Proposals, &c., showing:—

  (A) the numbers of instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds;

  (B) the numbers of Statutory Instruments and other documents ordered to be treated as Statutory Instruments, other than draft deregulation orders, considered by the House and by Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c, respectively, showing—

  (i) with respect to those considered by the House, the number considered before 10th January 1995, indicating the numbers subject to affirmative and negative procedure; the number which did not stand referred to Standing Committees under the Sessional Order [19th December 1994], and the number considered after 10th January 1995 to which the Sessional Order did not apply; and

  (ii) with respect to those considered by Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c., the number referred to Standing Committees before 10th January 1995, indicating the numbers subject to affirmative and negative procedure; the number which stood referred to Standing Committees under the Sessional Order [19th December], and the number referred to Standing Committees after 10th January 1995 to which the Sessional Order did not apply;

  (C) the number of Statutory Instruments and other documents ordered to be treated as Statutory Instruments approved &c. by the House, indicating the number upon which the Question for approval was put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.); and the number of Instruments and other documents reported by Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c., indicating the number upon which no subsequent proceedings took place; and

  (D) the number of deregulation proposals and draft orders, showing for deregulation proposals the number in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that a draft order in the same terms should be laid before the House, that the proposals should be amended, and that the order-making power should not be 239912 N
  780
  used, respectively; and for draft orders the number in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that the draft order should be approved, and whether or not the recommendation was agreed upon Division, and those which the Committee recommended should not be approved, respectively, and in each case, the decision of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he gives to start-ups of small businesses as an economic indicator. [690]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The major banks estimate that business starts are running at around 400,000 a year. Start-up figures are one of a number of important economic indicators.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those statistics. Does she agree that a key factor in encouraging business start-ups is a benign tax structure which lowers the burden on businesses in their initial stages? Will my hon. Friend and her Department examine the issue of the three-year point at which a number of companies find it difficult to continue in business? Does she agree that regulation—the sort of thing that would be imposed via the social chapter and the minimum wage—is the wrong way to go?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I assure him that we are doing what we can to support small businesses through proposals such as venture capital trusts, the loan guarantee scheme and the enterprise investment scheme. We shall continue to oppose the social chapter and the minimum working wage as we want businesses to survive and not die as would occur under Labour's proposals.
    Ms Primarolo: Does not the Minister recognise that she must also take account of the companies that are not succeeding? Is she aware of the staggering increase in the number of company failures in the past two quarters? Does she realise that that is linked to the extra income tax burden of 7p in the pound imposed by her Government as a result of their economic failure?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady had better look at her figures again. [Interruption.] Wait for it. It is estimated that the survival rate of businesses is improving and not worsening, as the hon. Lady implied in her question. I assure her that the best way to ensure the survival of businesses and industry in this country is to have low taxation, low inflation and interest rates as low as possible. We have that at the moment and the situation is much better than it was when the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that consumer confidence is an important factor in the success of small businesses? Does she also agree that there is a very strong economic case for reducing taxation next

    781
    week by between £5 billion and £10 billion so as to give a boost to consumer confidence and to the moral case for allowing people to keep more of the money that they earn?
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for his Budget representation; he must wait until next week for any further comment. However, I assure him that the survival and well-being of businesses is a very high priority for the Government. We have pledged to assist business by ensuring that the economy continues to grow and that interest rates and inflation remain as low as possible.

    Betting Industry
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the bookmakers and betting industry to discuss relative problems in the industry; and if he will make a statement. [691]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I have met representatives of the British Horseracing Board, the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the Bookmakers' committee, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the British Betting Office Association and the Betting Office Licensees Association over the past few weeks. I have listened to their concerns and I shall take their representations into account in advising my right hon. and learned Friend The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister seen the report published by the Henley centre advising on the impact of the national lottery on the off-course betting industry? Many of my constituents who work in the betting industry are fearful of their jobs as there is no longer a level playing field. Almost 20,000 jobs could be lost because of the impact of the national lottery, while Camelot's after-tax profit is now £1 million per week. When will the Minister do something to protect jobs in the betting industry?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I read that report and I am aware of the industry's view of the effect of the national lottery in particular on turnover, profitability and employment in the betting and horseracing industry. Those points will be taken into account, together with other considerations, by my right hon. and learned Friend on Tuesday.
    Mr. Spring: May I thank my hon. Friend and the Treasury for the substantial help that has been given to the horseracing industry and to employment creation in the past few years, representing as I do Newmarket, the world headquarters of horseracing? However, bearing in mind the severe impact of the national lottery on the betting industry, will he consider liberalising the regime for betting shops when he has discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the subject earlier this month. I passed on his concerns about duty rates and the point that he has just mentioned about the need, as he sees it, for further deregulation and liberalisation of betting and particularly the request by the bookmaking industry to be able to accept bets on the national lottery. I shall ensure that those points are relayed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

    Gardening Leave
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to end his practice of offering gardening leave to the staff of the Treasury. [693]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: It remains the Treasury's policy to provide opportunities for temporary work for staff between postings wherever possible to avoid the need for what is colloquially referred to as gardening leave.
    Mr. Cousins: Do the Government accept that it cannot be right to tell employees in Britain that their security and rights at work must be subjected to the full rigour of market forces while, at the same time, giving senior staff at the Treasury the extraordinary perk of a right to take up to six weeks a year on top of all other holiday entitlements to dig their gardens?
    Mrs. Knight: I recognise why the hon. Gentleman is interested in the subject: he lists composting as one of his interests in "Dod". I assure him that at the moment only eight out of more than 1,000 Treasury staff are on gardening leave. We are certainly doing our best to review our policies whenever possible to use people better.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Never mind gardening leave for senior Treasury officials, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party ever form a Government, the whole country will be on gardening leave?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has put his spade in it much better than anyone else so far in the debate.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of trade. [694]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The balance of visible trade in the first half of 1995 was a deficit of £5.1 billion: lower than the deficits recorded in either half of 1994, and as low a deficit as at any time since the first half of 1987. Of course, invisible receipts now account for more than half the United Kingdom's overseas earnings.
    Mr. Jones: Would not the best boost for Britain's balance of trade be a general election?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. As a great campaigner on behalf of his constituents in the steel industry, for example, the hon. Gentleman will know that since 1983 we have had surpluses in our iron and steel exports every single year thanks to the work of his constituents and our reorganisation of the iron and steel industry.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our visible trade figures with the far east are impressive and demonstrate the growth of our trade with those countries? Will he also consider other emerging markets such as Russia and its former republics and the fact that Korea is the second largest exporter to Azerbaijan? Will he redouble our efforts to export into those emerging markets, otherwise they will be taken by the far east and Pacific rim countries?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend refers to the good performance of our exports in the far east. If we count invisible earnings, we have a surplus with the fast

    783
    growing economies of the far east. He makes a good point about the emerging economies of the former Soviet Union. Some British companies have a position in Azerbaijan, for example, and that is to be welcomed.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister cannot get away with that. Why have the Government allowed Britain to be hobbled by a trade deficit? Is not the Government's failure to deal with that the reason why British people have suffered a 7p in the pound tax rise from this Chancellor? Before the cameras come on, why does he not tell us? Perhaps he will whisper it. Do the Government admit that the country has fallen from 13th to 18th place in the international prosperity league?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on getting both the week's soundbites into his first question, which is most impressive. The truth is that over the whole of the last year and in the first half of this year, our exports grew to record levels, outpacing the growth in imports. That performance was seldom matched by Labour any year that it was in office.

    Employment Growth
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the United Kingdom's employment growth since 1979; and what have been the equivalent figures for other EU countries. [695]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Between 1979 and 1990, which were comparable years in the United Kingdom business cycle, civilian employment in the UK grew somewhat faster than the average for other European Union countries.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it true that since 1979 there has been only a 0.3 per cent. increase and that the European average is 5 per cent? Is it true also that we are 22nd out of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? Is that the best that the Government can do after 16 years, or is their ambition to be bottom of every league table?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not recognise any of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are talking here about employment and unemployment. I gave the figures peak to peak—5.7 per cent. growth in the UK and 4.9 per cent. in the rest of Europe. Trough to trough, they are roughly comparable. A higher proportion of our work force is in employment than in any other major economy. In this recovery, our unemployment is going down and more full-time jobs are being created because we have a more flexible labour market than the rest of Europe, which is in danger of having a jobless recovery.
    Mr. John Townend: My right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that I represent a constituency in which tourism is most important, and I also have an interest in a family hotel. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that since 1979 the hotel and hospitality industry has played a major part in creating jobs? Does he further agree that if there were a minimum wage at anything like the level requested by the unions and by many Opposition Members, it would undermine the viability of many businesses in the tourist industry and result in thousands of jobs being lost?
    Mr. Clarke: Tourism is a key source of employment in this country. Only 10 years ago, the Opposition jeered
    784
    at the very mention of the industry, saying that it did not create real jobs. In fact, it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that tourism is one industry that would be damaged by minimum wage legislation and the social chapter. The rest of Europe has job markets that are over-regulated, over cost and inflexible. Labour wants to bring that regime to this country, and jobs would be destroyed if it were ever allowed to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer start explaining to the British people the real effects of unemployment? When the Tories got into power in 1979, 1.25 million people were out of work. After 31 fiddles of the job figures, more than 4 million people do not have a job now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Half a million women who are unemployed do not register. Half a million young people—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time that I heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Skinner: He will get one soon enough.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect one right away. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Chancellor and the Government start telling the truth about the figures? More than 4 million casualties do not have a job, which is three times more than in 1979. The wheels have come off the economy.
    Mr. Clarke: That is a bit of tired old mythology. In 1979 there was rapidly rising unemployment and the employment of a lot of people was completely insecure because they worked in overmanned, loss-making nationalised industries and were on the brink of losing their jobs. The figures on which I rely are in labour force surveys made to International Labour Organisation standards. They show that in this recovery, we have already created more than half a million real jobs—the majority of them full time. The hon. Gentleman is peddling mythology and particularly dangerous remedies for unemployment. His policies would take us back to higher unemployment.
    Mr. Deva: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this so-called endogenous growth theory is but another fancy name for state interference? If that crackpot theory were ever put into practice it would mean putting a civil servant in every boardroom in the country to manage relations.
    Mr. Clarke: Of late we have not heard so much about the post-classical endogenous growth theory from the Labour party. No doubt the ratings of the shadow Chancellor with his leader would drop from 101 per cent. to 95 per cent. were he to return to that theory. Perhaps he would even be described as indispensable or unassailable—I think that is the word—in the defensive briefings emerging from the Leader of the Opposition. Crackpot theories are no substitute for policy. There is a serious endogenous growth theory, but it is not the one proposed by the shadow Chancellor, who used it as a pseudonym for state interference. He must find a policy soon otherwise he will be seen as a threat to the recovery, the new jobs and other matters that we are talking about this afternoon.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor return to the question? Will he confirm that we are 20th out of 24 in

    785
    the OECD league for employment creation since 1979? Instead of being complacent, will he apologise for the fact that more than 1 million more people are out of work now than in 1979 when the Government came to power? Will he also confirm that a 10p starting rate for income tax is not only fairer and more moral, but will do more to create jobs than the abolition of capital gains or inheritance tax, which can benefit only a few?
    Mr. Clarke: In 1979 there would have been fewer people unofficially out of work if they had not been on strike and not working at all. We were in the middle of a deep, diving recession, which cost many people their jobs and was due to Labour policies, which the Conservative Government then reversed. There is currently growth in employment, falling unemployment and we have introduced a flexible labour market—the hon. Gentleman knows that those factors are admired by the OECD and are being followed by the G7 countries and the European Union. Other western economies had better follow in a hurry if they want to be as good at creating jobs as we are in this country.
    As for the 10p theory, the hon. Gentleman must not try to reduce policy to farce. I shall not counter him with 5p—we are not having a silly auction; we are seriously ambitious for a low tax economy in this country. I shall not criticise him too much—we back him as much as his leader does. We are anxious to protect him against the shadow Foreign Secretary and anyone else who wants to take him on. We want to keep the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Chancellor as we like them both, and we shall do our best to keep them in their current positions.

    Tourist Industry
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to recent representations he has received from the tourist industry on the level of VAT. [696]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have received a number of representations in support of a reduced rate of VAT for tourism services, but there is no compelling evidence that the level of VAT in the UK places tourism at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British tourist industry is rightly seeking fairer competition between the tourist industries of EU member states and a level playing field on the rate of VAT imposed on those industries? Can he confirm that it is his policy to seek the eventual harmonisation of VAT throughout the European Union? If so, when does he expect it to be achieved?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that harmonisation can be achieved—each member state sets its own rate of VAT. I hope that member states will always do so. As for VAT on hotels and tourist services, some European countries levy a reduced rate and some levy a standard rate which is often higher than that in the United Kingdom. There is no clear link between those differences and the relative growth in tourism services. In addition, we favour a simple system of VAT and further reduced rates would complicate it. The tourism industry is important and it benefits from the general success of the British economy, but the case for VAT concessions is not established.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister recall that under the last Labour Government there was a balance of trade
    786
    surplus in tourism? Now, there is a massive balance of trade deficit. Will he admit that one of the main reasons for that deficit is that, under the Conservative Government, the VAT rate has been increased from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman studies the most recent figures from the British Tourist Authority and other organisations, he will find that over the past two years our tourist industry has performed extremely well, and better than many of its European competitors. The rate of VAT is not the determining influence. We have transformed the British economy and with that the outlook for tourism and hotel services.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I agree with my hon. Friend that the rate of VAT is not the determining factor and support him in retaining national VAT flexibility? Will he consider, however, the transport infrastructure for London, the capital being the strongest magnet for tourists from overseas? We urgently need crossrail.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I note what my hon. Friend says about the need for other supporting services, including transport services. These services are taken into account in setting budgetary and expenditure plans for the coming year.

    Investment Growth
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the figures for investment growth (a) in 1975, (b) in 1985 and (c) at present. [698]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Whole economy investment fell by 2 per cent. in 1975. It grew by over 4 per cent. in 1985 and by over 3 per cent. in 1994.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Chancellor says. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, however, that the main ingredient of growth and prosperity is investment. The evidence shows that Britain has fallen in the prosperity league from 13th position to 18th over 16 years of Conservative government. Is that not abject economic failure?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asked a helpful question. He cited a Labour year in which investment fell and two Conservative years when it increased. He then made ridiculous use of the prosperity league and the table that he found in the White Paper on competitiveness. We were discussing only recently the performance of the British economy, which is now strong. It is expected to grow faster than any other economy in the G7, being equal first with Germany next year.
    Investment prospects are very good. Manufacturing investment has increased by 12 per cent. on a year ago. The attempt to fiddle about with obscure historical comparisons obscures the fact that we now have the healthiest economic recovery in Europe. We shall maintain that recovery with our policies.
    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that chart 3.5 in the White Paper on competitiveness, which is the source document for most Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen nowadays, shows that foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom over the past 12 years has been double that into the United States, three times that into France, six times that into Germany and 20 times that into Japan?

    787
    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that international investors are the most objective of all investors? They make a hard-headed judgment about which country offers the best prospects. On that basis, the resounding verdict is that the United Kingdom is more successful than any other western nation.
    Mr. Clarke: For its size, the United Kingdom has a greater proportion of overseas investment than any other major country. It is also by far the leading attractor of inward investment. That investment is made by business men, who use their own money and shareholders' money when choosing where best to locate a manufacturing plant in the single market of the European Union. The overwhelming preference of overseas investors is to come to the United Kingdom. That is because of our flexible labour market and business-friendly policies, and because we have created the best environment in western Europe from which to sell goods and services.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that while we all welcome inward investment it is a matter of concern that an increasing proportion of investment is coming from outside? Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that British-based investors are prepared to invest more abroad than in this country? Perhaps he will respond to the comment made to me by the German chamber of trade in London that the United Kingdom is a good country in which to invest and the only people who fail to realise that are British investors.
    Mr. Clarke: The CBI investment outlook is extremely good. I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman said—namely, that British investors are investing more abroad than they are here—stands up, because that is not the case. Investment here is coming from Britain. It is coming very strongly from the rest of the European Union—most notably some large German acquisitions and investments in this country. It is coming very strongly from the United States and Japan. They are all making the same judgment: this is a healthy economic environment in which to invest. One of the attractions is that we do not have the social chapter. We also do not have the minimum wage, the old-fashioned trade union legislation—all the things that the Labour party threatens to bring back.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that genuine, productive job-creating investment follows only once one has established a stable macro-economic and competitive environment? Is not perhaps one of the unsung achievements of the Government over the past three years that we have established an increasingly low interest economy in which it is competitive to invest?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about a strategy for investment, which I have heard about for the past three years but which so far has never had any detail attached to it at all. People do not want Government strategies. They want a market that is likely to grow, a reasonable prospect of profitability, low inflation, interest rates that will not go back to the peaks to which they used to go—the stable economic environment that our macro-economic policy is giving them. That is what matters. That is why manufacturing investment is now growing so strongly.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: In place of the Chancellor's complacency, will he now tell us why investment growth
    788
    at this stage of the economic cycle is slower in this recovery than in any recovery this century? Will he tell us why on investment we are 21st in the world economic league? Will he answer the question that he failed to answer this afternoon, just as he could not answer it when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) put it to him yesterday: why have we fallen from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
    Mr. Clarke: I thought that that was last week's soundbite. We really should move on. I am fed up with the so-called "world prosperity league", which is a complete misuse of one table in our competitiveness White Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wants to produce some more world league tables on investment, I will look at them and see where they have come from. Presumably he has added Tuvalu to the list. The fact is that at the moment we have an extremely strong recovery. We have growth in the economy, and growth in consumer demand. We have a competitive position overseas, low inflation and we have investment.
    Manufacturing investment is up 12 per cent. on 12 months ago. In plant and machinery, it is up 18 per cent. compared with 18 months ago, and the CBI survey shows that the outlook is very good indeed.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of the keen interest that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken recently in the international competitiveness tables, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to explain to them that the countries that have advanced most rapidly up those tables—particularly the gross domestic product table that was quoted to us yesterday—are precisely those that do not have a capital gains tax or an inheritance tax, such as Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong?
    Mr. Clarke: We have already talked about the theories, on which the Opposition have touched, but so far I have not heard any Labour spokesman praise the economic policies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, which are three of the countries that we are told have overtaken us. I have heard them many times praise, for example, Sweden and Finland, which we have overtaken. If one looks at the comparative position inside western Europe at the moment, one will see that we are the fastest growing major economy, the one that is winning jobs. The others have market policies that the Labour party espouses.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has done or commissioned on the effects of changes to inheritance tax. [699]
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on inheritance tax. [703]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The effect of changing any tax is continually kept under review.
    Mr. Corbett: Which does the Minister think the fairest: giving £1.6 billion to 16,500 people by abolishing inheritance tax, or investing it in training and jobs, which 12 in every 100 people in my constituency are looking for?
    Mr. Jack: What I recognise is that the wealth-creating process also addresses the question of creating jobs. I notice that, in The Independent on Sunday last week, the shadow Chancellor said that he is not against wealth. What the hon. Gentleman has said now clearly shows that the Labour party is against wealth. He is divided from his own Front Bench. All I know is that Labour will tax one to hell and then tax one all the way to heaven.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have just heard the authentic high-tax voice of the Labour party? We understand that our policy to ensure that wealth cascades down the generations is popular and, as soon as the Opposition realise that, they will change their tack, as they have done on every other economic policy and, in future, will support us on that as they have done on other issues.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The hard-working people of Britain deserve the opportunity to pass on to their successors, their children and their families, the fruits of their labour. In Britain, 1.3 million people with houses valued at above £154,000 are under threat as a result of inheritance tax. That is why we have a long-term policy to remove it. The Opposition put those people at threat. Let that be noted.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is no mass clamour for the reduction of inheritance tax, or any other tax for that matter, but there is mass concern about hospitals closing their doors to patients, about students who cannot obtain grants to go to university and about disabled people who cannot obtain community care? In the forthcoming Budget, we need to maintain the level of public expenditure so as to look after those services, rather than to pander to the electorate before a general election.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shows his fundamental misunderstanding of the process of wealth creation, because that process, and the passing on of wealth between generations, help to create what we have today, which is record spending on the health service and record numbers of patients being treated. The hon. Gentleman should wake up to the reality of the modern world.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never offer the British people a single ticket to a one-generation society?
    Mr. Jack: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are dedicated to the creation of wealth and the passing on of that wealth between generations, and all the benefits that that brings.
    Mr. Darling: Is it not the case that not only have the Government increased income tax by the equivalent of 7p in the pound, but the Financial Secretary has now committed the Government to abolishing inheritance tax? Does he accept that, of the combined benefit of abolishing capital gains tax and inheritance tax, amounting to more than £4.5 billion, half would go to only 5,000 people in Britain? Which is fairer—abolishing inheritance tax or cutting the starting rate of income tax to 10p in the pound?
    Mr. Jack: I had better tell the hon. Gentleman that, apart from the fact that, again, his sums do not add up,
    790
    it was the Labour party in 1974 that began the process of exempting people from inheritance tax. Today, only 3.1 per cent. of estates pay it. That tax has now had its time and we have a long-term commitment to abolishing it.

    Deregulation
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he gives to deregulation; and if he will make a statement. [700]
    Mr. Waldegrave: We give a very high priority to deregulation, particularly in order to relieve burdens on small business.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for deregulation. Does he agree that that process is only just starting, and that we need more and more deregulation, and fewer and fewer regulations? Does he share my surprise that the Leader of the Opposition can be so woefully ignorant about the workings of the European Union that he can think that the social chapter can be implemented on a pick and choose basis, and that Britain would not be shafted with many more regulations if he signs up to that?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is exactly because of the regulatory effect on business, particularly small businesses, that we opposed the social chapter. It was surprising that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech to the CBI, did not appear to know that the principal measures under the social chapter are taken by qualified majority voting.
    Mr. MacShane: If the Minister is in favour of deregulation, why have he and his colleagues introduced 21 new taxes since 1992, and why, next week, when the Finance Bill is before the House, will it amount to between 450 and 500 pages of the most convoluted tax system bearing down on small businesses and middle and low wage earners?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government intend to return to a low-tax economy when it is safe for us to do so. As for the burden on small businesses, the Department of Trade and Industry has been in the lead in that regard. For example, as well as introducing many other measures, it has exempted very small businesses from the audit procedure. The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to suggest that there is always more to do.

    Building Societies
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from building societies wishing to become buyers and sellers of houses and not wishing to become banks; and if he will make a statement. [702]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor I have received any representations from building societies wishing to become buyers and sellers of houses.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for that answer.
    Surely what the housing market needs is activity without house price inflation. Does my hon. Friend accept that building societies are mistaken in wanting to become

    791
    banks? They have all the resources and expertise in the market; would they not do better to become buyers and sellers of houses, in order to break the logjam? They could treat houses much as garages treat cars and institutions treat stocks and shares.
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has made some interesting points. I assure him that the Building Societies Act 1986 allows societies to engage in the activity that he describes. I shall, however, convey what he has said to the Building Societies Association when I next meet its representatives.
    Mr. Pike: Do the Minister and the Government feel any regret about the changing role of the building society, which is losing contact with its customers and members and is more concerned about the shareholders? We all used to believe that the building societies were on our side, but now they are concerned only about profit, and about becoming banks.
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman must realise that a great many people have benefited from the decisions made by building societies in regard to conversion and flotation. What societies need to do is assure their members of the importance of staying mutual. I urge them to do so, and hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time than now, in recent years, for people to enter the housing market, and that it is the Government's policy of keeping down inflation and interest rates that makes it such a good idea for people to go out and buy their own homes?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The average mortgage now costs about £180 per month, and rising prosperity and low inflation and interest rates have made this a very good time at which to buy a house. It is interesting to note that, 20 years ago, inflation stood at more than 26 per cent. That is the sort of problem that people experienced under a Labour Government.

    Fuel Duty
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury has received since 1993 as a result of (a) the restrictions in respect of fuel duty rebates and (b) increases in fuel duty. [705]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The freeze in fuel duty rebate announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in the 1993 Budget is likely to have raised about £90 million of revenue over the two subsequent years. The increases in fuel duties announced in that Budget and in last year's Budget will have raised around £4 billion over the same period.
    Mr. Cunningham: How have those tax increases helped the motor car and passenger transport industries—or is this another of the 21 Tory taxes?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the fuel duty rebate paid to bus companies is worth about £225 million a year. If we add the similar amount paid in subsidy by local authorities, we find that about £500 million is paid to bus companies and their passengers, helping the companies with the good work that they do.
    Mr. John Greenway: Do not increases in fuel duty impact harshly and unfairly on those who live and work in rural areas? While the Government's duty increases may be defensible on environmental grounds, does my hon. Friend agree that the 50 per cent. hike in fuel duty recommended by Opposition parties would be deeply damaging to the rural community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I fully understand and accept my hon. Friend's final observation—and, as I represent a rural constituency, I also appreciate his first point.

    Taxation Policy
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he gives to the interests of the family in formulating taxation policy. [707]
    Mr. Jack: Our main priority is to reduce the overall burden of tax so that everyone, including those with families, can keep more of what they earn.
    Mr. Arnold: While it is quite right to say that there has been a significant reduction in the burden of tax on the single taxpayer, does my hon. Friend agree that that is not yet the case for the married taxpayer and his family? Now that we have scope to get off the backs of taxpayers, may I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about redressing the balance so that it is in favour of the family?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his Budget representation. I remind him that the real take-home pay for a single-earner couple with two children on average earnings has gone up by £80 a week since 1979, that married couples will pay almost £5 a week less in tax than most single people on similar incomes, and that, in supporting the family, the Government pay about £10 billion a year. I note what my hon. Friend has had to say.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister not ashamed that a staggering one family in five is now without an adult in work? Would not the best measures to help the family be the kind of investment and welfare-into-work measures proposed by the Labour party, which include a 10p starting rate of tax, rather than the Government's proposals further to enrich a minuscule number of the very wealthy by abolishing inheritance tax and capital gains tax?
    Mr. Jack: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman says. If he listens to his Front-Bench spokesmen, he will hear about their fantasy league economic approach, about the sums that do not add up. Such policies produce only fantasy jobs. We have cut unemployment by some 700,000 and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said only a few moments ago, investment in industry is up 12 per cent. on a year ago. That is what creates real jobs.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir. Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [720]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it still the target of my right hon. Friend's Government to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 20p? In that context, did he notice that the shadow Chancellor wasted no time yesterday in his 40-minute speech talking about his 10p target? Which target does my right hon. Friend think that the nation will find more credible?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm the 20p target. There are a number of ways to reach it: reducing the basic rate, widening the 20p band or both, of course. I look forward, as soon as it is affordable, to making some progress in that direction. I found it rather odd that the shadow Chancellor did not talk about his 10p tax rate. It rather confirms my view that it is more of a gimmick than a proper policy option. I notice that the shadow Chancellor has 101 per cent. support from the Leader of the Opposition. The 1 per cent. I am sure is correct; the 100 per cent. I am not so sure of.
    Mr. Blair: How can the Prime Minister seriously maintain his statement on Tuesday that the 21 tax rises that he has introduced since the last election—the equivalent of 7p on the basic rate of tax—were to protect the vulnerable when it is middle and lower-income families who have suffered most, not least from the imposition of VAT on fuel? Would he now care to explain or withdraw that remark?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I shall happily explain to the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to examine the figures, he will see that, since I became Prime Minister, take-home pay after inflation has risen by £600 a year at today's prices. Real disposable income is £400 a year per head higher at today's prices. In addition, mortgage payments have fallen by £140 a month. That does not suggest to me the sort of tax hike affecting people's net disposable income that the right hon. Gentleman portrays. Can he confirm that those take-home figures are right?
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to confirm the tax rises equivalent to a figure of 7p on the basic rate of income tax. Those are the tax rises that he introduced after he promised the British people that he would cut tax year on year. He said that he would never introduce VAT, but he did so. Is not one thing clear? Despite all the promises before the election, after his 7p extra on the basic rate, taxes will be higher at the next election than at the last election, and the British people will remember the Conservatives as the party of broken promises and unfair taxes.
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman of three things that are clear: people have much higher net disposable income than they did at the start of this Government; interest rates have halved since their peak, cutting mortgages dramatically; and there is no one in the country who does not know that taxes would be far higher under any Labour Government than they are under this Government, and as they have been under each and every Labour Government that has ever been inflicted on the country.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the notice this morning from the Department of Transport that
    794
    it has abandoned the M62 relief road, which would have devastated my constituency? Can I tell my right hon. Friend that we are all delighted at the news that that disastrous proposal has now been condemned to transport history?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be grateful to have my hon. Friend's support for that decision. I know that my hon. Friend has been a formidable campaigner for that interest.
    Sir David Steel: Following the belated and hesitant reaction of the international community to events in Nigeria, will the Prime Minister put greater force behind his Government's policy of promoting good governance? In view of the great number of asylum seekers coming from Zaire, will he raise that matter with colleagues in the European Union so that we may secure a timely and united response to despotic regimes?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the way that he characterises the Commonwealth's response to Nigeria. I think that the response was very swift, and it was apt. There is no doubt about the nature of that regime and there is no doubt about the Commonwealth's response. Certainly, we shall look at the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
    Sir Roger Moate: With regard to the road programme, has my right hon. Friend heard of NOMRAM, which means "no more roads after mine", and which is a very popular position? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, if there are to be any reductions in conventional funding, they will be more than replaced by a dynamic private finance initiative for the construction of many projects throughout the land, which are urgently needed both for jobs and for environmental reasons?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the importance, both in the short term and the long term, of the private finance initiative in the case not only of roads, but of other elements of capital expenditure. I set out in a speech on Monday the extent to which the private finance initiative has already made progress.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [721]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: Does the Prime Minister agree that those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from Alzheimer's, strokes and other long-term diseases should be able to get the best care that the national health service can offer? Does he agree that the provision of that care should never be a lottery or dependent on the part of the country that a patient comes from, but should be there for each and every person? If it is the case that the Government have put tax up by 7p in real terms, that money should go to help those patients and their carers.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglects to mention that we have put up spending on the national health service by 70 per cent., even taking account of inflation, since the Government came into office. The result has been a dramatic improvement in the number of

    795
    people treated, and a dramatic reduction in the time that they have to wait for treatment. Half of patients have no wait at all; of the rest, half are admitted within six weeks, and three quarters within three months. Nothing like that record has ever been seen before the arrival of this Government in office and the extra funding that the Government have provided.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [722]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his commitment to reducing Government expenditure to below 40 per cent. of the gross domestic product? Does he agree that the country's competitiveness into the next century depends on low spending linked to low taxation, and that that message is totally lost on the Opposition, whose spending plans simply do not add up?
    The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, the Opposition's spending plans do add up. They add up to a great deal of extra money and extra taxation. For the Opposition to talk about taxation levels when they have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced over the past 16 years, when they have stood consistently for higher taxes and higher spending and have never forgone any item of expenditure that might conceivably have been popular in any part of the country, is hypocrisy on a grand scale. The reality is that we need to cut spending to below 40 per cent. of national income as soon as possible and we need to cut spending and taxes so that the fact that this country is the enterprise centre of Europe becomes increasingly recognised, not just here and in Europe but beyond Europe. Spending more and taxing less, which the shadow Chancellor claims is possible, is not possible. Those plans do not add up.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [724]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: It is almost five years since the Prime Minister took office. When he looks back, what does he see as his proudest achievement? Is it that we have had the lowest economic growth of any post-war five-year period, is it the 20 per cent. devaluation or tax rises amounting to 7p on the standard rate, or is his proudest achievement simply the fact that he has survived for so long in office?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has his own suggestions and I am sure that he will not mind if I offer him some alternatives. When I became Prime Minister, inflation was 9.5 per cent., but we now have underlying inflation of 2.9 per cent. [Interruption.] Base rates were 14 per cent., they are now 6 per cent. and output is 6 per cent. higher—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    The Prime Minister: If hon. Members care to look at the international projections about what lies ahead for the country, they will see what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has to say about our performance. They will see that we are top of the growth league and they will see inward investment flooding into the country. The deputy leader of the Labour party claims that he does not see inward investment flooding in. I suggest that he visits the constituencies of the Leader of the Opposition and of the shadow Foreign Secretary and constituencies up and down the country to see the extent to which other countries have recognised the success of this country over recent years.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the shambles that is Labour local government in Preston? Given that the chief executive has been sacked in highly dubious circumstances, the chief constable has issued writs on the councillors and the leader of the council, Valerie Wise, has even lost the confidence of her ward committee, will my right hon. Friend set up an investigation into the further abuse of powers by a Labour council, demonstrating yet again what Labour would be like in office?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the details set out by my right hon. Friend but, sadly, that is not a unique case of Labour local government by any means. We have seen what has happened in Monklands and in a large number of other Labour local authorities. If the Labour party were one bit as concerned about good government at local level as it claims to be about good government at national level, it would clean out the nest of Labour local government, which has long needed drastic action.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [725]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister agree with the words of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that Princess Diana is in an advanced state of paranoia?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of being drawn into making any comments in the aftermath of last Monday.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [727]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in condemning those people who made a violent attack—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in condemning those people who made a violent attack on the chairman of the Conservative party last week and those people who, the week before,

    797
    tried to stop my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary speaking at Canterbury university? Does my right hon. Friend have any idea whether those people are members of new Labour, of old Labour or of fascist Labour?
    The Prime Minister: I condemn anyone who resorts to violence or intimidation to force their own way in democratic politics. They do nothing whatever for their cause. They merely show that their argument does not stand up to rational debate. They deserve condemnation from every corner.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Prime Minister tolerate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces continuing to act
    798
    as the Prince of Wales's butler? Can we have an assurance that the Minister of State will not act on behalf of—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will remain silent while questions are being asked.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Can we have an undertaking that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will not speak on constitutional matters which are the sole preserve of the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister sack the Minister of State for speaking out of turn against the Princess of Wales?
    The Prime Minister: I do not expect any more comments, Madam Speaker.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will now be as follows:
MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Until about 8 o'clock, Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
Motion on the Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme) Order.
TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER—As I announced last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement, debate on which will then run through Wednesday 29 November, Thursday 30 November and Monday 4 December, and will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 December. The intervening Friday is a non-sitting day.
WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Chemical Weapons Bill.
THURSDAY 7 DECEMBER—There will be debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House. Subjects to be announced.
FRIDAY 8 DECEMBER—There will be debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House. Subjects to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 November to consider European Community document Nos. 8273/95 and 9284/95 relating to equal opportunities for men and women.
[Tuesday 28 November: Budget Statement
The following document is relevant: the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 26 July 1995 relating to the Council Recommendation to the United Kingdom with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom, prepared in regard to Article 104c(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Wednesday 29 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8273/95 and 9284/95, Equal opportunities for men and women. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 70–xxvi (1994–95) and HC 51-i (1995–96).]
For those who were not hanging on my every word last night or did not pay sufficient attention, the House might like to be reminded that I said that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 20 December until Tuesday 9 January. For Easter, again subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 3 April until Tuesday 16 April.
Mr. Rooker: May I thank the Leader of the House for the repetition of the early notice of the dates of the recesses for Christmas and Easter? Will he confirm that
800
Wednesday 20 December will be a full working day, with Wednesday morning Adjournment debates and Scottish questions in the afternoon?
While on the subject of Scottish business, I and others who were present yesterday heard the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scottish questions say that he would make an announcement about the future government of Scotland on St. Andrew's day. May we have a commitment that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a full statement in the House on any changes, so that Members have a chance to debate them before they are announced in Glasgow?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement next week by the Secretary of State for Social Security, so that he may give an interim response to the fifth report of the Select Committee on Social Security, which was published today? That report discloses that there are over 10 million national insurance numbers more than there are people aged over 16, that the integrity of the national insurance system is at stake and that it allows organised criminals to perpetrate fraud.
Bearing in mind the fact that there is also known organised fraud in operating immigration policy, which is being discussed in respect of the proposed Bill on asylum, will the House be told next week why Her Majesty's Government's proposal in 1990 to close the "Day of the Jackal" loophole allowing access to birth certificates has not yet been closed? Five years ago, a commitment to do so was made in a White Paper. In May, the Prime Minister told me and others that there was insufficient parliamentary time for the change. In this Session, there is clearly time for such a Bill, with which we would agree. The Leader of the House was asked about it last night. Has he made any inquiries about it?
I have two further brief points. Bearing in mind the Budget statement next Tuesday, will the local government settlement be announced on Thursday? Clearly, the Budget statement will have a massive impact on local government expenditure. It is important that those facing cuts in education and social services—provided for the public—know about the Budget's implications as quickly as possible.
Given that at present there is a good deal of traffic on the World Service network from Argentina, will the Leader of the House assure hon. Members that next week there will be a Foreign Office statement that it is not proposing to cut World Service funds? It would be highly short-sighted and not in the interests of the United Kingdom to lose a voice that creates a very favourable climate for British business around the world. There is a rumour that the Foreign Office plans to cut the final year of the three-year settlement on funds made in 1994. That would be totally unacceptable to the House.
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in order. First, I certainly expect 20 December to be a normal day, although, obviously, I cannot at the moment predict the business. I anticipate, however, that we shall have the normal Wednesday debate just before recess, in which I am here for three hours to do my best to answer any hon. Member who cares to bowl a fast ball at me.
Secondly, it is certainly my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary's intention to make a statement to Parliament on Scottish proposals before announcing them anywhere else.

801
Thirdly, on social security, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are conventions about the amount of time that the Government take to respond to Select Committee reports. Indeed, there is usually criticism in the House if an instant response is made. I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and, indeed, consider the other points that he raised, which I have not yet had a chance to look into since last night.
I anticipate a statement on the local government settlement next Thursday. I seem to be being unusually helpful to the hon. Gentleman today. It must be the charming way in which he puts his questions. However, I cannot be quite so helpful on his last question. He will understand that I am not in a position to anticipate what may be in or follow from the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week. But I should make the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions on the following day, Wednesday 29 November.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend share my disgust at the growing and pernicious habit of cheque-book journalism, which is perverting the course of justice in this country? If the Government are not able to find time to do something about such a practice, will they look sympathetically on a private Member's Bill to put a stop to it?
Mr. Newton: I of course share my hon. Friend's feelings about some of the suggestions that have been made in relation to the Rosemary West case. Of course the Government, in various aspects, will be considering any lessons that may be drawn from that case.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, too, acknowledge how helpful it is to have the Christmas and Easter recess dates announced so far in advance? It is enormously helpful for future planning. Will the Leader of the House clarify an earlier answer that he gave about the business on 20 December? I understand a full day's business to include certainly the Scottish questions slot planned for that day. May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland may or may not be making on 30 November? It is important that hon. Members have a chance to cross-examine the Secretary of State, particularly on any proposals that he may have for the Scottish Grand Committee, because the succession of meetings for the Scottish Grand Committee that will flow for the rest of the year may be dramatically affected by any changes that he may make. Finally, can we anticipate an uprating social security statement next week?
Mr. Newton: In the spirit of—actually usual—helpfulness that I am adopting this afternoon, I anticipate that there will be a social security uprating statement on the day after the Budget, Wednesday 29 November. The pattern will therefore be the Budget on Tuesday, social security on Wednesday and local government on Thursday.
In relation to the Scottish Secretary's statement, I do not think that I can add to what I have already said. I have made it clear that I expect that the House will have an opportunity to hear a statement on the matter.
802
I did not think that I was obscure in any way in what I said about 20 December. I said that I expected it to be a normal business day. I cannot predict what will come after Question Time, but I certainly anticipate that the Wednesday morning debate to which I referred will be followed by questions, which will be followed by I know not what, for I know not how long.
Sir Dudley Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 65 concerning my constituent, Mrs. Teresita Bentley of Leamington Spa, who faces deportation because of the loss of her battle for custody of her two-year-old child Catherine, in the face of opposition from her estranged and unhelpful husband?
[That this House believes that Mrs. Teresita Bentley of Leamington Spa, a well-educated, professional woman from the Philippines, should not be deported from this country, following her High Court failure to secure custody of her two-year-old daughter, Catherine, and that such an enforced separation would deny her permanent right of access to her child via her English husband, in a callous and insensitive way, not in keeping with the United Kingdom's reputation for justice and fair play in humanitarian issues.]
In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that this is a sad case, in that Mrs. Bentley may not see her child for many years should she be deported? The case has profound humanitarian implications. I do not expect the Leader of the House to grant a debate on that subject, but could he encourage Home Office Ministers to make a statement about the case next week or, at the very least, to arrange a question on the subject?
Mr. Newton: I understand that my hon. Friend has in fact written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on behalf of Mrs. Bentley, for reasons that he outlined in his question I understand also that those representations are being carefully considered. That seems to be the appropriate response at this time.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is not a great deal of Government legislation in the coming programme, and the private Member's Bill ballot took place today. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a second Standing Committee is set up to debate private Members' Bills, to avoid the situation that arose in the previous Session when a Bill—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—which was solemnly supported in the House could not progress because of the procedural devices that were used to stop it? Private Members' Bills should have the opportunity to advance if sufficient Members support them.
Mr. Newton: The House passed the relevant Sessional Order yesterday in respect of time for private Members' Bills and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the ballot took place today. I remind him that, as has been the case for several years, the Sessional Order provides for more time than the Standing Orders themselves. Beyond that, however, I have no plans to change the way in which private Members' business is conducted.
Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in successive meetings between Kent local authorities and Ministers at the Department of Transport, Ministers gave undertakings that the new noise insulation regulations relating to railways would be debated and that those undertakings were recorded in the

803
official departmental minutes, copies of which I have sent to him? Is he further aware of the motion tabled by me and a number of my hon. Friends in opposition to those regulations and of a similar motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition? Against that background, will my right hon. Friend take early steps to fulfil the undertakings given by Ministers that the regulations will be debated?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course consider what my right hon. Friend said.
Mr. Alex Salmond: As to the statement by the Scottish Secretary, I do not agree with the Labour Front Bench: I think that all the parties in Scotland would be quite capable of making statements to the Scottish people before the issue was debated in this place.
The House must realise that expectations about the Secretary of State's statement have been raised considerably by the Prime Minister's intervention. I understand that its theme is the sensitivity of this place to Scottish requirements, but how can that be when the Tory Whips Office floods the Order Paper during Scottish questions? Does the Leader of the House approve of the fact that six out of the first 10 questions asked during Scottish questions yesterday came from English Tory Members of Parliament, whose only interest in Scottish affairs is to act as cheerleaders for beleaguered Scottish Office Front Benchers?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that whether he likes it or not—I must confess that I do like it—this is a United Kingdom and hon. Members from any part of it are entitled to take an interest in the affairs of every part of it.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will have sensed that there is little agreement from any part of the House—let alone the Opposition Front Bench—with his assertion that matters affecting the House should not be presented first to the House. His view is not shared by many other hon. Members.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House please arrange to have an urgent, early debate on the implications of signing the social chapter, given that that would lead to the reintroduction of the closed shop, the minimum wage, union-only labour and workers' councils? Those implications are not appreciated by many in this place or by many outside it.
Mr. Newton: Indeed, and I would add that recent evidence suggests that the implications of signing the social chapter are not even appreciated by the leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on early-day motion 74?
[That this House, mindful of the current review by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council of the criterion used since 13th September 1993 in the diagnosis of coalminers, believes that the requirement for X-ray evidence of attendant pneumoconiosis should be dropped, the FEV1 test replaced by a sensitive medical examination, the qualifying period reduced to 10 from 20 years in the appropriate employment and that the diagnosis in posthumous cases be decided on the evidence of the post mortem report.]
804
A copy is being handed to the Leader of the House now. Some months ago, members of the miners' group—in which I now declare my interest—called for a change in the conditions that apply to payments for those with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We also asked the Government to modify the FEV test, to reduce the qualifying period from 20 to 10 years, and to drop the X-ray evidence requirement. We have made those demands, but we are still awaiting a reply. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to get a move on?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's characteristically robust remarks. A little bird tells me that the current review by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will cover all the criteria used in deciding claims for benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema sufferers. The Government will give full and careful consideration to any recommendations that the council may make.
Mr. Douglas French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trial of my constituent, Mrs. Rosemary West, has given rise to grave public concern about many issues? He has already indicated his intention to examine the issue of cheque-book journalism. Will he provide an early opportunity to debate some other issues, such as the need to put in place a much more comprehensive, national system for sharing information about missing persons?
Mr. Newton: I have already said that the various Departments concerned, and no doubt other organisations, will look very carefully at any lessons that may be learned from events in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Government will consider whether any additional guidance is necessary in areas within our responsibility.
As to my earlier comments about cheque-book journalism, I should have acknowledged that not only will the Government consider the need for new legislation, but the Press Complaints Commission—for which there may also be implications—has decided to examine whether it might do more in that regard.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have an early statement about the duties and responsibilities of Ministers? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be absolutely outrageous for a Cabinet Minister to use or abuse his position in order to discriminate unfairly in favour of his constituency to the detriment of a neighbouring constituency? Therefore, could there be an investigation into the conduct of the Secretary of State for Scotland who, in collusion with his crony, the chairman of Forth Valley health board, seems hell-bent on centralising more and more national health service facilities in his constituency to the disadvantage of people living in the Falkirk area?
Mr. Newton: It would be a matter for you, Madam Speaker, rather than for me, but some of the phrasing of what the hon. Gentleman has just said leaves a certain amount to be desired, as he certainly would not have wished to use those terms outside the House. Having said that, I shall of course draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the People's Republic of China is an important export market for the United

805
Kingdom, just as the United Kingdom is a good market for goods from the People's Republic of China? Is he aware that the People's Republic is currently greatly limiting its imports, with on-going consequences for the companies in Britain that look to the People's Republic as a market for their manufactured goods? I refer particularly to an important company in my constituency, Rieter Scragg Ltd., which exports textile drawtexturing machinery. Will he arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House and explain what action can be taken to create a better environment for free trade between our two countries?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend well knows the strength of the United Kingdom Government's support for free trade. On the specific point that he raised, I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends, but as I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions on Wednesday 29 November and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be answering questions on Wednesday 6 December.
Mr. Max Madden: As the Leader of the House has announced two debates for two weeks today and tomorrow on the Adjournment of the House, will he urgently consider allocating one of those days to the debate on the future of the monarchy?
Mr. Newton: I propose to say exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said several times 20 minutes ago; that appears to be an attempt to invite me to comment indirectly when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister declined to comment directly. I shall comment neither directly nor indirectly.
Mr. Piers Merchant: In the light of the excellent points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) and for Gloucester (Mr. French), although I appreciate that cheque-book journalism is being studied as part of that consultation, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House the opportunity to debate the matter at length, so that we can hear examples of the pernicious effects of cheque-book journalism in the West case and many others? I make that request as a former journalist who finds the practice absolutely abhorrent.
Mr. Newton: As I have already said, I understand the concerns that led several hon. Members to raise the matter with me today. However, the proper time to consider whether a debate is needed, on either general or specific matters, would be when the various bodies and organisations to which I referred have had an opportunity to consider the lessons and what they might do.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to investigate the decision by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company to end responsibility for the employment of dock workers? He will know that the Rochdale report, produced in the 1960s, recommended that there should be fewer such employers in the port transport industry. The decision will mean that once again there will be a large number of employers of casual dock labour, reviving the casual nature of the port transport industry.
Mr. Newton: Helpful as ever, I have arranged for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to answer questions next Monday.
Mr. Tony Banks: I read some of the proceedings of the trial of Rosemary West, but I found it so disgusting and abhorrent that I could not continue. I understand why the Government should be worried about cheque-book journalism and the fact that witnesses have been approached, but what about the jurors? They spent week after week listening to the most disgusting and foul proceedings. Is it not time for a debate on counselling for jurors? I am worried that they have suffered a trauma that will affect them for the rest of their lives. May we have a debate on the role of jurors and counselling?
Mr. Newton: I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind. I have no doubt that it was distressing for people to sit through those proceedings. I have gained the impression, although I do not have a statement to this effect before me, that counselling has been considered and that some has been arranged.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on early-day motion 77?
[That this House condemns Islington Council for being placed bottom in the GCSE league tables and calls for a radical change in its education policies as well as recognition of past errors by the Labour leadership; and calls upon all Islington parents to bring pressure on their council to adopt Conservative education policies that will meet the needs of all local parents.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that education should provide an escalator of opportunity for all children, which is not happening in Islington? Does not that demonstrate that old Labour or new Labour—call it what one will—does not produce the education standards that children have a right to demand? Does that explain why some parents seek to opt out of sending their children to schools run by Islington's local education authority?
Mr. Newton: Whatever we call Labour, I am sure that all parents in Islington—including the Leader of the Opposition, to whom my hon. Friend was presumably referring—will want to know why the authority is performing so badly and is not doing a good job for pupils educated in the borough.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Rather than have just a statement on the Social Security Select Committee report published today, it would be helpful to have a full debate. That would give hon. Members an opportunity to demonstrate not only that the report welcomes the Government's initiative against fraud but that Labour's policies are non-existent and that it is simply following in our footsteps.
Mr. Newton: I am glad that my hon. Friend serves as a member of the Social Security Select Committee, and I am grateful for his comments. As he rightly said, the Committee welcomes the priority given by the Government to tackling fraud.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on a non-partisan, non-party subject about which the whole nation has been talking this week? It is absurd that everybody is talking about a certain matter outside the House, but that the House

807
cannot discuss it. I am not concerned with the personalities involved or with the remarks made, but the constitutional implications of a 19th-century arrangement for the head of state may not be appropriate for the 21st century. If the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister want the agenda for that matter to be set by the tabloid press and television executives, they will continue their say nothing, see nothing, hear nothing attitude in the House. The nation would like the House to debate the monarchy that we want in the 21st century.
Mr. Newton: I will not add to that which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already said.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate soon on the office costs allowance? Given that the leader of the Labour party has been unable to answer even one of four letters sent to him personally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the right hon. Gentleman appears to have a problem staffing his office. May we have an urgent debate, to find a way of remedying that grave discourtesy?
Mr. Newton: If a letter has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition, that would relate to the Short money rather than to the office costs allowance, which the House debated in the previous Session when it made arrangements covering the whole of this Parliament. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will respond when my hon. Friend's remarks are reported to him. I would not wish to reopen that issue in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1:
[That this House supports Bristol Coroner Paul Forrest's call of 14th November 1995 for a ban on bull bars at the inquest on Helen Baggs aged 10 of Melksham who was killed by a Land Rover fitted with bull bars; believes that many deaths and serious injuries would have been avoided if the Government and the European Commission had swiftly acted to ban bull bar fashion accessories that concentrate and multiply the force of collisions at the level of a child's head.]
When may the House debate that and the decision yesterday by CGA Direct Line Insurance not to insure in future any vehicle fitted with bull bars? Can we end the silly row between the Government and the European Commission over who should take the decision to introduce a ban on bull bars? We should act before more children are killed, now that hard-headed businesses say that vehicles fitted with bull bars are too dangerous to insure.
Mr. Newton: I commented on that matter to the hon. Gentleman last week, but that is not to say that I object to him raising it again. If he intends to raise that subject every week, I had better prepare different answers, so that I do not repeat myself. At present, I am not in that position. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is also making representations to Commissioner Kinnock, with whom his links are possibly closer than mine. Given that the Government discourage manufacturers from providing bull bars and vehicle owners from using them, I think that the insurance company decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred seems reasonably sensible and welcome.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: For the avoidance of doubt, may I say to my right hon. Friend that if there is
808
no cut in the funding to the BBC World Service, it would be nice to have an opportunity next week to say thank you?
Mr. Newton: Whether people want to throw bouquets or brickbats next week, they should have the opportunity to do so when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary appears at the Dispatch Box to answer questions on 29 November.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In the light of recent publicity about the use of transgenic animals in human genetic research, and particularly in the light of the actions of some insurance companies, will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent and full debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was unanimously agreed by that Committee?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made what we hope will be improved arrangements in the present Session—with the so-called Jopling resolutions—to allow greater opportunity for debating Select Committee reports. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to draw those remarks not only to my attention but to the attention of the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate a subject of concern to many of my vulnerable constituents—the delivery of community care by social services in Essex? I understand that events may have overtaken my question, but if we have time to debate the matter next week, can we draw attention to the excellent, dedicated service and care provided by those in the front line in social services in Essex?
Mr. Newton: Yes—I am very much of that view. Although my constituency does not immediately border on my hon. Friend's, I am well aware that there has been much concern about the way in which some aspects of community care have been working in Essex. I hope that those matters can be fully considered. Nothing takes away from the fact that those providing such services work hard to provide dedicated care for many people.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I add my voice to those of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in asking for a debate next week on the subject of the funding of the World Service. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is our finest national asset and does far more to influence other countries in favour of Britain and British interests than anything else—certainly, more than the Government or the royal family are doing at present?
Mr. Newton: As an occasional listener to the World Service—I used to be a more regular listener when I drove home every night—I know that we all value the service that it provides. That is one reason why I am usually willing to be interviewed on it about subjects such as the Queen's Speech; it conducts such interviews very nicely.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate, perhaps up to 7 o'clock, when we could discuss the nonsensical suggestions of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who spoke earlier? We could then tell him

809
that many Conservative Members who regularly attend Scottish questions have a clear and obvious link with Scotland. In any case, Scotland is an integral part of this Parliament and will remain so. Until 10 o'clock, we might have a debate on the importance of spending constraints in the public sector to achieve lower taxation—we could thus contrast Government policies with those of Opposition Members, who come up with many gimmicks rather than carefully costed policies.
Mr. Newton: I have much sympathy with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. On the latter part of his remarks, I merely observe that the House will have no fewer than five days to discuss the sort of matters to which he referred and I am not sure that I want to promise to return to them yet again on 20 December.
Mr. George Foulkes: As you know, Madam Speaker, I was one of the casualties of Scottish Question Time yesterday. The problem was not so much English Tories, but the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber did not heed your admonition for short questions and short answers—none more so than the king nat himself. On the subject of next week's business, when are we to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the local government settlement, so that I can ask questions about the underfunding of the south Ayrshire and east Ayrshire authorities?
Mr. Newton: Long question; short answer. That one is still a bit ahead.

BILL PRESENTED
  ARMED FORCES
  Mr. Secretary Portillo, supported by Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Nicholas Soames, presented a Bill to continue the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957; to amend those Acts and other enactments relating to the armed forces; to make further provision in relation to proceedings before service courts; to provide for the fingerprinting of offenders convicted in service proceedings; to amend the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968; to make further provision in relation to complaints to industrial tribunals by members of the armed forces; to provide for further exemptions from the Firearms Act 1968; to make further provision in relation to Greenwich Hospital; to amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
Orders of the Day

  Chemical Weapons Bill
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Chemical Weapons Bill has consented to place her Prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to implement the requirements of the chemical weapons convention. I think that it will be warmly welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The provisions of the Bill will enable the UK to fulfil all its convention obligations. We have done our best to respond to comments and concerns expressed during a quite lengthy consultation period.
  The convention was signed in 1993 after 20 years of difficult and tortuous negotiation. It is unique in the history of arms control. It is the first treaty to provide for a verifiable worldwide ban on an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. I am pleased to say that the UK has played an active part in support of the treaty throughout the negotiations. The treaty holds the promise of ridding the world of chemical weapons. The Government take it extremely seriously and support it fully. In total, 159 states have signed the convention. We hope that many others will sign in the near future.
  The convention enters force six months after 65 countries have ratified it. So far, 42 have done so. It is estimated that the convention is unlikely to enter into force until the second half of next year. Two key signatories—the United States and the Russian Federation—have yet to ratify. As they hold 90 per cent. of the world's stockpile of chemical weapons, we hope sincerely that rapid UK ratification will help to encourage these two states to ratify the convention.
  I shall outline briefly the requirements of the convention. First—
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my hon. Friend be telling the House later why two large powers with a formidable capacity in this context seem reluctant to sign and ratify as quickly as they should?
  Mr. Oppenheim: To be honest, I was not intending to do so. My hon. Friend might care to raise that issue if he is called to speak.
  The convention prohibits the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons. It requires their destruction. It bans military preparations and—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It so happens that I am a member of the central Asian group, which has recently seen the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan, who happens to

  811
  be in London. Would it not be sensible to have a discussion with the Kazakh leadership? The Kazakhs are involved with chemical weapons, as they are with nuclear weapons. Would it not be sensible, while their Prime Minister is in London, to have a frank discussion about this urgent matter? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) has raised a vital issue.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our doors are open to the Kazakhs if they wish to have discussions. The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point. It is the Russian Federation, however, that is the main keeper of chemical weapons in that area. The hon. Gentleman is right to say, of course, that there are weapons of mass destruction in Kazakhstan.
  The convention bans military preparations for the use of chemical weapons and requires the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons as well as the destruction of production facilities.
  The chemical weapons convention provides a powerful verification regime. It is unprecedented in its scope and extent. Its effective operation will provide the assurance that the threat from chemical weapons has, as far as possible, been removed.
  Two of the provisions of the convention are particularly important. First, declarations are required periodically from companies and other bodies using chemicals of concern. The requirements relating to the chemicals are graded according to the threat that they pose. Secondly, but perhaps most important, inspections will be undertaken by an international inspectorate based in The Hague. There will be two types of inspection: routine inspections to check the accuracy of declarations and "challenge inspections", which will be undertaken at short notice at any site where there are grounds to suspect that it is in breach of the convention. "Challenge inspections" can be required by any state that is party to the convention.
  Mr. Dalyell: I ask for clarification on the Minister's first point—the commercial use and the so-called dual-purpose problem, which Dr. Julian Perry Robinson and others have explained to the officials, and doubtless those officials understand very well. Is the industry satisfied, or is it still worried?
  Mr. Oppenheim: We consulted the industry pretty widely, and it was involved during the negotiation of the convention, so it has been involved in consultations over a long period. My understanding is that it is now as satisfied as it can be with the provisions. If the hon. Gentleman is talking primarily about using some of the very dangerous chemicals for legitimate research purposes, he will find, if he bears with me, that the provisions for that are reasonable; but if he disagrees at the end of my speech, I will come back to it when I reply at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman just allow me to make a little progress? If he is still dissatisfied with my performance, I will allow him to come in later.
  I shall talk briefly about the new international body that will be set up in The Hague: the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The main function of
  812
  its staff will be inspection and verification. A preparatory commission is already working in The Hague on the detailed arrangements for the implementation. The United Kingdom is playing an active part in that work and will continue to do so.
  Just as important as the international inspection authority is the UK national authority, because each state that is party to the convention is required to designate a "national authority" as a focal point for the implementation of the convention in that state. We intend that the Department of Trade and Industry will be the national authority for the United Kingdom. The DTI will be responsible for collecting information from industry and others affected by the convention, processing it and presenting it to the OPCW. It will help inspected sites to deal with the inspection process and will monitor compliance with the convention.
  I wish to talk about the consultation process, which has been extensive. The DTI issued a discussion document in January, and the Bill was issued in July for consultation. We believe that, in an area such as this, extensive consultation with industry, with academia and research bodies is absolutely essential and we have taken on board many of the comments that have been made, so far as we can within the limits of the convention. Industry has been involved throughout the implementation of the convention and during its negotiation. My understanding—I have no indication to the contrary—is that industry and academia fully support the convention. They, as much as we, want to remove the threat of chemical weapons, and they have been extremely helpful in helping us to put in place the tool to do it. They deserve our thanks for that.
  A number of concerns have arisen as a result of the consultation process. I shall deal briefly with the way in which we tried to deal with those concerns. There is no question but that the controls required by the convention will affect industry. There is no getting away from that. The Government have kept in close touch with representatives, particularly of the chemical industry, during the negotiation of the convention, and we continue to work with industry to ensure that, in complying with the convention, burdens on business and legitimate research establishments—universities, and so on—are kept to the minimum.
  Compliance costs assessments originally suggested that the costs to industry would be as high as £8 million. However, since then the Department of Trade and Industry has done a great deal of work in trying to simplify the complicated forms originally put forward as a result of the convention and we believe that that will significantly reduce the work load and make it far easier for people to complete the forms without in any way compromising the convention itself. We are working further on that and we expect that that will result in further cost savings. I pay tribute to the civil servants who have worked on that. They have done an exemplary job in trying to simplify what were originally incredibly difficult and complicated forms.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that the Minister's tribute to the civil service is justified. With regard to the legitimate research establishments, does the Minister intend to say anything about the future of Porton Down? I would like to deploy a case that Porton Down should be retained, above all in order to monitor the innovative developments in the chemical field, not least in their military applications.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is right. Porton Down will play an extremely valuable role in aiding and assisting the DTI and advising it on some of the chemicals. We envisage Porton Down having an active role in that. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  A second point raised, particularly by industry, was the difficult issue of commercial confidentiality. That has already been dealt with through strict rules laid down in the convention and the legislation insists that those rules are strictly maintained. The Bill makes provision for giving statutory protection to information collected as a result of either the Act or the convention.
  One final issue raised some concern during consultation. I hope that I can clear the air by making it crystal clear that I intend that the DTI national authority should issue an annual report about its activities and the operation of the convention. That will help to make its work more transparent and enhance proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is my intention that it should issue an annual report.
  Clauses 1 to 3 prohibit chemical weapons. They implement the prohibition on chemical weapons contained in article I of the convention.
  Clauses 4 to 10 set out procedures for the identification and, if necessary, the seizure and destruction of chemical weapons. Because chemicals that may be used in the production of chemical weapons may also have peaceful uses, the clauses set out the procedure through which it can be established whether the object is a chemical weapon.
  Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to obtain information about suspicious objects through the issue of notices. Where it is believed that the object is a chemical weapon, clause 5 enables and authorised person to enter premises to remove or immobilise it. If, after a period, it is still believed that the object is a chemical weapon, clauses 6 and 7 provide for the destruction of the object. Limited provision is made for compensation in clause 8. Clause 9 creates offences relating to the destruction of chemical weapons, such as giving false information. Clause 10 contains definitions relating to the destruction itself.
  Clauses 11 to 18 set out procedures for the destruction of any facility which may be identified as a chemical weapons production facility. They implement the obligation in article V of the convention not to construct any new chemical weapons production facilities and set out procedures for their destruction or alteration. Clause 11 prohibits anyone from making a facility for producing chemical weapons. Clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to obtain information about suspicious facilities.
  Where a facility is believed to be a chemicals weapons production facility according to the definition contained in the convention, clauses 13 to 15 enable the Secretary of State to require it to be destroyed through the issue of a notice on the relevant person. If the notice is not complied with or no relevant person can be found, the Secretary of State may himself arrange for the destruction of the facility.
  Clause 16 enables any person to apply to the court for compensation in certain circumstances if they have suffered a loss as a result of the destruction of the facility. Clause 17 creates offences and clause 18 contains definitions relating to the destruction process.
  814
  Clauses 19 and 20 provide for the chemicals contained in schedule 1 to the convention to be controlled through the issue of licences. That arrangement will enable the United Kingdom to implement the controls required in part VI of the verification annexe to the convention, which include limiting the overall quantity in the United Kingdom of the most dangerous chemicals to one tonne.
  Mr. Dalyell: A brief from the Royal Society of Chemistry, which I think that the Department has received, raises the urgent question of research. The society argues that clauses 19 and 20
  "would implement the Schedule-1 regime by requiring anyone who would use, produce or possess a Schedule-1 chemical for a permitted purpose (such as pharmacological research) first to obtain a licence from the Government, no matter how small the quantity. Substances that are supertoxic sometimes make super-precise research tools, being valued and used because of it. Here, then, is an instance where the Bill could place significant constraints"—
  this is the point that I want to make—
  "on scientific research, even though research is not an activity expressly covered by the Convention."
  I think that that must be answered, although I do not know whether the Royal Society of Chemistry is right.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am in the rather strange, if not perverse, position of being a Minister responsible for deregulation in my Department, while arguing for a higher level of regulation than the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  I shall do my best to explain. I did receive a fax from the Royal Society of Chemistry—by accident, as it happens: it came through on the wrong fax machine—which raised the issue. I appreciate the society's concern, which I think has some legitimacy. We are happy to talk to the society; but let me explain, as best I can, why we have adopted this course.
  The convention makes it crystal clear that when it comes to the most dangerous chemicals—incredibly toxic chemicals—we are limited to one tonne in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the chemicals are used by Government, industry or academia. We think that the best way of ensuring that we remain within the bounds of the convention that we have signed is to introduce a licensing regime for those most toxic chemicals. I see no honest alternative, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That is the best answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Adam Ingrain: I am sure that the Minister did not want to give the impression that the Royal Society of Chemistry had withheld a document from him. The document that he said came through on the wrong fax machine was probably made widely available to those with an interest in the subject. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to cast such a slur on the society.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Although we have had extensive consultations with the society—which I must say were extremely valuable and helpful—to the best of my knowledge no one in the Department received the fax. It would have been nice to see a copy, although we knew the nature of the society's concerns. Perhaps a fax was sent, and went astray in the same way as mine. Let me make it clear, however, that we have had very good relations with the society, which has been extremely

  815
  helpful both in the drafting of the legislation and during the negotiation phase. We shall always listen to any legitimate concerns that it may have.
  Clause 21 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to obtain information when he suspects that an offence under the Act has been or is about to be committed. The convention requires the UK to make declarations to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of its activities in regard to certain chemicals. Clauses 22 and 23 enable the Secretary of State to obtain the necessary information so that those declarations can be made.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I would prefer to continue until the end of my speech. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific query, he can attempt to catch Madam Speaker's eye; alternatively, I will let him intervene in my winding-up speech. I have already given way many times, and I think that I shall have to push on now.
  The convention establishes a system of inspections as part of the regime of verifying the prohibition on chemical weapons. The inspections will be undertaken by teams of international inspectors. Clauses 24 to 28 make provision for those inspections to be undertaken in the UK. Clause 25 enables the Secretary of State to authorise inspection teams to exercise those rights; clause 26 creates various offences relating to inspections. Clause 27 confers on the inspection team the privileges and immunities that are required by the convention. Clause 28 enables the Secretary of State to reimburse in relation to the inspected site any expenses that have been incurred during the inspection. Clauses 29 to 31 contain provisions relating to offences, such as powers to enable investigation where an offence is suspected.
  Clause 32 provides statutory protection for information that is provided under the Act or the convention. That will be of particular interest to businesses that are concerned about the protection of confidential business information. Clauses 33 to 38 contain a variety of provisions, including provisions that service personnel who commit any of the more serious offences connected to this matter should be tried in a civil court rather than by court martial. A power to amend the Act consequent upon any amendment to the convention is also contained in these clauses. Clause 36 provides that the Bill binds the Crown, subject to certain qualifications. That is in line with the Government's policy on Crown application.
  I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate. If there are any further concerns, I shall do my best to address them in my winding-up speech. It is uncharacteristic for me to be heard in such relative silence during a performance at the Dispatch Box. I wonder if that is a sign of the new consensus. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingrain: I make it clear from the outset that the Labour party welcomes the Bill. In many ways it is almost the end of a long road for those who have been campaigning for international control and regulation of chemical weapons. The journey is not yet over because, as the Minister says, 65 nations are still required to sign the convention before it can come into force.
  816
  As the Minister said, 42 of the original 159 signatories have ratified the convention to date, and 12 others are completing the necessary legislative process. He also said that it is anticipated that the 65th instrument of ratification will be deposited before the middle of next year or thereabouts, and that the convention will come into force 180 days after the 65 signatory states have ratified the convention and deposited their instruments of ratification with the UN Secretary-General.
  I share the Minister's sincere and genuine wish to see the United State and the Russian Federation sign at an early date because they are important in ensuring that other nation states comply with the convention. However, the convention is important not just to the US and to the Russian Federation but to the United Kingdom, which has historically played a positive role in the development and promotion of such international treaties. Therefore, it is obviously important that we become one of the 65 signatory states.
  As the Chemical Industries Association said in its briefing for the debate, if the UK fails to be one of the 65 signatory states, that will have a serious effect upon the trade relations of the many UK companies that trade in chemicals. Chemicals are the UK's No. 1 manufacturing export earner, generating a trade surplus in 1994 of some £4.5 billion. In the light of Tuesday's disastrous trade deficit figures, further damage to our manufacturing base will be unacceptable, probably even to the Government and, I suppose, to the Minister, who was heard in silence. There are sound reasons for helping the Bill reach the statute book, but I shall come to some modifications that are still required.
  Another important reason why the chemical weapons convention should receive full ratification is that that would have a positive effect and would stimulate the control and elimination of biological weapons. The biological weapons convention of 1972 lacks the necessary verification and compliance procedures to make it effective. When the chemical weapons convention is in force, it will provide a working example to the ad hoc group that is engaged in drafting a possible compliance and verification regime in that area. Ratification of the convention would also have positive implications for other forms of arms control and non-proliferation agreements. For those reasons, the Opposition welcome the Bill. I am sure that the Bill is welcomed by all parties and all hon. Members for the same reasons.
  The Scottish National party is always going on about environmental issues—I am perhaps being slightly parochial—and complains about Scotland being a nuclear dustbin. However, I note that the Scottish nationalists have not bothered to turn up for this debate on a major concern not just within the United Kingdom, but internationally. I hope that the SNP supports the Bill, even if it has not done so by its presence. The Opposition support the Bill and I am sure that it will receive the full support of all hon. Members.
  The Minister pointed out that the Government signed the convention at the earliest possible date, on 13 January 1993. Nearly three years have elapsed before the introduction of the required legislation. Clearly, the Government were doing something, but they were not taking decisive action. The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence were strongly in favour of

  817
  introducing the Bill, but for some reason the Department of Trade and Industry has been dragging its feet and has resisted early implementation.
  The Foreign Office nearly won the battle in 1993 to put the measure on the statute book at an early date. The Gracious Speech for that year stated:
  "My Government will work for the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention".—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 7.]
  Yet no legislation was forthcoming.
  In 1994, the Department of Trade and Industry managed to downgrade the commitment, but at least a broad reference remained in the Gracious Speech, which stated:
  "Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains an important priority."—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 4.]
  However, that priority did not go as far as bringing forward legislation on chemical weapons.
  Only in late January 1995 did anything appear—a DTI document entitled "Industry and the Chemical Weapons Convention", which sought the views of users and producers of chemicals. On 19 July, as the Minister said, the Government published the draft Bill, together with a further consultation paper. I do not object to the consultative process, but there was a significant gap between January 1993 and July 1995. Despite that interesting gap, the draft Bill was not well received and, as a result, underwent significant modification on the basis of representations received from industry and experts.
  As a result of the representations made, the Bill has grown from 27 to 38 clauses. Even now, some people still question whether the Bill truly conforms with all aspects of the convention. The Minister will also be aware that the delay in publishing the Bill resulted in criticism from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman said that there is some doubt as to whether the Bill fulfils every aspect of the convention. Could he be more specific about which points cause concern and let us know?
  Mr. Ingrain: I shall deal with that question later, and I am sure that other hon. Members will deal with some of those issues.
  I have heard that part of the reason for the delay was the insistence of the previous President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). His antipathy to any form of regulation of industry, even in weapons control, determined the delay in the publication of the Bill.
  The Minister said that it was unusual for him to introduce the Bill because he was known as a deregulator, yet here he is arguing for regulation. Perhaps the Minister has given us the key to why the Department of Trade and Industry delayed the measure, and that is why I believe there is some substance to the argument that the former President of the Board of Trade refused to allow the Bill to come forward while he was in charge of the Department. In refusing, he ignored the international community; he ignored the experts on arms control and chemical weapons; and he ignored the wishes of the
  818
  British people, who want to see those weapons of mass destruction disposed of once and for all, and removed from the international stage. He even appeared to ignore the wishes of his ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Defence. In doing so, he has embarrassed the United Kingdom at international level because we shall ratify the convention long after many of our European partners.
  The European Parliament passed a resolution on 17 November which specifically expressed deep concern that the United Kingdom had not yet ratified the convention. There is something wrong when this country, which was one of the earliest signatories and has long had a reputation of campaigning on this front, was so late introducing the Bill. It gives new meaning to the concept of just-in-time management. If the Government had fallen and we were in an election period now, it is possible that we would not have been one of the 65 nation states. That would have been a serious problem for British trading relations.
  The Bill has been delayed long enough and the Opposition do not want to cause it any further unnecessary delay. It is important, however, that what we produce from our deliberations is the best possible legislation, and I hope that the Government will be positively responsive to those who are urging that the Bill needs more transparency and accountability measures.
  Before moving on to those points in detail, I should like to deal with Department of Trade and Industry as the national authority responsible for the monitoring and implementation of the convention. One of the key elements of the convention document is the need for each signatory state to establish a national authority. That is contained within section VII.4 of the convention. It could be argued that what was required was a stand-alone agency reporting to Parliament through the Department of Trade and Industry. Such an agency would, of itself, have immediately improved the transparency and accountability of the monitoring process.
  Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have considered at any time the establishment of a separate agency and, if not, why not? Will the Minister explain why the words "national authority" do not appear in the Bill? It is probably too late in the day to seek substantial amendment to establish such an agency.
  Mr. Oppenheim: We believe that the Department of Trade and Industry is the best organisation to carry this out. If the hon. Gentleman thinks this through seriously, he will see that there are significant national security implications, which would cause problems if the body were to be totally independent. The best assurance of the effectiveness of the body is that, ultimately, it will be responsible to Parliament and Parliament will be the final arbiter. That is the best guarantee of the independence of the body. I think that we have made the best decision, bearing in mind the security implications that must be considered by anyone in government. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are wrong, that is fine. We think that we are right. We want to go ahead with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman can give a commitment that if his party is elected, it will change things.
  I want to make one further gentle point to the hon. Gentleman. The consultation document was issued last January—almost a year ago. The draft legislation was

  819
  issued in July. I have no record of any senior Opposition Member or Front-Bench spokesman writing to us, contacting us or coming to us saying that there should be a totally independent body rather than the Department of Trade and Industry. We all want to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. I should have thought that, if this were a serious concern, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have taken advantage of the lengthy consultation period.
  Mr. Ingram: The Minister has extended my point a wee bit. I did not use the phrase "totally independent body". I used the phrase "stand-alone body". I have no objection to it being a next steps agency. That could have been set up quite easily. It would then have had a management structure and reporting mechanisms, which would have been helpful to the monitoring in a whole range of ways. Please do not put words into my mouth; I did not argue for an independent body. As I have said, it is probably too late in the day for us to seek the establishment of such a national authority.
  If the process that the Government set in force does not work or does not seem to be in the best interests of national security or in the national or public interest, an incoming Labour Government would consider the best method of monitoring. Any Government would do that. If something does not work, it needs to be fixed.
  I am not criticising the civil servants, but we shall end up with seven anonymous members of staff working in the Department of Trade and Industry. That hardly adds up to a genuine attempt by the Government to implement the full spirit of the convention's articles.
  Leaving aside that criticism, there are other ways of ensuring that what the Department of Trade and Industry does as a United Kingdom national authority is properly monitored. The Department will be charged with ensuring full compliance of this legislation within the United Kingdom. It will have the responsibility of guarding against any wrongdoing on the part of producers and users of specified chemicals, but that raises the question of who guards the guards. How will we ensure that the public interest is properly protected?
  One of the main changes that people have campaigned for since the first and second draft of the Bill were published is a commitment from the Government to produce an annual report. Why wait until the last moment, when we are dealing with the Bill in Parliament, to make that commitment? After all the time that we have had to consider the legislation, why has the Minister waited until tonight to announce that there will be an annual report? He has not specified what the annual report will contain. Will he give us some details?
  The public and Parliament should be told for each reporting period the number of companies providing information, the number of chemicals of concern, the details of the chemicals involved, the quantities of chemicals involved and the compliance of companies, that is, how good or otherwise is the information provided by them. The report should detail the number of prosecutions for violations, the number of routine inspections of premises, the number of challenge inspections and an audit of the outcome of inspection of premises. Rather than simply saying that he will produce an annual report, the Minister should specify exactly what the report will contain.
  Mr. Robert Key: Give him a chance.
  Mr. Ingram:: The Government have had almost three years. That is chance enough to consider the issues. The points that I have raised have been argued not only by the Opposition but by those who have given advice to the Department.
  Mr. Gapes: My hon. Friend talks about who guards the guards. I draw his attention to clauses 22 and 23, on which I would have questioned the Minister if I had had the opportunity. Is it not true that those clauses include some draconian powers, including the power to impose imprisonment for two years, serious fines and various other punishments? While those powers may be necessary, it is important that we avoid abuses, such as those that are being investigated by the Scott inquiry, and the use of public interest immunity certificates in ways that could affect innocent people in academic research establishments or industry doing nothing wrong. They could be put into a difficult position by some civil servant or Minister who does not want proper accountability. Can we have an assurance from the Minister on that? Will my hon. Friend comment on the issue?
  Mr. Ingram: That is a good point. I was going to comment on that. My hon. Friend has made his own point very well. No Opposition Member would dissent from his analysis of those two clauses. My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister asked me earlier to suggest changes if we thought that anything in the Bill needed to be changed. We are already suggesting changes. We shall see in the Minister's reply whether he is responsive to those suggestions.
  Further to my point about greater accountability and transparency in relation to the annual report, I contend that procedures should be put in place to allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the DTI as the national authority. Once it has ratified the convention, the United Kingdom will be required to produce a confidential annual report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. I see no reason why the document should not be screened for commercial confidentiality and then presented for consideration to an appropriate scrutiny Committee of the House, such as the Trade and Industry Select Committee. That could be done at the same time as publication of the annual report, to which the Minister referred earlier. Such scrutiny by the House would not place national security at risk. It would show that the United Kingdom was acting in the best way possible to ensure that the convention was properly applied and monitored within the confines of our territory.
  Another way of improving transparency would be to set up an advisory body outside the DTI to offer advice on the implementation of the legislation. Such a body would provide a better point of contact for industry, academics and concerned members of the public than civil servants buried away in the deep recesses of the DTI. Such a body already exists for pesticide control. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is an independent body, the remit of which is to advise Ministers on a range of topics related to pesticide use within the framework of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
  In its fifth report in the 1994–95 Session of Parliament, the Agriculture Select Committee commented favourably on the working of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. If it is deemed necessary to have such a committee to

  821
  oversee pesticide use, there is an even greater case for setting up a similar committee to oversee the production and use of potentially dangerous chemicals.
  As I understand it, advisory bodies exist to work alongside the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Will the Minister give consideration to building on the role of those advisory bodies and setting up a similar advisory structure to interface with the DTI as the national authority?
  I should like to examine the role of the CBDE a little further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says, the work of Porton Down is vital to the nation. We have been involved in chemical defence since 1916. For the past four years, the CBDE at Porton has published an excellent annual report about its anti-chemical protection work. Article X.4 of the convention requires that each state party provide information about the nature of its protective work against chemical warfare. The article says:
  "For the purposes of increasing the transparency of national programmes related to protective purposes, each State Party shall provide annually to the Technical Secretariat information on its programme".
  I should like the Minister to elaborate on the envisaged relationship between the CBDE and the Department of Trade and Industry on the implementation of the legislation. As others have said, the establishment at Porton Down is a national asset. It should be used effectively. Will the Minister describe the nature of the advice that the Government will seek from that valuable source in monitoring the DTI's role?
  I draw the Minister's attention to the recent annual report of Porton Down. It refers to issues of concern in hazard assessment relating to chemicals and disclosures by scientists in the former Soviet Union—Dr. Mirzayanov and Dr. Uglev. The first disclosure related to a Soviet nerve agent declared as VX. They said that the former Soviet Union had developed and weaponised in binary form a close analogue of VX, code-numbered compound 33. The compound had the same empirical formula as VX, but differed in the substituents around the central phosphorus atom. Historical data on the compound suggest that its properties are broadly comparable to those of VX. The precursors required for its production should fall within the generic structures in the schedules of controlled chemicals in the annexe to the chemical weapons convention.
  The second and third disclosures were more disturbing. They related to the development of two novel organophosphorus nerve agents. One was described as being five to eight times more effective than VX as a battlefield agent. The other, an analogue of the second, was said to have been developed as a binary weapon which could be made from industrially available precursors not listed in the chemical weapons convention schedules. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the anxiety raised in the Porton Down annual report has been taken into account and say whether those chemicals are included in the schedule of the Bill that we are considering tonight.
  The matter to which I have referred is just one aspect of a detailed report. It highlights the importance of the work undertaken at Porton Down. It also makes the case
  822
  for comprehensive annual reports rather than merely something to assuage the criticisms of the Government because of the Minister's non-response to the request for an annual report.
  On another point of detail, the Bill gives the Secretary of State significant powers to make regulations to enable his Department to ensure that it complies with the convention. We need to examine how the regulation process will work in practice. Fears have been raised with me by the scientific community about the issue of licences for the use of certain chemicals. Whole families of chemicals—thousands of different compounds—are covered by schedule 1. It is extremely likely that many of them will be regularly used in small quantities in research laboratories. That point has been raised in interventions. Will individual researchers have to apply for a licence each time they use a listed substance? I am not presenting an argument for or against, but I think that it is important that we reach an understanding on how people in research will be expected to respond to the legislation. Will it be the case instead that a research establishment or company will be able to obtain a blanket licence to cover all occasions on which certain chemicals are used? Clarification would be helpful.
  There is another concern. How will the appeal procedure work if an organisation or individual fails to obtain a licence for the use or development of a particular chemical substance? A clarification of that issue today would set at rest some of the doubts prevailing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned clause 23, which states:
  "The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description."
  Although that is a wonderful piece of parliamentary draftsmanship, it needs clarification. Will the Minister explain how it will work in practice? How will individuals and especially small companies, in the research sector primarily, become aware of the legislation? That point is particularly important since the Government have given no sign that they are intending to set up an outside body to act as a contact point between themselves and individuals.
  Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned that those all-embracing regulations that the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make will be introduced via a negative statutory instrument, as specified in clause 23. Surely, given the extent of the powers that will be vested in the Secretary of State as a result of that clause, it would be more appropriate if the relevant regulations were subject to affirmative procedure.
  I have touched on the need for greater transparency and accountability in the UK implementation of the convention. Another concern is export controls. The Bill bans the transfer of chemical weapons or substances that will be used to manufacture chemical weapons. The result of that is that exporters of substances of potential use in warfare need to show that such substances will not be used for war purposes. I shall paint a scenario that is not unrealistic.
  A major UK chemical manufacturer has gone out into the market place and obtained a large order abroad for his goods. Fulfilling that order will be good news for the company and the balance of payments. The substances concerned can be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, but there is no real proof that they will be. The

  823
  DTI could be under very strong pressure not to press the issue further by undertaking stringent checks on the end use of the substances. The Foreign Office may know very little about it.
  That scenario is not unrealistic. The Scott inquiry has already shown that such tensions can and do arise. In theory, the UK chemical weapons national authority would ensure that such events never occurred, but the powers of the national authority are vested in the DTI, the very body that has the responsibility to promote exports.
  I have already pointed out that relations between the Foreign Office and the DTI can be far from good, as the delay and confusion in bringing forward the Bill has shown. Such poor relations were clearly shown in the Scott inquiry as well, as was pointed out in Monday's edition of The Independent in an article which dealt with a letter from a previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The article went on to say:
  "A rift had developed between the Foreign Office, which wanted to maintain an embargo not just on arms but also machine tools, which could be adapted for use in the manufacture of arms, and the DTI, which feared that the machine tool ban would wreck British trade relations with Iraq."
  If we substitute "chemicals with warfare potential" for "machine tools", my point is clearly made.
  Will the Minister furnish the House with a detailed description of the links between the DTI, the Foreign Office and Customs and Excise with regard to the way in which they will deal with the export of chemicals as a result of the Bill? Who will have the final say in resolving such conflicts—the DTI, the DTI's national authority, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or some other Government agency?
  We must ensure that the circumstances which led to the Scott inquiry are not repeated when potentially dangerous chemicals are concerned. Clear guidelines need to be drawn up to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is not subverted by decision or default.
  We do not want to obstruct the UK ratification of the chemical weapons convention. We deplore the delay that has occurred so far because of Government inaction and hesitancy. Nor, however, do we want to wave the Bill through if improvements can be made—even at this late stage. The experience of the chemical weapons convention will be drawn on when other forms of arms control are introduced in future—not least with regard to biological weapons.
  We firmly believe that the Bill can be significantly improved by increasing the accountability and transparency of the UK national authority. That would have beneficial consequences for international relations and arms control. That point of view is of course supported by the Royal Society of Chemistry and other experts.
  I shall listen carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech. I hope that he will address the points that I have raised regarding the need for a free-standing advisory body, and deal with the details raised, not only by myself but by my hon. Friends in interventions, on the appeal mechanism, on licence applications, and on other matters. I shall also listen with interest to how the Minister intends to avoid a repeat of the Iraqi machine tools scandal in which his Government are so inextricably linked. We await the report with interest.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I guess that it is probably too much to hope that the Bill will get very much publicity or arouse much interest, but to me the Bill is one of the most vital of this Session. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is not listening at the minute to what I want to say—now I think that I have his attention. The only comment that I would make about the Bill is that it is better late than never.
  I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as is the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). He and I were both signatories to the recommendations of that Committee, which said that the Bill should have been introduced in the last Session. That was my view and it still is. I would have much preferred the Foreign Office to sponsor the Bill rather than the Department of Trade and Industry, and I much regret the delays—which I know have been due to the DTI—in spite of the chivvying that the Select Committee gave the Foreign Office. We always knew that it would be a DTI Bill. Britain should have been at the very forefront of ratifying the convention and bringing such a Bill forward.
  I hope that the predictions are true that we will be among the first 65 nations to ratify the convention. If we are not, it would mean, as the Select Committee said:
  "few, if any, United Kingdom nationals would be employed as Inspectors or in the Technical Secretariat, at any rate in the first instance".
  It is hugely important that whatever is done with regard to the verification is done by the best possible and best-informed officials; therefore, I cannot but stress the urgency of doing everything possible for the world community to control as best we can the existence and the spread of chemical and biological weaponry.
  Chemical and biological weapons are hideous enough when used by military forces, when troops are usually trained in dealing with their hazards. What concerns me even more is the possibility of even more hideous implications if those dreadful weapons get into the hands of terrorists. Strikes could be made against totally unprepared and innocent civilians. There are many thousands of civilians in Iraq and Iran who have learned to their cost and pain the horrible implications of those weapons. Those weapons have rightly been described as poor men's nuclear weapons, and so they are.
  We have at last been presented with the Chemical Weapons Bill. I suppose that it could be described as the world community's best effort so far to control chemical weapons. In my view, it should be given our absolutely unequivocal support. I say again, however, that the main problems with the Bill will be in verifying the existence of these weapons and the components that go into manufacturing them.
  I have heard it said in the Pentagon, in Washington, that the total control of chemical weapons is impossible to achieve. I believe that that is true. We should recognise, however, that this is the world community's best effort so far to control such devices, and we must be satisfied that it is the best possible compromise to date.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be no complacency about our having got this far. It is essential that efforts continue to be made to tighten those aspects where proper control cannot be achieved, as the Pentagon has said. We must close those loopholes as

  825
  quickly as possible. It is vital that intrusive challenge inspections are carried out and are not hindered around the world in order to do our best to have as few of those loopholes as possible.
  I am concerned about those delays, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what their effect and that of the consultation will be on industry. I should tell the House that I am a director of a company in the chemical industry. I have never been told that it has been involved in nuclear weapons, but I suspect that what I am now going to say will not be very welcome to the chemical industry as a whole. I hope that in preparing this legislation and in undertaking consultation no short cuts have been taken at all—I do not care who is hurt by that—in getting the best possible level of verification and control of these weapons.
  As I said, I regard the menace and the threat from chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists as one of the most crucial and worrying things that confronts us in the world today. Therefore, I would be absolutely opposed to short cuts being taken and to our creating more loopholes in the verification than we need have done. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond he will tell us that no short cuts have been taken and that we are confronted with a control system that has the fewest possible loopholes. If that is not the case, we proceed at our peril.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has been interested in chemical weapons issues for three decades, I welcome the Bill, and in particular the degree to which the Department of Trade and Industry has consulted on and reflected the views of those of us who were worried that, above all, it did not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that the Bill can discharge Britain's obligations under the convention, perhaps with the comparatively small exception of the important component of transparency.
  What is missing is perhaps a small item, but it is part of a bigger issue—a statutory annual report. I welcome what we could call the change of heart decision to have an annual report, but I must ask the Minister whether it is to be statutory. The Minister and his officials, as well as Members of Parliament, appreciate that it is an important part of the argument. I hope that he will say in his winding-up speech whether it is to be statutory.
  How, in fact, is the House of Commons going to hold the authorities to account? If there is an annual report, the truth is that those who might be critical can give it to their expert friends. That in itself is a good discipline. I emphasise, however, that the annual report's nature, statutory or otherwise, is absolutely crucial.
  There remains an industry problem, and that is why I intervened during the Minister's speech. The dual uses of chemicals-—military and non-military—are intertwined. We should hear more in Committee about the problems of commercial secrecy because it is a rather delicate issue. It is vital that the treaty should keep abreast of scientific and technological change and innovation. One example is the new Russian development of Novichoks, an agent of GP.
  I want to be clear about Porton Down. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who may speak later, represents Porton. I hope that he will agree that the
  826
  issue of Porton is very important to the nation and has implications beyond his constituency and that he will therefore excuse me for referring to it. Intertwined with the future of chemical warfare disarmament is the future of the Porton Down establishment, which is a most valuable national asset, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) said.
  Britain got rid of its chemical weapons in the 1950s so Porton today is, frankly, protective. It exists to ensure that Britain's defences against chemical and biological weapons keep up with new threats and new opportunities, including ones that stem from scientific discovery and technological development. By that same token, Porton has much to contribute to the well-being of the chemical weapons convention. The Bill does not reflect that as clearly as it could.
  For example, unless the DTI, which is charged with implementing the convention in the United Kingdom, can count on Porton's assistance, it is likely to be ignorant of how new science and technology are or ought to be affecting its work. It will be in no position to push the treaty's international authority into any adaptation made necessary by technical change—amending the lists of the controlled chemicals and introducing novel inspection techniques—which will certainly be necessary. Yet where is the assurance that Porton, which today is one element of a next steps agency, will in future be able to provide such crucial help to protect this whole enterprise from obsolescence? It is in the recollection of the Department of Health that I went on a delegation with some colleagues to discuss the future of Porton last year; I realise that this is a multi-Department problem.
  Porton, frankly, does not have a very good image. I am bound to say in parentheses that it is part of my particular history. I got into trouble in a celebrated privilege case back in 1967 for having talked too freely to Mr. Lawrence Marks of The Observer—not that I thought that I was doing anything wrong; I did not realise that the Select Committee report which had been printed had not gone through the sidelining process. I also add parenthetically that I learnt later from the late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke that, in fact, officials at the Ministry of Defence to whom I had been an extreme nuisance on other matters, such as Aldabra atoll and variable geometry aircraft, thought that technically I was in the wrong; there was, therefore, an opportunity to suggest to certain hon. Members that they might raise it as a privilege case. Those events occurred a long time ago. I mention them because I might be considered an automatic critic of Porton Down: on the contrary, I think that it is rather important to the nation.
  If one were speculating about the most likely venue for clandestine chemical weapons work in the United Kingdom, Porton Down could hardly fail to be near the top of the list. Its association with implementing the convention might seem to call the work of the implementers into disrepute. That is why we must introduce a transparency mechanism that would display the real beneficial and indispensable nature of Porton Down's involvement.
  For that reason also, we must give serious thought to adding certain requirements to the Bill. There must be an obligation on the Secretary of State—possibly aided by an advisory board, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride suggested—to lay before Parliament each year a

  827
  report on the operation of the convention in the United Kingdom, including an account of efforts made to stay abreast of all relevant areas of technical change.
  Paragraph 4 of article X of the treaty requires that there be an annual report on programmes related to protected purposes, but I cannot find any such requirement in the Bill. Where are the powers that would enable the Secretary of State to provide that report? It may be easy for the Minister to assure us on that point during his winding-up speech. Like my hon. Friends, I do not want Britain to incur penalties for late accession to the convention. Therefore, I shall be as helpful as I can during the Committee stage, provided that Ministers participate fully in the process.
  I have two other concerns. First, when discussing the future of Porton Down, it is necessary to reach some conclusion about international problems—particularly the situation in Iraq. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stray too far on that subject I am sure that you will remind me that I am to raise the issue of sanctions against Libya and Iraq on the Adjournment on Wednesday night. That is probably the more appropriate time to discuss such matters.
  Tonight, I simply refer to the fact that various media circles have recently reported allegations that chemical weapons or materials are present on the vessels that sank during the military operations in January and February 1991 in the Shatt al-Arab and along Iraq's gulf coastline. The Iraqis insist that their vessels which sank at that time carried no chemical weapons or materials. They are ready to co-operate with the United Nations if it wishes to salvage the sunken vessels in order to ascertain their contents, and they are willing to provide the facilities required for such an operation.
  I visited Baghdad two years ago—not everyone approved of my trip)—and I believe that sanctions should be lifted. But that is by the by. Whatever views we have about Iraq, we must appreciate the importance of a monitoring system—and our monitoring system is Porton Down.
  I am also concerned about the unanswered question in the brief from the Royal Society of Chemistry. We have not addressed the impact of the legislation on scientific research. I interrupted the Minister to discuss clauses 19 and 20, but it is not immediately clear from the available data whether research chemists, bio-chemists and associated scientists will suffer seriously as a result of the regime. The requirement to obtain a Government permit before embarking on a particular laboratory synthesis or other study will be strange to many scientists.
  The Bill leaves the question of appeals against disallowed licenses to the secondary legislation—or, more particularly, to an order made by statutory instrument, which is subject only to annulment by Parliament. The list of chemicals in schedule 1 to the Bill is not as short as it looks. The list contains only 12 entries, but five of them are generic, not specific, so as to prevent would-be violaters from designing molecules around the chemicals ban. Those five families encompass many thousands of different chemicals.
  It is important for Britain to sign the convention as soon as possible. If we are not quick about it—I think that we should probably sign the convention before Christmas— our scientists, who are among the best qualified on the planet, may be excluded from jobs in this area. That
  828
  would be a great pity for Britain and for other countries too, because I suspect that we are as good as, if not better than, anyone else in this field. Secondly, we must be very clear about the Bill's on-going impact on industry.
  I accept that the dual-purpose problem may evolve in unexpected forms. Therefore, it is important to ensure the establishment of a proper monitoring system. I do not pretend for a moment that the House of Commons is qualified to conduct that monitoring; but hon. Members have a duty to ensure that a statutory annual report is produced which may then be passed on to those who know far more about the matter.
  I pay tribute to the advice that I have received over the years from Dr. Julian Perry Robinson, who has assisted many hon. Members, regardless of their political persuasion. I also thank Dr. Stephen Benn of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is very important that all the relevant information is available to those working in the field. They may or may not be potential critics, but at least we shall all know what is going on.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I begin by declaring several interests to the House. First, I am very pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), is in charge of the Chemical Weapons Bill. I had the great pleasure of teaching him his A-levels some years ago. I got on my bike and left the Front Bench, but I am delighted to see him there today and I congratulate him on his achievement in putting the Bill together. I hope that it will enjoy a speedy passage through the House.
  Secondly, I reiterate what is already recorded in the Register of Members' Interest: I am connected with a company called Hortichem, which helps our lettuces to grow better and ensures that our top fruit is better than the French varieties. The company is involved entirely with horticultural chemicals and I have done my best to ascertain that it has nothing whatever to do with the schedules that appear at the back of the Bill. However, I declare my interest to the House just in case.
  Thirdly, I have enormous pride in declaring my interest as the Member of Parliament representing Porton Down and both establishments there. Today we are discussing only the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, which employs 620 wonderful people. They form part of this country's important scientific base and they have helped to put us at the forefront of the field internationally. We should also mention the support staff, without whom the facility could not operate. They are crucial members of my constituency community and I am proud to represent them.
  When I became the Member of Parliament for Salisbury in 1983 my predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton, destroyed his files, leaving me only two: one on Stonehenge, and one on Porton Down and the reorganisation that the Porton Down communities had endured over the past 30 years.
  I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave to Porton Down. He asked what would safeguard Porton Down, and I can best answer that question by reminding him of the 620 employees at Porton Down who are indispensable to the future well-being of our nation's defence and to that of

  829
  the international community. During the past 12 years, they have taken the trouble to educate their Member of Parliament pretty thoroughly about operations at Porton Down. I thank the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health for allowing me the degree of access to that facility that I have enjoyed over the years.
  The Bill was introduced jointly by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was absolutely right. The Bill has much wider significance than might at first appear, and I share his view that it is one of the most important Bills before the House this Session.
  The staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down welcome the Chemical Weapons Convention as an important part in the web of measures which includes export controls and chemical defence equipment designed to deter the use of chemical weapons worldwide.
  The mission of the CBDE has already been described by a number of Members, but the context within which the Bill is now before the House is not so widely appreciated. The threat of chemical and biological weapons is not a specific issue involving a number of chemical substances in the schedule to a particular Bill; it is a spectrum ranging from the classic warfare agents that we have heard about, such as first world war mustard gases, nerve agents and cyanide, through agricultural and pharmaceutical chemicals to bioregulators, toxins and biological agents such as bacteria, rickettsia and viruses— the designer molecules about which we have been hearing. So Porton Down has a huge amount of work, not only looking forward, but also looking backwards, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) well knows.
  It was no accident that the Gulf war benefited considerably from the work of the CBDE. The Defence Select Committee recently produced a report on Gulf war syndrome. In all the froth that flows from such reports, perhaps we lost sight of the fact that we totally endorsed the Ministry of Defence in providing NAPS—nerve agent pre-treatment sets—tablets and inoculations and that any quarrel we had concerned the methodology and after-care involved. That work was carried out at the CBDE. The scientists there were right to do what they did, and without that work we would have been worse placed.
  It is a supreme irony that however well equipped and trained a nation's troops are and wherever in the world they are fighting, they can be wiped out by a whiff of a chemical or biological agent. That is why chemical defence is so important; it is all part of deterrence.
  The work at Porton Down is probably as important as any other part of the nation's deterrence, including its nuclear capability, and the Government recognise that. I refer the House to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his excellent speech to the Tri-Service conference earlier this month:
  "Our concept of security in 2010 will undoubtedly be broader than that which dominated our thinking and posture for the 45 years which followed the end of World War II. As Sir Michael Howard memorably described it, we are emerging from the rigidities of the Cold War. We will see, and have to respond to, a much more diverse range of challenges: terrorism; weapons proliferation, including weapons of mass destruction; competition over natural resources; religious and ethnic disputes; drugs; organised crime; and refugees."
  830
  We also saw quite recently in Japan the terror that the threat of chemical weapons can create on a major city's underground transport system. I have every confidence that our nation will have planned for such a civil event should it happen in Britain. I suspect that that is not the case in some other countries. Such issues now mean that the Secretary of State for Defence has wider responsibilities. Perhaps we should also hear from the Home Office during the passage of the Bill.
  A number of Members have referred to what the CBDE has or has not done. It is important to remember that its connection with the Bill goes back a long way. The CBDE has been working closely with the Ministry of Defence proliferation and arms control secretariat and in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth office to support the preparatory commission for the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body established to implement the convention. The CBDE has sent technical representatives from Porton Down to the experts group and specialist task forces in The Hague working on establishing the structure of the OPCW and developing the technical and administrative requirements in preparation for the convention's entry into force. In other words, my constituents have been at the base of the entire international effort. It is indeed the world's best effort and many of my constituents have helped to make it possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have come under fire from the Opposition Front Bench. That is rather unfair. Page 7 of the annual report of the CBDE for 1994–95, to which a number of Members have referred, makes it pretty clear that the CBDE has encountered some difficulty in moving forward sufficiently fast. It states:
  "CBDE has now completed collation of the information needed for the UK declaration of former chemical weapons related activities required by the CWC. Preparation of declarations of present activities has commenced. These activities include details of the United Kingdom Single Small Scale Facility sited at CBDE where small quantities of chemical weapons agents to be used for permitted purposes may be prepared and details of destruction of old CW munitions which are occasionally found at various UK sites as well as on the Range at CBDE.".
  The CBDE has made a major effort to prepare for the legislation and it is not accurate to blame my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for the delay. It means simply that we have been doing our homework better than other nations might have done and that was correct.
  It is important that MOD units around the country and their facilities are fully prepared for the challenge inspections that are planned under the legislation. Accordingly, the CBDE has taken part in the United Kingdom series of practice challenge inspections. It has also provided lecturers to assist in the Dutch-sponsored pilot training courses for inspectors and national authority personnel from all over the world.
  The CBDE has developed, produced and had certified a toxic material transport container which will make an important practical contribution to the safe transport of samples taken by OPCW inspectors. In the aftermath of the Sarin attack in Tokyo, I recall seeing on television people carrying extraordinary jars of substances. I am delighted that the CBDE has taken matters further.
  Airlines have strict rules governing the transport of hazardous materials and the new container has been designed to provide compliance with all existing

  831
  packaging criteria. It has now been granted a certificate of packaging issued on behalf of the Department of Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. A container with small samples was taken from London Heathrow to Washington Dulles on 15 February this year in co-operation with the US Army Edgewood research development and engineering center.
  A number of Opposition Members referred to Iraq and of course the international effort there depended almost entirely on the work at Porton Down. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for recognising the importance of that work.
  As for the continuing question of hazard assessment, I should underline to my hon. Friend the Minister how important it is that we do not stop now. We are at the start of a process that will continue into the future.
  Reference has been made to the Soviet disclosures of the nerve agent VX. The hon. Member for East Kilbride was absolutely right to refer to that and other disclosures. If I may pre-empt my hon. Friend the Minister, the answer to his question is quite simple. It is exactly why the CBDE argues that it must continue to research those products. That means looking backwards as well as forwards.
  It is ironic that the chemical substances originally used and stockpiled in large numbers in the first world war— and still stockpiled in large numbers, particularly in Russia—were produced because they had a stable existence and a long storage life. Now that we can make designer products very quickly, the most popular chemicals are the very ones that were previously rejected. The CBDE is going back in time to look at things rejected in the 1950s and 1960s, to make sure that we have not missed a single trick in Britain's effort to ensure a slowing, if not cessation, of a wicked trade.
  I read the compliance cost assessment produced by my hon. Friend's Department, for which I am grateful to him, but was alarmed by the cost to British industry. I was relieved when I read the details and realised that we are talking about a small number of firms and small commitments by them. Nevertheless, compliance is a burden on British industry and my hon. Friend the Minister should not for one moment blush at being a deregulation Minister who finds himself imposing regulations. Perhaps the firms have been operating under the wrong regulations and that while we have been too obsessed with implementing ridiculous regulations from Brussels all these years, our eye has not been on the ball. Let us abolish a few more regulations from Brussels and make sure that we enforce by regulation things that matter. I urge my hon. Friend not to be embarrassed. He was never embarrassed even when I was teaching him A-level economics, so I do not imagine that he is embarrassed now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, we must get it absolutely right and not waste any effort in ensuring security and safety.
  One point that worries me about the compliance cost assessment appears in paragraph 20, which deals with the small business litmus test and mentions thresholds below which declarations and inspections are not required. I seek an explanation and an assurance because it seems strange that whereas medium and large firms will, rightly, have to go to a great deal of trouble, small firms will not have to bother. I find that extraordinary and ask my hon. Friend to re-examine that aspect. I suspect that we shall need to be reassured.
  832
  The same point applies to academia. As a former member of the Medical Research Council, I yield to none in my admiration for British science. I entirely understand the arguments made by the academic community, but it should recognise that it is also a target for terrorism as much as anything else and is a source of potential materials for terrorism. The scientific community should wish for the tightest security possible and records of substances, and I am sure that it will. I wish the Bill well and assure my hon. Friend the Minister that it has my strong support.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate because, like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I think that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will come before Parliament this Session. I welcome the Bill but share the view of hon. Members who said that it is rather belated. It is none the less welcome that the Government recognise the contribution that the treaty can make to global security. Its ratification is essential. No right hon. or hon. Member can doubt the Bill's validity and we must progress it as quickly as we can. If we fail to pass this primary legislation promptly and by the time the treaty is in force there would be unfortunate consequences throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said. There is much of merit in the Bill and I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House in urging that we get on with the job.
  There are problems with the Bill as it stands which may cause difficulties in its practical implementation. It would be a shame not to use the limited opportunities at our disposal to address those concerns. Right hon. and hon. Members spoke of how the Bill will impinge on the activities of the scientific community. Clauses 19 and 20 require anyone using, producing or possessing schedule-1 chemicals to obtain a licence first, and I would like to hear how that would work in practice. I presume that the Department of Trade and Industry, as the national authority, will issue licences—but who will decide what is or is not acceptable research? Will there be any form of appeal against licence refusal? Who will advise the DTI? Those questions have no obvious answers in the Bill, but perhaps the Government have replies ready. Many Bills in recent years have given various Secretaries of State sweeping powers. In this instance, hon. Members have not been circulated with the customary tomes of explanatory notes saying how the Bill's powers will be used in practice.
  I welcome the fact that the national authority will be given sufficient powers to monitor the data reporting scheme for schedule 2 and 3 chemicals. That system will work well given full co-operation by the industry. There are further powers to implement a full-blown national compliance monitoring system if that is deemed necessary. That would apply to all areas of chemical-related activity, whether or not they are governmental. That measure seems somewhat draconian but presumably it will be used sparingly. The system will rely on close co-operation, which is just as well given that the Bill envisages only seven additional departmental staff in the DTI—presumably in the newly established secretariat. One assumes that other DTI staff will be redeployed on that task.

  833
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly referred to as draconian, if they were used inappropriately, some of the powers in clauses 22 and 23. Clause 23 seems to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that will require persons to identify themselves to him if it is likely that the Secretary of State will need information from them. That is like the police requiring criminals to make themselves known. If the Secretary of State is unable to identify the persons in question and their activities, there will be a problem. We cannot be sure that persons will know about the legislation and the requirement to make themselves known.
  We should be wary of establishing a system that might result in too cosy a relationship between the industry and the DTI as the national authority, if that brought any risk of endangering our international credibility. It is not clear from the Bill how the DTI's strategies for prevention, accountability, parliamentary involvement and statutory independence will work. The solution must be measures to ensure transparency and accountability. I welcome the Minister's announcement today that there will be an annual report, but share the concern of the hon. Member for Linlithgow that it should be statutory. I would like that requirement in the Bill. We accept the sincerity of the Minister's assurances, but there will come a time when he is long gone and forgotten from his current post. It would be preferable to see in the Bill a procedure for ensuring that annual reporting continues indefinitely. The Australian solution for fulfilling the terms of the treaty is to prescribe that an annual report be laid before each House of Parliament.
  Transparency in protecting against chemical weapons is specifically covered by the convention. Although one recognises the necessity for continuing research in anti-chemical protection such as clothing alarms and antidotes, such research may conceal illegal weapons activity, so each country must present its annual report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Britain's present research, as the hon. Member for Salisbury explained, is undertaken at Porton Down, which already produces an annual report. Will that report continue in its current form? What will be the relationship between Porton Down's report, that which will be made annually to the OPCW and the report to which the Minister referred at the start of his speech? Who will take responsibility for producing the annual report to the OPCW? Does the Minister believe that the Porton Down report will form the basis and that it will be enough to satisfy the treaty's requirements?
  As many hon. Members have said, Porton Down will continue to play an important role in satisfying Britain's obligations when the treaty comes into force. It is crucial to ensure that this country is kept abreast of technological development in the chemical industry so that new and potentially dangerous chemicals or new ways of using existing chemicals can be brought under the remit of the treaty. We cannot rely solely on the OPCW to monitor those developments. Porton Down seems to be the only organisation capable of taking on that responsibility. The DTI appeared to recognise that in the discussion document it produced earlier this year when it called on Porton Down to monitor scientific developments.
  At that time, Porton Down was a free-standing next steps agency, with a director general who was accountable to Parliament. It now has a managing director and is simply
  834
  one of several components of the Defence Research Agency that operates as a trading fund. How will it effect Porton Down's role in the future when the treaty comes into force? We hope that it will continue to monitor technical changes in the chemical industry as effectively for the purposes of bringing new technology under the terms of the treaty as it will presumably monitor technical change for its military and business customers. We can hope, but we cannot be sure because of the uncertainty about the accountability of Porton Down to Parliament. The only way to guarantee that a blind eye is not turned to potential abuse is to enact statutory legislation to ensure transparency and accountability. It should not be too difficult to adapt the existing advisory committees at Porton Down to the requirements of the treaty.
  The fact that, unlike in many other countries the Government here propose to operate the national authority from within the recesses of the DTI, may be seen as exacerbating the problems of transparency. There seems little doubt that a stand-alone agency would have been more easily held to account and its activities could have been more easily scrutinised. If the DTI is to publish an annual report, I hope that it will be regularly debated in Parliament so that the transparency is ensured.
  There is a need for an advisory board. Organisations that carry out similar functions in other sectors of industry have advisory boards, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to the questions that have been asked on that subject. If, as the Bill progresses, further measures are considered which tackle the problem of transparency and accountability, the Bill will be able to do the job asked of it. We shall co-operate with other hon. Members to ensure that the Bill's passage through the House is as swift as possible.
  5.42 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I can probably claim to be as concerned at an early stage with the need for a chemical weapons treaty as anyone in the House as I am one of Parliament's representatives in the North Atlantic Assembly. Since 1982, the assembly's Science and Technical Committee has been pressing hard for the introduction of a chemical weapons treaty and two of its reports were written by the right hon. Member for Honiton.
  The successful negotiation of the chemical weapons convention is a remarkable achievement—perhaps some of us do not underline that enough. The convention is the most ambitious multilateral arms control agreement ever. It seeks a global ban on an entire class of weaponry and will require verification in one of the world's most pervasive industrial sectors.
  The entry into force of the convention now seems assured as it has received support from the United Nations and, generally, throughout the world. But there is a need, which has not been emphasised in the debate, to persuade those nations that may covertly possess chemical weapons to join the convention. It may be appropriate for us to examine harshly parties that do not join the convention.
  One of the key implementation problems is to ensure that the convention is signed. It is particularly important for nations that are believed to possess chemical weapons to be brought into the convention. Some nations that are unhappy about what they see as excessively intrusive verification may be reluctant to sign the convention. For

  835
  example, some Arab nations have suggested on several occasions that they would be reluctant to sign a chemical weapons agreement unless Israel dismantled its nuclear weapons capability. There are various difficulties involved in gaining world acceptance of the convention. That is why I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister whether any consideration has been given to what steps may be taken—even half steps such as trading sanctions—against those who are apparently unwilling to sign the convention once it is in force. The nations that sign the chemical weapons convention should consider that issue. I hope that my hon. Friend is pressing for the relevant sites in this country to be declared as soon as possible, to enable the preparatory commission to determine the scale of the resources needed by the international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We should urge all signatories to do that, so that we can proceed quickly.
  Many people may think that chemical weapons are a modern problem, but that is not so. Chemical warfare dates back to antiquity. In the Peloponnesian war in 431 BC, Spartan forces used giant bellows filled with pitch, charcoal and sulphur to blow choking smoke into the besieged cities of Platea and Delium. Several centuries later, the Byzantine empire developed what was known as Greek fire, which was a flame-throwing device that produced sulphur dioxide—a binding and choking smoke. In 1456, the defenders of Belgrade used a gas containing arsenic against the Turks. An Australian observer at the time described the effect as murderous and said that the weapon should never be used against Christians. The use of shells containing chloride gas was considered in the American civil war.
  When we consider the history of banning, we see that as early as 1899, efforts were made at the first Hague conference to discuss arms limitation and the settlement of international disputes.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that there was an Australian observer in 1456?
  Sir Peter Emery: I do apologise—I meant to say an Austrian observer. I do not know whether I slipped up or the hon. Gentleman misheard me, but 1456 was a little before the wallabies.
  As early as 1899, the Russians proposed a ban on projectiles containing asphyxiating and deleterious gases. The United States opposed it, and it is interesting to consider its reason for doing so. The Americans opposed the ban in the belief that gas was probably a more humane means of warfare than bullets and shells and might be a weapon to achieve decisive results. As a result, the Russian proposal was not adopted.
  The widespread use of chemical weapons in the first world war led to the only existing protocol on chemical weapons, created in 1925 in Geneva. It has a long title: the "Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and all Analogous Liquids, Materials or Devices and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare". That is still an international treaty, but unfortunately it fell short of banning chemical weapons. It represents an international legal position on the first use of chemical weapons, but it does not outlaw the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons. The treaty and the Bill that we are now discussing achieve that end. Several
  836
  agents were developed at the end of the last war, notably nerve agents in Germany and the even more lethal nerve gases in the United Kingdom.
  It was in 1980, at the Geneva conference on disarmament, when negotiations began to produce a more effective arms control agreement governing chemical weapons. It was during the 1980s that many of us—some in the House, some in the North Atlantic Assembly and some in the United Nations—were pressing for efforts to be made to produce a bilateral chemical arms control agreement. It was the United States and the Soviet Union that achieved such an agreement. In 1989, the Soviet Union announced that it would begin destroying its stocks without waiting for a treaty to be signed. The United States then decided to halt production of binary chemical weapons. In the same year, in Paris, 149 nations pledged not to use chemical agents in warfare and called for their eventual elimination.
  It is interesting, even before the treaty is in operation, that in 1990 the United States and the Soviet Union reached an agreement on chemical weapons under which they would begin to destroy 80 per cent. of their stocks immediately and would reduce remaining stocks to 1 or 2 per cent. of the existing total after the signing of the convention. There are occasions when the Soviets and the Americans are blamed for whatever, but in this instance it is unfair not to give them some credit.
  There are certain problems when it comes to the need in haste to adopt the convention. I understand that we shall consider the Bill on Report, followed by Third Reading, the week after next. I am glad that the Government have responded to those who are urging that we should act quickly. What steps have my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department taken to try to prepare a list of scientists and British civil servants, or business people, who might work in The Hague under the preparatory convention? I agree entirely with Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who have urged that there should be a British input into the proposed administration. I understand that it is estimated that between 700 and 2,500 persons will be involved. The number will depend on the number of signatories and on the number of sites that will have to be inspected or may be inspected.
  No one has talked about money, but we must ensure that there is proper finance, so that the administration at The Hague can inspect fully and properly without having to worry about finance. It should be remembered that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had no increase in funding for seven years, which has led to considerable worries about the way in which it can carry out its operations. I do not want to see the same situation at The Hague.
  Successful negotiation of the chemical weapons convention will be a milestone in the history of arms control. The steps that we are now taking move us forward and make us part of an historical achievement. I am delighted that we are making progress.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I thank the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his interesting history lesson. His slip of the tongue enables me to refer to Australia, which is opposed to chemical weapons and

  837
  to French nuclear tests in the Pacific, as we should be. The right hon. Gentleman presented me with an opportunity to make that point.
  The Minister may have had his tongue in his cheek when he referred to "rapid ratification" by the Government. We should be asking why there has been such delay in introducing the Bill. It is long overdue. The text of the convention was agreed in late 1992. We should examine the reasons for delayed ratification. The Deputy Prime Minister, the then President of the Board of Trade, dragged his feet. Deregulation and privatisation of the Post Office was deemed more important by the right hon. Gentleman than a major international treaty to ban chemical weapons world wide. That is a clear example that members of the Tory party have become little Englanders.
  It is vital that the United Kingdom should be among the first 65 to ratify the convention, not least because that will safeguard the jobs of Britons who have already secured employment with the international organisation at The Hague. Early ratification will also give us good standing in the decision-making processes that are being established. It will show additionally that we are keen on controlling chemical weapons.
  The convention will come into force 180 days after 65 countries have ratified it. As the Minister said, we look to the United States and the Russian Federation to ratify it. Once the United Kingdom has ratified the convention, we shall be in a better position to urge those two major powers to respond quickly. That is why early ratification is important. The United Kingdom would have been seen as keener if we had ratified the convention earlier. The Government should be criticised for their tardiness.
  I have taken a special interest in chemical weapons for many years. It is an interest that was given renewed vigour after the terrible bombing of Halabja by Saddam Hussein in 1988. Soon after that bombing, I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to meet the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to press for the Government, who had international obligations, to act immediately. History records that no action was forthcoming. That is to the eternal shame of the nation. We remained a full trading partner with Iraq. We did not even impose sanctions. As the Scott inquiry has already revealed, export control guidelines were being slackened. It was a shameful episode as Ministers turned a blind eye to murder by means of chemical weapons.
  Under the convention, we shall be obliged not to assist any country to acquire a chemical weapons capability. That means that we need a proper export control regime. The current procedure is a farce because it is subject to the whim of political masters. The Scott inquiry has highlighted nooks and crannies that tell us how the Government view trade with obnoxious regimes. I hope that it will report during the Session. The Government should give an assurance that if the inquiry makes recommendations for changes in the law, they will implement them. There should be no ifs, buts or maybe this or that. It is clear that the export regime needs to be overhauled, and the sooner the better. Transparency must be introduced. That which the Government tell Parliament is the United Kingdom's policy must be seen to be implemented. It must not be subverted by Ministers or anyone else.
  838
  There must be transparency and accountability in the approach of the Department of Trade and Industry to the convention. As things stand, little information would be in the public domain on what the DTI was doing to ensure compliance with the convention. The DTI can refuse to disclose the nature of its activities, on the ground that that would jeopardise the commercial confidentiality of the companies providing information. The international co-ordinating body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at The Hague, cannot make public any information provided to it by the DTI as a national authority. That must be changed, and I shall say a bit more about it in a minute.
  Transparency is also needed in the activities of Porton Down, which has been referred to today. I have expressed my outrage at some of the activities there in the past. That is not to say, however, that some of them do not deserve support; I would never want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Porton Down's expertise in physical protection, such as gas masks and suits, is unparalleled, as are the capabilities of its analytical laboratories. My distaste relates primarily to medical counter-measures that require animal tests, especially when many of them could be carried out using alternatives to animals. Truly defensive work could easily be distorted into a potentially offensive capability. Other countries may take the same road using that excuse. I would like to see a tightening of procedures against that get-out.
  The Government should consider giving an idea of the quantity of any chemical that is produced at Porton Down, even bearing in mind the 1 tonne limit to which the Minister referred. Under the convention, a certain level of transparency would be required in any case. After all, would we be willing to ratify a treaty that allowed the Iraqis to hide Salman Pak, their Porton Down, behind closed doors? The United Nations special commission on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about British companies supplying the Salman Pak and Ad Dwar plants in Iraq. In their Scott mire, the Government just want to forget about it, but at its kindest the United Kingdom's role could be described as ambiguous on supporting Iraq's chemical weapons capability.
  It is valuable to look at the Bill in a slightly wider context. It will almost certainly be the model for this country's implementation of any verification regime agreed for the biological weapons convention, which, although agreed more than 20 years ago, currently has no verification arrangements. Despite the other faults—some of which I have mentioned—of its political masters, Britain has been quietly in the forefront on that issue. I welcome that and pay tribute to the Government.
  There will be another international meeting on biological weapons next week in Geneva. I hope that when arrangements are finished in the coming years, there will be proper co-ordination between the two verification regimes. I raise that issue now, because it could have implications for the proposed legislation in the relatively near future. There could be some overlap between verification of biological and chemical weapons. It is important to ensure that we do not have a situation where verification does not take place because each regime leaves it to the other. That is an important point and it should be taken on board.
  Before talking about the specifics for strengthening the Bill, I want to look at an obligation that is not in it, but

  839
  which is important. Article X of the convention obliges each party to make arrangements to provide resources in one form or another for future assistance to any party attacked with chemical weapons. Before the Bill completes its passage through the House, may we have an idea of how much we might contribute to a voluntary assistance fund, which, I understand, is to be established? May we have an assurance from the Government that, in any investigation of alleged use of chemical weapons, British expertise will be placed at the disposal of the international organisation without charge, because experience of bureaucracy shows that financial questions impede prompt action? There would be no blank cheque; the costs of such investigations are relatively small, but the benefits of speedy action would be enormous. Nothing less than that can remove the moral stain that remains on this country for its inaction over Halabja.
  The Minister referred to "challenge inspections" in the convention. That is important during peacetime. It is important that inspections should take place when allegations are made that chemical weapons are being used during wars between different countries, but they should also happen when it is alleged that a regime has used such weapons against its own people, as in Halabja. Swift investigation is vital. The organisation must be given all the power and authority to do that, should the need arise.
  Sir Peter Emery: How does the hon. Gentleman see that applying where the nation had not signed the convention?
  Mr. Cohen: That is a genuine point, and it is one of considerable difficulty. We must get all nations to sign the convention at the outset, and the ones that do not must come under continuing pressure. Even when a nation has not signed the convention, the international organisation should put pressure on it for inspections to take place. If that does not occur, the world will draw its own conclusions and should act accordingly.
  On the specific aspects of the Bill, I am pleased that the Minister has agreed that an annual report should be presented to Parliament on the activities carried out by this country in implementing the convention. The report should contain the maximum information, taking into account the commercial confidentiality limitation, to which the Government have referred. The Government should not use commercial confidentiality as an excuse to provide very little information to the House. As in Australia, there could be an indication of the activity taking place under the convention, taking into account the restraints of commercial confidentiality.
  I believe that there should be an advisory body for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the convention. Its members could be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its expenses paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It would be best to have one or two statutory bodies, but we can consider that matter in Committee.
  I am thinking of tabling two specific amendments in Committee. One relates to clause 23, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on the Front Bench, and the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) have referred. There are flaws in its wording—let alone anything else—as well as in the powers contained in it.
  840
  Clause 23(6) should be changed, so that there are positive procedures in the House and in the other place rather than the negative resolution contained in the clause. The regulations will provide the Secretary of State with tremendous powers, which I acknowledge may well be needed. In the main, those powers are likely to be exercised in secret. The accountability to Parliament in the making of those powers should be by positive, not negative, resolution.
  I want to add a new paragraph after clause 26(1)(c) to make it an offence knowingly to make a false or misleading statement to any member of the inspection team, the in-country escort or the observer during an inspection. The reason is simple. During an inspection, it is vital that the correct information is presented to the inspection team. Unamended, the Bill would not make giving false or misleading statements an offence. Wilful obstruction covers only physical obstruction. False or deliberately misleading statements should be a punishable offence, otherwise a huge loophole opens up. Showing those subject to inspection a copy of the Act would impress upon them the need to tell the truth and assist inspection to the fullest extent.
  The last time that we had legislation to ratify an arms control measure—the conventional forces in Europe treaty—there was a similar gap. I raised the issue then, but pressure of time prevented the legislation from being amended. I hope that if I were to move such an amendment later, it would be included this time.
  The Bill, which ratifies an important treaty, is late. Sadly, the Government have not shown that they recognise its significance. However, it will make the world a much safer place and it is welcome. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I warmly welcome the Bill. I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who, like me, is a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which called early last year for the speedy implementation of legislation in the previous parliamentary Session.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman would wish to be accurate: the Select Committee's report was published this March.
  Mr. Gapes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I meant the last parliamentary year; we are now in the new parliamentary year.
  I was so concerned about the matter that I tabled an early-day motion, which received wide support from all parties, and I successfully secured an Adjournment debate on 24 April, in which I had the opportunity to press the Minister for Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), on why the President of the Board of Trade had not introduced legislation. I concur with the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the inordinate delay and why it took three years for the DTI to propose legislation.
  We have been told today that legislation is now being introduced rapidly. The problem is that there is not much time between its introduction today and its enactment, which must be in the near future to ensure that Britain is

  841
  among the first 65 countries to implement the convention and to ensure that we are in at the very beginning. That will have to be borne in mind in Committee.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was published in July, so he has had plenty of time to consider it.
  Mr. Gapes: The Bill was published in draft form in July. I understand that a revised version was published in the last few weeks. Therefore, the House was not presented with the legislation in July. The Queen's Speech referred to the matter only last week and it is now being pushed through quickly because 42 countries have already implemented the convention and yet more are in the pipeline.
  It crossed my mind in July and August that 20 or 30 countries might soon implement the convention, causing the Government to rush legislation through in October in the clear-up period at the end of the last parliamentary year. Fortunately, that did not happen, so we may have a chance properly to scrutinise the Bill.
  Many points have already been made but I wish simply to highlight two issues. The first, to which reference has been made, is the problem caused by the DTI being the national authority for the legislation. I have no problem with that in principle, but I am concerned that within the Department staff may not have the necessary expertise to cope with the complexities of properly enforcing the legislation. The danger might be that we have too few people, but with draconian powers, and as a result proper consideration is not given to the needs of the industry or the academic world. I hope that the Minister will assure us that full resources will be given.
  One of the benefits of disarmament—the peace dividend—should be that far more resources are given to inspection, verification, implementation and monitoring of disarmament legislation. It is important that that is adequate. For reasons that we understand, the DTI has the lead role in this, but it is important to ensure that resources freed up by the disarmament process are used for verification and implementation of disarmament agreements. We should not skimp on that. It is important that proper resources are given for the full implementation of the treaty in Britain.
  Associated with that is a second problem— transparency. Reference has already been made to an advisory board. It would help those in the DTI who must deal with the matter if there were an advisory board of experts, academics, people from industry, people who had some knowledge and perhaps retired military people as well—people who could consider some of the wider aspects. The board should be put on a statutory basis so that it could produce information and reports that could be more widely considered if necessary.
  Linked to that is a matter to which reference has already been made. I welcome the Minister's statement on the publication of an annual report. In the interests of trust and wider confidence, however, it is essential that we do something similar to that done in Australia, where the first annual report of the director of safeguards and the director of the chemical weapons convention office has already been published and tabled for debate by the two Houses of the Australian Parliament. I cannot see any problem
  842
  in Britain doing the same and I hope that, to that end, amendments will be tabled in Committee so that the Bill can be amended before its Third Reading.
  The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred to the need to take action against countries that stay out of the regime. That is important. As the DTI is taking the lead role, that raises the matter of the successor regime to COCOM, the co-ordinating committee of western nations on technology transfers. I hope that some form of international sanctions, in terms of trade, exports and the transfer of technology, will also be considered so that countries that choose not to join the convention will know that there is a penalty in terms of economic co-operation and development.
  The issue may be complex because some countries will not join a chemical weapons convention in principle due to their attitude to neighbouring countries and the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, but failure to join would be a terrible mistake. All countries have an obligation to join. The convention has been signed by 159 or 160 countries, but there are 184 or 185 members of the United Nations. It is important that we keep up the pressure on member and non-member states of the United Nations. For example, Taiwan is not recognised as an international state, but nevertheless it is an important international country and it has a significant chemical industry. We should ensure that such countries are part of the process.
  The implementation of the convention will be of great importance for the future of the world. The world has struggled for many years to secure what may happen when it is enforced: the achievement of a verified international treaty allowing challenge inspections and enabling international organisations to introduce confidence and co-operation in the future.
  We were given a history lesson on chemical weapons. My knowledge does not go back to the ancient Greeks, but I believe that enormous efforts have been made in this century. Reference was made to the Geneva discussions of the 1920s, but efforts were also made in the 1980s. At that time we thought that progress would be made, but the United States adopted a very difficult attitude to what it regarded as intrusion into its chemical industry. We have now come through that: the combination of Mr. Gorbachev's achievements in the ending of the cold war and universal recognition that the threats are real offer us the prospect of securing an international treaty.
  I am pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill. I am sure that it will be received positively in all quarters. It is important to get it absolutely right, however, and I therefore hope that the Government will take account of the points made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the later stages of the Bill are considered.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Ingrain: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not speak for long because the Minister raised many points earlier and I feel that the House will benefit from what he says in reply. This has been an important and informative debate; all who have participated will probably leave the Chamber with more knowledge than they had initially. The same will apply outside the House.

  843
  The Minister said that the Royal Society of Chemistry had not provided him with an important briefing document. I have checked with the society, which confirmed that two copies of the document were given to his Department yesterday. I hope that that will be placed on the record, and I am sure that the Minister will correct any omission by his Department. The society should not be criticised.
  I do not intend to deal with all the points that have been made, but the Minister asked for suggestions on how the Bill could be improved. We are trying to ensure its fairly speedy passage, but that does not mean that we should ignore the need for amendment. The Minister has been asked specific questions about the way in which the annual report will be presented to Parliament—for instance, will that be statutory? He has also been asked a number of questions about the way in which the regulations will be handled—will they be dealt with by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure?—and about the need for an advisory body, among other related matters. All those issues would require amendments to the Bill.
  I am prepared to talk to the Minister with the aim of ensuring that the amendments are suitable, and that the Bill is eventually worded in the best possible way. The Minister said that he had not been contacted by an Opposition spokesman during the lengthy period since the Bill's first appearance, or since Britain signed the convention three years ago; I am now making an offer to him. If he wants co-operation on the amendments necessary to deal with the important points that have been raised today, I shall be happy to co-operate with him.
  I congratulate every hon. Member who has spoken: some sound and cogent points have been made. I also thank the Royal Society of Chemistry, which has helped many hon. Members. It is clear that the authoritative document produced by Julian Perry Robinson has struck a chord with many people, and I hope that it will help the Minister to improve the Bill so that it can assist us all in dealing with a critical issue.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Oppenheim: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that, in general, the Bill enjoys the whole-hearted support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. That was demonstrated by the enlightening and helpful speeches that we have heard.
  I also appreciated the spirit of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). In the same spirit, I shall not respond in detail to his comments about British manufacturing industry. He paid tribute to the chemical industry for having notched up a large manufacturing surplus; I could name other industries that have been transformed in the past 15 years, but, in deference to the spirit of consensus that is so uncharacteristic of my performances at the Dispatch Box, I shall not do so. Instead, I shall do my best to respond to the serious issues that have been raised.
  First, have we been late in presenting the legislation? The convention is extremely complex, and the Department of Trade and Industry has—rightly— consulted widely. We have had to ensure that the convention is implemented effectively and fully; we have also had the conflicting duty of trying to minimise the burdens on business. I think that hon. Members on both 239912 O
  844
  sides of the House recognise that necessity, and that we have achieved our aim without imposing any short cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) commented on that. The convention is complex, and we must translate it into a complex Bill; we consider it better to get the legislation right than to rush it.
  The comments of the hon. Member for East Kilbride struck me as a little unfair. On the one hand, he said that we had been slow in presenting the Bill to Parliament, but on the other he said that we were rushing things. In fact, we have taken our time. We began the consultation process a year ago, and about three months ago we issued draft legislation. That has not always happened. I feel that there has been a reasonable amount of time for suggestions to be made. Moreover, I am proud to say that we are in the first group of countries that will implement the convention. The hon. Gentleman may say that we are a bit slow, but other countries have had even more problems than we have in implementing it. I feel that I should at least respond to some of the gratuitous comments that have been flung at my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here to defend himself.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister speaks of gratuitous comments. It was his mother who, on a famous occasion in May 1982, told me in front of a full House that I was treasonable—but I shall not pursue that.
  I acknowledge the need to get the legislation right, but how are industry and others who will be affected to be told about the Bill's provisions? There is a communications problem, is there not?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I shall deal with that point, which I consider valid. Let me say in passing that, in my 39 years, I have found that my mother is usually right—although she may have been wrong in the case of the hon. Gentleman.
  A number of hon. Members raised an important issue. One of them was my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who indeed taught me economics, but at O-level rather than A-level. It is a minor point, of course. I do not think that I took the examination in the end; I think that I took Latin instead. These are not important issues, however. All that need be said is that I benefited enormously from my hon. Friend's teaching. I passed all my examinations; it is just that I may not have taken that particular subject. But I digress, and I shall risk being out of order if I continue.
  Our relationship with Porton Down is enormously important. It is connected with the question of where the DTI takes advice on the whole issue of chemical weapons. The Department tends to take such advice from the widest possible range of advisers, but will rely particularly on Porton Down, the advice of which has already proved invaluable. It is an enormous, almost unique centre of expertise in the United Kingdom's defence against chemical weapons, and we shall draw fully on its abilities. We feel, however, that simply to set up a committee of experts may be limiting. We are open to other points of view, but we believe that we should draw as fully as possible on the widest range of expertise that exists in this country. Porton Down will play a valuable part in that.
  The issue of whether new chemicals and newly developed chemical weapons fall within the convention has been raised. That is another area in which Porton Down will be invaluable. The convention and the

  845
  legislation operate not merely against specific chemicals but against chemical weapons per se. Any development of new chemical weapons, therefore, will come within the bounds of the convention and the legislation, added to which there is scope, if necessary, to make rapid changes to the convention and the legislation.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride and other hon. Members spoke about export controls. The Bill makes no specific provision for export and import controls but it bans chemical weapons whether people are making them, trading in them or using them, because we intend that the existing licensing system for import and export controls should apply. The departmental responsibility in this area is perfectly clear. The President of the Board of Trade is ultimately responsible for issuing export licences. He has the final decision although, of course, he always consults the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before making any decisions. That is why there is no specific reference in the legislation to export controls.
  Mr. Ingram: I do not want to cause delay but I should like to ask a question about export controls. If the DTI, as the national authority, identified that a chemical was being exported which could be used for weapons, who would have the ultimate authority? Would the judgment be made on the basis of trade by the DTI as the national authority in relation to the convention?
  Mr. Oppenheim: First, the DTI would not licence the export of any chemical weapon, and it would also fall within the terms of the legislation that governs the convention because the convention prevents us from trading in chemical weapons. Such export would be illegal on both grounds and a licence would not be issued. In any case, the request would fall within the terms of the convention and one hopes that that would be picked up long before anyone applied for an export licence. It is unlikely that anyone would apply for a licence for chemical weapons when such weapons are illegal. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the appeals procedure. The Bill has an appeals procedure as part of the licensing arrangements and it applies to schedule 1 chemicals that do not have to be licensed. I shall come to that matter. We intend to model the appeals procedure on the one that is soon to be introduced under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994-. I assure hon. Members that the appeals procedure would include a committee consisting of those with sufficient expertise to advise on licensing matters.
  The issue of whether there are short cuts on verification was mentioned. I assure the House that the preparatory commission process has not led to any weakening of the convention's verification procedures. United Kingdom experts have worked extremely hard and closely with officials to maintain the integrity of the convention, and our officials will continue to do so.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride and others were concerned about whether clause 23 was unnecessarily draconian. We looked carefully at that possibility and it concerned me when I looked at the proposed legislation. The first problem is that the chemical industry is large, diverse and scattered. Secondly, there is no single list of
  846
  firms that might produce or use scheduled chemicals. Thirdly, the convention clearly requires the UK to produce a complete declaration of scheduled chemicals and not just an approximate list. The Department needs to assemble a complete list to fulfil our obligations under the convention. That is why clause 23 is relatively draconian and why, as a last resort, we also need criminal sanctions.
  International experience in this area shows that without criminal sanctions there can be a low response. We carefully considered the implications of clause 23 and we are prepared to consider them further, but we think that they are essential. That goes to the issue of regulation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. By instinct we are not regulators and want regulation only when it is absolutely necessary. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this area is absolutely black and white in terms of where the Government need to regulate. We are trying to make sure that we regulate properly. Clause 23 is necessary but if hon. Members are worried about it we shall listen to their concerns.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride mentioned the annual report. We want to ensure that the report is as informative as possible within certain constraints, and I think that Opposition Members accept what those constraints must be. First, commercial confidentiality is important, and that is allowed for in the convention. Secondly, national security must be considered and, thirdly, the convention insists that we must not reveal information that has been received specifically for the purposes of fulfilling the convention or about individuals. Therefore, we have to be careful about the information that we do reveal. However, within those bounds we are determined to ensure that the annual report should be as transparent as possible.
  I have listened carefully to hon. Members and I think that it is sufficient that I have placed quite clearly on the record the fact that there will be an annual report. We will consider that further if hon. Members remain genuinely unhappy about there not being a statutory requirement. A report that is subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny is the best guarantee that the agency and the report will be effective. Parliament will be the ultimate scrutineer and arbiter.
  Mr. Dalyell: One day the Minister will be long forgotten just as one day I suppose that we shall all be long forgotten. I do not doubt his good faith but a statutory annual report is totally different from one that Ministers promise in good faith from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I accept his concern. I hope that a Minister saying clearly on the record in the House that there will be an annual report is enough. If hon. Members are still dissatisfied, we shall consider their worries on that aspect. My strong view at the moment is that that should be sufficient. I have stated clearly that there will be an annual report; I hope that that is enough.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised another important issue when he spoke about what he called the licensing requirements of the short list of quite common chemicals. Some of them, such as carbon, are inert and others, such as sulphur, are relatively inert. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no licensing requirement for those chemicals. There are licensing requirements only for the very toxic schedule 1 chemicals. There is a reporting

  847
  requirement for relatively inert chemicals and it applies only to companies or organisations that maintain significantly large stocks of the chemicals as set out in the schedule. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and allays his concerns about research bodies and others needing to apply for licences for ordinary run-of-the-mill chemicals.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) raised the important issue of what can be done about non-signatories to the convention. We shall continue to press hard that all such states should sign the convention. About three quarters of the world's states have signified that they will join. A relatively small number are still outside the convention and we shall be at the forefront of states pushing to ensure that they sign. The convention proposes constraints on shipping scheduled chemicals to states that are not party to the convention and that element of sanction already exists. Of course, the convention's signatories will be able to consider other measures, as I suspect, in some cases, they will do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was worried about the compliance cost assessment. I have already dealt with the question of whether we are over-regulating in that area, but my hon. Friend raised particularly the point that smaller firms may not be affected by declaration and inspection requirements. I can assure him that for schedule 1 toxic chemicals, the size of firm is not a factor, and small firms will not be exempt. The compliance cost assessment applies to the relatively not-so-toxic chemicals below the level of schedule 3 and discrete organic chemicals. We see no reason to apply those measures to smaller companies unnecessarily. The measures are not licensing, but reporting requirements, and the convention does not require those companies or organisations to record what they have got. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked about the various posts involved in the convention and the inspection regime. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we have already passed details of the inspector posts and provisional technical secretariat positions to the relevant qualified UK experts. I understand that several have already been interviewed. Some of the senior posts, such as the executive secretary, are already occupied by UK nationals.
  848
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned the complaint made by UNSCOM to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about British equipment being found at Salman Pak. I understand that UNSCOM asked for details of supplies from the FCO to assist in its investigation. UNSCOM did not make any complaint and all the items it found were dual-use and not licensable. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he should approach the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The Member for Leyton also mentioned the important question of article X of the convention, which requires the United Kingdom to give a report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the assistance that it gives to other states to protect them against chemical weapons. I accept that point, but the Government do not require special legislation to implement action.
  I hope that I have answered all the substantive queries to the satisfaction of the House. I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I hope that our differences are relatively small because the legislation is important not just for our future as a nation, but for the future of the world. If the Bill is passed quickly, it will enable the United Kingdom to ensure the effective operation of the convention. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Knapman.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  CHEMICAL WEAPONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(l(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Chemical Weapons Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any
  expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the
  Act;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the
  Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Knapman.]

  Question agreed to.

  Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill is an enabling measure, which will allow the British Government to provide a package of benefits to certain overseas public servants in Hong Kong. My purpose today is to explain the background to the proposal, and to set out the package of benefits which we propose to implement by Order in Council after enactment of the legislation.
  In 1954, the Government of the day published a White Paper on the future of the colonial civil service. That White Paper anticipated the process of decolonisation and considered how civil servants recruited from this country to work on pensionable terms in the colonies and other dependent territories would be treated when a colony moved to independence.
  The White Paper recognised that overseas territories owed a significant debt to the efficient work of the men and women of the colonial service, and that the British Government had a special obligation towards them as a result of their having been recruited to their posts by the Secretary of State for the Colonies or through the Crown Agents. To give officers confidence about their future, the White Paper set out the conditions that they could expect to be observed upon independence. Those conditions included maintenance of their terms and conditions of service, safeguarding of their pensions, the ability to retire prematurely, and the payment to them of compensation. The White Paper also renamed the colonial service as Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, or the HMOCS. Judicial officers form a separate HMOJ, but I shall refer to the whole as the HMOCS.
  A further White Paper in 1960 refined the arrangements. In particular, it provided that the British Government should provide financial assistance to the territories concerned to help them keep the services of expatriate officers after independence. The White Paper also provided guidance on how the compensation arrangements should operate, and established a resettlement bureau to help the HMOCS members who retired prematurely to find new employment.
  Since 1960, 42 former British dependent territories have become independent. The British Government implemented the arrangements by making Orders in Council for the payment of compensation by the successor Government to members of the HMOCS for the loss of their career prospects and of the Secretary of State's protection. The Government also negotiated public officers agreements which required the successor Government to pay pensions at a fixed sterling exchange rate. In most cases, the British Government reimbursed the cost of compensation in the form of aid, and in due course took over the pensions as an aid measure.
  There are some 700 members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong who were recruited on pensionable terms before the Sino-British joint declaration was signed in 1984. Those
  850
  officers are the last members of the HMOCS. They have contributed enormously to the success of Hong Kong, and many of them wish to continue in the service of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government after 30 June 1997. Like their predecessors in other territories, the officers are concerned about their future and need to know how they will be treated.
  The Government considered the question of arrangements for the Hong Kong HMOCS at the time of negotiation of the joint declaration. To give overseas officers a guarantee that their services would be welcomed by the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, China and Britain agreed, and the joint declaration makes it clear, that, after 30 June 1997, foreign nationals could continue in the service of the SAR Government on terms and conditions of service no worse than before. The joint declaration also provides that the pensions of all Hong Kong civil servants, which includes members of the HMOCS and their dependants, would continue to be paid by the SAR Government. Those pensions are, and will continue to be, paid in Hong Kong dollars.
  Those important and far-sighted treaty provisions give members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong confidence that they can continue to work in the service of Hong Kong up to their normal date of retirement, and that their pensions will be paid. The joint declaration also provides that, after 30 June 1997, the top 20 to 30 posts in the Hong Kong public service should be held by Chinese nationals. Those members of the HMOCS who choose to stay on will not be able to aspire to the senior positions. Indeed, the process of localisation is already in full swing and will extend beyond those posts as a result of the need to build up a pool of local officers with enough experience to occupy the highest levels of government. The process of constitutional change will therefore inevitably limit the career prospects of members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong.
  By 1989, the Hong Kong HMOCS was pressing the British Government to give its members the same package of benefits provided to their predecessors in other former dependent territories. Their representative body, the Hong Kong HMOCS Association, argued forcibly that its members were in the same position as their predecessors and that the British Government were honour-bound to treat them in the same way. It was supported by the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association—known as OSPA—which represents the interests of former members of the HMOCS from Hong Kong and elsewhere.
  The Hong Kong Government judged that they could not provide a general compensation scheme. Hong Kong has a unified public service and the Hong Kong Legislative Council would not be expected to vote funds for special benefits for an exclusive group of expatriates. The only compensation that Hong Kong is prepared to pay is in respect of those officers who are required to retire for constitutional reasons or who are superseded under the localisation programme. Members of the HMOCS look to the British Government, rather than the Hong Kong Government, to provide them with compensation and pension protection which had been accorded in other territories.
  After careful consideration, the British Government accepted publicly the associations' request for an HMOCS package of benefits. In formulating detailed proposals, we considered the arrangements made in the 42 previous

  851
  cases as well as the particular circumstances of Hong Kong. The package that I shall outline in a moment reflects those considerations, as well as the outcome of discussions with the two associations, and of course the Government's responsibility to balance the interests of the Hong Kong HMOCS and those of British taxpayers.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: In the interests of the Chinese civil servants and the overseas civil servants, is the Minister aware that a suggestion has been made recently in Hong Kong by Sir S. Y. Chung that a shadow Government should be appointed by China six months before the hand-over date to make shadow laws and to prepare a shadow budget? Does the Minister agree that that would cause great confusion in the civil service and for all those who seek to achieve a smooth hand-over in 1997? Can he confirm that the Government have no reasons to believe that that represents the views of the Chinese Government?
  Mr. Hanley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's question. Although Sir S. Y. Chung's proposals appear to have been made in a personal capacity, they are damaging to confidence in Hong Kong. The Governor and the Hong Kong Government are committed to co-operation with the Preparatory Committee and future chief executive to ensure a smooth transition in Hong Kong. There is nothing in the joint declaration or basic law about a provisional Government. I believe that the establishment of such a body would only confuse and unsettle the community and the civil service. That is in the interest of neither Hong Kong nor China.
  The Government remain committed to effective administration of Hong Kong until 1 July 1997, and we shall do nothing to undermine the authority of the Legislative Council elected in September. I continue to believe that it should be allowed to serve its full four-year term. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that as a full answer. We should now stick more closely to the terms of the Bill.
  Subject to Parliament's agreement, it is proposed that Hong Kong HMOCS members and pensioners should be offered the following package of benefits. First, on premature retirement, the HMOCS members would be allowed to retire before the resumption of sovereignty by China, with immediate payment of pension. To enable the Governor to phase departures, officers would be allowed to retire prematurely between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997.
  The second part of the package is compensation. The HMOCS members would be paid compensation for loss of the Secretary of State's protection and career prospects, based on their seniority and length of service. The proposed compensation arrangements would be broadly similar to previous HMOCS compensation schemes, except that the actuarial factors used to calculate compensation are somewhat less generous. That is because the provisions in the Sino-British joint declaration offer the Hong Kong HMOCS officers a better chance of a continuing career than their predecessors could have expected.
  There will be a cap on compensation of £120,000 at 1992 prices. That year was chosen because that was when we first put forward proposals on an HMOCS package for consultation with the interested associations. The cap was set with reference to caps in previous HMOCS
  852
  compensation schemes, uprated in line with United Kingdom inflation. As the HMOCS members in other former British dependent territories were not required to pay tax in Britain on their compensation, the HMOCS members would be paid their compensation gross. The cost of any United Kingdom tax liability would be met directly by the British Government.
  The compensation arrangements would be set out in two schemes: compensation scheme A and compensation scheme B. The only significant difference is that compensation scheme B would apply to officials who decided to retire prematurely and compensation scheme A would be for those who continue. The compensation arrangements would cost about £47 million at current prices.
  The third part of the compensation scheme is a sterling pension safeguard scheme. The HMOCS pensions will continue to be paid in Hong Kong dollars by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government after 30 June 1997. In line with the policy in the 1954 and 1960 White Papers, and subsequent practice, the British Government intend to provide the Hong Kong HMOCS members with pension protection. Unlike previous cases, the Government have decided not to protect the full sterling value of the Hong Kong HMOCS pensions at the date of change in sovereignty. As the Hong Kong HMOCS members receive salaries which have a greater purchasing power than those of their predecessors and of their British counterparts, the Government propose that their pensions be protected at a level broadly equivalent to the pensions received by officers in similar grades in the British public service. This principle of broad comparability underlies the proposed sterling pension safeguard scheme.
  Sir Anthony Durant: I am speaking for the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, which is concerned about the formula with which my hon. Friend is now dealing. It feels that the divider of HK $21 is rather unjustified. It would rather stick to the value of a HK $14.6 exchange rate as at 1 January 1992, which it feels is a more satisfactory approach. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on that.
  Mr. James Couchman rose—
  Mr. Hanley: It might be for the convenience of the House if I accept another intervention.
  Mr. Couchman: I was about to make much the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). I believe that OSPA suggests that the Hong Kong dollar has never been at an exchange rate worse than HK $16 to the pound. Therefore, it sees the divider of HK $21 as totally illogical and unfair. If the safeguard scheme comes into operation, it will reduce pensioners' income to about 70 per cent. of what it should be under the present terms.
  Mr. Tim Renton rose—
  Mr. Hanley: Would my right hon. Friend care to intervene before I deal with those interventions?
  Mr. Renton: I want to intervene on the same point. I take a contrary view. The Hong Kong Government and the British Government have worked out a satisfactory compromise. The Hong Kong dollar has been extremely strong, in fact a good deal stronger than sterling, for many

  853
  years now. Probably quite a few of us would rather take our pensions in Hong Kong dollars than in sterling, particularly with the prospect of a Labour Government. It is right that the British taxpayer should not be asked to take all the burden. I realise the difficulty of reaching a compromise on this issue, and I think that what is suggested in the Bill provides such a compromise.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their questions.
  When we started considering the proposed scheme in 1991, the Hong Kong dollar exchange rate was HK $13.76 to the pound. To bring average Hong Kong and United Kingdom public servants' pensions into line, we calculated that the exchange rate would have to fall from that level to about HK $21 to the pound. That is why the divider of 21:1 appears in the scheme.
  We can calculate a pensioner's protected pension by taking the Hong Kong dollar salary in 1991 for the grade at which he retired and dividing that figure by 21 to give the protected pension in sterling as at 1991. That amount is then uprated in line with UK inflation since 1991 to give the current value of his protected pension. In the scheme, his protected pension is described as his notional pension. If, at any point, the sterling value of his actual pension fell below the value of his notional pension, the Government would make up the shortfall.
  So the Hong Kong pensioners will continue to be paid their pension. We are talking about a possibility that the Hong Kong dollar might fall. I should like to think that the Hong Kong dollar will not fall but will continue to be strong. It is the objective not only of Her Majesty's Government but of all people of good will that Hong Kong should continue to flourish and have a strong currency.
  If the Hong Kong dollar fell, we would protect those pensioners as soon as it fell below HK $21 to the pound. That would mean that the pensions of those people who at present receive pensions higher than those of equivalent civil servants in the United Kingdom would be on broad parity. That seems to the Government to be a fair balance between the needs of protection for Hong Kong pensioners and for the British taxpayer.
  Dr. John Marek: The Hong Kong civil servants were recruited by the British Government. They have an expectation of a certain pension at a certain rate. The Government seem to be saying arbitrarily that in certain circumstances they will reduce the civil servants' pensions by up to 40 per cent. Those of us who may be selected to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill will wish to go into the matter in some detail. Is there any chance of the Minister publishing a draft Order in Council so that we have some meat on which to chew and we can consider the matter carefully? The Bill is an enabling measure. It is difficult to take exception to any of it. We need to be able to see, certainly in Committee, precisely what the Minister is getting at. If he could help the House in that way, it would go a long way towards what I suspect will be a more or less bipartisan approach to the Bill.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his careful and thoughtful intervention. I imagine that the Committee proceedings will be held within the next two
  854
  weeks, although that is still open to negotiation through the usual channels. I hope to produce for members of the Committee as much information as possible to enable them to reach an informed opinion. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
  I assure the House that the British Government would not incur any significant liability under the sterling pension safeguard scheme unless the Hong Kong dollar fell substantially in value. That is just not likely to happen. Certainly in the foreseeable future, Hong Kong's economic stability and the publicly stated commitment by both the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese Government to maintaining the linked exchange rate between the Hong Kong dollar and the US dollar will bring greater stability to the Hong Kong dollar. The maximum contingent liability under the scheme, based on the wholly unrealistic proposition that the Hong Kong dollar will be worthless on 1 July 1997, would be £130 million spread over 50 years. That liability would diminish rapidly with the passage of time and could be expected to halve within only eight years. We are talking about a contingency.
  The fourth part of the package is resettlement help. The HMOCS officers who retire prematurely would be given financial help in finding re-employment or retraining. This help, some of which would be provided by a consultant or in other ways, would be limited to £2,500 per officer, and subject to an overall cost ceiling of £750,000. The Chinese Government have been informed of the proposal to provide benefits to members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong. They have accepted that this is a matter for the British Government.
  An additional element of the package does not depend on the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill for its implementation. It is a proposed amendment to the Regulations on Supplementary Pension for Overseas Service, known as the SPOS. The regulations ensure that increases in all HMOCS pensions, not just those of Hong Kong, keep pace with inflation in Britain. The regulations as applied to Hong Kong are complex and technical, but in essence what we propose is an amendment which would allow the payments under the SPOS to take into account small reductions in the value of the Hong Kong dollar relative to sterling. That would provide some benefit to Hong Kong pensioners, particularly over the long term.
  The proposed package has been discussed extensively with the HMOCS Association and OSPA. The HMOCS Association has given its full support to the early passage of the Bill. Despite the misgivings of some former Hong Kong HMOCS members about some elements of the package, the Government believe that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of the HMOCS pensioners and the British taxpayers who will have to fund it.
  In conclusion, I urge right hon. and hon. Members, in considering the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, to bear in mind the contribution that the HMOCS officers have made to Hong Kong, the uncertainty that they face over their future careers, and the honourable record that the British Government have established in providing a reasonable package of benefits to the HMOCS upon the ending of British sovereignty over our dependent territories. It is only right that the HMOCS officers in Hong Kong should receive benefits similar to those provided to their predecessors. I hope that the arguments that I have made will be supported by the House.

  855
  I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for his question. I have just heard that the information that he requested—schemes for Orders in Council—are at this moment being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: In the spirit of these post-Nolan times, may I thank the Hong Kong Government for the hospitality that they have shown to me in recent days, during which I was a guest of the Government. I thank them for the timetable that they organised for me. It was my first visit to Hong Kong and it was a most impressive experience. It is difficult for anyone to come away from Hong Kong without having been struck by the nature of its society. It is an interesting society and one which is, for fairly obvious reasons, increasingly politicised. Everyone has a view on the events that are taking place and are likely to take place on the island. It was fascinating to hear the full spectrum of views that came in my direction. I am sure that the Minister has been through a similar experience. One or two people mentioned kindly to me the meetings they had recently had with him.
  Two things struck me visually about Hong Kong. The first was the intimate relationship between the economy of Hong Kong and southern China. One can understand that only by seeing the extent to which Hong Kong's manufacture, if I may use that expression, now takes place in southern China. The second was the success of the Hong Kong people and Government in undertaking such a massive infrastructure project as the development of the new airport. The airport, the road scheme and the railway projects are all running virtually on time and in budget. That is a tremendous achievement and one which the Government and those directly involved in the projects can be proud of.
  I thoroughly enjoyed my experience of Hong Kong. It taught me a lot about the place and I look forward to further contacts with the people of Hong Kong.
  As for the specifics, we welcome the Bill. In particular we welcome the Minister's final comments about providing additional information for the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has never made such a potent intervention. Within a matter of moments his wish was delivered. One hopes that he will intervene similarly in other debates in future. It may also be helpful to deal with one or two of the points raised by Conservative Members. Of course they may also queue up to serve on the Committee, armed with all the additional information, and be able to make speeches at that stage.
  It is right—the Minister made the point—to treat Hong Kong in line with all the other 42 similar experiences. It may be worth while putting on record the fact that last week I had a meeting with Ian Strachan and his colleagues of the Association of Overseas Civil Servants and they were broadly sympathetic to the Bill. They want it to have a quick passage through both Houses. They have some reservations about the sterling guarantee, as the Minister acknowledged in his speech. They said, however—it is very important for all to recognise—that the Bill represents the best available deal on the table. They accept it and want to make progress with it. I say to the civil servants that Labour Members will certainly do nothing to hinder that progress. Indeed, we will do all we can to ensure its speedy passage.
  856
  One thing struck me very much last week: the extent to which the civil service in Hong Kong is seen as an important element in civil society. The characteristics of the Hong Kong civil service are ones of which those who have worked in it, either as overseas civil servants or as Hong Kong civil servants, can be justly proud. It is seen as clean, corruption-free and supporting the rule of law.
  When we in this House, for obvious reasons on occasions, criticise civil servants, we should look at the Hong Kong experience and the relationship between a clean, corrupt-free civil service and the rule of law and economic development. I hope that those operating in business in Hong Kong take on board the lesson that much of their success and the framework in which their businesses have operated have depended on the type of civil service operating on the island. All of us would wish to express our thanks to those who have worked in the service over the years.
  The Minister referred to the fact that about 530 civil servants will benefit from the legislation. Of course the vast majority of civil servants in Hong Kong will not benefit and they will continue to serve the Government both in the pre-1997 arrangements and the post-1997 arrangements. They have also made a very important and successful contribution over the year.
  There were anxieties, as the Minister will no doubt acknowledge, over the localisation programme. That is partly dealt with by the Bill. It has to be handled sensitively. There has been some success and it is obviously important that we continue to move forward.
  One of the issues that clearly came to light, to which the Minister did not refer but which is important, was the need to maintain the character of the civil service in Hong Kong post-1997. That is important for the economic success of the island and for Chinese sovereignty. The decision on the appointment of the chief executive, which has to be taken by the Chinese Government during 1996, will have a significant impact on civil service morale. I am sure that all hon. Members participating in this debate acknowledge the importance of appointing someone who is seen as upholding the traditions of the civil service and the rule of law and who will give the service a sense of confidence. We will all be watching that appointment—it will be crucial to the post-1997 development of Hong Kong.
  The Bill deals with the fears of overseas civil servants. It is right that we should deal with those fears and that we should come up with this legislation and deal with it in the way that we are. The Bill also reminds us—if I may broaden out to some of the Minister's finer points—that we are fewer than 600 days away from the change of sovereignty. The Bill is important because it is but one detailed issue on the path towards the transfer of sovereignty and the way in which we handle it will be significant in future.
  When we looked at the work of the joint liaison group, I was delighted to see that progress had been made in a number of areas. We have already talked about the airport and possible developments in relation to container terminal 9. Such advances are significant and help to improve the atmosphere, and resulted partly from the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese counterpart. There are difficult issues to be resolved and I think that the Minister will agree that we should place on record in this debate our thanks to all those on the

  857
  British side who have played such a significant role in the joint liaison group and have made such a contribution, again as civil servants—not as overseas civil servants in that case, but as Foreign Office staff. They have performed a very important function on behalf of people here.
  Although we have dealt with one fear through this Bill, there are other fears beyond its remit which arose time and again during my discussions with business people and politicians in Hong Kong. I should like to mention to the Minister—I do not expect an answer today—a matter which is not totally relevant to the Bill but is part of the changeover—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interesting as the hon. Gentleman's trip to Hong Kong is, I am afraid that the rules of the House are very clear: we must debate only the Second Reading of the Bill. Allusions to other dimensions are acceptable, but there must certainly be nothing beyond that.
  Mr. Fatchett: I was foolish enough to pre-empt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was a mistake on my part. I was saying—I am sure that you will acknowledge the point's validity—that while the Bill deals with one set of fears, others exist in Hong Kong. The individuals whom I was going to mention, and who are relevant because their fears still exist, are the war widows and the ethnic minority groups. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government still have fears with which they must deal. The right measures have been introduced in the Bill, but I assure him that all the political groups in Hong Kong and the business interests recognise that other fears must also be resolved.
  We are dealing only with a specific issue in this debate, but we must deal also with the anxieties and concern in Hong Kong. What impressed me was that against such a background, there is a great deal of robust optimism about the future. The society has very clearly stated values. It believes in the rule of law and has political accountability and an element of democracy. The through train post-1997 is crucial to the long-term economic success of Hong Kong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) summed up the matter in the debate on the Gracious Speech when he said that Britain's involvement in Hong Kong and the role played by the British civil service will be judged not only in terms of what we have done over the past few years but by how we have entrenched and embedded a system for the years post-1997. That is the real criterion on which all our records will be judged.
  What is clear is that, as part of the British record in Hong Kong, we have left a civil service that has maintained the rule of law and given to that island something of which we can be justifiably proud. That is why we support the Bill and, through it, we thank those overseas civil servants who have played their part in making Hong Kong the success that it is.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton: May I say what a pleasure it is to be taking part in this short debate and what a pleasure it was to listen to the speech of my right
  858
  hon. Friend the Minister, and that of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) who is also fairly new to his position in the shadow Foreign Office team.
  Speaking as a past Foreign Office Minister and one who had responsibilities for Hong Kong between 1985 and 1987, and who since 1992 has been chairman of the active all-party committee on Hong Kong, I find it a great pleasure to be so much in agreement with both speeches.
  Before dealing directly with the Bill, may I be provocative for just one moment? I fully agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central about the legacy that we will pass on in Hong Kong on 30 June 1997. I think that we can be very proud of that legacy. I would only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should act to convince the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is sitting behind him, of that.
  In a debate on this subject at the Oxford Union some two weeks ago, in which we both took part, the hon. Member for Rotherham advanced some very extreme ideas. More to the point, he advanced the idea that Britain should be thoroughly ashamed of its position in Hong Kong. That is wrong, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham will come to regret those remarks. I am moving on to the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to hear that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to the subject because this debate is very specific.
  Mr. Renton: I think that the Bill, quite simply, is a good housekeeping measure. The legislation is necessary, and the Government are to be congratulated on the speed with which it has been brought before the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State took us through the basic points of the Bill very thoroughly. All hon. Members will be interested in the Bill's resettlement element and in the help that it provides to the members of the overseas civil service and the overseas judiciary who may decide to retire early. If they decide to retire early, it is important for them to know that they will receive assistance in resettlement. That provision may be a further encouragement to some people to retire early.
  The main bone of contention in the Bill—perhaps the only one—is that to which my right hon. Friend referred: the peg at which the safeguard to pensions comes into play. That must be a balancing act, but, given the generosity of the pension arrangements in Hong Kong in recent years, which have been based on a substantially higher rate of inflation than that of the United Kingdom, the principle of comparability must apply. Therefore, the decision to make the peg—the point at which the Government would step in to help—the rate of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound is, frankly, not unreasonable.
  I am sure that the Bill will not have a long Committee stage. It is an advantage that we have discussed that important issue this afternoon and, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, perhaps, having got that out of the way, there will be time at some stage in the future for us to debate some of the other matters to which he referred: a Bill of Rights; the new Special Administrative Region passport and whether it should be visa free, as I hope it will be; and the point that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) raised about the considerable confusion that any interim legislative assembly or interim governmental body in Hong Kong which came into effect before 30 June 1997 would cause.

  859
  I am very pleased that the Governor of Hong Kong has already gone on record as saying that he could not possibly support that idea. In such a debate I hope that we might also be able to consider the position of the new fully elected Legislative Council in Hong Kong. I appreciate, however, that those points are not in order this evening.
  I certainly support the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book very quickly.
  7.23 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: Pretty well every hon. Member who has spoken thus far has subscribed to the general view that the Bill is non-controversial. Indeed, the Library research paper describes it as
  "a relatively straightforward piece of legislation aimed at creating similar conditions for Members of HMOCS in Hong Kong as have applied in the past when colonies have passed out of British sovereignty."
  Nevertheless, it is a fact, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, that there are some in the Overseas Service Pensioners Association who do not take quite that line and feel that they have not been as fairly treated as has been claimed. It is only appropriate and right that their opinion should be ventilated. We are, after all, talking about a very limited number of people. The essential argument that some of them use is that the proposals laid before the House do not provide safeguards equivalent to those afforded to expatriate pensioners in other former colonies who enjoy 100 per cent. protection of the original purchasing power of the pension awarded to them on retirement.
  One such pensioner, Mr. A. Thorne, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I should like to read out a couple of paragraphs from his letter to which the Minister might be able to respond in his winding-up speech. I shall not read out the first page as it deals mainly with the divisor, a matter already raised by two Conservative Back Benchers. Mr. Thorne wrote:
  "HMG claims that the proposed safeguard scheme will protect Hong Kong pensions at a sterling value broadly equivalent to those paid to comparable former UK public servants despite any evidence that they can be fairly equated."
  Well, that is an argument, I suppose. Mr. Thorne develops it in the next paragraph when he states:
  "Apart from the obvious defects in arriving at the divisor, no account has been taken in these comparisons of the differences that result from the fact that, in the absence of a ministerial system, Hong Kong civil servants, at every level, carry a degree of responsibility and public accountability which home based civil servants are shielded from. Accordingly, a simple comparison of Hong Kong salaries with those of officers in equivalent ranks and grades of the home civil service makes no allowance for such extra burdens. It follows that the comparisons which have been made in formulating this pensions safeguard scheme are not on a like with like basis."
  I do not necessarily espouse that argument, but it deserves a response. I hope that in due course the Minister will provide one.
  I shall read one more sentence on the question of the divisor. The correspondent alleges:
  "Despite many requests from individual pensioners and OSPA, the officials charged with drawing up the scheme have refused to provide calculations showing how the divisor of 21 has been arrived at."
  That could also be dealt with in Committee.
  860
  We are approaching the end of the time in which we are responsible for Hong Kong, but it is important for people at every level to remember that many questions still need to be answered and criticisms are still being made. I was delighted when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), during his recent visit to Hong Kong, made a commitment with regard to the 6,000 or 7,000 ethnic minority group. I wish that the Government would follow his good example.
  I should not like to think that the Government have devised a scheme that treats pensioners and the widows of pensioners from Hong Kong any less favourably than pensioners from the other 42 or so colonies. The trouble with many actuarial measures is that they are often too complicated for simple people like me to understand. It is very important that pensioners clearly understand these measures and regard them as fair.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I whole-heartedly support the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, which is one of the building blocks that we are now putting in place in the lead-up to 30 June 1997.
  Two weeks ago, I had the great pleasure to debate the issue of Hong Kong with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in a rather more crowded house at the Oxford Union. We debated the question of whether the British Government have betrayed the people of Hong Kong. I spoke on behalf of the people of Hong Kong because Martin Lee could not attend the debate, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke for the Government. My side won by a margin of 244 to 36, which showed not the power of my persuasion but the idealism of young people on key democracy and human rights issues.
  Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take this opportunity in the post-Nolan era to declare my interest in the subject. I should have said at the beginning of my speech that I recently visited Hong Kong as a guest of the Hong Kong Government. I much appreciated their generosity and I have already declared my trip on the Register of Members' Interests.
  The hon. Gentleman took a rather extreme view in the Oxford Union debate. He said that he believed that British passports, or right of abode in this country, should be granted to the 3.5 million Hong Kong people who currently hold British national overseas passports. His view was received sympathetically by the audience at the Oxford Union, so perhaps he would like to confirm tonight whether that is also the policy of the Labour party.
  Mr. MacShane: I do not think that we should have a re-run of the Oxford Union debate in this place, although I would be happy to participate. I was most affected by the arguments of young men and women—our future leaders and intellectual elite—who drew attention to the fact that some 250 million people from European Union countries have the right to settle and to work in the United Kingdom. They pointed to the unfairness of denying the same rights to 52 war widows and 7,000 stateless Asians who are neither Chinese nor of British origin.
  We are slowly putting the building blocks in place, and I appreciate the measured contributions that we have heard tonight. In introducing the Bill, the Minister stressed its importance as a small, but important,

  861
  confidence-building measure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his wider role as the Minister responsible for Hong Kong, will convey to the Chinese Government the deep concern of hon. Members which is reflected in early-day motion 82—which appears on the Order Paper for the first time today, standing in my name and those of other hon. Members—about the plight of Wei Jingsheng, a Chinese human rights activist who is now on trial for his life. There is some contradiction between the confidence-building measure that we are seeking to establish in law tonight and the decision of Beijing in that case which is likely to undermine confidence in a stable future for Hong Kong.
  Labour Members have very few objections to the substance of the Bill. Hon. Members have referred to the plight of the war widows, the stateless ethnic and Asian people, and the status of the current British dependent territories passport holders who will receive national overseas passports after 1 July 1997. Other Hong Kong inhabitants will receive Special Administrative Region passports, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that they should be granted visa-free entry into the United Kingdom. I emphasise that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
  Representatives of Her Majesty's overseas civil service have approached the Government in an effort to secure the best possible packages. They have considered the early retirement option and they wish to secure the value of their pensions after 1997. I hope that the Hong Kong dollar will remain stable. I hope also that sterling will be a much more stable and durable currency in the future through closer links with the process of European integration—but that is a subject for another debate.
  I am concerned that civil servants and other groups in Hong Kong who are covered by the legislation will fall foul of article 23 of the basic law, which prohibits
  "political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies."
  Some civil servants—for example, judges who have served in British colonies and dependent territories—will find that, if they continue to live in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997 and seek to form quite normal associations so that their interests may be represented, under that article they will be unable to make representations and establish ties with their colleagues in other parts of the world. That is a fundamental concern about the post-30 June 1997 situation in Hong Kong and it has been raised with me during my many visits to Hong Kong in recent years.
  As we introduce other legislation to address specific issues between now and 30 June 1997, we must have some regard to articles in the basic law that may nullify the objectives of those who make representations to hon. Members.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I shall not detain the House for long. It is important that we pass the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, although it is a relatively insignificant tidying-up measure. We must reassure and restore the confidence of the few hundred people in Hong Kong who will benefit from it.
  862
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the fact that the legislation will not benefit other civil servants in Hong Kong and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, all Hong Kong civil servants must wonder about their positions post-1997. The present chief executive of the Hong Kong civil service will be replaced by a new appointee after 1997. The Chinese and Hong Kong press have reported the remarks of a potential candidate for that post, the present Hong Kong Chief Justice, who has said that the Bill of Rights and other very modest measures go too far. It is worrying that already senior figures in the administration, the legal system, the civil service and elsewhere in Hong Kong are beginning to adopt a different way of thinking about matters that the civil service in Hong Kong administered in the past and will continue to deal with in the coming year.
  Two years ago, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee dealt with Britain's relations with Hong Kong and China, and its report drew attention to a number of matters that I shall not discuss now as they are outside the scope of the Bill. It made clear its concerns about the need for a human rights commission, which the Government unfortunately rejected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been quite ingenious in continually mentioning the word civil servant and then proceeding to argue about some other aspect. I am quite sure that the usual channels will read the debate and recognise that both sides of the House would like a debate on Hong Kong, but that cannot take place this evening.
  Mr. Gapes: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not pursue that line of argument any further.
  It is important that the Government do not consider such tidying-up matters to be the end of the process. Issues involving war widows and people who are effectively stateless, and other matters referred to by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee should be dealt with expeditiously in the next year, so that they can be resolved before 1 July 1997.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Hanley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this excellent Second Reading debate.
  I am pleased that the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill received a warm welcome from the House. It is essentially non-political and technical and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, it is a good housekeeping measure that recognises the British Government's responsibilities to the last serving members of HMOCS.
  I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for giving the proposals his full support and for the tone of his comments. I am extremely pleased that he is now more familiar with Hong Kong. Hong Kong is rather like a Chinese meal: soon after people leave it, they want to go back for more. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to return to Hong Kong. It is a remarkable place.
  Mr. David Faber: This evening.
  Mr. Hanley: I am sure that this evening Leeds is more pressing.

  863
  I am sure that Hong Kong HMOCS officers and pensioners will appreciate the warm tributes that hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid to their commitment and contribution to Hong Kong over many years.
  I was not surprised that the House focused on the detail of the package of benefits rather than the principle of providing Hong Kong HMOCS with a package in the first place. After all, we are not doing anything for Hong Kong HMOCS officers that was not done for their predecessors in many other former territories. I note that no hon. Member questioned whether such benefits should be provided and thus doubted the need for this enabling legislation.
  All hon. Members recognise that the Bill is necessary and must be implemented without delay. I am glad, too, that the elements in the package that I outlined earlier, and that hon. Members will have an opportunity to consider in detail later, command more support. Any proposal that offers benefits and involves actual expenditure and contingent liability is bound to attract comment, particularly about the costs involved.
  Of course, I recognise that other issues need to be resolved, some through the efforts of the joint liaison group, by negotiations between British and Chinese representatives, and others between the Hong Kong Government and the British Government. Although certain issues need to be resolved over the coming 18 months, it is most important to sustain confidence in Hong Kong—confidence in which I firmly believe—so that Hong Kong can continue, with the greatest degree of autonomy and continuity, its current system that has made it such a success.
  May I almost intervene on myself and reply to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who mentioned Wei Jingsheng? My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue on 3 October with the Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister of China, Qian Qichen. We raise issues of human rights and specific cases of concern whenever we meet.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made one small comment with which I disagree. He said that we refused to provide full calculations of the figures. I can assure him that I provided the chairman of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association with a full description of the methods used to calculate the 21:1 divisor, and my officials have provided numerous lists and tables detailing the Hong Kong and United Kingdom salary and pension comparisons. There are more than 50 pages of detailed calculations, and I am sure that I could provide them to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to work through them before the Standing Committee meets.
  I conclude by saying a little more about the sterling pension safeguard scheme. I do not want hon. Members to leave tonight without understanding that it is not a bad deal for those for whom we have great admiration and wish to provide.
  The proposed pension safeguard scheme differs from previous schemes and does not
  offer Hong Kong HMOCS officers full protection of the sterling value of their pensions at 1997 rates. Hong Kong pensions are currently paid in Hong Kong dollars with no guaranteed conversion rate to sterling, so the British Government will assume a new contingent liability for those pensions.
  864
  Let me explain why. There is a solid guarantee in the Sino-British joint declaration that the autonomous authorities of Hong Kong will continue to pay pensions after 30 June 1997. The British Government have full confidence that that provision will be honoured. I should tell the hon. Member for Rotherham that, although article 23 of the basic law sets limits to political organisations in Hong Kong having links with such organisations abroad, I am not clear whether that is relevant to HMOCS as article 27 of the basic law guarantees free speech and freedom of association, including labour organisations.
  The Bill, therefore, addresses the assistance that should be provided to HMOCS pensioners over and above the existing arrangements whereby they receive their pensions in Hong Kong dollars with no protection against currency movements and having regard to guarantees in the joint declaration. Some have argued that the British Government should protect the full sterling value of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions, but it would be unfair to expect British taxpayers to provide such support as the salaries, and hence the pensions, of the Hong Kong HMOCS have a greater purchasing power than those received by their predecessors and their counterparts in the British public service. In addition, many former Hong Kong HMOCS officers have enjoyed big pension increases over the years, awarded by the Hong Kong Government. Indeed, they have deserved them, but those increases were based on the relatively high rate of inflation in Hong Kong, which has no relevance to the cost of living for pensioners who have retired to the United Kingdom, for example, thus the purchasing power of Hong Kong pensions has in many cases greatly increased since the officers retired, and the British taxpayer should not be asked to protect those windfall increases.
  Claims that in some cases our proposed scheme would protect only about 60 per cent. of the sterling value of those Hong Kong pensions do not represent the full picture. The real test of the scheme is what percentage of the original sterling purchasing power of those pensions would be protected by the scheme. The answer is that, on average, the scheme would protect 80 per cent. of officers' Hong Kong pensions and 100 per cent. of almost all widows' pensions, so we have decided that the scheme should be based on the principle of comparability with the British public service. As I explained, we cannot offer Hong Kong HMOCS officers full pension protection. Equally, it would be wrong to leave them with no protection at all, however unlikely an exchange rate collapse might be. That is why we proposed the safety net.
  The principle of comparability with the British public service strikes a just balance between the interests—for which the Government are equally responsible—of HMOCS and the British taxpayer. Two points should be borne in mind. First, the proposed scheme would provide a safety net that does not exist at the moment and, secondly, the chances of any significant liability ever being incurred under the proposed scheme are remote. In practice, the contingent liability is expected to halve after eight years and disappear altogether after 18.
  I am grateful for the tone of the thoughtful comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House, showing good will both to the people of Hong Kong and its continued future and to the dedicated civil servants who have helped to make Hong Kong the success that it is and will continue to be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  HONG KONG (OVERSEAS PUBLIC SERVANTS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.— [Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to.

  Derwent System Schools
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I want to address the House on the subject of Derwent system schools generally and in Sheffield, and I will refer to three schools in Attercliffe that are experiencing particular difficulties.
  The Derwent building system was used in the construction of a number of schools in this country in the 1950s. It has been difficult obtaining from the Department of Education and Employment information on the number of Derwent schools built in this country. Perhaps the Minister has those details. I believe that there are more than 100 such schools throughout the country. The Government's latest estimate, in response to a parliamentary question that I asked three years ago, was that it would cost about £300 million to replace Derwent schools.
  Sheffield has eight Derwent schools. Seven are mainstream schools that were inherited from the old Derbyshire council prior to boundary changes, one of which is being dealt with by transferring it from its existing building to a more traditional one at Carter Lodge school, where the secondary school has closed. I thank the Minister for his help in arranging that transfer and the necessary credit approvals to fund it. That leaves Birley Spa primary school, Birley primary school and Birley nursery school in my constituency, and three other schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). In case there is a danger of entering into a political debate about who must take responsibility for constructing Derwent system schools, I understand that several are located in Essex. Local authorities of all political complexions and persuasions have been responsible for Derwent system schools in the past.
  The schools provided reasonable and adequate accommodation for many years until 1987, when the Health and Safety Executive found severe structural problems. I will go into all the complications, but, in essence, it was found that water from the flat roofs of the schools was running down the walls and rotting the timbers. One problem with the Derwent system is that the roof is held up by the walls alone, so if they start to rot the roof will eventually collapse.
  The prognosis was that the life of the buildings could be prolonged provided that structural support work was undertaken. One can see today visible and physical evidence of the props that were installed to support the roofs and walls. Even though that work cost £1 million, it is only an interim, temporary measure and continuing regular inspections and further repair and structure will be required. Derwent system schools have other problems. They have poor energy efficiency, and higher general repair and cleaning costs.
  Every so often, the local authority is charged with sending its structural engineers to check the schools, and it then places orders for the necessary work.
  One consequence of the situation is a great deal of uncertainty for pupils, parents and staff and a large continuing cost for the local authority. From the

  867
  beginning, the authority has tried to reassure parents and staff that there was no immediate safety problem—that the structural support work would deal with the safety aspect. Even then, there is still the problem of not knowing how long the schools can continue to exist—of parents not knowing, when their children start school at the age of five, whether the school will still be there when the children are 11.
  In 1987, after the authority had consulted the staff and parents and the buildings had been examined, it was agreed that a phased replacement programme was needed. As the schools were all built by Derbyshire council and are all located in a certain part of Sheffield, it would be impossible to replace them all at one go. South-east Sheffield is the area of highest population growth in the city. There is considerable new building and the area's birth rate, as in other parts of the city, is not falling. The local authority has gone through a rigorous process of removing surplus places from schools throughout the city. I had a slight disagreement with the Minister over the closure of Shirebrook school, which falls within the two-mile radius of Birley Spa school. Shirebrook was closed with the agreement of the Minister on the initial decision of the city council. We now have extra mobiles because the schools in the area are overcrowded and cannot accept any more pupils.
  I do not accept that the Derwent system schools can be taken out and not replaced. Birley Spa, which is the first school on the authority's list for replacement, has 450 pupils. Birley Spa primary school has 500 pupils, and about 80 children attend Birley Spa nursery. The school lives of all those children are blighted by the uncertainty of the current situation.
  Since 1987, the local authority has tried repeatedly to secure Government agreement on a replacement programme. Last year the Minister was good enough to meet a delegation from the local education authority. The head teacher of Birley Spa school, Mr. Geoff Mawson, came along to persuade the Minister that action was needed. As usual in meetings with the Minister, we got tea and a bit of sympathy but no action or resources. The LEA has £1 million of credit approvals this year for dealing with school building problems in the Sheffield area. The cost of replacing the school in the worst condition, Birley Spa, is estimated at £2 million, so there is no way that the LEA could redirect credit approvals already given to solve that one problem. There are other problems—not least to do with rewiring schools throughout the city.
  Our argument is that this is a case of exceptional basic need and that credit approval should be given in that respect, particularly as trie situation has worsened. If the Minister did not see fit to grant a specified credit approval for Birley Spa school when we met him last year, I hope that he will pause to reflect and think again, because further evidence that has come to light is pertinent and ought to influence the Minister's thinking.
  The proper regular inspections that have been rigorously undertaken by the local authority have revealed the need for additional safety work. That is not surprising because we knew that the buildings were deteriorating. When external panels were removed from Birley Spa school in the summer to reveal the timber, the amount of rot was found to be so substantial that £100,000 must be spent on that school alone. That expenditure will not cure the problem but will give the school a two-year life. Thereafter, further sums will have to be spent regularly. Engineers and architects in
  868
  Sheffield council's design and building services department calculated, assuming that the condition of the buildings does not miraculously improve, that it will cost £1 million to keep Birley Spa open for another 10 years. Clearly, spending £1 million on a building which we know will be incapable of providing a decent framework for a school in years to come is an utter waste of money.
  The authority had to decide whether to spend £100,000 to give the school a guaranteed life of two years. It did not know that the work would cost £100,000 until it had been started. It was a case of stripping out the panels and finding the rot. The authority could, alternatively, have tried to do something much more fundamental, but the resources were not available and, even then, the problem would not have been cured permanently.
  The authority is making decisions in a vacuum. It does not know where the Government stand. If the Government said that the authority should maintain the building for two years and they would then deal with the problem permanently, we would know what to expect. If the Government said that the authority should maintain the building for five years, agreed to put their officials to work with council officials, agreed a five-year programme and then agreed a programme of phased replacement, we would know what to expect. But we do not know what is happening. All we know is that the Government have decided that the school does not need replacing this year, but we do not know whether they think that it will need replacing next year or the year after. We do not know how much money to spend on the school in the interim to maintain the building. We know that there is no permanent solution—even after spending £100,000.
  The cost of the repair work does not come from thin air, but out of the budget allocated for the repair of other schools throughout the city, which means that the other 187 schools in Sheffield will receive less money. That will often mean that a flat roof in another traditionally built school will not be repaired or will be patched up rather than replaced, which will cause it further problems in future. That is a short-term, uneconomical way of tackling problems.
  It is not merely the authority that is placed in a difficult financial bind. The problems of wood rot, panels falling apart and the ingress of water cause difficulties inside Birley school, which affects the authority's expenditure— from its own budget—on internal fittings and the school's general appearance. The head of Birley said that in the past four years—before those additional problems—he has had to spend £50,000 from his school budget. As he put it, that money could have been used to provide three extra teachers or additional books and equipment, which the school badly needs. Birley Spa school has the worst problems because it has a two-tier structure, but the other schools are in a similar position.
  We cannot simply wait until repair work on the school is completely out of the question, buildings start falling down and, for safety reasons, pupils are taken out and have nowhere else to go. The authority has carried out a detailed analysis of surplus places in the area, and there are no other places for the pupils to go. Additional building work is being carried out in the area, and a number of schools are full and are having to make use of mobile classrooms. Surplus places might exist, but only outside the two-mile radius, and it would be unfair to

  869
  make children face the prospect of being bussed around the city, without any planned replacement for the school having been agreed.
  We cannot contemplate spending £1 million on a series of temporary running repairs to maintain a structure that has no long-term future. That would be economic madness from anybody's perspective, whether the Government, the city council or the people who pay the bills—the council taxpayers of Sheffield and the taxpayers of the country. We need a replacement programme. What is happening is not merely a matter of cost and economics—it affects children's education. We might have disagreements across the Chamber about whether class sizes affect children's education, but I hope that there will be no disagreement over the fact that substantial building work in schools, as well as general uncertainty, affects children's education.
  Birley Spa school draws pupils from an estate which is recognised by the city council as an area of deprivation that is in need of urgent attention and has top priority. The most recent survey showed that 42 per cent. of families in that community were on income support and more than 20 per cent. of them were unemployed. Such deprivation means that education must be taken even more seriously there than elsewhere, although I believe that education should be taken extremely seriously everywhere. The school wants to develop some form of nursery provision to deal with the problems of deprivation.
  The issue does not merely involve economics, but the life of a school. Geoff Mawson, the head of Birley Spa primary school, has sent me a letter in which he explains that the repairs this year have cost £100,000. He understands that the money is taken out of the authority's general budget for schools, which means that other schools will also suffer. He explains that £51,000 has been spent out of the school budget and, on top of that, an extra £8,000—double the school's allocated budget for repairs and maintenance—has had to be spent on dealing with the problem in the past few months.
  In his letter Mr. Mawson states:
  "The disruption has been heartbreaking. Since September we have had a rota of 66 children sharing one classroom at a time whilst their rooms were being repaired. This is the third time this has taken place in six years! The youngest children have suffered the longest with repairs still taking place! There was no indoor PE for the first half term. There were fewer school assemblies as displaced classes were housed in the hall. Dinners have been disrupted. The shock of the building being condemned for a second time gave little time to us to plan for this emergency.
  The repairs and external painting will only guarantee the school's safety for two years! The school building is already an expensive drain on the LEA and the school's resources. The scaffolding has now gone, but the children have lived through another traumatic period. All this has been at an educational cost.
  The only agreement seems to be that we need a new building, but no-one can tell me what will happen when this two year period comes to an end. We are a large Primary school, families want to send their children to this school, but the uncertain future is a case of trying to manage the impossible. The children, parents and staff deserve better than this."
  I agree—they deserve much better. Mr. Mawson continues:
  "I am writing on their behalf to make you aware of our desperate situation and to ask you through your position as a Member of Parliament to draw this to the attention of the Minister concerned."
  870
  I am doing so tonight in the most public way.
  I was speaking on the telephone this afternoon to the head of Birley primary school—Birley Spa and Birley are two separate schools, although their names are similar. I asked Mr. Blakey, the head, how things were going. He said, "If you can hear me through the noise, we are knee deep in the middle of building work. We have had three months of disruption out of the school year." Builders are outside the school, stripping the panels while children of five are running around. It is difficult to protect children and educate them at the same time under those conditions.
  Mr. Blakey said that it was a difficult process for young children to go through. He said that there were no spare classrooms in the school, which was full, and the dining room was having to be used, which disrupted meals. He said that the school was in a state of chaos and turmoil, and the children's education must be suffering as a result. He said that he hoped that it was the last time that the school had to suffer in that way. There is a nursery next to the school, where children under five have to suffer the same disruption and where their educational provision is similarly affected. It is unacceptable.
  I hope that tonight the Minister will give a number of commitments. Perhaps we can even reach some agreement. The position is unacceptable and we cannot allow it to continue; it is affecting our children's education. All the money that we are spending—we can have disagreements about whether it is enough—is clearly not being spent to best effect. The children's work is being disrupted and money is being spent on building work which only temporarily relieves the problem and postpones the school's replacement. That is not good economics.
  If the Minister agrees to another meeting will he agree to it being held at the schools in question? Instead of sitting in his office in the Department for Education and Employment, watching the water flow from the fountains in the beautiful atrium which was built at enormous expense, will he come to the schools where water is pouring down the walls, causing the timber to rot and disrupting the educational lives of children? Will he come to the schools to see the problems for himself, meet the parents and staff and listen to what they have had to go through?
  I am looking for a commitment of credit approval for the next financial year first to replace Birley Spa school, which all the heads in the area, and the governors, have accepted is in the worst condition of all the schools to which I have referred because it is a two-storey structure. The other schools should be subject to agreed replacement, with Department officials talking to council officials and agreeing on the best way forward. I want to see an end to the disruption of education, the replacement of lousy buildings and an end to uncertainty.
  The schools have kept going and they have maintained high standards. I am aware of the great efforts that have been made. The heads have shown extraordinary commitment, as have their staff. Great credit is due to them for the way in which they have coped. They have continued to educate children in extremely difficult circumstances. The schools are excellent but the buildings are appallingly inadequate. Only the Government can implement a policy that will replace the present buildings with decent new buildings in which children can be educated properly. Those new buildings will match the commitment of the staff to provide good education, and their commitment will have even greater results if new school buildings are provided, which the children deserve.
  8.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The
  hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has raised an important issue. As he said, this is the second occasion on which I have heard his arguments for Birley Spa school and others. Last time, of course, responsibility for capital expenditure came within my remit. This time, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is the responsible Minister. I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to my hon. Friend at the end of the debate. They will receive her full attention.
  The Government are concerned that schools should offer their pupils a good and safe learning environment. The statutory duty to ensure that school buildings are safe lies with school governors and local education authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that. We share a similar background as former leaders of local authorities. To help governors and LEAs discharge the statutory duty effectively, my Department provides advice to local authorities and school governors to alert them to building defects of potentially national significance. The procedure is intended to act as an early-warning system so that authorities can plan accordingly.
  In essence, my Department issues a so-called defects letter to all authorities whenever news of a particular building problem could usefully be broadcast. Usually one authority will spearhead the fault-finding process and let the Department know. The scheme has proved so useful that a pack of defects letters is now included in the "welcome pack" for schools entering the grant-maintained sector. When appropriate, the Department will also commission research into the defect, usually through the Building Research Establishment, and disseminate the findings to local authorities.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, it was the Sheffield LEA which informed us that it had identified problems with some 1950s Derwent timber framed schools. They were manufactured by Vic Hallam plc in the 1950s and 1960s. The Derwent system comprises permanent buildings of one or two storeys, mainly based on a timber post and plywood box beam framing construction. The buildings are braced by tongue-and-groove roof boards and framed external wall panels. Later forms of the system used different types of cladding such as brick work and tile hanging, although the same principle of structure remained.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, Sheffield LEA reported to my Department that it had found deterioration in the external walls and in certain internal structural members of Derwent buildings. Other common faults were rotting of the timber columns between window sill and floor level, rotting of timber internal columns between floor level and lower ceiling level at the point at which a change of room height occurred and rotting of external columns over their entire height, when adjacent to rainwater outlets, together with other examples of junctions between plywood beams and timber posts that were exposed to water leaks.
  Sheffield alerted us to the problem in 1987. Later that year, the Department issued a defects letter to LEAs informing them that further investigations were being carried out by the authority. The Department stressed the importance of carrying out adequate surveys to determine individual building needs.
  872
  The Department commissioned some research into the system and sent a copy of the report to LEAs in March 1988. Principally, the report made recommendations for the investigation of Derwent system buildings, but also emphasised the importance of checking all buildings with a similar construction. The Department invited authorities to advise it of any further cases that they identified. There has been only a limited response. I am advised that we are aware of only between 10 and 15 cases. There are, of course, other timber-framed buildings that have not necessarily been specifically identified as Derwent constructions. We are well aware of the difficulties in Sheffield schools, to which the hon. Gentleman has diligently drawn to our attention in the past.
  I have already said that schools must offer a good and safe environment for their pupils. We are committed to improving the condition of school buildings. To that end, substantial capital resources have been provided in recent years to enable local education authorities and school governors to improve their building stock. We estimate that, between 1990–91 and 1993–94, LEAs spent about £2.7 billion on their schools.
  Generally, capital sums allocated by my Department are not tied to specific projects. Local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. This borrowing limit—it is called the basic credit approval—is made up of the sum of the annual capital guidelines for different services that are issued to the authority net of any anticipated receipts.
  Ultimately, therefore, it is up to LEAs to decide their own priorities, both between services and projects within services. Nor is the basic credit approval, which is issued by the Department of the Environment, the upper limit on authorities' capital spending. Authorities can invest their own capital receipts as they see fit, and they can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. Recent relaxations to local authority capital controls—in particular, a reduction in the rate of set-aside required for debt redemption—will help LEAs to maximise the use to which they can put capital assets.
  I acknowledge, however, that in recent years tight public expenditure survey settlements have meant that allocations available for improvement or replacement work have not been as high as some local authorities might have wished. It is worth explaining, therefore, that the criteria for allocating capital resources were agreed with the local authority associations over 10 years ago.
  Priority in the allocation of schools' annual capital guidelines is first given to commitments arising from projects started in previous years. That is fairly obvious. After that comes the provision of new school places in areas of population growth, basic need, and exceptional basic need, which is a sub-category of basic need. Exceptional basic need essentially covers cases where a surveyor has condemned teaching places or described them as unsafe or structurally unsound. Exceptional basic need cover is given only where repair is either impracticable or actually more expensive than replacement. Such instances are usually emergency cases, but in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments I confirm to him sincerely that we shall examine extremely carefully any evidence which he or the LEA may forward

  873
  to my Department that may show that in the school or schools that he mentioned the problem comes under the qualifications of exceptional basic need.
  Mr. Betts: The Minister has said that exceptional basic need covers a school that cannot be repaired or where repair becomes more expensive than replacement. Does the Minister accept that account should be taken of repairs that are immediately necessary and repairs that will continue to be necessary over a period of, for example, five or 10 years? The cost of new buildings should be weighed against repairing existing structures if repair work will have to be continued for five or 10 years.
  Mr. Squire: I cannot deny that there was a strong strain of common sense in what the hon. Gentleman said. I am happy to revisit the priorities that were established—I may well have made that clear to him in a previous responsibility—particularly in the light of the points that he is making. At the present time, I can reiterate only what the priority was. He will appreciate that, because there are invariably more bids than there is funding available, it would require broad agreement across local authorities, and I would be happy to receive that. There may be opportunity for local authorities to pursue that with me or my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
  The other priority category covers the implementation of cost-effective schemes to remove surplus school cases, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of their impact. We also make allowance for liabilities for work at voluntary aided schools and for approved capital work in special education. The remaining resources are then distributed by a formula to contribute towards the cost of all other capital-related work at schools. The latter category may include cases that are not exceptional basic need but where replacement is considered to be the most sensible option. Obviously, local education authorities are free to include Derwent buildings in annual capital bids for exceptional basic need cover if they think that a case meets the definition.
  874
  Alternatively, LEAs are free to bid at any time for a supplementary credit approval from the Department's limited capital reserve. There are always many competing bids for the resources and only the most urgent and deserving bids are successful. These can sometimes include cases that are not exceptional basic need but that nevertheless appear urgent. We also give priority to any supplementary credit approval bids, involving private sector investment in line with the principles of the private finance initiative.
  Very substantial sums have been made available for capital work in schools—more than £600 million this year. Nevertheless, each year, we have to make tough discussions about what to include in our list of successful projects. The hon. Gentleman has schools with Derwent buildings in his constituency, and he highlighted in particular, but not exclusively, Birley Spa. When we met to discuss this issue last year, I explained that a bid for exceptional basic need could be given only where repair would be more expensive than replacement. Surplus provision in the area was also a factor. The LEA has since applied for funding under a supplementary credit approval, which was not successful in the most recent round because of competing bids against very limited resources.
  We have made careful note of the hon. Gentleman's arguments on behalf of those schools. I can repeat only that the crucial factor is the availability of resources in each financial year and, of course, the priority criteria, to which I referred. Exceptional basic need is, as its name implies, an exceptional category, essentially for the replacement of condemned buildings.
  As I said at the outset, this is the second occasion on which I have discussed this issue with the hon. Gentleman—in rather grander surroundings than our first meeting. On each occasion, I have been impressed by the sincerity and strength of his arguments, and in particular his commitment to Birley Spa school. I shall take that message back to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and ask her carefully to consider the points that he has made tonight when making her decisions for capital allocations in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o 'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost to public funds of increasing in line with earnings all social security payments that have never been upgraded from the date when they were announced. [704]

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated gross cost is around £1.8 billion at April 1995 prices, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the contribution to the decline in detected savings in tackling organised methods of payment fraud of(a) a real reduction in fraud and (b) a decline in the detection of fraud. [1105]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 26 October 1995,Official Report, column 800.

  There is no evidence that investigation work is less successful, and we believe that the reduction in savings is directly attributable to the preventive measures that we have put in place to prevent and deter instrument of payment fraud.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 13 June 1995,Official Report, column 492, in respect of benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency. [1093]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 22 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about benefit savings.

  Month

  Good Cause Accepted

  Absent Parent Named

  Good cause not Accepted

  Reduced Benefit Direction Implemented

  Investigations Completed

  April

  2,172

  490

  3,035

  2,361

  5,697

  May

  3,119

  862

  4.212

  2,868

  8,193

  June

  3,133

  1,584

  4,573

  2,346

  9,290

  July

  3,289

  1,986

  4,018

  2,011

  9,293

  August

  3,341

  2,004

  4,331

  2,363

  9,676

  September

  3,523

  2,312

  4,024

  2,367

  9,859

  Total

  18,577

  9,238

  24,193

  14,316

  52,008

  230
  The table attached covers April to September this year. It shows that the Agency has recorded savings of approximately £195.03 million. The total does not cover Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit savings which will be calculated later in the year.

  Amount

  Category of benefit savings

  £ million

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State

  1.57

  Resulting from CSA and pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by Absent Parent to Parent with Care

  65.69

  Resulting from CSA assessments:

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State

  30.16

  Deductions from Absent Parents' Income support payments

  4.18

  Income Support claim cessations:

  Income Support exceeded rate of benefit

  4.30

  Income Support claim withdrawn within four weeks of CSA action

  80.99

  Reductions in Family credit or Disability Working Allowance resulting from CSA assessments

  8.14

  Housing Benefit/Council tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  Not available

  Total

  195.03

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the monthly breakdown of requirement to co-operate decisions contained in his answer of 26 October 1995,Official Report, columns 805–6, in respect of the Child Support Agency, to include the figures from April 1995 to the most recent month for which figures are available. [1098]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 22 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about requirement to co-operate decisions.
  You asked for an update of the monthly breakdown of requirement to co-operate decisions contained in his Answer of 26th October 1995, Official Report, columns 805–6, in respect of the Child Support Agency, to include the figures from April 1995 to the most recent month for which figures are available.
  The table below provides a breakdown of the outcome of requirement to co-operate investigations completed during each month between April and September 1995. From April 1995, information is now available on the number of reduced benefit directions actually implemented by Benefits Agency rather than the number issued for implementation. We have included this in the table and hope that you will find it more meaningful.
  You may wish to know that the majority of the figures shown in the table are contained in the Child Support Agency Statistical Information which is placed in the Library of the House of Commons each month.

  231
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many telephone calls have been received on the Child Support Agency MP hotline since it started. [1064]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 22 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency MP Hotline.From its launch on 12 December 1993 to 30 September 1995, 5,230 telephone calls have been answered on the Hotline.
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the largest back-dated payment required by the Child Support Agency. [122]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of the effect of the changes to be made on 8 January 1996 on the claiming of benefit by asylum seekers with particular reference to access to housing. [1230]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and other persons from abroad were presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. The committee has carried out a public consultation on these proposals and has received representations from many individuals and organisations, including housing associations and local authorities. The committee is now evaluating those responses and we expect to receive its report in December.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many sponsored immigrants are subject to a signed undertaking as defined in the Immigration Act 1971 given by another person or persons; how many of them are now receiving(a) income support, (b) housing benefit (c) council tax benefit (d) family credit (e) attendance allowance (f) disability living allowance (g) disability working allowance (h) invalid care allowance and (i) severe disablement allowance, indicating in each case the cost to public funds. [1228]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Separate details of claims to social security benefits by sponsored immigrants are not collected due to the relatively small size of this group.

  It is estimated that nearly a half of sponsored immigrants claim income support and that two-thirds of these may also claim housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Sponsorship undertakings are obtained by the Home Office and copies forwarded to the Benefits Agency. The numbers received in the last three years are set out in the table.
  232

  Year

  Sponsorship undertakings received

  1993

  2,121

  1994

  1,925

  1995 (to 20 November 1995)

  1,847

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of those who have claimed income support our the last seven years, in how many cases(a) this was due to the death of the sponsor (b) this was due to the sponsor being made bankrupt and (c) this was because the sponsor had become unemployed. [1229]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  Interim Payments
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many interim payments have been paid under the Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 over the last seven years; and how many of these were pending the outcome of an appeal against a benefit refusal. [1231]

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

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made towards introduction of the proposed civil service code. [2469]

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty in Council today approved an order extending the functions of the Civil Service Commissioners, empowering them to hear appeals under a civil service code, and to make reports on them.

  I shall place a copy of the order in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available.

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made towards the implementation of the Nolan committee's recommendation that a Commissioner for Public Appointments should be appointed. [2470]

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty in Council today approved orders setting up the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and appointing the first office holder.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today announced the appointment of Sir Leonard Peach, currently chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, as the first Commissioner for Public Appointments. Sir Leonard will take up this part-time appointment on 18 December 1995.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has also appointed Sir Leonard Peach as the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Northern Ireland.
  233
  Sir Leonard has also been appointed a Civil Service Commissioner.

  I shall arrange for copies of the relevant orders to be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as they are available.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his plans are for the future of the Central Office of Information. [2767]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am satisfied that the Central Office of Information should continue as a next steps agency. I have asked the chief executive to make proposals for improving the efficiency of the agency, with the aim of maximising the value that it adds to the procurement of publicity by Government. The outcome should be to streamline COI so as to concentrate on the procurement of services for customer departments, rather than the direct provision of services. The proposals, which will draw on assistance from consultants, will take full account of the views of customer departments and the availability of alternative means of obtaining the services provided by COI. As a first stage, I have decided that from 1 January 1996 the presumption that departments should use COI for advertisement procurement should cease, and departments will be free to make alternative arrangements direct with the industry if they so wish.

  I recognise that these changes will result in some reduction in the number of staff employed by COI, which is currently about 470, but I am convinced that a more sharply focused COI will be better able to provide a service to departments which will both meet the needs of Government Departments and secure the best interests of the taxpayer.

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government completed their exploration of how to increase private sector involvement in the Occupational Health and Safety Agency and Recruitment and Assessment Services; and if he will make a statement. [2795]

  Mr. Horam
  After further consideration in the light of advice from Coopers and Lybrand, the Government have decided to transfer to the private sector both the Occupational Health and Safety Agency and Recruitment and Assessment Services as single viable businesses and in a way that will ensure that they retain their reputation for the provision of high-quality occupational health services and recruitments services respectively. The sale of RAS will include a contract for the fast-stream selection process for future civil servants, specifying the services required. The civil service will retain control over its recruitment.

  These agencies have developed well in the last few years, but they are subject to various constraints from having to operate within Government. Privatisation of
  234
  OHSA and RAS is the best way to secure the long-term interests of the staff and customers of these two businesses, as well as the taxpayer. Once they are freed from these constraints they will be better able to improve their services to existing customers, and to extend their businesses by making their services available to new customers in wider markets.

  Formal expressions of interest for these businesses will be sought early in the new year. Financial advisers are being appointed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Nursery Facilities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made for the construction of nursery facilities in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [1021]

  Mr. Beith
  No financial provision has been made for the construction of nursery facilities in the Palace of Westminster. The Commission has from time to time examined the possibilities of establishing an in-House child care facility. However, the Commission has been advised by the Accommodation and Works Committee that the main obstacle is the lack of unallocated accommodation on the Parliamentary estate which is suitable or could be made suitable to comply with the provisions of the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948 (as amended 1968).

  Telephone and Information Services
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make financial provision for hon. Members to be provided with modern telephone and information services to the level of that available to directors and senior managers in leading British and international corporations. [175]

  Mr. Beith
  The infrastructure for Members' telephone and information services is provided by the House and Members can augment this by means of the office costs allowance. If the hon. Member has a specific suggestion, he should inform the Chairman of the Administration Committee or the Chairman of the Information Committee.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce new standards under part M of the building regulations, relating to access for people with disabilities. [316]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Over 1,000 responses have been received to the consultation paper on possible changes to part M of the building regulations issued earlier this year. These are being analysed. The Building Regulations
  235
  Advisory Committee will consider this analysis in due course and will make recommendations to Ministers on the way forward.

  Environmental Technology Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often he holds meetings with ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry with the specific intention of promoting the growth of the environmental industry. [1167]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade established the joint environmental markets unit following a meeting they held with the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. This DTI-DOE unit assists and encourages United Kingdom firms to exploit growing markets for environmental goods and services, on an on-going basis, and Ministers discuss the issues that arise as a result of the unit's work as and when required.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often he has met his European counterparts to discuss the environmental technology industry across Europe in the last 12 months. [1155]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with his European counterparts to discuss a wide range of measures to improve environmental standards. The improvement of such standards will tend to create market opportunities for suppliers of environmental technology and services. Among the many matters discussed at Environment Councils attended by my right hon. Friend in the past 12 months has been the proposed amendment of the LIFE regulation, part of which the aim is to provide financial support for projects demonstrating an innovative use of environmental technology.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the level of tax revenue the environmental technology industry has contributed to the Treasury in the past five years. [1166]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what formal arrangements exist to assist co-operation between his Department and the Department for Education and Employment in relation to the environment technology industry. [1156]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no such arrangements specifically related to the environmental technology industry. However, there is close co-operation between the Departments on improvement of the environmental content of education at all levels from primary school to university, and on development of environmental national vocational qualifications. This will promote greater environmental awareness among today's and tomorrow's industrial management and work force, and so in turn improve the climate for the environmental supply industry.
  236

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Start for the Environment what is the average annual cost to a local authority of keeping a family of four in(a) local authority accommodation and (b) temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. [1196]

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available.

  Coal Mining Accidents
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of(a) fatal and (b) serious reportable accidents per 100.000 manshifts recorded by companies contracted to the main deep coal mining operators. [1176]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available. The Health and Safety Executive does not compile accident rates for comparing contractors to the main deep coal mine operators.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of(a) fatal and (b) serious reportable accidents per 100.000 manshifts in the deep coal mining industry in the fist 10 months of (i) 1995 and (ii) 1994. [1174]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not yet available for 1995.

  Information for 1994 is as follows:

  Fatal

  Major injury

  1 January 1994–31 December 1994

  0.05

  3.01

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Health and Safety Executive has begun its review of the health and safety laboratory. [2401]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following the efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments and the Government response, Cm 2991, a prior options review of the health and safety laboratory is now under way. The review is being led by HSE's chief scientist, Dr. J. McQuaid. It is due to be completed by March 1996.

  Empty Government Property
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets have been set to reduce the number of empty Government homes. [2797]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are determined to cut the number of empty homes, whether they are owned by local councils, housing associations, private individuals or Whitehall Departments. An empty home is a wasted asset.

  Last year nearly 4,000 empty Government homes were brought back into use or sold. We are now building on the progress already made by setting targets for 1995–96 that aim to reduce the number of empty properties and the length of time that they remain empty.

  The targets are as follows:

  237

  Department

  Total stock (1 April 1995)

  Empty (1 April 1995)

  Empty as percentage (1 April 1995)

  Target for percentage empty (1 April 1996)

  Target for percentage empty for more than six months that could be lived in or made habitable1 (1 April 1996)

  Department of Transport

  3,511

  1,028

  29.7

  2<25

  <9

  Home Office

  4,023

  455

  11.3

  <11

  <3

  Scottish Office

  1,481

  162

  10.9

  —

  —

  3251

  344

  317.5

  2 3<10

  3<3

  Welsh Office

  239

  62

  25.9

  <3

  <3

  Ministry of Defence

  70,586

  12,699

  18

  By 1 April 1996 to dispose of 1,500 homes

  By summer 1996 to dispose of 4,000 homes

  Notes:

  1 Properties that "could be lived in or made habitable" includes all properties except:

  (a) derelict properties that await demolition (e.g. to make way for road schemes);

  (b) those that are expected to be demolished in the near future where the expenditure required to make them habitable would be disproportionate to their expected life (e.g. where substantial investment would be required to connect essential services, such as water, sewage or electricity);

  (c) those that cannot be made accessible (e.g. due to adjacent construction work).

  2 The Department of Transport target for percentage empty that could be lived in or made habitable (as defined in note above) is <15 per cent. On the same basis, the target for Scottish Office is <3 per cent.

  3Excludes NHS properties in England and Scotland. These are surveyed every two or three years. A survey in England is in progress now, and when the results are available targets will be set to cover the period until the next surveys.

  Central Manchester Development Corporation
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Central Manchester development corporation will be wound up; and if he will make a statement. [2799]

  Mr. Curry
  Statutory orders will be laid before Parliament early next year to effect the wind up and dissolution of Central Manchester development corporation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the corporation will cease to act from 1 April 1996, except for the purpose of preparing its final accounts and report and winding up its affairs. The corporation will be dissolved on 1 July 1996.

  Urban development corporations were set up, with finite lifetimes, to regenerate their designated areas. Since designation on 30 June 1988, Central Manchester development corporation has encouraged and grant aided private sector development and undertaken substantial environmental improvements, which have helped to stimulate new jobs and new life in the city.

  By the end of its lifetime, the corporation expects to have reclaimed 39 hectares of land, created 194,000 sqm of commercial floor space, 2,730 housing units, 6,400 permanent jobs and attracted £370 million of private sector investment. The corporation has transformed large parts of the city, which will continue to benefit well into the next century.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the effect of a 4 per cent. increase in council tax on(a) the total yield of council tax in Great Britain, (b) the total yield of council tax in England, (c) the average bill in England, (d) council tax benefit, (e) the retail prices index and (f) index linked benefits. [1478]
  238
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: The information relating to Wales and Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  If council taxes in England had increased in 1995–96 by an additional 4 per cent. compared with actual levels, the approximate effect is estimated as follows:

  (b) Gross yield of council tax: increase of £390 million.

  (c) Average Band C bill, before Council Tax Benefit or Transitional Relief: increase from £541 to £563.

  (d) Council tax benefit: increase of £85 million.

  (e) The increase would add around 0.1 percentage points to the percentage change over 12 months in the all items retail prices index.

  (f) The precise effect on those benefits linked to the retail prices index would depend on whether this marginal change was sufficient to trigger an increase in benefit levels. As an approximate guide, an additional 0.1 percentage points on the rate of inflation would add around £40 million to the cost of those benefits in a full year. There would be no effect on those income related benefits which are usually linked to the Rossi index.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the forthcoming prior options reviews of MAFF research establishments. [2474]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government announced on 29 September 1995 that all public sector research establishments would be subject to prior options reviews, and that a timetable would be made available shortly.

  The Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International and the Directorate of Fisheries Research will be reviewed immediately. The R and D conducted

  239
  by ADAS will be reviewed on the same timetable. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency will be reviewed between early next year and July 1996.

  MAFF establishments will be reviewed alongside establishments parented or sponsored by other Government Departments which are carrying out work in similar or related fields.

  Comments from interested parties would be welcome. These should be sent to:

  T. D. Rossington

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Room 806

  Nobel House

  17 Smith Square

  London

  SW 1P 3JR

  Comments on the Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International, the Directorate of Fisheries Research and ADAS research and development should be sent by 8 January 1996. Comments on the Veterinary Laboratories Agency should be sent by 1 April 1996.

  Animal Species
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make a report on his consultations with legal experts and scientists about Torry research and development projects, and the Bartlett-Davidson patent relating to patenting of DNA nucleotides sequencing for identification of animal species; and if he will make a statement. [59]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am still not in a position to make a statement.

  Valley Factory, Rhydymwyn
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was his Department's financial contribution to the Drivers Jonas report and the joint report with Delyn borough council and the Welsh Development Agency on the valley factory at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd. [595]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry's financial contribution to Dames and Moore and Drivers Jonas for the preparation of the environmental assessment was approximately £65,000. The current site remediation study with Delyn borough council and the Welsh Development Agency will be jointly funded by the Ministry and the WDA. It has been agreed that the Ministry and the WDA will each bear one half of the total cost of the assessment. The Ministry's share is likely to amount to around £50,000. It has further been agreed that the Ministry and the WDA will each recompense one half of Delyn borough council's reasonable staff costs incurred in this study. Estimated costs are not yet available.

  Farmers' Wives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission a study into the social and economic role played by farmers' wives; and if he will make a statement. [58]
  240
  Mr. Boswell
  The important role played by farmers' spouses in farming enterprises is widely and very fully acknowledged within the industry and elsewhere. We doubt that a study of the kind suggested would do other than reinforce that view and have no plans for one at present.

  Grant Payments (Fraud)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, to date and by region, the number of farmers who have been prosecuted for alleged criminal fraud in respect of payments of grants for renovating hedgerows and banks; what has been the result of the prosecutions; what effect unsuccessful prosecutions have had on subsequent grant payments; and if he will make a statement. [60]

  Mr. Boswell
  Earlier this year, a group of 19 cases in the south-west involving false claims for grant on hedges under the farm and conservation grant scheme were listed for prosecution. Two of these cases were heard by the Crown court. They resulted in acquittals. In the second of these cases, it was held that there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal dishonesty. In the light of this, the remaining 17 cases were withdrawn. However, where, as in these cases, grant has been claimed in breach of the scheme's rules, we will seek to recover grant to which farmers are not entitled. We are taking action to do so. Other grant claims from the farmers concerned will be dealt with on their own merits in the usual way.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep and lambs have been exported to date this year to(a) the Netherlands and (b) Belgium; and how many sheep and lambs were exported to each of these two countries in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [1604]

  Mr. Boswell
  For the purposes of trade statistics, Belgium and Luxembourg are treated as one single entity. Official overseas trade statistics for the number of live sheep and lambs exported from the United Kingdom to the Netherlands and Belgium-Luxembourg are as follows:

  Thousand head

  1993

  11994

  1995 January to July 1,2

  Netherlands

  41

  95

  12

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  109

  128

  17

  1 Provisional.

  2 Exports of live sheep and lambs to the Netherlands and Belgium-Luxembourg are highly seasonal. Therefore January to July figures, the best available, should not be considered indicative of the eventual annual totals for 1995.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1442]

  Mr. Boswell
  For the Department's performance for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 17 May 1995,Official Report,

  241
  column 260. In 1994–95 MAFF's energy costs per square metre for the main estate rose by 3 per cent. above the 1990–91 base year figure, compared with an increase of 5 per cent. in 1993–94. Energy costs for laboratories increased by 29 per cent. and those for the depots decreased by 26 per cent. from the base year figures.

  Under the returns for Government's energy campaign, the Department cannot discount the IT equipment that has been installed throughout MAFF since 1990–91; or the new research buildings—which are high energy users—required to meet statutory requirements at our laboratories, replacing rudimentary predecessors; or the growth in business activities.

  The Department continues to take steps aimed at reducing energy consumption through the investment of energy schemes and the promotion of awareness campaigns for staff.

  Potato Imports (Brown Rot)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on Government action to be taken to deal with imports of potatoes infected with brown rot. [2389]

  Mr. Boswell
  Measures have been adopted at Community level to deal with the reported outbreak of brown rot in the Netherlands. They place stringent requirements on the Dutch authorities to ensure the safe disposal of potatoes from infected farms. To supplement these measures, the Government have introduced a statutory requirement for prior notification of all intended imports of Dutch potatoes—including seed, ware and potatoes for processing—in order to ensure that this trade can be monitored effectively. The legislation has also been strengthened to give wider powers to inspectors to control the disposal of Dutch potatoes, and we will be maintaining a high level of surveillance on this trade through inspections of consignments and laboratory testing.

  Deregulation
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the deregulation measures agreed by his Department during 1995. [284]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: The Ministry has a positive and long-standing commitment to deregulation, which has been developed during 1995. The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 greatly simplified the rules relating to agricultural tenancies and now enables landlords and tenants to agree terms which reflect their own particular needs. Two draft deregulation orders, under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, have been laid to lift reporting burdens under the Corn Returns Act 1882 and in relation to slaughterhouses legislation. Other deregulatory measures include reducing the requirements relating to marking of pigs and simplifying the arrangements for licensing of poultry slaughtermen. Steps have also been taken to exempt cold stores handling packaged meat from meat inspection regulations. By 1 January 1996, we expect to repeal or simplify a significant series of national measures relating to food composition and food additives.
  242

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 November. [1490]

  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.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton on his forthcoming visit to Britain, the issue of supporting a trial, in the Hague, under Scottish rules of evidence, under a Scottish judge, of the Libyan suspects accused of the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [1633]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations led him to commit national lottery funds to the development of competitive sport. [1795]

  The Prime Minister
  National lottery funds are not committed or distributed by the Government. Parliament decided that 20 per cent. of the funds for good causes should go to sport. The sports councils decide how much of that should go to the development of competitive sport.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing his views on the French Government's nuclear tests which are currently taking place. [1667]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 November,Official Report, column 25.

TRANSPORT

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce oil spillages at sea. [120]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department devotes considerable resources to reducing oil discharges at sea through the enforcement of international discharge regulations, the detection of vessels which breach those regulations and the deterrence of illegal discharges. We are also working with the International Maritime Organisation to make the discharge requirements more stringent.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the possibility of including photographs on the driving licence; and what plans he has to do so. [1488]
  243
  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) on 16 October,Official Report, column 73.

  Railways (Expenditure)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the total amount of subsidy to the rail system; and what is his projection for each of the next five years. [50]

  Mr. Watts
  Regarding the total amount of subsidy in the last five years. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 7 November 1995 Official Report, column 769.

  The level of public funding needed for the railways in the next five years will depend on the bids for franchises received by the franchising director. The Government believe that privatisation will bring improvements to efficiency and services. All these factors will affect the level of funding required by the railways.

  Truck Access Grants
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of applications he has received for track access grants for services in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales; and if he will indicate what number he has approved. [1227]

  Mr. Watts
  We have received 14 track access grant applications. Five were for traffic in England, four for Scotland and five for Wales. One has been approved. Two applications have been rejected and one withdrawn.

  Light Rail Funding
  Mr. Sheldon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light rail funding; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of Greater Manchester passenger transport authority's plans to extend Metrolink to Ashton under Lyne via the proposed national stadium site. [1746]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government fund light rail schemes out of the budget for local transport schemes, through the package approach. A separate budget for light rail does not exist, and such schemes can proceed only at the expense of other transport projects, both in the same area and in other parts of the country.

  My support of light rail schemes is dependent on the following: whether the scheme can be demonstrated to be the right and most cost-effective solution to a particular urban transport problem; whether it has been planned within the context of a strategy or transport package to achieve mode shift away from the private car; and whether it will attract private sector investment. It should be remembered, however, that light rail is not the only solution to urban transport problems, and the difficulties and costs associated with developing schemes should not be underestimated.

  We have not yet seen the economic case for the Metrolink extension to Ashton under Lyne, and I understand that Greater Manchester passenger transport executive has yet to apply for powers for this scheme under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Any progress
  244
  with this extension will depend on the priority attached to it by the Greater Manchester local authorities and the availability of resources.

  Railfreight Distribution
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is considering a joint public-private venture for Railfreight Distribution as an alternative to privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [1463]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Railway Timetables
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions exist for ensuring that local bus operators are informed as early as possible of changes to railway timetables. [383]

  Mr. Watts
  The provision of railway timetable information to bus operators is a matter for train operators and Railtrack. The railway industry is planning the development of a comprehensive national train information service intended to deliver accurate, consistent and impartial information services which will be available to third parties.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has commissioned into the relative costs of operating passenger railway services(a) by the franchises, (b) by the British Railways Board. [1273]

  Mr. Watts
  No studies have been commissioned. The franchising director has statutory responsibility for awarding franchises. In doing so he must satisfy a number of statutory duties and objectives, including the requirements to ensure good value for money in the provision of franchised services and to encourage competition in the railway industry.

  Severn Bridge (Tolls)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will express the average toll charge per mile for a car in respect of the new Severn bridge crossing; and if he will make a statement. [236]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Charles Kennedy, dated 23 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about average toll charges per mile for a car in respect of the new Severn bridge crossing.
  The toll charges for the new Severn crossing will be the same as for the existing Severn bridge. For Category 1 Vehicles, that is motor cars and motor caravans, the toll charge per vehicle is at present £3.70. From 1 January 1996 the toll charge for motor cars will increase to £3.80 per vehicle.
  The toll level is not generally expressed as a charge per mile. However, the new Severn crossing, which is due to open in 1996, will be approximately 3 miles long and the average charge per mile for cars will therefore be about £1.27.
  I hope this is helpful.

  245

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid for Trade Provisions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on the British economy of that overseas aid which is tied to purchase of British goods; and if he will make a statement. [1540]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have recently conducted an assessment of the impact on the British economy of that overseas aid procurement which is tied to purchase of British goods. The assessment concluded that the overall impact was very small. The United Kingdom will remain at the forefront of efforts to encourage untying on a multilateral basis.

  Least Developed Countries
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid the United Kingdom allocates to those least developed countries which have a per capita gross national product of less than $750 US per year. [1550]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not practicable to allocate aid channelled through multilateral agencies, nor some bilateral aid—notably block grants to NGOs and other agencies—to specific recipient countries.

  Of United Kingdom 1994–95 bilateral aid which can be allocated to countries, for all recipients, both developing and transitional:

  36 per cent. went to countries on the UN's list of Least developed countries (LLDCs)

  69 per cent. went to low income countries (defined as those with per capita incomes of less than US$676 in 1992)

  For developing country recipients only the equivalent figures are 38 per cent. and 73 per cent. respectively.

  GDP (Overseas Aid)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of annual gross domestic product the United Kingdom spent on overseas aid in each year since 1985. [1547]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ratio normally used to relate aid to the size of the economy is net official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product. Figures for the United Kingdom since 1985 are as follows:

  Year

  UK net oda as a percentage of GNP

  1985

  0.33

  1986

  0.31

  1987

  0.28

  1988

  0.32

  1989

  0.31

  1990

  0.27

  1991

  0.32

  1992

  0.31

  1993

  0.31

  1994

  0.31

  246

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken by the international community to provide humanitarian assistance to Tamil people in the Jaffna peninsula of Sri Lanka. [1618]

  Mr. Hanley
  The international community is supporting the efforts of those relief agencies providing emergency shelter, health, water and sanitation, and supplementing food rations to those affected by the conflict. With regard to the United Kingdom's contribution, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 22 November Official Report, column 111. In addition, the UK share of recent European Community emergency aid is some £138,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1443]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are actively pursuing an energy efficiency implementation programme with a view to meeting the Government's aim to reduce energy consumption by 15 per cent. by March 1996. Measured by input over output, a reduction of 11.85 per cent. of electricity consumption and 15 per cent. of gas consumption has been achieved from 1990 to March 1995.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights have gone(a) in favour of and (b) against each member country; and if he will make a statement. [1525]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A list containing the information requested follows:

  European court of human rights—comparative table of violations

  State party

  Cases where violations found at 6 October 1995

  Cases where no violations found (Council of Europe Reference Charts published for 1995)

  Austria

  28

  12

  Belgium

  20

  7

  Bulgaria

  0

  0

  Cyprus

  1

  0

  Czech Republic

  0

  0

  Denmark

  2

  3

  Finland

  2

  1

  France

  33

  10

  Germany

  12

  16

  Greece

  7

  0

  Hungary

  0

  0

  Iceland

  2

  0

  Ireland

  6

  1

  247

  European court of human rights—comparative table of violations

  State party

  Cases where violations found at 6 October 1995

  Cases where no violations found (Council of Europe Reference Charts published for 1995)

  Italy

  84

  11

  Liechtenstein

  0

  0

  Luxembourg

  1

  0

  Malta

  1

  0

  Netherlands

  23

  4

  Norway

  1

  0

  Poland

  0

  0

  Portugal

  6

  1

  Romania

  0

  0

  San Marino

  0

  0

  Slovakia

  0

  0

  Slovenia

  0

  0

  Spain

  7

  2

  Sweden

  21

  1

  Switzerland

  14

  8

  Turkey

  2

  0

  United Kingdom

  37

  19

  Guatemala
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the British contribution to the MINUGUA UN mission in Guatemala; and what is his policy towards the future of this mission. [1623]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The MINUGUA mission is funded from the UN regular budget. The United Kingdom contribution to MINUGUA, based on our assessed contributions, will be approximately US$ 1.4 million for the period 1 October 1994 to 31 December 1995.

  The UK co-sponsored a resolution at the UN General Assembly on 14 September 1995 to extend MINUGUA by six months, until 18 March 1996.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings diplomatic officials have held with human rights and political groupings in Sri Lanka. [1620]

  Mr. Hanley
  British diplomatic officials in London and Colombo have frequent contacts with human rights organisations and a wide range of political parties and groups.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigation his Department has made into the allegation made in a German court that Royal Ordnance staff provided false end-user certificates for the German company Heckler and Koch, prior to its purchase of the company, and re-exported the guns abroad; and if he will make a statement. [1143]
  248
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The allegations made during the court case, including that referred to by the hon. Member, were pursued with Royal Ordnance and assurances were received from the company to the satisfaction of my Department.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1395]

  Mr. Lang
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister.

  My Department's records show that, since April 1992, 22 public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers of this Department, five of which did not need to be deployed. The annual breakdown is as follows:

  1992: 4 (from April)

  1993: 8

  1994: 6

  1995: 4 (to date)

  No central record is kept of certificates issued before April 1992.

  The certificates were issued to protect a range of classes of information, in particular the formulation of Government policy, the internal dealings of Government Departments, the operation of the Security and Intelligence Services, and confidential information and advice obtained in connection with the Department's regulatory or statutory functions.

  Sustainable Energy
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to require companies taking over regional electricity companies' assurances in respect of the protection of small companies generating electricity by sustainable means; and what assurances have so far been given. [1606]

  Mr. Eggar
  The five-year transitional arrangements for those generators which supplied regional electricity companies under extended Energy Act terms ended in March 1995. A public electricity supplier's obligation under the non-fossil fuel obligation are not affected by changes in the ownership of that public electricity supplier.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to protect small independent companies generating electricity by sustainable means following the opening up of the electricity market. [1605]

  Mr. Eggar
  Those renewable generating stations with NFFO contracts will not be affected by the liberalisation of the electricity market until their NFFO contracts with the regional electricity companies end. Renewable generating stations without NFFO contracts will have the opportunity to benefit from the freedom to supply end-users in small niche markets, at a price that may be related to the electricity retail price as opposed to the
  249
  wholesale price at which licensed electricity suppliers purchase electricity. I understand that OFFER and the electricity pool are considering the possibility of simplified arrangements to enable embedded generators to sell electricity without the requirement to become pool members.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of potential insider dealing offences(a) considered by the stock exchange surveillance group, (b) referred by that group to his

  Prosecutions for contraventions of the company securities (insider dealing) Act 1985

  1989–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Prosecutions pending at beginning of year

  Following S177 enquiry

  2

  5

  1

  12

  9

  1—

  1—

  Total

  6

  10

  2

  13

  9

  —

  —

  Prosecutions started

  Following S177 enquiry

  3

  4

  11

  2

  6

  1—

  1—

  Total

  6

  7

  13

  2

  6

  —

  —

  Convictions

  Following S177 enquiry

  —

  3

  —

  3

  24

  2

  —

  Total

  —

  4

  2

  3

  35+

  2

  —

  Acquittals

  Following S177 enquiry

  —

  2

  —

  2

  2

  5

  —

  Total

  1

  9

  —

  5

  2

  6

  —

  Prosecutions pending at end of year

  Following S177 enquiry

  5

  1

  12

  9

  1

  1—

  1—

  Total

  10

  2

  13

  9

  1

  —

  —

  1 This information was not included in the 1993–94 Companies Annual Report or subsequently.

  2 Includes three convictions acquitted on appeal in 1994–95.

  3 Includes one conviction acquitted on appeal in 1993–94.

  Investigations under section 177 of the financial services act 1986

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cases referred by the London stock exchange for consideration

  33

  21

  8

  11

  5

  17

  13

  Cases in hand at the beginning of the year

  15

  14

  16

  9

  4

  2

  6

  Appointment of inspectors

  12

  12

  4

  3

  1

  5

  6

  Final reports submitted by inspectors

  13

  10

  11

  8

  3

  1

  7

  Cases in hand at the end of the year

  14

  16

  9

  4

  2

  6

  5

  Chemical Weapons Bill
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of those individuals or organisations making representations to his Department on the draft Chemical Weapons Bill; and if he will place all such representations except for parts that may be commercially confidential in the Library. [538]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  On 19 July my Department circulated 500 copies of a draft Bill, and invited comments. A revised draft Bill, taking account of all the views received, was published on 2 November.

  In general, industry representatives indicated that they were in agreement with the provisions of the Bill. Other views emphasised the need for the operations of the
  250
  Department, (c) investigated or prosecuted by his Department or by the stock exchange and (d) resulting in a conviction in each year since 1988. [541]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information sought by the hon. Member is contained in my Department's report on companies published annually by HMSO. For convenience I provide a compendium of information derived from reports from 1988–89 to 1994–95. The stock exchange reviews transactions ahead of all price-sensitive announcements on a routine basis. Where evidence of insider dealing is suspected a referral is made to the Department. The tables include such referrals.

  DTI as national authority to be transparent, that it should be accountable, and that the Crown should be bound by the provisions of the Bill. However, those people and organisations who responded had no reason to expect that their names, or individual views, would be made public. In view of this it would not be proper to place their representations in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department has spent on research and development within the environmental industry in each year since 1992–93. [1160]
  251
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department has supported research and development on technologies with a specific environmental function as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  2.09

  1993–94

  2.05

  1994–95

  1.49

  Total

  5.63

  In the same period my Department spent £69.9 million on new and renewable technologies and £19.7 million on clean coal technologies.

  Some of the research and development supported under general DTI programmes, such as SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—SPUR—support for products under research—Link and EUREKA, and through the OST's funding of the research councils, will also be relevant to the environmental technology industries.

  National Phoneday
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions officials of his Department have had with British Telecom relating to the impact of national phoneday on the service being delivered to users of the telephone network. [1743]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Numbering issues are the responsibility of the Director General of Telecommunications. My officials have not met BT to discuss the impact of the phoneday changes.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figures his Department has received from British Telecom relating to the number of users of the telephone network making calls erroneously using the old national dialling codes; and if he will make it his policy for these figures to be published. [1742]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has not received any figures from BT relating to the number of wrongly dialled calls. Any decision on a policy of publishing such figures would be a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications. However, OFTEL has conducted a customer survey which revealed that the vast majority, 85 per cent. of those surveyed, did not find the changes a significant problem.

  Poppy Appeal
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prevention of sub-post offices from selling British Legion scratchcards for the poppy appeal. [1002]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office.
  252

  Pearl Assurance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department is carrying out into complaints made against Pearl Assurance's handling of insurance claims. [123]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department does not comment on matters relating to individual companies.

  Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government financial assistance is available to exporters of(a) civilian goods and (b) military equipment. [1568]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, offers a full range of assistance of all types to exporting companies through Overseas Trade Services. Details of these services are contained in the British Overseas Trade Board's annual report and forward plan, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. In addition, support to civil and military exporters is available through the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is the practice of his Department to make an assessment of the loss of earnings by British exporters, excluding military equipment, which may be caused as a result of war or internal conflict. [1569]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, alerts British exporters to potential difficulties in repatriation of export earnings that may occur as a result of war or internal conflicts abroad. Further action is then a matter for the individual companies. We have no central figures for the total amount involved in loss of earnings as a result of such actions.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many awards of regional selective assistance, and of what value, have been made to firms in the Dudley metropolitan borough in each of the past five years. [581]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of offers, and value of regional selective assistance made to businesses in the Dudley metropolitan borough over the past five years is shown in the table:

  Local authority district—Dudley

  Number of approvals

  Grant approved £ thousands

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  30

  1,325

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  19

  693

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  16

  616

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  22

  1,175

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  33

  1,253

  253
  In the current year the number of offers and value of assistance has been:

  Local authority district—Dudley

  Number of approvals

  Grant approved £ thousands

  1 April 1995 to 31 October 1995

  31

  1,184

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sum was originally provided for regional selective assistance in 1994–95; and what was the eventual figure. [1327]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: The estimate for regional selective assistance in 1994–95 was £101.2 million. Actual expenditure was £113.1 million.

  The figures are available respectively in the Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 and the Industrial Development Act annual report.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [41]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The following Acts of Parliament that affect local government have been introduced by this Department since January 1994:

  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994

  The Coal Industry Act 1994

  The Trade Marks Act 1994

  The Gas Act 1995

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates and location of conferences supported by the British Government to encourage British investment and trade with Nigeria since 18 November 1993; what plans his Department has to support further events in Nigeria or in Britain; and if he will make a statement on his Department's support for such ventures in the future. [1207]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: Officials of my Department have taken part in seminars on trading with Nigeria since 18 November 1993 that
  have been organized by the following:

  February 1994: Bristol Chamber of Commerce

  May 1994: Kent Export Forum

  August 1994: Sheffield Mining Forum

  October 1994: London Chamber of Commerce/BEAMA

  November 1994: Thames Valley Export Forum

  June 1995: Thames Valley Export Forum

  July 1995: Energy Council

  October 1995: Nigeria-British Chamber of Commerce.

  254
  My Department has also organised within this time five general "Opportunity Africa" seminars which have featured presentations on Nigeria.

  Support has been offered to the London, Bristol and Kent chambers of commerce for outward missions to Nigeria planned for next year.

  My Department has scaled down the level of its promotional activity in recent years because of the political and economic situation in Nigeria. We will continue to keep the level of activity under review. However, it remains our policy to support UK companies in their efforts to secure business in what remains an important market.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the consultants currently engaged in examining the work of the Patent Office indicating the cost of each of the studies involved. [1202]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: Two firms of consultants are engaged by the Patent Office to help on possible contractorisation projects. They are Marketing Improvements Group plc and Coopers and Lybrand. The total cost of this work to date is £108,945 plus expenses. The three projects are the Office's information technology services, its marketing and awareness programmes, and the operations of its London front office. The overall annual costs of these are £5.888 million, £1.608 million and £1.125 million respectively.

  EU Industry Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Industry Council, held on 6 to 7 November listing all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [439]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 21 November 1995, Official Report, column 71.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of total manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom was in foreign-owned companies in each year since 1974. [1516]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: The information required is given in the following list:

  Percentage of United Kingdom manufacturing employment in foreign-owned companies:

  1975: 13.0

  1977: 14.7

  1979: 15.0

  1981: 14.9

  1983: 14.5

  1884: 14.8

  1985: 14.0

  1986: 13.0

  1987: 13.4

  1988: 13.1

  255

  1989: 14.9

  1990: 16.1

  1991: 17.2

  1992: 18.1

  Note:

  1992 figures are the latest available.

  Prior to 1983 figures were only collected bi-annually.

  Source

  Annual Census of Production: CSO Business Monitor PA1002.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of total manufacturing employment was in foreign-owned companies in each of the EU and OECD countries in the latest available year. [1517]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: According to the annual census of production 18 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing employment was attributed to foreign-owned companies in 1992, the latest year for which data are available. No comparable data are available for other EU and OECD countries.

  Departmental Staffing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff employed in his Department are(a) on short-term contracts, (b) employed for less than a year, (c) employed in the press office and (d) employed in his private offices. [1514]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: On 1 October 1995 my Department employed 435 staff on short-term contracts—employed on a casual basis for up to a period of 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years. There are currently 243 staff who have been employed for less than a year, including staff on loan from other Government Departments but excluding staff in this category who transferred from the Department of Employment and Cabinet Office as part of the machinery of Government changes announced on 5 July 1995. There are currently 28 staff employed in the press office and 53 staff employed in Ministers' private offices.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff his Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region, what is the cost of running these regional operations, what was the total budget for each region in 1994–95; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used. [269]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: Disaggregated information on the basis of standard English regions is not available. However, information on the Department of Trade and Industry's regional staff in Government offices for the regions and related budgets and activities is provided in GO MINIS 1, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House in July 1995.

  Coal Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of(a) fatal and (b) serious reportable accidents per 100,000 manshifts recorded by each of the coal companies operating deep mines which were previously publicly owned in the first 10 months of 1995. [1175]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.
  256
  The Health and Safety Executive does not compile accident rates for individual companies or mines.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requirements a pharmaceutical wholesaler must fulfil in order to obtain an export licence for Temazepam. [1538]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Additional controls to prevent diversion from the legitimate trade in Temazepam will be introduced shortly. These will include a requirement for import and export licences.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what change has occurred in respect of the level of emergency admissions to hospitals in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [1152]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest year for which figures are available is 1993–94. In that year, total admissions were 8,286,515, of which 3,833,498–46.3 per cent.—were emergency admissions. In 1992–93, total admissions were 7,873,219, of which 3,640,896–46.2 per cent.—were emergency admissions.

DEFENCE

  Army Training
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his plans for the support and administration of the Army's training areas and ranges. [2476]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of the Government's competing for quality programme, the Commander-in-Chief Land Command has initiated a study into the way in which administration and support services are provided to the 100 or so Army training areas and ranges in England, Scotland and Wales for which he is responsible. The aim of the study is to explore the extent to which these support services might be provided more efficiently and at a reduced cost as a result of being exposed to competition. The study will last for about six months and its results will be reported to the House.

  HMS Renown
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current cost per annum of maintaining HMS Renown; and if he will make a statement on her future; [2057]

  (2) where HMS Renown is currently stationed. [2058]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of operating HMS Renown in 1994–95, the last year for which figures are available, was approximately £29 million. This figure includes the cost of manpower, maintenance and stores. Renown is no longer required to form part of our deterrent force and will in due course move from her current berth at Faslane to Rosyth to await decommissioning.
  257

  Army Surgeons
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of regular Army surgeons required to meet current commitments; [2056]

  (2) what is his estimate for the total number of Army surgeons who will be employed by his Department in each of the next five years. [2055]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of trained deployable Regular Army surgeons—comprising the disciplines of general surgery, opthalmics, burns and plastics, maxillo-facial and ear, nose and throat—oto-rhino-laryngology—required to meet current commitments is 55. Although it is not possible to predict the precise number of surgeons who will be employed in each of the next five years, all practicable steps will be taken to ensure that our requirements are fully met.

  Ships (Target Practice)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ships which are currently being considered for target practice. [1825]

  Mr. Soames
  All vessels on the disposal lists are available to be considered for use as a target. Decisions on whether ships will be used for target practice are made in the light of all relevant factors, including the operational requirement for such trials and the costs involved.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the ships which have been used for target practice in each of the last five years. [1824]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16 December 1994,Official Report, column 816. I can confirm that no vessels have been used for target practice since then.

  Ship Deployments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the latest deployment of(a) HMS Kent, (b) HMS Hermione and (c) HMS Jupiter. [1826]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Kent's last operational deployment was in an exercise in the eastern Atlantic in the spring of 1980. She then became the fleet training ship (static) in Portsmouth harbour from June 1980 to March 1983. Following that she became the cadet forces accommodation and training ship from March 1983 until March 1993. She was then placed on the disposal list.

  HMS Jupiter's last operational deployment was in the south Atlantic from October 1991 to February 1992. She returned to the UK via the West Indies, arriving on 31 March 1992. She was placed on the disposal list on 1 May 1992.

  HMS Hermione's last operational deployment was on Armilla patrol from October 1991 to February 1992. She returned to the UK via the Mediterranean, arriving on 26 March 1992. She was decommissioned on 30 June 1992 and then placed on the disposal list.

  All three vessels remain on the disposal list.
  258

  Military Assistance (Guatemala)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Guatemalan officers are being trained in Britain; what courses they are following; and at what establishment the courses are based. [1342]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the military assistance provided to other countries are confidential between Governments.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jaguar aircraft are to be upgraded to GR.1B standard; and if he will list the additional capabilities of the GR.1B aircraft. [1289]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We plan to have upgraded all 65 Jaguar GR aircraft to GR1B standard by mid-1997. This upgrade improves the operational effectiveness of Jaguar, and provides a TIALD—thermal imaging and laser designation—capability.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Jaguar aircraft are to be upgraded with the Adour 804 engine; what is the cost of the programme; and what is the planned service entry date for(a) the first and (b) the last such upgraded aircraft. [1290]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A proposal to upgrade the Jaguar Adour Mk 104 engine is being considered.

  Nuclear-free Zone (South Pacific)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the verification regime to police the South Pacific nuclear-free zone treaty. [1504]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have announced our intention to sign the protocols to the treaty of Raratonga which was drawn up by the South Pacific states. The treaty's control regime provides for information exchanges, consultations, a complaints procedure and the conclusion of safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Authority in respect of peaceful nuclear activities. The Government have full confidence in the effectiveness of the IAEA safeguards system and its ability to detect diversion of nuclear material from the purposes declared for it.

  Technical Co-operation Programme
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many technical panels and action groups currently exist within sub-group E of the technical co-operation programme between Britain, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada; and what is the remit of each of these technical panels and action groups. [1559]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Sub-group E of the technical co-operation programme currently contains four technical panels and three action groups. The titles, which describe the remits of each panel and action group are as follows:

  ETP4$Medical Countermeasures against biological agents

  ETP9—Hazard Assessment

  ETP10—Detection of biological agents

  ETP11—Low burden, integrated protective clothing

  259

  EAG38—Gene Probes

  EAG39—Medical Countermeasures against vesicant agents

  EAG40—Adsorbents.

  Air Crews (Secondment)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans to provide Tornado aircraft, with Royal Air Force crews on secondment, to the United Arab Emirates. [1303]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My department has no current plans to provide Tornado aircraft, with Royal Air Force crews on secondment, to the United Arab Emirates.

  However, British Aerospace is among the competitors to meet the United Arab Emirates' next combat aircraft requirement and its bid has the full and active support of Her Majesty's Government.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force Harrier GR.7 aircraft have had their inertial navigation system modified to 1075G standard; what plans he has to apply this modification to the entire Harrier GR.7 fleet; and what is the total cost of the programme. [1287]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Twenty-nine of the 1075 standard inertial navigation system sets, as fitted to the Harrier GR7, were converted to the 1075G standard at a total cost of approximately £600,000. There are no plans to convert any more sets to the 1075G standard.

  Nuclear Tests (Nevada)
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he expects to receive information from his United States counterpart on the hydronuclear tests announced by the United States administration to be ordered at the Nevada test site in 1996. [1586]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to US plans to conduct hydrodynamic tests which do not involve any nuclear yield. There are long-standing arrangements allowing for the exchange of nuclear weapons—related information between the US and UK where the two parties believe that it would be mutually beneficial.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Royal Ordnance having an office in the procurement division of his Department and a stand with exhibits on permanent exhibition in his Department's main building; and if he will make a statement. [1047]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In certain circumstances, main defence contractors may be allocated office space within MoD buildings; any such requests are considered on their merits. Royal Ordnance has an office on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency site at Fort Halstead, but it does not have an office within the procurement executive, and there are no plans to provide one.

  There is no permanent exhibition of Royal Ordnance products within my Department's main building.
  260

  Written Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason parliamentary written questions 8851G, 8854G–56G, 8863G, 8869G, 8874G, 8876G, 8878G–8886G, 8888G–8889G; from the hon. Member for Don Valley were not published in the Official Report on 23 October as advised; on what date they will be published in the Official Report; and if he will make a statement. [404]

  Mr. Soames
  The written answers referred to by the hon. Member were given on 24 October and passed to the Official Report in the usual way but I am informed by the Editor that there is no record of them having been received. The answers were published as an addendum to the Official Report on 22 November 1995.

  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on recruitment to the TAVR. [471]

  Mr. Soames
  An active programme of recruitment is being undertaken to provide the annual intake necessary to meet the Territorial Army's establishment of 59,000 personnel. This programme includes national advertising campaigns on television and in the national press, and regional campaigns geared to local circumstances.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the Army's technical branches and authorities. [2475]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army's technical branches and authorities—aircraft branch REME, electronics branch REME, vehicles and weapons branch REME, Army scaling and cataloguing authority and the land systems technical publications authority—were subject to an internal management study in 1993. The study concluded the Army's technical branches and authorities, which provide a range of technical support services for the Army and other services, would operate more effectively as a defence agency. In the period since the study a chief executive (designate) has been appointed and a detailed analysis of technical support business has been undertaken to determine how the agency would operate.

  On 16 October 1995 I agreed to the formation of the Army Technical Support Agency as a defence agency from the former technical branches and authorities. ATSA will remain part of MOD but the chief executive will have delegated executive powers to discharge his responsibilities.

  ATSA comprises a headquarters in Andover and currently occupies six main sites at Middle Wallop, Malvern, Chertsey, Woolwich—two sites and Chilwell. It employs some 1,250 staff, 900 of which are civil servants, with the balance being military. A major strategy within the ATSA initiative is to reduce the number of main sites and a study is now examining the options for collation. I will be making a further announcement in due course to advise the hon. Member of developments.
  261
  ATSA contributes to the operational capability of the armed forces by providing technical advice and services, which promote efficiency in equipment support and enhance availability and supportability in the design of front-line military equipment.

  ATSA has been set demanding targets. These are largely based on satisfying the customer requirement, whether it be for MOD's integrated logistic support managers working in the procurement executive, equipment support managers or the field force. The targets for the first 18 months to March 1997 are:

  Key target 1—Be effective in influencing the design of an equipment through its life.

  By 31 March 1996 establish a baseline and develop the target to measure ATSA's effectiveness in influencing equipment design.

  By 31 March 1997 meet the target set.

  Key target 2—Produce effective scales of spare parts.

  By 31 March 1996 develop a methodology to measure effectiveness of scales covering range, depth and cost.

  By 31 March 1997 meet the target set.

  Key target 3—Be responsive to ad hoc (help line) technical queries.

  By 31 March 1996 achieve 80 per cent. of queries resolved on receipt or within 2 working days with the remaining 20 per cent. acknowledged with a plan on how the query will be resolved.

  By 31 March 1997 achieve 82 per cent.

  Key target 4—Be responsive to demands for technical publications (between receipt of a demand and despatch of a publication).

  By 31 March 1996 achieve an average of 10 days.

  By 31 March 1997 achieve an average of 9 days.

  Key target 5—Deliver a timely ATSA technical project service.

  By 31 March 1996 establish a baseline and develop the target to measure the timeliness of ATSA's work.

  By 31 March 1997 meet the target set.

  Key target 6—Deliver a timely ATSA service by reducing the administrative lead time (ALT) to complete initial spares provisioning lists.

  By 31 March 1996 achieve an average ALT of 11 months.

  By 31 March 1997 achieve an average ALT of 10 months.

  Key target 7—Satisfy the customer when undertaking technical projects.

  By 31 March 1996 establish a baseline and develop the target to measure customer satisfaction.

  By 31 March 1997 meet the target set.

  Key Target 8—Increase efficiency by managing additional commitments within a declining budget while maintaining the programme by volume with no degradation in the quality of the service.

  Improve efficiency by 4 per cent. in 1996–97 over previous year.

  All the targets will encourage continuous improvement in ATSA services or efficiency which will be achieved by rationalisation and by improving processes.

  Additionally, milestone key targets will drive ATSA to achieve restructuring; competing the technical publications activity as part of the ATSA competing for quality programme; the development of business systems and collocation, of the land systems elements, on a single site by mid-1998.
  262

  Explosives, Propellants and Related End Products Agreement
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how the explosives, propellants and end products agreement applied to defence contracts with(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Jordan, (c) Oman and (d) Malaysia; and what was the financial benefit to Royal Ordnance of the relevant contracts with these countries; [992]

  (2) what (a) was and (b) are the objectives and purposes of the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement; [1035]

  (3) what has been Royal Ordnance's record under the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement in respect of (a) timeliness of delivery, (b) quality and (c) pricing; and if he will make a statement; [989]

  (4) over what period the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement is applicable; [1037]

  (5) what is the successor arrangement to the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement which expired in March 1993; [1029]

  (6) what other companies, other than Royal Ordnance, were or are party to the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement; [1036]

  (7) what plans he has to introduce competition for the supply of certain products under the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement; what factors have inhibited competition to date; and if he will make a statement; [990]

  (8) what joint ventures with foreign companies have been considered, or entered into, under the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement; [991]

  (9) if he will list the agreements made between Her Majesty's Government and British Aerospace Royal Ordnance prior to the signing of the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement; and if he will make a statement; [1034]

  (10) what current orders and supply of products (a) did and (b) does the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement apply to; [1038]

  (11) if he will list those aspects of the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement which expired in March 1993 which (a) remain commercial-in-confidence and (b) are no longer commercial-in-confidence; and if he will make a statement. [1030]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The explosives, propellants and related end products agreement had two main objectives: first, to secure the supply of the majority of the Ministry of Defence's ammunition requirements of the five-year period following the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories; and secondly, to guarantee a core work load for the newly established Royal Ordnance plc, allowing the company to develop into an efficient competitor.

  The EPREP agreement subsumed two earlier agreements—the explosives and propellants agreement of August 1986 and the small arms agreement of September 1986.
  263
  The EPREP agreement ran from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993 and covered 42 different types of ammunition including tank, field gun, mortar, small arms and Navy ammunition. RO's performance under the agreement was satisfactory in terms of timely delivery, quality and price. Although all the work is now completed, the terms and conditions of the agreement remain "commercial-in-confidence" until both the signatories agree otherwise.

  The only parties to the EPREP agreement were RO and the Ministry of Defence. No other companies were involved. The agreement was not concerned with exports.

  All the orders placed under the agreement were awarded non-competitively. During the period of the agreement, the Ministry of Defence assessed and trialled alternative products from other suppliers so that, in the future, more ammunition orders could be subjected to competition.

  There was no successor arrangement to the EPREP agreement. However, the success of the agreement in helping to make RO an efficient competitor was shown in 1993 when RO secured, largely in competition, a major long-term Ministry of Defence contract for ammunition. This contract covered much of the armed forces' requirement for small arms ammunition between 1993 and 2000 and for larger calibres between 1993 and 1998.

  HMS Andromeda
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his Department's ships(a) HMS Andromeda and (b) HMS Sirius. [1823]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Regarding the former HMS Andromeda, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 July 1995,Official Report, column 371. The former HMS Sirius has been decommissioned, and awaits disposal. We are considering a number of disposal options for her. No final decision has yet been made concerning her future sale, or use for other purposes.

  Upholder Submarines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total original cost of purchasing the four Upholder class submarines. [1822]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave him on 21 April 1995,Official Report, column 308.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of each of the unclassified technical papers known as Porton notes produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down between 1965 and 1968. [1583]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.
  264
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list the titles of the unclassified technical papers known as Porton Notes produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down between 1965 and 1968 has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  I have listed below the titles of each of the unclassified technical papers known as Potion Notes produced by the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, a fore-runner of CBDE, between 1965 and 1968.

  Porton Note-288—Preliminary studies on an anagram test for use in performance assessment.

  Porton Note-374—Development of spray equipment. Hand-held training.

  Porton Note-378—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for dust respirators. Report on the protector dust respirator Q/R2000.

  Porton Note-393—HM factory inspectorate approval scheme for dust respirators. Report on the Safirmatic dust respirator.

  Porton Note-376—Construction of a radio transmitter for the short range telemetry of cat electroencephalograms.

  Porton Note-375—Report on the Martindale positive powered respirator unit.

  Porton Note-373—Certification mark scheme for dust respirators. Report on the Protector dust respirator Q/R. 1000.

  Porton Note-371—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for canister respirators. Report on the Baxter canisters.

  Porton Note-368—Certification mark scheme for dust respirators. Report on the Baxter pneuseal dust respirator.

  Porton Note-367—Polarographic estimation of enzyme activity.

  Porton Note-359—Vapour source for the calibration of automatic alarms in the field.

  Porton Note-358—Humidity control system for a small chamber.

  Porton Note-353—Radio-controlled rotorod aerosol sampler.

  Porton Note-349—Sodium flame test for respirator canisters.

  Porton Note-347—Estimation of diffusion at short range in stable conditions.

  Porton Note-346—Determination of quantitative values for various categories of vertical stability of the atmosphere.

  Porton Note-343—Concept attainment test.

  Porton Note-341—Improvements to the sodium flame penetrometer.

  Porton Note-340—Electrical measurement of respiration and heart rate.

  Porton Note-336—Blood cholinesterase levels and symptoms in anticholinesterase poisoning.

  Porton Note-335—Use of polybutadiene synthetic rubber in respirator rubbers.

  Porton Note-334—Dispenser for the CS pellet for use in testing the AFU Mk 2.

  Porton Note-333—Certification mark scheme for dust respirators. Report on the British American optical companys Safline dust respirator.

  Porton Note-332—Device for automatically aligning a particle sampler into the wind.

  Porton Note-331—Review of recent research on aerosol filtration.

  Porton Note-329—Removal of simulated particulate fallout from a vehicle using the Porton exhaust powered vacuum cleaner.

  265

  Porton Note-328—Normative data for a test battery used to assess human performance following drugs.

  Porton Note-327—Comparison of the smoke performances of the British 81mm and 3 inch WP mortar bombs.

  Porton Note-326—Report on the Martindale-fumex respirator.

  Porton Note-325 Comparison between the sodium chloride and nitrogen meter respirator leakage tests.

  Potion Note-323—Certification mark scheme for dust respirators. Report on the British American optical company's Sure-guard dust respirator.

  Porton Note-321—Critical assessment of the claims made for toxogonin, An antidote for organophosphorus poisoning.

  Porton Note-320—Some tests of the Mullard automatic particle analyser type L188.

  Porton Note-319—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for canister respirators. Report on the Angus canister respirator.

  Porton Note-319A—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for canister respirators. Gas tests of industrial containers for Geo. Angus and Company.

  Porton Note-318—High Speed gas-liquid chromatography: Column evaluation.

  Porton Note-317—Sampling efficiency of millipore filter sampler design CD 6895.

  Porton Note-316—Correlation of filter penetrations by different particulate test clouds.

  Porton Note-314—Regeneration of used charcoal from air purification filters.

  Porton Note-313—Gaseous atmospheric pollutants. A literature survey.

  Porton Note-311—Assessment of used charcoals from air purification units by heat of wetting measurements.

  Porton Note-310—Spectroscopic studies on ricin. The quantitative determination of sodium sulphate content and an apparent correlation of infrared absorption with toxicity.

  Porton Note-303—Swelling of rubber in vapour and liquid:-Literature and theory.

  Porton Note-296—Certification mark scheme for duct respirators. Report on the MSA Comfo ideal dust respirator.

  Porton Note-293—Effect of water on G and V agents. A review of work carried out in the UK.

  Porton Note-289—Devices for the teaching of expired air resuscitation.

  Porton Note-378—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for dust respirators: Report on the protector dust respirator Q/R 2000.

  Porton Note-374—Development of spray equipment. Hand-held training.

  Porton Note-388—Permeability characteristics of the skin: A literature survey.

  Porton Note-392—Effect of water vapour on the responses of a micro-argon ionisation detector.

  Porton Note-395—Vertical diffusivity profiles for diffusion to range 1Km.

  Porton Note-394—HM factory inspectorate approval scheme for dust respirators: Report on the Martindale dust respirators types W and Y.

  Porton Note-383—Ministry of Labour approval scheme for dust respirators report on the Pirelli dust respirators type BN9C1.

  Potion Note-391—Estimate of the metabolic cost of decontamination for two teams of men using two different techniques.

  Porton Note 385—Australian Finger Cherry, Rhodomyrtus Macrocarpa Benth. Toxicological study of some fruit extracts.

  266 In my letter to you of the 26 July I said that 57 of the Porton Notes were unclassified. Whilst compiling this list it was discovered that the original Library listing contained duplicate entries for Potion Notes 383 and 393. This is why the above list only includes 55 titles. I am sorry about this.I hope this information is helpful.

  Sea Dumping Operations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all coastal or sea disposal sites used for the dumping of(a) surplus chemical weapons, (b) chemical weapons recovered from enemy forces, (c) surplus conventional explosives, (d) toxic wastes and (e) radioactive waste since 1965; and what quantity of the waste materials of each category is dumped at each site. [1581]

  Mr. Soames
  Complete records of MoD sea dumping operations undertaken are no longer available. Accordingly, it is not possible to identify the total tonnages or precise nature of defence-related materials or waste products disposed of by this means. Records show that sea dumping of chemical weapons ended in 1957. Beaufort's dyke was the Departments's main conventional munitions disposal site in the north channel, where over 1 million tonnes of munitions were dumped between 1945 and 1973. An emergency MoD disposal took place in 1976 involving two cases of heavily corroded 40mm shells. Hurd Deep, situated in the English channel some 50 miles south of Prawle Point near Plymouth was also a conventional weapon dump site but no complete record appears to have survived of dumping operations at this site after the immediate post-war period until its use was discontinued in 1973. Between 1973 and 1985, up to 2,000 tonnes of conventional munitions were disposed of annually at the deep water dump site situated approximately 400 miles south-west of Lands End, off the continental shelf. From 1985 until October 1992, when the sea dumping of munitions was terminated, the annual disposals were as follows: 904 tonnes; 1,882 tonnes, 1,565 tonnes; 3,244 tonnes; 1,544 tonnes; 1,775 tonnes; 1,093 tonnes and 8,764 tonnes. There are a number of other explosive dumping grounds charted in British waters but these were not routinely used. Details of the UK's sea disposal programme for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes, including wastes generated by MoD establishments, are contained in a report commissioned by the Department of the Environment, "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the Northeast Atlantic", published in November 1984.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the climatic chamber in the human factors section at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down was built; and what this chamber is used for. [1562]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.
  267
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the climatic chamber in the Human Factors section at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment was built and what it is used for has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  This facility, which is used to assess the effects of wearing protective equipment on personnel in a variety of ambient temperatures and humidities, was built in the early 1950s.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down have been exposed to chemical warfare agents in experiments since 1965; what was the purpose of these experiments; when these experiments took place; and what were the conclusions of these experiments. [1560]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment have been exposed to chemical warfare agents in experiments since 1965 has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  No members of staff have been exposed to chemical warfare agents as part of experiments since 1965.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific and biological papers were published between 1969 and 1991 under the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment technical paper series; and how many of these papers are now unclassified. [1609]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many papers were published between 1969 and 1991 in the Chemical Defence Establishment Technical Paper series and how many of them are now unclassified has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  A total of 610 technical papers in the CDE Technical Series were published between 1969 and 1991. These reports are now held in a variety of places and it would involve disproportionate effort to check on the current security classification of all of them, bearing in mind that classification is reviewed from time to time. I can, however, tell you that of the total 610 technical papers. 193 were produced as unclassified documents.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments have been carried out in the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's new facility for testing equipment and volunteers since the 268
  facility was opened in February 1994; and how many years this new facility is projected to be in service. [1563]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what experiments have been conducted in the new facility opened in February 1994 at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  The new facility opened in February 1994 replaced the exposure chambers previously used to conduct studies involving equipment and service volunteers. To date the new facility has been used to carry out evaluations of collective and individual protection equipment and chemical agent detection systems. No studies involving service volunteers have taken place in this facility so far. The fitting and testing of respirators routinely issued to personnel at CBDE is also carried out in this facility. The lifetime of the facility is projected to he at least twenty years.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of section 6 No. 5 of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's range safety regulation issued in 1984 which relates to the use of exposure chambers. [1564]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if copies of Section 6 No. 5 of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's Range of Safety Regulations issued in 1984 can be placed in the Library of the House of Commons has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  I have made arrangements for a copy of this section of the Range Safety Regulations to be placed in the Library. You should be aware however that the procedures set out in this section refer exclusively to the now disused exposure chambers and not to the facility opened in February 1994.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new buildings are planned to be built at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, as part of its building replacement programme. [1610]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what new buildings are planned to be built at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down as part of the building replacement plan has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.

  269
  CBDE are currently undertaking an investment appraisal into the possibility and viability of replacing a number of the ageing buildings with more modern, cost effective structures. The scheme being considered provides for replacement buildings for the Medical Countermeasures, Detection, Protection and Hazard Assessment Sections together with their support facilities in a floor area considerably smaller than that presently occupied. The scheme has yet to receive permission to proceed to the design stage.
  CBDE are about to award a design commission for a new Containment Building for work with microbiological organisms. If constructed this building will replace some of the old Microbiological building which will then be demolished. The scheme does not currently have permission to proceed beyond the design stage.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the conclusion of the research work at Nancekuke to investigate the storage of GB referred to in his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 709; and when this work was carried out. [1616]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what the conclusions of the research carried out at Nancekuke to investigate the storage of GB has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment as one of its divisions.The work carried out at Nancekuke on the long term storage of the nerve gas GB took place from 1957 until the late 1970s and concluded that, suitably stabilised, the agent would have a shelf life in excess of twenty years.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Health and Safety Executive last conducted a safety inspection at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; and when the next Health and Safety Executive inspection of the establishment is scheduled; [1561]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of reports arising out of the Health and Safety Executive inspections of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, in 1983 and 1988. [1615]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the Health and Safety Executive last inspected the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down and if copies of the reports of the inspections carried out in 1983 and 1988 can be placed in the Library of the House of Commons has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.270 The Health and Safety Executive last carried out a full safety inspection at CBDE in 1988. The next inspection is scheduled to take place early in 1996. Requests for placing copies of the reports of the Health and Safety Executive inspections in the House of Commons Library should be made to the Director General of the Health and Safety Executive.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the 21 safety audits referred to in his answer of 18 July,Official Report, columns 175–76 reviewed the arrangements for carrying out tests and studies in the service volunteer programme. [1611]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm. to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 23 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if the safety audits referred to in the answer of 18 July, Official Report, column 175–6 reviewed the arrangements for carrying out tests and studies in the service volunteer programme has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.The safety audits referred to in the reply of 18th July were not concerned with the Service Volunteer programme. All protocols for conducting studies which involve the use of Service volunteers are reviewed by the Independent Ethics Committee.I hope this information is helpful.

  Damages Claim (Tornado Aircraft)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make progress in recovering compensation from Bricom Securum in relation to damage done by Airwork Ltd. to the F-3 Tornado squadron at RAF St Athans. [1326]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: My Department has presented the extent and nature of its claim to Bricom and is continuing to pursue it.

TREASURY

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the progress of forecast expenditure towards the convergence targets set for economic and monetary union. [692]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no convergence target for public expenditure which is a matter for national Governments to decide. I expect the United Kingdom to meet the convergence criteria and to be in a position to decide whether to participate in monetary union when the time comes.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect VAT extension has had on the economy and on living standards. [708]
  271
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power contributed to the Government's objective of controlling and reducing the PSBR. This is the best way to achieve sustainable growth in the economy and in living standards. There was a generous compensation package to compensate those hit hardest by the change.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate and scope of VAT. [709]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the scope of VAT. [713]

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's taxation plans are announced in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech and not before.

  Budget
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about the contents of his forthcoming Budget statement. [710]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has as usual received a large number of Budget representations.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from business leaders regarding the social chapter. [711]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Business leaders have indicated that they consider employment legislation to be one of the most burdensome types of regulation in a recent Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, UNICE, survey. A further survey last summer by the European Enterprise Centre showed that two thirds of Europe's smaller companies were worried that higher costs resulting from the social chapter would make them less competitive.

  Gross National Product
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relationship between the percentage of GNP taken up by public spending and economic performance. [714]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Lower public spending, lower taxes and lower borrowing are essential to building a dynamic thriving economy which can compete in world markets.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the abolition of inheritance tax. [715]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 259.
  272

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what areas and by which method the Government have ensured an increase in the disposable income of the average family since April 1992. [716]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have consistently sought rising living standards through a combination of prudent monetary and fiscal policies and continuing supply-side reforms to boost the real productive capacity of the economy. Real personal disposable income has grown by over 6 per cent. since early 1992. Unemployment has fallen by over 700,000 since its peak at the end of 1992.

  Investment
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on investment levels in the United Kingdom. [718]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  OECD figures show that United Kingdom investment has grown significantly faster than the EC average rate since 1980, having grown at less than the EC average rate in the 1960s and 1970s.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the investment rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Japan (i) 1979 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available. [1628]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on investment is set out in the OECD publication "National Accounts", available in the House of Commons Library.

  Betting Duty
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the level of general betting duty. [719]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received many representations on the level of general betting duty. In addition I have met representatives of the British Horseracing Board, the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the Bookmaker's Committee, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the British Betting Office Association and the Betting Office Licensees Association over the last few weeks.

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he gives to cutting public spending as a proportion of GDP. [701]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is a central part of the Government's economic strategy to reduce public spending as a share of national output below 40 per cent. This is essential to enable the private sector to generate the jobs, investment and wealth that make our economy prosperous and competitive in world markets.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was raised in the financial year 1994–95; and what percentage came from the present top rate. [127]
  273
  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that the total income tax liability after tax credits in 1994–95 is £66.9 billion, of which about 9 per cent. is the liability in excess of the basic rate.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information contained in his answer of 7 February 1991,Official Report, column 204, in respect of the issues and departments for which (a) Herbert Smith and Associates, (b) Slaughter and May and Kleinwort Benson have been used by the Government. [1095]

  Mr. Jack
  The tables have been updated to show the issues, sponsoring departments and in which positions the firms of Herbert Smith and Associates, Slaughter and May and Kleinwort Benson were appointed since 1983.

  Role of Kleinwort Benson in Privatisations

  Issue

  Date

  Department

  Position

  British Petroleum

  1983

  Treasury

  Underwriter

  British Petroleum

  1987

  Treasury

  Underwriter

  British Aerospace

  1985

  Treasury

  Joint Lead Underwriter

  Cable and Wireless

  983

  Treasury

  Adviser1 Lead Underwriter

  Cable and Wireless

  1985

  Treasury

  Underwriter

  Britoil

  1985

  Treasury

  Underwriter

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  Transport

  Advisers2 Joint Underwriter

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  Energy

  Adviser Underwriter

  British Telecom

  1984

  DTI

  Adviser Joint Lead Underwriter

  British Gas

  1986

  Energy

  Underwriter

  British Airways

  1987

  Transport

  Underwriter

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  Defence

  Adviser3

  British Steel

  1988

  DTI

  Underwriter

  Water and Sewerage Companies

  1989

  Environment

  Underwriter

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  Energy

  Adviser

  Generating Companies

  1991

  Energy

  Adviser

  Generating Companies

  1995

  Treasury

  Joint Global Co-ordinator

  Railway Franchising

  1995

  OPRAF

  Adviser

  1 With Bank of England.

  2 Early stages.

  3 Initial study.

  Role of Herbert Smith and Associates in privatisations

  Issue

  Date

  Department

  Position

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  Defence

  Solicitor

  National Seed Development Organisation

  1987

  DES/MAFF

  Solicitor

  Ports Act

  Property Clawback Order

  1991–92

  DoT

  Solicitor

  Tilbury Debenture

  1991–92

  DoT

  Solicitor

  Married Quarters Estate

  Current

  MoD

  Solicitor

  Role of Slaughter and May in privatisations

  Issue

  Date

  Department

  Position

  Jaguar1

  1984

  DTI

  Solicitor

  British Aerospace

  1985

  Treasury

  Solicitor

  Britoil

  1985

  Treasury

  Solicitor

  274

  Role of Slaughter and May in privatisations

  Issue

  Date

  Department

  Position

  British Gas

  1986

  Energy

  Solicitor

  Unipart1

  1987

  DTI

  Solicitor

  British Airways

  1987

  Transport

  Solicitor

  British Petroleum

  1987

  Treasury

  Solicitor

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  Energy

  Solicitor

  Generating Companies

  1991

  Energy

  Solicitor

  1995

  Treasury

  Solicitor

  1 Sale of a subsidiary.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government which have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [44]

  Mr. Jack
  Sections 33, 42 and 96(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 cover local authorities. This Act consolidated existing legislation and therefore did not change the content of the law. The provisions of Finance Acts giving legislative effect to the Budget affect local government in common with other bodies and individuals.

  Taxation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the new reliefs from offers against, and exclusion from, inheritance tax and capital gains tax that he has announced since April 1992, in each case indicating the expected number of beneficiaries in a full year and the cost of the relief. [85]

  Mr. Jack
  There have been no new reliefs from inheritance tax since the answer to a similar question from the hon. Member for Newcastle on Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 25 November 1994,Official Report, column 466. However, there have been changes/extensions to the inheritance tax threshold and relief for agricultural assets.

  The new reliefs from capital gains tax announced since April 1992:

  Reinvestment relief (excluding deferral reliefs under venture capital trusts and the Enterprise Investment Scheme);

  Venture Capital Trusts;

  Enterprise Investment Scheme.

  Unfortunately it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for the number of beneficiaries in a full year. However, estimates for the full-year costs in 1995–96 of the new reliefs are:

  Million

  Cost1

  Reinvestment relief

  50

  Venture Capital Trusts

  10

  Enterprise Investment Scheme

  10

  1 These estimates are tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  There have also been changes/extensions to CGT retirement and rollover reliefs and to the CGT annual exemption.
  275

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Transport buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [378]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not used London Transport buses or London Underground while on official business in the last year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1441]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures showing progress between 1990–91 and 1993–94 towards cutting energy consumption in Government departments responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were given by the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency on 17 May,Official Report, column 259–60. Data for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Housing Investment Trusts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if housing investment trusts will be permitted to take over existing rented properties. [1416]

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this stage of the Budget cycle.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many families contain two or more unemployed people at the latest date for which figures are available [1485]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 21 November 1995]: Estimates from the winter—December 1994 to February 1995—Labour Force Survey show that of 25.4 million families in Great Britain 170,000 families contained two or more ILO unemployed people.

WALES

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of temazepam per capita is distributed annually in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1507]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1994, 109 grams of temazepam were dispensed on prescription per 1,000 population in Wales. The figures for the first quarter of 1995–96 show a marked decrease in the prescribing of the soft gel capsule formulations as a result of a voluntary ban by many general practitioners.

  Breast Cancer Services
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the breast cancer services available, and what they comprise for each area. [1145]
  276
  Mr. Richards
  The national breast screening programme, which undertakes routine screening and assessment for women aged 50 to 64 years, is provided on an all-Wales basis by Breast Test Wales. The availability of symptomatic breast caner services, including treatment, is the responsibility of district health authorities and general practitioners and is reflected in contracts with NHS trusts.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning appeals to his office have been accepted or rejected in each of the last 10 years. [1157]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is contained in the "Digest of Welsh Statistics", published annually. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the value, at current prices, of inward investment to Wales in the last five years. [1400]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The forecast capital investment by inward investment projects into Wales from overseas and elsewhere in the United Kingdom over the last five years has been £585 million in 1990–91; £1.1 billion in 1991–92; £949 million in 1992–93; £765 million in 1993–94; and £921 million in 1994–95. These figures are based upon information provided by companies at the time of the decision to invest and take no account of any subsequent decisions.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility. [1450]

  Mr. Hague
  At the end of 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, energy consumption in my Department was 2 per cent. lower than it was in 1990–91, the base year of the Government's energy efficiency campaign. Within this figure a 21 per cent. cut in the use of fossil fuels was achieved. Carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 26 per cent.

  The Welsh Office has continued to increase its efficiency in energy usage and I anticipate that the 1994–95 figures will show further improvement overall.

  Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district council area, county council area and for Wales as a whole the number of suicides recorded; and if he will express this number as a percentage of the overall population for(a) 1971, (b) 1981, (c) 1991 and (d) for each of the last available three years for which figures are available. [1081]

  Mr. Richards
  In view of the large number of figures requested I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  277

  Detention of Persons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those hospitals used in Wales for the detention of persons under the Mental Health Acts; and which of those are private hospitals. [1595]

  Mr. Hague
  The following hospitals can be used for the detention of persons under the Mental Health Act:

  NHS hospitals and units

  Bodfaen Mental Illness Unit

  Bodnant Unit and EMI, Llandudno Hospital

  Brecon War Memorial Hospital

  Broddyfi Community Hospital

  Bronllys Hospital

  Bryn Beryl Hospital

  Bryn-y-Neuadd Hospital

  Brynhyfryd Hospital

  Caswell Clinic (Forensic Psychiatry), Glanrhyd Hospital

  Cefn Coed Hospital

  Cefni Hospital

  Dryll-y-Car

  Ely Hospital

  Garngoch Hospital

  Glanrhyd Hospital

  Gwynfa Residential Unit

  Hensol Hospital

  Hergest Acute Mental Illness Unit, Adjacent Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Lansdowne Hospital

  Lanfrechfa Grange Hospital

  Llwyneryr Hospital

  Llynfi Hospital

  Llys Maldwyn Hospital

  Mardy Hospital

  Mental Health Services, East Glamorgan General Hospital

  Mid Wales Hospital

  Minfordd Hospital

  Mountain Ash General Hospital

  Panteg Acute MI, Talygarn

  Pater Close Unit

  Pen-y-fal Hospital

  Psychiatric Services, Ysbyty Maelor

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  Royal Hamadryad Hospital

  St. Cadoc's Hospital

  St. David's Hospital, Carmarthen

  St. Tydfils Hospital

  Sully Hospital, Morfa Day Unit

  Tonna Hospital

  University Hospital of Wales

  Whitchurch Hospital

  Ysbyty George Thomas

  Ystrad Mynach Bungalow Units

  Ystrad Mynach Hospital

  Ystradgynlais Community Hospital

  Private hospital

  Llanarth Court Hospital

  278

  Mental Health
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were detained in Wales during each of the last three years under the provisions of the Mental Health Acts; and what percentage of these were held in private hospitals. [1596]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Admissions to hospitals and nursing homes of people detained under provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1983, or other acts

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  NHS hospitals

  1,208

  1,055

  1,251

  Private hospitals

  28

  80

  124

  Private nursing homes

  6

  1

  5

  Total

  1,242

  1,136

  1,380

  Percentage detained in private hospitals

  2

  7

  9

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by each family health service authority on payments to dental practitioners for NHS dental work in each year between 1990 and 1994, inclusive in Wales. [2060]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  FHSA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  5,235

  (424)

  64

  71

  75

  Dyfed

  4,735

  (373)

  99

  165

  142

  Gwent

  6,667

  (617)

  127

  148

  122

  Gwynedd

  3,032

  (252)

  26

  101

  116

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,671

  (655)

  69

  57

  72

  Powys

  1,456

  (127)

  62

  33

  116

  South Glamorgan

  6,558

  (597)

  53

  68

  81

  West Glamorgan

  6,049

  (565)

  29

  21

  19

  Dental Practice Board

  —

  55,564

  51,282

  48,445

  50,123

  Wales

  40,403

  51,954

  51,811

  49,109

  50,866

  Notes:

  1. Dental Practice Board (DPB) expenditure is shown to give the complete picture of payments to dental practitioners.

  2. With effect from 1 April 1991 the majority of payments to dental practitioners became the responsibility of the DPB. However, due to the timetable of scheduling by the DPB, March 1991 schedules were paid in April 1991 by FHSAs. The balance of their opening creditors were met by payments made by the DPB and were recorded by FHSAs as negative expenditure. At national level the aggregate amount (FHSA and DPB consolidated together) reflects actual expenditure which is comparable with the aggregated outturns for other years.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts of FHSAs and the DPB.
  279

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the main aims of the reforms he proposes to the membership of the community health councils. [1728]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultation document on amending the membership size and qualification of Welsh community health councils. [1729]

  Mr. Hague
  In the light of increasing difficulties in maintaining the current membership levels of community health councils, and the reduction in the number of local councillors from next April, I believe that it is appropriate to seek views from a wide range of bodies on the total membership of community health councils in Wales.

  The review in no way challenges the special status of community health councils in representing the public and patient interest in relation to the NHS in Wales.

  I have arranged for copies of the consultation letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the current 21-hour rule enabling unemployed people to study while receiving benefit will be reduced to 16 guided learning hours when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced in Wales; what distinction will be made in respect of the treatment of unemployed people who take up places in(a) further and (b) higher education courses; and if he will make a statement. [1138]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Full-time students will not be able to receive jobseeker's allowance. People receiving JSA will, however, will be able to study part time, as long as they meet the entitlement conditions, which include being available for actively seeking employment. This carries forward existing arrangements.

  In higher education, courses continue to be classed as either full-time or part-time and so the existing rules distinguishing between people on such courses can—and consequently will—be carried forward into JSA. In further education, however, courses are no longer defined as full-time or part-time, and the rules under JSA will reflect this. Courses funded, in whole or in part, by the Further Education Funding Councils for Wales and England will be considered to be part-time if they are of no more than 16 guided learning hours per week. While those courses in Wales are not, as they are in England, defined by the number of guided learning hours, further education colleges in Wales will nevertheless be able to provide statements of the number of guided learning hours attributed to their courses using the same definition.

  These rules are designed to allow the same number of people to study part time while unemployed and receiving benefit as do so under the current rules.

  Training for Work
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council in Wales the number of training for work starts for(a) 1993–94 and
  280
  (b) 1994–95; what is the estimated number in 1995–96; and what is the total budget for training for work in each TEC for the same years. [1927]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is set out in the following tables: Outturn figures are given for 1993–94 and 1994–95 and planned provision for 1995–96.

  Training for Work

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  TFW starts

  Gwent

  4,065

  3,234

  3,400

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,061

  4,283

  3,400

  North-east Wales

  779

  1,558

  1,537

  Powys

  628

  597

  703

  South Glamorgan

  2,653

  2,614

  2,500

  Targed

  1,950

  2,384

  1,500

  West Wales

  4,858

  4,769

  3,568

  TFW spend (£ million)

  Gwent

  4.952

  4.162

  4.113

  Mid Glamorgan

  5.245

  4.230

  3.636

  North-east Wales

  2.139

  1.506

  1.410

  Powys

  0.757

  0.722

  0.926

  South Glamorgan

  3.217

  2.855

  2.996

  Targed

  3.040

  3.111

  2.702

  West Wales

  6.900

  5.913

  6.160

  1 Planned figures.

  Allied Medical Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the registration of Allied Medical Services as an agency for temporary nursing staff with respect to vetting procedures in respect of the hiring out of auxiliary nurses. [1731]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The licensing of nursing agencies is the responsibility of local authorities.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions her Department has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the delays in completing NICAM coverage of their broadcast network. [1712]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. It is for the BBC to determine the rate at which this programme proceeds in the light of its resources and other engineering priorities. However, I understand that the BBC remains committed to an extension of NICAM coverage as part of its continuing programme of investment in its transmitter network.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the four options, I, II, III or IV, outlined in the European Commission's Green Paper on Tourism were supported by(a) the British Tourist Authority, (b) the Welsh tourist board, (c) the Northern Ireland tourist board, (d) the Scottish tourist board, (e) the Confederation of British Industry, (f) the National Trust, (g) the British Resorts Association, (i) the Association of District Councils and (i) the Rank Holiday Organisation. [1475]
  281
  Mr. Sproat
  The tourist boards indicated the following preferred options:

  British Tourist Authority/English Tourist Board jointly—Option III

  Welsh Tourist Board—Option III

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board—No preferred option specified; option III most appealing

  Scottish Tourist Board—Option III

  Of the other organisations to which the question refers, copies of responses were received from two, and they indicated support for the options indicated below:

  Confederation of British Industry—Option III

  British Resorts Associations—Option IV

  Most of these organisations indicated that they wanted a higher profile for the tourist industry in Europe, but did not want more regulation.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all the organisations which were consulted by her Department before the Government published their official response to the European Commission Green Paper on Tourism. [1476]

  Mr. Sproat
  In considering the Government's response to the Green Paper, my Department sought the views of the following organisations:

  Association of British Travel Agents

  Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

  Association of Recognised English Language Services

  British Holiday and Home Parks Association

  British Hospitality Association

  British Incoming Tour Operators Association

  British Resorts Association

  British Retail Consortium

  British Tourist Authority

  Confederation of British Industry

  European Tour Operators Association

  Hotel and Catering International Management Association

  Hotel and Catering Training Company

  Joint Hospitality Industry Congress

  Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain

  World Travel and Tourism Council

  Copies of responses or comments were also received from the Automobile Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Council of Hotels Associations, the Royal Automobile Club and the World Tourism Organisation.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales also consulted a number of organisations, as did the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "Tourism: Competing with the Best" were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [254]

  (2) what procedures have been put in place by her Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Tourism: Competing with the Best"; [255]

  (3) if "Tourism: Competing with the Best" was (a) subject to and (b) modified on account of an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by the
  282
  Department of the Environment; and if she will publish the appraisal. [253]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: In developing tourism policy the Government have been guided by the main conclusion of the tourism and environment task force, namely, that serious environmental problems caused by tourism are limited to a few locations at specific times. The task force also stated that many of these problems could be resolved through improved management; the Government responded by funding guidance publications and pilot projects. The recent report of the Environment Select Committee on the environmental impact of leisure activities agreed with the task force, finding no evidence that tourism and leisure pose a serious, immediate or intrinsic threat to the environment.

  "Competing with the Best" sets out a number of measures to help the industry become more competitive, and is part of the Government's overall competitiveness programme. Its aim is not to deliver specific developments with measurable environmental impacts, but to equip the industry to deal with ever-increasing competition in the world marketplace. As "Competing with the Best" states, the Government recognise that tourism growth can be sustainable only if a balance is maintained between the needs of visitors and the needs of visitors and the needs of the environment.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Department of the Environment regarding the need for the implementation of the Latham report with particular reference to the British Library contract. [411]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not considered it necessary to hold discussions with the Department of the Environment regarding the need for the implementation of the Latham report, following the experience of the British Library construction project.

  However, the review by Sir Peter Levene's efficiency unit on Government procurement, which complements the Latham report, did consult the Department and drew upon the experiences of the British Library construction project in formulating its recommendations.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many redundancies are forecast through the restructuring of the Great Britain Sports Council; and what estimate she has made as to the effects these are likely to have in the level and quality of service. [1607]

  Mr. Sproat
  Staff selection is in progress for the new organisations following the restructuring of the Great Britain Sports Council. Until posts within the new structures have been filled, it is not possible to give accurate numbers of staff whose employment will terminate on the grounds of compulsory or voluntary redundancy.
  283
  The restructuring I announced in July 1994 will enhance the service provided by the Sports Council. The new United Kingdom and English Sports Councils will have a sharper focus and reduced bureaucracy, which will greatly benefit sport.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the Acts of Parliament including Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by her Department since January 1994. [28]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not introduced any Acts affecting local government during this period.

  Culture Council
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Culture Council held on 20 November. [2471]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Council of the European Union on Audiovisual and Culture matters met formally on 20 November; the UK was represented by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Inglewood.

  Agreement was reached between member states on the central elements of an amended version of the television without frontiers directive 1989. In particular, there was agreement satisfactory to the UK that there should be no strengthening of the current articles 4 and 5 on quotas and that a contact committee should be established along with a review after five years. Agreement was also secured on amendments to offer strengthened protection to minors and to clarify jurisdiction.

  The Council confirmed its agreement to the MEDIA II training decision having taken into account the European Parliament's second reading amendments. Taken with the previous decision on the development and distribution elements of the MEDIA II programme, this will enable this five-year programme of support for the audiovisual industry to begin in 1996.

  The Commission made a brief presentation on a proposed European audiovisual investment guarantee fund to promote cinema and television production.

  The Council also discussed a draft common position on a proposal to establish the Raphael programme for European cultural heritage, but was unable to agree due to budgetary concerns. However, the Council was able to agree unanimously to adopt a resolution to encourage work on the promotion of statistics on culture and economic growth. The Council also heard a presentation from the Commission on the cross-border aspects of fixed book pricing systems.

  It was agreed that the title of European City of Culture in the year 2000 should be shared by Avignon, Bologna, Prague, Cracow, Reykjavik, Brussels, Bergen, Santiago de Compostela and Helsinki. It was also decided that Valletta and Linz, both candidates to host the European Cultural Month in 1998, would be invited to share the title.
  284

  Sporting Events (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if her Department has reviewed the sporting events listed under section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. [1656]

  Mr. Sproat
  The list of sporting events drawn up under section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is kept under regular review.

  Adult Television
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the outcome of the case before the European Court of Justice between Her Majesty's Government and the broadcaster Red Hot television. [167]

  Mr. Sproat
  The case has not yet been concluded.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which encryption systems have been employed by the television services Rendez Vous and TV Erotica and notified to the Secretary of State by the Independent Television Commission; and what powers she has to ban these systems. [166]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that both the TV Erotica and Rendez Vous channels employ the Eurocrypt encryption system for their broadcasts. An encryption system may be utilised by a number of different channels including, as in this case, by some whose broadcasts are in no way unacceptable. To outlaw an encryption system would not therefore be appropriate.

  The order that I made on 14 November 1995 under section 177 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 proscribing TV Erotica, however, makes it a criminal offence to advertise, promote or sell the specific software, or smart cards, required to decode the TV Erotica channel's signal. The order comes into force on 5 December 1995. I am considering what action to take in the case of Rendez Vous.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if she will make a statement on the EC's proposal to amend the television without frontiers directive in respect of the designating factor in determining which member state has jurisdiction. [164]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government welcome the proposal that a revised television without frontiers directive should properly clarify and define the jurisdiction of member states over broadcasters. If, as proposed, establishment of the broadcasting company within a member state is to he the primary test of jurisdiction, it is imperative that a clear definition of establishment, for the purposes of the directive, should be incorporated in an amended text.

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff her Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in 1994–95; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used. [264]
  285
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: My Department is based in central London and has no other regional offices. The Department employs 363 staff and its running costs for the current financial year are £17,710 million. A breakdown of the main areas of expenditure can be found in the Department's 1994 annual report (Cm 2511) held in the Library of the House.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which she has responsibility in each year since 1994. [1436]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency,Official Report, columns 260–62.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abdul Onibiyo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has concerning the safety of Abdul Onibiyo since he was removed to Nigeria; [1619]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the proposed removal of the Onibiyo family to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [1621]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no information about Mr. Onibiyo's current situation. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 7 November Official Report, column 813, his claim to a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria was fully considered and rejected. That decision was upheld by the independent appellate authority.

  In addition to representations made by the hon. Member for Islington, North, representations have been received from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and from the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Coventry, North-West, (Mr. Robinson), for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), the Bishop of Southwark, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice, the Lambeth branch of Unison, other members of Unison and legal representatives acting for the Onibiyo family. In addition, early-day motions have been signed by the hon. Member for Islington, North and by the hon. Members for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Allen) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

  Removal Orders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) have been removed to Nigeria (i) before and (ii) after 10 November and (b) are currently the subject of removal orders. [1622]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the available information shows that in the 12 months prior to 10 November 1995,286
  339 Nigerian nationals were either removed from the United Kingdom as illegal entrants or deported and that one has been removed since that date.

  Stop-and-search Powers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the number of people of African descent who are stopped, questioned and searched coming through British ports relative to the average number of people so detained. [1232]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's current practice in respect of immigration officials passing on details of the claims of persons seeking asylum to the embassies of countries from which asylum seekers have travelled; and if he will make a statement. [1526]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  All applications for asylum in the United Kingdom are treated as confidential. No information about an asylum claim is disclosed to the authorities of the applicant's country of origin. However, both the Dublin convention, which is not yet in force, and the European Union resolution on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures provide for information to be disclosed in confidence to the asylum authorities of other member states of the European Union through which the applicant has passed or which may have responsibility for considering the asylum claim.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been rejected on the safe third country ground. [1260]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1994 865 asylum applications were refused on the safe third country ground and 1,205 in the first nine months of 1995. A nationality split is available in table 4.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the pilot scheme adopted by immigration officials to accelerate asylum applications from certain countries. [149]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I am placing a short report on the pilot scheme in the Library.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have undergone events likely to give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution among the nationals since 1988; and which countries are currently undergoing such events. [552]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Under proposals on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been consulting for restricting the benefit entitlement of asylum seekers, it is envisaged that the Benefit Agency will be notified in the event of a future fundamental change of circumstances in a country such that persons will not normally be returned to it for the time being.
  287

  Probation Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) probation officers and (b) probation assistants in post in each of the probation services in England and Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1991, (v) 1992, (vi) 1993 (vii) 1994. [2059]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information is given in the table. Figures for probation services' officers (ancillaries) are not available by individual area for 1979.

  (a) Probation officers

  Area

  19791

  19851

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon

  64

  70

  114

  114

  117

  122

  116

  Bedfordshire

  32

  45

  66

  70

  81

  80

  77

  Berkshire

  48

  50

  81

  88

  98

  102

  107

  Buckinghamshire

  24

  48

  82

  80

  93

  94

  94

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  37

  69

  75

  81

  87

  85

  Cheshire

  51

  62

  104

  113

  118

  129

  120

  Cleveland

  52

  51

  108

  108

  110

  106

  109

  Cornwall

  24

  23

  35

  34

  41

  45

  44

  Cumbria

  31

  38

  60

  64

  69

  73

  72

  Derbyshire

  43

  59

  117

  118

  121

  118

  119

  Devon

  63

  62

  132

  134

  139

  143

  151

  Dorset

  44

  45

  88

  89

  90

  88

  93

  Durham

  41

  44

  89

  93

  91

  96

  91

  Essex

  64

  89

  143

  147

  148

  154

  156

  Gloucestershire

  32

  30

  63

  64

  64

  64

  69

  Hampshire

  110

  117

  191

  200

  215

  207

  205

  Hereford and Worcester

  46

  61

  94

  96

  106

  110

  112

  Hertfordshire

  58

  63

  102

  104

  103

  104

  105

  Humberside

  57

  78

  134

  139

  141

  145

  141

  Kent

  86

  101

  163

  171

  189

  179

  181

  Lancashire

  101

  122

  201

  201

  207

  216

  217

  Leicestershire

  57

  56

  123

  124

  126

  131

  142

  Lincolnshire

  31

  37

  73

  72

  78

  79

  85

  Greater Manchester

  222

  254

  426

  446

  469

  486

  502

  Merseyside

  175

  188

  298

  306

  331

  327

  320

  Norfolk

  32

  37

  83

  83

  84

  82

  91

  Northamptonshire

  37

  48

  64

  71

  70

  74

  76

  Northumbria

  119

  137

  238

  238

  249

  250

  262

  Nottinghamshire

  116

  114

  180

  177

  187

  190

  183

  Oxfordshire

  35

  39

  67

  66

  74

  72

  77

  Shropshire

  27

  32

  51

  51

  50

  52

  52

  Somerset

  24

  30

  63

  68

  66

  73

  76

  Staffordshire

  90

  101

  169

  170

  176

  177

  172

  Suffolk

  32

  34

  84

  85

  89

  89

  94

  Surrey

  44

  46

  87

  90

  103

  99

  101

  East Sussex

  36

  36

  68

  73

  73

  77

  77

  West Sussex

  24

  34

  53

  57

  62

  65

  66

  Warwickshire

  32

  37

  62

  61

  65

  66

  66

  West Midlands

  261

  289

  444

  459

  459

  465

  482

  Wiltshire

  27

  35

  61

  63

  65

  70

  71

  North Yorkshire

  30

  36

  54

  58

  57

  60

  61

  South Yorkshire

  112

  118

  205

  222

  229

  239

  238

  West Yorkshire

  199

  193

  321

  319

  356

  394

  389

  Dyfed

  15

  23

  31

  34

  35

  40

  37

  Gwent

  30

  33

  51

  54

  51

  54

  58

  North Wales

  33

  44

  68

  70

  70

  68

  70

  Powys

  6

  8

  11

  12

  12

  12

  12

  South Glamorgan

  40

  40

  73

  78

  77

  76

  76

  Mid Glamorgan

  44

  49

  69

  76

  78

  84

  84

  West Glamorgan

  25

  32

  51

  53

  53

  55

  54

  Inner London

  284

  327

  573

  620

  614

  639

  643

  North East London

  68

  83

  123

  121

  141

  143

  152

  South East London

  44

  53

  70

  76

  85

  89

  92

  South West London

  31

  42

  66

  63

  71

  71

  79

  Middlesex

  151

  170

  238

  247

  266

  265

  275

  1 Figures for 1979 and 1985 are for maingrade probation officers on general duties only. Figures for 1990–1994 are for all probation officer grades.

  288

  (b) Probation services' officers (ancillaries)

  Area

  1985

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon

  25

  33

  39

  36

  44

  44

  Bedfordshire

  14

  15

  15

  18

  17

  16

  Berkshire

  19

  25

  28

  30

  31

  33

  Buckinghamshire

  19

  20

  17

  18

  16

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  16

  19

  20

  19

  23

  22

  Cheshire

  41

  31

  34

  35

  37

  40

  Cleveland

  28

  20

  18

  18

  26

  31

  Cornwall

  13

  10

  14

  13

  14

  16

  Cumbria

  27

  31

  33

  33

  33

  32

  Derbyshire

  19

  26

  24

  23

  22

  21

  Devon

  31

  35

  40

  39

  38

  32

  Dorset

  16

  18

  20

  21

  22

  25

  Durham

  23

  29

  37

  36

  30

  25

  Essex

  36

  53

  58

  52

  54

  53

  Gloucestershire

  12

  20

  19

  22

  22

  23

  Hampshire

  16

  44

  44

  47

  42

  50

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  18

  15

  17

  15

  14

  15

  Hertfordshire

  14

  25

  26

  24

  28

  29

  Humberside

  18

  27

  29

  29

  30

  34

  Kent

  45

  40

  40

  43

  49

  46

  Lancashire

  45

  64

  66

  69

  68

  71

  Leicestershire

  18

  22

  22

  21

  21

  17

  Lincolnshire

  23

  25

  24

  23

  23

  26

  Greater Manchester

  130

  141

  137

  137

  141

  153

  Merseyside

  58

  70

  79

  79

  94

  100

  Norfolk

  13

  20

  25

  22

  21

  22

  Northamptonshire

  15

  15

  18

  18

  17

  16

  Northumbria

  54

  52

  56

  59

  61

  61

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  28

  27

  28

  28

  31

  Oxfordshire

  18

  16

  17

  17

  22

  21

  Shropshire

  8

  11

  10

  9

  9

  9

  Somerset

  21

  15

  15

  15

  17

  16

  Staffordshire

  29

  33

  33

  35

  39

  37

  Suffolk

  11

  17

  16

  17

  16

  17

  Surrey

  19

  14

  21

  23

  11

  13

  East Sussex

  19

  22

  24

  23

  23

  22

  West Sussex

  7

  12

  14

  13

  14

  15

  Warwickshire

  14

  12

  12

  15

  14

  15

  West Midlands

  71

  101

  102

  113

  108

  109

  Wiltshire

  18

  19

  18

  18

  19

  19

  North Yorkshire

  10

  16

  17

  17

  16

  16

  South Yorkshire

  73

  78

  80

  78

  82

  80

  West Yorkshire

  121

  119

  115

  119

  123

  129

  Dyfed

  6

  8

  8

  7

  7

  9

  Gwent

  8

  22

  24

  19

  16

  15

  North Wales

  18

  15

  16

  15

  14

  19

  Powys

  2

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  South Glamorgan

  18

  19

  18

  21

  22

  22

  Mid Glamorgan

  17

  17

  18

  18

  18

  17

  West Glamorgan

  17

  19

  21

  22

  21

  20

  Inner London

  130

  116

  119

  116

  135

  122

  North East London

  32

  30

  32

  36

  36

  36

  South East London

  23

  25

  23

  24

  28

  28

  South West London

  14

  13

  14

  14

  15

  20

  Middlesex

  65

  51

  54

  52

  57

  50

  Political Asylum Applications
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum have been received from people previously resident in(a) Nigeria, (b) Turkey, (c) Iraq, (d) Iran and (e) China in each of the last five years; and how many of those applications, in each case, have been accepted. [1926]
  289
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on asylum applications and grants of asylum from nationals of Nigeria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and China are given in tables 2.1 and 3.1 respectively of the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994, issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library. It should be noted that grants of asylum in a particular year do not necessarily relate to applications made in that year.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement about a referral of the case of the men convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater back to the Court of Appeal. [2011]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are very close to completing our consideration of this case.

  Migration (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many visas he has earmarked for sick or injured children from the former Yugoslavia to be treated in the United Kingdom(a) in total and (b) by special arrangement with the International Organisation for Migration and the Child Advocacy International charity; [1726]

  (2) what arrangements he has made for the provision of special visas earmarked for sick and injured children from the former Yugoslavia to be admitted by arrangement with Child Advocacy International and the International Organisation for Migration for medical treatment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1727]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The United Kingdom has already admitted, under arrangements made by the International Organisation for Migration, 86 people from the former Yugoslavia under the Government's official medical evacuation programme, 28 of whom were under the age of 18. Of the 20 additional medical places announced in September, 14 remain to be filled.

  The arrangements between IOM and Child Advocacy International are for the evacuation of Bosnian children for private medical treatment outside the official programme. These children will therefore need to meet the requirements of the immigration rules relating to private medical treatment.

  Deportation Procedures
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to alter the present rule under which persons served with notice of deportation are free to take up paid employment in Britain. [1172]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We intend to take appropriate measures in the forthcoming Asylum and Immigration Bill.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about executive 290
  agency status for the police scientific development branch. [2713]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have decided that the police scientific development branch should be considered as a candidate for executive agency status under the next steps initiative. A prior options study will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or some other option is the most appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 2 February 1996 to:

  The Assistant Under Secretary of State

  Home Office (Room 527)

  Horseferry House

  Dean Ryle Street

  London SW IP 2AW

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to appoint a successor to Sir Leonard Peach as chairman of the Police Complaints Authority. [2712]

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. Peter Moorhouse has agreed to be acting chairman of the Police Complaints Authority from Sir Leonard Peach's departure to take up the post of Commissioner for Public Appointments on 18 December. Mr. Moorhouse is currently senior deputy chairman of the authority. A substantive appointment will be made through open competition.

  Performance-enhancing Drugs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to outlaw the use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. [1473]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government announced in November 1994, in line with a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, its intention to bring anabolic steroids and other similar drugs under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Since then, the Government have been taking careful and detailed technical advice from the advisory council on precisely which substances should be controlled. It is planned to lay the necessary draft modification order before Parliament soon.

  Ticket Touts (Football Matches)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminal proceedings involving ticket tout offences at football matches contained in section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 have been pursued to date; how many convictions were secured; and what plans his Department has for tightening the current legislation; [1471]

  (2) how many criminal proceedings involving alleged offences contained in sections II, III and IV of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 were pursued in 1994; and how many convictions were secured. [1472]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 is given in the table.

  Information on cautioning and court proceedings data under section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will not be available until autumn 1996.
  291

  Persons prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts or cautioned for offences under The Football (Offences) Act 1991

  England and Wales 1994

  Offence code

  Description

  Act and section

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Cautions

  125/27

  Throwing a missile at or towards the playing area or any area in which spectators or other persons may be present

  Football Offences Act 1991, Section 2

  20

  11

  8

  125/28

  Taking part in indecent or racialist chanting

  Football Offences Act 1991, Section 3

  18

  9

  4

  125/29

  Going onto the playing or adjacent area without lawful authority or lawful excuse

  Football Offences Act 1991, Section 4

  259

  233

  70

  Source:

  SI Division, Home Office

  Prison Service (Study)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is conducting the study of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Office; if he will list their qualifications for carrying out the study; what is the cost of the study; and when he expects to report the findings of the study. [384]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 16 October that work was under way in response to General Sir John Learmont's recommendation that this should be an in-depth study of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Office. The initial work has been assisted by Miss Kate Jenkins, who was one of the three authors of the 1988 efficiency unit report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps", which recommended the establishment of executive agencies. My right hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking to report to the House when the work is complete. Information on the costs of individual contracts with consultants is commercial in confidence and it is not our practice to disclose these details.

  Miss Elaine Connolly
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what considerations led to the transfer of Miss Elaine Connolly from Styal prison to Holloway prison; [140]

  (2) what considerations led to the refusal to transfer Miss Elaine Connolly from Holloway prison to Styal prison. [141]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 A. J. Pearson to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Miss Elaine Connolly.
  Miss Connolly was transferred from Styal prison to Holloway because information was received suggesting that she was planning to escape. On the basis of the information available to him, the governor considered that Miss Connolly should be transferred to more secure conditions.
  292
  Miss Connolly was then told she would be returned to Styal. This advice was given to her in error as a result of a failure in communication between staff at Holloway. I am sorry for this error and for raising Miss Connolly's hopes of returning to a prison nearer her home.

  Refugees Convention
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries where circumstances which in the past have justified recourse to the 1951 UN convention on refugees have in the past 12 months ceased to exist. [554]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  All applications for asylum are considered in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Decisions are based on all the relevant circumstances of individual cases as well as on an assessment of conditions in the country of origin. There is no question of our refusing to consider, or of our automatically refusing, an application because of the country of origin of the applicant.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries that are not generating refugees as defined by the 1951 UN convention on refugees at the present time. [553]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information about asylum decisions, broken down by the country of origin of applicants, is contained in table 3 and 4 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped whilst being transported to and from court appearances and hospital visits since 1990; and how many remain uncaptured. [165]

  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 he given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners have escaped while being transported to and from court appearances and hospital visits since 1990 and how many remain uncaptured.

  293
  The information is given in the table below:

  Number

  Crown Courts

  50

  Magistrates Courts

  137

  Hospital visits—outpatients

  34

  Hospital visits—inpatients

  188

  The information covers the period 1 January 1990 to 31 October 1995.

  Prison Service records show that 26 of the escapers from court appearances and hospital visits remain uncaptured.

  Prisons (VAT Payments)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much value added tax has been paid in addition to the published contract prices to the companies running(a) HMP Wolds, (b) HMP Blakenhurst, (c) HMP Doncaster and (d) HMP Buckley Hall for each financial year since the prisons opened; [388]

  (2) how much value added tax has been recovered from the companies running: (a) HMP Wolds, (b) HMP Blakenhurst, (c) HMP Doncaster and (d) HMP Buckley Hall for each financial year since the prisons opened. [476]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about how much value-added tax has been paid in addition to the published contract prices to the companies running (a) HMP Wolds, (b) HMP Blakenhurst, (c) HMP Doncaster and (d) HMP Buckley Hall for each financial year since the prisons opened and how much has been recovered over the same period.
  The Prison Service reclaims all VAT paid in respect of these contracts normally at the end of the subsequent quarter. The figures for the four contracted-out prisons are as follows:

  Establishment and year

  VAT paid (£)

  VAT reclaimed (£)

  HMP Wolds

  1991–92

  311,582

  134,550

  1992–93

  862,872

  788,658

  1993–94

  994,827

  932,949

  1994–95

  1,254,501

  1,183,715

  1995–96

  556,983

  617,627

  HMP Blakenhurst

  1992–93

  463,876

  115,969

  1993–94

  1,499,327

  1,400,602

  1994–95

  1,933,333

  1,790,378

  1995–96

  732,443

  1,029,053

  HMP Doncaster

  1993–94

  254,475

  0

  1994–95

  2,038,796

  1,679,315

  1995–96

  966,712

  1,137,398

  HMP Buckley Hall

  1994–95

  294,657

  145,250

  1995–96

  717,499

  149,407

  294
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the application and collection of value added tax affects the budgets and accounting procedures of(a) Prison Service managed prisons and (b) privately managed prisons; and if he will make a statement. [389]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how the application and collection of value-added tax affects the budgets and accounting procedures of (a) Prison Service managed prisons and (b) privately managed prisons.
  Directly managed prisons pay and can reclaim VAT on a wide range of the services they purchase. Sums included in the supply estimate are appropriated-in-aid towards expenditure under the Vote. Prison Service payments to companies running privately managed prisons include VAT, which is subsequently reclaimed. The Prison Service is not involved in VAT payments by those companies for services they purchase.

  Sentencing Guidelines
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the guidelines governing sentencing for trafficking in class B drugs. [136]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government do not issue guidance on sentencing. The Magistrates Association issues sentencing guidelines for its members, which are available in the Library, and guidance is provided by Court of Appeal judgments in individual cases.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the sentencing guidelines for conspiracy to supply cannabis. [133]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government do not issue guidance on sentencing. The Magistrates Association issues sentencing guidelines for its members, which are available in the Library, and guidance is provided by Court of Appeal judgments in individual cases.

  Parkhurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to decommission Her Majesty's Prison Parkhurst's category A status. [478]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the plans that are in place to decommission Parkhurst prison's category A status.
  The Home Secretary announced on 16 October 1995 that Parkhurst prison was to be removed from the dispersal estate. The Director of Operations with responsibility for Parkhurst has set up

  295
  a steering group, headed by the area manager, to manage the process of downgrading Parkhurst prison. The prison service will announce its detailed plans for this process shortly.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent to date on improving security at Her Majesty's Prison Parkhurst since the escape of three prisoners on 3 January; and how much of this sum is due to additional costs caused by implementing recommendations of the Learmont inquiry. [391]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how much has been spent to date on improving security at Parkhurst prison since the escape of three prisoners on 3 January 1995 and how much of this sum is due to additional costs caused by implementing recommendations of the Learmont inquiry.
  Since the escape on 3 January, perimeter closed circuit television and alarm systems have been installed and modifications made to the emergency control room at a cost of £1.2 million.
  Following publication of the Learmont inquiry the Home Secretary announced on 16 October that Parkhurst was to be removed from the dispersal estate. As a result of this announcement further security upgrading work at Parkhurst has been cancelled including two projects which had been let, for which expenditure of £300,000 has been incurred.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum expended on providing legal advice assistance and representation under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1993 in each year for which figures are available. [204]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The grant paid under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971 for each year since 1993–94 was as follows:

  Refugee Legal Centre

  1993–94: £1,890,000

  1994–95: £3,000,000

  1995–96: £3,100,000

  Immigration Advisory Service

  1993–94: £2,640,000

  1994–95: £2,420,000

  1995–96: £2,590,000

  These figures do not include expenditure through green form legal aid.

  Prison Education
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms exist for(a) part-time and (b) full-time teaching staff (i) to promote new educational services for prisoners and (ii) to propose improvements in prison education. [398]

  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.
  296
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what mechanisms exist for (a) part-time and (b) full-time teaching staff (i) to promote new educational services for prisoners and (ii) to propose improvements in prison education.
  In accordance with paragraph 5.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract covering the delivery of education services. the contractor is required to keep the specifications for courses. curriculum and the overall programme of courses at each establishment under continuous review. The way in which full-time and part-time teaching staff can be involved in this process is best determined and managed by the education contractor. Each governor is responsible for determining which courses will run at the establishment concerned and does this by placing orders with the education provider. The governor may obtain advice from an education and training adviser. If the governor agrees to a proposal from the education provider to change the education programme, an amendment to the orders will be issued. Proposals will usually be made known to the governor by the contractor's on-site representative, the education co-ordinator.
  In 1994 the Prison Service awarded a contract to the National Prison Education Consortium to undertake a consultancy to develop a national curriculum framework for prison education. The Consortium consulted widely within and outside the Prison Service, and representatives of the education providers were involved in this process. The final report and recommendations of the consultancy have been accepted by the Prisons Board and disseminated to governors, education providers and chief librarians of public library authorities providing a service to prisons.
  The steering committee which has been established to oversee implementation includes representatives of education contractors.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards exist to ensure that part-time Prison Service teaching staff have qualifications of the same calibre as full-time teaching Prison Service staff. [396]

  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 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what safeguards exist to ensure that part-time Prison Service teaching staff have qualifications of the same calibre as full-time teaching Prison Service staff.
  The teaching qualifications required of education contractors' staff teaching in prisons depend upon the nature of the subject and the level to which it is taught rather than the employment status of the teacher. In accordance with paragraph 7.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract covering education services, contractors are responsible for recruiting teaching staff who hold qualifications consistent with those held by staff teaching equivalent subjects at colleges of further education or institutes of adult education. Paragraph 7.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract enables a representative of the Prison Service to attend recruitment panels for teachers whom a contractor wishes to use at a prison establishment. Paragraph 7.4 of the General Terms and Conditions requires that a contractor will, if requested by an authorised Prison Service representative, provide details of the qualifications (including copies of certificates if requested) and experience of any person employed by the contractor for the delivery of education services to the establishment.

  Prisoners' Telephone Conversations
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason telephone conversations between solicitors and their clients are tape recorded at
  297
  Her Majesty's Prison Whitemoor; when this practice started; and if he will make a statement. [908]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the tape recording of telephone calls between solicitors and their clients at Whitemoor prison.
  The policy on the use of cardphones by prisoners is set out in Circular Instruction 21/1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. A copy is attached for ease of reference. This states that all calls made by prisoners using the cardphone system will be recorded and are liable to be monitored. Cardphones are provided for use only by those prisoners who consent to this. Cardphones were introduced into most parts of Whitemoor in 1992 and into the special secure unit in June 1995.
  Use of a cardphone is a privilege and prisoners are informed that it is not possible to guarantee the confidentiality of conversations with their legal advisers using the system. Prisoners at Whitemoor are advised to communicate legally privileged information either by letter or during a visit.
  The arrangements for prisoners' access to the cardphone system at Whitemoor are in accordance with current policy and are the same as those for all closed establishments within the prison estate.

  Prison Budgets
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent changes have been made to the budget allocations of prison governors; on what date these were made; to which financial years they refer; and if he will list the changes in allocation for each private prison. [387]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about changes to the budget allocations of prison governors and private prisons.
  Budgets for individual prisons are set at the start of each financial year and then changed as necessary in the light of operational requirements. This year there have been a number of adjustments for directly managed prisons. Payments which the Prison Service makes to the privately managed prisons are unchanged as their precise operating budgets are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Prisoners
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently restricted to their cells for up to l8 hours a day as a result of(a) staff shortages and (b) sickness leave among prison staff. [135]

  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.
  298
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners are currently restricted to their cells for up to 18 hours a day as a result of (a) staff shortages and (b) sickness leave among prison staff:
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures are available, however, on the average time spent unlocked from cells. These figures show that, in the week commencing 13 November 1995, six prisons (Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Winchester, Chelmsford and Feltham) reported average unlocking figures of less than eight hours per week day. The population of these establishments restricted to their cells up to 18 hours a day constitutes 2.9 per cent. of the total prison population.
  We do not record centrally the various factors which account for establishment's performance on unlocking.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 were in custody on the last date for which figures are available; and of those in custody, how many were(a) in local authority secure accommodation, (b) in prison department custody and (c) detained under mental health legislation. [631]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 23 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many young offenders sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 were in custody on the last date for which figures are available; and of those in custody, how many were (a) in local authority secure accommodation, (b) in prison department custody and (c) detained under mental health legislation On 20 November 1995 114 persons were detained in local authority secure accommodation and 445 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993. None were detained under mental health legislation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people he estimates sleep rough each night in Belfast; and what proportion of these are under 18 years of age. [11]

  Mr. Moss
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which has statutory responsibility to make provision for the homeless, has advised me that he has no evidence from official sources of anyone sleeping rough in Belfast.

  Homelessness
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties have been let to persons classified as homeless in each of the last 10 years. [12]
  299
  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has statutory responsibility to deal with the homeless under the provisions of the Housing (NI) Order 1988. While precise figures are not available, it is estimated that the proportion of lettings by the Housing Executive to those accepted as homeless, since 1989–90, the first full year of operation of the homelessness legislation, is as follows:

  1989–90: 21 per cent.

  1990–91: 32 per cent.

  1991–92: 36 per cent.

  1992–93: 38 per cent.

  1993–94: 37 per cent.

  1994–95: 36 per cent.

  Divorce
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if it is his policy that Northern Ireland should be included in the proposed divorce law reform Bill; [71]

  (2) if he will indicate the present major differences in the divorce laws as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and what work is in hand to draft proposals to bring the two sets of laws in line. [70]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Family Law Bill which includes the proposed reforms on divorce does not extend to Northern Ireland. There are at present no major differences in the substantive divorce law as between Northern Ireland and England and Wales; but there are a number of differences in the practice and procedure between the two jurisdictions.

  It has therefore been decided to undertake a comprehensive research exercise to examine the operation of divorce law in Northern Ireland. Ministers here will await the outcome of that research before giving careful consideration to the need for reform of the law in Northern Ireland.

  Education (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will describe the system of prioritisation and decision making in the allocation of capital funding for capital expenditure on education in Northern Ireland; [1109]

  (2) what proposals he has to introduce medium and long-term planning and greater transparency into the allocation of capital funds for educational purposes. [1108]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are well-established procedures for the planning of major capital projects in the education service. In the case of the schools sector, which has the majority of building needs, the system of prioritisation places each major works project in one to seven priority categories, based on an objective assessment of need. My Department reviews and updates and updates the capital needs of the education estate each year in consultation with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and other education authorities.
  300
  The medium and long-term priorities for the planning of individual major works are determined from these planning systems and the available resources are allocated to the highest priorities based on educational need. The available capital resources are reviewed annually in the public expenditure survey.

  Unclaimed benefits
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what estimates he has made of the total amount of unclaimed income support in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Antrim; [33]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total amount of unclaimed family credit for (a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Antrim; [31]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total amount of unclaimed sickness benefit for (a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Antrim; [35]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the total amount of unclaimed disability living allowance for (a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Antrim; [34]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the total amount of unclaimed benefits in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Antrim. [32]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [38]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This Department has introduced no such Acts since January 1994. The following Orders in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which equate to primary legislation for Northern Ireland during direct rule, have been made in that period and affect local government—

  The Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (management of local airports);

  The Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (litter control powers);

  The Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (rating);

  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (miscellaneous amendments to local government law).

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify where drug and alcohol abuse advice and counselling is presently carried out in the North Down and Ards Community Health trust: and what locations other than Bingham street, Bangor(a) have been and (b) are being considered for a drug and alcohol abuse advice centre. [69)
  301
  Mr. Moss
  North Down and Ards Community HSS trust currently provides drug and alcohol addiction services from 52A Church street, Newtownards, Ards hospital, Bangor health centre, Donaghadee health centre and Portaferry health centre.

  Premises at 10–14 Victoria road, Bangor, were considered, in addition to those in Bingham street, for a new home for the trust's addiction team.

  North Down and Ards Community HSS trust is anxious to find suitable accommodation for this service but, to date, no final decision has been made.

  Northern Ireland

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Year

  Female or Male

  Total

  Rate per 100,000

  Total

  Rate per 100,000

  Total

  Rate per 100,000

  1990

  Female

  295

  36.5

  13,634

  52.5

  1,250

  47

  Male

  —

  —

  107

  .43

  7

  .28

  1991

  Female

  339

  41.7

  13,786

  52.9

  1,278

  48

  Male

  3

  0.4

  83

  .33

  4

  .16

  1992

  Female

  308

  37.2

  13,663

  52.2

  1,250

  47

  Male

  —

  —

  92

  .37

  6

  .24

  1993

  Female

  331

  40.6

  13,026

  49.6

  1,280

  48

  Male

  8

  1.0

  87

  .35

  5

  .20

  1994

  Female

  338

  40.2

  12,830

  48.8

  1,275

  48

  Male

  —

  —

  88

  .35

  3

  .12

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve preventive breast cancer services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [77]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland breast screening programme is continually monitored in order to modify it as necessary to maintain and improve its effectiveness. In addition Northern Ireland is participating with other United Kingdom Health Departments in research to improve the breast screening programme.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the major differences in the law relating to the tenants of private landlords in Northern Ireland and their position in relation to rent, repairs and security of tenure as opposed to those in England and Wales; and to what extent the Government propose to move the Northern Ireland law into line with England and Wales. [72]

  Mr. Moss
  The legislation governing the private rented sector in Northern Ireland is significantly different than in England and Wales.

  In England and Wales there are three main types of tenancy:

  (i) regulated—commenced before 15 January 1989 subject to a fair rent with considerable security of tenure and the landlord normally responsible for the repairs;

  (ii) assured—from 15 January 1989 landlords could create an assured tenancy with rent charged at open market levels;

  (iii) assured shorthold—allows landlords to let their property for a fixed period, which must be for a minimum of 6 months, in the certainty that they can gain possession at the end of it.

  302

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died of breast cancer in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and what comparisons his Department has conducted in respect of the incidence of breast cancer in other regions of the United Kingdom. [76]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  In both assured and assured shorthold tenancies, repairing obligations are largely a matter of negotiation between landlord and tenant.

  In Northern Ireland there are also three main types of tenancy:

  (i) restricted—properties generally in a poor state of repair with Net Annual Value (NAV) less than £60 and rent frozen at the 1978 level (usually less than £1.00 per week). Tenants have few repairing rights unless there is a tenancy agreement stating otherwise.

  (ii) regulated—properties in a better state of repair. Rent payable limited to the amount calculated in accordance with statute and registered with the Department of the Environment (NI) and can be appealed to a Rent Assessment Committee. The responsibility for repairs may be set out in the tenancy agreement but will normally be the responsibility of the landlord who can be required to carry out repairs by the 'certificate of disrepair' procedure.

  Both regulated and restricted tenants have considerable security of tenure whereby the landlord can gain possession only after obtaining a court order.

  (iii) uncontrolled—properties built or converted after 1956, or which have an NAV over £140 or which were not previously let. Rent, repairing obligations and security of tenure are a matter between landlord and tenant to be specified in the tenancy agreement.

  The Government have no proposals at present to amend the Northern Ireland law relating to the private rented sector.

  Rural Development
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the proposals contained in the White
  303
  Paper on Rural England (Cm 3016) in respect of Northern Ireland with particular reference to (a) business rate release schemes, (b) affordable housing in the countryside, (c) encouragement for the re-use of rural buildings and (d) the introduction a new rural business use class. [51]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government are currently considering the implications for Northern Ireland of the White Paper on Rural England. These considerations will take account of the different circumstances and the existing methods of support for rural communities in Northern Ireland. I will inform the hon. Gentleman once the consideration has been completed and the decision made on the way forward.

  EU Funds (Transfrontier Projects)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Court of Auditors' report in respect of British misuse of funds in transfrontier projects in Northern Ireland. [1041]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Court of Auditors noted that the number of transfrontier projects was relatively low. However, it did not suggest that there was any misuse of funds or that expenditure was undertaken in ineligible areas or projects or that expenditure was undertaken that was at variance with the twin objectives of the Interreg programme. Indeed the independent mid-term evaluation of the programme noted that it had been very effective, particularly given the difficult situation pertaining at that time.

  Firearms
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for reviewing the law on firearms. [2798]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 provides for the licensing and control of firearms in the Province. Although it has been amended on a number of occasions, most recently last year when new offences relating to imitation firearms were introduced, the law has been largely unchanged since the 1960s. Indeed its origins can be traced back to the 1920s. This in itself would suggest reasonable cause for a fresh look at the law. However, in addition, developments in firearms technology and design have proceeded apace and we have seen a growth nationally in the recreational and sporting use of firearms. For these reasons therefore, I believe that the time is right to take a new look at the law on firearms, to ensure not only that it is appropriate to today's conditions, but that it strikes the right balance between public and individual safety and the reasonable expectations of shooters who want to use their firearms in a responsible and legitimate manner.

  The review will be thorough and painstaking. There is much ground to cover. I will, of course, want to take the views of the shooting organisations as well as public representatives, the RUC and safety groups. To that end, I am writing today to Northern Ireland Members and my officials are similarly writing to the political party organisations and other interest groups inviting comment and proposals on what changes to the law they would like to see.
  304
  The review team will work under the direction of a steering committee comprising a senior NIO official, assisted by a senior RUC officer with experience in firearms administration and a person of standing with relevant expertise. I have asked them to complete their work and to let me have their report with proposals for change, by August 1996. Thereafter I will publish the proposals for wider consultation. I do not expect new legislation to be in place before the latter part of 1997.

SCOTLAND

  Research
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about prior options reviews of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, the Fisheries Research Services and the Forestry Commission's Research Establishments. [2561]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of a wider series of prior options reviews of public sector research establishments announced in the Government's response to the report of the multidepartmental efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments (Cm 2991), my Department, together with the Forestry Commission, will conduct prior options reviews of the Scottish Crop Research Institute—SCRI—the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute—MLURI—the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency—SASA—the Fisheries Research Services—and the Forestry Commission's Research Establishments.

  I would welcome comments from interested parties. They should be sent by 8 January to:

  on SCRI, MLURI and SASA:

  Dr. A. J. Rushworth

  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Pentland House

  47 Robb's Loan

  EDINBURGH

  EHI4 1TY

  on FRS:

  Mr. D. Dickson

  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries

  Department

  Pentland House

  47 Robb's Loan

  EDINBURGH

  EH14 1TY

  on the Forestry Commission's research establishments:

  Mr. D. B. Henderson-Howat

  Director, Forestry Policy

  Forestry Commission

  231 Corstorphine Road

  EDINBURGH

  EH12 7AT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the vacancies during the first six months of 1996 on quangos, outside bodies and agencies to which he has the right to make appointments. [570]
  305
  Mr. George Kynoch
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [27]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  The relevant Acts are as follows:

  The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.

  Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his policy in relation to the application of TUPE in the case of portering staff at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley; how much has been spent by(a) his Department, (b) Argyll and Clyde health board and (c) the Royal Alexandra hospital trust on legal and other fees in opposing the claim by portering staff; and if he will make a statement; [1001]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost to public funds of the dispute between Argyll and Clyde health board or its successor trust and portering staff at the Royal Alexandra hospital trust since 1 December 1992; what is his latest estimate of the amount that would have been required to settle the claim on the terms submitted by the portering staff; and if he will make a statement. [571]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In any market testing programme it is for the health board or NHS trust concerned to consider the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE—in awarding contracts.

  Records have not been kept of the management and administrative costs incurred by officers of the Argyll and Clyde health board and the Royal Alexandra hospitals NHS trust in dealing with the claim made by UNISON on behalf of portering staff. Similarly it is not possible to hypothecate the legal costs incurred prior to 1 April 1995. Since that date the Royal Alexandra hospital NHS trust has spent £2,178.60 on legal fees arising from this action.

  The claims submitted by the individual porters concerned have yet to be validated and will be the subject of further discussions. It would be misleading to provide any estimate of the value of these claims at this stage.

  Bail Statistics
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many defendants in Scotland are annually awarded bail; how many offend on bail; and how many do not offend whilst on bail. [1195]
  306
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During 1994, 35,780 bail orders were issued. In some cases a defendant may have more than one outstanding bail order. No information is available on the number of defendants who did, or did not subsequently offend while on bail although information is available on the number of offences of "offending while on bail" recorded by the police. In 1994, 25,766 such offences were recorded. As several counts of "offending while on bail" can relate to the breach of only one bail order, careful interpretation of this figure is required."

  Custodial Sentencing
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that differences in sentencing in Scotland by individual sheriffs are eliminated in accordance with the Scottish Office research paper, "Patterns of Custodial Sentencing in the Sheriff Court". [1193]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government invited views on a number of possible changes intended to improve consistency, clarity and predictability to sentencing in the consultation paper, "Sentencing and Appeals" which was published in January 1994. Our conclusions were given in the White Paper, "Firm and Fair" (Cm 2600) which announced our intention to promote a specific statutory power to allow the Appeal Court to issue judgments establishing general sentencing guidelines. The relevant provision is included as section 34 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Prisoner Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of keeping a prisoner in custody in Scotland; and what are the relative costs of the community disposals available to the courts including each of those programmes provided by(a) social work departments, (b) Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and (c) other independent agencies. [1286]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The annual cost per prisoner place at HM prisons in Scotland in 1994–95, calculated as total net expenditure—excluding capital—divided by the average number of places available, was £26,479. The average cost per order in 1994–95 of probation and community service disposals available to the courts in Scotland, were £1,588 and £1,446 respectively. The costs of individual programmes provided by local authorities, either directly or through independent agencies such as SACRO, as components of a court order, are not generally identifiable separately within the grants made available to local authorities for criminal justice social work services. As the duration, objectives and content of the community-based programmes vary considerably, the unit costs of individual programmes are not readily comparable.

  Drugs (Exports)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what controls are placed on pharmaceutical wholesalers to ensure that drugs intended for export are not sold domestically. [1578]
  307
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under medicines legislation, wholesale dealer's licences are required for the export of medicinal products to countries which form part of the European Community or European economic area agreement. It is a condition of such licences that medicinal products are sold only to those who may legally sell or supply them by way of retail in the country concerned or are themselves holders of wholesale dealer's licences.

  Wholesale dealer's licences are not required for the export of medicinal products to countries outside the European Community or European economic area agreement.

  Any reports that medicinal products sold for export have been subsequently sold in the United Kingdom would be investigated by the Medicines Control Agency.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments to quangos in Scotland he intends to review in response to the reform of local government in Scotland in April 1996; and what plans he has to issue instructions to non-departmental public bodies asking them to review their membership in respect of local government reform. [1189]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  There are no plans to review appointments made by my right hon. Friend to public bodies as a result of local government reform. As a general rule members of public bodies, i.e. nationalised industries, non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies listed in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", are appointed as individuals and not as representatives of any particular interest group. Similarly there are no plans to ask non-departmental public bodies to review their membership in the light of local government reform. My right hon. Friend will continue to give full opportunities to members of local authorities to serve on public bodies, as recent experience with the new water and sewerage authorities and Customers Council has demonstrated.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department has taken to ensure that financial subsidy from the new unitary councils will be given to facilitate the continuing operation of the rail services operated by ScotRail within Strathclyde following local government reform. [1741]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office will continue to provide funding through aggregate external finance for local authorities' current expenditure, including rail services in the Strathclyde area, from I April 1996.

  Mediation and Reparation Projects
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding he intends to make available to procurators fiscal in Glasgow and Edinburgh mediation and reparation projects similar to those operating in Aberdeen and Motherwell/Hamilton as an alternative to the court process for victim and accused. [1264]
  308
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Diversion from prosecution projects, including mediation and reparation, are not funded through the procurator fiscal service., In 1995–96, the Scottish Office will make available £52,180 and £75,277 through the urban programme for mediation and reparation projects in Aberdeen and Motherwell/ Hamilton respectively. A further £25,680 is provided for the project in Motherwell/Hamilton through 100 per cent. funding of criminal justice social work services. There are a number of additional mediation and reparation programmes, funded through the urban programme, but which are not specifically related to the criminal justice system. Pilot schemes which were provided in Glasgow and Edinburgh by the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, through short-term funding under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, are no longer in operation.

  The Scottish Office plans to invite local authorities to submit proposals for inclusion in a pilot programme within 100 per cent. funding of criminal justice social work services to assess the costs and effectiveness of diversion from prosecution schemes. This will he pursued in the light of available resources and other priorities. There will be scope for including mediation and reparation projects in such diversion scheme applications.

  Kincraig Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposals of the Kincraig committee were implemented; what considerations underlie the timetable for their revocation; and if he will make a statement. [1497]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The changes in the law governing early release of prisoners, which arose from the Government's consideration of the review of parole conducted by the committee chaired by the hon. Lord Kincraig, were enacted in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. The early release provisions of that Act came into force on 1 October 1993 and will continue to apply to prisoners sentenced since that date.

  In his announcement issued on 12 October 1995 my right hon. Friend outlined proposals for further changes to the law on early release which will be the subject of consultation in the near future. The Government's detailed proposals, including the possible timescale for their implementation, will be contained in a White Paper which we aim to publish next year in the light of the results of consultation. The intention is that changes in legislation on early release arising from these proposals would apply only to those sentenced on or after the date the changes came into effect.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating for each of the development corporations in Scotland the results of the ballots so far undertaken in relation to the transfers of housing stock to alternative landlords in advance of the wind up of the corporations; what were the bodies involved in the ballots; what were the
  309
  number of votes cast for each body involved in the ballot; what was the percentage of votes cast for each organisation; what was the body to which the properties were transferred following the ballot; and what were the amounts bid successfully in each ballot. [1259]

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  Area of the New Town

  Prospective landlords

  Number of votes cast

  Percentage of votes for each landlord1

  Auchmuty

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  596

  97

  Hillcrest Housing Association

  20

  3

  Balfarg

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  108

  96

  Kingdom Housing Association

  4

  4

  Cadham

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  190

  92

  Kingdom Housing Association

  16

  8

  Caskieberran

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  212

  81

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  51

  19

  Collydean

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  281

  63

  Collydean Community Housing Association

  162

  37

  Macedonia

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  237

  78

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  68

  22

  Newcastle

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  45

  83

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  9

  17

  Pitcoudie

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  129

  91

  Kingdom Housing Assocaition

  12

  9

  Pitteuchar

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  349

  91

  Hillcrest Housing Association

  35

  9

  Rimbleton

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  246

  84

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  48

  16

  South Parks

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  135

  85

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  24

  15

  Stenton

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  108

  86

  Hillcrest Housing Association

  18

  14

  Tanshall

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  204

  71

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  82

  29

  Woodside

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  197

  97

  Hillcrest Housing Association

  6

  3

  Sheltered Housing

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  166

  98

  Notes:

  1 The houses transferred on 28 September 1995 to Kirkcaldy District Council. The Council's bid was £54 million.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  Area of the new town

  Prospective landlords

  Number of votes cast

  Percentage of votes for each landlord'

  Calderwood

  East Kilbride District Council

  1.492

  99.2

  East Mains

  East Kilbride District Council

  482

  99.2

  The Munro Trust

  4

  0.8

  Greenhills

  East Kilbride District Council

  813

  98.5

  The Munro Trust

  12

  1.5

  Murray

  East Kilbride District Council

  996

  99.5

  Newlandsmuir

  East Kilbride District Council

  172

  98.3

  The Munro Trust

  3

  1.7

  St Leonards

  East Kilbride District Council

  719

  99.3

  West Mains

  East Kilbride District Council

  484

  99.6

  The Munro Trust

  2

  0.4

  Westwood

  East Kilbride District Council

  1,016

  99.8

  310
  Mr. George Kynoch
  Tenants of Glenrothes and East Kilbride development corporations have been balloted to determine their future landlord. The information requested is set out in the tables.
  311

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  Area of the new town

  Prospective landlords

  Number of votes cast

  Percentage of votes for each landlord1

  Whitehills

  East Kilbride District Council

  386

  99.7

  The Munro Trust

  1

  0.3

  Sheltered Housing

  East Kilbride District Council

  309

  99.4

  The houses are due to transfer at the end of November to East Kilbride District Council. The Council's bid was £63 million.

  1 Where there was one prospective landlord the percentage of votes was less than 100 per cent, because a number of tenants voted against that landlord.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which NHS trusts(a) have their trust board meetings open to the public, (b) have their board meetings partially open to the public and (c) have their board meetings closed to the public as referred to in his answer of 26 October. [1553]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Open to the public:

  Caithness and Sunherland NHS Trust

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  (b) Partially open to the public:

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospital NHS Trust

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  (c) Closed to the public:

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Angus NHS Trust

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Southen General Hospital NHS Trust

  312

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the effect on the average daily population in penal establishments in Scotland if remission were revoked. [1496]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government will be consulting soon on our proposals for changes to the early release arrangements for prisoners in Scotland. In the light of consultation, the Government will publish a White Paper in the course of next year. As assessment of the effects of the proposals upon the prison population is one of the matters I expect to be included in that paper.

  Law and Order
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for law and order in Scotland, and what is the period time for the consultation process indicated in his announcement of 12 October. [1261]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In his announcement on 12 October, my right hon. Friend re-affirmed the Government's commitment to law and order in Scotland and highlighted the measures taken in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 which will bring about improvements in the detection, prosecution and conviction of offenders. He also stressed the Government's view that there should be greater honesty in sentencing and outlined his proposals for changes to the early release arrangements for prisoners in Scotland. A consultation paper inviting comments on the range of issues to be considered will be issued soon.

  Health Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the date of the termination of contract in respect of each(a) chief executives of NHS trust and (b) general managers of health hoards in Scotland. [1186]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what variations exist between the average daily prison population in western states in the Council of Europe; and what assessment he has made of the
  313
  reasons for these variations, with particular reference to Scotland. [1414]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Table 1 shows the latest comparable available information on the average daily prison population—and rate per 100,000 population—in the western states in the Council of Europe. Table 2 shows the information for the constituent countries within the United Kingdom.

  Table 1: Prison population as at 1 September 19931

  Number

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Austria

  7,099

  91.0

  Belgium

  7,203

  72.1

  Cyprus

  188

  30.0

  Denmark

  3,702

  71.0

  Finland

  3,132

  61.8

  France

  51,134

  86.3

  Germany

  65,838

  81.0

  Greece

  6,524

  68.0

  Iceland

  103

  38.9

  Italy

  50,794

  89.0

  Luxembourg

  425

  107.5

  Netherlands

  7,843

  51.0

  Norway

  2,607

  60.0

  Portugal

  10,904

  111.0

  Republic of Ireland

  2,108

  59.8

  Spain

  45,711

  114.9

  Sweden

  5,794

  66.0

  Switzerland

  5,627

  81.0

  Turkey

  31,304

  51.6

  United Kingdom

  53,435

  91.8

  Source: Council of Europe Sourcebook.

  1Some countries were unable to provide this information as at 1 September 1993 therefore the exact date used varies between countries.

  Table 2: Prison population as at 1 September 1993

  Number

  Rate per 100,000 population

  England and Wales

  45,633

  89.0

  Northern Ireland

  1,902

  118.0

  Scotland

  5,900

  115.0

  The figures in table 1 include all categories of prisoners, that is untried remanded in custody, convicted awaiting sentence, sentenced and civil prisoners. Comparisons of these figures must be treated with caution. There are a number of reasons for variations in the rate per 100,000 population across member states, such as different legal systems, sentencing policies and disposals available, variable use of custodial remand,

  Number of long-term care residents in residential care homes for the elderly as at 31 March each year

  19832

  19842

  19852

  19862

  19872

  19882

  19892 3

  19893

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Local Authority

  8,717

  8,901

  8,985

  9,161

  9,302

  9,324

  9,118

  8,576

  8,854

  8,547

  7,494

  7,701

  7,380

  Registered1

  4,649

  4,998

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private

  —

  —

  910

  1,417

  1,969

  2,737

  3,317

  3,200

  3,236

  3,635

  3,606

  3,690

  3,631

  Voluntary

  —

  —

  4,266

  4,134

  4,136

  4,032

  4,134

  3,970

  4,139

  3,929

  3,796

  3,720

  3,721

  Total

  13,366

  13,899

  14,161

  14,712

  15,407

  16,093

  16,569

  15,746

  16,229

  16,111

  14,896

  15,111

  14,732

  1 Prior to 1985 it is not possible to separate Registered data into Private and Voluntary Homes.

  2 Figures include short-term care residents (e.g. holiday and respite care).

  3 1989 data has been given on both the old and new basis to aid comparison.

  314
  different ages of criminal responsibility and different ages of entry into the prison system. The Council of Europe "Sourcebook" does not cover these issues in detail.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths in each of the past five years are attributable to abuse of temazepam in each health board area in Scotland. [1506]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Reliable information on the numbers of such deaths is not available for the years prior to 1994. The figures for 1994 are given in the table:

  Deaths in Scotland from drug abuse' where temazepam was mentioned, by health board area, 1994.

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3

  Borders

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  Fife

  0

  Forth Valley

  0

  Grampian

  0

  Greater Glasgow

  36

  Highland

  0

  Lanarkshire

  2

  Lothian

  2

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Tayside

  2

  Western Isles

  0

  Scotland

  52

  1Deaths coded to WHO International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes 304 and 305.

  Improvements in the collection of information on such deaths were introduced in 1994. A full description of these changes is given 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.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the population in long-term care in Scotland, over 65 years of age, each of the years between 1983 and 1993, by residency in all homes, local authority homes, voluntary homes and private homes. [1139]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table shows the information available:
  315
  The 1994 figures have been included in the answer as the 1994 "Community Care Bulletin," which contains this information is published on 22 November 1995.

  Criminal Justice Social Work Projects
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the(a) pilot bail supervision and accommodation project in Lothian region, (b) intensive probation project in Falkirk and (c) alcohol education probation project in Edinburgh and Midlothian; and what measures he will be taking to ensure that a greater number of courts in Scotland have community disposals available to sheriffs. [1265]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Bail supervision and accommodation projects in Lothian and Strathclyde regions are being funded on a pilot basis by the Scottish Office within 100 per cent. Central Government funding of criminal justice social work services. The projects are currently the subject of a research study by the MVA Consultancy which is due to report in spring 1996.

  The intensive probation project in Falkirk is currently funded through the urban programme and the alcohol education probation project in Edinburgh and Midlothian through 100 per cent. funding. The urban programme requires monitoring by the responsible local authority and a concluding report of the Scottish Office. The Falkirk project is due to terminate in 1998. All criminal justice social work projects are subject to annual evaluation as part of local authority planning of these services.

  Probation and community service are available in all sheriff courts in Scotland. It is for local authorities, in consultation with sentencers, independent sector providers and other criminal justice interests, to propose, within available resources and national priorities, the range of individual projects and specialist services to be provided as a component of a court order.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average costs per week in Scotland for(a) private nursing homes, (b) residential homes, (c) NHS care of the elderly, (d) NHS long stay people with learning difficulties, (e) NHS psychiatric long stay and (f) NHS chronic young sick. [1271]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for residential homes and NHS specialty groups is set out in the tables. The Scottish Office does not collect information on the average costs of private nursing homes.

  Average gross weekly charge per resident in residential care homes (all client groups) in Scotland at 31 March 1994

  £

  Local authority

  269

  Private

  254

  Voluntary

  271

  All sectors

  266

  The gross weekly charge in local authority run homes is the full cost to the local authority for providing accommodation per resident.

  For private and voluntary establishments, the gross weekly charge is as specified in contracts with the local authority.
  316

  Average cost per inpatient week in Scotland for specified NHS specialty groups, 1994–95

  £

  Geriatric long stay

  629

  Mental handicap

  686

  Psychiatry long stay

  691

  Young chronic sick

  853

  Psychiatry long stay includes geriatric psychiatry, child psychiatry, adolescent psychiatry and mental illness.

  Manufacturing and Service Industry
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an assessment of the contribution of Scottish manufacturing and service industry exports to the balance of payments. [1319]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  Information on Scottish exports is available from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

  In 1993 Scottish manufactured exports totalled £11,540 million. The Scottish council estimated that Scottish manufactured exports accounted for 10.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom manufactured exports.

  Service sector exports were estimated at £403 million in 1993.

  Health Board Budgets
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the surplus or deficit in their budgets at the end of the relevant financial year for each health board in Scotland for each financial year since 1987–88; what percentage this represented of their total budget; and what was their actual expenditure in each of these financial years. [1714]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the tables. The figures are based on health board annual accounts and those for 1994–95 are provisional.

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) spend £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  85

  0.03

  250,909

  Ayr and Arran

  828

  0.42

  195,513

  Borders

  816

  1.18

  68,279

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,453

  1,59

  89,895

  Fife

  1,197

  0.64

  185,619

  Forth Valley

  1,313

  0.89

  146,266

  Grampian

  1,373

  0.48

  284,075

  Greater Glasgow

  9,880

  1.65

  589,240

  Highland

  971

  0.78

  123,448

  Lanarkshire

  1,272

  0.47

  270,435

  Lothian

  3,057

  0.70

  431,438

  Orkney

  (2)

  (0.01)

  14,052

  Shetland

  106

  0.64

  16,449

  Tayside

  845

  0.34

  250,664

  Western Isles

  201

  0.71

  28,187

  Scotland total

  23,395

  0.79

  2,944,469

  317

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) spend £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  525

  0.22

  237,202

  Ayr and Arran

  632

  0.34

  185,531

  Borders

  595

  0.97

  60,822

  Dumfries and Galloway

  874

  1.01

  85,726

  Fife

  959

  0.53

  181,148

  Forth Valley

  247

  0.17

  143,667

  Grampian

  (4)

  (0.00)

  274,398

  Greater Glasgow

  3,082

  0.50

  617,359

  Highland

  848

  0.73

  116,068

  Lanarkshire

  31

  0.01

  264,935

  Lothian

  72

  0.02

  425,067

  Orkney

  58

  0.44

  13,216

  Shetland

  (11)

  (0.07)

  15,439

  Tayside

  323

  0.13

  251,845

  Western Isles

  (26)

  (0.10)

  25,906

  Scotland total

  8,205

  0.28

  2,898,329

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) spend £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1992–93

  Argyll and Clyde

  (28)

  (0.01)

  231,346

  Ayr and Arran

  751

  0.42

  178,743

  Borders

  289

  0.50

  57,226

  Dumfries and Galloway

  724

  0.88

  81,799

  Fife

  1,663

  0.99

  166,015

  Forth Valley

  68

  0.05

  140,933

  Grampian

  39

  0.01

  269,181

  Greater Glasgow

  3,292

  0.54

  611,147

  Highland

  790

  0.66

  118,234

  Lanarkshire

  810

  0.32

  249,096

  Lothian

  833

  0.20

  422,652

  Orkney

  232

  1,83

  12,413

  Shetland

  1,216

  8.01

  13,959

  Tayside

  91

  0.04

  254,107

  Western Isles

  385

  1.63

  23,240

  Scotland total

  11,155

  0.39

  2,830,091

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) spend £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1991–92

  Argyll and Clyde

  269

  0.15

  173,416

  Ayr and Arran

  420

  0.31

  136,415

  Borders

  171

  0.42

  40,104

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23

  0.03

  66,481

  Fife

  2,852

  2.31

  120,586

  Forth Valley

  244

  0.21

  116,503

  Grampian

  (213)

  (0.10)

  219,626

  Greater Glasgow

  6,926

  1.19

  574,377

  Highland

  926

  0.99

  92,193

  Lanarkshire

  881

  0.44

  198,993

  Lothian

  (36)

  (0.01)

  373,187

  Orkney

  1

  0.01

  7,972

  Shetland

  95

  0.89

  10,539

  Tayside

  505

  0.23

  214,842

  Western Isles

  78

  0.54

  14,411

  Scotland total

  13,142

  0.55

  2,359.645

  318

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1990–91

  Argyll and Clyde

  929

  0.62

  149,024

  Ayr and Arran

  202

  0.17

  117,716

  Borders

  430

  1.21

  35,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  227

  0.40

  56,424

  Fife

  (29)

  (0.03)

  107,749

  Forth Valley

  (13)

  (0.01)

  103,966

  Grampian

  (1,483)

  (0.76)

  197,785

  Greater Glasgow

  5,227

  0.98

  525,666

  Highland

  321

  0.38

  83,803

  Lanarkshire

  333

  0.19

  170,904

  Lothian

  (1,927)

  (0.59)

  328,929

  Orkney

  (6)

  (0.09)

  6,684

  Shetland

  627

  6.92

  8,437

  Tayside

  1,249

  0.65

  190,230

  Western Isles

  101

  0.92

  10,929

  Scotland total

  6,188

  0.29

  2,093,246

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1989–90

  Argyll and Clyde

  79

  0.06

  141,589

  Ayr and Arran

  (243)

  (0.22)

  111,048

  Borders

  11

  0.03

  32,714

  Dumfries and Galloway

  418

  0.82

  50,851

  Fife

  (117)

  (0.12)

  97,748

  Forth Valley

  99

  0.10

  94,665

  Grampian

  (2,481)

  (1.39)

  180,712

  Greater Glasgow

  5,425

  1.08

  496,077

  Highland

  615

  0.82

  74,814

  Lanarkshire

  122

  0.08

  157,709

  Lothian

  (15,573)

  (5.17)

  316,514

  Orkney

  81

  1.25

  6,420

  Shetland

  74

  0.92

  8,003

  Tayside

  382

  0.22

  175,503

  Western Isles

  78

  0.79

  9,832

  Scotland total

  (11,030)

  (0.57)

  1,954,199

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1988–89

  Argyll and Clyde

  604

  0.46

  131,979

  Ayr and Arran

  403

  0.4

  99,546

  Borders

  14

  0.05

  30,318

  Dumfries and Galloway

  (315)

  (0.67)

  47,521

  Fife

  212

  0.23

  90,680

  Forth Valley

  229

  0.26

  87,429

  Grampian

  44

  0.03

  168,074

  Greater Glasgow

  4,577

  0.96

  472,165

  Highland

  472

  0.67

  70,281

  Lanarkshire

  (18)

  (0.01)

  149,399

  Lothian

  (77)

  (0.03)

  290,863

  Orkney

  (13)

  (0.21)

  6,286

  Shetland

  (17)

  (0.23)

  7,568

  Tayside

  522

  0.31

  166,361

  Western Isles

  41

  0.45

  9,109

  Scotland total

  6,678

  0.36

  1,827,579

  319

  Health board

  Surplus/(deficit) £000

  Percentage of total budget

  Expenditure £000

  1987–88

  Argyll and Clyde

  630

  0.52

  120,141

  Ayr and Arran

  (1,153)

  (1.27)

  91,744

  Borders

  401

  1.3

  30,462

  Dumfries and Galloway

  68

  0.16

  42,769

  Fife

  (430)

  (0.52)

  82,930

  Forth Valley

  329

  0.39

  84,366

  Grampian

  2,667

  1.76

  148,498

  Greater Glasgow

  5,397

  1.25

  425,370

  Highland

  (85)

  (0.13)

  65,891

  Lanarkshire

  1,694

  1.24

  135,427

  Lothian

  743

  0.27

  270,444

  Orkney

  78

  1.53

  5,023

  Shetland

  59

  1.00

  5,853

  Tayside

  1,171

  0.78

  149,825

  Western Isles

  79

  0.91

  8,594

  Scotland total

  11,648

  0.69

  1,667,337

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department issued to Scottish health boards relating to the retention of a surplus in their budgets at the end of the last financial year. [1715]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance is contained in the Scottish Accounting Manual issued by the Department to all health boards. This states that an underdrawing of up to 1 per cent. of a health board's cash limit may be carried forward from one year to another and that any overdrawing will be carried forward as a first charge against the following year's cash limit.

  Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston Bypass
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on proposals for the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston bypass. [1736]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In my answer to the hon. Member on 8 June 1995,Official Report, column 212 I explained that a revised design for a more northerly bypass was being developed. I expect this work to be completed soon.

  Health Board Managers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been issued to Scottish health boards relating to the publication of the figures for the performance-related pay element in the salaries of the general managers of these health boards. [1738]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance issued in 1994 by the NHS in Scotland management executive said that any performance-related pay should be included in the total remuneration of the board general manager to be shown in the board annual report.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current position of Scottish Homes' plans for the transfer of its housing stock within(a) the Cunninghame, South constituency and (b) Ayrshire as a whole. [1740]
  320
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Homes local stock strategy sets out its proposals for ballot areas in Ayrshire. A copy was sent to the hon. Member. Since its publication Scottish Homes has received outline proposals and registered the interest of alternative landlords in the following ballot areas:

  Cumnock etc—Shire Housing Association Steering Group

  Patna, Delmellington—Shire Housing Association Steering Group

  Drongan—Shire Housing Association Steering Group Coylebank Housing Co-op Steering Group

  Ardrossan—Cunninghame Housing Association

  Saltcoats and

  Stevenston

  Further ballot areas have been identified for Scottish Homes houses at:

  Irvine (Cunninghame South Constituency)

  Ayr

  Dailly, Girvan

  Kilmarnock, Stewarton

  Crosshouse

  Kilbirnie, Beith, Dalry

  Outline proposals for these areas will be invited from alternative landlords during 1996.

  Ravenspark Hospital, Irvine
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates approval to be given by his Department to the closure of Ravenspark hospital in Irvine. [1737]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Ayrshire and Arran health board's extensive public consultation exercise on the future of Ravenspark hospital ended on 30 October this year. The board expects to discuss its proposals and the outcome of the consultations at its next board meeting on 30 November. I look forward to receiving its proposals in due course.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the ownership of a house worth £500,000 renders an individual who has no current income ineligible for an assisted place for his or her child; [1000]

  (2) if the ownership of a house worth £700,000 and investments of £140,000 assuming a net interest rate of 6 per cent. but no other current income renders an individual ineligible for an assisted place for his or her child. [999]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The selection of pupils for assisted places is carried out by participating schools. The amount of assistance available under the scheme is determined by parent's total gross income from all sources. Children would be eligible for assistance from the scheme if their parents had no current income, or if their only income was £8,400 per annum from investments.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans she has to amend the regulations on income in respect of the assisted places scheme; [187]
  321
  (2) what plans she has to include capital assets and investments in deciding who should qualify for an assisted place; [177]

  (3) what plans she has to raise the income ceiling below which parents qualify for an assisted place. [188]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Eligibility conditions and means-testing arrangements for assisted places are set out in regulations which are revised annually.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of(a) an assisted place and (b) a place in the state secondary sector. [213]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The estimated average cost of public funds for an assisted pupil in England in the financial year 1995–96 is about £3,700 for ages 11 to 18. There is no directly comparable figure for the maintained sector. The average standard spending assessment allocation per pupil aged 11 to 16 in England in the financial year 1995–96 is some £2,600; for pupils aged above 16 it is about £3,600. The SSA figures exclude capital and certain other costs which may be subsumed in the assisted pupil figure.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the purpose of the assisted places scheme. [191]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The assisted places scheme gives able children from less well-off families an opportunity of an excellent academic education at one of England's best independent schools which would not otherwise have been available to them. This helps to promote choice and diversity and to raise standards.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many assisted places there are at Eton college. [211]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None at present.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools. [189]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We will shortly be announcing our detailed plans for expanding the assisted places scheme as a whole.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what academic criteria are applied to decide whether a child already at a private school should have an assisted place; [210]

  (2) what measures are in place to ensure that the advice of a private school at which an assisted places scheme applicant is already a pupil on that child's academic suitability for an award is accurate. [209]
  322
  Mrs. Gillan
  The regulations require a school to be satisfied that a pupil selected for an assisted place is likely to benefit from the education provided. Subject to this and other general conditions of eligibility set out in the regulations and to any specific provisions in their participation agreements under the assisted places scheme, it is for each school to select pupils according to its own academic criteria, methods and procedures.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of pupils in private schools are holders of assisted places. [176]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Assisted place holders form just over 5 per cent. of pupils in all independent schools.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many private schools receive money from the APS. [212]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The assisted places scheme provides financial help for parents of pupils at participating schools, rather than for the schools themselves. At present 293 independent schools participate in the scheme in England.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent reviews her Department has carried out into the academic standards of schools to which assisted places scheme funds are paid. [190]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The academic standards of schools participating in the assisted places scheme are regularly monitored through data on the public examination performance and post-school destinations of their pupils, and through inspection by Ofsted.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of overall private school income derives from the APS. [178]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information about the overall income of independent schools is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what access her Department has to Inland Revenue records in monitoring the validity of claims for assisted places. [186]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In order to be eligible for assistance under the scheme, parents are required to submit corroborative documentary evidence of their income to participating schools which carry out income assessments on behalf of the Department. Such evidence may include P60s and Inland Revenue tax assessments on schedule A, schedule D or schedule E. The Department regularly audits a sample of schools' assessments, including the supporting documentation.

  Class Sizes, Dudley
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what has been the average size of class taught by one teacher in primary schools in Dudley metropolitan borough in each year since 1983; [579]
  323
  (2) what has been the average size of class taught by one teacher in secondary schools in Dudley metropolitan borough in each year since 1983. [577]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on average class sizes of single teacher classes in Dudley local education authority is shown in the table:

  Average class sizes of single teacher classes in maintained schools in Dudley local education authority area

  Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1983

  25.1

  20.4

  1984

  24.8

  20.1

  1985

  24.8

  20.0

  1986

  25.4

  19.9

  1987

  25.6

  19.4

  1988

  25.6

  19.1

  1989

  25.9

  19.5

  1990

  25.9

  19.4

  1991

  26.4

  20.2

  1992

  25.7

  21.5

  1993

  26.2

  22.1

  1994

  27.0

  22.7

  19951

  27.3

  22.9

  1Provisional data.

  Remploy
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to sell off Remploy. [1666]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 8 November 1995,Official Report, column 934.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people are employed in Scotland by Remploy(a) in Remploy factories and (b) in Interwork schemes. [806]

  Mr. Paice
  In Scotland, Remploy provide employment for 945 disabled people; 756 of these work in factories and 189 in Interwork.

  Wakefield TEC
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of funding has been made available to Wakefield training and enterprise council for work in areas which have lost their mining industry. [121]

  Mr. Paice
  Over the last three years over £6 million has been available to Wakefield training and enterprise council to assist in areas affected by the closures of collieries. Other Government funding available to the TEC will also have benefited former mining areas.
  324

HEALTH

  Medicines Monitoring Unit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was given by his Department to the medicines monitoring unit in 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what level of funding for the unit is expected for 1996–97. [319]

  Mr. Sackville
  The level of funding from the Medicine Control Agency for 1994–95 for the Medicines Monitoring unit project was £111,424 and for 1995–96 it is expected to be £115,264.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest available figure for the percentage of(a) hospital admissions and (b) community health services' patients receiving care as a result of adverse reactions to prescribed drugs. [544]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. Information on the number of ordinary admissions and day cases associated with drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use in 1993–94 is published in "Hospital Episode Statistics, England, Volume 2", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to hospital in each health region as(a) accident and emergency admissions and (b) surgical emergencies in each of the last five years; and how many have been admitted for these reasons so far this year. [321]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information will he placed in the Library. The tables are based on raw data from the hospital episode statistics and have not been adjusted to take account of shortfalls in coverage.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department has given to the possibility that the death of 19–year-old Stephen Churchill from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in May could be linked to BSE, what requests he has received for an inquiry into the cause of the death; and what was his response; and if he will make a statement. [152]

  Mr. Sackville
  The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee, which provides the Government with independent expert advice on BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, has advised that it is not possible to draw any conclusions in this case about a link with BSE as confirmed cases of CJD have been found in the same age group in other countries before the appearance of BSE. In addition, the case had no reported contact with BSE.

  The question of an inquiry into the death of Stephen Churchill was first raised by the press. A number of letters have been received since in connection with the case. In view of the existence of the national CJD surveillance unit, which investigates the incidence and epidemiology

  325
  of CJD in the UK since the advent of BSE; and of the SEAC, we do not consider that there is a need for an independent inquiry.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is currently undertaking into(a) BSE and (b) Creutzfeldt-Jakob dementia; and if he will make a statement on BSE in the food chain. [1663]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and the Scottish Office jointly fund the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) surveillance unit which investigates the incidence and epidemiology of the disease, paying particular attention to occupation and eating habits, so that any change in the pattern of CJD following the advent of BSE can be detected.

  The Department is also funding a series of studies at the Institute of Animal Health into time temperature combinations required to inactivate BSE and scrapie agents.

  The Medical Research Council, the main body through which the Government fund medical research in the United Kingdom, receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and is carrying out research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies aimed at increasing understanding of some of the biological processes involved in such diseases in man.

  The independent expert spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee—SEAC—published "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research" on 7 February 1995. Copies of this report are available in the Library.

  There is currently no scientific evidence to link BSE in cattle with the development of CJD in humans. All the information and evidence relating to the possibility of BSE entering the food chain is being looked at by SEAC.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of those entering residential homes are considered severely or moderately disabled, according to the most recent statistics. [1128]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the degree of disability of individuals on entry to residential homes is not available centrally. Most people entering residential care should be regarded as having a significant degree of disability or disfunction. At 31 March 1994, about 80 per cent. of all residents in residential care homes were in homes for elderly people and a further 2.5 per cent. in home specifically catering for adults with physical and/or sensory disabilities. The number of physically disabled residents in nursing homes was about 15 per cent. of all residents in nursing homes.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries his Department has received in the last year concerning the transference of assets and its effect on residential care provision. [1131]

  Mr. Bowis
  Around 40 letters have been received in 1995 and numerous telephone inquiries.
  326
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per week of residential care is in(a) England and Wales and (b) the west midlands. [1133]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993–94, the latest date for which information is available, the average expenditure per week on residential care for older people per local authority supported resident was approximately £265. Corresponding data for authorities in the west midlands are given as series HE1 in the unit costs section of "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services 1995", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Illness, Disability and Infirmity
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the distinctions recognised by his Department between illness and disability and infirmity. [1132]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not use specific definitions to distinguish between illness, disability and infirmity. The provision of health and social care is expected to be based on a full assessment of an individual's needs.

  Milk
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what inspections his officers are carrying out in dairies and supermarkets to ensure milk from(a) broken or (b) out-of-date cartons is not being recycled; [1262]

  (2) when and from whom he first received representations as to the recycling of milk from broken or out-of-date cartons. [1263]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department was first approached by The Observer on 3 November 1995 about this matter.

  Allegations about the reprocessing of milk were subsequently brought to the attention of the appropriate local authority environmental health departments who have responsibility for inspections of dairies and supermarkets in their areas.

  I understand that following this checks were made in two dairies, but no evidence was apparent of unhygienic practices or contraventions of food safety legislation.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of Temazepam per capita distributed annually in England; and if he will make a statement. [1542]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is 0.066g.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in each of the past five years are attributable to the abuse of Temazepam(a) in England and (b) in each health region. [1543]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the numbers of deaths due to Temazepam abuse, alone or with other drugs—ICDs1

  327
  304.1, 304.7, 304.8 305.4, 305.9—by year of occurrence for the latest five-year period available in England and each regional health authority.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  England

  12

  13

  15

  15

  19

  Regional health authority

  Northern

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Trent

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Thames

  2

  0

  3

  2

  1

  North East Thames

  1

  3

  2

  2

  4

  South East Thames

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  South West Thames

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Wessex

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Western

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  2

  0

  3

  2

  2

  Mersey

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  North Western

  1

  2

  1

  2

  4

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his policy on waiting times for initial appointments in NHS trust hospitals; [1170]

  (2) if he will make a statement on waiting times for hospital appointments (a) in the NHS and (b) in private medical care. [1171]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on how quickly patients are seen following out-patient referral must be based on an assessment of clinical priority made by doctors. The revised patients charter, which came into effect on 1 April 1995, contains a national standard for the maximum time patients should have to wait for their first out-patient appointment: all patients should be seen within 26 weeks of written referral by their general practitioner, and nine out of 10 patients in each trust should be seen within 13 weeks.

  The latest information available shows that in the quarter ended 31 June, 85 per cent. of patients seen had waited less than 13 weeks and 97 per cent. had waited less than 26 weeks. Where the standard is not being met, hospitals are required to have in place an action plan to reduce the waiting time to the charter standard.

  No information is available centrally on appointments taking place in the private sector.

  Long-stay Beds
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the number of long-stay beds in the national health service in 1990 for(a) the elderly, (b) psychiatry, (c) those with learning difficulties and (d) the chronically sick young; and what the figures are under these categories for 1 April. [1140]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of available long-stay beds in the National Health Service by I April 1998 and 1 April 2000 for (a)the elderly, (b) psychiatry, (c) those with learning difficulties and (d) the chronically young sick. [1141]
  328
  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is published in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternative arrangements apply in circumstances when a major hospital is closed to admissions and victims of major accidents; and if he will make a statement. [1151]

  Mr. Sackville
  Such closures are infrequent and generally of short duration. If national health service hospital trusts have to place restrictions on the cases that they can deal with, they should collaborate with health authorities, ambulance services and other hospitals to ensure that appropriate contingency measures are in place.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1444]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Construction and Planning gave my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May Official Report, columns 259–62, for energy consumption figures for the Department of Health.

  Additional figures for 1994–95 will be published shortly. These are expected to show a decrease of 8 per cent. over the previous year, as a result of our continuing efforts to reduce energy consumption.

  NHS Appointments (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who will be responsible for the appointment of a chairman and non-executive directors to the Doncaster health authority in the period from 1 April 1996; [1820]

  (2) who is responsible for the appointment of those non-executive directors of the Doncaster Healthcare trust and the Doncaster Royal Infirmary trust for whom he is not responsible. [1821]

  Mr. Sackville
  From I April 1996, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be responsible for the appointment of the chairman and all non-executive directors to national health service trusts and health authorities. Trent regional health authority is at present responsible for the appointment of two of the non-executive directors at the Doncaster Healthcare trust and at the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS trust.

  Cheviot and Wandsbeck NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the former chief executive of the Cheviot and Wandsbeck NHS trust had been in post; and what reasons were given for his early retirement. [2232]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Cheviot and Wandsbeck National Health Service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Mr. Roger Baker for details.
  329

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the boundaries of the new health authorities. [2560]

  Mr. Malone
  We are today announcing decisions on the boundaries of new health authorities in England which will come into operation on 1 April 1996. Details of the new boundaries will be placed in the Library.

  Human Foetal Tissue
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ethical issues arising from the Medical Research Council project at the Centre for Brain Repair involving the use of tissue from aborted babies; what steps are taken to ensure that the mothers of those babies are made aware of the purpose for which their dead children are being used; if he will indicate the cost of the project; and he will list the consultations which were undertaken with the public and interested organisations before the granting of the necessary approval for the project to proceed. [1343]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the project is still at the planning stage and as yet no human tissue has being used, but future studies using human fetal tissue are being considered. Any such studies will follow the strict guidelines of the Polkinghorne report, Cm 762. Its recommendations, which were accepted by the Government and the British Medical Association, were that such tissue could be used for research and treatment. Such experimental proposals will be subjected to the appropriate scrutiny when they are submitted to the local research ethics committee.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list all those projects for which licences have been issued in each of the last five years and which have involved the use of tissue from aborted babies, indicating in each case the number of aborted babies involved; and if he will list the steps which his Department has taken in each of those cases to ensure that the provisions of the Polkinghorne report have been implemented; [1344]

  (2) what administrative and reporting procedures are undertaken by his Department to monitor the issuing of licences for projects involving the use of tissue from aborted babies. [1345]

  Mr. Sackville
  Local research ethics committees—LRECs—advise within every health district on the acceptability of research proposals involving human subjects and human foetal tissue. Departmental guidance on the functions of LRECs includes the Polkinghorne code of practice, copies of which are available in the Library. The Department of Health does not collect information about research proposals approved by LRECs.

  Genetic Screening
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the implications for public policy of developments in pre-natal genetic screening; [1346]
  330
  (2) if he will make a statement on the implications for public policy of developments in post-natal genetic screening. [1347]

  Mr. Sackville
  These issues are being considered in the light of the Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on human genetics. The Government's position will be set out in the published response to the Select Committee's report.

  Psychotherapists (Children)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child psychotherapists were working in the NHS in each region for(a) 1979, (b) 1984, (c) 1989 and (d) the latest available year; and if he will make a statement. [1664]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available for English regions is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services qualified child psychotherapists as at 30 September each year

  1979

  1984

  1989

  1994

  Northern

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  Yorkshire

  2—

  1—

  2—

  10

  Trent

  1—

  1—

  2—

  20

  East Anglia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North West Thames

  30

  10

  30

  40

  North East Thames

  10

  20

  40

  40

  South East Thames

  2—

  2—

  10

  10

  South West Thames

  10

  10

  10

  20

  Wessex

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10

  Oxford

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10

  South Western

  2—

  2—

  10

  20

  West Midlands

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Mersey

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  North Western

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10

  SHAs

  2—

  1—

  2—

  20

  England total

  70

  60

  130

  220

  Notes:

  1Denotes zero.

  2Denotes figures of five and under.

  Source:

  Department of Health and Non-Medical Workforce Census Notes:

  1. Figures are for qualified child psychotherapists only, they exclude assistants and trainees.

  2. Figures are expressed as whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest ten.

  3. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions have been made by Kings Healthcare for on-site facilities to continue an integrated centre for epilepsy; and if he will make a statement. [2010]

  Mr. Bowis
  King's Healthcare National Health Service trust has assured me that it is committed to the Centre for Epilepsy and is working closely with the chairman of the centre to identify precisely how it will be accommodated in the future.

  Nursing Agencies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the professional duties of registered
  331
  employment agencies which specialise in hiring out auxiliary unqualified and qualified nurses, with respect to advice to client hospitals concerning past offences of falsely claiming nursing qualifications. [1730]
  332
  Mr. Sackville
  Local authorities are responsible for licensing nurses agencies and for securing their proper conduct. Each placement made by an agency must be supervised by a registered nurse or medical practitioner.

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

NHS: Organisation
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider instituting an annual conference of all major organisations involved in the running of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, Ministers and officials have frequent contact on matters of mutual interest with all major organisations connected with the running of the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the 30 organisations which comprise the National Health Service are grateful for her endeavours in making representations on their behalf as well as in smoothing the good organisation of the NHS? However, they are concerned about just one matter which the Minister might be prepared to consider. In a national emergency of some sort, and in the event of our country being in some distress, should there not be some arrangements to allow our National Health Service to play its vital part?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, elaborate systems are in place to deal with any national emergency. I do not think that a conference would be the way forward. It would take some time to arrange.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are already innumerable conferences on a much smaller scale and that there is already a great deal of networking and liaison between all sectors of the health service? Does she further agree that the proposed annual conference, which I presume would be an enormous jamboree, would be nothing but a terrible waste of money? Does my noble friend have any idea what the cost might be, because most major conferences are really just showpieces and I am sure that we would all rather see that money spent on the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right and, being the chairman of one of the most famous of London's teaching hospitals, she has in-depth knowledge of the subject. I have no idea what the cost of such a conference would be. However, I am sure that it would be large and that that money would be better spent on patient care.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, but does the Minister not accept that further consultation with those who work in the health service might lead to the restoration of confidence within the health service,
410
which in the past few months has been shown to be at a very low ebb among professionals? We have seen unprecedented unrest from the nursing and midwifery professions, and I have now read a survey which states that 70 per cent. of hospital consultants are seeking early retirement—all at a time when patients' complaints are rising by 30 per cent.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I totally refute that. I visit a lot of hospitals and community units and meet a great many staff. I was with the Royal College of Nursing last week, and met members of the medical profession and managers only last night. I do not accept what the noble Baroness says, although I do accept that there is pressure in the health service because of the demands on the system. However, I do not think that further formal consultation is necessary because it takes place the whole time informally. Indeed, the Secretary of State holds quarterly meetings with all the major organisations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness that I totally agree with her, although many people believe that there should be such a national conference. Indeed, noble Lords opposite ought to acknowledge that in a free country those who work in the National Health Service have every right to think that. I do not agree that there should be such a national conference and I congratulate the Minister on her response. However, in the event of a grave emergency we should look at how our NHS and its wonderful staff can play a great role.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, although I agree with all that has been said, I wonder whether the Minister could give some thought to the possibility of holding an annual get-together at which different parts of the health service could boast, as it were, about their achievements in the past year. It would be very interesting to hear what different sectors of the health service felt had been their greatest achievement over the year. Does the Minister agree that that would be encouraging and would perhaps disseminate good ideas? I acknowledge, however, that it would cost money.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that our National Health Service is a great success. We are treating more people than ever before. We are seeing waiting times plummet. We are cutting bureaucracy and administration costs and, through the Patient's Charter, we are seeing an improvement in the quality of the services that are provided. We have a great deal, of which to be proud. I am also proud that people from all over the world beat a path to our door to see what we are doing and what we have achieved. There are other ways of disseminating information than through a national conference. I think that it is up to local health authorities and trusts to tell local people exactly what has been achieved. Indeed, many are doing that.

Organophosphates: MS17 Guidance Note
3.6 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who was responsible for the distribution of the information contained in original Guidance Note MS17 from the Health and Safety Executive of December 1980 and in the revised version of October 1987.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Guidance Note MS17 was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office from 1981 to 1993. In its successive versions, it was available as a priced publication from HMSO bookshops, and since 1993 it has been sold by HSE Books.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Perhaps I should explain that the guidance note is entitled Biological Monitoring of Workers Exposed to Organophosphate Pesticides. The guidance note states:
"Regular monitoring should be considered for anything more than occasional exposure to OP compounds e.g. garden use".
In view of the fact that many farmers, horticulturalists, forestry workers, contract sprayers and contract dippers use organophosphates on a regular basis, may I ask the noble Lord why the Government have never thought it reasonable to distribute the guidance note to all those who use the products? If the Government had done so, they could probably have saved an awful lot of ill health in the years after 1980.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the guidance note is designed for health professionals. It has been widely distributed. I believe that about 30,000 copies have been purchased. I agree with the noble Countess that the guidance from 1987 onwards when it was strengthened was that biological monitoring should be considered for anyone using organophosphate pesticides more than occasionally. People excepted from that are those such as farmers dipping twice a year or people who occasionally attach flea collars to cats or dogs. However, health professionals involved with those who carry out contract dipping or who are regularly exposed to organophosphate pesticides should consider monitoring them.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to expand slightly upon the organophosphate problem by asking him, first, if he will assure the House that there is no connection between the application of organophosphate compounds on the spines of beasts, cattle and dairy herds and the incidence of BSE infection in the spinal cords of those beasts, which is causing much concern? Secondly, has my noble friend taken note of the letter of Sir Julian Rose from his farm in Berkshire to The Times on 16th November in which he stated:
"No dairy or beef cattle born and bred on registered organic farms have ever been affected by BSE"?
Will my noble friend comment on that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are satisfied that BSE in the UK is an infection from feed and that it has nothing
412
whatever to do with OP pesticides or any other of the wild rumours which have been put around over the past few years. I have not read the letter mentioned by my noble friend, but it would not surprise me at all if organic farms were largely exempt because the feed of the cattle infected with BSE was made out of other cattle and on organic farms they may not use that type of feed.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the noble Lord advised the House that the guidance note referred to in the Question was aimed at the relevant health service professionals. Bearing in mind that presumably all of those health service professionals would be employed by the NHS, would it not be more logical that they should be circulated with a free copy of the guidance note rather than have to buy it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is a voluminous series of these notes. Most of the health service professionals have access to them nowadays through CD-Rom and other such technologies. They know that when they come across a potential health problem they should look to the relevant guidance note. They are aware that the HSE covers all such poisons, and they will look for what is required. It is entirely right that when they do so they should purchase the guidance note just as they purchase text books.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether a non-farmer may ask the Government whether they realise how much we admire the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for the persistence of her questioning on this matter in the face of answers which are presumably not inaccurate but which in many cases are incomplete.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cede to no one in my admiration of the noble Countess. She has pursued a long, and in many ways entirely successful, campaign, and has achieved a great deal over the years. I have listened to her from both the Front and Back Benches with a great deal of respect. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Countess that I endeavour to give the most complete replies of which I am capable.
The Countess of Mar; My Lords, perhaps I may thank noble Lords for their kind remarks. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, tries to get me accurate answers on every occasion, and for that I am extremely grateful. Does he accept that the HSE has a duty to inform employers and employees of anything like this which comes into its hands? To whom were the 30,000 leaflets sold, because I have not yet found a GP or an EMAS doctor who has ever seen it? EMAS doctors work within the HSE.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, because the leaflets were sold by bookshops there is no way in which I can tell the noble Countess who purchased them. If she believes that they are not around doctors or health professionals, I shall try to find out whether that is our view of the case. It is not what I have been told, but I shall pursue further research into that matter and write to the noble Countess.

Benefit Disentitlement
3.14 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the Department of Social Security, when considering proposals to disentitle people to benefit, implements the Treasury guidelines that when considering policy changes it should consider the resource implications for other departments.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, all departments when considering policy changes consult widely within government to ensure that the full implications of any such changes are properly considered. The nature of such consultation will depend on the policy change in question. Her Majesty's Treasury is fully and actively involved in that process.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister's department introduced the jobseeker's allowance, how did it set about identifying the resource implications for other departments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained, perhaps briefly—I now do so in a little more detail—when a policy is being considered by a department not only are officials involved at all levels but Ministers are involved. Departments look carefully at the consequences of another department's decisions, especially on their budgets, because if they feel that there is a consequence that will fall on their budget they are not slow in suggesting that there should be transfers of resources from that department to the other one.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, has there been research into, and have calculations been made of, the cost to the country of young people being unable to obtain social security and so unable to obtain accommodation and a job? There is therefore a great cost to the state in other ways. Has that been calculated?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is not quite right when she says that young people cannot obtain social security. Some young people can obtain income support as can lone parents, carers, the disabled, people who have recently been in prison, and school leavers who are living independently. And, of course, there is severe hardship provision. As I have made clear on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box, we do not believe that that is the right course of action for any young person. Young people should remain in education, have a job, or undertake training. We seek to ensure that one of those avenues is available to every young person.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that while his Answer to my noble friend Lord Russell was perhaps bland rather than informative, his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, missed entirely the point of what she asked; namely, whether there could be research into this matter so that the Minister's answers in future—it has been a long-running campaign—can be more precise.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it has been a long-running campaign. I have answered the
414
noble Earl, Lord Russell, on a number of occasions. It is easy for people to ask for research; it is quite a different thing to see how that research can be implemented when it is not easy initially to identify the group for which one is looking other than by going around the streets asking every youngster whether they are on benefit, whether they have been refused it, and why. Equally, it is difficult to see how one devises a control group.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, to choose a slightly different area, but following the same theme as the noble Earl, do the Government agree that for every pound that the DoE has cut in housing subsidy the DSS has had to pay an extra 75p in housing benefit? As a result, housing benefit has soared. The DSS is now cutting housing benefit so that families face eviction, homelessness, and bed-and-breakfast accommodation which will have to be paid for by the DoE and the local authorities. In other words, is it not the case that as the DoE cuts housing subsidy the DSS pays more housing benefit and as the DSS cuts housing benefit, so the DoE and local authorities have to pay more for homeless families? Is not that endless pass the parcel of exporting costs to some other government department as stupid as it is callous? How does that conform to Treasury guidelines?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the DoE and the DSS have collaborated closely over the years on the question of public money going into housing. I think that the noble Baroness is attempting to suggest to the House that the Government have been surprised at the shift. Far from it, the Government decided deliberately from 1979 onwards that taxpayers' money should not be spent on subsidising bricks and mortar, as it had been traditionally, but should be spent helping those who cannot afford the rents they are asked to pay. Taxpayers' money should not be paid out to people who could afford higher rents but who were living, especially in local authority housing, in low rented accommodation at the expense of other people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are not the increases in crime attributable to young people who have been disentitled to benefit and who feel that they must commit theft or robbery to be able to survive without support?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is an interesting proposition which is of course occasionally put forward. There are two defects in it. If crime was being committed only by those people disentitled to benefit, the crime rate would be hugely and markedly lower than it is. Secondly, unfortunately, many crimes are committed by people who have yet to request benefit because they are still at school or, at least, nominally at school.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about the cuts in income support as regards mortgage interest, which will inevitably create more homelessness because of repossessions? Is he telling the House that the Government deliberately took that into consideration

415
knowing the consequences—knowing that there would be more repossessions and further homelessness—and that that is part of his policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have debated the issue on a number of occasions. I have made it clear to the House—the arguments are there for all to see—that the policy we have pursued in respect of income support and mortgage interest will help the situation. As I have explained to the House, approximately 70 per cent. of home owners are not eligible for income support if they become unemployed. There are a number of reasons for that. They may have capital or their spouses may work, to name but two. Therefore, many people who may require help with their mortgage cannot obtain it through income support. We believe that moving to the insurance-based system, which is proving so successful, will protect not only the people who are currently helped by income support mortgage interest but also those who would not have been helped if they had fallen on hard times.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister answered my supplementary question he described the administrative method for deciding who was consulted. Would he be kind enough to tell us the method used for identifying the costs to other departments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these are quite complicated issues. It depends on the proposal in front of the departments at any one time. But we do attempt to quantify, especially when departments believe that on the premise on which the noble Earl's argument is based they may have extra costs. They are pretty quick to try to identify and quantify them. As I explained to the noble Earl, we have a whole range of statistics collected by government, and especially by the Department of Social Security, on which we can base our calculations of what may be the impact on other departments of any move that one department makes.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in considering all these questions, to what extent does the Minister consult the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has a nationwide network of information and knowledge on poverty and the management of poverty?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my department has frequent contacts with the NACAB. Indeed, it is one of the parties which is always consulted when we go out to consultation on any proposals we may have in mind.
Lord Richard: My Lord, the Minister referred to a raft of statistics and said that they were complicated computations but that his policies are based upon a load of statistics from which he can obtain the true costs. Are those statistics published and if not can they be published?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, indeed they are published. At least, I think they are published; I will check on that. I am sure that I saw a piece of paper passing my desk recently publishing this year's digest of the statistics of the Department of Social Security and that it was a considerable wodge of paper.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is not what I asked the Minister. He referred to statistics on the comparative costs. He said that they were complicated computations but there were a lot of statistics upon which the costs were based. May we have those comparative figures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that what I said was that we can make the calculations based on a lot of the statistics we collect. Those statistics are published in documents such as the one I mentioned but whose title, unfortunately, I cannot remember.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government can make these assessments. Do they make them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, I think that I did say that. I pointed out to the House that when the Government make decisions about policy the whole Government are involved. All departments are involved. Other departments are interested to watch that the department which is making a policy change is not shifting expenditure in their direction, which is why I pointed out that they may ask for a PES transfer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister give information to the House about the calculations made by the Department for Education and Employment and any possible correlation between poverty, homelessness and bad housing and poor achievement in school? Will he inform the House whether any of that was done using the slide rule of the number of children receiving free school meals and poor attainment at school?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while I should like to be able to respond to the noble Baroness, she takes me wide of the territory in which I am normally involved. It would be better if she tabled a Question on the matter. However, during the past few days I have noticed that the Government's decision to publish league tables about schools has proved very successful, especially in pulling up by the boot straps those schools in the very areas about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it would be impossible for a school to teach well children who are receptive and able to learn if more than 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the children in a class were living in poverty and bad housing and suffering from all the family stresses that that involves? Will he inform the House whether within those league tables there was any reference to poverty indicators when comparing school with school?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that the league tables are largely to do with exam results, which is what I would have thought schools are about. As regards the more general question of measuring people's incomes and so forth, there is plenty of statistical work around and on an area by area basis. I am afraid that the noble Baroness and I are not going to agree on definitions of issues such as poverty because I believe that such aspects are relative, especially when one looks at them around the world.

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about trusts of land, including provision phasing out the Settled Land Act 1925, abolishing the doctrine of conversion and otherwise amending the law about trusts for sale of land; to amend the law about the appointment of trustees of any trust; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Party Wall Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision in respect of party walls, and excavation and construction in proximity to certain buildings or structures; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on broadcasting be appointed to supervise the arrangements for, and deal with any problems or complaints arising out of, the televising and sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Committee:

L. Chesham,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. Rawlings,

B. Seccombe,

418

L. Thomson of Monifieth (Chairman),

B. Wharton,

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Select Committee, which is very important indeed to the position of this House, would be even stronger if it included in its membership my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing who has, as your Lordships know, more experience of broadcasting than any other Member of this House? His experience goes back to before the war. Was my noble friend invited to take part?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot say whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was invited to take part. However, I would say in reply to the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that this is not the first time this particular matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I would certainly acknowledge immediately that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has a considerable knowledge of broadcasting. It is very extensive and has been gained over a considerable period of time. I believe that many years ago both he and I shared service in what used to be called The External Services Broadcasting Department of the BBC.
I would make the following point, which has been made previously in your Lordships' House but, clearly, it needs to be re-emphasised, if I may say so with respect. This Select Committee is not dealing with general broadcasting in the country. It is dealing with the specific matter referred to in the Motion. I can think of no one who is more well-qualified to chair it, as proposed in the Motion, than the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and I make similar observations in relation to the other proposed members of the Select Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Chesham,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Earnings Top-up Draft Rules
3.31 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House take note of the Earnings Top-up Draft Rules for a new in-work benefit for people without dependent children.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an unusual occasion. We are here to debate the first ever pilot of a social security scheme in this country. It has been held for the last 50 years that social security changes have to be introduced on a national basis or not at all. That has meant that some good ideas have not been introduced. And some proposals have been introduced which would perhaps have benefited from piloting. It is time we broke out of this mould, and in July we published our plans for doing so in the Green Paper Piloting Change in Social Security—helping people into work.
That set out our plans to pilot a new in-work benefit—earnings top-up designed to assist into work people without dependent children. Because the scheme will be operated for a limited period, it will be introduced on an extra-statutory basis. But it is important that those participating in the scheme should be absolutely clear what its rules are. We have therefore laid before your Lordships' House a draft of the rules under which the scheme will operate. Of course, if it is eventually decided to implement earnings top-up nationwide, then we shall return to Parliament with the necessary legislation.
Earnings top-up is a benefit for people in work. In that respect it is like family credit. But unlike family credit it is for people without children.
It has been accepted for 25 years that families with children needed extra help to enable them to compete in the labour market on equal terms and to remove any disincentives to work which might arise from low earnings relative to out-of-work benefits. The family credit scheme has proved extraordinarily successful in a number of ways—helping unemployed people and lone parents to move into work and enabling other families to stay in work by helping them over a bad patch. The Government now believe it is time to see whether the same principle works for those without children.
When we look at the characteristics of unemployed people we find that 60 per cent. of them—1.35 million out of 2.32 million—are people without dependent children. Of course, the majority are not lower-wage earners within the scope of income-related benefits; and many others move back into work very quickly. But there are others who face disincentives to move into work. The income they could command in work is not enough to provide an incentive to work.
The nature of jobs is changing fast. For example, comparing the same parts of the economic cycle between 1979 and 1990, female employment increased by 17 per cent.; part-time employment increased by 34 per cent.; and overall employment increased by 6 per cent. The demand for unskilled labour has reduced through mechanisation and improved methods of working; and in consequence the price the market puts on unskilled labour has reduced.
Our policies have responded to these changes. As a result, our record on unemployment, including long-term unemployment, is better than the EC average. Our non-wage labour costs—those costs an employer has to pay for but which do not find their way into the employee's wage packet—are lower than most EC countries, the United States and Australia. The UK is the only G7 country where non-wage labour costs take a lower proportion of all costs now than they did in 1970.
We have introduced measures to stimulate employment and to break down barriers which deter unemployed people from taking work. Last year's Budget unveiled a range of innovative measures to this end: from April 1996, unemployed people moving into work will receive housing benefit at the full rate for an extra four weeks; employers taking on long-term unemployed people can apply for a national insurance holiday for a year; faster family credit aims to remove the gap between the end of income support and the first family credit payment; and, finally, from October 1996, the pilot of earnings top-up itself.
Earnings top-up is aimed at an estimated 20,000 people in eight areas of the country. Advice and claim forms will be available at the jobcentre or local Benefits Agency office. They will also be able to phone for a claim form using a locally advertised number. Having claimed and received an award, payment will continue for 26 weeks irrespective of any other changes in income. At the end of 26 weeks, they will automatically receive an invitation to renew their claim.
It will assist single people whose income from work is up to £125 a week and couples whose income from work is up to £164. It will give them an income boost averaging something like £19 for single people aged 25 and over and £24 for couples. The gain could be up to a maximum of £54 for a couple and about half that for a single person.
Your Lordships may wonder why we should pilot the scheme. To introduce a scheme like this nationally would cost over £500 million, based on the higher rate of the two models proposed. It would be an unacceptable risk of taxpayers' money to do that without testing it first in a pilot scheme. We do not know categorically that increasing in-work income will be as effective a work incentive for single people and couples without children as it is for families with children. But research by the Policy Studies Institute clearly showed that family credit helps people with children to move into work and to stay there. That is in its paper Families Work and Benefits 1993. The Centre for Labour Market Studies also found that the amount of in-work income has a positive effect on the decision to take up work, and that the influence is strongest for married men. That is to be found in the document Long-term Unemployment and Labour Market Flexibility 1993.
But there is no previous experience or research which tells us clearly whether people without children will respond to the stimulus in the same way. That is why we need to pilot earnings top-up before we commit resources on a very large scale. It is also the reason why we are piloting two different rates of benefit: to examine whether it is the fact of cash supplement itself or the amount received which has the greater effect on work.
Because piloting an in-work benefit is a new venture we thought it right to set out our proposals in detail. The consultation produced a high standard of response, including comments right at the beginning of the consultation period from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for which we were grateful. I thank all those who contributed to the consultation. A summary of the points made has been placed in the Library.
The aspect of our proposals which attracted the greatest comment was the feasibility of payment through the wage packet. Both employer and employee representatives expressed concern about it. During the consultation period the Benefits Agency was also busy holding discussions with employers and payroll experts. In the light of that study and the representations received, we have decided not to pursue payment through the wage packet for the present. I am sure that that decision will be welcomed by all who were concerned on that point.
The consultation document set out the basis for the selection of the eight pilot areas in which the scheme will operate. My right honourable friend announced on 6th November what the final selection would be. They include areas in North Wales, central Scotland (Perth, Dumbarton, Stirling), Newcastle, Sunderland, South Yorkshire and the south coast. The areas chosen reflect different types of labour market—major urban areas, large towns, rural areas and seaside towns.
The selected areas have both a high rate of unemployment and a high proportion of vacancies. They are areas where we expect earnings top-up to be successful. They have been chosen to maximise the chance of obtaining a clear result. We are now in the process of tendering for the research which will 'enable us to evaluate those results.
A number of respondents to the consultation exercise, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, emphasised the importance and difficulty of the evaluation exercise. We acknowledge that it will not be an easy task. We propose to collect a great deal of information about the labour market in the pilot areas—before, during and after the pilot. We shall be able to compare that with what happens to employment in the four matched control areas. We will also know a great deal about the individuals who claim the benefit. From the research we expect that it will be possible to evaluate the effects of earnings top-up and extrapolate the findings nationally.
Perhaps I may now turn to the rules of the scheme. They are based to a large degree on those already operating for family credit. Obviously there are changes in recognition of the absence of dependent children and relating to the limited geographical areas. But at least half of the draft rules are identical to the equivalent family credit provisions.
The rules provide for what will happen when workers move into, out of or between pilot areas. They are provisions with no precedent in social security.
We also propose to pay a lower benefit rate for under-25s, as is the case in income support but not in family credit. That is because younger workers, especially those without children, have a lower pattern of household costs than older workers—quite often
422
living at home with their parents or in shared accommodation with friends. Young workers can also more easily be better off in work because their income from out-of-work benefit income is also lower than older workers.
A further difference from family credit is that earnings top-up will be time limited for certain self-employed people. There will be an upper limit of four 26-week awards for self-employed workers whose net earnings are continuously below £20 a week. We have decided to impose that limit because continuous, very low earnings cast doubts on whether employment is truly remunerative. We do not wish to discourage self-employment—far from it—but it is not the role of a social security scheme to prop up failing businesses indefinitely.
The final published version of the rules, and any future amendments, will be placed in the parliamentary Libraries. The Social Security Advisory Committee will also be informed.
The aim of earnings top-up is to help people with low earning power to move into work, or, if they are already in work, to establish themselves there. That is better for them and better for the country. We are piloting the scheme at a cost of £25 million in a full year to see whether it will fulfil those objectives without adverse consequences. We are breaking new ground, and I hope that the House will join me in wishing the scheme well.
Moved, That this House take note of the Earnings Top-up Draft Rules for a new in-work benefit for people without dependent children.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, having listened to my noble friend today, I find it very easy to imagine myself in his position, although not in quite so exalted a role. Many is the time that I have stood where he will be in a few minutes' time, responding not to the views of three noble Lords, like today, but to just one—that of the party immediately opposite. No alternative Opposition view would manifest itself on those occasions. Equally, no friendly voice would give cheer from behind. Those which did come from that quarter, on the rare occasions that they did, would be more likely to resemble a serrated knife being slowly and painfully driven into my kidneys with the sole objective of eviscerating my argument.
I hope that, today, my noble friend will find things just a little different. After all, the party opposite has been enjoined by their Leader in another place to think the unthinkable so far as concerns social security matters. We are eagerly awaiting the Opposition's official reaction to the Government's doing just that, as was shown by the Green Paper to which my noble friend referred. However, I hope that we will not hear the argument that the Government are perpetuating low wages, as we heard when family credit was introduced and indeed subsequently. I know of no proof of that happening.

423
I have been unemployed twice in my life. I know as well as anyone how demoralising it is for the individual and how wasteful it is in economic terms to the country in general and the taxpayer in particular. I, too, have seen the effects of people going straight from school into the dependency culture about which we hear so much—although, as we heard during Question Time today, it is less easy now. I have seen the effects of marginal rates, of combined tax and national insurance depressing the labour market.
I am encouraged by—and, I am glad to say, I played a small part in it—the modern system of in-work benefits. Family credit—a much more generous top-up benefit for people with children than its predecessor—is now paid to 591,000 people, though it is true to say that its uptake is not as great as, on paper, it could be. However, we should remember that many of those who do not take advantage of it are already in work.
When I arrived on the social security scene in 1987, the planning was over, the legislation passed and implementation was still to come. A few months later I was much more involved in the creation of the disabled working allowance, which was a logical progression of the same train of thought. I am encouraged by the 5,000 take-up. I know that that sounds small, but it represents 5,000 disabled people who would not be in work without the scheme.
But the idea of trialling any scheme, let alone one of in-work benefits, was unthinkable. In that respect, the Government have acted, whereas the Opposition are now for the third time—or is it the fourth?—back at the drawing board. It seems to me that their social security policy is, once again, in limbo. Having said that, this scheme is not as dramatic as it has been or will be painted. What it is, though, is an honest experiment to seek a new way of getting more people off benefit and into work.
Of course, the scheme is the most recent in a long line of initiatives for achieving that objective. My noble friend the Minister mentioned some of them and, of course, there is training for work. For example, there are Jobclubs; the job interview guarantee; work trials; jobplan workshops; Restart courses; the jobfinders' grant; the Workstart Employment Subsidy Scheme (which is another pilot programme); and community action, which provides part-time work in the community for people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more.
The vast preponderance of people do not need those schemes at all. One-half of the people who became unemployed in September will be back in work by Christmas, and two-thirds of them by March. In my view, a modern social security system should not spend too much time worrying about them. It is on those who are unemployed for longer than six months that all, or most, of our efforts should be concentrated—unless, of course, those who have been unemployed for less than six months have very limited savings and very little to live on in which case the state, as the great insurance company, should step in and support them, as it should if they are on very low wages.
424
I have long believed that for the first six months of unemployment the jobseekers' allowance (as we must now learn to call it) should not normally be paid. Instead, it should be index linked. In that I am an unrepentant radical. Of course, I realise that that idea has a tremendous knock-on effect. It would mean the destruction of the National Insurance Fund and, therefore, break a fundamental Beveridge principle. Today is not the day to say what else I would do in the field of state support, but that would only be a part of it. Why should Mr. Chris Smith and his cohorts in the Labour Party be the only section of the community to think the unthinkable?
That brings me back to the subject of today's debate. There is a section—probably a fairly small one—of potential job seekers who are better off on benefit than in work. They are single people who would work if their economic circumstances were shifted marginally in their favour. Any scheme which seeks to move them into work should have the blessing of the whole nation. If it works, it will have done all of us a great favour.
I have learnt from my noble friend that, in the eight trial areas, two rates of benefit are to be tested over a three-year period. The money being paid to claimants in the scheme at its finish in three years' time will be continued for another two years. We know that by that time the Government expect 20,000 people will have been attracted by it. No one could call that exactly earth shattering when one considers that nationally unemployment has fallen by five times that amount each and every month on average for the past six months, and when one also considers that 251,000 more people were in work in June 1995 compared with the same month in 1994.
In view of the recent reduction in the rate of growth of the economy, that is a creditable record indeed for government policies. I am no historian but I wonder when last a Labour government could boast lower unemployment than our other major European competitors. That said, it is not only our right but our duty to investigate the scheme a little further. I wish to ask my noble friend three questions.
First, what estimates have the Government made of the take-up of this new scheme were it to go on what the film industry would call general release; in other words, countrywide, and by definition with no trial? That would help us to put it into a proper perspective. Secondly, have the eight areas been selected to fall into either scheme A or scheme B in a rational way? I note of course what my noble friend said about the Green Paper. For example, were they based on the cost of living in a particular area as revealed by the General Household Survey? We know that the Jobcentres in the selected areas have revealed a particularly low take-up of lower paid jobs by single people in those places compared with the rest of the country. When one thinks of the value of the top-up, I think the first question is particularly pertinent.
In that connection, what persuaded the Government that scheme A was sufficiently distinct from scheme B and would result in a differential take-up in the two areas? I really am surprised—if I have understood the

425
schemes correctly—that an extra £2 a week for those under 24 and £1 for couples would make a statistically valid difference in the take-up of the scheme. Whatever the answers to these questions, I wish this brave, innovative scheme—which to my recollection is the first social security scheme ever to be piloted by governments of any persuasion—a fair wind and I congratulate the Government on introducing it.
3.52 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may remember when he made his social security uprating Statement last year that I said it looked like an airfield after a bad raid: all pilots and no planes. The Minister, if I could read his face correctly, thought that I was being a little ungenerous. It seems perhaps today that I was—but I can only say I was not aware of it at the time—because here we have one of the pilots, to carry on the image I used then, equipped with a plane and ready for take-off. I welcome that warmly.
I offer my general support for what the Government are trying to do. Within the limits laid down by the general outlines of government policy, I think this is a good scheme and I welcome it; indeed I am glad to see it. It is rapidly becoming an all-party consensus that what we need to look at in social security are ways of making it easier for people to get off benefit and into work. We have here what is the real mark of an all-party consensus—that all of us claim to have been there first. It is entirely within the spirit of that game that I join in too and ask whether anyone can advance any higher bid than 2nd July 1990.
Of course this problem is caused partly by the steep tapers of the withdrawal of benefit as people come into work and partly by the declining levels of wages in some areas because of deregulation in the labour market and because of part-time work. Therefore we have a double pressure to make it hard to get back into work: the withdrawal of benefit and the lowness of the wages. It is necessary to address both of those in some ways jointly and in some ways severally. I am also extremely glad to see that this is being extended to the childless. I have never quite understood the logic by which in the old family credit system the childless, and even more the single, were being treated almost as second-class citizens. The whole of the hardship rules as we have them at present tend to discriminate against the single and the effects of that may at times be unfortunate and unfair. Therefore I am glad to see this helping hand—the hand up rather than a hand-out, as the Prime Minister would put it—being extended to the single and to childless couples as well as to those with children. That, I think, is a real step forward.
I would say to the Minister that when he spoke of an incentive to return to work he was identifying a part of the problem. However, I believe it was only a part of the problem. Sometimes it is a matter of incentive but sometimes it is a matter of sheer, stark financial impossibility. The classic case of that of course is fares, but over the centuries the classic case has been being unable to afford shoes. I have no doubt that that on occasion still happens. There are capital expense
426
associated with the return to work and occasionally it may be those rather than the overall rate which are the obstacle.
I was grateful for the opportunity to reply to the consultation. I hope I may for a moment usurp the Minister to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The choice of the areas for the pilot was one of the central questions put in the consultation paper. I endeavoured to address the job of making them roughly equal in terms of access and transport to work. I think that my suggestions have been in some parts taken. I am sure that there were other people making other suggestions and that there is at least as much an element of rationality in those as one can expect in these things. The only complaint I have to make about the selection of areas for the pilot is that the name of Wimborne, Dorset is misspelt; it should be spelt like the neighbouring village of Cranborne.
Of course I have a few reservations about some of the items in these rules. These are in the main where I have reservations about the general outlines of social security policy, with all of which I am sure the Minister is perfectly familiar. If I touch on these it is lest my silence be taken for consent rather than because I want to reopen a series of old debates.
Regulation 7(4), in the light of last Monday's debate on the Address, is one we might think a little about. That is the one which provides that only one person in each household may benefit from earnings top-up. That actually is an anti-marriage rule; it penalises married couples. In the light of the debate in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take part over the next few weeks, I wonder whether that might possibly be considered again. Regulation 10(1) on the fixed 26-week period is of course exactly the same as the family credit. We have dwelt recently on some of the problems arising from that as regards family credit. They will arise here too. The Minister is familiar with my arguments and I shall not repeat them further.
Regulation 14(1) will, I believe, cause certain problems, or at least it represents a line in government thinking which to my knowledge is causing problems. That is the one which deals with child benefit. I understand, of course, why they have decided to rule in this context that only one person may be held to have the custody of the child, because in the case of separated couples if they both share the custody they are both ineligible for earnings top-up. However, in general, I think that the administrative assumption that there is only one parent with care after a divorce is not always factually accurate. It is not always desirable on grounds of public policy. It is not always accurate to assume that the child benefit after separation is paid to only one parent. There is a procedure for sharing it, which at present can be stopped if the woman decides to veto it, and her consent may, on occasion, be unreasonably withheld.
That is a matter I ask the Minister to discuss with his noble and learned clansman before the progress of the divorce Bill. It is an issue that we may possibly address in an amendment during the progress of that Bill. It is a complicated matter and it needs some further thought.

427
The Minister will not be at all surprised to hear that I deplore the exclusion of students. I shall not dwell on the arguments for that either, but I believe that one of the effects of this benefit will be that it will tend to depress the general level of wages. Therefore, if students are receiving a wage—and many of them cannot do their academic work without receiving a wage—and that wage is depressed and they do not receive the compensation for its depression that everyone else receives, their disadvantage may be increased.
That brings me to the effect of these rules on wages, which is my central area of doubt. I am not generally exceptionally optimistic about human nature, but I believe that human nature does not change as it crosses the employer/employee divide. The same strengths and weaknesses exist on both sides of that divide. I am not certain that the rules meet that maxim.
Rule 34(1) has detailed procedures for dealing with an applicant who voluntarily reduces his hours of work in order to attract more earnings top-up. I can see why. I am rather more perturbed about rule 34(4) which provides for those who provide services for other people without taking payment to be treated as if they did so for wages. That means that every young man who mows a pensioner's lawn may find himself being deprived of earnings top-up as a result. I hope that the rules will not be interpreted in that way. However, human nature being what it is, guidance to those who interpret them on the ground will need to make it very clear that they should not be interpreted in that way.
By comparison with that suspicion, there is no attempt to address the possibility that employers might reduce wages because the people they employ are gaining a subsidy from the DSS. If one thing is possible, so is the other. I do not know whether either will occur frequently, but it would be very foolish idealism to deny that it was possible that employers may lower wages to make up for earnings top-up.
In relation to a question which was addressed in the consultation paper, I should like to know how the Government propose to monitor whether employers will lower wages. If they do, the Government will be taking on an open-ended financial commitment which may become more and more expensive with the years that pass. I cannot help thinking that earnings top-up, much though I welcome it, would fit much more logically side by side with a minimum wage than it fits into the Government's present policy. That is a considerable area of anxiety.
I should like to ask a few questions about how the pilot scheme is to be monitored. What are to be the criteria of success? Will they be simply the number of people who are placed back in work? Will they also include the effect on Crown revenues? If so, will that be confined to income tax and national insurance, or will some attempt be made to monitor the effect, because people who earn more will spend more, and that generates more revenue? Will there be any attempt to monitor the ripple effect of increased employment generating increased spending generating more employment? How is it to be decided what marks whether the scheme is successful?
428
Finally, if the House will bear with me for a few moments I should like to say a few words about my party's views and make one or two private suggestions about the general problem of the interface between work and benefits. These rules address only one part of that; a great deal needs to be addressed in other ways.
The Minister knows that we are in favour of an income support disregard. Mr. Frank Field—and I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that his views are not Official Opposition policy—has expressed a degree of fear about fraud which makes the Daily Mail look calm. It seems to me that, rather than an expensive general attack on means testing, a great deal of this problem would be met much more practically by creating an income support disregard so that people on benefit can do a £5 job painting a neighbour's door without having to lose benefit pound for pound after the first £5. That lack of an income support disregard is an invitation to fraud.
The Minister knows the views of these Benches on the child care disregard and on gentler tapers for housing benefit. We on these Benches agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies on raising the entry point to income tax rather than creating a new bottom rate. I should like to ask the Minister one or two more questions about the interface between tax and benefits.
First, it occurs to me that one of the reasons why the tax kick-in is so steep is that it is the present policy that benefit is taxable. If benefit were not taxable you could earn your £3,500 personal allowance before the tax kicked in. That by itself would do a great deal to ease the transition to work and avoid poverty traps. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would consult his right honourable friend at the Treasury and get some answers to that question. I should be interested to know what the effects would be.
I should also like to ask the Minister to consult the Inland Revenue about the coding for those who come back into work from benefit. If the Inland Revenue has no information on you when you come into work, it gives you an emergency notice of coding, which means that you pay tax at the full rate. For somebody coming off benefit with no capital, the fact that you get the tax back afterwards is no consolation. It ought to be possible to address that problem. Would it be possible, for example, for the Minister's department to give the equivalent of the P45 to people who come off benefit after a long spell, explaining that these people have not been earning during the period in question and that the Inland Revenue can take note of that fact?
Can the Minister tell us any more about two proposals the Chancellor has made, both of which I have welcomed? One is to extend housing benefit for the first four weeks back into work and the other is the jobfinder's grant. Because the Government, like us, understand that that is not the whole story, those are also welcome measures and I should like to know what is happening to them.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we all agree that, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we

429
share a problem in respect of the move from welfare to work. If this country were today enjoying full employment or something approximating to it, or if that employment were adequately paid, there would not be a problem because those needing benefit would be few, the incentive to work would be considerable, and social security costs would be modest. Instead, let us remind ourselves, there are something like 2.5 million registered unemployed at this time. One million of them have been unemployed for more than a year and a quarter of a million for more than four years. Something like 60 per cent. of young black men in London are out of work. A million people in this country earn less than £2.50 an hour, and something like 300,000 earn less than £1.50 an hour. It is precisely because so many are out of work and so many who are in work are badly paid—some do not receive a living wage—and because the cost of securing them on social security is so high that we need to address the issue. But let us be in no doubt. We need to address the issue today as a statement of failure of the Government's economic and employment policies.
It is right that we should address the problem. However, the basis of the Government's approach—the ethics as well as the economics—belongs to the alien world of planet Portillo rather than our own. The Government seem to have been arguing over the spring and summer that people are not working, first, because they are work shy (hence the need for a punitive jobseeker's allowance and the Government's obsession with benefit sanctions); secondly, that if they are working or claiming benefit they are fiddling (hence the Government's obsession with fraud); or thirdly—there may be a little more credibility in this argument—that the benefit structure produces an employment trap which discourages people because it is not worth working (hence we have family credit). The remainder of us live in a rather different world. We know that people want to work but cannot do so for one obvious reason. Jobs, especially for unskilled men, simply do not exist. That is fact. That is why people are unemployed. It is not because they are fiddling; it is not because they are work shy; it is not because of the benefit trap. It is because the Government's economic policies have produced long-term unemployment, especially among unskilled men.
We also know that, following the abolition of the wages councils, many people in work receive indecently low pay because of the lack of a minimum wage. I refer to £1.50 or £2 an hour for a cook or a carer in a residential home. That is not decent; we should recognise that. Nor is it true, as the document repeatedly insists and as the Minister suggested, that by letting wages free fall, in some sense people will price themselves into work and more jobs will follow. The evidence does not indicate that at any stage. It suggests the contrary. Cutting wages does not produce more jobs. It merely means that the same people are paid less for the jobs they do.
There are two pieces of evidence. Since the wages councils were abolished, wage rates in those industries have fallen by up to 25 per cent. and at the same time
430
there has been a loss of 18,000 jobs. Similarly, over the past four years according to government statistics there has been an increase of something like 75 per cent. in people claiming family credit, but the cost has risen 300 per cent. In other words, the same people are receiving more money. Why? It is because family credit is taking the strain of falling wages. That is the truth. It has allowed more families to take low paid jobs but they have needed to take those low paid jobs precisely because low pay has not produced more work. The long-term and only answer—it is certainly the Labour Party's position—is to invest in our infrastructure, in our industry, to build for economic growth and to ensure that there is a trained and skilled workforce to respond to those opportunities.
Having said that, on these Benches and, I am sure, on the Opposition Benches more generally, we accept that there is a selective place for in-work benefits to help back into work those groups which, because they have become detached from the labour market—for example, the long-term unemployed—are unattractive to employers. We believe that it is sensible to encourage employers to re-employ the long-term unemployed.
There is a second role for in-work benefits; for example, to assist those who need a higher income than the job offers because they have considerable family responsibilities. In order to get off benefit, they need a higher wage than a single person. That is the role of family credit. It is obviously sensible and appropriate.
Equally, we believe that in-work benefit is humane and decent when it helps a disabled person contributing perhaps, although not necessarily, lower productivity but facing more expensive costs or more intermittent work patterns to stay in work. That has been the role of the disability working allowance, and we support it. For example, the person who has caring responsibilities and is therefore a part-time worker needs to top up that work with benefit. For that group of people an in-work benefit is a sane, decent and humane strategy and entirely appropriate.
However, there are two conditions. First, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, in-work benefit should be accompanied by a wages floor, or a minimum wage, so that the employer does not pass on his wage costs to us, the taxpayer. Otherwise the Government will stand accused of being the friend of the "sweater", the ally of the bad employer. Secondly, we have always said that in-work benefit should be targeted at those groups which have specific problems in the labour market. The Government today go well beyond that. They say that in-work benefits should be available for everyone without the protection to the taxpayer of a wages floor. Therefore we have some unease, as does the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
However, there are many aspects of the scheme that we truly welcome. First, I am especially gratified to see the honest attempt to come to terms with research information. One of the most pleasing aspects is the continuing reference to research evidence which has been fed into the DSS. It is one of the more impressive usages of research by the department over the past few

431
years. Too often research evidence is ignored because it is inconvenient. It is rather nice to see policy being built upon it, and we welcome that approach.
Secondly, we agree that the scheme is an honest attempt to tackle what we agree is unacceptable: that single people, or a childless couple, face either very low pay or long periods of dependency. However, we doubt whether this scheme is the right way forward.
We welcome the innovation of pilot schemes. It is absolutely right that one should test such schemes and seek to learn from that experience. A sad aspect regarding social security is that it had to be all or nothing. We could never achieve that feedback. The innovation is to be welcomed and the Government are to be congratulated.
We also welcome one fact in the small print which intrigues me. If, in the course of the pilot scheme, a couple without children have a child, they can move from the earnings top-up to family credit, which is more generous, within the six-month period. When we sought to make a similar provision regarding the Child Support Agency, we were told that it was absolutely impossible to do anything until the six months were up. If family credit were determined at one level of maintenance and the partner withdrew that level of maintenance, the family still had to proceed on the original, artificially high assumptions. If the earnings top-up in the family credit can be adjusted in the course of the six-month trial period, I hope that that flexibility can be extended to other areas of social policy.
Finally, we welcome the announcement by the Government—it is a question I would have asked the Minister; I am pleased that he responded to the point—that payment will not be made through the wage packet. If it were just an administrative device, it might be less of a problem. But there is a real fear that the employer would have to take upon himself the task of inquiring into circumstances in an invasive way which we would find unacceptable.
I repeat this point. In the absence of there being any evidence that an earnings top-up will create additional new jobs—family credit has not done so—and in the absence of any wages floor to protect the position of the taxpayer, we are apprehensive about the route that the Government are travelling.
I turn now to some questions. The first is one which the Minister has to some extent answered but perhaps he could clarify my thinking on it. What would the total cost of the scheme be? He mentioned £500 million a year, with £25 million a year for this scheme, making £75 million over three years. In other words, that would be £1.5 billion over the same period of three years if the scheme were applied nationwide. We reached that figure by multiplying for the population across the country as a whole.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that throughout the Government's reports they assume in their examples a gross wage of £2.65 per hour for a single person over the age of 25? Most of the modelling is based on that, although in the Government's other document on the expenditure plans for 1995–96 and 1997–98 their
432
notional wage for the same age group is £3.50 an hour. Will the Minister confirm that every person over 25 will indeed receive £3.50 an hour? That would float them off the need for any in-work benefit at all on the Government's figures.
Thirdly, emphasising the point made by the noble Earl, I ask the Minister whether he can say what checks or monitoring there will be that employers will act responsibly and not cut wages? Will every employee of a company which has low-paid workers—perhaps in warehousing or whatever—married, with or without children, single, young or older, be eligible for and be able to claim in-work benefit? Will all employees know that?
We know that under the family credit scheme there appears to have been very little sensitiveness from the employer as to the effect on wages. The employer does not necessarily know whether the worker has children. However, now the employer will know that everyone in the company is entitled to and eligible for a top-up benefit: either the earnings top-up or the family credit. In that case, it will be an open invitation to the less scrupulous employer to drop wages where he will, knowing that either the earnings top-up or the family credit will take the strain. How will we know that the employer is not doing that? What will the Government do to stop employers doing it? What sanctions will be attached to it? As a condition of the earnings top-ups, will the Government consider ensuring that there is some element of training or education attached to such low-paid jobs so that we do not continue to subsidise what would or could become low-paid and degraded labour?
Fourthly, to revisit a subject which we have debated many times, why are the Government so insistent that the increase in costs and in top-up divides at the age of 25? Why is it age-based rather than household-based? Everyone in the Chamber knows that one's costs do not increase at the age of 26, nor are they less at 24. What matters is whether one is in a household with all the additional costs of housing, cleaning, council tax and the like. Surely that should determine the levels of the top-up benefit.
Fifthly, I wish to ask the Minister a question which bothered many of us when we were discussing the Jobseekers Bill. It is the 24-hour rule, about which I shall remind the House. Under JSA, if a person works for more than 24 hours, for whatever pay and even if it is below JSA figures, the partner loses eligibility for JSA. We said that that was perverse. Not only is there a means test for JSA but there is also an hours rule. Will the same apply to this benefit? If a partner not only earns more—which would clearly take him out of the top-up—but works for more than 24 hours, as with JSA, would it make the other person ineligible for in-work benefit, whatever the joint income might be?
Finally, I come to the crunch question. What additional extra jobs do the Government forecast will be created by what could be, if it were applied nationwide, a very substantial expenditure? We welcome the proposal with quite a lot of cautions and hesitation because at the moment all it will do is to top up the pay

433
of those currently in work. The justification at the end of the day is this: what additional jobs in the scheme will be created as a result of the benefit?
We wish the pilot scheme well. We believe that there are better and alternative pathways out of poverty, including, for example, the latest ones from the Labour Front Bench. They are for those under 25 and would offer not only a full-time job, but the work option of education and training, a voluntary placement or work in an environmental taskforce. Those are all the amendments for which we on this side pressed to be given through the JSA and which the Government, in our view foolishly, resisted. We welcome this.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have resisted the strong temptation to refer to the Opposition's proposals on the under-25s. However, since they have introduced them, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether she thinks that people can live on 60 per cent. of the benefit rates for the under-25s?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand. I believe that the noble Earl is referring to the sanctions attached to the proposals. The sanctions attached to the Labour Party's proposals are clear. If a young person, and only a young person, has available to him all four options—a full-time job, education and training, a voluntary placement or the environmental taskforce placement—and if he refuses all four, then, and only then, would the sanction come into play. In other words, if I may complete the argument, if the full-time job at reasonable pay is on offer but is refused, then the sanction would come into play. But it would not do so for the other schemes. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that information, which I knew. Can she answer the specific question? Does she think that people can live on the reduced benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is one way of putting the question. The other way is to ask whether it is reasonable to expect young people not to take advantage of a full-time job at decent pay, or an education opportunity, or a voluntary placement or a placement in an environmental taskforce. I share the view that if those options are available, every young person I know, like my son's friends, would be delighted to have opportunities that are currently not even faintly available to them. In that sense, apart from the aberrant and unusual case, we do not believe that there will be any problem of sanctions being invoked. Youngsters will have opportunities that young people in this country have not had for the past 20 years under this Government.
We wish the Government's scheme well, but at the end of the day such a scheme is necessary precisely because of the failure of the Government's economic policy.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I knew that this would be an interesting and stimulating debate. Although we have had only a limited number of
434
players—almost the usual ones when it comes to this kind of issue—that has not in any way diminished the interest in the debate. I am delighted to hear that the principle of piloting has been welcomed. The noble Earl tried to claim authorship of the idea and, after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I believe.
I would have liked to continue in this gentle mode for the rest of my speech, but I cannot resist saying that the imitation in the last part of the noble Baroness's speech is definitely the sincerest form of flattery. Clearly, she listened to my argument that young people should not have the option of being in the dependency culture. I put that argument to your Lordships little more than an hour ago, during Question Time. I am glad to recruit the noble Baroness to the ranks of those of us who believe that youngsters should not have an option. As I said this afternoon, they should continue in full-time education, have a job, go on one of the training places or the other places available. They should not have the option of deciding not to do any of those.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, are we therefore recruiting the Minister in support of the other options in our policy which mark the water between us: for instance, the voluntary sector option that he was vigorous in defeating when we discussed it in this House just a few months ago; the 16-hours rule inhibiting education and training for young people that he was vigorous in defeating in this House three months ago; or the environmental taskforce option that he was vigorous in defeating in this House just a few months ago? Can we welcome him as a willing recruit to those alternative options?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness ought not to try to push her luck too far. Certainly, I am more than delighted that she has come over to my side on so many issues. I am very pleased to hear it, see it and read it. Indeed I did so with some amazement given the number of verbal lashings that I received from her lips during the passage of the JSA Bill when we discussed these subjects and the fact that some people could be disentitled to benefit. I am glad at least to hear that the noble Earl is consistent in his arguments. But then I am told that the party opposite is now thinking the unthinkable for the third time since the last election on the subject of social security.
I promised myself that I should try not to be controversial this afternoon. However, the noble Baroness tempted me too much—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You are a failure!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My response to the sedentary interruption is that temptation such as that could not possibly be resisted—at least, not by me.
Perhaps I may try to answer the very many questions that I was asked on the subject of the earnings top-up scheme. The scheme is small in terms of proposed expenditure. I believe the noble Baroness's arithmetic is right: the experiment is costing £25 million a year. But were we to apply it nationwide, it would, as I said in my original speech, amount to something like £500 million a year. That is one of the reasons why we think it right to pilot

435
the scheme. The noble Baroness agreed with me, as did the noble Earl. To go nationwide with a scheme of this cost without being sure that it will deliver the goods, so to speak, would not be a sensible use of resources.
I thank my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for his contribution. He asked me to translate the £500 million into people. We estimate that scheme A, if introduced nationally, could help 85,000 couples and 185,000 single people; and that national scheme B could help 120,000 couples and 430,000 single people.
The noble Baroness asked me about the under-25s. We have been over this argument on a number of occasions. As I explained in my introductory remarks, by and large they have lower financial commitments; they also have lower earnings expectations as a reflection of their position in the labour market. Harking back to previous arguments on this subject, the noble Baroness also made the point about the hours rule for partners. Entitlement will be based on one person working over 16 hours, and on joint household income.
I was asked a large number of questions, and a short while ago I was trying to bring some logic to the subject. Perhaps I may start with questions about how we decided on the pilot areas. The noble Earl asked that, as did my noble friend. As I explained, we tried to select areas where the scheme would have the best chance of success. We designed it on an agreed range of objective criteria, about which we consulted.
The building blocks for the pilot locations are the travel-to-work areas. That is the statistical tool that identifies self-contained labour markets by examining the proportion of people living in an area who also work there, and vice versa. Quite clearly, it would not be a good thing to test a system in an area where a lot of travelling goes on outside it. Of course, an area where there is no travelling outside it can very rarely be found, but an attempt was made to study those areas where there was very little. We also identified areas where, as I said, we predicted the scheme would work. Relatively high unemployment and a relatively high proportion of vacancies were therefore on the shortlist of benchmarks that we used to test the areas. We published a list during consultation in July, and comments were then invited.
A number of factors were then looked at to judge the suitability. They related to the need to find areas within the group that were similar enough to be compared. We wanted to be able to make like-for-like comparisons. That is important if a valid test is to be carried out—for example, labour market types; population densities; size and types of firms in the areas. We also had to bear in mind the operational feasibility of the scheme. These are the kinds of matters that we took into account. We also selected areas that would produce results that could be extrapolated for the national scene. It is only fair to say that the research projects (to which I shall turn in a moment) will provide the answers needed to decide whether to go national. We are not committed to going national, but we shall be very much wiser at the end of the evaluation period. We are committed to testing to
436
see whether the scheme works. That includes seeing whether we have extra jobs. That is the basis on which the pilot selection was carried out.
I do not consider myself an expert in the field of research, but I gather there is little research to inform us directly on matters such as earnings top-up. However, some research studies have been done, and the background they provide will be very useful indeed. The research specifications for this particular project are out to tender. They invite proposals as to how to monitor changes in wage levels and employment. We expect that that will be achieved by a series of labour force surveys in the areas and by longitudinal surveys of the claimants themselves, as well as surveys of employers in the areas. That should provide us with a wealth of information. It should also be possible through the surveys to pick up some information on increases in consumption by recipients of the scheme, which may shed light on the other issues about which the noble Lord was concerned, the "ripple effect" as he called it. If a subtraction sum is done, it will be realised that something like £2½ million will be put into these areas through the scheme. That is not an inconsiderable amount of money.
The noble Earl asked about the interface between the tax and benefit systems. This side of the Budget, I shall say very little on the general question of taxation and taxation policy; but on his specific question about the interface, those leaving unemployment are issued with a P45(U) to take to their new employer. If emergency tax codes are applied, it is not necessarily to a new worker's disadvantage. The lower take-home pay will result in higher in-work benefit assessments. Normally, the new worker will have an estimate of future earnings, and in the top-up, like family credit, a notional tax code will be applied at ordinary, not emergency, rates. I hope that that is helpful.
My noble friend asked about the essential difference between schemes A and B. He is right to say that the average payment in the higher scheme is about £2 more. But averages do not reveal the whole picture. The higher rate scheme, because of its structure, will reach twice as many people as the low rate scheme. Therefore in practice the effects will be quite easy to distinguish. We expect independent researchers to be able to do so quite easily.
The noble Earl asked about some of the work incentive schemes that I have mentioned at this Dispatch Box over almost a year and a half, during which time I have been at the department. As I mentioned, the extension of housing benefit for an extra four weeks will apply from next April. I also mentioned the faster family credit to speed up payment of benefit; the national insurance holiday; and the jobfinder's grant of £200 which is now available nationally for the two-year unemployed. There is also the £5 disregard and the back-to-work bonus which begins to come into play. All these will help. Those of us who debate these issues all agree on the importance of the bridge between being out of work and getting into work and the costs of crossing that bridge. As I explained before, we hope that some of these measures will help the individual to make that cross-over.

437
The noble Baroness asked me whether the models were based on the gross wage of £2.65 an hour. I can tell her that the models were based on an examination of the full spectrum of wages and the levels were pitched in order to ensure that families with children still receive more money.
The noble Earl asked me a question about one of the rules about the responsibility for a child and who qualifies under it. Child benefit is paid to the person who is primarily responsible for the child. It can only ever be paid to one person. That is how responsibility for a child in earnings top-up and family credit provision is decided. A person in work and receiving child benefit would be able to claim family credit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I believe that the 1992 regulations allow the division of child benefit between separated parents with shared care. I have corresponded about that with his noble friend Lord Astor. The point I raise concerns the operation of those rules. I believe that it is not altogether satisfactory at present.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me if I first give an explanation in regard to the broad picture. I shall check later on the particular point about which he asked me. Perhaps he will allow me to finish my point.
The other working partner would be able to claim earnings top-up. We would not wish to disqualify from earnings top-up any person who has shared responsibility for the child. That means that the answer to the noble Earl's question—whatever has been the situation on previous rules or however he interprets them—is no; there ought not to be a difficulty on that point. It is either family credit or earnings top-up. There ought not to be somebody, so to speak, caught in the middle.
The noble Earl asked me about Regulation 7(4) and why only one person in a household may claim. That is simply a practical matter. Otherwise, earnings top-up would be taken into account as a resource in assessing someone else's entitlement to earnings top-up itself. I do not feel that it passes any judgment on marriage, cohabitation or anything else.
The noble Baroness suggested that family credit may take the strain of falling wages. Her argument might be more persuasive if family credit recipients remained static on the benefit for long periods. But, in fact, most couples receive family credit for only six months or a year. That rather discounts the idea that the benefit encourages low wages. But so far as concerns earnings top-up, that is one of the issues on which we shall expect the researchers to come up with some answers. That is the situation. Certainly, we have no evidence that employers take family credit into account when they decide on wage rates. We believe that employers will continue to pay what is necessary to recruit the quality, experience and skills that they need.
438
As I expected, we came toward the territory of the minimum wage versus these in-work benefits. Some, like the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, continue to argue that the minimum wage would be a more effective way of assisting low earners.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We do believe that it is a more effective way of helping low earners. The push of our main argument was that to adopt in-work benefits without a wage floor, a minimum wage, is to ask the taxpayer to pay the Bill for falling wages.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I answered the question about falling wages. There is no evidence that family credit acts in that way. We believe that employers pay what is necessary to recruit the kind of workforce that they want. Indeed, in 1994 a study by the Institute of Manpower Studies showed that there was no evidence that the availability of family credit influences wage levels.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again and it is kind of him to give way. The point that I am trying to make is that family credit at the moment is payable only to a small proportion of the workforce. The employer will not necessarily know which people are claiming family credit because he does not inquire into their circumstances. But when, as now, possibly every blue-collar member of a small company, whether single, in a couple or with children, would all receive a top-up benefit, then we fear that the situation would be very different. It will depress wages because the employer will know that the taxpayer is taking the strain.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I covered that point in some detail by saying that the wage rates and the wage position in the areas involved will be one of the factors that the researchers will be asked to examine. They will be able to make comparisons with the control areas where the pilot exercise is not taking place. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that, although we do not agree with the premise underlying her argument, we shall take steps to put the matter to the test of the researchers.
Let me return to the general argument about either underpinning in-work benefits with a minimum wage or having a minimum wage instead of in-work benefits. A recent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies said that from tests that were done on the minimum wage:
"the richest 30% of the population actually [have] a larger net gain than the poorest 30 per cent. This is because … the large majority of those on very low wages are members of a family or household in which other members are earning a higher wage … those people most affected would be young single people living at home with their parents and the wives of working husbands … this means that the effects on poverty and inequality would be small".
I believe that the argument goes a good deal wider than that.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two or three statistics about three countries. Country A has 68 per cent. of its population of working age in employment; it has 8·2 per cent. unemployment, as measured by the International Labour Organisation; and it has a 1·6 per cent. youth unemployment rate. Your Lordships may

439
feel that that is not a very satisfactory position. But country B has only 60 per cent. of its working age population in work; it has 11.4 per cent. unemployment; and it has 27 per cent. youth unemployment. Country C has only 45 per cent. of its working age population in employment; it has 22·2 per cent. unemployment; and it has 40·6 per cent. youth unemployment, as measured by the International Labour Organisation.
If one were to listen to the Opposition, one would be inclined to think that country C, with the worst record, was Britain and that the Social Chapter and a minimum wage would bring us to country A. But I fear that the noble Earl will spoil my next line.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware that all that he is saying is that the philosophies of which we complain are international.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to that in a moment but perhaps I may just finish my point. In fact, country A is the country without a minimum wage and which has not signed up to the Social Chapter. It is in fact the UK. The other two countries are France and Spain. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, seemed well aware of my point almost before I started to make it.
That brings me to my general point, which the noble Earl allows me to make. At one stage in the noble Baroness's speech she told us that all would be well—motherhood and apple pie would be in vogue—if only the Labour Party sat on these Benches, and unemployment would be non-existent. Those were great promises. But the fact is that unemployment is a world-wide problem. Governments of all complexions throughout the world have to tackle it. As I said, citing two of our close neighbours on the Continent, we have a markedly better record than they do; but we can and must do better. All the schemes that I have mentioned, including the earnings top-up, are designed to try to attack the problems of unemployment and to help those people who have low skills and low earning capacity to get into work.
We know from all the surveys—the noble Baroness has told me about it on a number of occasions and we agree absolutely—that once a person gets into work he or she has a far better chance of getting into better and higher paid work than if he remains unemployed. I believe that this pilot will help us judge whether this scheme will be a way to advance that objective.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC Beef and Veal Regime: ECC Report
4.50 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the EC Beef and Veal Regime (13th Report, HL Paper (1994–95) 81).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest in the subject of this debate in that I am a director of a farming company which produces, among other things, cattle for the beef market.
Community support for beef and veal was introduced in 1968. When the European Communities Committee last reported to the House in 1989, we drew attention to the fact that, over the previous 10 years, production of beef had consistently exceeded consumption and that massive surpluses had built up. However, largely as a result of the 1992 CAP reforms, the beef mountain has been virtually eliminated. All remaining intervention stocks are expected to be sold off this year.
One may ask why we needed to hold another inquiry. It was done for these reasons. First, it is clear that if nothing further is done to reform the beef regime, surpluses may well return towards the end of the 1990s, for the reasons set out in the report. Those are that beef production is cyclical and the next peak of the beef cycle is expected by the Commission to be in 1997–98; that beef consumption has declined in the EU as well as in the UK. People are eating less beef and more pork and poultry, which are relatively cheaper. There is, too, some customer anxiety on the health aspects of meat eating. A further reason is that progressive limitation on exports are imposed under GATT which will at the same time allow for more cattle imports into the EU.
The second reason for holding the inquiry was that the regime is an extremely expensive one. After cereals it forms the next largest item in EAGGF expenditure, forecast this year to reach over 5 billion ecus. I do not need to remind your Lordships that an ecu is worth around 80p.
Thirdly, the Commission and Council of Ministers are to review all livestock quotas in 1996. Fourthly, consideration is taking place this year in the Commission of the agricultural implications of enlargement to accommodate accession by the central and eastern European countries. Fifthly, our attention was drawn to the report of the Court of Auditors which focused on the beef intervention system and the opportunities for fraud. Lastly, veal production and the export of live calves give rise to strong animal welfare concerns.
We therefore felt that, if changes are to be made to the beef regime, they are better made before surpluses begin to build up again. At this stage, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Clerk to the European Select Committee, Mr. Pownall, for so ably seeing us through this inquiry and for his work on the report in a period when Sub-Committee D was without a clerk of its own. I am grateful too for the work and support of my sub-committee colleagues and for the response by the Ministry, which is broadly supportive of our recommendations.
I turn now to the report where Part I introduces the subject. Part II outlines the beef regime as it now is, reflecting the changes made since it was introduced. A fuller guide is provided by Annex A of the memorandum by MAFF on page 4 of the evidence section. It can be summarised as follows: the external mechanisms of the regime are import charges and export refunds. The first give protection to such an extent that imports of beef are in practice restricted to the relatively small amount of imports made under preferential access

441
terms. Export refunds are, in effect, subsidies enabling Community surpluses to be exported competitively to countries outside the EU with lower market prices.
Internally, direct producers' assistance is provided, first, by means of the beef special premium—BSPwhich is paid in two instalments on each of a producer's first 90 male beef animals within a defined age range. Expenditure on that scheme is controlled by means of a regional ceiling on claims. Secondly, it is provided through the suckler cow premium scheme payable annually on each cow forming part of a specialised beef breeding herd. There is a ceiling on the suckler cow scheme expenditure in that payments are limited by individual producer's quotas, calculated according to the number of cows in that producer's herd in 1992. Indirect or end-price support for beef consists of intervention buying whereby excess supplies are purchased and removed from the market for eventual resale.
Part II also describes the pattern of beef and veal production and the tables and figures illustrate the cost of the regime, the decline since 1992 of intervention buying and the relative production of the member states. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the fact that the greater proportion of beef and veal originates from dairy cows.
Part III sets out the views of witnesses on the main issues raised. In that regard I thank those witnesses for the care with which they presented their evidence.
In the opinion section, Part IV of the report, we call for early reform of the regime and suggest that it should be done in a manner consistent with our previous CAP reform recommendations. We had to consider what reforms were radical enough to make an impact on the budget, but not so drastic as not to be practical and achievable. At the same time we were mindful of the relative importance of beef production in the economies of member states, especially in the UK and of Scotland in particular, where it is the single most important sector of their agriculture.
In our 1991 report on CAP reform we called for a lower degree of protection of the Community's agriculture with these words:
"The prime means of reform should be reduction in the levels of agricultural support, progressively and to a set time scale towards World market prices".
As I said earlier, end-price support for beef and veal consists of intervention buying. The 1992 CAP reforms provided for progressive intervention price reductions (by 15 per cent. over five years) and a halving of the quantity of beef that could be brought into intervention over the same period. That was effective, as I explained, in cutting down surpluses. What we now recommend is that intervention should be phased out altogether, leaving only safety-net intervention as a last resort in an emergency.
Looking back again at our 1991 CAP reform report, we concluded that,
"Reform of the CAP would be facilitated by the conclusion of an agreement in GATT",
and that,
"cuts in support prices will enable adjustments to be made in the levels of export refund payments and in import controls".
The recent GATT agreement will soon impose limits on the volume and value of beef exports. That and the reduction of price support by cutting out intervention in the manner we recommend will go a long way towards reducing export refunds. These, to quote again from our 1991 report,
"are one of the most objectionable of all CAP instruments. Not only does their existence invite manipulation by fraudsters, but they seriously destabilise World markets".
The last thing that can be said about the beef special premium is that it is uncomplicated. In the UK, where we are meticulous in these matters, this scheme together with the refinements attached, such as stocking densities and extensification premiums, is very complicated and very expensive to run. Furthermore, the total cost to the EAGGF budget of the BSP alone in 1995 is forecast at £1 billion. Accordingly we recommend that the BSP scheme be abolished. We say that if that would not be negotiable, then we should at least cut out the second instalment of the premium payment. We also say that the BSP should be made easier to administer by removing the 90-head limit. That would not increase expenditure, given the regional ceiling already in place.
The suckler cow premium scheme is forecast also to cost the EAGGF budget £1 billion in 1995, so we took a very hard look at it. It too is complicated and expensive to administer. We were, however, impressed by evidence, first, that it is those herds supported by this scheme which produce the best quality beef and, secondly, that beef breeding enterprises fulfil a vital environmental and economic role in the poorer upland areas. For these reasons we recommend that the suckler cow premium scheme should remain in place, though we see merit in replacing individual quotas by regional ceilings.
The European Union provides support for the marketing and promotion of quality beef so as to stimulate and encourage demand. We commend the European quality beef scheme and recommend its extension.
On the subject of veal, we applaud the efforts made by the UK Government in giving the lead to moves towards ending the crate system of rearing veal calves and in promoting and in reaching agreement at the June agriculture council on a framework of law covering the welfare of animals transported throughout the Community. We note the very small UK market in veal, at about 2,000 tonnes compared with 700,000 tonnes in the rest of the EU. Of this 2,000 tonnes, only 400 is from British farms. Nevertheless, we applaud the efforts of MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission towards promoting and expanding consumption of home-produced veal. This will be uphill work until consumers are educated to accept the pink colour of veal produced in a "welfare-friendly" system.
Finally, for all the reasons which I have put before your Lordships on many occasions, the momentum of CAP reform must be kept up. I hope that this report sets out in a convincing manner why further changes to the beef and veal regime should now be made. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the EC Beef and Veal Regime (13th Report, HL Paper (1994–95) 81)—(Lord Middleton.)
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships' permission to leave before the debate is over. I have to attend a memorial service of a very dear friend of mine and I should hate to miss it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his comprehensive introduction of the report. It was so comprehensive that there is very little left for anyone else to add considering that we were in agreement in the committee on the recommendations put forward. I thank the noble Lord for his kind but firm chairmanship of the committee. It was a pleasure to work with him. I am sorry to say that I have now been ousted from the agriculture sub-committee, so I shall miss his chairmanship in the future.
It is always difficult to follow the introduction of a report. All I can do is highlight what I feel are some of its most important recommendations. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, people may be entitled to ask why we have inquired into the beef regime in view of the fact that the surplus beef in intervention seems to have been disposed of since the CAP reforms in 1992. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, there are disturbing forecasts of more surpluses at the end of the 1990s. An additional problem arises with regard to the implications of the enlargement of the Community to the east. It is therefore the right time to look into the beef regime. For once it would be nice if we could take action before something goes wrong rather than wait until it does as it is then much more difficult to deal with the problem.
The committee was sensitive to the problems of an industry which by its very nature requires long-term planning. You cannot switch in and out of beef production in the same way as you might switch types of cereal production or even go in and out of cereal production. In consequence, we realised that the sudden and complete abolition of the beef special premium is not feasible at this moment. However, there are strong arguments, as the report points out, for beginning the process of abolishing the beef special premium by starting with the second beef premium payment. Changing to a one-off premium would have beneficial effects but it might be necessary for a transitional period for the first premium to be somewhat increased in order to reduce the worst effects on the agricultural industry. However, that would be only for a transitional period because the aim is to abolish the beef special premium.
The reason for abolition was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. It would reduce the administrative burdens both on the industry and on the Government. It would therefore create savings. The second beef premium is an inducement to keep cattle longer than necessary, sometimes giving rise to the production of lower quality beef. We want to produce the highest possible quality of beef.
It would mean substantial savings for the Community budget if export refunds could be reduced—in my view, they should be abolished altogether—because the 1995 forecast of the cost of export refunds is 1.351 million ecus. That is almost one-fifth of the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I agree with the
444
noble Lord that perhaps the most important effect of reducing export refunds is the reduction in the risk of fraud. It would also help the administration if the limit for the payment of the beef special premium was reduced, so long as the regional ceiling on production was kept in place.
The noble Lord also mentioned the suckler cow premium. That form of support has two beneficial consequences. First, as the noble Lord mentioned, it is the source of high quality beef production. Surely that is what we want to support. Secondly, it fulfils a vital environmental and economic role in the upland areas. I presume that one could argue that the environmental and economic benefits should come from a different budget to the CAP. However, given that that does not happen at the moment, I would hate to see the support removed until we have sorted out the question of from which pocket in the Community those environmental benefits should be paid. I agree that the quota system should be abolished and replaced by a regional ceiling.
On animal welfare, I pay tribute to the Government's efforts in achieving some agreement in Europe on the transport of live cattle and for ending the veal crate system in the United Kingdom. However, we still have a long way to go. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to make that effort. We must press for improvements. However, as long as we have dairy herds in this country we will produce a large number of calves. Much effort will have to go into promoting what is called "welfare friendly veal". I am told that it is difficult to persuade people that welfare friendly veal, which is not as white as imported veal, is as good or as tasty. From personal experience, I find that it has a better flavour than that funny white stuff that comes in across our borders. In particular, we must persuade the catering industry that welfare friendly veal makes very good eating. Every citizen in the country can help the farming industry. Whenever we go to a restaurant or supermarket we should ask for English veal. In that way we can do an enormous amount to help our agriculture industry. I commend the report to your Lordships.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, consideration of this report in your Lordships' House has been somewhat delayed yet we on these Benches regard it as still highly relevant. The report strikes a cautious note, but it is progressive in its general thinking. As always, clarity of presentation features in a report from the Select Committee on the European Communities. Only occasionally in this document do I notice what I would describe as a slightly equivocal note. The report states, for example, that the beef market is in better shape. That may be so, but the shadow of BSE is still very much with us here in Britain.
Quotas are due for review in 1996 and the Commission is forecasting a build-up of stocks in 1997 and 1998. Setting a timescale towards world market prices is not without risk given a seven-year production cycle. One recalls, if one is old enough, the serious world price fluctuations in the 1950s when the United

445
Kingdom deficiency payments scheme applied; for example, prices of South American imports sometimes rose sharply and the additional supply estimates that were necessitated gave rise to considerable parliamentary rows.
Details of the common agricultural policy costs of the present regime for beef and veal are given in paragraph 40. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, have already referred to them. The beef and veal regime is still costly. It is wise to emphasis the sensitivities of the regime. Current intervention usage is reduced but, in our opinion, that position could change. The evidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (which is endorsed in the report at paragraph 48) favours further controls on the intervention mechanisms which were started in 1992. We wonder whether that is still MAFF's view.
Again, the report supports MAFF, as opposed to the arguments advanced by the farmers' unions for both England and Wales and for Scotland, in seeking to phase out quotas which were described by MAFF as both cumbersome and restraining. We note the proposal in paragraph 46 that individual suckler cow premium quota allocations should be replaced by regional ceilings.
Turning to export refunds, all parties accept that the export refund system is a potential source of fraud. Indeed, MAFF's evidence to that effect is unequivocal, even though the refund system is operated by the Intervention Board. The stability of the Community regime rests on regular exports and costs are high. The GATT agreement will ultimately restrict the volume and value of beef exports, but one wonders what effect those restrictions will have on the European Union market, especially a market perhaps augmented by east European imports. If one were to suggest that export refunds would be better controlled if the Intervention Board had its own marketing arm, one would doubtless be told that that would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome. Nevertheless, one cannot help reflecting that dire and continuously serious situations may call for drastic remedies such as a measure of direct selling.
I turn now to BSE. The slow decline in new cases following the measures taken by agriculture departments give some cause for hope. Exports, as well as domestic trade, heavily depend on the continuance of that trade.
Turning to animal welfare, we too congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their hard fight in the Agricultural Council for better rules for animal welfare during animal transport. The directive 95/29 is the result and the deadline for the implementation of that directive is 31st December 1996. The United Kingdom consultation process is now underway. Parts of the directive are straightforward; for example, on loading densities and improved enforcement methods. However, other aspects such as the licensing of transporters and competence requirements for hauliers and handlers are complex but essential. If the United Kingdom could increase exports of meat on the hook, the long-term position would be more satisfactory. That leads me to ask where the responsibility rests for the promotion of export sales on the hook as opposed to the live animal trade.
446
The MLC has its European offices in major EU countries. Food from Britain is also export-oriented. Of course, the buyer is sovereign here as elsewhere, but marketing inducements have a part to play. One hopes that that aspect of the problem is not forgotten in the welter of information on this question which sometimes comes our way.
The changing character of our domestic retailing scene continues to emphasise the dominance of multiple supermarkets. Their share of red meat sales is now 54 per cent., and five companies supply 48 per cent. of that. That represents market power in any language, not only buying but selling, and especially in determining gross profit margins. Central packing of meat by multiples is 65 per cent. That information comes by way of the annual MLC report published a few days ago. In that connection, trading trends are also important.
I turn to veal, and I note that paras. 50 and 52 of the report refer to UK sales of veal. That question has already been touched upon by both previous speakers. Even the "welfare friendly" variety of veal has disappointing sales. While there is scope to increase sales, and while the ending of the veal crate system should help exports, if the EU can be persuaded to end that system, a surplus situation seems likely to persist and yet the production of male calves will continue.
In that connection, the work of the Hannah Research Institute in Scotland, which is government supported, is of importance. It is aimed at extending indefinitely the period of lactation, thereby obviating the need for dairy cows to produce calves annually. As the noble Earl who speaks on Scottish affairs in your Lordships' House has responsibility also for agriculture in Scotland, it may be of interest to have a progress report on that research, especially as I believe that the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place is at present undertaking a comprehensive study of the UK milk industry.
We have had an interesting debate, even if the number of speakers is disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, presented the committee's report in an excellent way. We look forward, without any trepidation whatever, to hearing what the noble Lord has to say about the Select Committee's endeavours.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Middleton and his committee on the thoroughness of their analysis of this complex regime. The committee took evidence from the wide spectrum of interests involved in the beef sector. It was faced with a large number of sometimes conflicting arguments, but it has succeeded in producing a report which sets out clear views on the regime and ideas for change. The Government welcome the report and agree with its underlying theme that the beef and veal regime is expensive and badly needs to be further reformed. The Government have long been critical of it.
High support prices in the Community encourage the production of large surpluses, the disposal of which, generally for export, is exceedingly costly. Not only does that entail a very high budgetary cost but it also works against the interests of both domestic and

447
industrial consumers. The Government believe that the long-term aim must be the development of a more market-oriented CAP with, inter alia, a planned, phased reduction in support levels, including direct compensatory payments to farmers such as the beef special premium. We also agree with the committee that export refunds are too expensive.
We therefore welcome the fact that they have been constrained by the GATT agreement and that the Commission is taking this constraint seriously. Indeed it has led to significant reductions in beef refund rates in the past few months, most recently on 18th November by 25 per cent. across the board.
We share also the committee's concerns over fraud and agree that EU controls on refunds must be sufficiently vigorous to counter that. We share the committee's concern that increased production, falling consumption and GATT limitations on exports could lead to a build-up of beef surpluses between now and the end of the century.
The 1992 reforms have certainly been successful in reducing surpluses—beef intervention stocks have fallen from over 1 million tonnes barely four years ago to less than 20,000 tonnes today, as my noble friend said, but that may be only a temporary respite. The Government therefore welcome the committee's endorsement of our proposals to limit further the use of intervention and for phasing out so-called "normal" intervention, leaving "safety net" intervention for emergencies.
We welcome the committee's support for our aim of removing the 90-head limit on beef special premium claims and for replacing individual suckler cow premium quotas with national or regional ceilings. We continue to press for those changes but have not so far gained sufficient support from other member states to make their realisation a viable negotiating possibility.
We agree also with the committee's conclusion that a further supplement to the suckler cow premium from national funds is not justifiable.
So far as the second payment of beef special premium is concerned, the Government remain to be convinced that the case for abolition has been established. In particular, we are concerned that it will be difficult to devise a support system based on a single payment which is financially acceptable to the UK. The extensive production of beef from grass, as in the UK, would be likely to be disadvantaged relative to producers rearing intensive beef on cereals, as in Germany, Spain or Italy. That extensive production should be supported was a key principle underlying the 1992 reform of the beef regime.
The Government welcome the committee's endorsement of our efforts to promote in Europe the case for "welfare-friendly" veal. The Government are continuing to work hard in seeking an end to the cruel veal crate systems across Europe. At the same time, we have been looking at the scope for increasing the market for welfare-friendly veal in this country. Together with the Meat and Livestock Commission and producers, we have been encouraging caterers and retailers to look more favourably at the welfare-friendly UK product.
448
That work includes new recipe development and new cutting techniques to make the best use of the whole carcass.
On BSE, the Government agree with the committee that beef markets currently closed on account of unfounded fears over BSE should be opened up. British beef is safe. There is no evidence whatsoever that BSE can infect humans, and any remote theoretical risk should be eliminated by the control measures that we have taken.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, yes, BSE cases have started to reduce very quickly. They are falling by about 40 per cent. a year in total. In the younger age groups of cattle they are falling much faster than that. We believe that all our predictions on how the epidemic would pan out will be realised and that we shall see an end of it before too long.
The Government agree with the committee that the UK is well placed to meet the demand for high quality beef and they welcome the effort which the Meat and Livestock Commission has put into the European quality beef scheme. They agree also that the quality beef specification should include Fat Class 4 and will continue to argue for that in Brussels.
Regarding the committee's suggestion that the scheme should be extended, the Government have yet to be persuaded that such an extension would represent good value for money. The EC agricultural budget is already overstretched. Moreover, the evidence that the current scheme has increased beef consumption (thereby reducing expenditure on intervention and export refunds) is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, given that the EC-funded promotion scheme exists, the Government will do all in their power to maximise the UK's share of total expenditure.
The committee referred to its 1991 report on the Development and Future of the CAP. The rural White Paper makes the Government's view of the present CAP very clear: it is costly, inefficient and wasteful. It disadvantages consumers and the food industry and does not pay due regard to environmental considerations. What the Government want to see is an efficient, prosperous and outward-looking agricultural industry which is able to safeguard and enhance the rural environment. The key to achieving that lies with progressive reductions in production-related support and the eventual abolition of supply controls. Remaining support should be better targeted towards environmental and other specific objectives, such as retaining farming in the uplands.
Improving the CAP along those lines should be of benefit not only to farmers but to all sectors of the rural economy. Equally, however, one must accept that achieving change will be slow and difficult. Most member states continue to feel that the 1992 reforms were painful enough and do not want to contemplate further change. However, the Government's aim is to take every opportunity to push the CAP in the right direction, using the conclusions of the CAP Review Group to further this aim.

449
I am conscious that I may not have replied to all the points made in the debate, in particular to some of those made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I shall read Hansard and write to the noble Lord if there is anything further I need to say.
Your Lordships' committees enjoy an excellent, unrivalled reputation in the EU. This report's thorough and effective analysis of the beef and veal regime will, we trust, prove to be a stimulus for change and a point of reference for years to come.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the report and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his reply.
There appears to be agreement with the committee's general conclusion that the beef regime is expensive and now is the right time for a further review before surpluses begin to build up again. I was grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for assuring us in his response to our report that the Government will continue to press the point with the Commission and with other member states. It is very important that the pressure is maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to BSE. I did not refer to it when I spoke for the sake of brevity and because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would refer to it, as indeed he did. Perhaps I may add my own inexpert comment that the control measures insisted upon by the ministry are probably more than adequate provided they are properly carried out. It is in everyone's interest that the greatest care is taken that the BSE measures are rigorously supervised and enforced.
As we said in our 1991 report on CAP reform, governments in the member states must recognise that perpetuation of protectionism in agriculture is neither in the interests of society as a whole nor of the taxpayers and consumers who fund the CAP.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vienna Document 1994 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1995
5.32 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report (1994–95) from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to confer privileges and immunities on observers, inspectors, evaluators and auxiliary personnel in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Vienna Document of the Negotiations on Confidence and Security Building Measures. The Vienna Document 1994, which was adopted on 28th November 1994,
450
integrates a new set of confidence and security building measures. These build on those adopted in the earlier Vienna Document 1992, which it supersedes and with which your Lordships will be familiar.
Agreement by the 53 states of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe to the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 is a welcome enhancement of military transparency and predictability throughout Europe. It has a particular role to play in reducing the risk of confrontation and tension.
A necessary component in any arms control regime is the ability to monitor compliance with the regime's obligations. In the case of the Vienna Document 1994, this is done by means of observations, evaluations and short-notice on-site challenge inspections carried out by representatives of individual OSCE states. The document requires that those certain persons mentioned previously are granted during their mission privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
The number of missions to the United Kingdom is not very high. We are liable to receive up to three inspections and two evaluation visits a year. Observations are by invitation and are linked to the size of military exercises, demonstrations of new types of military equipment and visits to combat air-bases.
This order is necessary for the United Kingdom to give effect in domestic law to these provisions on privileges and immunities. The order is being made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report (1994–95) from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone who, unfortunately, is unable to be present. However, she has authorised me to say that we on these Benches give the order a friendly welcome.
We recognise that the order is in pursuance of other major decisions. The Minister's explanation put some flesh on its bones and explained why it is being put forward and what it is hoped it will achieve. It relates to confidence-building measures during a time of change in regimes throughout Europe and the world, and it is important that everything is done to strengthen the confidence that one nation has in another.
I noted in particular the use of the word "transparency". That is the vogue word used to describe making something clear, seeing clearly and understanding what is going on. Obviously, the purport of the order is to be welcomed and it is in that spirit that we welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock.

  General Government Expenditure
  General Government Expenditure
  Abortions: Statistics
  Abortions: Statistics
  Mental Health Services: London
  Mental Health Services: London
  Prostate, Testicular and Breast Cancers: Data
  Prostate, Testicular and Breast Cancers: Data
  Persons on Remand: Statistics
  Persons on Remand: Statistics
  The Tote
  The Tote
  Police Scientific Development Branch: Future
  Police Scientific Development Branch: Future
  Scottish Research Establishments: Reviews
  Scottish Research Establishments: Reviews
  MAFF Research Establishments: Reviews
  MAFF Research Establishments: Reviews
  Specified Bovine Offals
  Specified Bovine Offals
  A.303 Improvement Scheme: Archaeological Consultant
  A.303 Improvement Scheme: Archaeological Consultant