Sitting of 16 October 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Madam Speaker: Before we proceed to questions, hon. Members will wish to know that it is intended that tributes will be paid to the late Lord Home of the Hirsel immediately after Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Regional Orchestras
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her policies concerning regional orchestras. [35898]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Arts Council is currently responsible for formulating policy on regional orchestras. Following a consultation process undertaken in association with the BBC, the Arts Council recently published its orchestral strategy document, setting out the council's goals for orchestral activity over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Jones: May I warn the Minister that when the Department of the Environment cuts its grants to local councils, they then cut their grants to regional orchestras? Does he know, for example, that on Merseyside one
    2
    council has ceased to provide grant and another has halved its grant to the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra? Does he agree that revenue support is crucial for effectiveness in regional orchestras' futures? Does he also agree that the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic is a world-class orchestra with a charismatic maestro and is really delivering the goods?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, it is a wonderful orchestra. The hon. Gentleman may recall that I had the privilege of hearing it give a stunning performance in May, through the kindness and courtesy of the hon. Gentleman and his wife. Its new chief executive, Mr. Anthony Lewis-Crosby, is also doing a marvellous job.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's point about local government, Liverpool council gives the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic but £80,000 a year while Manchester gives the Halle £500,000 and Birmingham gives £1 million to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra. It might be a good thing if Liverpool gave a little more than £80,000 to such a wonderful orchestra.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that regional youth orchestras are particularly vulnerable to cuts in local authority support? Does he agree that such orchestras are an important part of the infrastructure of music in this country, as they provide many of the very talented musicians of the future? Will he examine that issue and ensure that the existence of the excellent regional youth orchestra network is not compromised?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an important point: youth orchestras are of exceptional importance. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that this year the Arts Council is spending more on music than it has ever spent before—some £44 million—but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the council's attention.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she now has for future allocation of lottery funds. [35900]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Parliament decided that each of the five good causes should benefit equally from the proceeds of the national lottery. I see no reason to change this at present.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Secretary of State understand that almost the entire British public at every level consider that the way in which the Government have organised this expenditure of public funds is a public disgrace? Will she see whether there are other ways in which other people's money could be spent which they would find acceptable, whatever the Government may think?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the way in which the funds were distributed—through the five independent distribution bodies—was debated carefully in the House. The fact is that the lottery has been the most remarkable success: it has raised more money for good causes than anyone expected. I am sure that, like me, the hon. and learned Gentleman looks forward to the caring charities making their awards later this month.
    Mr. Jessel: As the lottery is giving widespread pleasure and excitement to large numbers of people while raising massive new sums for thousands upon thousands of good causes and also producing some useful revenue for the Government, is it not time that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) stopped carping and complaining and gave the Government credit for a brilliant national achievement?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Of course it is characteristic of the Labour party that it is unable to welcome such a formidable success. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who asked the question, failed to recognise that in Leicester the lawn tennis club, the Haymarket theatre, Thurmaston parish council, Leicester rowing club and Loxton leisure services all received lottery money. It is characteristic of the Opposition to look for the cloud rather than the silver lining.
    Mr. Maxton: Is it not absurd that major arts organisations in Scotland such as Scottish Opera and Glasgow Citizens Theatre should face a major funding crisis at a time when so much money is coming into the lottery and is available to the arts? Is it not time that the rules on funding for the arts were changed so that at least some revenue spending as well as capital spending can be funded?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that already in Scotland the Scottish Arts Council has made 66 grants totalling almost £6 million. I agree that overall, in the country as a whole, the figures are 462 grants and £190 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have been having discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council as to whether there are ways in which, as the lottery money unfolds, it would make sense to modify the rules. However, nobody should underestimate the phenomenal contribution to the arts as a result of this very successful lottery.
    Mr. Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend not feel ashamed of the way in which, in the media today, she tried to defend the allocation of £21 million to Sadler's Wells, bearing in mind that two medical charities in which I am
    4
    involved have got nothing? Does she agree that the best thing she could do is to say to the Chancellor, "If you want to make public expenditure cuts, close my Department and the Arts Council and everything that goes with it"?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have been looking forward to debating this matter with my hon. Friend and I hope that he will come on a number of visits with me. I was recently at Sadler's Wells watching some of the youngsters rehearsing ballet and I thought particularly of my hon. Friend and wondered whether he would do me the honour of coming with me on such occasions. The constituency Member, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), may wish to debate with my hon. Friend some of the detail involved in the prospects for inner-city regeneration and the popularity of ballet, to which some 2.9 million people went last year.
    I share my hon. Friend's wish that medical charities should be supported, and when the Caring Charities Board starts to make its announcements later in the month I hope, like my hon. Friend, that medical charities will have a part to play.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that Camelot, the operator of the lottery, is currently taking 1 per cent. as pure profit and that that percentage will inevitably rise as its start-up costs diminish? That means, does it not, that Camelot's profit for this year alone will stand at some £50 million? Would it not be far better for the operation of the lottery to be put on a not-for-profit basis, with the money saved going to charities whose fund raising is currently suffering grievously?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Labour Members never learn and never change. They have this ideological hostility to any organisation ever making a profit. I commend to the House today's report by Peter Davis of Oflot in which he further discusses the award of the operating licence to Camelot. That was commended by no less a body than the National Audit Office. Writing of Camelot, Mr. Davis said that it
    "offered the greatest contribution to the good causes … and retained the lowest percentage of turnover to cover its operating costs and profits."
    The Labour party threatens to undermine the good that is going to good causes because of its ideological opposition to anybody ever making a profit.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when the distribution of lottery money was debated in the House there was virtually no opposition to the present system? Will she try to ensure that in future the charities board gets a better record and reports more regularly, and that all the announcements by the various grant-making bodies are co-ordinated? Would that not reduce much of the current criticism?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's reminding me that those matters were debated thoroughly by the House, and the independence of the distributing bodies was emphasised by both sides. We are now reaching the stage at which the flow of good announcements is such that everyone is having constantly to amend the figures: 1,432 projects have now received help to the tune of £545 million. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Caring Charities Board has had to work

    5
    hard to establish procedures for the distribution of money, but the caring charities receive £300 million a year which they could not otherwise have expected.

    Youth Sport
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional funding she will make available for youth sport. [35901]
    Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council will make available, additionally to the £4 million already spent on youth sport, an extra £1 million to enable trainee and serving teachers to obtain coaching qualifications. It will also set up a £2 million challenge fund to promote formal links between clubs and schools. Sportsmatch will be earmarking £1 million of its funding for school projects and, within the rules, we intend to make maximum use of the national lottery.
    Mr. Hain: Are the Government considering additional funding for youth boxing? After James Murray's tragic death—the second death of a boxer in Britain in 18 months, on top of all the other serious injuries—should not the Government insist that the provision of any public money is conditional on a root and branch reform of boxing, which could perhaps include a ban on punches to the head, the prevention of dangerous dehydration and any other measures necessary to put safety first? Without such reform, should not boxing be banned altogether?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly do not agree that boxing should be banned altogether. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point at a tragic time. The Sports Council does not give any money to youth boxing, although Sportsmatch has given some which has been matched by the private sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, after the tragedy on Saturday, the British Boxing Board of Control is conducting a full inquiry. After the tragic death of Bradley Stone 18 months ago, an independent working party was set up under the neurologist Peter Richards. It has completed its report and a summary is published today; the full report will be published in November. I think that that would be a good time to look again at the findings of the two reports.
    Mr. Dykes: Bearing in mind his well-known interest in cricket, will my hon. Friend the Minister, through the Department for Education and Employment and the particular organisers, say something about the programme for reviving cricket in schools in the Greater London area and, indeed, in further education institutions? What progress has been made?
    Mr. Sproat: In respect of improving the opportunities for young people to play cricket, the paper that we published on 14 July spelled out clearly the fact that cricket is one of the games that we wish to encourage most. I mentioned in my original answer the £2 million that the Sports Council is to make available to promote links between clubs and schools; cricket clubs will, of course, be among those which will benefit.
    Mrs. Mahon: Further to the original question, which dealt with making more money available for youth sports, does the Minister agree that making that money available, especially in deprived areas, could do much to prevent youngsters from getting into trouble in the first place so that we would not need the rather ridiculous statements
    6
    made by the Home Secretary to the effect that he wants to lock up people for longer? Would it not be better to make funds available at an early stage and give youngsters somewhere decent to play sport?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I agree entirely with the first part of the hon. Lady's question. In fact, her suggestion is one of the prime moving dynamics behind the consultation paper. I want more young people to have better access to sporting facilities. [Interruption.] I heard someone mention the selling of school playing fields. We are, I hope, going to make the Sports Council a statutory consultee so that no school playing field can be sold without that body having its say. We also intend to allow schools, with their local communities, to buy back land to make even more sports facilities available for young people.

    Tourism
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about tourism in the midlands. [35902]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Tourism is an industry of vital importance to the midlands, as it is throughout Britain. In the midlands it provides 240,000 jobs and generates revenue of at least £900 million.
    All parts of the country will benefit from Government initiatives to assist the tourism industry to become more competitive. These were announced in the document "Tourism: competing with the best", published by my Department earlier this year.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that overseas tourists should not confine their visits to London, but should go to parts of the midlands? Does she further agree that attractions such as Alton Towers in my constituency and the beautiful scenery surrounding it compare with anything that London can offer?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, tourists coming to this country should visit Alton Towers. Of course, with the increasing pursuit of leisure and holiday activities within this country, people do not need to go overseas for their breaks—they can have excellent holidays in this country.
    My hon. Friend is aware of my great concern, which he shares, that an attraction such as Alton Towers, which has 250 full-time workers and up to 1,700 seasonal workers, would be grievously afflicted if this country were ever to join the social chapter. The introduction of the minimum wage and the social chapter would wreck the tourist industry. All those concerned about that industry should ensure that there is a Conservative Government for as long as possible.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State look closely at the bid from the city pride site of Derby to be the site for the millennium exhibition? If the bid is successful, would that not be an enormous kick for tourism in the east midlands?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has once again identified the way in which the lottery is resulting in wonderful regeneration projects and opportunities throughout the country. He will be aware that four sites are being closely examined for the millennium festival. We are further ahead than any other country in our preparations to celebrate the millennium. The lottery

    7
    means that we can do it in a more magnificent way than anywhere else. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Derby.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend think that the distribution of lottery funds is sufficient to encourage tourism in the east midlands? Is she aware that there are many attractions in my constituency of Bosworth, such as the Concordia theatre, the new Hinckley museum and even Bosworth battlefield, all of which might benefit from a little more generosity?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the fact that overseas tourists often refer to heritage and cultural activities as the main reasons for their visits. The lottery money enables us to improve and modernise our arts, heritage and cultural life generally, which is a great boost for tourism. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the distributing bodies, which are independent in their decisions about the distribution of lottery money.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that midlands tourism has much less to fear from the social chapter than from the Government's current imposition of VAT on tourism, at levels far above those set by our competitor countries in the European Union? In this pre-Budget period, is she paying particular attention to the views of the Price Waterhouse report on the reduction of VAT? Will she give that her personal support?
    Mr. John Marshall: Is that a pledge?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend asks whether that is a pledge. The Opposition parties are very good at reducing sources of income while increasing spending, without even trying to make the figures add up.
    I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, any fool knows that the cost to our country of a minimum wage and of the social chapter would be very great indeed—an estimated 800,000 jobs. Undoubtedly, the tourist industry would be the hardest hit.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with Camelot concerning the level of prizes in the national lottery. [35903]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I met Sir George Russell, chairman of Camelot Group plc, on 21 August. We discussed a number of issues concerning the national lottery, including prize levels.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in some cases the multi-million pound prizes actually cause social distress? Would it not be far wiser to limit the top prize to £1 million, thereby creating a more fair and equitable lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Looking at the background papers on the subject, I am reminded of the hon. Gentleman saying that he thought that the prizes were not large enough. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman will know that growing numbers of people play the lottery in a syndicate, so that very often, when a large prize is won, the proceeds are shared by a number of people. When large prizes are
    8
    available, there is an enormous increase in the amount of money for good causes. The roll-over results in an increase of about 27 per cent. The lottery is required to maximise the return to good causes, to protect the interests of those playing, and ensure that it is conducted with propriety. I believe that on all three counts it is acting as a model.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many of my constituents would love to cope with the social distress to which the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred if they were to win such magnificently high prizes? Indeed, that is precisely why so many of my constituents buy tickets. If they were not to do so due to all the petty restrictions beloved of Labour Members, there would be less money available to charities and the other many good causes.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend sums up the situation precisely. If the Opposition parties had their way, they would cap the prizes and reduce the money coming through for good causes. As things are, we are all winners with the lottery. Millions are playing, millions are winning and, above all, 1,432 projects have already benefited. The Labour party cannot abide success.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it true that the Secretary of State has issued a memo giving instructions to all the people who are concerned with grants and money from the lottery that in no circumstances should any money go to socialist Stratford?
    Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman checked where the lottery money was falling, he would find that far more goes to socialist authorities than to Conservative authorities, for the very reason that the money is going towards regeneration projects which are totally improving the face of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Stratford?"] There are no special cases. However, perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman a list of projects in the Stratford area—[HoN. MEMBERS: "And Stratford East"]—to reassure him on that front.

    Channel 4 Television
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how she will ensure that the subsidy that Channel 4 must pay to the ITV companies will be used solely to finance programmes; and if she will make a statement. [35904]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is for the Channel 3 companies to decide how they use any moneys paid to them by Channel 4 under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    Ms Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree that Channel 4's creative programming has produced not only viewer satisfaction and commercial profit, but an increased international respect for this country's primacy in quality public service broadcasting? Will she assure the House that the Bill soon to be introduced on the media will re-examine the present funding formulas so that Channel 4 will not be unfairly penalised in the future—as it undoubtedly is at the moment—for its overwhelming success?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept that Channel 4 is penalised for its success. Channel 4 has been extremely

    9
    successful as a result of the new arrangements and I congratulate it on all that it has done. The Broadcasting Act 1990 set out the funding formula for Channel 4 and that exists until the end of 1997. It would be quite improper to move the goal posts during that period. Like the hon. Lady, however, I commend the success of Channel 4.
    Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Broadcasting Act was never intended to draw money from Channel 4. Indeed, the safety net was designed to assist Channel 4. Does she accept that taking £70 million from Channel 4 in each of the next two years will damage the creative ability of the British television industry and will mean that one of our biggest assets will be under-used? Will she undertake to review the matter and, if appropriate, bring forward relevant amendments which we could discuss in the House when we debate the new media Bill?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is only the Labour party which constantly wants to move the goal posts. We have already had the smoke-filled deal on BT and the cable companies. Similarly, on this matter, it would be quite improper to modify the arrangements while they are under way. The funding arrangement has ensured the stability of Channel 4 at a time when there is a great deal of change in the television industry. The independent television companies took that into account when they bid for their licences. Certainly, the independent television companies invest very heavily in original programming.

    Sports Participation
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the provision of funding for grass roots participation in sport. [35905]
    Mr. Sproat: The main provision for grass roots participation in sport is made by local authorities, with expenditure in excess of £950 million annually, but the Sports Council will consider applications to the national lottery from local authorities and others in support of projects offering a wide appeal.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that enthusiasm at grass roots for any sport will depend on a number of factors, including funding, but also on safety? In the light of the tragic death on Friday evening in Glasgow, does he agree that it is now necessary to have an independent inquiry into the safety of boxing? Why not set up a royal commission for that purpose?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks a serious question and I take it seriously. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), there will be an inquiry by the British Boxing Board of Control within the next couple of weeks. The hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "independent". An independent working group under the neurologist Peter Richards will report in November. I suggest that the best thing that we can do is see what both reports say. Then—although I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not at this moment in favour of a royal commission—we will certainly look at the matter again.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the tragic death of James Murray, which
    10
    everyone regrets deeply, the sport of boxing has a great deal to offer young people of all ages? It is a well controlled and well disciplined sport which is valuable to young people who choose to undertake it and others who do not choose to undertake it. Will he agree not to discourage public funds from going properly into the sport, notwithstanding any possible measures to increase safety?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a terrific sport and it would be a great shame if this tragic death weighed too heavily. When deaths from sports were last examined in a comprehensive way—between 1986 and 1992—there were some 268 deaths from other sports, including 40 deaths from ball games, as opposed in those days to only three deaths from boxing. So although this is a tragic moment and we should not take it as anything other than that, we should not let ourselves be overwhelmed by one tragedy.

    Concessionary Television Licences
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's policy concerning reduced cost television licences for retired pensioners; and if she will make a statement. [35906]
    Mr. Sproat: As the Government made clear in the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", published in July 1994, we have no plans to introduce reduced fee television licences for pensioners. This would be very expensive in terms of lost licence fee revenue, on which the BBC depends for the funding of its home broadcasting services. Any such shortfall would have to be offset by a substantial increase in licence fees for all other licence payers, irrespective of their means.
    Mr. Barnes: Many progressive councils which have warden-operated schemes charge as little as £5 for a television licence to those who were lucky enough to be in such accommodation before the Government changed the law in May 1988. Can we not have a national scheme in which all pensioners are winners? That is the subject of campaigning by many people, by The Star newspaper in my area and by almost every pensioners' organisation that I have ever addressed.
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly pay true tribute to the persistence of the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents who were not eligible for the £5 concessionary fee because they had not signed on before 18 May 1988. Nevertheless, we now have a scheme whereby pensioners or the disabled living in residential accommodation which qualifies for concession receive their television licence for £5 a year. Although I readily admit that there are one or two anomalies in the scheme, it is probably the best that we can construct. Perhaps Opposition Members can use their ingenuity to find a way of making this a matter for discussion when the Broadcasting Bill comes before the House in due course.

    Sport
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made with carrying out the Government's new sports policy, with special reference to competitive sport in schools. [35907]
    Mr. Sproat: The working group on university sports scholarships, which is being chaired by Sir Roger

    11
    Bannister, has begun its work, and the consultation stage on the sportsmark and gold star awards scheme for schools closed on 13 October. My Department and the Sports Council are now working towards the implementation of that scheme in secondary schools for the academic term 1996–97. The Department of the Environment will shortly publish a consultation paper on the Sports Council becoming a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting school playing fields.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in welcoming the development of substantial local projects, of which two in particular are being proposed in my constituency—Blackpool cricket club's plan to develop new facilities for youngsters and a potential partnership between two local primary schools? One of those schools has a sports field but insufficient drainage and the other has no sports field but would like to share a sports field if the lottery will provide funding for a new exterior changing block and for drainage.
    Mr. Sproat: I know of the hard work that my hon. Friend has done for Roseacres and for the other school. As long as those schools can show that what they want is good for the wider community, they will certainly be eligible for lottery funds. I wish them all the luck in the world.
    Mr. Pendry: Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have no new sports policy—it is more a rehash of others, including parts of our own—does the Minister recognise that more than three quarters of those who responded to the Department for Education's consultation paper on the national curriculum opposed the narrow imposition of compulsory competitive sport in our schools?
    If the Minister does not accept the dictum, vox populi, vox Dei, will he at least accept the view of one of our country's mortal sporting gods, Gary Lineker, who only last week spoke of the training programme of one of Europe's most successful soccer clubs, which included dance, aerobics and other physical movement activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at that aspect of his policy?
    Mr. Sproat: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that we do not have a sports policy. When we announced our new sports policy on 14 July, it was heralded as the biggest revolution in sport for 50 years. We cannot produce policies every day of the week.
    I agree that, by and large, the education establishment has been extremely supportive of our proposals, although there may be items that members of the education establishment wish to discuss with me in more detail. I have already met the National Association of Head Teachers. I shall meet Mr. McAvoy and Mr. de Gruchy and I shall listen carefully to what they have to say.
    I appointed Mr. Lineker to the new United Kingdom sports council, which starts work on 1 January 1996; no doubt he will have the opportunity to make his views known to a wider public then.

    National Lottery
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what studies she has undertaken of the impact of the national lottery. [35908]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department has commissioned research on participation levels and we are undertaking a study of the economic impact of national lottery proceeds on the cultural and sporting sectors.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although there is widespread public approval for the success of the lottery there is considerable anxiety about its impact on charities and on the competitive position of small shopkeepers who have been denied the right to sell lottery tickets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Allegations have been made about the lottery's effects on charities; so far, they have been without substance. A recent MORI poll suggested that, of those playing the lottery, 4 per cent. had increased their contribution to charities, whereas 2 per cent. had reduced their contribution. There are many charities. In some years, they are very successful, in others they are less so.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office is monitoring the impact of the lottery on the charitable sector. Whatever the result, I have no doubt that the £300 million a year that is being made available for the caring charities will far exceed any possible minor effect that the lottery may have had.
    The 18,000 retailers who have a lottery outlet have had a great advantage. I know that Camelot is on target to have 40,000 outlets, and it is another way in which the lottery is benefiting not only the retailer but the people who win the prizes and play the games.
    Mr. Timms: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Rowntree Foundation's concern that a disproportionate number of lottery grants are going to the most prosperous parts of the country? Will she address particularly the Rowntree Foundation's recommendation that the matching funding requirement should be relaxed in disadvantaged areas where the problems of raising local funds are the most severe?
    Mrs. Bottomley: All the distribution bodies take a flexible approach to the way in which matching funding is interpreted. I dispute very strongly the hon. Gentleman's allegation with regard to the Rowntree report. Lottery money is going to a wide range of regeneration projects, such as the recent renaissance of Portsmouth harbour, which received £40 million; the Earth centre at Doncaster, which received £50 million; the Welsh highland railway, which received £4 million; the trans-Pennine trail; the millennium forests in Scotland; and the Sustran cycle tracks up and down the country. Regeneration is proving to be a great boost to the country.
    The distribution bodies have invested particularly in projects for disabled people. Some £4.5 million was invested in the Jubilee sailing trust and a touring theatre company has received new vans. Many projects have helped the disadvantaged—and that is before the caring charities have begun to make their awards.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Magistrates
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of whether an adequate number of people are applying to become magistrates in the Duchy. [35883]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): My assessment is that although there is an adequate number of applications from certain age groups—for example, retired people—we are not receiving enough applications from younger individuals.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his first Duchy questions. Will he confirm that it is his policy to ensure that successful applicants are drawn from a wider cross-section of the community? Is he aware that there is sometimes a problem in that regard?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I recognise that within the County Palatine, where I have responsibility for appointing magistrates, there is a problem, which also exists throughout England and Wales, in finding enough young applicants, particularly among men and women who work in industry. I intend to approach some of the larger employers within the County Palatine to remind them of the great contribution made by unpaid voluntary magistrates and of the contributions that employers can make to their employment opportunities and to their own businesses by discharging that essential public service.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable concern in the County Palatine that the magistrates who are appointed do not reflect the political complexion of the county? I accept that it is not a political duty, but magistrates should represent the political views of a broad cross-section of the people living within a county.
    Mr. Freeman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I am pleased that he has reminded the House that magistrates are not appointed purely on the basis of their political affiliations. It is important, however, to ensure that magistrates reflect the views of the communities from which they are drawn and that a fair and proper balance is maintained.
    As for the County Palatine, we should like to receive more applications and nominations from those who have political affiliations other than Conservative. Therefore, I believe that the solution lies in the hands of individuals who believe that their political affiliations are not being represented fairly.
    This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Magistrates Association. I pay tribute to all the magistrates in the County Palatine and to the 30,000 magistrates in England and Wales who do such a magnificent job on behalf of the public.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in implementing the Government's deregulation initiative. [35884]
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress he has been able to secure on deregulation by Her Majesty's Government. [35892]
    Mr. Freeman: With permission—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with the matter. The Deputy Prime Minister is replying to the question.
    Mr. Freeman: I have been asked to reply to Question 31 as the Minister responsible for deregulation—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has been asked to reply; I accept his response.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government announced a package of new measures on 19 September in response to a report by the deregulation task force. It included new joint working arrangements on taxation and national insurance. As well as changes to existing legislation, we accepted recommendations to make enforcement more business friendly and to minimise burdens from new regulations. We have now accepted more than 530 of the recommendations made by Lord Sainsbury's task force. Copies of the task force's report, the Government's response and a commentary on progress on Lord Sainsbury's recommendations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Mr. Robinson: May I say how welcome that statement is to many business men in my constituency? I hope that, in progressing the initiative, my right hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that business men are aware of the progress that we are making in achieving deregulation.
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly ensure that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The deregulation unit and the Office of Public Service must consider how European directives have been implemented in the United Kingdom. I confirm that the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 can be used to amend and simplify United Kingdom implementation of legislation in European directives. That will be much welcomed by the business community.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his important new responsibilities and the Government's business friendly initiative announced on 19 September.
    Has my right hon. Friend yet found time to read European Commission regulation 3223/94, which, if implemented, would impose an extra 50p on a litre of fresh orange juice sold in this country, costing an estimated 1,000 jobs? In addition, a quarter of our abattoirs would be put out of business by similar regulations—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in debate. The hon. Gentleman has asked about a particular document. The Minister must now be allowed to answer. He has had enough information about the document—I certainly have.
    Mr. Freeman: I have, too. I confirm that I am aware of those directives.
    Mr. Prescott: The Minister has not read them. Mr. Freeman: I have read them.
    Before any European directive is implemented, we shall ensure—collectively as a Government and individually as Ministers—that no provisions are added and that we implement it quickly but fairly and with proper, balanced enforcement.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware of the clear evidence that his pressure to deregulate is leading to fewer inspections of private care homes and residential care premises? That is not only a retrograde step but a

    15
    dangerous one. If that is his idea of deregulation, his Government will suffer for it, but my constituents will suffer even more.
    Mr. Freeman: That is not the idea of deregulation. It is principally to make sure that we, unlike the Labour party, seek to lift the burden on enterprise, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. We are not seeking to remove protection from the consumer, from those in care homes or from anyone else, particularly those in the workplace. We are deregulating to help the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which he and the Deputy Prime Minister support, gives unprecedented powers to central Government, because, by statutory instrument, the House can change Acts of Parliament? Does it not also show the undemocratic and centralised view of the Government that the Minister attempts to answer a question from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is sitting there beside him and does not have the guts to answer?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister can answer for himself, and he will. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister will answer for himself as soon as I have answered the question.
    This is not an undemocratic process. The Scrutiny Committees of the House and the other place consider all secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. I can confirm that we shall lay one order a week to deregulate and to repeal unnecessary legislation.

    Departmental Priorities
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what principal priorities he has set his Department. [35885]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which my Department is responsible.
    Mr. Hain: Why has the right hon. Gentleman already promoted himself? In the summer the Order Paper described him as the First Secretary of State, whereas today's Order Paper describes him as the Deputy Prime Minister? Will the next Order Paper describe him by his real title, which is surrogate party chairman? Surely he is nothing more than a glorified party chairman. That being so, should not his salary, at least in part, be funded from Tory central office, or could it not afford him?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there has been a lot of progress since the summer—we are on our way to victory.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to put his great skill, courage and determination in watching expenditure into looking carefully at expenditure by the European Community, which sadly seems out of control? This week we have been told that the agriculture budget will overspend its legal limits by £1,000 million. Will he see whether anything can be done about that matter?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I will give the matter full attention.
    Mr. Prescott: I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his new jobs. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not mention all his new titles, as I have only 20 minutes.
    I should like to take a few seconds to welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he took charge of deregulation and competition policy there has been a record number of new regulations and business failures and that Britain has slipped five places in the world competitiveness league? Is it not about time that the hopalong deputy shouted "About turn" on his own policies?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party referred to my former hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). There is a better journey—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who saw through the Labour party long before its own leaders, flirted with social democracy and ended up serving his country as a Minister in a Conservative Government.
    As for the rather pathetic jokes about hopping along, I do not have much experience of abandoning my principles and my policies, but if I had I would have done the hopping a great deal better.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend accept the evidence that since he joined Mrs. Thatcher's first Administration in 1979 this country has undergone substantial national renewal and that it remains a principal task of any Conservative Government to unite the nation?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend understands that one of the proudest boasts of the Conservative party is its adherence to the philosophies and policies of one nation. For that reason, above all else, we have governed this country longer than any other democratic party in the history of democracy.
    Mr. Beith: Should it not be one of the Deputy Prime Minister's priorities to produce a co-ordinated ministerial line on Europe? In that regard, would he explain to the Defence Secretary that this country has had treaty obligations to go to war on behalf of other European countries and has been part of an integrated command structure with other European countries since before the Defence Secretary was in his pram?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has never questioned the obligations of this country under treaties. He was merely talking about the concept of a federalist defence policy in Europe, which the Government reject.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his responsibilities in respect of the presentation of Government policy. [35887]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am chairman of the Cabinet committee with responsibility for the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy.
    Mr. Winnick: As he has completed his pantomime act in Blackpool, will the right hon. Gentleman, who is often

    17
    described as the Archie Rice of British politics, tell us when he expects a substantial improvement in the standing of the Government? Are we right to believe that if, as seems likely, no such improvement occurs, the right hon. Gentleman will resign, or will he try once more before the next general election to get the job that he really wants?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I shall help the Prime Minister win the fifth term which he is entitled to expect.
    To describe the party conference that I attended in the terms that the hon. Gentleman does misses the cynicism of his own party conference, which saw the leadership of his party deny the record of his party for as long as I have been in active politics—a total and cynical abdication of everything most Labour Members believe in. The concept of new Labour, with the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the same side of the House is mesmerising.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and I have listened over many years to the Opposition's comments on the Government's policy and that it is those policies and the way in which we have practised them that have won us successive general elections and that will win the next one?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As always, I find myself in complete accord with my hon. Friend.

    Departmental Priorities
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his Department's priorities in Scotland. [35888]
    Mr. Freeman: As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to promote the continuing improvement of public services and the deregulation and increased competitiveness of British industry.
    Sir David Steel: In the background briefing to the Deputy Prime Ministers's appointment we were told that he would implement policy across Whitehall. Does that include the Scottish Office and, if so, what gems await us?
    Mr. Freeman: The Deputy Prime Minister and, indeed, all the Ministers in the Office of Public Service cover competitiveness across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether Labour's policy on a national minimum wage and adherence to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty would aid competitiveness. Most Conservative Members will be quite clear about the answer to that question.

    Transfers of Responsibility
    Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responsibilities have been transferred from his Department since 1 July. [35889]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. John Horam): The Office of Science and Technology has transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: As co-chairman of the all-party group, the Friends of Medical Research, I am disturbed that, in the last funding round, only 30 per cent. of the
    18
    Medical Research Council's bids for Alpha funding were granted, against the usual figure of around 100 per cent. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that such projects are important to ensure that the brain drain is reversed and that medical research will not fall between the twin stools of his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Horam: I know that my hon. Friend follows these matters very closely, so he will be aware that we have succeeded in keeping constant in real terms the overall science budget at about £1.3 billion a year. Included in that is a hefty share for medical research. Obviously, I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whose responsibility that is, but I am sure from my conversations with him that he is well aware of the importance and success of medical research in this country and that he will do his best to keep up funding.
    Mr. Henderson: I can understand that the Minister may have some difficulty knowing whether he is deputy to the Deputy or deputy to the deputy to the Deputy, but given the new supervisory regime in the Department, and the demise of the cones hotline, will he now tell us what the three top priorities for the citizens charter are, and who decided them?
    Mr. Horam: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman himself knows who he is deputy to—perhaps what happens on Thursday will have some say in that. The fact is that the citizens charter's priorities remain as they always were—to produce a better quality public service.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to introduce new deregulation measures. [35890]
    Mr. Freeman: As part of the package of new measures that we announced on 19 September, we hope to bring forward one deregulation order each week Parliament is sitting, using powers under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
    Mr. Flynn: The whole House will welcome the unfreezing of payments to medal holders, but when will the Government deregulate the rule that freezes 30 other payments, including the payment to widows which has not been increased by a penny since its introduction, even though it replaced the widow's allowance, which was increased every year? The widow's payment should now be £881 more than it is. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of being a Minister in a Government who cheat widows at the moment of their bereavement?
    Mr. Freeman: The whole House will wish to share with the Prime Minister the delighted reception from Victoria Cross holders following the announcement made last week; it was much appreciated not only by the holders but by all members of their families.
    I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my colleagues in Cabinet.

Lord Home (Tributes)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): A week ago Alec Douglas-Home, Lord Home, died at his home, The Hirsel. Alec Home was one of those people who light up politics with their integrity. I believe that the whole House will wish to join me today in sending our deepest sympathies to his family.
I was not privileged to know Alec Douglas-Home when he was Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary; I only had the pleasure of meeting him many years later. But even in those days, as someone who watched politics from far beyond this House, I felt from a distance that here was a man of many qualities and few pretensions. He believed that people with privileges had, with those privileges, to accept obligations. He could have chosen the leisured life of a Scottish laird, but he chose to accept obligation and a duty to public service. When fate called him to serve in the highest office, he disclaimed his historic titles, a step that no one in his position could possibly have taken lightly.
Alec Douglas-Home was a modest and a likeable man—a man of dignity, charming, witty and gentle. It is not surprising that he inspired affection among those with whom he worked and among millions who never met him. He never let public life take over. He was happiest with his family, fishing the River Tweed, studying the racing form book or on the cricket field. During one election, he abandoned the election campaign for a day playing cricket, which I think is a perfectly proper sense of priorities for an Englishman—and a very enlightened sense of priorities for a Scottish man. He was a good cricketer too, the only Prime Minister ever to play for MCC.
Alec Home was a family man. His wife Elizabeth, the love of his life, was both his inspiration and his most resolute champion. She shared not only his triumphs and difficulties but his sense of humour. Both of them were devoted Christians, but perhaps only Elizabeth Home could have described the parliamentary Christian wives as the "holy hens" and escaped without rebuke.
Alec Home first stood for election in Coatbridge, as Alec Dunglass, in 1929. He was shocked by the poverty and hardship that he found there. Two years later, elected for the neighbouring constituency of South Lanark, itself no stranger to poverty, he had already formed his strong belief in one nation policies. By the end of 1935, he was parliamentary private secretary at the Ministry of Labour. A few months later, Neville Chamberlain, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, invited him to become his parliamentary private secretary.
Suddenly, with Neville Chamberlain's elevation to Prime Minister, Alec Home found himself at the very centre of government. Although he did not accompany Chamberlain on all his foreign travels, he was with him at that crucial meeting in Munich with Hitler. Alec Home was not, of course, personally responsible for the agreements reached, but, with a loyalty that was characteristic of the man, he would never subsequently criticise Chamberlain's actions.
At the outbreak of war, Alec Home was keen to serve. To his bitter disappointment, he was declared unfit. When tuberculosis of the spine was diagnosed, year upon year of painful treatment followed. With his spine rebuilt, his
20
parting words to his doctors were typical of the man's gentle, self-mocking humour. He said, "You have achieved the impossible; you have put backbone into a politician." Time and time again during his subsequent political career he demonstrated that backbone. He dared to criticise Churchill for the Yalta agreement and the way in which it treated Poland. But three months later, in a typical Churchillian move, Alec Home was appointed to the Foreign Office for a spell lasting only a few weeks before the 1945 election. It was, however, an important step in his political development.
Five years later, Alec Home returned to the House. Only 12 months beyond that he inherited the titles that took him to the other place. He heard the news in the Chamber. He immediately rushed away, only to discover outside the Chamber that he had forgotten his spectacles. In keeping with the tradition of the House, his return was barred now that he was a part of the other place.
With the return of a Conservative Government, Alec Home was appointed to a new post as Minister of State, Scottish Office. He cared deeply about Scotland and about the Union. He once said, "I have always taken the view that we have successfully borrowed the canniness of the highlander to make a living out of the Englishman."
In 1955, Anthony Eden promoted Alec Home to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It was a time of unsettling change for the Commonwealth, which was struggling to adjust to the end of Empire. Alec Home was central to the Commonwealth's evolution, taking particular responsibility for developing economic co-operation. During that period, he held also the offices of Lord Privy Seal and Lord President of the Council.
Harold Macmillan increasingly relied on Alec Home's wise and honest advice. In 1960, Macmillan made him Foreign Secretary. Alec Home quickly established authority across the world during an especially sensitive period in international relations. He displayed firmness in challenging the Soviet Union and he resolved a serious international crisis in Asia. He performed his role as Foreign Secretary as he did every role, without pretension.
The sight of a British Foreign Secretary climbing from an aeroplane in a rumpled tweed suit amused many foreign dignitaries. As Macmillan later said, "The Foreign Secretary has been accused of many things but never of being the best dressed man in the Cabinet." I do not know why I look around to see whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with us this afternoon, but I am sure that there must be a reason.
When Macmillan resigned, Alec Home did not at first see himself as a candidate; but when it was clear that he was best placed to unite the Conservative party, he became one. As Prime Minister, he did unite the party. I believe that he restored confidence in political life. Just as he promised, people knew that they could rely on his plain, straight talking. He introduced the controversial retail food prices index legislation, which brought competition to the retail industry and lower prices for the consumer. He interrupted his Christmas holiday to take decisive action to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus. Time after time he ensured that Britain came to the assistance of her Commonwealth partners in Africa.
The tribute to the mark that Alec Home made as Prime Minister was not that he lost the 1964 election but that he came so close to winning it. After his resignation as party leader, he served loyally under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in

21
opposition, and later once more as Foreign Secretary. His stature as an ex-Prime Minister enhanced his role across the world. After he returned to the Lords, he continued to be a source of wise counsel, and he was able to enjoy his retirement back home in the house that he loved so dearly for all his life. He was once again able to pursue the life of the Scottish gentleman that he had remained for all of his days.
Alec Home's politics are best summed up in his own words. He once said:
"I want to get away from this 'us and them'; Britain is one nation—it belongs to us all. and we belong to it".
Some have said that Alec Home was a politician of another age. The greatest tribute that I can pay him today is simply this: I profoundly hope not.
3.40 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: It is my privilege to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lord Home and to send our condolences and sympathy to his family. I never met him but, like Harold Wilson, whose life we celebrated earlier this year, he was familiar to me, and, indeed, to all my generation, as one of the great political figures of our early years. If one reads any of the obituaries about him, two words recur: affection and decency. He was a straight man—genuine, liked and trusted by political foes and friends. However satirised and disparaged, and he came in for his fair share of both, his essential and transparent decency allowed him to rise above it, and people—ordinary people—had a great affection for him.
Jimmy Maxton, the Labour Member of Parliament for Clydeside, once said to him in the Commons Tea Room, "Alec, I have been thinking that, come the revolution, I'll have you strung up on a lamp post, but on reflection I'll offer you a cup of tea instead."
By making no attempt to conceal his background, and by allying it to a self-deprecating sense of humour, Lord Home turned political attacks against those making them. When challenged in the Kinross by-election in 1963 as to whether he would live in the constituency, he replied that he did not think that he would, since he had more houses than he could live in already. Most famously of all, when Harold Wilson mocked him for being the 14th Earl, he remarked that he supposed that Mr. Wilson, when one came to think of it, was the 14th Mr. Wilson.
The image that survives focuses often on Lord Home's character and the peculiarity of someone with his upbringing and apparent indifference to ambition becoming Prime Minister, but that should not cause us to overlook his substantial achievements, both as a parliamentarian and as a statesman. He entered Parliament in 1931. He secured re-election in 1935 and was, as the Prime Minister said, parliamentary private secretary to Neville Chamberlain, first when Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer and then when he was Prime Minister.
It is said against Lord Home that, working for Chamberlain, he was naturally part of Munich and appeasement and all that went with it, and I suppose that it is true to say that history has judged very harshly the motives of all those who were involved in that futile search for peace, but to my mind it is to his great credit that he never ran away from his part in Munich or ceased to defend the motives of Chamberlain. He could have
22
disowned his leader—his own position in the affair was, after all, very minor—but he did not, and I think that that speaks volumes for his decency and courage.
When war broke out, Lord Home tried to enlist, as the Prime Minister has described, but through illness was unable to and spent almost two years in recuperation from tuberculosis of the spine. He used that time to read and to study voraciously. He dedicated himself particularly to the study of foreign affairs, becoming something of an expert on it, and when he returned to Parliament in 1945 he spoke out strongly in favour of the independence of Poland, which was a very brave and courageous thing to do. He spoke against the Yalta agreement and became a relentless and persuasive critic of Soviet expansion.
Throughout the 1950s, as Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and then later as Leader of the House of Lords, having gone there after his father's death, he argued a position with great clarity, of the dangers of Soviet imperialism, but typically combined it with a strong push for disarmament, saying that Britain would be pleased to play a substantial part in such a process provided a proper response was forthcoming.
It is fair to say that, when Lord Home was appointed Foreign Secretary in 1960, there was a total furore over the appointment. Motions of no confidence were tabled in the House; the newspapers deplored the appointment of a peer—a "faceless earl", as one called him—as Foreign Secretary. As ever, he reacted by not reacting, but getting on with the job.
With hindsight, most people would acknowledge Lord Home to have been a substantial success. He was strong in standing with President Kennedy over the Cuban missile crisis; but he was also strong in standing up against the American view when he thought it right to do so, as over Laos and the provision of a seat at the United Nations for China. That was something that Home strongly supported and others did not.
A greater prize was, of course, to come. That Lord Home became leader of the Conservatives in 1963 is a fact, but how he did so remains something of a mystery. Two things stand out, however: first, how extraordinary it was that, in relatively modern times, as a Member of the House of Lords, Home could ever have become Prime Minister. He was able to do so in part—a nice irony—because, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), he was able to renounce his peerage to fight a by-election and enter the House of Commons. His outstanding personal qualities, however, must have impressed his colleagues for such a risk even to have been considered.
As Alec Douglas-Home wrote in his autobiography, the greatest shock that he suffered was the culture shock, coming from the other place to the House of Commons. He wrote:
"My first appearance at the Box was nearly my last. I was quite unprepared for the sheer noise and if it had not been for the solid table between me and the Opposition, I should have been seen shaking at the knees."
The second remarkable feature is, indeed, how close Alec Douglas-Home came to winning the 1964 election. He believed, and later said, that had it not been for the refusal of lain Macleod and Enoch Powell to serve under him, he might have won. After defeat, he behaved with his usual dignity. He changed the rules for electing the Tory party leader—a precedent that I understand the present Prime Minister is looking to follow. He supported

23
his successor completely—a precedent that the Prime Minister no doubt wishes was followed. He served under his successor as Foreign Secretary—a precedent that the Prime Minister is perhaps unlikely to follow.
There were two other powerful points of view that Home held and articulated. He was, of course, a "one nation" Tory; but he was one of the first to make the case for Britain to join the Common Market, and for Britain's place in Europe. Although, as the Prime Minister rightly says, he was a passionate supporter of the Union between England and Scotland, he did propose—in his committee on Scottish government—devolving limited legislative powers to a Scottish Assembly, which is of more than passing interest.
What, then, is the attraction of Alec Douglas-Home, and how can we summarise it? There is an apparent contradiction. He was a laird who lived like a laird, who owned vast estates, who loved the country sports of hunting, shooting and fishing, yet was given great affection by millions of British people who shared neither his birth nor his politics. He was someone who had all the advantages of aristocracy sometimes associated with arrogance, yet was humble in his assessment of himself and his actions. He was a person who did not need to work at all, yet worked hard all his life in the service of others.
The contradiction is resolved in this way. Alec Douglas-Home was above all a man of honour, who stayed a man of honour: a decent man who, through all the temptations and anxieties of politics, remained decent—not a man from another age, but a rarity in any age; a good servant of the people, for whose life we give thanks.
3.48 pm
Sir David Steel: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join in the tributes to Lord Home of the Hirsel. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for his suggestion that, in view of our close Scottish border connections, it might be appropriate for me to say a few words on behalf of our party, and to add our expressions of sympathy to David and Caroline.
I said on the news of Sir Alec's death that he was probably the last of the gentleman politicians, motivated solely and dutifully by a call to public service. That may have made him seem, as Prime Minister, strangely old-fashioned; yet he incorporated good, old-fashioned virtues—honesty, straight dealing, hard work, lack of malice, openness and a readiness to listen. He was also self-deprecating in his enjoyment of his own caricatures, and he would have detested today's trends towards sound bites and image spin makers.
At the time, Sir Alec seemed rather set in his ways as a cold warrior, and perhaps that stemmed from a reaction to his period with Neville Chamberlain. However, he had a genuine and consistent detestation of tyranny in every form. As Commonwealth Secretary, he pursued Harold Macmillan's wind of change policy towards South Africa. As Foreign Secretary, he could easily have done a deal with Ian Smith in Rhodesia that would have been popular with sections of his party and the press but would have surrendered African majority rights. He steadfastly refused to do that.
24
Sir Alec's earlier experience as Minister of State, Scottish Office led him to recognise with equal consistency the shortcomings of Scottish legislation at Westminster and, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, he advocated the creation of an elected Scottish convention. Whatever its defects in detail, that could have been a step in the right direction. In the 1979 referendum in Scotland his intervention was possibly crucial when he urged a vote against the Labour Government's devolution proposals with the promise that a Conservative Government would present better ones. It was not his fault that, with a change of leadership, that promise was never fulfilled.
The Prime Minister rightly referred to Sir Alec's characteristically puckish sense of humour. He was a highly entertaining after-dinner speaker and, like us all, he had a small stock of well-used tales from his own life. I many times heard him recount the incident when he tried to butter up some truculent individual with forced bonhomie: "How's the wife?" he asked, only to receive the challenging reply, "Compared to what?"
One cold winter night, Sir Alec and I were driving together after a dinner in the borders to catch the Edinburgh-London sleeper at Berwick-upon-Tweed where it passed through at about half-past midnight. For those who do not know it, that station consists of one long windswept platform. As we drove along the banks of the Tweed and were about to pass the gates of the Hirsel, he looked at his watch and said, "We will be 20 minutes early at Berwick. Why don't we stop for a drink?"
We drove up the long drive to his stately home and I must admit that I had visions of roaring log fires and butlers with silver trays. Not so, Elizabeth was in London and the place was deserted. We went in by a side door and he blundered about the rambling basement corridor searching for the light switches. He produced a jug of beer and we went upstairs to his high-ceilinged study. The central heating was off and the grate was empty. We sat huddled in our overcoats and he raised his glass in welcome and said, "I suppose you're thinking that we would have been warmer on the station platform."
As Sir Alec's books in our Library testify, his first love was the Scottish border country. He was genuinely interested in the farming of his estates, as well as the shooting and especially the fishing on the Tweed. The Hirsel stable and coach block now houses an enterprising craft centre and rural museum. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I were always astonished at the way in which in his later years this international statesman, who was fully entitled to put his feet up, never found any dinner, flower show or school prize day in the borders too insignificant to attend. He was a readily approachable local figure and I can best conclude by quoting from an editorial in one of the border newspapers. It states:
"Lord Home's traditional family values, warmth and integrity won him a special place in the affections of his fellow Borderers."
He was quite simply one of the nicest people in public life and we remember him today with gratitude.
4.53 pm
Sir Edward Heath: Sir Alec Douglas-Home's death is a sad loss to his family and friends and to all those who knew him. Our consolation is that he lived to a great age and that his was a life of

25
great fulfilment. My generation first got to hear of him when he came back from Munich with Neville Chamberlain. Looking back on history, it is interesting to note that he was never tarnished with the label of appeasement. Nobody ever suspected for a moment that Alec Douglas-Home would give way to pressure and agree to something that he believed to be wrong. It was only long afterwards that he admitted that he had advised Neville Chamberlain against waving the piece of paper which he resisted at the airport. However, when he got back to the balcony of No. 10, he was so moved emotionally that he gave way and waved it with "Peace in our time". It is true that Alec Douglas-Home never criticised him, but that was certainly his view of the episode.
I sometimes felt that the four long years that Lord Home had spent on his back due to illness had led to his peacefulness but, at the same time, his determination in carrying out what he wished to do. I do not think that those years were wasted years, because they created in him the strength of purpose that carried him through the rest of his life.
After the election of 1950, Alec Douglas-Home was back in the House. When the news of his father's death came through, it fell to me, as a Whip, to rush into the No Lobby where I knew that he was voting, grab him by the arm and rush him out, trying at the same time to explain to him quietly and clearly that his father had died and that if he went through the Lobby, having inherited his title, he would be liable to a financial penalty, which I thought thoroughly undesirable. I just managed to get him out in time so he did not commit the grave offence of voting in this House when he had already become a peer.
When Lord Home became Foreign Secretary, I went with him to the Foreign Office as Lord Privy Seal. Harold Macmillan realised of course that his appointment from the House of Lords as Foreign Secretary would create a great commotion. I remember that Mr. Cecil King, the owner of the Daily Mirror, went so far as to blazon across his paper the fact that Harold Macmillan had ignored Cecil King's advice. It was, however, a very good appointment, if I may say so.
We worked closely together for three years as I was Lord Privy Seal dealing with matters in this House. Throughout the European negotiations—our first attempt to enter the Community—Lord Home backed me to the hilt in the Cabinet, in his House, in our party and at party conferences. Of course, the same occurred when we resumed negotiations in the 1970s and were successful. In one of the last telephone conversations that I had with him, he said that he had thought about it a great deal and concluded more and more that we were absolutely right to take this country in the European Community and that that was where our future rested.
When Harold Macmillan summoned us and told us that we were both going to the Foreign Office, it was late July. As we left, Sir Alec—or Lord Home, as he then was—said that we should go to his office and that the first thing to do was to settle our priorities. I said, "Of course," and, when we got there, I asked what the priorities were. He said that the first priority was to fix the date of our holidays. I asked what he proposed and he said, "I think you ought to take yours first—you're in more need of them than I." I said, "Thank you very much. I shall go to Venice." He said that I would have to be back by 10 August for "reasons that I hope you'll understand".
26
While in Venice I was approached on the beach by a gentleman with a telegram from Harold Macmillan which said that we had unexpectedly had an invitation from Chancellor Adenauer to go to Bonn to discuss our entry into the Community. It said that Alec and he had agreed but had pointed out that they must leave by 8 August for "a reason that you will fully understand".
I was still on the beach when another telegram arrived saying that there was now an invitation from Mr. Fanfani, the Prime Minister of Italy, who had heard secretly about Chancellor Adenauer's invitation and wanted us to go to Rome on 16 August. The telegram said that that was of course not possible for Alec and him "for reasons that you will fully understand". It had therefore been arranged for me to go to Rome.
Then came the period after the defeat of 1964 when Sir Alec was Prime Minister. That period was controversial, as the Prime Minister said just now. I proposed legislation for the abolition of retail price maintenance which, to a certain extent, split the Cabinet. However, he backed me throughout and, when he backed one up, one knew that his backing was firm.
After the 1964 election, Lord Home made me responsible for policy, but in July he came to the conclusion that he did not wish to continue. In his book he recounts that I had nothing whatever to do with that. In some ways, I wish he had continued, but it was obvious that he was tired of it all and he firmly resolved that he would not continue because it was better that he should not.
Then I invited Alec to be Foreign Secretary in the shadow Cabinet and when I became Prime Minister I appointed him Foreign Secretary. There were never any disagreements between us, but that is not always understood. Whether on domestic or foreign policy, from 1960 onwards, when we first worked together, we always believed in the same policies and we always put them into effect. That is why there was no room in either of us for criticism of the other.
Lord Home's characteristics have been brilliantly described today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by the Leader of the Opposition and by the spokesman for the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). One outstanding point is that whoever he was dealing with, it was exactly the same—everybody trusted him. It made no difference whether he was talking to somebody at the highest level in this country or to somebody at the lowest level in what was then Rhodesia—he was always the same. When he was dealing with foreign affairs at conferences, he was always respectful and polite to those with whom he was negotiating, no matter from which country they came.
In 1963, the two of us went to Moscow to sign the first test ban treaty. Lord Home's attitude to and relationship with Mr. Kruschev could not possibly have been faulted. The same was true when he was dealing with the Commonwealth, the colonies or other European states. He was held in the greatest respect.
Above all, Lord Home loved his Scotland. It is true that he wanted to see the constitutional development of Scotland. When I was Leader of the Opposition, I appointed him chairman of a very distinguished committee which included Sir Robert Menzies, the former Prime Minister of Australia. It recommended that there should be further development in Scotland, including an

27
assembly. Had we been re-elected in 1974, we would have gone ahead with that; indeed, the buildings had already been prepared. That was his view of Scotland because he foresaw the dangers of a narrow Scottish nationalism and he wanted to prevent that.
As has been said, in all spheres Lord Home was notable for his modesty, for his genuine nature, for the fact that one could trust him and for the fact that he got his priorities right on every occasion. This country, and Scotland in particular, owes him a great deal.
4.2 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: May I add a word or two, Madam Speaker? The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and I are the only people who sat with Viscount Dunglass MP in 1950 and 1951. At that time he was in his late forties, so I do not think many people imagined that he would go on to occupy the highest offices of state. I cannot think of any major question on which I agreed with him, but his great quality, as has already been said, was that people trusted him—a phrase not often used in political comment nowadays. He was a signpost, not a weathercock.
In 1951 Lord Home became a peer and he went quite happily to the House of Lords—unlike Lord Hailsham the previous year, who had gone with some resistance. As I was absolutely determined not to allow that fate to befall me, I was responsible for bringing Lord Home back to be a commoner, which he may not have liked, and to be Prime Minister, which he did like. Indeed, in the whole. of our long parliamentary history only two men have sat in the Commons, the Lords, the Commons and the Lords successively. It is what I think of as the Hailsham-Home convention—that after every election certain persons quietly indicate in which House they want to sit. Only in this country could such a subtle combination of the ballot box and blue blood be used to such great advantage by those who could use it.
Having said all that, Lord Home was a very formidable party leader—of that there was no question. He took over the fortunes of the Conservative party when it was at a low ebb, and, as the Prime Minister said, he very nearly succeeded. Only by a handful of votes did he lose. That was of course at a time when the press reported Parliament and before it began trying to replace Parliament. It was also at a time when it was possible to have passionate and serious and fundamental disagreements without the insults which now characterise and debase so much of our public debate.
In the media-orientated world in which we live, it is supposed that to succeed people have to have a good image, charisma, sound bites and a spin doctor. But like Clem Attlee before him, Alec Home had an absolute contempt for such gimmicks. He was absolutely content to be himself. I pay my respects to him because he argued his case always with great knowledge, great courtesy, great sincerity, but without ever indulging in abuse. The House might do well to follow that example.
4.5 pm
Mr. David Trimble: It is my privilege to associate the Ulster Unionist party with the tributes that have been paid today to Lord Home. The one thing that
28
has come across very clearly, not only in the House this afternoon but throughout the country during the past week, is the very great affection in which Lord Home was held. The words which have been used as being characteristic of him are decency, sense of duty and sense of integrity. It is because he had those characteristics in such full measure that he had such a place in the affections of the people of our country.
The thing that most typifies Lord Home's decency and sense of integrity was, after having been a successful Foreign Secretary, and a more successful Prime Minister than was generally acknowledged, the way in which he was prepared after leaving the leadership of his party to serve for so long and so loyally in opposition and later in government. He will be regarded as one of the outstanding Foreign Secretaries of this country in this century.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister have both mentioned the fact that Lord Home was a unionist—that he supported the Union and believed in the United Kingdom. That is something of which we in Northern Ireland were very conscious—then and since.
More than just a supporter of the Union, as a Scotsman Lord Home knew that this diverse United Kingdom is held together by a series of understandings about the relative weights of the parts of the kingdom and about the concern that should exist for the various parts of the kingdom. I am sure that in putting forward proposals for a modest measure of devolution for Scotland, he was anxious to ensure that the respect for Scotland as a constituent part of the United Kingdom was not lost in the simple majoritarianism of this House. It is for that sense of balance, which he displayed throughout his life, that he will be most keenly remembered.
4.7 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In paying a very brief tribute to Lord Home, may I associate my comments with my colleagues in the Scottish National party and the other nationalist parties in the House?
It may seem strange for a nationalist to be paying tribute to one who was seen very much as the epitome of the Scottish laird, but I have two things in common with Lord Home. First, I grew up in south Lanarkshire and as a very young child I remember the very high regard in which Lord Home was held by all his constituents, be they gamekeeper, landowner, farm worker, shopkeeper or whomsoever. Everyone regarded him as a perfect gentlemen who was prepared to give of his time to listen to problems which his constituents might have had and to meet with them.
Secondly, I also suffered from tuberculosis of the spine. During that long illness I was often reminded of the fact that Lord Home had recovered from it and that there was life ahead of that particularly difficult illness. It may well be that the Prime Minister regrets that I was not given the same kind of backbone as Lord Home. Indeed, our backbones are made of very different stuff. None the less, Lord Home was held up as an example and, like him, I learnt a great deal of patience.
There are many memories of Lord Home in Scotland. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale have already referred to the Scottish constitutional matter. It is my belief that from the declaration of Perth onwards there was a genuine

29
belief among people like Lord Home that progress should be made towards the recognition of the aspirations of the Scottish people. It is, indeed, not his fault that the Government who took over in 1979 killed off the Scotland Bill, but his intervention, "Not this assembly but a better one," is seared into many psyches in Scotland. We are still waiting for that better assembly.
I hope that as we pay tribute to Lord Home and his recognition of democracy there will perhaps be some recognition on the Government Benches of the need for the people of Scotland to have that constitutional change.
4.9 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to speak because the western end of my constituency was formerly Sir Alec Douglas-Home's constituency. I believe that I speak on behalf of all the people in that part of my constituency. I vividly remember what Sir Alec—Lord Home, as he was then—said to me when I inherited with the boundary changes that large part of what had been his constituency. He said, "There are some very remote parts, some very difficult roads and you will find that in the winter months when you are required to go somewhere for a meeting you will wish that you were not in fact representing that part of Scotland. But when you get there, you will find that the people there make it all worth while, and you forget the journey, you forget the difficult roads and you forget all the problems." That was so typical of the man.
The other advice that Sir Alec Douglas-Home gave me, which I have never forgotten, was, "Bill, if you have thought something through carefully and you believe that it is right, stand by it because in time, you will find that you will be shown to be right." I believe that that guide that he had for himself was a guide that all politicians could well follow. He was indeed a man who left memories that are remarkable. My constituents would wish it to be put on record that anyone could telephone The Hirsel at the weekends and speak to their Member of Parliament. How many Members in the House today living in that grand manner in that grand style would answer the telephone at the weekends in the way that Alec Douglas-Home did? It is that example and leadership that we miss very much today. We think of him today.

Prison Service
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about prison security.
I am today publishing the report by General Sir John Learmont into prison security. I am extremely grateful to Sir John and to his two fellow assessors, Sir John Woodcock and Mr. Gary Dadds, for their comprehensive and authoritative report.
Let me begin by reminding the House of the circumstances which led me to ask Sir John to conduct his inquiry. In September 1994, six exceptional risk category A prisoners escaped from Whitemoor prison. I asked Sir John Woodcock to conduct an inquiry into the escape and I presented his findings to the House on 19 December last year.
I also asked General Sir John Learmont to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of physical and procedural security in the prison service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.
On 3 January this year, two category A and one category B prisoner escaped from Parkhurst. All three were recaptured on 8 January. I pay tribute again to the police for that successful operation. An immediate inquiry was carried out by the Prison Service director of security. As I told the House on 10 January, this immediate inquiry highlighted very serious deficiencies in procedural and physical security at Parkhurst.
I asked Sir John Learmont to extend his own inquiry to include an independent assessment of the events surrounding the escape. The report makes the most serious criticisms of Parkhurst and its management. On security procedures, Sir John found that the prison service's own security manual was disregarded and that the most basic security measures were not observed. Sir John also makes a number of criticisms of the physical security of Parkhurst, including the failure of the prison service to provide the prison with the full benefits of technology.
I am also publishing today the report of the inspection of Parkhurst by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim. The inspection took place in October 1995 and the report was submitted at the end of February 1996.
Judge Tumim also makes a number of severe criticisms of the situation at Parkhurst, including weak and inadequate security, unacceptable conditions in health care, and drug dealing which pervaded the whole sub-culture of the prison. There was a reluctance by staff to assert proper control in areas such as searching and accounting for inmates. The judge considered that the problems were so serious that he wrote to the Director General, before he left the prison, with a copy to me, drawing attention to the serious shortcomings that he had found. As I told the House on 10 January, I immediately spoke to the Director General and asked for a full report. He assured me that all Judge Tumim's recommendations had been implemented.
Sir John Learmont recommends that Parkhurst should be taken out of the dispersal system as soon as possible and consideration given to its replacement by a more appropriate establishment. I accept that recommendation. Parkhurst has not in practice operated as a dispersal prison

31
since April, when all category A prisoners were removed from normal location. I have asked the prison service to identify another prison in the south-east of England to take Parkhurst's place in the dispersal system as soon as possible.
Sir John's inquiry was not a disciplinary inquiry. Sir John has recommended to me that no disciplinary inquiry should be undertaken into the escape from Parkhurst. He is of the opinion that such an inquiry could finally break the resolve and commitment of many of the staff at Parkhurst, with the very significant possibility that the secure running of the establishment could be severely compromised. He is also of the opinion that it is difficult to see what a disciplinary inquiry would achieve. In considering that recommendation, I have been influenced by the fact that more than one of those concerned will not be staying in the prison service. I have therefore decided to accept that recommendation.
The Learmont report makes it clear that responsibility for the Parkhurst escape was not confined to management and staff at Parkhurst. On the contrary: the report says that
"alarm bells should have been … ringing throughout the Prison Service".
and that many of the ingredients
"can be traced along the lines of communication to Prison Service headquarters".
In his covering letter, Sir John Learmont makes it perfectly clear that responsibilities ultimately reach the level of the Prisons Board and that that is where criticism stops. Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine, directly or indirectly, caused the escape.
I turn next to the organisation of the prison service and its relationship with the Home Office. It is now about two and a half years since the prison service became a "next steps" executive agency. The decision to make the service an agency was taken on the recommendation of an independent inquiry conducted by Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo. Sir John Learmont does not recommend that there should be any change in the agency status of the prison service. He does recommend that someone with wide experience of the workings of agencies should undertake an in-depth study of the relationship between the prison service and the Home Office. That work is under way and I shall report on it to the House when it is complete.
Sir John's report makes 127 detailed and wide-ranging recommendations. I accept the broad thrust of Sir John's analysis. About half the recommendations endorse actions that have already been completed, are under way, or are already planned. I shall deal today with Sir John's key recommendations and I shall come back to the House with a full response in due course.
A key recommendation of the report is that there should be one maximum security prison to house the most dangerous prisoners in the system. That was a recommendation first made by the Mountbatten inquiry in 1966, and accepted by the then Home Secretary, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. However, the Radzinowicz report in March 1968 recommended against it and it was not implemented. Since then the policy has been to disperse such prisoners among a small number of high security prisons. Sir John concludes:
"The continuous development of explosives and weapons and their availability to criminals and their associates, pose a much greater threat to the security of our maximum security prisons than the Service has previously encountered."
32
He believes, therefore, that the most dangerous prisoners should now be housed in a purpose-designed and built maximum security prison.
That is a very far-reaching proposal, which would represent a major departure in penal policy. The report makes a strong case for it. I have already asked the Prison Service to consider the feasibility, costs and benefits of building such an establishment and to report to me in six months' time. The prison service will also consider Sir John Learmont's proposal for a single control prison to hold the most unruly and disruptive prisoners. I should welcome comments on those proposals.
Sir John also recommends a fundamental review of the system under which prisoners are allocated to different security categories according to the threat to the community and the likelihood of escape. I accept that a review of that system should take place.
Sir John also recommends that minimum physical security standards should be set for each category of prison. Work is well under way on bringing the dispersal estate up to the standard of security recommended by Sir John Woodcock. National standards exist for all new prisons. Decisions on the appropriate security standards for non-dispersal prisons will be based on the outcome of the review of categorisation.
One particular aspect that I asked Sir John to consider was the extent to which visits should be closed. He recommends that there should be closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners other than in exceptional circumstances. That coincides with the policy that I introduced in June this year.
I turn, finally, to Sir John's recommendations on the ways in which physical security is enhanced by activities and incentives. I told the House in December last year that the prison service would introduce a national framework of privileges and incentives. That framework is already in place and implementation has begun. Sir John recommends that a system requiring early release to be earned, not granted automatically as at present, would be a significant additional inducement to good behaviour. Last week I set out proposals for ending automatic early release and for introducing a system of earned remission.
But there are two issues on which Sir John and I must agree to differ. I reject his proposal that in-cell television should be made widely available. That would not be consistent with my view that prison conditions should be decent but austere. Nor can I accept Sir John's proposal that home leave should be more widely available. In my view, the restrictions introduced earlier this year have an important role in protecting the public; and I have no plans to relax them.
Sir John Learmont has found a great deal that needs to be put right within the prison service, spanning leadership, structure, the management chain, and the ethos of the service. He says that responsibilities ultimately reach Prisons Board level—and that the criticism stops there.
Those comments, coming so soon after the Woodcock report on Whitemoor, cause me great concern. I must be able to assure the House, and through it the public, that the grave weaknesses in the service that have been disclosed will be put right.
I have come to the conclusion, with some sadness, that that requires a change of leadership at the top of the prison service. The present director general has served in his post for nearly three years. I pay tribute to him for what he has

33
achieved, but I cannot overlook the serious criticisms in the report. I believe that the service requires a change of leadership to carry forward the programme of reforms that is needed and to increase public confidence in the security of our prisons.
The director general has accordingly ceased to hold his post with effect from today. The director of security will take over temporarily until a successor is appointed.
I believe that this report will be seen as a major milestone in the evolution of the prison service. I heartily endorse Sir John's conclusion that
"there is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job".
The changes that I have announced today will help them to achieve that goal.
Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in arranging for me to see the report earlier than is usual. We accept the recommendation of the Learmont report in respect of the super maximum security prison and we shall look at the recommendations of the departmental study when it is available to the House in six months' time.
The Secretary. of State's statement today goes to the heart of ministerial responsibility to the House for the protection of the public and the safe and secure administration of British prisons. By every principle of democratic Government, the Secretary of State must accept that he is both responsible and accountable for the state of the prison service, yet today we have been treated to the spectacle of the Secretary of State demeaning his office, failing to acknowledge those responsibilities and instead going in for his now familiar and tawdry practice of scapegoating anybody and everybody to ensure that the buck stops anywhere but with himself.
The Home Secretary has sought consistently to evade his responsibility by invoking a wholly artificial distinction—though one very convenient to him—between policy and operational matters. He did it again in his statement to the House just a moment ago when he said:
"Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine, directly or indirectly, caused the escape."
I cannot find any quotation in the report which, directly or indirectly, backs up what the Secretary of State said. [HON. MEMBERS: "The covering letter."] The covering letter has no such words.
It is clear that the Learmont report—like the Woodcock report before it—shows conclusively that the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers have interfered daily in the running and operation of the prison service and that so grotesque has that interference become that, as Learmont himself complains, on the very day set aside for the director general, Mr. Derek Lewis, to give evidence to the Learmont inquiry, and while he was actually giving evidence, he was called out on a number of occasions—I understand that it was no fewer than five—to give advice to and no doubt receive instructions from Ministers.
If the Secretary of State was not interfering with the day-to-day operations of the service, will he explain why, as the report shows, during 83 working days, 1,000 documents were submitted to Ministers, including 137 full ministerial submissions? How many of those submissions were in response to requests from Ministers and how many came within the Secretary of State's definition of operations? How many were policy?
34
What led to a climate in which members of the Prisons Board knew that they had Ministers breathing down their necks on the smallest detail? Is not the Learmont report right to point out a high level of operational involvement in prison service matters? Is the Secretary of State aware that the report comments on the personal pressures which the competing demands of politicians, the media and successive operational incidents must have inflicted on the director general and states that the director general needs, but certainly has not received minimum political involvement in the day-to-day operation of the service?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the director general is now issuing a letter in response to his sacking in which he says:
"It is a great disappointment to me that in the thirteen months since the Whitemoor escape, you"—
that is the Secretary of State—
"have required so much paper but have paid so little attention to prisons themselves, with only some six visits to prisons—fewer than in the preceding thirteen months"?
Is not the reason, as Sir John Learmont records, why the board rarely discussed operational matters that it was snowed under with one so-called ministerial initiative after another?
As the report comments in withering terms:
"any organisation which boasts one statement of purpose, one vision, five values, six goals, seven strategic priorities and eight key performance indicators without any clear co-ordination between them is producing a recipe for total confusion".
As Ministers were interfering so much and so much pride themselves on their experience in government, why has the Secretary of State allowed that total confusion to continue? Why has he allowed "the proliferation of paperwork", as the report describes it, to reach epidemic proportions so that the then governor of Parkhurst, Mr. John Marriott, had—to quote the report—regularly to spend more than 50 hours a week coping with the blizzard of paper, leaving him only two or three hours to go around the prison?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the appendix to the report estimates that, in the 83 working days studied, a typical local prison would have received 72,000 sheets of A4 paper from the Prisons Board, thanks to the proliferation of paperwork and the overburdened bureaucracy over which the right hon. Gentleman has presided?
I will deal with the Secretary of State's first and disgraceful scapegoating of Parkhurst prison's governor, Mr. Marriott, who was removed from his post just two hours before the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his statement on 10 January. In the House and in evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State repeatedly claimed that the decision to suspend Mr. Marriott was an operational one for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not responsible. Will the Secretary of State confirm that on or about 10 January, he let Mr. Lewis know that, if Mr. Marriott was not suspended, Mr. Lewis's job would be at risk?
Is not one of the so-called initiatives bearing down on the service that of prison privatisation, which the report suggests is a factor consistently identified as contributing to low morale? What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment on the report's conclusion that the number of staff on duty in privatised prisons is lower than in public sector prisons, which in turn

35
"raises serious questions about the ability of private prisons to cope with major incidents"?
I want to ask the Secretary of State about geophones, about which he was wholly silent in his statement. The Learmont report makes it clear that if geophones had been in place, the Parkhurst escapes could not have occurred and that, despite building works, geophones could have been operational. Given that conclusion, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regret that the advice that he gave the House on 10 January—that geophones cannot be installed when extensive building works are under way because they do not work effectively in such circumstances—has turned out to be wholly inaccurate? While the Secretary of State's disclaimer to the House that he does not claim any personal expertise in geophones has proved stunningly correct, does not he think that he should have been much more careful before passing on such inaccurate advice—not least since it was well known that geophones were kept operational in the similar circumstances of building works at Wormwood Scrubs?
Does the Secretary of State accept that this is the third report in 10 months to present chapter and verse for the view of the outgoing chief inspector of prisons, Sir Stephen Tumim, that there is a crisis of confidence in the prison service? Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party has been in Government 16 years, during which time that crisis has developed, why was there not a single line of apology for that appalling state of affairs in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement? Why was there no recognition by him of the responsibility that he and his predecessors must bear for that situation?
In eight years on the Opposition Front Bench, I have never called for a Minister's resignation. It would be highly irresponsible for anyone to call for a Minister's resignation simply because prisoners had escaped. However, the report and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's response, highlighting as it does his stewardship of his high office, raises fundamental questions about the Secretary of State's fitness for that office. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought power over the prison service while continually evading his responsibilities. He was right to say that a question of leadership arises from the report—but it is his leadership. Given the state of the prison service today, the way in which it has been run ragged by continual ministerial interference and constant policy changes, will the Secretary of State not now understand that if anyone is to go, it must be him?
Mr. Howard: I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in turn. He began and ended with my position. I refer him to the covering letter which is published with the report. That sets out very clearly the steps which Sir John Learmont took to send what are known as "Salmon letters" to those whom he considered subject to criticism. In that letter he states:
"I have applied a liberal interpretation of these rules lo ensure, as far as possible, that absolute fairness has prevailed. Such procedures have touched as high as Prisons Board level illustrating that I have endeavoured to identify where responsibilities have ultimately reached and where the criticism stops."
That is the answer to the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
36
I reject absolutely the hon. Gentleman's allegations of interference. It is essential, if I am to be properly accountable to this House and to the country, that I am properly and fully informed about what happens in our prisons. That is why requests are made to those who work in the prison service for information about matters that give rise to public concern. If we did not ask for information about those matters, I believe that we would be in dereliction of our duty.
As for ministerial initiatives, there have indeed been some ministerial initiatives affecting our prisons over the past year or two—initiatives to introduce mandatory drug testing, to introduce a regime of sanctions and incentives and to reduce significantly the number of home leaves and temporary releases, as a result of which there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in home leave failures. I make no apology for those ministerial initiatives; they were absolutely essential if we were to make our prison system the kind of system in which the people of this country could have confidence.
The hon. Gentleman referred to paperwork and the documents with which those in the prison service had to deal. The report deals with that. When the hon. Gentleman has had greater opportunity to study the report, I think that he will appreciate that it is quite wrong to suggest that that paperwork emanated from Ministers.
I made it clear when I made my previous statement to the House that what I said about the position of the former governor of Parkhurst was pending the results of any inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman looks at what the report says about the condition of Parkhurst and reads what is said about the failure to follow basic security procedures, the prevalence of drugs and the failure to supervise properly health care at Parkhurst, he will find that it is difficult to dissociate those criticisms from the position of the former governor of Parkhurst.
The picture of privatisation that the hon. Gentleman has given the House is a gross distortion of what is contained in the report. I refer the House to paragraph 3.137, which states:
"Potential involvement of the private sector and the prospect of competition promotes internal re-examination. It stimulates the adoption of modern best practice and business methods. Experience has also shown that competition is likely to cut the cost of services and increase their efficiency."
That is what the report says about privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to remind the House of the disclaimer that I made when I was last dealing with geophones to the effect that I have no expertise in geophones and that I was telling the House honestly and to the best of my ability what I knew about them then on the basis of my understanding. It is perfectly true that the Learmont report adds considerably to my understanding of geophones and probably to the understanding of many others as well.
I very much regret the step that I have had to take today. The former Director General of the Prison Service has achieved a good deal. It was with great sadness that I was obliged to take the step that I did, but I could not overlook the criticisms contained in the report—I had a duty to act on behalf of the public.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, although there is a good deal of gloom and discouragement in the Learmont report, that the silver lining lies in the glowing tribute that the report

37
pays to the conscientiousness and commitment of the great mass of the prison officers and public servants in the governor grades, demonstrating that the service is fundamentally and essentially well founded? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything possible to capitalise on the superb asset that we have in the staff of the prison service, and pay the closest attention to the calibre and quality of the individual whom he selects to become the new chief executive?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend says. I entirely agree with and endorse his tribute to the staff who work in the prison service. They carry out a very difficult job and, on the whole, they do it well. I am determined to do my utmost to put in place arrangements that will enable them to do it even better in future.
Mr. A. J. Beith: We support the main recommendations in this report; but how is the sacking of Derek Lewis supposed to discharge all ministerial responsibility for the appalling state of affairs which the report has revealed? Who was he reporting to—sometimes several times a day—but the Home Secretary? Who but the Home Secretary was responsible for the stream of initiatives, privatisation proposals and policy changes that led to a mountain of paper "higher than Ben Nevis", in the words of the report, and which distracted attention from security? And who but the Home Secretary is now proposing so to add to prison numbers that overcrowding will create policies of appeasement just like the ones described in the report, in an attempt to keep control of overcrowded prisons? When will the Home Secretary start carrying the can? If Ministers do not take responsibility, just as before nothing will change.
Mr. Howard: I have based my decision on what is contained in this report. It was an independent report. I asked General Learmont to conduct an inquiry into security in the prison service, and he has made an independent assessment of what he found. I could not overlook that assessment, and that is what I have based myself upon.
I have always made it clear that security has to be the first priority of the service. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about overcrowding are far wide of the mark. Parkhurst was not overcrowded; indeed, the staff:inmate ratio there was higher than in any other dispersal prison.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we Conservatives find the party political claptrap from the Opposition lamentable? Any reasonable person must accept the conclusions of the report, which place absolutely no blame on my right hon. and learned Friend and which say that the buck stops with the Director General of the Prison Service. They also say that prison security is so important for the protection of the public that my right hon. and learned Friend has absolutely no alternative but to require the person most responsible for it to resign.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The decision that I came to today caused me a good deal of sadness. As I said earlier, the former director general achieved a good deal during his period of office, but I came to the conclusion that I could not overlook the
38
report's assessment and criticisms. It was for those reasons that I reluctantly came to the conclusion that this was a step which duty required me to take.
Ms Janet Anderson: The Home Secretary, referring to the Learmont report, said that alarm bells should have been ringing throughout the prison service. Had not the governor of Parkhurst, Mr. Marriott, repeatedly requested the installation of geophones and a properly manned control room? According to a report in The Independent on Saturday, he had also predicted the escape route that was eventually used. Alarm bells were certainly ringing throughout the prison service; the problem was that the Secretary of State did not hear them.
Mr. Howard: I reject that criticism. The report sets out the requests made for geophones and goes into the history of that matter in considerable detail. It also makes it clear that money was available for geophones and was ultimately found for them. I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the detailed allocation of capital funds within a budget—for which Ministers certainly have responsibility—is a matter for Ministers. The task of Ministers is to set the budget; the task for assessing priorities within that budget is for the prison service. Were Ministers to interfere in decisions of that kind, the problem to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred in his opening critique would be compounded a thousandfold.
Sir Peter Lloyd: Since he was appointed director general, has not Derek Lewis reduced escapes by three quarters, accommodated a huge increase in the prison population without more overcrowding and without the use of police cells, halved the costs of providing new places and drastically cut head office bureaucracy? Will the Home Secretary acknowledge these very real achievements—and others, particularly in the area of security, the subject of this report and a statement to the House?
Mr. Howard: Yes, my right hon. Friend, who speaks with experience from his period as Minister with responsibility for prisons, is right to draw attention to those matters and to acknowledge the part which the director general has played. It was those factors that made it especially difficult for me to reach my decision, but as I have said on a number of occasions, in the last analysis I felt unable to overlook the criticisms contained in the report.
Mr. John Hutton: Now that the Home Secretary has announced the dismissal of the Director General of the Prison Service, can he tell us whether it will be his policy to appoint as successor someone who has management experience in the service?
Mr. Howard: I shall look carefully into the question of who should succeed the director general. A number of factors will be taken into account; the one that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is one among those factors. I do not think it would be right to make it an essential requirement.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary will be aware that many of the prison officers working at Her Majesty's Prison Whitemoor live in my constituency, and that the vast majority of them

39
were appalled at the lax regime that led to the IRA breakout and to many of the other abuses that have taken place. Is it any wonder that the people at the ground level, far from supporting the vies of the hon. Member for Blackburn on penal policy, support my right hon. and learned Friend's ministerial initiatives and leadership? Will he listen more to what they say and less to what the so-called experts in the probation service, the judiciary and the Home Office say?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think it true that a number of the measures which I have introduced have support at grass roots level among those who have the responsibility of working in the prison service. I hope that that support will continue.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Home Secretary aware that in my county of Gwent two defendants who were recently found guilty of serious offences were not sent to prison because their solicitors pleaded that if they went there they would be exposed to large-scale drug abuse? That is because, as one Minister has said, drug misuse is endemic in almost every prison in the country. Who is responsible for that: the prison service or the Home Secretary?
When the "next steps" agencies were set up the House was given a clear undertaking that ultimate responsibility would rest with the Home Secretary. Who is he responsible for; what policy is he responsible for; and should he not take the logical decision, given the dreadful mess in which the prison service finds itself, and resign today?
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely about the seriousness of the drug problem in prisons. It is a dreadful problem and we must take action to deal with it. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I have done in an attempt to deal with it. I have instituted a policy of mandatory drug testing—that is the first step towards bringing the misuse of drugs in our prisons under control. It is unrealistic to suppose that it is something that will be achieved in a day, a week or a month. It is something that will take determined action over a period to achieve. I believe that we have made a sensible start on a necessary series of changes.
Mr. David Faber: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the case of the so-called bicycling rapist? Last year, a convicted rapist was allowed out on day release to bicycle unattended from Erlestoke prison to Trowbridge college, which is in my constituency, to attend a course. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the wider malaise that he has described this afternoon is symptomatic of such a decision being taken? Will he accept the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who were extremely frightened at the time of the bicycling rapist for reiterating his, my right hon. and learned Friend's, views on temporary release today?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I well understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. The changes that have been made in home leave and temporary release were essential if public confidence in the prison system was to be maintained. I believe that home leave and temporary release had become entirely out of hand and that we had to take steps
40
to bring them under control. I was responding to the sort of concern that my hon. Friend has voiced in taking the steps that I took some time ago.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Home Secretary accept that the implications of his pronouncements last week mean that there will be substantial increases in prison populations and that one maximum security prison may not suffice? Will there be sufficient funds to pay for this expansion? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept also that the changes in remission may mean increases in tension and violence in prisons and that there will as a consequence be public concern on a scale that will require his resignation? There cannot be any further buck-passing after this.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's last point is misconceived. At present a good deal of early release from prison is entirely automatic. Other early release is determined not by good behaviour in prison but by the Parole Board's assessment of risk. One of the purposes of my proposal is to introduce incentives for good behaviour. That will be done by introducing earned early release by remission for good behaviour, which does not now exist. The hon. Gentleman's last point is thoroughly misconceived and entirely without foundation.
As for the net effect of the proposals that I put forward at Blackpool last week, we are engaged in making a careful assessment. There are many factors to be taken into account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share my view that the certainty of sentences that would he one consequence of my proposals would increase deterrence.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I welcome the fact that the report endorses my right hon. and learned Friend's policy of earned early release, but has he noted that it does not seem to be so popular on the Opposition Benches? Will he accept, however, that those outside the House will conclude that Sir John Learmont is clearly a well-read man and, unlike some others, understands that historically these are matters for Parliament? It is Parliament that will decide these matters and no one else.
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is right. It is a point that I made repeatedly after I announced my proposals last week. I would expect it to be a point on which all Members would agree.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: If the Home Secretary is to be as accountable to the House as he says he is, will he tell us when he was first properly informed of the repeated requests from local management at Parkhurst for geophones? Does he now think it outrageously irresponsible that from January to today he did nothing to find out about the success of geophones?
Mr. Howard: So far as I can recollect, I was first told about geophones after the breakout from Parkhurst. I do not recall the matter coming to my attention before then.
Mr. Piers Merchant: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the swift and firm decision that he has made following the Learmont report? Does he agree that the removal of the Director General of the Prison Service was necessary and entirely appropriate in the circumstances? In looking to the appointment of a successor, will he set out his top priority, which is the ending of the lax enforcement of the regime that was evident at Parkhurst?
Mr. Howard: I have made it clear on several occasions this afternoon that the decision that I reached in respect of the former director general was reached reluctantly and with a good deal of sadness. I think, however, that it was necessary if the general thrust of the Learmont report was to be accepted, which I did. That is why I took the step. I shall take on board what my hon. Friend has said when we come to appoint a successor.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Home Secretary seems to believe in the principle that he should take credit for everything that has gone right within the prison service and accept no responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. Does he feel that he can share with the House any examples of mistakes that he might have made since becoming Home Secretary in dealing with the prison service?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report and the covering letter he will understand how unworthy a question that was.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Royal Navy, when a ship goes down, the captain is court martialled and no one thinks of calling upon the First Sea Lord to resign? Is he aware also that his decision to abolish automatic reduction of sentence will be widely welcomed throughout the country? It was a fraud upon the public that a man sentenced to six years' imprisonment should be released after three. In any event, good behaviour is to be expected inside as well as outside Her Majesty's prisons.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the reported remarks of the Lord Chief Justice are rather too narrowly focused? Deterrence is one of the functions of prison but other perhaps more important ones are punishing criminals for the crimes, sometimes terrible crimes, that they have committed and physically preventing them from committing further crimes.
Mr. Howard: I defer to my hon. Friend's knowledge of naval regulations but what he says seems about right to me. I am grateful to him for his support for the proposals that I announced last week. I suspect that you might get rather impatient with me, Madam Speaker, if I made comments about the Lord Chief Justice's views this afternoon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not remarkable that whenever there is a crisis the Tory Government, and now specifically the Home Secretary, always manage to find a scapegoat to carry the can? Will this well-paid fall guy, Lewis, who was on £125,000 a year, be handing back the £30,000 bonus that he was given last year? How much severance pay or what golden handshake will he get arising from the Home Secretary's statement?
Is it not true that when the Home Secretary was given his job there were three prisoners in every cell and that within four weeks there were three on every roof? The Tories were elected to set the people free and the prisoners got out. Why does not the Home Secretary get off?
Mr. Howard: No, the hon. Gentleman's last point is not true. Compensation for the director general is a matter for negotiation.
Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in considering arrangements for running the prisons the Learmont reports states:
"Such arrangements raise the question as to whether the problems at Whitemoor and Parkhurst would have arisen if the prison service had the same monitoring and audit arrangements that exist in the private sector"?
42
I seem to recall from a recent report of the Public Accounts Committee that the performance indicators that are demanded in the private sector are such that they are properly maintained. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a lesson to be learned here?
Mr. Howard: There are many lessons to be learned from the report. My hon. Friend has rightly identified one of the most important ones. I am sure that it is a matter to which both the acting director general and, in due course, the new director general will be paying careful attention.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Of course, Sir John Learmont does not seek in his report to apportion political blame. He knows that that is the prerogative of the House. Is not this only the latest in a series of prison scandals that have taken place on the Home Secretary's watch? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that during a conversation at the Prison Service conference in November 1994—I understand that this was referred to by Mr. Derek Lewis in his resignation letter—Mr. Lewis suggested to him that his new definition of the difference between ministerial and agency responsibilities was that the agency had to accept difficult responsibilities and Ministers accepted only the easy ones?
Mr. Howard: That is not a matter for me. It was, I think, a throwaway remark made in answer to a question by the then director general at the Prison Service conference.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Sir John Learmont made a fundamental criticism of the management of the prison service, in their failure to react quickly enough to the lessons learned from the Whitemoor breakout in time to be able to stop the breakouts from Parkhurst, and that he made criticisms all the way up the line of the whole management of the prisons, who failed to react quickly and failed to implement the changes that had already been pointed out to them?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's analysis of the report is correct; those are the conclusions reached by Sir John Learmont, and are the conclusions that led me, with his general assessment and criticisms, to the decision that I have had to take.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on responding to the considerable public concern about security in our prisons, but also on having had the courage to appoint a strong-minded officer, such as General Learmont, who was always likely to bring out a very tough and critical report? Is not it worth reflecting that a hypothetical Labour Government would not have had the guts to have the report and, if they had, would have swept it straight under the carpet?
Mr. Howard: I shall not follow my hon. Friend on that hypothetical path. I chose Sir John Learmont to carry out this inquiry because I knew that he would produce an independent report that would investigate matters and reveal the truth as he saw it. I believe that that is what he has done.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the report by Sir John Learmont underlines that the prevailing ethos at Parkhurst

43
was quite unacceptable, and that is why the governor had to go? Will he further accept the congratulations of most hon. Members and people in the country on being a Home Secretary who is willing to challenge the prevailing ethos in respect of prisons and sentencing?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Decisions that have to be taken by the holder of this office are particularly difficult and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that the financial arrangements for Mr. Lewis's departure will not be conditional on his not responding to the criticisms of his stewardship of prisons that the Home Secretary has articulated in the House? Will the price of compensation or severance pay be his silence?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that the criticisms that have been made are not those articulated by me in the House but are contained in General Learmont's report.

Points of Order
5.2 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are aware of the tragic and fatal accident that took place at Thoresby colliery last Thursday, 12 October. It is essential that we identify the cause of the accident, learn the lessons from it and reassure people who work in the coal industry. When British Coal was in the public sector, we might have expected a statement to the House. Now that the industry is in the private sector, no statement is to be made. I wonder what steps should now be taken to ensure that the House and all those who are connected with the coal industry have access to a clear, open and honest account of the accident.
Madam Speaker: The accident to which the hon. Gentleman refers is indeed a tragedy for the community he represents, particularly for those families who are directly affected by it. I have had no request for a statement on the matter and have not heard from any Minister that a statement is forthcoming. Therefore, I have to leave it to the hon. Gentleman who represents that area to attempt to raise the matter in another way. I shall be sympathetic to that if he chooses to do so.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In today's Order Paper, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) describes himself as the Deputy Prime Minister. In the Order Paper that was published over the summer, he was described as the First Secretary of State. Indeed, when I went to the Table Office and sought to table a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, I was advised that the description was the First Secretary of State. I wonder who caused that change in description. Will you advise me as to which term has the highest status?
Madam Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order for me, as I have no responsibility in allocating the titles of Ministers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I had nothing to do with the allocation of title to the right hon. Gentleman to whom he refers.

Defence Estimates

  FIRST DAY
  [Relevant documents: The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 in its Ninth Report of Session 1994–95, HC 572. The First Report from the Defence Committee on the Defence Estate, HC 67; the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 318; the Fifth Report on Defence Costs Study Follow-up: Defence Medical Services, HC 102; the Sixth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 641; the Sixth Report on Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel, HC86; and the Seventh Report on Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, HC 319.]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  5.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 contained in Cm. 2800.
  It is an honour for me to open this debate on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995". The Government will take this opportunity to respond to the Defence Select Committee's report.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on becoming Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, in succession to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), whom we also congratulate.
  We ended the last Session with a debate on the former Yugoslavia. In July, things looked pretty desperate. The Bosnian Serbs had overrun the United Nations safe areas of Srebrenica and Zepa. Our television screens were full of harrowing images of death and destruction. Gorazde, where British soldiers of the Royal Welch Fusiliers were based, was threatened. Much has changed.
  At the London conference, called by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we achieved what until then had seemed impossible. The international community found a new resolve. The Bosnian Serbs were told in clear terms that further attacks on the United Nations safe areas would be met with a decisive military response.
  The UN Generals Janvier and Smith took timely action to reduce the vulnerability of the UN forces. Their success in withdrawing the Royal Welch Fusiliers from their exposed position in Gorazde was a particular relief to us all.
  Following the Bosnian Serb attack on Sarajevo marketplace, NATO began an air campaign. British planes carried out a significant share of the bombing raids. Let us hope that the Bosnian Serb generals now understand and will not again doubt the resolve of the international community.
  The improved position on the ground has enabled the UN Secretary-General to reduce the size of UNPROFOR. As a result, we will bring home most of 24 Air Mobile Brigade later this month, but we shall leave their heavy equipment and some maintenance personnel to facilitate a rapid return to theatre if necessary. The presence of the brigade has played a vital part in making clear to the
  46
  Bosnian Serbs our determination to enhance the effectiveness of UNPROFOR and to provide additional protection to British troops.
  We would not be where we are today without the continued commitment of UN and NATO forces from many countries. The House will wish to pay tribute to their courage and professionalism.
  Our special tribute must go to the British forces—the front-line troops deployed in hazardous locations, such as Gorazde; those on Mount Igman, with the multinational brigade, where our batteries have been involved in action in defence of the Sarajevo safe area; all the key supporting forces and the Royal Navy ships in the Adriatic; and the air men and women of both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, who have served with such distinction, particularly those who played a part in the air campaign and who have flown humanitarian aid into Sarajevo. Quietly, sensibly and steadfastly, they have been getting on with what needs to be done in the former Yugoslavia.
  I should like to recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who told the House on 29 April 1993 that the Government's key aims were to prevent the conflict from spreading, to relieve humanitarian suffering and to provide a framework for a political solution.
  We have met those objectives. We have prevented the conflict from spreading into a wider Balkan war. We have reduced the killing and made a major contribution to relief, and we have played a leading role in the peace process, notably by our membership of the five nation contact group.
  The United States initiative launched at the end of August may have brought us to the brink of a peaceful settlement. I congratulate Dick Holbrooke and Carl Bildt on their tireless efforts leading to the ceasefire of 12 October.
  The alliance may now face a new challenge. We are already engaged in planning for a peace implementation force. It will be NATO-led, and NATO forces will provide the core; but we would expect other nations to play their part. Russia, in particular, should have a substantial role. Good progress was made in discussions between NATO Ministers at Williamsburg earlier this month.
  The headquarters of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps—the ARRC—will play a key part. As NATO's only deployable corps HQ, it is vital to the success of any ground operation. Britain provides the commander and some 60 per cent. of the staff. I am confident that General Sir Mike Walker and his team will rise to the challenge.
  NATO's role in Bosnia helps us to focus on the alliance's development in the future. The Government welcome the very useful report recently produced by the Defence Select Committee.
  The NATO Defence Ministers in Williamsburg had a good discussion on NATO enlargement. NATO has recently published the results of its work on the "how and why" of enlargement. These are now being presented to partners, and Defence Ministers will collectively consider the next steps at the NATO meetings in early December.
  Those will be important decisions. History teaches us that we should not give security guarantees lightly. Furthermore, operations in the former Yugoslavia have shown NATO's unique central role in the maintenance of

  47
  security and stability in Europe. Nothing should be done that would undermine the alliance's military effectiveness. We cannot afford ambiguity or political gestures. We must say what we mean, and mean what we say.
  There are other complex issues. NATO's relationship with Russia, the relationship between France and the alliance are important matters that need to be discussed frankly. I hope that the debate will not be sidetracked into theological argument. We should take note of developments on the ground. I welcome the involvement of French forces in operations in the former Yugoslavia, including in the proposed NATO implementation force; and I welcome the close co-operation between NATO and Russia, to the point where discussions are under way with the Russians on their possible participation in the implementation force.
  In other words, the former Yugoslavia problem is obliging NATO to find practical solutions to the involvement of French forces, and to the question of relations with Russia, even though some of the institutional arguments remain unresolved.
  At the time of this debate last year, the ceasefires in Northern Ireland had only just been announced. The security situation has improved dramatically since then, and the progress made during the past 12 months gives us hope. Every day without bombs is a gain; every month without bloodshed is a blessing. It may be that, month after month, the quiet momentum of peace will become unstoppable, and all men of good will must hope for that.
  However, we cannot relax our guard. Terrorist organisations continue to train their members, and have significant stocks of weapons and explosives with which they could resume the violence at short notice. Nor has violence disappeared altogether from the streets of Northern Ireland: punishment attacks go on, and intimidation continues unabated in some areas. The marching season showed us that relations within the community remain highly volatile. There were arson attacks on churches, chapels and Orange halls throughout the Province. Those incidents are not to be compared with the large-scale terrorist atrocities of 18 months ago, but they cause fear in the population. They are not acceptable in a civilised society.
  As always, the armed forces have adapted to the demands made of them in this sensitive period. Our first duty is to ensure the safety of the people of Northern Ireland. We have been able to respond to the improved conditions by relocating two major units to their home bases, and more relocations may become possible if peace continues to develop. Troops will accompany the RUC wherever it may encounter hostility, but in areas where routine support for police patrols has ceased many soldiers have now returned to barracks. That has allowed them to take part in exercises, both in the UK and abroad, and to train for their primary roles.
  IRA-Sinn Fein has said that peace may break down if it does not get its way. If it does break down for that reason, IRA-Sinn Fein will not be forgiven. Our service men and women have done an outstanding job in Northern Ireland, and have shown great bravery and dedication. The task has fallen mainly to the younger soldiers—corporals and lance-corporals—who have had to make split-second decisions on which people's lives have depended. The
  48
  qualities that they have displayed—discipline, self-restraint and sheer professionalism—bring distinction to our armed forces. They will continue to work tirelessly in support of the RUC, and we shall remain vigilant until a secure and enduring settlement is in place.
  The five years since the end of the cold war have been years of upheaval, as we, with our allies, have adapted. Nuclear exchange today is much less likely, but we face increased uncertainty. We can expect continuing calls on the United Kingdom to support conflict prevention, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions—and, on occasion, to join a coalition to reverse unacceptable aggression. Those crises may arise with little or no notice. We cannot predict with certainty who will be involved in the response, but we can predict that those missions will arise some distance from the United Kingdom.
  Over the past five years, we have reviewed our defence strategy. This year's statement sets out our intention to set a steady course for the future, building on the changes that we have made. It does not propose, as the Opposition motion does, another defence review. My Department has clear aims and objectives, which are set out in this year's statement. They are to ensure that we have in place the strategy and the defence capability needed to protect our security and that of our dependent territories; to contribute to the promotion of British interests overseas; and to help to maximise our international influence and prestige.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The Secretary of State speaks of the need to safeguard British interests overseas, and also of the need for adaptation. Since I last asked him about it, has he reflected further on the serious problems that arise from our country's disproportionate commitment to the export of arms? Has he considered the miserable humanitarian consequences, and the destabilising geopolitical effects? Has he also considered the dangers to our economy of our shrunken manufacturing base being so dependent on a particular sector of the export market, which is itself shrinking? Will he accept Labour's proposal for a defence diversification agency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that an intervention consists of one question, not six.
  Mr. Portillo: I note that the hon. Gentleman has become no less verbose following his transition to the Opposition. We are discussing the qualities, such as loyalty, that characterise our forces and it is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman rise in his place. I have reflected upon Britain's most successful industry in terms of exports, upon the rights of countries to provide for their self-defence and upon the marriage of those two interests. I have spoken about the right of countries to buy arms to defend themselves and a country that is well able to export defence material to them.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister speaks about Britain's successful arms industry. Does he regard as part of that success the fact that this country supplied arms to the former Yugoslavia which were almost certainly used in the recent conflict?
  Mr. Portillo: Of course arms will be used by people when they think that they have to protect themselves—that is an inevitable consequence. I do not know whether

  49
  the hon. Gentleman is one of the 37 signatories to the Opposition motion that calls for the cancellation of the Trident programme and the reduction of British defence spending to the average of the European Union. It was noticeable the week before last when the Labour party stage-managed its conference that it was able to avoid any debate on these matters. But as soon as Labour Members get back to Parliament the wild men take over. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his many allies in the House for showing the true face of Labour and its wish still to be a unilateral disarmer.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of nuclear weapons and Trident, would he briefly explain to the House and the country why we are spending up to £30 billion on nuclear weapons that can destroy life and humanity as we know it? Against whom are these weapons fuelled and aimed? What is the great threat to this nation that requires a weapon that can destroy the planet?
  Mr. Portillo: If it were within the rules of the House I would happily cede all my time to the hon. Gentleman to make a speech about nuclear disarmament so that our people could clearly understand that the policy of a vast tract of the Labour party is to get rid of nuclear weapons. There are now nuclear weapons states in the world and there will be more in future. Britain has provided a nuclear umbrella not only for her own defence but for the defence of Europe. Many countries have benefited from that umbrella and have enjoyed a peace that they would not otherwise have had. I should like the hon. Gentleman to make as many speeches as he can proclaiming that the true policy of the Labour party is to do away with that unilateral nuclear defence.
  Dr. Robert Spink: While my right hon. Friend is reflecting on the Government's successful defence policy, and in particular the nuclear component of that policy, will he say whether the Government will continue to support our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Will he also reflect on the fact that that lot on the Opposition Benches would put that in jeopardy?
  Mr. Portillo: Of course I support continued membership: this Government always will. It is appropriate that Britain should play such a part in world affairs. It brings us great prestige and influence and heavy responsibilities which we are happy to fulfil.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who has been rising for some time, and then I should like to make some progress.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Secretary of State is concentrating on the nuclear issue and as the Government are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, will he tell us in simple terms the Government's attitude to the French nuclear testing in the south Pacific? Do they have a yes or no attitude? I ask that particularly in the light of the Minister's scepticism towards Europe.
  Mr. Portillo: If the world is to benefit from the nuclear umbrella that is provided by the taxpayers of Britain, France and the United States, it is important for the world to know that nuclear weapons are effective. That is how
  50
  deterrence is achieved. We in Britain do not feel a need to test our weapons to have certainty about that, but we make no judgment about whether the French are in the same position. However, we applaud the fact that the French have made clear their intention to sign, after this series of tests, the comprehensive test ban treaty.
  This year's statement gives a full exposition of the policies about which I have been speaking. It makes clear that the proposals for restructuring our front-line forces under "Options for Change" are complete. To implement our policies, the fighting strength and capabilities of our front-line forces need to be maintained. If their commitment is reduced, we intend to use the resources that are released to help to reduce overstretch, to increase training for war and to support other high-priority tasks.
  The Defence Select Committee rightly expressed concern about overstretch in our armed forces, drawing particular attention to the operational tour intervals in the Army and especially in the infantry. The Army is currently heavily committed to operations. Some 23 per cent. of the field Army is deployed on operations with another 10 per cent. preparing for or recovering from them. Because of that, this year we shall not be able to meet our target of an average operational tour interval of 24 months for infantry battalions. On the basis of current commitments, the average for 1995–96 will be 20 months.
  I am conscious of the impact of that change on soldiers and the effect upon them of separation from their families and of uncomfortable living conditions. It is a tribute to our armed forces that those deprivations are endured without affecting morale or operational capability. But we are not complacent and our target for average tour intervals remains 24 months. I recognise that it would never be possible rigidly to enforce such guidelines. None the less, I hope that the House will welcome the assurance in this year's statement that even if, as we hope, the Northern Ireland situation allows us over time to reduce our commitment to the RUC, it will not lead to cuts in fighting units. The Government intend to commit to defence the funds that are needed to preserve and properly equip our front-line capabilities.
  Mr. Tom King: My right hon. Friend spoke about overstretch. He will be aware that one of the paradoxes of "Options for Change" was that while we were reducing the number of regiments we were concerned about demographic change and the reduction of about 30 per cent. in the age group pool from which we recruit. Even at the lower levels there could be considerable problems with recruitment, and recent news shows that that could continue to be a difficulty. Will my right hon. Friend or the Minister of State for the Armed Forces say what the Government intend to do to meet that recruitment challenge?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be happy to deal with that but I should like to comment on it. There is a public perception that because the number of men in our armed forces has been reduced we do not need new recruits. I should like to take this opportunity to correct that impression. We do need recruits because we are not getting enough of them at the moment and the armed forces continue to offer a wonderful opportunity for young men and women. I hope that that opportunity will carry across the airwaves to young people who are thinking about a career in the services.

  51
  My Department continues to drive down costs, eliminate waste and improve efficiency. Headquarters staff numbers will continue to decline dramatically. "Front Line First" will save more than £1 billion a year by the end of the century, and the Department's efficiency programme has produced over £3 billion of efficiency gains in the past 10 years.
  The changes that have been set in hand will continue to have their effect over the next few years. There is exemplary commitment by the services and civil servants to driving down costs and a willingness to embrace change, even though it can be personally disruptive. We must grasp enthusiastically the opportunities to manage our defence effort better. "Front Line First" has shown how a rigorous approach can enable us to invest in modern and capable equipment.
  The Tomahawk land attack missile provides a vivid example of the enhancements in capability that were made possible by the savings achieved through "Front Line First". I am pleased to announce that the required approvals have been granted by the United States Administration and Congress and that we are therefore today placing an order for the missile. Tomahawk offers a capability that is suited to the world that we now face. It can carry out long-range precision attacks against selected targets with minimum threat to our forces and a low risk of collateral damage. Its long range and high accuracy will give us a highly effective means of persuading a potential aggressor to desist from unacceptable activity.
  Last July we announced our intention to establish a joint rapid deployment force. I can now provide some more detail. We foresee a greater demand in future for operations mounted quickly to demonstrate our national purpose or the will of the international community, to stabilise a rapidly deteriorating situation or to protect the interests of our people. The joint rapid deployment force will be a key part of that and we have set a number of goals for the force.
  The force will be joint, bringing units from all three services together in an effective formation of up to reinforced brigade strength with supporting naval and air components. It will be able to undertake a broad spectrum of missions and will be capable of being used either as part of a national response to a crisis or as part of an international coalition, whether brought together by NATO, the Western European Union or the UN.
  The force will be able to respond quickly, with units held at the necessary readiness and, in responding, it must be able to bring the right range of skills to bear. Those goals are demanding. Units assigned to the JRDF must be manned, trained and equipped to meet them. Most of all, they will need clear leadership—leaders who are able to bring together a wide range of skills with new ways of thinking and working where required.
  An implementation team will be set up under a Royal Marines brigadier to establish the JRDF by 1 August next year. The force, once formed, will be under its own chief of operations. It will be based on a core formed of 5 Airborne Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. It will be underpinned by our national contingency forces, from which units will be assigned to the JRDF in rotation.
  Speed of deployment and mobility in theatre will be vital. The JRDF will be able to draw on RAF transport aircraft, assigned support and battlefield helicopters and
  52
  our specialist amphibious shipping. We shall examine possible enhancements to that shipping and also the charter, lease or purchase of suitable civil shipping and cargo aircraft. The new force will greatly improve our ability to respond quickly and effectively to contingencies. Our goal is to create a force with the power to influence events.
  Mr. Keith Mans: What my right hon. Friend has said is welcome, but will he elaborate a little on where the resources—manpower and money—are to come from? Is it simply a case of the existing forces of the three armed services having yet another role to perform?
  Mr. Portillo: Clearly, I am not in a position today to make announcements on resources. I am talking about the process of bringing our armed forces up to date to meet the new range of threats in the world and ensuring that we train and man existing units for rapid deployment. Making available to our armed forces units that can be assigned quickly and deployed in theatre seems a welcome step forward.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, if the new rapid deployment force is to be headed by a brigadier of the Royal Marines, there could be no better place to locate that force's headquarters than at the Royal Marines school of music in Deal, which, it has been announced, might be closing next April? Will he accept that Deal is probably the nearest place to any future theatre of war in which to locate such a headquarters and the fact that we have an airport—Manston airport—just up the road? It is a former RAF airport and could therefore be expanded and improved in times of emergency to deal with the activities of the Royal Marines—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should hope that an hon. Member who expects the Marines to come back to his constituency will respond to a little discipline occasionally.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in representing his constituency on military matters and I congratulate him on getting in his bid so early.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I wish to pursue a little further the matter of the rapid deployment force. Does it involve the use of forces already stationed in Germany as part of the rapid reaction corps?
  Mr. Portillo: I had not intended that.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Secretary of State cannot dodge the question asked by two of his colleagues. We are dealing with defence estimates yet he says that he cannot state whether there are to be new resources for the rapid reaction force or whether we shall be recycling soldiers, sailors and airmen who are knackered.
  Mr. Portillo: I answered the question but the hon. Gentleman was too busy preparing his next question to listen.
  I have spoken of NATO's role in the former Yugoslavia. NATO is, and will be, the bedrock of our security. No other organisation can provide an effective security guarantee backed by the political and military structures to put it into effect. NATO has made it plain

  53
  that its forces are available to support United Nations missions and it provides the vital link between Europe and North America.
  For NATO to work well, European countries must show their ability to work together and to pull their weight—[Interruption.]—as I said at Blackpool last week. There are numerous European contributors to United Nations operations in Bosnia. Again as I said in Blackpool last week, we have found ourselves in combat alongside excellent forces from France and the Netherlands on the slopes of Mount Igman.
  Organisations other than NATO have much to contribute. This is an important time for the Western European Union, which is being developed to take on the tasks defined in the 1992 Petersburg declaration—humanitarian crises, disaster relief, peacekeeping and other crisis management missions. For this, we believe that the WEU needs to develop its operational capabilities so that it is able to mount effective operations. That will be a priority during our presidency of the WEU from next January.
  The arrangements that are put in place must not, however, undermine NATO or the transatlantic link. Our goal is to build WEU capabilities that are compatible and not in competition with those of NATO. Those capabilities must be credible to the outside world and we must be able to rely on them to work in practice. We have therefore adopted an approach to the development of the WEU that examines tasks of which it should be capable and addresses the gaps that need to be filled. We want to build genuine military effectiveness.
  We sincerely hope that the debate on defence at next year's intergovernmental conference will not get side-tracked into theological debate. Institutional tinkering cuts no ice with aggressors. No Bosnian Serb militiaman will be deterred by abstract talk of European defence vocations and perspectives.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I want to finish my point.
  The Government's aims for the intergovernmental conference are clear in terms of what we want and what we cannot accept. Our yardstick will always be what is in the interests of Britain's and Europe's security. What we want is an intergovernmental conference which promotes a European Union that is outward-looking, not introspective, and which helps to build a practical European defence capability so that all European countries can take on their proper share in building security in their continent and further afield.
  As the Government say on page 17 of the defence estimates, however, what we cannot accept from the intergovernmental conference is a merger of WEU into the European Union. The European Union includes countries that are neutral, and it would be positively damaging to Europe's wider interests if we put in place new defence hurdles for prospective EU members in central and eastern Europe.
  Nor, again as we said in the defence estimates, should there be in defence matters any of the involvement of the European Commission or the European Parliament that occurs elsewhere in the Union's structure. Decisions on the deployment of British armed forces must be taken by the sovereign British Government. No decisions should be taken that would limit our freedom to act in defence
  54
  of British national interests. There is no justification for separate European armies which would be wasteful and which would undermine NATO.
  Britain has a leading role to play in the world, for the benefit of our own people and for the good of the international community. We are a global power and an important European power. We can and will use our position to influence the development of Europe, not to create defence structures where the defence policies of individual nations are subjugated to a supranational European body, but to enable nation states to work together to build security and stability in Europe.
  As we debate defence, let us not forget that our nation retains global reach. We will continue to be a major participant in world affairs, using our assets and experience for the benefit of the world community. We can draw on our long experience of political stability and a tradition of moderation. We are also a responsible nuclear power. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Uniquely, we are a leading member of NATO, the European Union and a Commonwealth that covers one third of the people of the earth.
  In conditions very different from that of the cold war, we may need fewer men and women under arms, but their quality, their training and their equipment must remain world class.
  5.41 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995; condemns the continued instability in the armed forces caused by the Government's failure to establish a long-term strategic overview; notes that this undermines the morale and operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom's armed forces and fails to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the post cold war world; calls upon the Government to establish a strategic defence review; deplores the way that United Kingdom defence capabilities and installations are being run down in an unstructured way instead of the Government seeking to manage the worst effects of change on communities and individuals through a defence diversification agency; urges a positive approach in the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention; condemns the Government's financial mismanagement and waste in defence; congratulates the excellent work carried out by British forces throughout the world and expresses pride in their continuing presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations.'.
  I want to begin my comments in this annual debate on defence in a consensual manner and pay tribute to the men and women who have worn the uniforms of our armed forces with such distinction. I want to link with them the civilians who work with the Ministry of Defence, but whose work so often goes unrecognised. In paying tribute to the skill, resolution and sheer professionalism of those men and women, I am conscious that they operate in 24 countries throughout the world and also in Northern Ireland, and that they are away from their families for too long a period.
  I am especially conscious of the good work that those men and women have done in Bosnia. Like the Secretary of State, I have witnessed that, but many people in this country are not aware of the value and extent of their work in bringing together communities and helping new civilian regimes to emerge. I know that at this moment,

  55
  when they are likely to swap their blue berets and helmets of the United Nations for the steel helmets of NATO. their task may become even more dangerous—but that task will be all the more necessary if we are to effect a peace in that nation.
  This year of 1995, as we recall the victories in Europe and Japan against fascism 50 years ago, is an especially poignant year. The ceremonies marking VE and VJ days gave us all an opportunity to express our thanks to those who played their part in securing those victories. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that we have a duty to ensure that the sufferings and sacrifices were not in vain.
  Indeed, as we view the events of 50 years ago from our modern day vantage point, one fact is often overlooked, even though it is so strikingly obvious—that for centuries until 1945, European countries had fought each other as a matter of course. Now, it is inconceivable that Britain would go to war with Germany, that France would wage war with Spain and that the people of Belgium, Holland and Denmark would fear the military might of Germany. The reason for the changed position and the current stability is, quite simply, the creation of international institutions such as NATO and the EEC, now the European Union.
  That may be an obvious statement, but I regret that the Secretary of State appeared not to take it on board. I thought that his speech today was largely reasoned; I thought it subdued. It was not so much a tactical retreat as a rout. I do not know who brought pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman, but certainly wiser counsels have prevailed and the House has benefited from that.
  However, I must make the point that at last week's Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State caused offence to and angered many people in this country. In his speech he delivered what I regarded as one of the most disgracefully nationalistic rants that I have ever had the great displeasure to hear. I was simply appalled to learn that his speech had not only been approved by the Prime Minister, but had his full and enthusiastic support. The Prime Minister must take the blame for the damage caused by that speech, both at home and abroad.
  That speech did do damage. At home, it attracted criticism from Lord Howe, Sir Leon Brittan and the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Carver [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) may laugh at the former Chief of the Defence Staff, but the Opposition believe that his opinion is worth listening to. Abroad, there was criticism—some might say expected—from the European Commission, through its President Mr. Santer. However, I recall that it is the same Jacques Santer who was the Prime Minister's chosen man—the right man, at the right time, in the right place. He is the Prime Minister's chosen man, but he could not take the Secretary of State's speech.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to excuse his speech as a knockabout conference floor piece of oratory, but that cannot obscure the menace and danger that it harboured. We needed only to listen to his jingoistic tirade to realise how misguided is his idea of the role of the armed forces.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that during my
  56
  period of service I never met any British service man who was doing other than serving for Britain. I never met any French service man who was doing other than serving for France. The same was true for other countries. Indeed, the German prisoners who were under me also said that they were fighting for Germany.
  Dr. Clark: I do not really follow the hon. Gentleman's point. We are objecting to the way in which the Secretary of State abused his position and twisted and abused the values of patriotism that are held dear by Members on both sides of the House. It is an affront to the House to see the national flag of this country used so recklessly to further the political ambitions of one man.
  Mr. Portillo: I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to the point because I was not sure to which part of my speech he was objecting. I have now discovered that it is his view that I abused patriotism. I did not make the sort of speech made by the Leader of the Opposition about VJ day. I did not stand up and say that on VJ day I observed many veterans on the march calling out that they were Labour supporters. I would have thought that any man who aspires to be the leader of this country and attends a major national ceremony, but who comes away from it to tell his conference that he saw only Labour voters—where the rest of us saw veterans and heroes—has a lot to learn.
  Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that patriotism does not mean that we hate our enemies and it does not mean that we are anti-foreign.
  It is not only the Opposition, eminent people and the general public who have been offended by the right hon. Gentleman's outburst; the armed forces are seething about his speech. One senior officer is reported to have described it as a prostitution of the armed forces reputation in the name of short-term political gain. To try to hijack the courage and commitment of the SAS for the right hon. Gentleman's self-seeking Rambo-style propaganda shows the depths to which he will go.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had raised nationalistic issues concerning European defence and the formation of a European army. Does he agree with the remarks by Chancellor Kohl on 20 September when he said that he intended that there should be a defence union in Europe by 1999? Does he consider that to be a relevant threat?
  Dr. Clark: Chancellor Kohl has nothing to do with the British Labour party. He is more closely linked with the Conservative party, I may say. The leader of the Labour party said in the House on 1 March—I shall speak slowly for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—that the possibility of a European army was not on. He said:
  "We do not—
  the leader of the Labour party said this—
  "We do not favour a European army".—[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1059.]
  Is that clear? I hope that it is.
  Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: Perhaps I could continue.

  57
  Not only were the armed forces and the general public offended or sickened; what really got home to most people was the attempt by the Secretary of State to claim patriotism for the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman needs a history lesson before he tries to wrap that around us. We in the Labour party are conscious of patriotism. We accept that no one party has a monopoly on patriotism. But does not the Defence Secretary recall those dark days of 1940, when our backs were up against the wall, and we had the war Cabinet of Attlee and Greenwood from the Labour party, with Halifax and Chamberlain from the Conservative party, and, of course, Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister? In May 1940, in a critical situation, the proposition came before the Cabinet of whether to sue for peace with Hitler. Two Cabinet members in favour—
  Mr. Mackinlay: Rab Butler. [Laughter.]
  Dr. Clark: I could do without the comments of my hon. Friend. With Chamberlain and Halifax from the Conservative party, by three votes—those of Churchill and the two Labour Members—to two, it was decided that this nation would not bow to the yoke of fascism. We do not need any lessons on patriotism from this Government. We have never used such information before, but if they ask for it, we will use it.
  I return to the main point that I am trying to make. I hope that I have got it across to the Defence Secretary. It is simply: we in the Labour party accept that men and women of all political persuasions, of all political parties, gave up their lives so that we—the right hon. Gentleman and myself and every other hon. Member in the House—may live free from the shadows of fascism and the Nazis. Ever since then, this House has been united in protecting that freedom. Successive Defence Secretaries from all parties have argued for it, because we have been determined that those shadows should never darken Britain again.
  Partly to try to ensure that such events did not happen again, over 50 years ago we formed the Atlantic alliance. The Secretary of State will be slightly embarrassed because the headquarters of that organisation is based in Brussels. That organisation brought the peoples of North America and Europe together, and upon that stability our freedom has been built. We had the same aims of security, stability, unity and freedom. It is a sad day when Britain, which has for so long been a major player in NATO, has a Secretary of State who does not seem to appreciate that point.
  Mr. Key: The interesting ramble that we have sat through has merely served to point out—the hon. Gentleman quoted his leader in affirmation of the point—that the leader of the Labour party agrees with the Secretary of State for Defence. That seems to be the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. When he says that nobody is interested in or believes in what the Secretary of State for Defence said, I wonder whether he has spoken to any one of his constituents over the weekend. My constituents have not being telling me how upset they were with the Secretary of State—absolutely the reverse.
  Dr. Clark: Well, we will see when the election comes what the hon. Gentleman's constituents are actually thinking. We have talked about history, but let us talk about current affairs and the leader of the Labour party. We have made it quite clear that we are not in favour of
  58
  a European army, nor will we give up Britain's right of veto on defence and security issues. I hope that that is clear. May I read out the document which was passed at our conference? I shall read it very slowly and I shall say it only once. It said:
  "Labour does not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the European Union a military competence."
  Is that clear? I do not think that it can be made clearer to anyone who has anything between their ears.
  Mr. Portillo: But if the situation is so very clear, why did Pauline Green, the leader of the socialists in Europe, Labour Member of the European Parliament for London North, table a motion, which was voted for by Labour Members of the European Parliament, calling for the application of qualified majority voting to foreign and security policy? Why did all Labour Members of the European Parliament vote for a merger of foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs into the main structure of the European Community, where of course the European Court and the European Parliament would have influence? If that is the policy of the leader of the socialists in Europe, why is it so very different from the policy of the leader of the Labour party?
  Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman knows that his own party, the European People's party, supports the social chapter, yet he does not accept it.
  I stand by what I said. The party conference and the Labour Front-Bench team have said quite clearly that we do not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the EU a military competence. I hope that that is clear. I wish that the Secretary of State would stop tilting at windmills that do not exist. He is simply becoming the Don Quixote of British politics by so doing.
  I know that the Secretary of State will claim that he was being patriotic. He was not. He was being xenophobic and nationalistic. I am minded of Richard Aldington's comment. He said:
  "Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock, crowing on its own dunghill."
  That is something which the Secretary of State may well take on board.
  One thing is clear, in spite of the Secretary of State's views, his professed patriotism does not extend to procurement decisions facing Britain. He is all words and little action in that respect because in recent years the Conservative party has shown that it prefers to buy foreign equipment wherever possible. It has bought planes from the United States, ammunition from Israel, fuses from Italy, bribes and all. That has been this Government's record when it comes to supporting the British defence industry.
  I sometimes wonder what the Government have got against the British defence industry. For example, why have they got such an obsession against Land Rover?
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Dr. Clark: I shall give way in a moment. Why did the Government go against the bid for light vehicle replacements from Land Rover in preference to the Reynolds Broughton RB44? The Australians went for the British Land Rover and it has been very successful. What did we buy? We bought Reynolds Broughton. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all 846 of those vehicles are unroadworthy? They have had to be taken off the road.

  59
  Not one of them can be used, yet they were chosen in preference to the British Land Rover. Will he also tell us how many Austrian vehicles he has had to buy to replace and make good those 846 vehicles which he had to take off the road? That is the sort of behaviour that we get from the Government when it comes to procurement from British defence companies.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman is going to make a speech on behalf of the British defence industry, is not it incumbent on him to distance himself from the comments of the party's newest recruit, who seems to be part of the old Labour party, determined to wage a vendetta against the defence industry by preventing it from exporting legitimately? Would the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Labour party would not wish to restrict sales of arms overseas, which are a great export earner and provide significant employment in my constituency?
  Dr. Clark: We have made it clear that, so long as one accepts article 51 of the United Nations charter, every country has the right to self-defence, so they obviously have the right to acquire weapons for that purpose. We have said that, but equally we are not in favour of selling arms to repressive regimes and we are not in the business of selling arms that might be used against other countries or, indeed, against our soldiers. If the Government and their Conservative predecessors had been more transparent, we would not have had the Scott inquiry or the difficulties that resulted.
  The point that we are trying to make is that we need a strong British defence industry if we are to match our national and international commitments. I happen to believe that, if I ask a British man or woman to go out and serve in a United Nations force on behalf of Britain, those people have the right to the best equipment. I happen to believe that in many cases, that best equipment is British. It is sad that the Government have no strategy for the defence industry and, indeed, actively threaten our ability to protect British forces.
  The United Kingdom defence industry is facing a period of unprecedented change. The Government have done nothing to try to help it to manage that change. The social price is enormous: 350,000 defence redundancies in recent years. They were all unplanned. There was no attempt to manage the change. Thousands of people with high-tech skills which we as a country can ill afford to lose have simply been thrown aside. The Government's complacency shows in how little esteem they hold the defence sector and the communities that are dependent on it.
  It is because we believe that it is in Britain's national and economic interest to have a defence industrial base and because the Tories have inflicted such damage on it that we have launched our own strategy for a secure future for the defence industry. Opposition Members believe, unlike the Government, that the British defence industry is a strategic part not only of our defence effort but of our manufacturing capability. We will work with the defence industry to identify technologies in which we lead the world and to ensure that they realise their potential.
  I sometimes fear that we have missed so many opportunities. The liquid crystal display unit on all lap-top computers and calculators was invented here in Britain by the Defence Research Agency, which is publicly owned.
  60
  Yet there was no one to realise its potential. Billions of pounds and thousands of jobs have been lost to Britain because of that failure. That is why we will establish a defence diversification agency funded from within the existing defence budget which will make a significant contribution to realising those opportunities. We believe that there is a future for British industry.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said that he was working with the defence industries. Is he aware that not one single defence manufacturer supports the idea of a defence diversification agency?
  Dr. Clark: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the evidence from GEC to the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It came out openly in favour of a defence diversification agency. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He can go and look in the records. It is clearly stated in the evidence to that Select Committee. Other companies have told us that they support the idea.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Would he like to remind the Government party that it is not the Labour party which has dissipated all the industrial base of the Royal Ordnance factories and, for the first time since King Charles, left us without state ordnance?
  Dr. Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. I know how much my hon. Friend fights for her constituents who work at the Radway Green plant and how much she has fought not only for her constituents but for Britain. It is much appreciated. I know that it is a matter of regret that so many jobs have been lost at that plant.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I know that GEC has said what the hon. Gentleman has reported that it has said to the Select Committee, but has the Labour party studied what has happened in the United States of America? It has thrown $300 million at the funding of a diversification agency and got nothing in return.
  Dr. Clark: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The American experience was to establish a defence diversification commission. It was not to be a permanent body. It was a commission to determine how the rundown of not only the defence industry but defence bases should be managed. I must say that the USA has managed the change much more successfully than we have in Britain. I happen to believe that we can learn a great deal from the work of Secretary Gottbaum and the people in the department.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No, I am not prepared to give way. I have given way on so many occasions that I am not prepared to give way again.
  I have set out Labour's ideas for the defence industry. I should now like to raise an issue which has come to prominence in recent weeks; it is the Secretary of State's decision to examine the possibility of leasing or purchasing F16s from the United States to replace our Tornado F3s. In parenthesis, I am conscious that we lost about 18 of our F3s at St. Athan when the privatized

  61
  company wrecked them. I am also conscious that in turn we are to lease 24 to the Italians. Nevertheless, we understand that the Secretary of State is considering that particular option.
  It appears that the plan was considered some time ago, but was rejected on the ground that it could lead to the demise of the British aerospace industry. However, its author seems to have resurrected the plan, which appears to have found fallow ground with the new Secretary of State. That should not be surprising, given the fact that Mr. David Hart produced the report and Mr. David Hart is the Secretary of State's independent adviser. He has made no secret of that.
  It would appear that the decision is not the only procurement decision in which Mr. Hart has taken an interest. For example, in 1993, in an article in The Spectator magazine, he expressed his views clearly. It made uneasy reading for the UK defence industry because it argued that British defence firms should become little more than metal bashers for United States companies. In the same article he unfavourably compared the men and women of the Royal Air Force with those of the Israeli air force. So it is little wonder that the armed forces are seething about the influence of the so-called independent adviser—Rasputin, as I gather he is called within the Department.
  Does the House think that Mr. Hart's remarks rest easily with the patriotism and commitment which the Secretary of State enounces so much? The point that I want to get out of the Secretary of State is simply this. A number of people are deeply concerned that Mr. Hart has access to confidential information from British defence companies. I wrote to the Secretary of State just a month ago on this very issue, as he knows. He has replied to me only today. It is a helpful reply as far as it goes. I asked what security clearance Mr. Hart had. The Secretary of State wrote:
  "Mr. Hart has been subject to the checks necessary to permit him from time to time to have access to classified information. Mr. Hart fully understands the need to safeguard all information given to him in his Departmental role and that this should not be used for any other purpose. Mr. Hart provides independent advice to me in only a small number of areas where the Department is in negotiations which may lead to a procurement contract. If he were to have a financial interest in one or more of the firms in negotiation for such a contract, I would expect him to declare it and would reach a view on his involvement in the light of this declaration."
  Dr. John Reid: Very cosy.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend says, "Very cosy." I find that the letter has been written with circumspection. It does not contain the guarantee that I and the House would want on the matter. Has the gentleman signed the Official Secrets Act? Is he bound by it? Does the Secretary of State guarantee that this man uses information only for the purposes of the Department? We have a right to ask that question and to have the answer to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  I presume that the appointment of independent advisers such as Mr. Hart is justified on account of their business experience and business skills, but I am afraid that, on examining the Government's record, one finds that they do not appear to have been very successful.
  Let us consider the record. Let us take, not our figures, but those of the National Audit Office. In May this year, the National Audit Office major projects report analysed 25 of the Ministry of Defence's largest projects.
  62
  Twenty-three of those projects had forecast cost increases of £645 million. Ninety per cent. of the projects had failed to reach their original in-service date, with an average slippage of three years. That is the business efficiency of the Government—and we could go on and on.
  One example is the official services residences, to which the House drew attention. Curtains alone in one house cost £33,000. We know that the service man was scapegoated and sacked, but the budget holder of that specific project was not even disciplined. We might consider other matters, such as the £4 million spent on the other 11 residences.
  We might take as an example the collapse of the Government's privatisation of married housing stock. That privatisation fell apart, but only after the Government wasted £5 million on management consultants. Or we might consider the privatisation of the royal dockyards in Devonport and Rosyth and the fiasco there. Only two bidders emerged to tender—the two companies that were already operating the sites—and that after £6.7 million of our money had been spent on management consultants. It is not business men who are running this country; it is management consultants.
  I hope, before I leave the subject of the two dockyards, that the Secretary of State or his Ministers will reinforce the commitment today to a two-dockyard solution. I urge the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to confirm later that past promises made about pensions, redundancy entitlements, conditions of employment and work load in the event of the sales going ahead will be honoured. I also wonder when those contracts will be signed.
  We expect more from the Government. However, if we consider the Secretary of State's Blackpool outburst—using his words, stripping
  "away all the waffle and fudge"
  he represents the real agenda of the modern Conservative party. It is a highly dangerous agenda. Whereas Conservative and Labour Defence Ministers since the war have tried to achieve security, the present Government only add insecurity.
  The Secretary of State mentioned another defence review. Well, I wish that there had been a defence review; there simply has not been one. We are about the only country in the modern world that has not had a full defence review since the end of the cold war. We Opposition Members are committed to having one, because we believe that, if one is trying to plot and measure what is needed from our defence forces, one needs to have a review that is based on defence inputs, not on Treasury inputs.
  In 1993, the Ministry of Defence established the defence costs studies. The Secretary of State is quite clever. I noticed what he said today. Interestingly, he has changed the terminology—he is back to "Front Line First" again. It used to be called defence costs studies. That is the official title—not defence needs studies, but defence costs studies. He knows, better than anyone else does, because he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, that that was a Treasury-induced defence project. The tragedy is that we have no long-term planning for our military.
  The former Defence Secretary, Sir John Nott, provided a damning indictment of the existing system's failure to undertake long-term planning when he described the Ministry of Defence as being

  63
  "like a huge super-tanker, well captained, well engineered, well crewed, its systems continuously updated but with no-one ever asking where the hell it is going."
  Where the hell is it going?
  Now that the cold war is over, it is crucial that that MOD supertanker has a new captain and a redefined sense of direction. That is why we need a strategic defence review, and that is why the new Labour Government will establish such a review. We shall do so because it is necessary if we are to protect the long-term national security of Britain.
  We find that the only opposition comes from Conservative Members. The military say that they are on our side; the experts are on our side; almost everyone is, because they understand the logic of the case. The only people who disagree are, of course, members of the Conservative party.
  I shall now discuss the Government's failure in another respect—the lack of an international outlook. I ask them, when will they bring forward for ratification the chemical weapons convention? I make the promise that I have made in the past: let them bring it forward and consult with us. They will have a fair wind from the Opposition. It need not take a long time to do that.
  Similarly, why do the Government persist in opposing a ban on the trade in anti-personnel mines? The Secretary of State knows that the international conference broke down last week and he knows the damage and injury that those mines cause. Why will he not support a ban in the trade of those anti-personnel mines?
  Now I shall discuss the biggest piece of hypocrisy of all, concerning nuclear testing. As the House knows, we have a long-standing commitment to end all nuclear testing and we have pledged to take a positive attitude towards negotiation of a truly comprehensive test ban treaty. We argue that because we know that nuclear testing is unnecessary. The work can be done by laser testing and in laboratories, and it is for that reason that President Clinton took his brave stand recently.
  Unfortunately for Britain's interest and international security as a whole, Ministers have not been enthusiastic about that. Indeed, they have been obstructive and negative and came round to the opinion to support a comprehensive test ban only when President Clinton told them that they could not test in the United States.
  Only a few years ago, the then Defence Minister in the other place condemned President Clinton's moratorium on nuclear testing, calling it unfortunate and misguided. That is not the way to approach international negotiations. It is not the way to achieve the objects of SDE95, when the Government are committed to working towards a nuclear free world. That is not the way to achieve it. We wonder why the Government have had to be brought kicking to the table. We believe that the Government should drop their obstruction on the issue of nuclear testing.
  As the Secretary of State knows, recently the issue has been strongly brought home to us by the French Government's decision to conduct testing. They have completed two nuclear tests in the south Pacific. Almost universally, the international community has rightly condemned the French test in the south Pacific. What response did we hear from the Government? A muted,
  "This is a matter for the French Government".
  64
  We, almost alone in the world, refuse to condemn the French testing programme. Britain's silence is a betrayal of our position in the international community and especially a betrayal of our friends in the Commonwealth in the south Pacific. Britain's shameful silence is nothing but an insult on top of the injury already done. It must be the first time that the Secretary of State has refused to take the opportunity to condemn one of our European allies. It is obvious that the Government will not take an international approach to our security.
  The security of Britain can no longer be achieved by pillboxes situated at key points round our coasts, prepared to repel invaders. National security may need to be underpinned by military hardware, but it requires a wider perspective. Security can be achieved in the modern world only by international co-operation with our allies and the development of confidence-building measures with others.
  With the end of the cold war, that needs vision. It is obvious today that the present Government lack the will and the vision, and that only a new Labour Government are fit and able to handle our security through into the new millennium.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin (Romney and Waterside): I was with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) 100 per cent. when he began his speech. I had hoped that, as he applauded all that our forces were doing overseas in the defence of freedom, today's debate about the defence of the realm would prove constructive and would rise above party politics. I had hoped to prove that in that regard hon Members on both sides of the House agree more than we disagree. But, alas, it was not to be.
  The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for too much patriotism and too much party politics. That is nothing new at a Tory party conference. I would hardly criticise my right hon. Friend for that. It seems to me to be rather better to wave the Union Jack at one's party conference than to sing the "Red Flag".
  It is significant that the hon. Gentleman spent very little time speaking to his amendment. That is hardly surprising when it bears only six signatures in support. I think that the House and the world at large will be much more interested in the other amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which has 37 signatures. It proves that the true heart of the Labour party is alive and well.
  Today's parliamentary proceedings will not be remembered for the defence debate—they will certainly not be remembered for the speech by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields—nor do I think that they will be remembered for the statement on prisons. It is much more likely that we will remember today as the day that we paid tribute to an exceptional politician and statesman, Lord Home.
  I remember moving a vote of thanks to Lord Home after he had spoken in my constituency. On that occasion, I said that it is often said of great men that
  "some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them".
  I said that Lord Home must be the only man who embodied all three and I think that the tributes paid to him today prove that.

  65
  I think that we should hear cries of, "Author, author!" in this debate. Where are they? The defence estimates statement for 1995 was published bearing the signature of my right hon. and learned Friend, the present Foreign Secretary, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The Defence Select Committee's response to that statement was prepared when my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) was Chairman. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have now moved to new responsibilities, and may I be the first to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend as Secretary of State for Defence.
  This year's defence statement is robust and readable and it allowed the Select Committee plenty of time to comment upon it before the summer recess. My right hon. and learned Friend has already demonstrated his skills as Foreign Secretary and I am sure that he will he a most worthy successor to the distinguished line of statesmen who have held that very important office.
  I have almost always spoken in previous defence debates, but today is the first time that I speak as Defence Select Committee Chairman. I thank my colleagues on the Committee for electing me to succeed my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. I think that he will be a very difficult act to follow. As a direct descendant of Nelson, I rate him 100 guns-plus in his role as Committee Chairman. I certainly enjoyed the farewell party that we held in his honour, but I was glad that my name was not Hardy. We wish him well in his role as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The Defence Select Committee will sadly also be saying au revoir to our Clerk, Mr. David Natzler, who has kept us very well informed—and generally very amused—for six years. We welcome Andrew Kennon as his successor.
  A number of other recent Defence Select Committee reports and Government replies that are relevant to today's debate are listed on the Order Paper. I mention in particular reports about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Defence Medical Services, the Ministry of Defence estate, the defence use of civilian transport assets and personnel, and the reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition project. We are also conducting a joint investigation with the Select Committee for Trade and Industry into our defence industrial base, and it will report quite soon.
  It is important to remember that today's debate may be the last opportunity for hon. Members to discuss defence matters before the 1996 intergovernmental conference. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say today that it is now "steady as she goes", and I hope that we will enjoy a period of stability as the option decisions work their way through the system.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that this is probably the last opportunity that we will have to discuss defence issues before the intergovernmental conference commences. Therefore, is it not a pity that the Defence Committee's report entitled "The Future of NATO: the 1994 Summit and its Consequences" and the proposed extension of NATO do not appear technically
  66
  on the Order Paper today, despite the fact that the extension of NATO is referred to in the defence estimates White Paper?
  Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, there is nothing to stop hon. Members referring to that report, copies of which are available from the Vote Office. I certainly intend to refer to it later in my speech.
  I cannot believe that the Opposition are serious about wanting to plunge our armed forces into another full-scale review. That is why I shall certainly not support the Opposition amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. It will take time—probably two years—for our armed forces to weather the turbulence of the current redundancies and to settle down to the new streamlined structures. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands said when he gave evidence to the Committee:
  "The big decisions have been taken. The Government now intends to inject a period of stability into defence planning—and funding".
  I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the word "funding" and let us hope that the White Paper lives up to its title: "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain".
  Despite what my right hon. Friend has said, our Committee is still very concerned about the degree of overstretch in our armed forces. The Army's 24-month target for intervals between operational tours is barely achieved as an average, let alone a minimum; Her Majesty's ships regularly fail to meet the Royal Navy's harmony targets; and the First Sea Lord has expressed concern about the difficulty of regeneration. That has an effect on recruitment, which has been discussed previously.
  The Committee is particularly concerned about how the Army and the Royal Air Force will recruit more people in the near future. We believe that there is currently a shortfall of more than 2,000 in Army recruitment against a target of 11,200, and I know that there is press speculation that the figure is more like 5,000 short. I hope that my hon Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will inform us of the true position in his wind-up speech this evening.
  We have also noted reports of front-line undermanning, and we will be watching those matters closely. I endorse wholeheartedly what has been said already about our forces which are currently deployed on the front line in former Yugoslavia. They are performing a very difficult task with courage, skill and humour. They are undoubtedly the best troops in theatre. As to recruitment, the Committee is relieved to note that the Ministry of Defence's excessive reliance on job centres as proposed in the defence costs study has now been modified significantly.
  I do not wish to steal hon. Members' thunder on equipment issues when they may have closer constituency interests than I represent. However, I want to mention four matters. First, I refer to the EH101 medium support helicopter. We stated in our report on the White Paper our concern, following MOD information conveyed to us, that the helicopter might not meet its "genuinely necessary minimum requirements". I am now quite satisfied that it does, and so too is the Royal Air Force. I am sure that the helicopters will give sterling service to the RAF and to the Army. I am pleased that in May, just a week after our Committee met the Italian Defence Minister, Italy at last ordered the aircraft.

  67
  Secondly, we have long expressed impatience over the slow rate of replacement of the old Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers. I was delighted, therefore, to see in the Department's 13 December "Contract Bulletin", which is obligatory bedside reading for the Chairman of the Select Committee, that the MOD intended to issue an invitation to tender for the design and build in the United Kingdom of two large auxiliary oilers, presumably to replace the old 0 class vessels. Perhaps we could be told whether those two are to be followed by others and how the future shape of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is envisaged.
  I hear what my right hon. Friend said about the joint rapid deployment force, which is a welcome and an essential military development in today's uncertain world. How will the force travel to its destinations without delay? We cannot always rely on thumbing a lift from our American allies. The "Defence Estimates" say on page 30 that in order to reduce deployment times the Government are
  "taking measures to improve the readiness of specialist shipping."
  It about time they did that. When I went to the Marchwood military port in my constituency to see off the dispatch of equipment supporting the 24 Air Mobile Brigade to Bosnia, it was travelling in American military vessels. Do we not need more LSLs, landing ships—logistics, such as Sir Tristan and Sir Galahad, costing about the same as an Apache helicopter? Surely they could provide the specialist shipping that we require.
  Thirdly, we have again expressed our disappointment at the slow progress within NATO towards a solution of the identification friend or foe issue. We found it appalling that NATO forces still cannot operate together without significant risk of fratricide. We have been pursuing the matter for several years—since the tragic case of fratricide in the Gulf war. The MOD told us that in May that the United Kingdom hoped to make a formal decision on air IFF by the end of the year. I should like to know whether that is still on course.
  Fourthly, there is RISTA—reconnaissance intelligence and target acquisition. Considerable publicity has been given to the problems of the Phoenix drone system that we set out in our report. We can only hope that, after years of scandalous delay and mismanagement, it is eventually delivered to the Army. If it is not, we expect the Ministry of Defence to seek some compensation for the waste.
  We are also disturbed to discover how long it has taken for the long-outstanding requirement for a ground surveillance system to begin to be met. The United States deployed its new J-STARS aircraft during the Gulf war and there has been considerable pressure on the United Kingdom and our NATO allies to buy into that system. Is it being fully evaluated, and what is the United Kingdom's position?
  I have already touched on personnel and, as usual, our report devotes a chapter to it. I have nothing to say on the Bett report as that document is out for consultation, nor on the sad saga of official service residences.
  Our principal concern is services housing. We set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 the rather curious tale of how the idea of a housing trust foundered on arcane points of Government accounting. It seems that the plan is for the married quarters estate to be sold and leased or rented back. There is considerable anxiety throughout the
  68
  services as to how it will work in practice to ensure that families have suitable housing to move into when necessary at rents comparable to those currently charged.
  The Committee spent considerable time and effort examining the far reaching implications of the defence costs study. We have reservation about defence medical services and the Royal Naval stores capacity, but generally the defence costs studies have been a success and nearly on target at £720 million of savings for 1996–97 and £1 billion per annum savings from the end of the decade onward. I am glad to see that around 90 per cent. of the savings already made will be added back to the armed forces converting waste into weapons rather than being plundered by the Treasury.
  We were glad to be told that the new tri-service command and staff course will have 327 instead of only 240 students, with 98 from overseas instead of 60. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm those numbers.
  Our report on the Ministry of Defence estate called for a more rapid assessment and disposal of surplus properties and land holdings; and I hope that the new Defence Estate Organisation under its chief executive, Mr. Hurst, will bring that about. I also trust that our call for greater use to be made of private land for training is indeed being heeded as well as our conclusion that the use of publicly funded set-aside land for public purposes such as military training should he encouraged.
  On disposals, I welcome the MOD's acceptance of the need for a flexible approach to timing, but I am anxious that the phrase in paragraph 31 of the Ministry of Defence reply to our report that the MOD is not funded to aid economic regeneration.
  Defence land, as we stated in our report, is public land. We noted that simply seeking the highest price might well not be in the broader public interest. I hope that Mr. Hurst is empowered to permit sales in the public interest but may not raise the maximum cash return.
  Finally, on the subject of the intergovernmental conference, may I draw the attention of the House to the memorandum on the United Kingdom Government's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the IGC next year. It states that NATO should remain responsible for the defence of NATO territory under article 5 of the treaty of Washington and that the WEU should concentrate on strengthening the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance through the so-called Petersburg missions and I certainly support that policy.
  Although there are initiatives to strengthen the WEU, the organisation should not duplicate NATO. Instead, WEU-led operations should be backed by existing NATO structures and resources under the proposed combined joint task force concept. In its report on the future of NATO, our Committee recommends that no country should be admitted to membership of the WEU until it is a full member of NATO and properly integrated into the NATO military structure. It is also significant that our Committee has WEU next on its list for inquiry.
  I have no doubt about my right hon. Friend's robust views on national sovereignty over our defences, but the position of him and other Ministers at the IGC would be greatly reinforced by the backing of the House which I have no doubt they would get if we were given the opportunity to debate the matter specifically.
  My right hon. Friend has got off to a good if rumbustious start. Nevertheless, no one doubts where he stands on European defence policy and I agree with him

  69
  on that. Attacking federalism is not the same as attacking our partners in Europe. I believe that he will find that most people support him. His philosophy and his policy, even if not some of his polemics, are with the grain of British public opinion and time will prove him right.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the new Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. I thought that he was a bit party political at the beginning of his speech. If he continues that way, he will have difficulties in the Committee. However, I am sure that we will be able to proceed in a constructive way.
  For the second year running I have spent part of the recess driving a truck in a humanitarian aid convoy to Bosnia run by Edinburgh Direct Aid. I want to speak about peacekeeping operations with particular reference to the former Yugoslavia and to examine wider aspects of European security.
  I was in Bosnia from 21 August until 14 September, which was a particularly interesting time to be there. We have all seen the television images of wrecked communities and ethnic cleansing, but I can tell the House that it is something else to come face to face with the women, children and old people of Srebrenica who endured three unspeakable years under siege in what was supposed to be a UN safe area before being overrun, terrorised and driven into refugee camps around Tuzla. I mention women, children and old people because there were not many men of working age in evidence. We can only speculate on what happened to them.
  It is something else again to hear incoming artillery in the densely populated town of Tuzla and to be exposed to sniper fire in the capital of Sarajevo. For me, it was bad enough to share the deprivation of electricity and water with the besieged people of Sarajevo for just two days. The fortitude and dignity of the long-suffering civilians of Bosnia—Moslems, Croats and Serbs alike—is truly awe-inspiring. I had been in Bosnia before but not as close to the sheer brutality of the conflict. I had the good fortune to be on the spot on and after 30 August, when the United Nations and NATO finally set about destroying the heavy weapons that had been randomly massacring people in the UN safe area of Sarajevo for the past three years. It was an exhilarating experience for me and it was even more exhilarating for the local people. They cannot understand why we waited three long years while 11,000 people died in Sarajevo, including 37 as recently as 28 August.
  It remains to be seen whether western Governments and the British Government in particular have the commitment to see that action through to a proper conclusion. I found it utterly bizarre that Britain, a member of the UN Security Council, announced the withdrawal of our 24 Air Mobile brigade from Yugoslavia on the very day that Richard Holbrooke announced a ceasefire settlement that requires a substantially larger peacekeeping force.
  The House will remember being recalled from the Whitsun recess on 31 May to debate the deployment of the rapid reaction force. We were told that the UN would get tough with the chetniks and that the new force would secure the road to Sarajevo, defend the remaining safe areas and protect humanitarian aid supplies. We all supported that proposal unanimously.
  70
  As a member of the Defence Select Committee, I hoped to see something of the British contingent in the rapid reaction force while I was in Bosnia. For whatever reason, nobody from that force could meet me officially—although I did catch sight of elements from time to time, including the 29 vehicles that were held up at a BiH Bosnian Government checkpoint at Gornji Vakuf for 17 days, which seemed to indicate a lamentable lack of liaison with the Bosnian Government.
  I had a personal reason for wanting to know about the deployment of the British rapid reaction force artillery on Mount Igman. Our convoy was planning to drive into Sarajevo by that route, so I contacted the Secretary of State's office to say that we were looking forward to having the benefit of British protection on the Mount Igman road in accordance with the clear ministerial statement about the purpose of the deployment of 19 Field Regiment—the Highland Gunners—on Mount Igman.
  I was truly amazed when the Secretary of State dispatched a Ministry of Defence civil servant to deliver a letter to me in Split, telling me that the Igman route should not be used by aid convoys but that we should take instead the route through chetnik checkpoints—where it is standard practice for the Serbian siege forces to impose outrageous delays and to steal up to half the aid consignments on convoys. If I had taken that advice, I would have been a prime candidate to be taken hostage when the air strikes started nine days later.
  The Secretary of State, having deployed an artillery regiment on Mount Igman to protect aid convoys, was telling us that the British force would not protect that British aid convoy and that we should submit to delay and depredation by the chetniks. I was left with the impression that the Highland Gunners had been marched up Mount Igman by a worthy successor to the grand old Duke of York and that it would not be long before they were marched back down again.
  Happily, that was not the end of the story. The UNHCR told us that it was keen that we should go to Sarajevo by the Igman road and that such convoys were routinely escorted by French UN forces—as they had been for some considerable time. I was able to drive 10 tonnes of food over an extremely bumpy and steep mountain track that had recently been a free-fire zone for chetnik gunners, and where Edinburgh Direct Aid had suffered casualties in April.
  It was impressive to see American aircraft in action overhead and French tanks and guns firing at threatening positions. It was extremely reassuring to have a French armoured personnel carrier escorting every one of our trucks. But as a British Member of Parliament, I was left puzzled about the disposition of our own forces on the mountain. I know from personal conversations with British soldiers that they are keen to be as tough with the Serbs as they have been with the other parties, to help resolve the conflict. I pay tribute to all the British battalions that have served in areas of confrontation between Bosnian Government forces—the BiH—and the Croatian HVO forces. I say that with particular feeling because I know that the Croats are in many cases the unsung villains of the conflict.
  The Bosnian people whom I met were extremely sceptical about the British commitment to a fair settlement. There is a feeling that the British Government want to appease the chetniks. I am beginning to fear that that suspicion may be well founded. My overall

  71
  impression is that the impetus of the British presence in UNPROFOR is not what it was during my previous visits to Bosnia. On the one hand the task of peacekeeping between the BiH and the HVO has largely succeeded and can be relaxed, which is welcome. On the other hand, the British contingent in the new rapid reaction force gives me the distinct impression of playing second fiddle to the Americans in the air and the French on the ground.
  Why did the Secretary of State go to such lengths deliberately to mislead a British aid organisation about UN policy on the delivery of supplies to Sarajevo? Are the British Government in the business of appeasing the Serbs and backtracking from support for the UN mission in Bosnia? That might be consistent with some of the noises coming from Conservative Back Benchers in recent debates.
  The conflict in Bosnia is a humanitarian catastrophe and represents a serious threat to that part of Europe. We cannot blame the Americans for finding it difficult to understand what is happening and being unwilling to commit ground troops. The fact that we have waited three years, while 200,000 people have died, for an American-led peace initiative is an appalling indictment of the European powers. Whether or not we like it, there are likely to be more and more problems in and around Europe in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse—problems that will be seen as European rather than Atlantic responsibilities. The time has come for a European security structure. If the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, he must be an idiot.
  As national forces—particularly our own—get smaller and military equipment becomes more high-tech and expensive, there are greater and greater constraints on what can be achieved by national forces operating independently. This may not be the most propitious moment to say nice things about the French, after their outrageous tests in the south Pacific, but I believe that Britain and France are the obvious prime movers in a new European security structure. Perhaps it is natural for me, as a Scot, on the 700th anniversary of the "Auld Alliance".
  The time has surely come to recognise that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821 and that Britain was closely allied with France in both the major conflicts of the 20th century and in the cold war. French and British military forces have a lot in common because of responsibilities inherited from their imperial past. The French have particular experience of short-warning, small-scale, long-range deployments to a wide variety of terrains and climates and France was the first European country to develop a rapid reaction force. That experience and history of willingness to intervene demonstrates a lot of common ground with our own forces.
  I know that the armed forces of both countries would be keen to co-operate more closely for European security and UN-type operations. Indeed, I am pleased to learn from the defence estimates that French and British forces have been working together in 15 joint exercises despite the nationalist postures of both Governments. Of course, both nations are working closely together in Bosnia.
  If we were in a closer military association with France, and perhaps with other European allies, we would be in a position to take the lead in areas vital for European security and to seek to co-ordinate nuclear weapons policy
  72
  to reduce warhead numbers and prevent any further nuclear tests. I am confident that we will move in that direction with a new Labour Government in Britain.
  However, the Secretary of State for Defence seems to want to pretend that we can opt out of the problem of European instability. He is presiding over drastic cuts in our military forces where even our remaining infantry units are 5 per cent. under strength. His outburst in Blackpool last week was the speech of a Minister who is unfit to govern and destined for a long spell in the wilderness.
  The really disturbing undercurrent in the Secretary of State's speech was the return to that old Tory character flaw of English nationalism and irresponsible isolationism. Lack of concern for far-away countries of which we know little contributed to the fascist victory in the Spanish civil war and was notoriously wrong in Munich in 1938. I fear that it could aggravate the situation in Yugoslavia now.
  The refusal to take part in a new security framework for Europe would be wrong, short-sighted and completely out of tune with the historic sense of responsibility and duty of the peoples of these islands. We should be taking the lead to help establish that new framework, and the sooner the better.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I will not seek to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) down the path that he took. I should like to focus on personnel issues—on the men and women who serve in our armed forces. It is appropriate to dc so in view of the serious recruiting problems in the Army and the grim news that the voluntary redundancy programme in the RAF has been 100 per cent. over-subscribed.
  I should like to concentrate on three points. The first is that it is essential that the Prime Minister's pledge that there should be no further cuts in defence should be honoured, and in a way that takes account of the rising costs of personnel. Secondly, the Bett report should be discarded because, if adopted, it would transfer our armed forces from a culture based on leadership and team spirit to a 1970s managerial one. Thirdly, I shall argue that we could achieve more within the existing budget if we made more use of reserves.
  In the mid-1980s, defence spending averaged about 5 per cent. of GDP but by the year after next it will have fallen to 2.8 per cent. By all measures, expenditure on health and education has grown over that period, yet people talk about cuts. Social security expenditure has blossomed enormously—in fact, by more than the cut in defence spending. At a time when we spend a lower proportion of GDP on defence than does France, even ignoring the huge hidden cost of conscription in France, it is essential that we honour in full that commitment to defence spending.
  Defence should be the first priority of any Government. When an angry general is topping the opinions polls in Russia, which still has 40,000 nuclear weapons, and when we hear of the proliferation of nuclear technology in unstable third-world countries such as North Korea and those of the middle east, it is time indeed to listen to the

  73
  people who paraded so proudly in the two parades this year and not make the same mistake as we made in the 1930s.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: Please let me make a little progress.
  Overstretch of the armed forces has been repeatedly referred to already—for example, the fact that the Navy's tasks have increased by a third over a decade when the number of ships has fallen by two thirds.
  When I visited a battalion of my local regiment in Northern Ireland, I discovered that a quarter of its men's families back in Canterbury were receiving counselling for debt or for marital breakdown. Morale is brittle. The forces desperately need stability, which brings me to my second point.
  When the Government set up a commission to consider the career structure, manning arrangements and pay and allowances for our armed forces early last year, some of us were puzzled. It seemed to us that the armed forces were doing a good job on the reduced resources available. It was strange that we should consider reorganising them. When the report was published in April, appropriately close to April fool's day, it was immediately panned by the press and then forgotten. However, I understand that several dozen committees in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces are considering its findings.
  Michael Bett and his colleagues made a serious attempt to come to terms with the difficulty of the armed forces. They took a lot longer over their work than did Sir Patrick Sheehy on the police force. Nevertheless, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to drop the report. It would be a disaster if its findings were implemented.
  Ten years ago, I worked as the secretary of the English subsidiary of an international group. It had roughly the same number of employees worldwide as the armed forces, and we introduced proposals very similar to those that Michael Bett and his colleagues recommend. It was all there—performance-related pay, individual job appraisals and career banding.
  Much of the civilian world is moving away from that approach to life. I remember the petty jealousies that resulted from the endless job assessments and the problems that were caused in that organisation. The impact of such proposals on the armed forces would be much worse.
  The great Roman general Scipio said:
  "Of all factors that make for success in battle, the spirit of the warrior is the greatest."
  My God, where would we be if we introduced such proposals into our armed forces? The commander of a ship or regiment is not some skilled technocrat who must be appraised each year to decide how much to pay him. He is a leader and a team player. That is illustrated by the Sandhurst motto, "Serve, to lead".
  We have to remember that the armed forces are not there simply to do a job. Their ultimate purpose is not even tested in peacetime and involves self-sacrifice and the willingness to give all in a war. The young fighter pilots who risked their lives in the desperate weeks of 1940 while Britain teetered on the edge of the precipice into which the rest of Europe had fallen were not driven by performance-related pay and job assessments.
  74
  There is more to the Bett report and it is difficult to exaggerate how much damage it would cause. A throwaway line in the report admits that the proposals to settle service families would be incompatible with the regimental system in the Army. Are we to tell the Black Watch, which is currently serving in Pirbright, that it will now be regionally based in Surrey because there are not enough barracks in Scotland for all the Scottish regiments? Even if we adopted a regional basing policy and settled the Black Watch in Surrey, what would happen when the regiment was moved to Germany?
  Let us consider applying the regional approach to the Royal Engineers. Is a sergeant who applies to do bomb disposal in Saffron Walden supposed to settle his family there and spend the rest of his career with the Royal Engineers in bomb disposal? The truth is that that approach has been used in the Royal Navy because the whole surface fleet uses two bases in southern England. The Navy can use that approach. For a committee composed of three civilians and an admiral to suggest applying that to the Army—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Or the RAF.
  Mr. Brazier:—or, as my hon. and gallant Friend reminds me, to the RAF, which is spread all over Britain and has a substantial overseas base, is farcical.
  The Bett report is wrong, but that is not to say that there is nothing that we can change on the personnel side. One major area of personnel policy needs a big change—the use of our reserve forces. In America, half of all uniformed personnel are reservists—even excluding regular reservists—and nearly two thirds of all fixed and rotary wing aircraft crew of the American air force and army are reservists. The Chairman of the Select Committee, in an excellent speech, referred to the fact that we had to hitch a lift with the Americans to get 24 Brigade to Bosnia. I believe that I am right in saying, too, that all the planes and ships that carried our troops were manned by reservists, who cost only one fifth the price of their regular counterparts.
  Ninety thousand of the American service personnel who went to the Gulf were reservists. They included tank battalions in the US Marine Corps, fighter squadrons with the US Air Guard and an artillery brigade with the National Guard which won plaudits from our own Brigadier Hammerbech. How does our performance compare? We sent one aeromedical squadron of reservists and a few hundred individual reservists.
  What is the state of our reserve forces? As a former reservist myself, I must inform the House that our regular armed forces—in spite of everything thrown at them and all the new challenges with which they have had to cope, and it has been an unsettling time for armed forces all over the world—are still in good shape. But our reserves are not. Their numbers are falling fast, among officers and other ranks. We have the worst wastage rate by far in the English-speaking world.
  I have visited units in Canada, Australia and America and I have been able to see their exciting new ideas, directed as they are at almost all levels by reservist commanders. In Britain, the past four years have witnessed one mistake after another. Good units in the Territorial Army have been broken up and reorganised; bad units, for bizarre reasons, have been retained and sometimes even expanded. There has been a failure to get

  75
  to grips with the problems with trust hospitals encountered by the medical units, whose members can experience discrimination when applying for civilian jobs.
  There has also been a failure here to take advantage of the opportunities available in the aviation world—opportunities that the Americans and, to a lesser extent, the Canadians and Australians have not missed. There have been slashing cuts in the training budgets of TA units, at the same time as we have maintained the costliest administrative overheads in relation to the size of the units concerned applicable in any English-speaking country—
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Nonsense.
  Mr. Brazier: If the Minister disagrees, let him ask his own officials how many permanent staff instructors and civilians there are in a British infantry battalion, as compared with those in a United States National Guard battalion or a Canadian or Australian battalion. I have visited all four, and I can tell him that they all have fewer than Britain has.
  If we want to turn the situation around, we need to square up to one central issue. We still have some excellent reserve units and a proud past. One thinks of the Green Jackets Brigade, which made Dunkirk possible. Two of the three battalions involved were TA. One thinks of the heroes of Kohima—the Royal West Kent territorials, who were virtually wiped out in the battle when we turned the Japanese army around. It can be done, therefore. Unlike our English-speaking cousins, however, we do not have a reservist directing our reserve forces.
  Although the House has heard me make this point before, I should like to illustrate it with a small but colourful analogy. Let us liken our regular forces to the tremendous musical and orchestral qualities of the BBC's Radio Three, which is recognised worldwide for its excellence. In that case, the TA counterpart would be Classic FM. A recent survey showed that it is the radio station most listened to by Members of Parliament. It is a wonderful organisation, but run on a basis very different from the BBC's. Do colleagues really believe that Classic FM would be the success that it is if it was organised by the BBC? Of course not. Running a good reserve force, too, is a very different discipline from running a regular force.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am delighted by my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the reservists, with whom he and I have been much involved, but will he impress on the Minister the fact that if we are to make dramatic progress with the reservists—and we must—we simply must have a reserve forces Bill in the next Session of Parliament? I know that Ministers cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but the House should realise the importance of passing such legislation in the coming year.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend and I thoroughly agree with him. Although legislation is necessary to make more interesting deployments possible, on its own it is not enough. We cannot legislate for team spirit, for unit spirit or for fighting spirit. Other changes are necessary, and they should be directed by a reservist director, selected from the TA, with access to Ministers and chiefs of staff. That
  76
  is what happens in every American state and in Australia and Canada, where nearly all the directors are part-timers with successful civilian careers.
  Over the past few years the regular forces have undergone a series of unhappy reorganisations. Much of the pain has been inevitable, as it has been all over the world, following the tremendous changes and opportunities deriving from the fall of the Berlin wall. Now, what our regular forces need above all is stability. That has to mean stable funding, including provision for the real increase in personnel costs which cannot be avoided if we are to meet our recruitment challenges. It also means not implementing the Bett report, almost all of which would be harmful to the armed forces. Finally, it means buttressing the forces with high-quality volunteer forces. We have a number of such units that show what can be done, but overwhelmingly it is not.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because some of what I am about to say directly concerns him. I envy him, because he has one of the best jobs in the Cabinet. In his daily political life he has to mix with and be responsible for some of the most dedicated and professional people in the United Kingdom. It therefore gives me no pleasure to say that his speech last week to his party conference was not worthy of his office. In spite of his efforts today, in rather more restrained vein, his speech of last week has largely overshadowed this important two-day debate.
  In particular, I believe that the Secretary of State's references to the special services displayed a gross error of judgment. He has caused grave offence not just to the Special Air Service but throughout the three armed services, whose members are punctilious about maintaining that they serve the Crown, not any political party. There are strong signs of their considerable embarrassment that they should have been associated with what was essentially a political speech.
  The references to the SAS were the more inept, since it is a regiment that deliberately shuns publicity. As recently as this summer the Ministry of Defence went to court to prevent publication of material that might be thought detrimental to the SAS and its procedures. A speech containing language to the effect, "Don't mess with Britain", is a speech containing the language of the saloon bar.
  In his speeches today and last week the right hon. Gentleman made much of the Tomahawk purchase, of which I wholeheartedly approve. It is an additional capability that the United Kingdom should undoubtedly possess. But the Secretary of State would have made a much more balanced speech, then and today, if he had told his audience and reminded the House that we are about to reduce our submarines' capabilities in some respects. We are going to confine our nuclear-powered hunter-killer fleet to 12. The Upholder class, only recently commissioned, is being offered around to potential buyers. There was great disappointment in the Ministry of Defence over the summer when the Canadians decided not to take up what I understand was a most attractive offer, made to persuade them to take the submarines off the MOD's hands.

  77
  The Secretary of State mentioned the Apache helicopter. Purchase has been desirable or perhaps even inevitable since its outstanding performance in the Gulf war. In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the Conservative party faithful, and during his speech this afternoon, he made no mention of Eurofighter 2000, a European project involving Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. It is vital for the Royal Air Force and for the British aerospace industry. He made no mention of project Horizon, which will provide the successor to the type 42 frigate. The project involves the United Kingdom, France and Italy. It is another European project involving co-operation between European countries.
  Why in neither speech did the Secretary of State not mention the Anglo-French air group? Why was there no mention of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation? These are illustrations of co-operation with the countries of Europe. If the foundation of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is to seek to establish the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its Parliament and he does so by reference to what he says are possible political developments, surely he has an obligation to indicate the precise terms of the treaty of Maastricht. That was not done last week and it was not done today.
  The treaty states that the European Union should assert its identity on the international scene
  "in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
  That is a pretty inadequate foundation for the rather extravagant language of the Secretary of State.
  In an assessment of the defence role of Europe, why make no effort to analyse the current attitudes of the United States, especially among members of the Congress who were elected in 1994, who do not share the same vision of the transatlantic alliance as many of their predecessors? If we want to concern ourselves with the long-term future of security in Europe, one of the fundamental issues upon which we must pass judgment is precisely what are the long-term guarantees that the United States is willing to offer Europe.
  The Secretary of State has told us that his speech at Blackpool was consistent with Government policy. That is an interesting observation. If he truly means it, it appears to some of us that his speech was not as consistent as he might have wished. In May 1994, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who is now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was quoted in The Daily Telegraph. The quotation has never been withdrawn. It was to the effect that the evolution of an EC defence policy was an inevitable consequence of the Maastricht treaty.
  The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), said during a speech to the Franco-British Council in October 1994 that discussing European defence called for
  "co-operation in practice. putting our military assets, our men, women and equipment, at the service of European defence, linked inextricably as the treaty of Maastricht provides with the Atlantic Alliance."
  The Government's memorandum, which was published on 1 March, recognises that there are circumstances in which Europe may have to act on its own. Indeed, at the
  78
  NATO summit in February 1994, the President of the United States assented to the notion of combined joint task forces.
  Nowhere is there any proposal that suggests that Brussels should control the domestic defence policy of the United Kingdom. No political party in the United Kingdom is arguing for that. Above all, no one is telling Britain when and when not to fight. Instead of unfounded assertions about us being prevented from retaking the Falklands had some such policy been in place in 1982, perhaps the Secretary of State would have done better if he had told the Conservative party conference whether we would still have the capacity to mount an expedition of the same strength to retake the Falklands as we had 12 years ago.
  The Secretary of State talks as if we have total independence. Everyone knows that the success of the Falklands campaign was based fundamentally on the intelligence resources of the United States, which were made available to the United Kingdom. Without those resources, the campaign could not have succeeded. The emphasis of political activity in north America and south America was an endeavour to persuade the United States not to make such resources available to the United Kingdom.
  We should be having a discussion about the funding of defence budgets in Europe. There is a good reason for that. The United States wants to know precisely what contribution to burden sharing Europe will make if the continuing reduction in defence budgets continues. We should be asking ourselves how it will be possible to preserve a full range of capability. Does common procurement, force specialisation or financial burden-sharing provide a way of contributing to the maintenance of a full range of capability?
  The truth is that we are not wholly independent in defence terms. Even as we speak we have given up our sovereignty. How have we done that? The answer is that we have entered into the treaty that establishes the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, article 5 of which provides that we are under an obligation if any one of the other 15 members is attacked to go to the support of that country, if necessary using nuclear means to provide that defence guarantee. That obligation extends to Greece and Turkey. If NATO were to expand further to the east, it would involve an extension of the guarantee to any country that joined the organisation.
  That seems to reflect a substantial concession of sovereignty to NATO. Members of the Government lose little time, with some justification, in pointing out that NATO has been the most successful defence and military alliance of all time.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in certain circumstances he would accept the use of nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Campbell: I have made clear, as have Opposition Front Benchers, during defence debates over the past two or three years, that the nuclear deterrent remains part of NATO's defence policy. It is a nuclear deterrent that is governed by the two principles of minimum deterrence and use as a weapon of last resort. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to repeat what I said a short time ago, I should say that any country that becomes a member of

  79
  NATO becomes subject to the NATO nuclear guarantee. That seems to be a pretty substantial concession of sovereignty.
  I think that it is well known that for the foreseeable future I regard a nuclear deterrent as a necessary part of the United Kingdom's defence. But two practical questions arise that we might hope to hear something about. First, what steps have been taken in relation to the overspending at Faslane to ensure that it does not happen again? I note that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is nodding her head. Secondly, what is happening at Devonport and Rosyth? Unconfirmed reports over the past two or three months have led to a great deal of uncertainty, which is deeply damaging to the morale of both communities.
  When the Government tell us that they alone have been the proper guardians of nuclear defence policy, we are entitled to remind ourselves that back in 1988 they were arguing that we had to have a follow-on to Lance. They told us that we had to have a new generation of short-range nuclear weapons. The Opposition argued against that. What happened? The answer is that our view prevailed.
  Even at the beginning of this Parliament, the Government argued that we had to have a tactical air-to-surface missile with a nuclear warhead. The Opposition argued against that, and the Government had to concede. Only in the course of the past 12 months, after the acceptance that Trident could provide a sub-strategic nuclear system, did the Government concede and accept the argument of the Opposition that there was no further requirement for the free-fall bomb.
  Like others, I find the Government's silence over the French nuclear testing in the south Pacific difficult to understand. If the Secretary of State did as I understood him to do in the concluding part of his speech and to refer to that great association of peoples which is the Commonwealth, I wonder why it is that we have allowed ourselves to be so estranged from our Commonwealth partners, notably Australia and New Zealand, whose response to French nuclear testing has been robust and vigorous.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's loud condemnation of French nuclear testing, but not two minutes ago he was saying that he supported the retention and holding of nuclear weapons as part of an overall defence package. Does he not think that it is time to get rid of all nuclear weapons, and that the logic of all the opposition to French nuclear testing is also opposition to the existence of nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Campbell: The logic of the opposition to French nuclear testing is that it is unnecessary. The degree of nuclear co-operation that already exists between Great Britain and France almost certainly makes it unnecessary. If I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that we should embark on a campaign of multilateral nuclear disarmament, I have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is unlikely to bring about an overall reduction in nuclear weapons, which put the world in great peril. I have argued—if the hon. Gentleman had been here on other occasions, he would have heard me do so—for a third strategic arms reduction treaty and for the UK to take a lead in
  80
  multilateral nuclear disarmament. Indeed, I have argued as vociferously as any that there should be no more warheads on Trident than on the Polaris system that it is to replace.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I wish to make progress.
  Central to the Government's stated policy is a desire to provide United Kingdom forces with the best equipment. That aspiration must be shared by every hon. Member, but it entitles us to ask some questions. When will the Royal Air Force get its first fully combat capable squadron of Eurofighter 2000? What is the up-to-date estimate of the cost of each unit? Is it true that consideration has been given to the leasing of F16s from the United States? What is the reason for that, and what would the cost be? What is the Government's prediction of the effect that such action might have on the possibility of exports? Will the decision to resume involvement in the future large aircraft programme be maintained? When will the next order be placed for type 23 frigates, and will all yards capable of building them be permitted to compete?
  It was clear that the joint rapid reaction force, announced last week to a flourish of trumpets, was no different from that announced by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands last year, and, indeed, which is referred to in the White Paper that we are debating this evening and tomorrow. There is a vital question to be asked and the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, asked it, but I should like to reinforce it. Who will provide the capacity for the heavy lift of that rapid reaction force? As we have heard, 24 Air Mobile Brigade experienced considerable problems in deploying to Bosnia. Is it true that more than half its helicopters were self-deployed—that they had to fly from the UK to Bosnia?
  There is hardly a senior officer in all three services who will not tell one that morale is brittle. The services desperately need a period of stability. Some of "Front Line First" and "Options for Change" will not be fully implemented before 1999. I think that there is a universal view in the House that there should be no more reductions in defence expenditure. I say again what I have said on previous occasions: Northern Ireland and a political settlement in Northern Ireland should be no excuse for a further raid on the defence budget.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands said, in justification of "Front Line First", that it was an effort to cut costs, not defence. But, for whatever reason, many Army units are now operating substantially under strength. Each of the 41 infantry battalions is under strength. In particular, they lack senior non-commissioned officers, the very backbone of infantry battalions. It is estimated that, by the end of the year, the Army will be 5,000 men and women short in the infantry, cavalry and artillery regiments. How many of those units have been earmarked for the rapid reaction force? It will not be much of an effective force if the units that make it up are depleted in number.
  We hear also that the Parachute Regiment may be required to enlist Gurkhas because of its failure to attract sufficient recruits. If that happens, I hope that there will

  81
  be no distinction made in rates of pay and that they will be paid precisely the same as anyone else who serves in that regiment.
  There are cries of early retirement among specialists in the medical services. We all know that naval overstretch, which is referred to less frequently perhaps than Army overstretch, has become a significant problem as a result of the Royal Navy's commitments in the Adriatic.
  My central criticism of the Government remains that they have still failed to place their defence resources in a proper strategic context. We must ask ourselves what are our long-term political objectives and what is the defence means by which we shall best achieve them. We need, therefore, a proper assessment of both foreign policy and defence policy. Labour Front Benchers, who offer on these occasions the expression, "a fundamental defence review", should take account of the fact that, in service terms, this raises considerable apprehension and does little for morale. I think that more explanation of what is involved and over what period would certainly be in the interests not only of Labour Front Benchers but of the armed services themselves.
  Fundamental to all of this is the view that we must provide adequate resources and, if necessary, be willing to increase expenditure. That would have got a bit of a cheer at Blackpool, but the fact that the Secretary of State did not say it tells us rather more about the Government's position than all the rhetoric that brought him a standing ovation.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Much has happened since the House went into recess. The commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war were a fitting tribute to the hero generation who saved the world from Hitler.
  One month before VJ-day, I drew to the Prime Minister's attention the scandal, as I saw it, of the derisory £100 annuity accorded to the holders of the Victoria and George Crosses in recognition of their acts of heroism. He was shocked to learn of this and undertook to consider the matter. How typical of the Prime Minister's caring nature and his patriotic instinct that he should move so promptly to rectify that injustice, and I should like to express my thanks on behalf of the Victoria Cross and George Cross Association for his prompt action in dealing with it.
  In Bosnia, where Her Majesty's forces have served with such distinction over the past three years or more, for once things seem to have taken a turn for the better and the chances of putting into effect a peace agreement seem to be better today than they have for a long time. The United States, at long last, has taken it upon itself to play a significant role, underpinned by its determination to use air power when required, in securing an agreement between the warring parties. I should like to pay a special tribute to Richard Holbrooke for his tireless work and exertions, which appear to be bearing fruit at the present time.
  In Bosnia, in recent months, it has been shown how far a modicum of courage goes. The Serbs have been confronted with force, backed, for once, with determination by the United Nations and NATO, and it has been demonstrated that they are not 10 ft tall. We were told by armchair strategists, here and overseas and,
  82
  indeed, I am sorry to say, by Ministers of the Crown, that we could not use the air power deployed to the Adriatic and in the Bosnian theatre because it would be vulnerable to Serb missiles. When it was pointed out to them that, of course, the obvious preliminary was to take out the Serb missiles, we were further enjoined that that would not be possible because that would be taking sides in the conflict, that it would make the Serbs very angry, and that they might take the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), among others, hostage. That would indeed have been a serious matter.
  That none of those predictions was justified was shown when we finally abandoned the futile policy of flying top cover with NATO aircraft. That did precisely nothing for months on end, except burn expensive fuel and waste the time of the air crews. When they were used, it was in singletons or as pairs in a very limited and ineffectual way. When eventually, in recent weeks, air power was used as it should be, it had a powerful and persuasive effect on the Bosnian Serb leadership. Now the surface-to-air missiles have been destroyed and air power has been demonstrated to be an important factor, alongside the deployment of effective artillery around Mount Igman for the protection of Sarajevo. The faint hearts who predicted that the results of such a strong policy would be disastrous have, I am glad to say, been proved wrong.
  What a pity that the path of courage and the judicious use of strength was not taken months, even years, ago, at the outset of the conflict. The federalists of Europe might well ponder why it is only since the United States has taken a leading role in the conflict that we have had, as an alliance, the courage to use effective force.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the steps that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—I agree with what he has said—had been taken, say, three years earlier, what would have been the likely outcome?
  Mr. Churchill: I happen to believe that, had the initial Serb aggression been recognised for what it was—aggression backed by Serbia—and had a firm policy been adopted of tackling the Serb military installations and command centres, many lives would have been saved and much misery would have been avoided.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been accused—not least by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—of making a controversial speech in a place called Blackpool. It must be admitted that some of my right hon. Friend's statements were deeply shocking to certain individuals. Let me quote some of them.
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "By now I trust no one doubts that Britain, who has the patience to feed the hungry, has the will to confront the aggressor. We taught the Bosnian Serb generals that the slaughter of civilians will not go unpunished."
  To some, that will be a shocking message: the idea that we should actually identify the aggressor and go for him, rather than standing ineffectually between the two sides and imposing an equal embargo on the victim of aggression and the aggressor.
  My right hon. Friend also announced—this must have shocked those who would like us to be propelled on a federalist course in Europe—

  83
  "to the European Court of Human Rights, who criticised the SAS action in Gibraltar, we send another clear message: don't give comfort to terrorists."
  That sentiment will be echoed not only on these Benches, but in the country at large.
  As for our partners in the European Union, my right hon. Friend said:
  "We will not allow Brussels to control our defence policy."
  Is the hon. Member for South Shields saying that a Labour Government—if the misery of one were ever to be inflicted on us again—would allow Britain's defences to be controlled by Brussels? I thought that he was at some pains to say that that was not the case.
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "With a Conservative Government, Britain will not join a single European Army … the foreign and defence policies of this country will not be dictated to us by a majority vote of a Council of Ministers."
  The Labour party's policy is to move towards majority voting—and no one has any confidence that it would resist the introduction of majority voting in the field of foreign policy and defence.
  Dr. Reid: First, we are opposed to majority voting on defence. Secondly, we consider this an intergovernmental issue, not an issue for the Commission. Thirdly, we are opposed to a single European army, and will not move in that direction.
  Despite the hon. Gentleman's pathetic attempts to defend the vitriolic anti-European speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, none of it has any basis. Everyone is surprised: who in the House of Commons actually wants this European army? The truth is that it was the camouflage for another anti-European speech by the Secretary of State. All that amazes us is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman feels a compulsion to go around the country like a small boy telling adults that he is not frightened of the bogey man, proving to everyone that he is more British than everyone else. Unfortunately, whatever his compulsion, he ends up merely being more anti our allies than anyone else, demeaning his party and bringing the country down in regard to the great issue of our allies in Europe.
  Mr. Churchill: It seems to me that the burden of what the hon. Gentleman has tried to say is that he would like to persuade the country that a Blair Government would be as stalwart in fending off the intervention of Brussels in these matters as my right hon. Friend. I do not know why he is complaining about my right hon. Friend's speech; he ought to support it. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of people out there in the country would whole-heartedly endorse my right hon. Friend's sentiments: they would not be in the least shocked by the idea that British soldiers should fight for British interests. It is difficult to envisage the day when British soldiers will die for Brussels—and I do not believe that the House will allow British forces to be sent into battle on the say-so of majority voting in Brussels.
  Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? When British soldiers are fighting for NATO and risking their lives, where are the orders coming from, geographically?
  Mr. Churchill: When British soldiers are fighting alongside our NATO counterparts, they are doing so on
  84
  the authority of the sovereignty of this House of Commons. That is the way in which we intend to keep things, for so long as there is a Conservative Government. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the House knows my views on seated interventions, particularly from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Churchill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When "Options for Change" and the cuts involved were implemented, Ministers assured the armed forces and the House that thereafter there would be stability. Since then, we have seen the introduction of "Front Line First". That has a long way to go before its final full implementation. It is causing enormous upheaval and turmoil. Even while those changes are still in the pipeline, the stability of our forces is threatened still further with the Bett report.
  I strongly share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on what the Secretary of State should do with that report. I recognise that much time and effort has been put into it, and it may be possible to use a few of its recommendations. The broad thrust of the report has no place in the future of Britain's armed forces. I strenuously counsel my right hon. Friend to heed the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The regimental system of the British Army, about which I do not need to lecture my kinsman and colleague on the Treasury Bench, is the envy of the world and it would be madness to tinker with it.
  I warmly welcome the order for Tomahawk missiles and the earlier order for attack helicopters, but the manning and equipping of our armed forces are disturbing. In The Times of 12 October, Vice-Admiral Sir James Jungius stated:
  "Senior officers tell us the fleet is dangerously overstretched. The Army would find it impossible to put a full strength division in the field without robbing the remaining units. The Air Force has no aircraft that are not obsolete and many are long overdue for replacement. Its only fighter aircraft, the Tornado, has significant deficiencies in that role. Reserves are at laughably low levels."
  A former Parachute Regiment Colonel Commandant, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Gray recently said:
  "The Army is being stretched to breaking point. Units being sent to Bosnia are an amalgamation of various regiments because they don't have enough troops of their own."
  That is a serious problem that will not go away and needs to be addressed. No element is more crucial to the stability and strength of the armed forces than the stability of funding. In 1978–79, we spent 4.5 per cent. of GDP on defence. It rose to 5.3 per cent. in 1984–85 and this year it is down to 3 per cent. Two years from now it will be 2.8 per cent. While Government expenditure overall has increased by a staggering 70 per cent. in real terms since 1979, including a 108 per cent. rise in personal social services and an 82 per cent. rise in social security, defence expenditure has fallen in real terms.
  It is reliably reported from Blackpool that the Chancellor is on the prowl for major budget cuts, across the board. Any socialistic equality-of-misery doctrine would be wholly inappropriate and unacceptable in the case of defence. There have already been deep cuts in the fabric and strength of our armed forces and I trust that those who hold high office in the Ministry of Defence will not tolerate any further reductions in the defence budget. Cuts will have to be sought elsewhere and I should be obliged if those holding defence portfolios will tell that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: I can tell the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) that socialists do not believe in equality of misery: they believe in the relief of misery and equality of opportunity, which are entirely different matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his election as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. Since his election, he has been doing a splendid job, but he only borrowed my vote and if he continues to be beastly to my old Friend the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who is also my constituent, I might take it back.
  I also congratulate in his absence the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who was a superb Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and a credit to the House. I wish him well in his new appointment and I have written to him privately on those lines.
  I whole-heartedly appreciate the efforts of the men and women of our front-line defence forces. I again agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—this is becoming boring—because his comments on the Bett report were extremely well founded. I remember being in the fort at Crossmaglen when the discussion document finally got through to the men serving there. They did not like the prospect at all and, what is more, there was no place I could run to from that fort because the helicopter was not due back for two hours and we were not allowed out on to the street. It was only a marginally worse experience than having to tell my wife that I had been to Crossmaglen in the first place. She comes from Northern Ireland and the House should have heard what she had to say about my experience.
  I should like to comment on the Government's procurement policies and outline my fears for my constituency. It is only just over a year since Gordon Foxley, a defence civil servant, was jailed for widely based corruption. Just one of his scams was that he managed to persuade the Army to stop acquiring artillery fuses from the Royal Ordnance factory at £6 each and to start acquiring from Junghans the DM111A fuses at £14.40 each. He also managed to persuade it to acquire the Borletti fuse from Italy. That fuse did not work in the rain and it could not work under battle conditions. We lost £12.9 million on the Junghans fuse and £15 million on the Borletti fuse. Much more important was the fact that 300 jobs were lost at a Blackburn factory, and those jobs have not been replaced. They were exported by the Government to Germany and Italy at great cost, a cost that does not even take into account the unemployment costs of those men and women who will not get their jobs back. That was all done in the name of efficiency of procurement.
  As I was concerned about these matters, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence when it was suggested to me that there might be some problems with the contract for the 155 mm extended range bomblet shells. It was known that the Royal Ordnance factory at Birtley in my constituency was bidding but so were Giat of France—a wholly owned French Government company—Rheinmetall and TASS Industries of Israel. TASS Industries was successful in obtaining that order. That does not mean any immediate job losses, but it does mean that, effectively, in two years 14 jobs will be exported from Birtley to Israel. That is what we seem to be exporting these days.
  86
  I have not finished, because Birtley is one of the areas of highest long-term male unemployment in the north of England, which means that it has one of the highest unemployment areas in the country. Those people and their families are unfortunately destined to be a burden on the state for the foreseeable future. That means that you and I will have to pay to export those jobs to Israel when they could have been kept in this country. Birtley has such bad long-term unemployment that, although the employment office there fell under the Department of Employment's directive for office closures, I was able to persuade the then Secretary of State not to close it. My argument was based on the fact that it has such a high rate of adult male unemployment.
  I now come to the bit that really worries me. I should like to quote from Jane's Defence Weekly of 2 September. An article by Carol Reed it is states:
  "Privately owned RO and state-owned Giat are negotiating a merger of the bulk of their businesses, notably in ammunition, guns and vehicles and small arms, under a 50:50 joint venture."
  Why did I spend so many hours on the Standing Committee that examined the Bill to privatise Royal Ordnance when it looks as if half of it is about to be handed over to the French Government for nothing? It will not be done at no cost, because as a result of the merger factories will close.
  As early as the middle of last year, a draft letter involving Mr. Chiquet of Giat and Mr. Weston of BAe Royal Ordnance showed that Chorley would be closed at a cost of £7.2 million and that the work would be transferred to Tarbes in France. Faldingworth will close at the cost of £2.2 million and will go to Montpertius in France. Birtley in my constituency will be closed at a cost of £21 million and the work will be transferred to Tarbes and Rennes. In France only two factories will be closed. I pity the poor people of Le Mans, where closure will cost £7.1 million, and of Salbri, where the cost will be £11.9 million. That means a total cost of £33.5 million, but that is only the cost to the Royal Ordnance factories, not the cost to the British taxpayer, because, as I said, Birtley has a very high long-term unemployment rate.
  I have some questions for the Government. I think that every hon. Member received a copy of a statement from British Aerospace Royal Ordnance, which states:
  "The MOD continues to take the view that ammunition as a commodity can be bought freely on the open market and does not consider the retention of a comprehensive domestic capability as a necessity."
  Does the MOD agree with that?
  We are an island nation. I remind the MOD that during the Gulf war Ministers had in a similar act of folly transferred the production of 155 mm ammunition from Birtley to Rheinmetall in Germany, which could not make it and sold the contract on to a Belgian company. The Belgians would not supply our gunners with 155 mm ammunition for political reasons. The Government seem to be aiding and abetting British Aerospace in selling British jobs to France. What is more, they seem to be putting us in a position where we shall not be making bread-and-butter 155 mm ammunition for our guns—that means all our guns since the Abbot has been taken out—or tank ammunition if Birtley goes.
  What contact has there been involving MOD civil servants or Ministers in connection with the proposed Royal Ordnance deal? What is the present status of the proposal? What will be the long-term cost caused by the

  87
  resulting unemployment? Will the Minister assure the House unequivocally that all categories of ammunition used by our armed forces will be obtainable from British manufacturers in the United Kingdom?
  If I do not receive a positive answer to the latter question, it will mean that the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers will stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that, despite the jingoistic speech that the Secretary of State made at the party conference last week, he is happy to give away our strategic defence capability. Although it might be an artillery man who fires the shell at the enemy, that artillery man would not have the shell if it were not for the men and women in our factories making the shells or the men and women who transport those shells to the front line.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and my sympathies are with him and his constituents. Does he think that he is making an anti-European speech?
  Mr. McWilliam: I am not making an anti-European or pro-European speech. It happens that under the Maastricht treaty we are entitled to self-determination in defence matters. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields made the Labour party's position perfectly plain and I agree with it. My speech is geographical—we are an island nation and, if we are entitled to our own defence capabilities, we must be able to procure our own equipment. If we cannot make it in this country, we cannot guarantee its procurement from somewhere else. The last time a Conservative Government landed us in a position where we had to do so, we could not get it and had to borrow equipment from the Americans.
  To judge by the Government's track record, we have a Government who have presided over a Ministry of Defence procurement system which, according to the courts, was corrupt—Mr. Foxley is in gaol. The contract to which I referred is the only one that I have been able to find out about; I do not know what else he was involved in. Ministers did not admit to any job losses, although they were obvious. The system was corrupt and inefficient and was not run in the best interests of the United Kingdom's defence. I am concerned only with defence.
  I have no doubt that the Israeli shells were cheaper. It suits the Israeli Government to keep their factories open; it is necessary to do so because of the strategic position. I can understand why the Israeli factories would make a good, keen offer and undercut British jobs. However, I cannot understand a Government who say that it is simply a matter of market forces and inevitable-—hey are the Government who presided over the market forces which put Gordon Foxley in gaol and which provided the incentive for him to be corrupt in the first place. If procurement had been taking place under the normal procurement systems that preceded the open market—"buy it from anyone and to blazes with British strategic capability"—this would not have happened.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Davyhulme, especially when he referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields had said. I can come to one of two conclusions—either the hon. Member for Davyhulme had written his speech before he heard what my hon. Friend said or someone has fitted the hon. Gentleman with an implant that inverts the sense of everything that anyone
  88
  says. What he said that my hon. Friend said was the exact opposite of what my hon. Friend had in fact said, which is strange.
  I welcome the part of the Secretary of State's speech that dealt with Northern Ireland. As someone who has family there and who spends a fair bit of time there I know that the change to a more normal society is to be welcomed and encouraged. Anything or anyone who interferes with the peace process deserves the condemnation of every Member of Parliament. However, we are not there yet.
  We have to pay tribute to the forces serving in Northern Ireland. Oddly enough, they are serving in worse conditions than before. They are confined to barracks; they are getting some training, and that training is good, but it is not what it used to be and it is a trial to them. To hear the Secretary of State say that the emergency tour interval will again not average 24 months because manpower is not up to it must be dreadfully disappointing.
  I stress that people are fed up with the implications of the Bett report, which is nonsense. I remember Sir Michael Bett when he was merely Mike Bett of the British Telecom board and I know some of the stunts that he tried to pull then.
  Let us permit the morale of our troops to rise. Let us remove the threat of Bett, give them a period of stability and afford them with the dignity and support that they deserve for their splendid work for this country.
  7.57 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We have heard one whinge after another about defence procurement and the lack of equipment. Following "Options for Change", we began to cut our defence forces, as many other countries also did. We then heard speech after speech saying that it was wrong and wicked, and there was the usual flannel about a defence review. "Options for Change" was a defence review.
  Dr. David Clark indicated dissent.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes, it was, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it was. General Vincent and others master minded that very good review of the needs and strategy of the British armed forces and the tactics that would be required in a period following the end of the cold war. He revealed something vital; that we did not need such large forces—the country would not stand for it—and needed to reduce the manpower. In so doing, however, we had to end up with a force which was capable of being flexible and providing a rapid response and a force that was much higher tech. That scenario was replicated by the NATO chiefs of staff about a year later. There could not have been a keener or finer analysis of the needs of the armed forces of a democratic power playing a useful and important part in NATO.
  We hear much praise of our armed forces' ability to respond, their courage and bravery, their equipment and the way in which they use it. That is not to say that there are no deficiencies. I had not intended to go into great detail about the equipment on order but I do not recall some Opposition Members arguing against the completion of the Vanguard Trident programme; nor did I note that they criticised the 1994 order of type 23 Duke class frigates.

  89
  In 1994, there was a substantial order for 44 Merlin helicopters. There was the order for the Army this year of the Apache helicopter. That was not done on the cheap. We bought it from abroad, but we made very sure—as we always do with procurement—that there was plenty for British manufacturers to contribute. There was also the order for the Army of Challenger tanks. Some of us do not agree that we need that number of tanks and would rather have more helicopters, but the order certainly provided plenty of jobs in Leeds. There is the update of the Tornado aircraft and the mid-life update of 142 support helicopters. There are also the 35 support helicopters ordered in 1994 and, of course, the Eurofighter programme.
  On the question of procurement, I do not simply want to know the procurement practices for purely British forces, which are based on our own analysis of what we need out of our own resources—I want to know about procurement that we believe can be done on an international basis, such as the European fighter aircraft. We get into the awful position of the costs being shared between three or four nations, which leads to the sort of inefficiency, over-cost and bad development that there is with the EFA. A squalid row is developing between the Germans and ourselves about who should pay what and how much each should get from the sales of the aircraft when it is finally in production. I hope that the Government will concentrate on that area, rather than on all the other twaddle that we have heard today.
  On balance, we have a pretty good record, but that does not mean that there are not some grounds for criticism of some of the impacts of the reduction in defence expenditure. I warmly support many of the courageous comments, made on the basis of detailed knowledge, by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), which was reflected in the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I strongly support the concerns that they expressed about the impact of overstretch. I have little doubt that that is having a serious and growing effect on morale. That is why today I welcomed enormously my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement that he understands the problem well and that there should be a period of stability to digest the problem. I also support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about reservists.
  The two main themes running through our debate today will have a vital effect on our strategy and on our future defence estimates. By chance, those themes were discussed by NATO parliamentarians at their annual autumn session between 6 and 9 October in Turin. That session attracted delegates from central and eastern Europe and from Russia. The first theme is European membership of NATO and the construction of the European pillar. The second is the enlargement of NATO to involve countries from central and eastern Europe.
  There was a time when people questioned whether NATO had a future. However, I am sure that we all agree that since the end of the cold war NATO has proved itself to be remarkably flexible. Of course there have been mistakes, such as cost overruns, but NATO's flexibility is truly amazing. It has a future, but anybody who believes that also knows that national sovereignty is mixed in with that. What sort of loss of national sovereignty would there be? We know that in the changed world that we now face our North American allies will not always wish to be
  90
  involved in what we call non-article 5 military operations in Europe. They concede that there will be activities that European nations will want to conduct on their own—but, we hope, with the support of the supreme command.
  European countries need to be better able to act together in peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and crisis management. That is why the Government support the strengthening of the Western European Union operational capability—something I strongly support—not as a separate organisation, but separable when it wishes to act in the interests of what we perceive to be basically a European problem. That is quite sensible.
  Given the obvious limitations of the defence resources of all countries, if we in Europe are to act as the European pillar of NATO—acting on what we believe to be the interests of European countries—it does not make any sense to try to build up an organisation separate from NATO and which replicates the assets available to NATO. No continental western European country, whether or not in NATO—France not being in NATO—would be willing to support the resources that would copy what NATO already has. That is where the problem starts.
  Some countries, in seeking a more distinct European identity, envisage a European pillar that would be separate. Some of them see the role of the European pillar drifting, in time, towards a tie-up with the European Union. Some see it as a federal tie-up. From the speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is clear that no one wants a federal tie-up. Why, then, is there an argument? The French—certainly the Frenchmen I meet—always argue that in the end the extent of any sovereignty they surrender or any military activity in which they become involved must be a matter for France. Of course, in many ways the French want some significant reorganisation of their relationship with the European pillar of NATO. I think that, in the end, they would regard it as moving towards a European pillar of a united European Union.
  What about the Germans? They take the view—perhaps this is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is suspicious—that, although their Defence Minister has said, without America stability never has been and never will be available; and the German commander of the Eurocorps has said:
  "There is no intention of building up an autonomous European military structure in parallel with NATO."
  The German-American relationship is very strong at the moment. Nevertheless, as their Chancellor Kohl has said, Germany is pressing for a more federal defence structure.
  I can understand why those who are suspicious of a move towards a federalist structure should make statements critical of such a move. They do not think that it will work. That is the distinction between those who say we should never discuss these matters in purely sovereignty terms and the impression that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives that we want to act unilaterally. There was nothing in his speech to suggest that. He simply implied that there are people in Europe who want to move closer to a European Union that eventually would be dominated by a federal structure, which would be the end of the intergovernmental way that we structure our common defence responsibilities.
  Whatever view one may take about the language—and I do not intend to go down that road—we blind ourselves if we think that there are not people in Europe who want to resist that process, just as there are people who want to

  91
  move down that road. Therefore, we must argue the case for our belief that a federal tie-up is the wrong way to go about matters. I do not doubt for one moment that a federal defence system is on the cards in the foreseeable future—perhaps within decades. We would have to go well down the road towards co-operation on a wide range of issues, and probably in a rather different world than we have today, before we could accept that sort of structure—one that was eventually accepted in the United States.
  That is especially true as we have the system proposed by NATO, an example of its flexibility, of joint command task forces. As we have seen in Yugoslavia, such a force would enable the allies to work together more successfully—including, I might say, a French general.
  If one goes to the NATO headquarters near High Wycombe one finds a stalwart commanding presence of a French senior officer. Obviously he does not want to work in the integrated command of NATO, but he is there, he goes through all the simulated exercises, and in due course one hopes that the French will work happily in that direction with us.
  If we want to accept a joint command task force, it must be recognised that the ground rules on how to bring them into operation on a European-NATO basis, so that they could help the Western European Union, must be settled. We have to settle the dispute that still reigns and must still be decided about to what extent the supreme allied commander—an American soldier—has the final right of veto. I think that we can solve that problem, but I tell the House that one can talk until the cows come home trying to convince a Frenchman of it. We must overcome their suspicions on that score. We have to solve the problem, because, if it hangs over us for too long, it can only sour NATO and European relationships.
  My final point concerns enlargement, which I think is broadly welcomed by hon. Members of all parties, but which also has its own problems. It is absolutely right that we should try to keep up the momentum. I know that the United States wants that. Certainly, as a prerequisite, we must work out an agreement with Russia. However I accept that we are not ready for enlargement. The worst thing that could happen would be to jump into the process too quickly. That is beginning to be appreciated by some of the central European countries which see that the partnership for peace proposals are not a placebo to compensate them for delaying entry.
  One only has to consider the list of activities to promote closer military ties, facilitate transparency and national defence planning and peacekeeping to recognise the importance of partnership for peace. I received a note from the Hungarian embassy this morning. There are at least 23 areas in which the Hungarians have co-operated in the partnership for peace processes which were launched in 1994.
  The future of the European defence identity and enlargement provide difficult problems for us, and they will be considered very carefully by our American friends. What concerns me more than anything is not the challenge to our statesmanship but the attitude of the new generation of Americans, especially the new arrivals in the Congress who have grown up since the reasons for NATO were established and acted on.
  92
  The American Government, their politicians, economists and business men, who I meet regularly, the guy in the street too, expect Europe to act more positively and to do more—not more as they did in the cold war, by spending more money on arms and putting more troops on the ground, but by doing more to work out our priorities, to prepare plans on crisis management, for peacekeeping and for peace enforcement, and for Europeans to settle their differences. It is a tall order, but so was the alliance in the making.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: Although I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), my speech will concern my constituency.
  RAF Sealand in my constituency is now the RAF's only deep avionic repair asset. It supports the majority of the aircraft electronics critical to all three of our armed services, down even to a level as deep as that carried out in industry. During the Falklands and Gulf wars, and today in our operations over Bosnia and Iraq, RAF Sealand has played a crucial part in keeping our aircraft in the air. Time and again, the existence of RAF Sealand has proved crucial to our national interest. Yet it appears that the Government are hellbent on risking all of that by offering Sealand up to industry—possibly to the lowest bidder that comes along.
  The debate on the market testing of Sealand has been going on for at least three years to my knowledge, and it will take at least another year to complete. There are clear signs in my constituency that that is causing enormous hardship and great uncertainty among those working there. That is their only reward for loyal, dedicated and very efficient service to the Crown. The uncertainty is also having a major impact on gaining future business from the many foreign manufacturers keen to use Sealand as their repair agency. It is all due to the long, bureaucratic and wasteful market-testing process, which is costing the taxpayer a large amount of money and reaping no obvious benefits at all.
  RAF Sealand has a long history of continual improvement. I ask the Minister why such a strategic asset is not being set savings targets, benchmarked against industrial best practice, instead of exposing our armed forces to the risk, and the taxpayer to the expense, of such a flawed market-testing programme. I report that the unease and the anxiety at RAF Sealand is corrosive. There we have the jewel in the crown of the RAF avionic repair assets. We have a world leader in my constituency in Wales—why risk it? Why such an auction? Why risk a strategic national asset on the altar of what appears to be political dogma only? The Government must be faulted in this respect.
  In our local newspapers over the past weekend, an advertisement was printed which affected the 1,500 uniformed and civilian employees at RAF Sealand. The advertisement said:
  "Personnel for Support Contract RAF Sealand".
  It was inserted by Brown and Root Services. In effect, it was asking the people who work at RAF Sealand to apply for their own jobs against the decision on market testing which we know shall not be taken until next year. So

  93
  members of the work force, of whatever kind, are angry. The advertisement is scandalous and it has angered everyone at RAF Sealand.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend may recall that, in a debate on the Air Force earlier this year, I suggested to the Minister that the Air Force should keep sufficient capacity to be able to serve as an intelligent customer. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that the one thing which should be retained is Sealand, not least in view of the fact that three years ago I challenged the Minister to visit my hon. Friend's constituency following a visit that I paid to Sealand?
  There I met personnel who had managed, in a matter of days, to produce a gadget that allowed our Tornados to fly to the Gulf. The process would have taken at least 15 or 16 weeks in the private sector. If they had come from any other source, each of the gadgets produced by the men at Sealand over one weekend would have caused those Tornados to be delayed for 17 weeks. Is it not utterly irresponsible to take such action with regard to RAF Sealand?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on RAF matters and I know that the House knows that he is no mean navigator after spending some years alongside the RAF in one of the courses that he undertook. I was glad of his intervention, and his visit to RAF Sealand was well received.
  Still with RAF Sealand in mind, I would like to refer to the astonishing possibility of our own Ministry of Defence leasing United States F16 aircraft. I hope that in any subsequent winding-up speech there will be some rebuttal of that possibility. None the less, all 1,500 in the work force to which I have referred are very worried that such leasing may take place. If a decision is made to lease American F16 aircraft and withdraw F3 Tornado aircraft from front-line squadrons, there could be a reduction in the work load at RAF Sealand which could lead to dozens of job losses if no replacement work is forthcoming. RAF Sealand could lose Tornado avionic work consisting of the electrical, instrument, radio and radar elements which make up the Tornado avionic package.
  Leasing American F 16s or other aircraft could be more expensive than the Tornado mid-life update when all contributing cost factors are accounted for. So I would expect a full financial cost analysis and appraisal as well as listing of the unemployment costs of the loss of work and other social costs brought about by the cessation or severe curtailment of the Tornado work load.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No. Time is of the essence. I shall not give way in this constituency speech.
  Britain's European partners in the Tornado project and especially the Italian air force, which is about to take delivery of its first Tornado F3, would not take too kindly to the British withdrawal from continued development of the aircraft. It must further place in doubt the commitment to the EF2000. The loss of the EF2000 would also spell the end of the British aircraft industry as designers and builders of original and indigenous aircraft.
  Indirect costs associated with leasing such as pilot and ground crew training, necessary ground and support equipment required to operate the aircraft and spares provision will all need to be taken into account. RAF
  94
  Sealand's particular concern is whether the new aircraft's avionics will be serviced by the RAF to third-line level or, as is more normal with leased equipment, returned to the American manufacturer for servicing work. I urge the Government to make a speedy statement so that my constituents at RAF Sealand may be put out of their misery and anxiety.
  The Minister will know that the Ministry of Defence flies some 25 British Aerospace 125s. He may also know that they are made in my constituency. He may not know that the Raytheon jet aircraft workers who make that machine face the loss of their jobs. Two years ago, the then British Aerospace workers who made the 125 were sold lock, stock and fuselage by British Aerospace to Raytheon, an American company. Now we face a desperate struggle to hold on to the remaining jobs at the factory where the 125 was and still is produced.
  Instead of producing an aeroplane in the future, we have been asked to plan to be the servicing centre for the 125. Since the Ministry of Defence has more than two dozen 125s in its ownership, I suggest to the Minister most sincerely that the contract for the servicing of those aircraft should come to my constituency. After all, it was the British Government who permitted the sale to an American company of a British company which made a British aircraft. The consequence of that is not only a loss to Britain but the loss of many jobs in my constituency. Those jobs are arguably the most skilled and the best paid in Wales. Certainly, there could be no more loyal, able, co-operative and productive work force in the land.
  I believe that I make a reasonable proposition to the Minister. I hope that, at an appropriate time, I can bring a deputation from my constituency to see him. I hope that it may be at the soonest possible time that is mutually convenient. The Minister nods assent. I am grateful to him. Will the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister of State consider visiting the plant to see this magnificent machine now in production? If they did so, we would be very grateful.
  I wish to make a point about the future large aircraft. It may not be known that my constituents are employed to the tune of 2,200 at British Aerospace Broughton, where they make the wings of the airbus. They were utterly disappointed when Her Majesty's Government decided to buy the Hercules rather than the FLA. I want an absolute guarantee from the Government that the FLA will be favoured in the next RAF tranche of transporter purchases. That would be a boost to my airbus workers, who assuredly would make the wings of the FLA, as they now do for the very successful airbus family.
  If the Ministry of Defence backed the future large aircraft, my airbus constituents would have a very secure future. I want the Government to say that they will rejoin the FLA programme, without any ifs or buts. I remain anxious about the impression that we give to our French and German partners. They are sceptical about our commitment to the FLA. My fear is that France and Germany might exclude Britain from the FLA programme if we dither further. I hope to hear from Ministers a decision that would be helpful to British airbus workers. After all, it was Britain's Government who decided not to buy the European attack helicopter. That left our European allies somewhat dismayed.
  Will the Ministry of Defence keep the British aerospace industry alive? It has the power of life and death over that industry. The industry has more skills and more

  95
  employees than any other British industry. The British aerospace industry has a magnificent record in exports, but without the Eurofighter 2000 and the FLA it is conceivable that the industry will bite the dust some time early in the next century. Our great rivals, the United States companies, have fatter research subsidies and a bigger internal market. It is a wretched prospect for Great Britain not to be able to continue to manufacture complete aircraft. It would be awful if we were reduced to subordinate parts manufacturers. That is a real prospect if decisions are not taken by Ministers in the near future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made some remarks, with which I agree, about the speech at Blackpool of the Secretary of State. What I found astonishing about that outrageous speech was the presence and attitude of the British Prime Minister alongside the Secretary of State as he made it. I was astounded when I saw our Prime Minister leading the applause. I wondered what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), would have done had he been sitting alongside such a Secretary of State making such a speech. I believe that he would have pulled the plug. We have talked of Lord Home, who was truly a gentleman. I believe that, had he been sitting on the platform, he would have received that speech with icy contempt. Surely, all of us in the House will acknowledge that the Secretary of State did the defence industry and the interests of Britain a grave disservice.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: For the past two or three years I have been hors de combat in terms of speaking in defence debates because I was parliamentary private secretary to the Defence Secretary. It is a great relief to be able to speak again in a defence debate. During that time, there have been tremendous changes, starting with "Options for Change" followed by the defence costs study. We have had a period of great instability. I believe that now we can look forward to a period of great stability. We shall soon be able to say that we have smaller, but far better, armed forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) went through the forward equipment programmes for the Army. He mentioned Challenger 2, Apache and the AS90. He went through the forward equipment programme of the RAF and spoke about the European fighter aircraft. As for the Navy, he mentioned the landing platform helicopter, landing platform docks, Duke class frigates and the Horizon project.
  Anyone who considers the defence equipment procurement programme will notice that there is a great deal on order, a great deal is arriving, and there is a great deal to look forward to. I therefore completely reject the remarks of some of my colleagues and some Opposition Members who said that the procurement budget has been very adversely affected. Quite the reverse is the case, and I am sure that, when the Minister for Defence Procurement replies to the debate tomorrow, he will say precisely that.
  In my constituency, I have the chance to meet service men and women regularly, especially at RAF Marham. Marham is now a centre of excellence. It is the headquarters of the Royal Air Force's reconnaissance
  96
  capability. At the moment, 2 Squadron is on duty in Turkey at Incirlik on Operation Warden. No. 13 Squadron is on standby to replace it. Day in, day out, 39 Squadron flies over Bosnia, with its high-level photographic equipment. Those airmen have very high morale because they have jobs to do and they get on with those jobs.
  If one looks round RAF Marham, as I do regularly, one sees for oneself the amount of investment that has gone into that air base during the past few years or so. Since the reconnaissance capability has moved there, two new reconnaissance intelligence centres have been built. There is now a mobile Tornado reconnaissance exploitation facility. I understand that, next year, a new tactical armaments squadron of 80 personnel will be set up at RAF Marham.
  When one looks at any military base, one sees a great deal of change taking place, but much of it is in new infrastructure, new buildings and new tactics and techniques. If one goes down a road in my constituency one reaches RAF Sculthorpe, which has had a big question mark hanging over it for a long time, since the United States air force decided that it would be surplus to its requirements. I am very relieved that 24 Air Mobile Brigade will be using Sculthorpe as part of its training infrastructure, so it will not be too long before Apaches are flying in and around Sculthorpe. It will be a very positive military presence on that base.
  Our local regiment, the Royal Anglians, has been in Bosnia recently. It has been in Northern Ireland and wherever it goes, it distinguishes itself substantially, and follows in the traditions of the Royal Norfolks.
  Like every other hon. Member, I had a chance to attend a VJ-day parade in my constituency. On parade were very many Royal Norfolk veterans who had been prisoners of war in the far east, and to see those men who suffered so much during that period of captivity was greatly moving. It was especially moving to notice the complete lack of bitterness or resentment. Of course those former prisoners will never forget, but I find extraordinary what they have forgiven already, and the extent to which they have got on with their lives.
  I also find it strange that although the Japanese Government made a small provision for the former prisoners of the allied powers—that was back in 1948—since then, nothing has been done although the Japanese economy has become incredibly powerful and strong. I do not think it is asking too much of the Government to put strong pressure on the Japanese Government to pay up just a little bit more to surviving prisoners of war and to widows of prisoners of war, because there are not many in this country and a small amount would go a long way to relieve their suffering.
  Mr. Mackinlay indicated assent.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am very pleased to see the hon. Gentleman nod his head, because I believe that there is all-party agreement on that issue.
  The morale and the commitment of the service men and women who are based in Norfolk or who come to Norfolk is high. I often wonder what they think of politicians, and I believe that most service men and women are deeply cynical and sceptical of politicians. If they have a look at the Treasury Bench, they see a young Secretary of State who, within weeks of going into that position, found himself having to take very difficult decisions in Bosnia.

  97
  Because of the competence and leadership that he showed on that occasion, he did himself no end of good and built up a great deal of support in the armed forces.
  We have a Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is without doubt the most popular person in that job since the job was created and we have as a Minister of State for Defence Procurement a Member of Parliament who is probably the brightest person in the House, and someone of great competence.
  Mr. Mackinlay: He does not have a seat, though.
  Mr. Bellingham: He has very fortunately secured a nomination for a seat in Hampshire, which I am sure he will win handsomely at the next election, and he will remain in the job that he does so well after the election.
  If those same service men and women have a look at the Opposition Front Bench, what do they see? They see four Members of Parliament who I think are committed, who are keen to do their best for the armed forces. However, I believe that they have difficulty in getting away from their past. One cannot run their names through the police computer, but one can run their names through the Hansard computer. If one has a look at the Hansard computer, one sees that they all do have a past.
  Two of them, the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), were fully paid-up members of Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. All four of them have signed various early-day motions in the past, on Nicaragua, attacking America.
  Early-day motion No. 202 of December 1988, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) signed, sympathised with the demonstrations in Malta and Australia against the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal because it was apparently carrying nuclear weapons. He has signed endless early-day motions.
  We look back and we read speeches that those people made in the House. In 1986, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was demanding that the Opposition proceed without delay in its national campaign against Polaris, Trident, cruise missiles and United States nuclear bases in Scotland. If one examines their past, one repeatedly finds previous convictions.
  There were far too many signatures on wild EDMs, there was far too much support for zany, politically correct causes, far too much outspoken conduct in favour of anti-American organisations and too much in the way of misjudgment. However much their hearts may be in this now, one has only to point members of the armed forces at what those Members of Parliament have done in the past.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Before he gets completely carried away with his trip down memory lane of early-day motions—I could quote many back at him—perhaps he could tell us what the Trident submarine system is for, why this country insists on possessing nuclear weapons and against whom they are aimed. The public as a whole need to know why so much of their money is being wasted on these appalling and, frankly, useless weapons, which can do nothing but enhance the insecurity of the world.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am very interested by what the hon. Gentleman says. He ought to have referred to the document that I have in my hand, which we are debating
  98
  tonight, "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain", the defence estimates. It sets out the arguments for having an independent nuclear deterrent, for procuring Trident, in very great detail. I shall not repeat what is in the document, but I think that the hon Gentleman's questions should be addressed to the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Those spokesmen ought to have a close look at a letter that was in The Guardian recently, from one Frank Allaun, who is president of Labour Action for Peace, and one Ron Huzzard. They were querying in great detail the announcement that the Government were going to spend money on the Eurofighter. They were asking questions about the Bowman contract. They were asking questions about the Trident contract and they were saying what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Their letter said:
  "Who is the new enemy that justifies so much of this country's public expenditure being used for military purposes"?
  It is not very difficult to look behind the facade of the Labour Front Bench and to see people such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and his friends such as Ron Huzzard and Frank Allaun.
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the avid research that he has carried out to identify pacifists, conscientious objectors and anti-militarists. I commend to him page 25 of the biography of one of his colleagues, the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall briefly read two sentences:
  "Malcolm Rifkind was the first Tory defence secretary never to have served in any of the armed forces, even as a conscript."
  Then it continues, on the basis of the evidence:
  "Michael Portillo may well be the first former conscientious objector to be placed in charge of the nation's defences by a Tory Government."
  Can we look forward to the Secretary of State being outed as a conscientious objector by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Bellingham: There are sinners around who have repented, and my right hon. Friend has obviously repented through years of service to his party and to his Government. However, there are people behind the hon. Member for Motherwell, North who have not repented; they are nagging at his shoulder and trying to undermine all that Opposition Front Benchers are doing. Whatever Labour Front Benchers say about their beliefs now, I remind them that, while it is very easy to give up what they have believed in the past, upon coming to office it would be even easier to give up those things which they have taken on board recently and in which they have said that they believe.
  However difficult the changes have been and however destabilising the last few years, members of the armed forces know that they can trust the Tories on defence. One of the reasons why they cannot trust Labour is that, in the past few years, we have seen Opposition Members waging a malicious and spontaneous campaign to undermine some of our military traditions. Time and again, Opposition questions on the Order Paper refer to service men and women and their sporting activities and official service residences, and to the boarding school allowance. The questions refer to officers in the armed forces who, for example, ski for their regiments, who play polo or golf on Royal Air Force bases and who might even enjoy a day's hunting in their own free time.

  99
  The hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Leeds, Central have put down hundreds and hundreds of questions about extra-military activities, and those questions have cost the Ministry of Defence thousands of pounds to answer. I think that that reveals a "little Englander" attitude. I believe strongly that, if members of the armed forces do not have those extra-military activities, their morale will suffer. I do not think that it is any coincidence that those regiments that win the live firing contests in Canada or those units in Germany that take on other NATO forces and beat them hands down are the same regiments that win the European Army skiing championships and polo and riding competitions. If we take away those extra-curricular activities, we shall undermine the morale of the armed forces.
  That is why, when push comes to shove—as it will at the next election—I think that members of all three branches of the armed forces will realise that they cannot trust Labour. That is why I do not intend to trust what Labour has said tonight. I trust what is in the defence estimates, and tomorrow night I shall vote with Her Majesty's Ministers.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: I regard some of the criticisms levelled at Labour Front Benchers by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) as compliments, and I shall probably refer to them later in my speech.
  I believe that it is correct that one of the first issues that we should debate in depth after the recess is Government defence expenditure, which this year is about £21.5 billion. However, if we examine the total figure since 1946, we are talking about defence expenditure of about £990 billion at current prices. The Government's defence expenditure is one of the most important issues that we face.
  The debate will highlight the shortcomings of many Government statements, which will surely follow in the months ahead, announcing cuts in public services and welfare benefits. Each time such cuts are announced, hon. Members should ask why they are necessary. How can the Government justify their present defence expenditure while they inflict savage cuts in public services upon which the most vulnerable people in our community depend? Do the Government not realise that investment in those services would make life far more civilised for not just the most vulnerable but for each and every one of us, while investment in the nuclear weapons industry destroys that opportunity?
  That opinion is shared by many senior Labour figures who five years ago voted against the leadership's desire to slow down the pace and scale of the arms cuts. My hon. Friends and others wanted to see those resources redistributed to social priorities instead—and that is the argument that I am putting forward tonight. The victims of the nuclear arms race are not just the victims of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but everyone who could have lived in a more civilised and dignified world if that money had been spent differently.
  We should consider also the skills, talents, creativity and sweat that have gone into producing nuclear weapons for war. Those precious human resources could have been
  100
  used to make life on earth far more dignified. We could develop medical science to combat horrendous diseases, find more efficient ways of feeding the hungry and develop energy forms that do not pollute but work in harmony with the earth. The list is endless. They are not mere dreams but a recognition of what is possible and necessary. A world that is threatened continually by a nuclear holocaust—which we can only begin to imagine—can never be free.
  If our friend Bob Cryer had been alive today, he would certainly have participated in the debate. In 1981 he posed a question on that subject to which he did not receive an answer, so I am sure that he would want me to raise it again tonight on his behalf. He asked the Minister whether he could explain how nuclear weapons defend freedom and liberty when their use will be undertaken by a small elite and will lead to the mass extermination of the people of this nation and elsewhere. That question was not answered in 1981 and it deserves and demands an answer in 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) later advanced an alternative view. In 1986 he was reported at a book launch as saying that at the next election there would be a choice between two versions of patriotism, with the Conservatives willing to spend money on the Trident missile system and Labour dismissing the nuclear deterrent as obsolete.
  I was recently privileged to address a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament rally in Trafalgar square. It was a privilege for me because CND—perhaps more than any other organisation—has campaigned consistently for a nuclear-free world. If any hon. Members wish to join it in that struggle—or if the membership of any of my hon. Friends have lapsed—they can do so by writing to 162 Holloway road, London.
  The CND rally that I addressed was held to protest against French nuclear tests. One of the placards carried at that demonstration read "Liberté, egalité, fraternityé" and those words were replaced with "Arrogance, selfishness and indifference". Those words apply not only to the French nuclear tests but to those countries and individuals whose actions in supporting nuclear weapons—sometimes in the name of freedom, national security or whatever slogan seems appropriate at the time—threaten our beautiful world.
  Editorials in the Observer, The Independent and The Scotsman have admitted to being somewhat perplexed about recent developments. The Scotsman stated:
  "There has still not been any satisfactory answer to the question why Britain continues to enhance its nuclear potential with the Trident missile system, at a time when the major nuclear powers are engaged in a process of cutting down on their arsenals. Even by its own logic, Trident is a system without a purpose … there is no potential aggressor against whom such a system could be used.
  Indeed, nuclear weapons in general have been signally unsuccessful in preventing conflict".
  That was recognised as long ago as 1984 when Labour's NEC appointed a working party which published a sensible pamphlet entitled "Defence and Security for Britain". It included the following words of wisdom:
  "We require a true defensive deterrence … a moment's thought would show that nuclear weapons which are the most provocative and aggressive weapons ever invented by man could have no part in such a genuine defence policy.
  We can take our own independent stance of de-escalation. Cancelling the absurd and dangerous programme is one such step."

  101
  Of course that was right. If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, by definition they should deter, but how have nuclear weapons deterred all the wars since the end of the second world war? It is estimated that 25 million people have died in those wars. How have nuclear weapons deterred the war in the Falklands, the war in the Gulf and the present conflict in the former Yugoslavia?
  Even if I thought that there were enemies in other lands plotting some nuclear confrontation with us, I could never agree to the use of nuclear weapons. Although I am not a pacifist, I do not believe that I have the right to take away from my children and, I hope in years to come, my grandchildren the opportunity of avoiding the mistakes of our generation and creating a better world.
  I am interested to hear whether both Front-Bench spokesmen are willing to make similar declarations, and if not, why not. The editorial I mentioned in The Scotsman concluded:
  "In this year of all years—the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—Britain should consign Trident to where it belongs, to the past."
  Others have arrived at similar conclusions. They include Sir Ronald Mason, the former chief scientific adviser to the MOD who chaired the working group that originally advocated Trident, and Sir Nigel Bagnall, former Chief of Defence Staff, who came out in opposition to Trident. The former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, apparently told Field Marshal Bagnall that he was wrong to criticise Britain's heavy investment in the nuclear industry when he raised the matter with her as long ago as 1985. Field Marshal Bagnall was right then, and he is right today.
  It is worth putting on record how a large nuclear weapons programme can get completely out of hand if Parliament is denied the right to retain close scrutiny over expenditure on a regular basis. It should not be forgotten that the financial cost of Trident will not be £11.682 billion, as quoted in the Defence Select Committee report, but a figure perhaps five times greater after operating, refitting and decommissioning costs are taken into consideration. I made that point in last year's debate.
  Any hon. Member who doubts that should consider what Sir Ronald Mason pointed out—that the lower construction cost figure ignores the lifetime cost which he put at between £40 billion and £50 billion. Can the Minister explain the massive discrepancy between that figure and the MOD estimate of £17.7 billion? I was interested to read an answer given in 1981 by the then Defence Secretary, now Sir John Nott, who said that the cost of the four Trident submarines would be between £4.5 billion and £5 billion.
  I wish to make some comments on the role and the problems of the MOD Atomic Weapons Establishment, now contracted to the American company Root and Brown. On 14 August, the MOD made available to hon. Members via the Vote Office a document entitled "The Atomic Weapons Establishment—contractual indemnities". That is not a particularly exciting title, but the contents make interesting reading. The document states that the MOD could not find a satisfactory private insurance company to cover the operation of AWE, so it asked Parliament to approve the extension of indemnities to AWE to the year 2000 in four separate areas.
  102
  I object to the further attempt to dump on the taxpayer the cost of nuclear weapons and to my not being able to register my objection to the minutes, as they were made available to hon. Members during the recess.
  Not only do the Labour party, campaigning organisations such as CND and Greenpeace and I have no faith in nuclear weapons, but neither does the insurance industry. In the past, some of my hon. Friends and I have often been critical of the insurance industry, but we know that it recognises a good deal when it sees one. Even the insurance industry has reached the conclusion that nuclear weapons are a bad deal.
  I suggest that the Government have reached similar conclusions, or why did they choose to make the minutes available in the recess when there was no opportunity to debate and to scrutinise the figures? If no one has any faith in nuclear weapons, why do we not scrap them?
  At the end of the month, the International Court of Justice will decide the legality or illegality of nuclear weapons. If that is not a good enough reason to scrap nuclear weapons, 24 October is the 50th anniversary of the birth of the United Nations. What better way would there be to recognise that day and to celebrate that anniversary than to scrap nuclear weapons of war?
  Earlier this year, the 170-odd member states of the non-proliferation treaty agreed to extend that treaty indefinitely as part of a bargain whereby the nuclear weapons states agreed to show the utmost restraint in testing nuclear weapons before a nuclear test ban treaty was completed next year in order to convince non-nuclear states to agree to make the non-proliferation treaty permanent. China's restraint lasted for a full three days, and for France it lasted four months.
  Since then, millions of people have signed petitions protesting against those French nuclear tests. Will the Minister take the opportunity to condemn those tests, and if not, why not? Some of my hon. Friends and I met the French ambassador to lodge our objections to the test. We asked the ambassador how the French could continue testing nuclear weapons. This also applies to the United Kingdom. How can we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons yet tell other countries that they should not go down the same road?
  Does the Minister accept that, like the French, we are breaking the non-proliferation treaty by not engaging in meaningful discussions and negotiations towards nuclear disarmament as highlighted in the non-proliferation treaty? Our hypocrisy does not end there. Governments shed crocodile tears when they witness the victims of war abroad, but we often supply other countries with the arms to conduct those wars. The former Yugoslavia is a classic example.
  I offer my congratulations to Professor Joseph Rotblat on being awarded the Nobel peace prize, having campaigned against nuclear weapons since 1944. The chairman of the prize committee said that the award recognised Professor Rotblat's campaigning work, but was also a way of highlighting the committee's opposition to not just French nuclear tests but nuclear weapons. The fact that the British Government launched the third Trident submarine last weekend is an insult to the Nobel peace prize and to the people of this world. I urge all hon. Members to vote against the defence estimates and, by so doing, to show their support for the winner of the Nobel peace prize.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will forgive me if I do not follow his particular path, which is profoundly and blindly misguided. However, the hon. Gentleman's speech was sincerely made, and I compliment him on it.
  I identify with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir. G Johnson Smith) and with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in respect of the Bett report. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench agree that, whatever the merits of some of Michael Bett's suggestions, it is one thing to run our defence services in a businesslike fashion but quite another to run them as businesses.
  The pleasure of speaking in this debate is somewhat marred for me by the knowledge that this year's defence estimates represent a further fall in defence expenditure, from £22.32 billion to £21.72 billion, at a time when our commitments show no sign of easing but rather the reverse. The world seems a more dangerous and unstable place with each passing year. A simple analysis reveals that whereas in 1978–79 we spent 4.5 per cent. of our gross domestic product on defence, now we spend only 3.3 per cent.—a further fall of 0.3 per cent. on 1993–94. By comparison, we spend 13.4 per cent. of our GDP on social security—£90.6 billion or nearly four and a half times more, and half that figure, or nearly two and a half times as much, on health.
  A nation that no longer has the will to find the funds necessary to defend itself is not a nation but a collection of communities. A nation that spends so much more on social security than on national security in its broader sense—I include part of the area that is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—is a nation that has lost its will to survive, not just its pride and sense of purpose in the world. That ultimately risks making the people of our nation the most healthy and well cared for slaves to other people's desires.
  Despite that further fall in funding the White Paper emphasises that after five years' upheaval, retrenchment and cuts the Government are committed to a period of stability. The White Paper is helpfully entitled "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain"—a noble title if it could be but true. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was Defence Secretary, he stressed
  "the Government's commitment to inject a period of stability in defence planning and expenditure."
  He went on to say that he had the Prime Minister's assurance that there would be no further budgetary cuts this side of an election or for a foreseeable time beyond. No less a person than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the period of reorganisation and retrenchment was behind us and that we could foresee a period of stability in our fighting forces and in defence spending.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be able again to give that public, assurance and that they will fight hard to ensure that those public undertakings—especially that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's—will not be compromised by a Chancellor with apparently little interest in this particular area looking for further cuts. I repeat my right hon. and learned Friend's words:
  104
  "to inject a period of stability in defence planning and expenditure."
  No debate of this nature would be complete without mentioning our commitment to Bosnia and the dangerous but valiant work done by our forces there. Many of my hon. Friends have touched on that matter. My own doubts about the wisdom of our original involvement are a matter of record. I do not hanker after the failed League of Nations as Labour Members do. I see only British lads laying their lives on the line for humanitarian reasons, when no real British interests are involved and no side in that brutal and uncivil war is conspicuous for its humanity. Bringing our forces out safely again has worried me from the start and continues to do so. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's announcement to the House that he will be able to bring back at least some of our troops.
  However, the continuing need for our military commitment, which will perhaps become more pressing should the present ceasefire hold and develop, brings to light some operational aspects on which I should be grateful for comment from my right hon. and hon. Friends when they come to wind up. The first and most obvious, given the stalling of the peace process in Northern Ireland, is the pressure that that commitment is placing on—and the shortages it is highlighting in the strength of—infantry units. That matter has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
  The pressure will be exacerbated by the slump in recruitment figures and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will have devised a strategy to deal with the problem which I hope that they will share with the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has referred to the matter but some elaboration would be appreciated.
  From a different perspective, Ministers will know that I was fortunate enough to spend some time, together with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), with the Royal Navy as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Some of that time was spent in the Adriatic. Does my hon. Friend agree that the need to provide timely air support over Bosnia, unfettered by the uncertainties of host nation support and the vagaries of the weather, has again shown the flexibility, mobility and reach of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, at least one of which has been on station in the Adriatic since 1983?
  Would my hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to assure the House that he plans sufficiently to fund the Royal Navy to permit the eventual replacement of the Invincible class and its Sea Harrier jump jets which, though much modified, were designed some 35 years ago. Would my hon. Friend go on to assure the House that the impact on the Royal Navy of having a carrier, frigates, destroyers and support ships constantly on patrol off Bosnia has been addressed in the Ministry's plans to build new ships, not forgetting the replacement of Fearless and Intrepid for other duties?
  My hon. Friend has reported that the Royal Navy's pre-eminent prowess in anti-submarine warfare may have slipped due to the demands of NATO and United Nations duties, which has meant that sailors spend up to 16 months in a two-year cycle away from home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, which I visited on its way to be mothballed in Portsmouth, might now be reactivated?

  105
  I wish to make both a specific and a general point about procurement. As hon. Members know, such points often have constituency elements. I stand four square behind the Procurement Executive's value-for-money, best-for-the-job competitions and procurement decisions. A number of those decisions have been recently awarded to the American defence industry, some rightly so, and most recently, Tomahawk cruise missiles for the Royal Navy, the C 130J Hercules replacement and more controversially, given the £200 million of taxpayer's money invested in Trigat, the decision to go for the Apache helicopter.
  The history of offset is not one of which the Ministry can be proud and I question the way in which the two-way street with the Americans is working and the way in which the American Government have launched frankly scandalous anti-competitive protectionist legislation at Lucas for trying to compete in their market. That makes one question the wisdom of further invitations to tender from American companies. To hear that my hon. Friend's Department is now considering leasing American F16 warplanes gives great cause for concern to Conservative Members, too.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will consider in any review the greater interest of the future of the United Kingdom aerospace and electronics industry as a major net exporter. He may also consider the loss to the MOD of the valuable export levy on UK-funded defence projects. I hope that my hon. Friend will think long and hard on these lines as he considers the replacement of the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft or indeed the replacement of the Army battlefield communications system. He should not forget the way in which the Americans have treated British companies competing in their markets.
  Finally, on a constituency note, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the Army ambulance replacement order and consider well the overwhelming advantage of the revised Land Rover submission—not the original version tested but that based on the X-D, which has already satisfied the most rigorous testing and is likely to be the mainstay of the Army's light truck fleet in the future. It is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run in terms of fuel, lighter for helicopter lift and preferred by the medics who will have to work in it. To buy from a foreign supplier, from a formerly neutral country which has yet to be integrated into NATO command and supply mechanisms, would send all the wrong signals at a time when even the Germans, important NATO partners of ours, are already buying Land Rovers for Interior Ministry duty—and will possibly go further, given the change of ownership.
  I should like to end on a strategic note which I have already mentioned in the past. I refer to the case already made by one of the Minister's predecessors for an anti-missile defence system to deal with the Club Mad brigade who might aim such missiles at us. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that serious thought is being given to this and that research and development are taking place to equip us with such a system in good time to meet any threat that may eventually arise.
  9.10 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased
  106
  to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and to support his comments about the Navy and the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
  I have strongly agreed with those who have talked of the need to bring about a period of stability and to set a steady course for our armed forces and for the civilian industrial defence workers who have experienced massive change in the past few years. I too put on record my praise for all involved in the defence of our country and for the way in which our armed forces continue to set standards to which the rest of the world aspires. Wherever I have gone, to Plymouth, Rosyth or the Adriatic, I have found a strong feeling of insecurity among members of the armed forces—a feeling of anxiety not just about their families but based on uncertainty about the exact direction of the Government's defence policy and about precisely what role is envisaged for them.
  I accept that we cannot just wave a magic wand and bring security and stability to the world, but I believe that we need a fuller debate on certain key issues such as the future roles of the United Nations, of NATO, of the Western European Union and of Partnership for Peace. We need, in short, a strategic overview.
  I shall be brief because I am aware that some hon. Members have been sitting here for as long as I have today. First, I want to mention Rosyth naval base, which has had its full share of uncertainty and insecurity, compounded by the continual delay over the decision as to who the successful bidder for the base will be. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the base some good news, preferably by the end of this week, and that any decision will recognise that the site of the base is a public asset and that economic regeneration prospects should be considered alongside value for money.
  Constant uncertainty has surrounded the future of both dockyards, which still await important decisions that have yet to be announced. So secondly, I would hope that the Minister can tell us today when he will be able to make an announcement; that by so doing he will be able to introduce some stability; that he will reaffirm the vital importance of both dockyards; that he will restate the workload guarantees given to both dockyards; and that he will reassure the work force that the promises concerning pensions and redundancy entitlements will be kept. I hope that he will state also that no change will be made to conditions of employment without negotiation and agreement.
  That brings me to my third point, which concerns the whole future of our defence industry. The Government's refusal to adopt a specific industrial defence policy has chopped away work and led to economic devastation in defence-dependent areas. Are the Government prepared to recognise—they are, after all, the industry's major customer-that the defence industry is crucial both to our defence and to our general manufacturing base? Will they recognise that unless they act we may one day find ourselves without any competition, buying from a monopoly market and having no option but to buy off-the-shelf products?
  Despite what is set out in the estimates some big questions still need to be answered given the turbulent world in which we live. The break-up of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc has not led to more security. Russia is riven by all forms of corruption and internal conflicts. There are massive nuclear arsenals and there is the greatest fear about the extent of illegal export and

  107
  smuggling to provide weapons to countries that none of us would support. We are seeing ethnic conflicts, territorial conflicts and social and economic tensions, as most horribly illustrated by events in former Yugoslavia. Events in that country have enlarged the future role and purpose of the United Nations and made more important the relationship between NATO forces and the UN as well as the dimensions of peacemaking and peacekeeping.
  I shall be brief because I wish to make a few minutes available to other hon. Members. I think that we are likely in the post-cold-war world to be confronted by many more security problems. We have an opportunity to restructure Britain's defences but unfortunately the Government have heightened insecurity by their failure to undertake a strategic defence review. They have tended, especially with the defence costs study, to go for a short-term cost-cutting exercise rather than a review based on long-term rationale.
  As I have said, the big questions remain to be answered. Let us go ahead and try to provide at long last some stability and cohesion for all who are involved in the defence of our country.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I start by declaring an interest. I am a pilot in the RAF reserves and have been for the past 18 years. Before that I was a pilot in the regular RAF for 12 years.
  It is worth reflecting on the reduced representation of the armed forces in the House. We could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of Members who are now in the reserve forces. Probably about 15 per cent. of Members have served in the armed forces, compared with over 50 per cent. about 20 years ago.
  I make that point because the armed services are in rather a special position. Unlike virtually every other body in every other profession, those who serve in the armed forces are not in a position to make their views known to the public when Governments change their minds and reduce the costs of defence or make various other changes. There is therefore a special responsibility on those who have spent time in the armed services to represent their views in the Chamber.
  The lack of representation and the lack of ability of the armed forces to make their views known more publicly partly explains the lack of outcry two or three years ago when we had the last round of defence cuts. I am not talking so much about "Options for Change", which was essentially driven by the need to make changes following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. Although I did not specifically agree with some of the results of that review, I think that afterwards when further changes were made we got things about right.
  I have in mind especially the two series of cuts that followed "Options for Change", the last of which has been termed "Front Line First". I would submit that those cuts were largely Treasury-led, not defence-led. They were Treasury-led two years ago in exactly the same way as other cuts were led 20 years ago under the Labour Government following the intervention of the International Monetary Fund.
  It is slightly ironic that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury two years ago is now the Secretary of State for Defence, because clearly he is now having to come to
  108
  terms with his success two years ago at persuading his Cabinet colleagues to cut defence expenditure, to cut expenditure on national security, I would submit, before expenditure should have been cut on social security. We now appear—dare I say it running up to the next general election—to be cutting social security. I wish that we had taken that view a few years ago, because then perhaps we would now have slightly larger armed forces and more realistic expenditure on social security than we currently have.
  The fact, though, is that the then Chief Secretary, who is now Secretary of State for Defence, got it right from a political point of view. There was not an outcry and we have now reduced expenditure for defence. The trouble is simple. Armed service men cannot complain about what is happening to them at the time, so, as they did 20 years ago, they vote with their feet a year or two later. Precisely what happened in 1977 is happening now in 1995. I shall not go into the details, because that has already been done, but I add just one more statistic to those that have been given about the under-strength of our armed forces. The Royal Air Force asked for 2,500 redundancies in its latest programme; 5,500 people put their names forward.
  The three armed services are indeed concerned about what has happened to them. They are very worried, partly because they see the possibility of a Labour Government after the next election. It has already been confirmed tonight that we shall suffer another defence review if that comes to pass, and that causes a great deal of concern. Nobody will convince me, however genuine Opposition Front-Bench Members may be about supporting the defence industries, and, indeed, defence generally, that if they should get into office there would not be huge pressure from other members of the Labour party to increase virtually every other aspect of public expenditure.
  The armed services are also worried about what they see happening at present. I would like to see—I have asked for this before—a clear definition of the "front line". If we had that, people in the armed services could see where they stand. The Secretary of State for Defence, for example, sent around a signal in August pointing out that he wants to maintain and support the front line and make the necessary savings elsewhere. But if one is a member of the armed services and does not know whether one is in the front line or not—it is not quite such an obvious question as it might appear—one does not know whether one is likely to be axed next or not. We need that definition.
  There also needs to be an easing of the pressure on spending over the next two years. We are already spending slightly less than the French in terms of gross national product, and we are likely, in the next five years, to fall behind other members of NATO.
  Not only that, but as hon. Members have mentioned tonight, I do not think that it helps the situation very much if we revisit the various arguments, as we seem to be doing over procurement of aircraft such as the F16. We have done that already. We have seen that it is more expensive. We really should get on and have the mid-life update of the F3. I recommend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers that they take professional advice from within the armed services. Although some people have said that it may, in some cases, possibly be eccentric, it may be an original solution to take views from people outside with no experience

  109
  whatever of military matters, or whose experience may have been some years ago. I do not believe that they have much to offer if we are to have stability over the next two years.
  Finally, the Bett report is a good report, and there are probably lessons that we can learn, but if we intend to practise what we preach about stability, I strongly recommend that the Bett report is cast aside for the foreseeable future. The armed services are not an institution that needs huge reform. This is a sort of military Sheehy, and we know what happened to the Sheehy report. I sincerely hope that the Bett report does not go the same way.
  I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last Tuesday about the future of Europe, but I also feel that that was not the time for him—in his position as Secretary of State for Defence—to make some of the comments that he made. He linked strong defence with an anti-European rhetoric, which I think is quite dangerous. The fact remains that the people whom he criticised are our allies within NATO and the Western European Union.
  It would have been slightly better if my right hon. Friend's speech' writer had referred to the European Commission rather than Brussels, for reasons that have already been mentioned tonight. In our capacity as members of NATO, we defend Brussels. I do not want to elaborate on that point; let me simply read an extract from one of many letters that I have received from service men and ex-service men on this subject since last Tuesday:
  "As a former regular officer with a son about to depart for Bosnia early next year either wearing a UN beret or as part of a NATO formation, I found his remarks about 'soldiers willing to die for Britain but not for Brussels' particularly offensive."
  The fact is that, if we have lowered our expenditure on defence, we must be team players in Europe in the context of NATO; and, if we have not, we cannot expect the sort of support that we have had from it in the past to continue in the future.
  I have not been uncritical of the Secretary of State tonight, largely because of the representations that have been made to me by members of the armed forces past and present. I felt that, as a service man myself, I owed it to them to make their comments known. Having done so, I none the less wish the Secretary of State well. He enters his job at a difficult time, but I am sure that he has the energy and the intelligence to see it through, and I shall certainly support him in the Lobby tomorrow night.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: That speech of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) was perhaps the most devastating that we have heard. A loyal Back Bencher read out a letter from a constituent—probably a Conservative: I know that there are many Conservatives in his constituency—which said what many of us felt. It said that the Secretary of State is not fit to hold his current position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am sure that that was the coded message that was being sent.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his appointment as Chairman of the Select Committee, but I was rather disappointed that he did not share the independence of mind exhibited by his predecessor. I suspect that, if his word is to carry any weight in the Chamber, he will have to be a little
  110
  more objective in future. It was his first speech in his new capacity, however, and I am sure that he will get the message and represent the entire Select Committee.
  In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) expressed his views on Bosnia. He had spent half the recess helping innocent civilians in that sad country, so we had to listen to what he said. His point was that the British Government's commitment to British forces in Bosnia seemed to be on the wane, and that our soldiers out there were not playing the active part that many expected them to play.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) attacked the Government from beginning to end. I agree with much of what he said about the Bett report. [Interruption.] It appears that he does not realise that he was attacking the Government, but we understand.
  Mr. Brazier: My attacks on the Bett report did not constitute an attack on the Government, because the Government have yet to respond to it. I was encouraging my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reject it, which is still an option open to him.
  Mr. Martlew: My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman attacked the defence cuts, what was happening to the reserves and the Bett report. He did not support the Government on anything, and at one point the Minister shouted, "Disgraceful."
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made a fine speech, in which he said that the Secretary of State was not worthy of his position. He went into great detail about the present situation, as one would expect from the Liberal party spokesman. I was happy to note that he is starting to come round to our position on a defence review. I appreciate that he entered a caveat, but perhaps in future we can iron out any misunderstandings. If I remember correctly, the hon. and learned Gentleman said in a speech a year ago that it would be wrong to have a defence review.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made a powerful constituency case, especially in the context of RAF Sealand. I know a little about that base, because I used to represent a constituency with an RAF base and three years ago we lost work to RAF Sealand. Of all our arguments, the one that we could not put was about the quality of the work force at RAF Sealand, because it is excellent. Not only did my hon. Friend say that those jobs were being put in jeopardy because of dogma, but he spoke about the British defence industry in general and the effect of Government policy on his constituency and throughout the country.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) made the funniest speech of the debate, but the look on the faces of some of his hon. Friends suggested that they seemed to wish that he was still a parliamentary private secretary and unable to take part in debates. The practice of going into people's reputations and engaging in muck-raking was put to rest by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Perhaps we shall hear more tomorrow about that.
  As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) made a sincere speech. I agree with what he said about the French nuclear tests and the points that he put to the Government deserve an answer.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) attacked the Government's plans for defence cuts and I think that he made a coded attack on the

  111
  Chancellor. It is strange that, when Conservative Members talk about extra spending on defence, they always talk about cutting social security, and I think that one or two of them mentioned education and health. Nobody ever says that we should not have tax cuts so that we can spend more on defence, but perhaps that will be put right tomorrow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfermline, West (Ms Squire), who always takes part in these debates, spoke about Rosyth. There is no doubt that over the years she has put up a rugged defence of Rosyth and has been proved right. I emphasise that because of the uncertainty we need an announcement about the date on which a decision will be taken on the dockyards. I have already said that the hon. Member for Wyre made a devastating attack on the Government.
  Before I really start my speech I am sure that the House would like to place on record our acknowledgement and debt of gratitude to those who were remembered in the VJ day commemoration events that were held throughout the country in August. Unfortunately the House was in recess, or fitting tributes would have been paid at the time. As a Cumbrian Member, I will never forget the service that I attended in Carlisle cathedral on 20 August. I am delighted to say that the service was broadcast nationwide by the BBC and that the dean has received many letters of congratulation on the service.
  Colonel Hodgson, formerly of the Border regiment, who proposed the tribute, encapsulated the spirit, the gallantry and the sacrifice that were made by those who fought the war in the far east. I hope that that service of remembrance and commitment has helped to reduce the anguish of those people who believed that they fought a forgotten war. There is no doubt that the traditions and determination that helped them to win through are there in abundance in today's modern Army.
  That has been clearly demonstrated by all three services in their commitment to securing a peaceful settlement in Bosnia. We hope that we are nearing the end of that conflict. We should take pride in what our peacekeepers have achieved as part of the United Nations. We shall have to keep troops there for many years to come. I see that the Secretary of State has arrived dressed for the occasion. Perhaps he or the Minister will say something about the number of British troops they anticipate having to be kept in Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping force and for how long.
  Fortunately, over the past year the ceasefire in Northern Ireland has held, and there has been a consequent reduction in troop numbers. We fully support the Government's determination to establish peace in Northern Ireland, and we hope that further progress will be made in that respect in the near future.
  In the past 12 months, we have continued to reduce the number of people employed in our services. In 1980, there were 321,000; in 1990, there were 306,000; in August this year there were 229,000; and there has been a loss of 76,000 over the past five years.
  The Labour party has always accepted that there needed to be a reduction in the size of the armed forces following the end of the cold war. We were rightly critical, however, when redundancy notices were sent to people on active service in Bosnia and Northern Ireland, which no doubt
  112
  did wonders for morale. We have heard several hon. Members, especially Conservatives, say that morale is brittle.
  We are also worried about a Treasury proposal that could have a drastic effect on the forces' morale. It is proposed to impose income tax on all redundancy money, which would have a detrimental effect on the military and civilian personnel who have been told that they are going to be made redundant and given the job of closing their bases over the next few years. The Labour party wholly opposes the taxing of redundancy money. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue with the Chancellor, so that the proposal does not appear in the Budget.
  A detailed analysis of the jobs that have been lost reveals a strange and illogical pattern. Over the past few years, the private sector has been getting rid of tiers of management, but it has been very different in the armed forces. Since 1980, there has been a massive reduction of 30 per cent. in what are termed the "other ranks", which always strikes me as a fine Tory term. The number of officers has been reduced by only 16 per cent., which does not seem to make a great deal of sense. Perhaps the Minister will explain the large difference. Is the MOD top brass protecting its own, or is the Tory party protecting the officer class?
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Do not be so wet.
  Mr. Martlew: The Minister cannot resist. I understand that he has joined the chicken run. I find that surprising, but I am sure that his grandfather would have said, "Some chicken! Some neck!"
  Mr. Mans: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If one allows the private sector to carry out tasks previously performed by service men, one wants to be sure that the carrying out of those tasks is properly supervised from within the services. That may well explain the fact that the number of airmen, soldiers and sailors has been reduced to a greater extent than the number of officers in the three services.
  Mr. Martlew: I see a great many chiefs and very few Indians in the British forces.
  Mr. McWilliam: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) to say what he did, but why are there more admirals than surface ships?
  Mr. Martlew: The point is made, and the same is true throughout the services.
  Another matter that concerns me and the Select Committee is the apparent inability of the armed forces, and especially the Army, to attract new recruits.
  On 3 February 1993, the then Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House in which he said that there would be an additional 3,000 troops. I am sure that hon. Members remember that, because there was rejoicing because we had saved two regiments. We were pleased that the Secretary of State had listened to us. That additional 3,000 would bring the total number of troops to 119,000 and was to be achieved by the mid-1990s. The statement was made with a big fanfare.
  It is now October 1995, so I am sure that hon. Members would agree that this must be the mid-1990s—but what has happened? Figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that there are currently 109,000

  113
  troops in the British Army, to which we can add 4,000 Gurkhas. It is another broken promise. Instead of 119,000 troops, there are at best 113,000, leaving a shortfall of 6,000.
  The Government's answer is to take on more Gurkha troops. Perhaps they think that unemployment in Nepal is worse than in the United Kingdom. It is inconceivable that with 1.6 million unemployed under the age of 30—with 670,000 of those under the age of 24—the Government cannot recruit sufficient people to fill the vacancies in our armed forces. We must ask why not. They are relatively well-paid jobs that provide good training and are as secure as any job is at present. I am sure that the answer will not be found in the Government's scheme to employ Saatchi and Saatchi, their old friends, to produce an expensive and glitzy advertising campaign, for which I understand there will not be much change from £2.5 million.
  Why do not our unemployed youngsters want to join our armed forces? Do they see them as old-fashioned institutions governed by petty rules and regulations? Or did the Secretary of State's speech at Blackpool make them think that the armed forces are sexist and racist? Do they liken the armed forces to being in prison? We could understand that, because the Home Secretary has said that to reduce crime among the young, the young thugs need military discipline in Army-style boot camps. What sort of effect does that have on would-be recruits? Join the Army and be treated like a criminal. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
  We should be appealing to the idealism of the young. I can think of no job that would give more job satisfaction than serving in the British Army peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, Rwanda and Angola, helping to save innocent lives. However, instead of appealing to the idealism of the young, the Government simply do not appeal to them at all. We must remember that, if we do not get good—quality recruits today, there will be poor armed forces tomorrow.
  I mentioned earlier that people may perceive the armed forces as racist. There is no doubt that young black and Asian Britons think that, because only 1.4 per cent. of those serving in the British forces come from ethnic minorities. [Interruption.] Whenever I have raised that matter in the past, the Minister has moaned, just as he did a moment ago. He has said that the Government are carrying out ethnic monitoring and investigating the success of their equal opportunities policy. That ethnic monitoring and the equal opportunities policy have failed. The results are astonishing. The Select Committee on Defence said that the most significant outcome of the survey was that only 57 per cent. of all personnel replied. Fewer than 50 per cent. of senior NCOs in the forces replied. The MOD is of the opinion that 20 per cent. of the forms did not reach the personnel. The MOD did not know where 20 per cent. of its personnel were. That does not surprise me. It is the reality.
  The failure of the survey suggests that, from the very highest level of command, there appears to be at best an attitude of indifference to racial fairness, and at worst racial tendencies. That cannot be condoned. The buck stops with the Minister. If he is indifferent, nothing will change, but if he is committed we can make a start on stamping out racism in the armed forces.
  114
  I shall mention briefly another situation that concerns me greatly—the way in which the Government fail to treat people in a decent manner. Let us go back to June 1994 when 25 of our top Northern Ireland intelligence personnel flew from Belfast to a conference in Inverness. The helicopter crashed in thick fog, killing all 25 and the four crew. Even after the extensive investigation, what happened is a matter of conjecture. It would appear that the board of inquiry did not find the pilot or the co-pilot guilty of gross negligence. That, I understand, was added later by senior officers who did not sit on the inquiry. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
  I also want to talk about the situation concerning widows and dependants of security officers. Although the Minister has expressed condolences and sympathy, the Government are still talking about capping compensation, about not paying widows and dependants the full amount that they are due under the system and still hiding behind regulations. The future Labour Government will pay the compensation in full.
  Are the Government prepared to lift the cap on the compensation for those people, or are they going to hide behind regulations to save a few pennies? Are they also saying to our forces that, when they fly on RAF planes, they are to be classed as passengers and should take out private insurance? If so, perhaps we should make a special deal with Thomas Cook.
  I realise that time is getting on, but I know that the Minister is not too worried. He said to me that if he had only 10 minutes in which to speak tonight he would be very happy because he has to stand up tomorrow as well. He can take as long as he likes tomorrow so I am not really speaking in his time.
  Mr. Soames: Come on, get on with it.
  Mr. Martlew: Indeed, he would be very grateful if I were to continue until 10 o'clock—and if he does not he quiet I might do that. His Government have failed. [Interruption.] I shall draw to a conclusion.
  I have taken the opportunity today to point out some of the failures. The MOD has failed to stand up to the Treasury, it has failed service personnel who have given loyal and unquestioning service, it has failed its civilian workers, it has failed the dependants of service personnel and it has failed our defence industry. Yet, in spite of it, we still have the highest calibre armed forces in the world, of which we are justly proud.
  9.48 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He is quite right to say that I did indeed agree with him that I would deal with as many points as I could in the short period tonight and try to deal with others in my speech tomorrow. I assure the House that points that are not addressed in my speeches will be dealt with by letter as we did last year. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance.
  Today's debate—I dislike very much having to say this—has been distinguished by two singularly vacuous and futile speeches from the Labour Front-Bench team. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is always extremely courteous privately, so I feel disobliging in saying that his speech was lacking in any vision or understanding and marked by a total failure to rise to the

  115
  level of events or to deal with the big issues in defence that were dealt with by my hon. Friends and by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Indeed, the hon. Member for South Shields failed to move his amendment, so I assume that he will not seek to press it tomorrow night.
  Dr. David Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I moved the amendment at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the Minister will withdraw his comments.
  Madam Speaker: That was not a point of order. It was an intervention.
  Mr. Soames: I withdraw no such thing, Madam Speaker. It must be that the hon. Gentleman swallowed his tongue like a bad race horse. I am grateful to him for his tribute to the armed forces and the part that they played in the VE and VJ day celebrations. Apart from that, his speech was a second-class rant on the Labour party's apparent conversion to patriotism, which, if it is true, is to be devoutly welcomed. That is from a party which for the last four elections has been entirely unilateralist and pacifist. It had within its ranks some extremely unsatisfactory fellow travellers. The last six Labour party conferences have voted for unilateral disarmament. On that, as on financial matters, the Labour party is deeply and wholly unconvincing.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will deal tomorrow night with the procurement matters that were raised. What the hon. Member for South Shields said about service equipment, even allowing for the strong, honourable and consistent views that he has held on defence expenditure on equipment, was inaccurate and untrue. As a matter of recorded fact, by and large, over most of the area of their operation and business, the services have never in their history been better equipped. That is not to say that there are not deficiencies. There will always be deficiencies; there are always things that the services need to do their job better. However, by and large, in terms of kit, equipment, communications equipment, men and machinery, they are better equipped today for the extraordinary breadth of tasks that they are invited to undertake than they have ever been.
  We can go on disputing the question of defence costs studies. Several of my hon. Friends and several Opposition Members raised the matter. The studies were not about cutting defence; they were about cutting costs. Anyone who believes that the Ministry of Defence runs its business so well that it cannot and does not need to cut its costs does not understand defence. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for South Shields to bore on about the Ministry of waste every time he makes a speech yet when a realistic attempt is made to cut the tail of defence spending, which needed a sledgehammer and an axe taken to it, to complain that we have gone too far.
  Not only have we not gone too far but there have been and will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business. That is not cutting the front line. It is not cutting the defensive capability of this country. All my hon. Friends who raised the matter have only to look to the reassurances given in the House and elsewhere by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister about the sanctity of the front line.
  116
  The hon. Member for South Shields raised the question of the F16s. It is important that I say something officially about that. We are considering possible upgrades to the Tornado F3 air defence aircraft. As a routine part of our evaluation process, we will naturally compare the costs of other options. We have therefore asked the United States for information on buying or leasing F16s and F18s. That does not reveal any lack of confidence in the F3, which is a highly capable aircraft. We routinely examine options for improving our equipment. The current exercise is an example of that. If we did not do so, the hon. Gentleman would rightly rate us as very poor managers indeed.
  The hon. Member for South Shields raised the question of a defence review, which his party regularly raises. We do not see the need for a defence review. The strategic scene is changing so quickly and has changed so quickly that any defence review of the type mooted by the hon. Gentleman and his party would be wholly out of date before it was completed. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman chooses to be wholly partisan—and not look at it objectively, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has done—the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995" presents the Government's policy and strategy for defence with clarity and conviction. It would be impossible to do it more clear-sightedly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), whom the whole House will wish to congratulate on his election as Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, made an extremely interesting and valuable speech. He made many important arguments, which I do not propose to discuss now because there are far too many of them.
  I shall merely mention two arguments that my hon. Friend made. First, he spoke about recruiting, and several of my hon. Friends made the same argument. Obviously—the hon. Member for South Shields is perfectly right—there are manning shortfalls, principally in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry, as a result of recruiting problems and inadequate retention of young soldiers. We are tackling the shortfalls with a vigorous recruitment campaign, and have introduced a re-engagement bounty to improve retention.
  There is a great deal more that we can and will do. However, to suggest to the House, and ask us to take it seriously, that the reason for a shortfall in recruitment is that young men and young women wishing to join the services are not prepared to accept service discipline and service life and find it to be and regard it as a racist and sexist organisation is fatuous and idiotic, calculated to harm and fool. It shows the total lack of ignorance and the total lack of understanding that the hon. Member for South Shields has—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lack of ignorance?"] It shows the total ignorance and lack of understanding that the hon. Gentleman has when it comes to defence matters. He must get off that subject and try to deal with the big issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) made an important argument about the joint rapid deployment force, about the question of lift. It is the key to the JRDF. As my hon. Friend well knows, a great deal of work is being done on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had many meetings to consider those matters. When we have resolved that tricky—and potentially expensive—issue, we shall be able to tell the House the way in which we intend to handle it.

  117
  Most important, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned service houses. He was right to do so. Understandably, there is anxiety in the services about the future of defence housing. The Defence Housing Executive has made an important and distinguished contribution to that matter. It is already bringing stability to those affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues continue to examine that issue, and we hope to be able to make a detailed statement about it shortly.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his work and commitment to Bosnia. What he has done is wholly admirable. I cannot agree with some of the opinions that he expressed about the passage of what happened when he was there. We shall not go into that now: suffice it to say that I was in the middle of this extraordinary va et viens of correspondence.
  As for 24 Air Mobile Brigade, it and a substantial element of it was withdrawn as part of a wider reconfiguration, at the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It remains at 72 hours' notice to return to theatre, and can be back in theatre within seven days. Its whole architecture, and its ability to operate immediately when it gets there, will remain in place. Were it to be the kind of force that will he required for the implementation force, it would be not a very difficult matter to reconfigure them in theatre.
  We noted the opinions of the hon. Member for East Lothian and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House—those who favour and those who oppose further European defence structures. NATO has already adapted, and continues to adapt, swiftly to the needs of the new security landscape. NATO, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said in his speech at Blackpool, and again in the House tonight, remains the absolute bedrock of defence of Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) always makes an important contribution to these debates and is extremely knowledgeable about those matters, although I find myself in profound disagreement with what he said about Mr. Bett. However, I wholly
  118
  agree with him about the reserves. He is quite right that the reserves have a very big role to play. We must find more and better ways to integrate them.
  As a matter of fact, there are many reservists serving today, as my hon. Friend knows, on active service.
  Mr. Brazier rose—
  Mr. Soames: No, I will not give way.
  Many exciting new opportunities are coming forward for the reserves with the new Reserve Forces Bill and, as my hon. Friend knows, we strongly hope to be able to have some good news for the House about that. I assure him of my personal commitment to the reserves. I take a good deal of trouble with the Territorial Army, and on Friday I am lunching with the Territorial Army colonels to discuss further some of the details. I do not recognise his description of morale in the services.
  As usual, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East made an extremely well-informed speech—indeed, I rarely disagree with him.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: You are not supposed to praise the Liberals.
  Mr. Soames: I know that I am not.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then made a number of points about Bosnia and Iraq, with which I have already dealt. He also raised the question of the Eurofighter. I make it plain that the Government remain wholly committed to the development of Eurofighter 2000, which will he the cornerstone of the Royal Air Force's future capability.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of points about type 23 frigates and dates of entry into service, with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will deal tomorrow night. The hon. and learned Gentleman then asked about the front line and a settlement in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made it plain that, were there to be a settlement—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomor.

River Caul Bourne, Shalfleet
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
10 pm
Mr. Barry Field: Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to raise this subject during the Adjournment debate tonight. The concerns of the residents of Shalfleet were first raised by me on 7 June in a debate about the listing of Shalfleet bridge following the flooding of the river on 30 December 1993. Nearly two years later there has been no action for the residents, whose house contents were ruined, and in one case destroyed.
I shall deal with some of the points that arose from that debate. First, the island's only newspaper has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to give its readers the impression that I criticised Mrs. Freeman, the clerk of the parish council. It even juxtaposed a comment that I made specifically in response to a comment by the Isle of Wight council against comments by Mrs. Freeman. In the previous debate I made it plain that Mrs. Freeman was the only person from the parish council who criticised the situation. She organised the leaflets for the meeting with the National Rivers Authority, and it remains a mystery why the meeting with the NRA representative was not reported in full by the county press.
The editor has continually urged me to ask the ombudsman to use his discretion and investigate the matter. In July I wrote to the ombudsman and sent him all the relevant papers—particularly in view of the conflict between the National Rivers Authority's version of events and that of the council. Imagine my amazement, therefore, when I received a copy of a letter sent to the residents by the clerk of the Isle of Wight council expressing surprise that the ombudsman had been requested to investigate the matter.
Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, that virtually no action was taken from June to September and yet the council expressed surprise that the residents should approach the ombudsman nearly two years later? I wrote to the ombudsman in a letter dated 22 September, in which I said:
"Further to my letter … and my secretary's telephone call with your office, I understand that you have gone back to the Council requesting a further letter setting out the position and I am now extremely concerned to learn that the Council are suggesting in their letter, a copy of which I enclose for your information, that the request for answers to the questions is a precursor to legal action by the residents and therefore the Council are effectively saying they can't take the matter any further."
I dispute that interpretation of events. I continued:
"This really is a travesty of the truth and I set out in chronological order for you the events that lead up to these questions being asked and the fact that the Chairman of the Parish Council"—
the parish council was encouraging the residents to ask those questions and to hold a meeting—
"is the Deputy Leader of the Isle of Wight Council and I believe this whole ploy is being used to try to get the Council 'off the hook'.
As the Ombudsman will know from his recent report on Gurnard. my other Constituent John Dart was actually lied to by … the Council and I believe there is an even more sinister situation arising over Shalfleet.
At the Parish Council meeting held on Wednesday, 14 June, it was agreed that if the residents concerned set out their questions in writing, the Parish Council would try and obtain the answers for
120
them. This they did and sent a copy to the Parish Council on the 23rd June. In a letter to Captain Jones on the 11th July, Mr. Hetherington"—
the clerk to the Isle of Wight council—
"acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire but no answers were forthcoming.
There have still been no replies to those questions and the Parish Council were asked to chase up replies to them.
The residents stated that they were happy to have a meeting with the Council, but only when they had seen the Council's replies in writing because they are so fed up with the way in which the council has tried to obfuscate over this whole matter and"—
as I believe—
"have lied to them.
The concept of the questions and obtaining the answers from the Council was entirely the prompting of the Parish Council through their Chairman, the Deputy Leader of the Council. If this is now to be turned against the residents, one can only believe that it is a ploy to prevent any further action by the residents.
You will see from the dates that it is quite implausible for Mr. Hetherington to suggest, as he does in his letter to Captain Jones of the 8th September which has been copied to you, that he is disappointed that they have sought the Ombudsman's assistance when there were meetings in the offing.
The Council has steadfastly refused to answer questions on this issue. Unfortunately our local paper has sided with the Council and it is left entirely to myself and the local residents and I can assure you we are all very upset by the treatment we are getting over this issue. I am sad that the new council isn't putting all this behind us and taking a rather more positive attitude, particularly as I have now spoken privately to the leader of the Liberal Democrat Controlling Group, Councillor Morris Barton and discussed the situation with him and had hoped that common sense would prevail.".
Since that letter to the ombudsman, the residents have been in correspondence with the clerk to the council. On 1 October the residents sent a letter that was signed by all the residents affected by the flooding to Mr. Hetherington, the clerk of the Isle of Wight council. It stated:
"We are in receipt of letter dated 8th September 1995, from which we still note that your Authority denies its legal liability. Without undermining your conclusions as to your denial we the residents still claim from the local Authority compensation for material loss as claimed in the first instance, also for the sheer upheaval to all our lives during and after the flooding. The Council, we strongly believe, had total disregard for the residents of the adjacent cottages, despite the warnings from the N R A and written confirmation from yourselves, the props used would be inspected on regular intervals and if debris accumulates between them action will be taken to clear it before a blockage occurs. If it becomes clear that this method is not satisfactory the situation will be reassessed. (letter dated 10/11/1992 signed by Mr. Smith for County Surveyor to the NRA).
The question of whether or not all or any of the resident received financial compensation by way of insurance in whole or in part is irrelevant to the response we have requested to the thirty-five questions.
There is no question of any of the residents waiving any legal rights they may have against the Authority for compensation. We would, however, take the view that openness on your part in replying to legitimate questions raised in our letter would be conclusive in resolving this long-standing dispute.".
I take that last paragraph to mean that the residents do not intend to pursue legal action. On 12 October, they received a letter from the clerk to the Isle of Wight council which says, inter alia:
"I am grateful to you and the others for clarifying the issues in the letter—this is very helpful to me.
I understand that you are seeking compensation for material loss and also for disruption during and after the flooding. As to whether or not you or the other residents received compensation from your insurers, I disagree with the view that it is 'irrelevant'. It is in fact very important as insurance companies do attempt subrogation

121
where it is felt that a third party might be liable in whole or in part. Additionally, now that very helpfully you have clarified exactly what you and your fellow residents seek, I will of course take the view of the Council's insurers as to how best we might proceed."
My hon. Friend will note that there were still no answers to the questions. I happen to agree with the council on the principle that an injured party cannot benefit twice, but some residents have been averaged by their insurance companies and at least one resident lost all his furniture and was not insured.
The island council's expenditure on the island's only newspaper places a special duty of care on both the council and, most especially, the County Press. It should have a published contract or charter with the people of the Isle of Wight, so that the readers will know what they may expect the newspaper to do in their defence. That is the last great reform required on the Isle of Wight, not for political party or factional benefit but for the defence of ordinary citizens, who feel that the system is too big for them to fight. I say that that is the last great reform because I am told that the new Isle of Wight council will shortly be publishing a complaints procedure, which hopefully will prevent such an impasse happening ever again.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position of the National Rivers Authority in respect of the blocking of the bridge and the warning given by the NRA to the council before the flooding occurred. I ask that because my hon. Friend will know that the island's only newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press, informed its readers that I have not proved my case. Isle of Wight Radio feels aggrieved about inequality of opportunity and the lack of funds that come to it by way of Isle of Wight council. I can hardly believe all that is a figment of my imagination. Does the editor of the Isle of Wight County Press expect us all to believe that, following local discussion on a Shalfleet bypass to avoid the bridge, it was suddenly found to be unsafe? It was propped up with Acrows by the then Isle of Wight county council.
It was the council's action, contrary to the advice of the NRA, that blocked the river and caused the flooding. Then, an expensive Bailey bridge was brought in, so that traffic could continue to flow across the existing Shalfleet bridge. All of a sudden, it was found that the bridge was to be listed by some unsung hero in Whitehall. Then it was found that the bridge was safe after all and that there was nothing wrong that a few drops of resin would not cure. If the editor really believes that that situation does not absolutely stink, he must believe that all his readers came across the Solent in a biscuit tin.
The council has led residents a merry dance. In one year and 10 months, we have gone full circle. Yet again, we are waiting on the council's insurers. The parish council either cannot or, more likely, its chairman—as the council's deputy leader—will not obtain answers from the Isle of Wight council.
The correspondence between the NRA and the then Isle of Wight county council that I have passed to my hon. Friend the Minister for tonight's debate clearly indicates to me that the authority did warn the council. Photographs taken at the time by residents plainly show that the bridge was jammed solid with rubbish as a result of the Acrow props placed underneath it. I hope that my hon. Friend will shed light on the NRA's actions and responsibilities for the river. I hope also that the clerk to the Isle of Wight
122
council will, following tonight's debate, join me in a without prejudice meeting with residents, to see if we can resolve the situation.
One last thing. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Minister will explain, for the benefit of the editor of the Isle of Wight County Press, that my attendance tonight almost alone is the usual and normal practice of the House on an Adjournment debate? On the occasion of the last debate, that editor went to extraordinary lengths to try to pooh-pooh and belittle my efforts because I was not addressing a packed House. He publicly concluded, in a sneering sort of way, that it showed a lack of interest in the matter.
I say yet again to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister that 5 ft of water bursting through the front door of people's homes because the surveyor's department has made an absolute Boggins of the matter is reason enough for me to be here tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell my constituents how to obtain redress in the terrible position in which they find themselves.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tim Boswell): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has set out his concerns and those of his constituents with his customary force and feeling. He is a redoubtable constituency Member of Parliament and much to be congratulated on the diligence with which he has looked into the matters surrounding the flooding at Shalfleet in his constituency and their confused and complex aftermath. It is much appreciated that he has come to the House tonight to discuss it. It is an index of his concern that it is the second occasion on which he has brought differing aspects of the matter before the House on the motion for the Adjournment. I am responding for the Government in view of my Department's responsibility for flood defence policy.
Flooding and the damage and distress that it undoubtedly causes is a highly emotive subject and understandably so. Even in cases where life and limb are mercifully not lost, the damage and distress that are sustained by those affected is often very severe and not just in economic terms; the experience is a horrible one. While natural phenomena such as flooding can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that those public authorities which are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk do whatever they reasonably can to tackle it and are seen to do so.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England. At local level, responsibility for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of defences rests with one of a number of authorities, depending on the particular location and the nature of the problem. The National Rivers Authority looks after the major rivers and sea defences. Local authorities are involved with lesser rivers and with protecting their coastline against erosion. Internal drainage boards provide arterial drainage and flood relief in certain localised areas.
My Ministry makes substantial financial support available for flood defence and coast protection capital works undertaken by these bodies. In the last financial year, MAFF grant amounted to more than £60 million. It

123
is estimated that, in aggregate, this investment programme helps prevent flood damage amounting to about seven times the cost of the defence works themselves.
In the particular case raised again by my hon. Friend, the Caul Bourne stream at Shalfleet in the Isle of Wight is designated as a main river. This means that the National Rivers Authority—NRA—is empowered to carry out flood defence measures if it deems them appropriate. It also means that the NRA's formal consent must be sought when third parties propose to erect structures in the watercourse so that the flood defence implications can be assessed.
I now propose to set out the facts with regard to the flooding at Shalfleet as reported to my Department by the NRA. I understand that in November 1992, the NRA was informed by the Isle of Wight county council that the council had had to take action to prop up several weak bridges on the island, among them the Shalfleet bridge, owing to traffic loadings. In its letter, the council undertook to inspect the props used at regular intervals and to clear any debris which might accumulate. Officers from the NRA inspected the sites concerned and wrote to the council on 8 December 1992—that is, promptly—expressing some specific concerns.
My hon. Friend quoted from the NRA letter in his speech and during the previous debate. The authority's main concern is set out explicitly in the letter. It was that there was a potential flood hazard associated with the props holding up the Shalfleet bridge, particularly as a result of debris accumulating in areas obstructed by the props. The council was advised that it was essential that the site was inspected on a regular basis and inspected continuously during stormy or wet periods to prevent blockage. The letter added that the council was responsible for ensuring that no blockage took place. It also made it clear that the NRA's formal consent was needed for the works to the bridge.
It might be helpful to quote one sentence from the letter of 8 December which my hon. Friend did not mention, although he did mention other passages. The first point to the county council is made as follows:
"The extensive bracing incorporated on the bridge at Shalfleet is of great concern. The props are without question a potential flood hazard as any rubbish, branches washed down the watercourse, particularly in a flood, could get caught on them, thus effectively forming a dam".
So the NRA understood that and warned the council about it from the outset.
I understand that the NRA then wrote to the council again, in February 1993, reminding it of the authority's concern about the risk of flooding. At that time the council had not yet applied for a formal consent from the NRA. The NRA issued a consent for the permanent works involved in the reconstruction of the Shalfleet bridge in October 1993. But the NRA has informed my Department that it did not formally consent to the temporary props. Even if it had done so, the onus remained on the council, in accordance with the NRA's advice, to monitor the props and keep them free of obstruction by debris.
As we now know and as my hon. Friend has graphically described, flooding occurred at Shalfleet on 30 December 1993 following heavy rainfall. I understand that four properties were affected. I deeply sympathise with those who suffered loss or damage—not to mention distress—
124
as a result. It is clearly right that when such events occur inquiries should be made by the relevant local agencies to establish the cause and to assess any lessons that need to be learnt for the future.
I understand that the NRA has examined the flooding at Shalfleet and considers that, although the event was preceded by heavy rainfall, debris trapped by props under the bridge was a contributory factor in the flooding. My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are difficult and complex technical matters, but I have cited a summary of the consultants' report to the NRA, which shows that the flooding was of a certain return frequency and that it was worse than anticipated, as was the amount of damage. So what might have been heavy rainfall turned into a substantial flood with damage to property.
While clearly the NRA cannot state with absolute certainty what would have happened if the props had not been there, it is considered unlikely, on this evidence, that debris would have accumulated if the bridge had been free from obstruction, or that flooding would have occurred in the absence of any obstruction.
Mr. Barry Field: If I may just explain: it is a fairly small bridge, and one might imagine that the Acrow props would be put under it so as to be in line, thus creating two channels down either side. In fact, however, props were put in across the bridge, effectively forming a series of small triangles under the bridge, thereby impeding rubbish more effectively than if they had been put in in a vertical plane.
Mr. Boswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, which forms part of the context of the NRA's warning to the county council.
My hon. Friend touched on his constituents' concerns about compensation. I hope that he will accept that this is a difficult area for me to comment on without prejudice to any legal proceedings that may be in train, now or in the future. What I can say—he has acknowledged it already—is that flooding is usually an insurable risk in this country and is covered in most household policies. There is no provision for compensation from public funds for those affected by flooding when it is an act of God, as it often is. However, if it can be shown through the normal legal process that flooding occurred through negligence or some other human agency, compensation may be sought from those responsible, but that would need to be decided in the courts on the facts of each case. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect but will not press me further on that.
I understand that, at some time after the flooding at Shalfleet, the bridge props were removed, so the particular potential flood hazard no longer threatens. The NRA has advised my Department that it does not believe that any new flood defence works are required at Shalfleet bridge now that the river can flow normally.
The NRA has said also that, as part of its flood defence emergency response, its flood defence contractors will inspect Shalfleet bridge and other similar bridges on the Isle of Wight during times of heavy rainfall to assess the flood risk and to take any appropriate countermeasures. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is now no question of there being the property of any other public authority in place in the river that it would have the responsibility of maintaining.

125
It has been extremely useful to bring these matters out into the open. My hon. Friend has performed a service to the House and to his constituents. I hope that he will accept that I have been as helpful as I reasonably can be in setting out the train of events as seen by the NRA and my Department and, indeed, documented. He will wish to consider with those of his constituents who were affected
126
by the flooding, and in the light of my remarks, what further steps he wishes to take to bring the matter to what I hope will be a satisfactory conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims Cases
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce measures to reduce the delays which occur at small claims courts; what research he has conducted on the cost of these delays to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [36948]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Peter Atkinson, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about delays in the small claims courts.

  The Court Service is pursuing a range of initiatives designed to reduce delays in all types of case in the civil courts, including plans to computerise the county courts to increase both speed and efficiency in the handling of paperwork and the production of orders and notices. It is also working with the Lord Chancellor's Department on consideration of procedural reforms following Lord Woolf s interim report on access to justice.

  At present, over the Court Service as a whole, 94% of administrative work is dealt with within the target of five days or less in the Charter for Court Users. New targets have been set for hearing civil cases. Cases expected to last less than 15 minutes should be heard within 30 days of the court being asked to arrange a date; for longer cases the target is 40 days. At present District Judges hear 98% of short cases and 71% of long cases within target. I am not aware of significant delays in small claims cases but would be glad to investigate any particular instances.

  No research has been conducted on the cost of any delays in small claims cases to public funds.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has conducted into the effects that increasing the small claims limit to £3,000 will have on the small claims procedure; and if he will name the courts where pilot schemes have been conducted. [36949]

  Mr. Taylor
  An increase in the small claims limit would not affect the nature of the small claims procedure. No pilot schemes have been conducted. However, if the small claims limit is increased, the effects of this will be closely monitored, as recommended by Lord Woolf.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to introduce measures which will allow people to choose to opt out of the small claims procedure if the limit is increased to £3,000; and if he will make a statement. [36950]
  2
  Mr. Taylor
  Under the rules of court, district judges have discretion to order a case to be referred out of the small claims procedure if it meets certain criteria. The judge can order this after considering the defence, either on application by a party or of his own accord.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the level of weekly disposable income below which(a) free legal aid and (b) contributory legal aid was available in (i) 1979, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995; what was the percentage of the adult population eligible for (a) and (b) in each of those years; and what is the present-day value in real terms of these disposable income levels. [35545]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member will recall that I was unable to provide him with an answer to his question earlier this year. I am now in a position to do so and it is set out in the tables. It is not possible to calculate figures to show the percentage of the adult population eligible for(a) free legal aid and (b) contributory legal aid so I have shown eligible households instead. All figures are annual ones.

  Table 1—Levels of annual disposable income for non-contributory and contributory civil legal aid

  Year

  Non-contributory

  Contributory

  PI

  1979

  7,500

  3,600

  —

  1993

  2,294

  6,800

  7,750

  1994

  2,382

  7,060

  7,780

  1995

  2,425

  7,187

  7,920

  Table 2—What is the present day value in real terms of these disposable levels

  Year

  Non-contributory

  Contributory

  PI

  1979

  3,816

  9,138

  —

  1993

  2,403

  7,126

  7,860

  1994

  2,439

  7,229

  7,935

  1995

  2,425

  7,187

  7,920

  Note:

  1979 figures have been uprated from the retail prices index: "All items excluding Housing" series since 1979.

  Table 3—Percentage of households eligible for non-contributory and contributory civil legal aid (figures given are combined totals)

  Year

  Contributory

  PI

  1979

  77.2

  -

  1993

  48.17

  50.66 (PI)

  1994

  48.45

  51.25 (PI)

  1995

  47.26

  49.67 (PI)

  Note:

  In 1979 the percentage eligible for non-contributory legal aid was 28 per cent. It is more difficult since 1993 to accurately estimate the percentage eligible for non-contributory legal aid. We believe that the figure is in the region of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of how many cases the legal aid fund has reimbursed the costs of a successful opponent in each of the past five years. [37158]

  Mr. Taylor
  It is not possible to identify exactly the number of cases in which the legal aid fund has reimbursed the costs of a successful unassisted party
  3
  under the terms of section 18 of the Legal Aid Act 1988; the Legal Aid Board records the number of payments made but not the number of cases in which section 18 costs are reimbursed. The number of payments made each year was:

  1990–91: 119

  1991–92: 134

  1992–93: 171

  1993–94: 186

  1994–95: 158

  Although it is possible that more than one payment may be made in a small number of cases, costs are usually reimbursed by way of a single payment.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current annual expenditure on legal aid in Britain; and what are the equivalent figures in other EU countries. [37215]

  Mr. Taylor
  Annual net provision for legal aid expenditure in the United Kingdom, excluding administration, for the current financial year is as follows:

  £m

  England and Wales

  1,457

  Scotland

  133

  Northern Ireland

  22

  In the time available it has not been possible to obtain equivalent figures for other EU countries.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor plans to implement Lord Woolf's recommendation that small personal injury claims under £1,000 should be exempt from the small claims procedure; and if he will make a statement. [36951]

  Mr. John M Taylor
  In his interim report on access to justice Lord Woolf recommendation that all personal injury cases up to £10,000 should be dealt with in the fast track. Lord Woolf is presently developing his detailed proposals for the fast track.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of similarities shared by road traffic accident cases and personal injury cases in the area of assessing liability and quantum, and if he will make a statement. [36944]

  Mr. Taylor
  Insofar as the damages claimed are for personal injuries, road traffic accident cases are treated in the same way as other personal injury claims.

  Financial Penalties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken or intends to take to monitor the delays by those found guilty of criminal actions in payment to their victims of sums ordered by the courts; and if he will make a statement concerning the efficacy of such arrangements. [37333]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has set up a working group under the chairmanship of a senior official to identify and promote good practice in the enforcement 4
  of financial penalties—including compensation to victims—and recommended procedural, administrative or legislative changes which would improve the enforcement of such penalties. The group is considering what modifications and improvements may be made to management information systems in the magistrates courts to secure better monitoring of arrears. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 19 July, Official Report, columns 1300–01—the working group is expected to continue for at least a year but it hopes to be in a position to issue guidance to the courts as and when conclusions are reached during that period.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Anderson Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36995]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Chief Executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office will respond on behalf of their agencies. The chief executives of the Public Trust Office will also respond on behalf of this agency for expenditure from 1 July 1994.

  For my Department, including the Court Service agency, two outsourcing contracts have been granted since 1990, one to Capita—the parent company of Telecom Capita—for specific research work at a value of £40,851 in the financial year 1992–93 and one to Digital Equipment for system development and implementation at a value of £429,362 in the financial year 1993–94. Additional work for the latter contract came to £16,346.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 October 1995:

  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about outsourcing contracts.

  The Public Record Office granted no outsourcing contracts to any of the companies which you list. It did, however, grant a turnkey contract for the supply of hardware, software, specially written software and services to Logica in December 1991. The value of this contact, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, was £1,318,265. Two further small contracts for enhancements were awarded to Logica in 1994 and 1995. The value of these is restricted on commercial grounds.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 October 1995:

  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning outsourcing contacts granted since 1990. HM Land Registry has granted no such contracts during the period to the 16 organisations specified.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomes to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 20 July 1995, regarding outsourcing contracts awarded each year since 1990.
  5
  The Public Trust Office became an Executive Agency on 1 July 1994 and since that date no outsourcing contracts have been awarded by this office. The Public Trust Office will be covered by the Lord Chancellor's Department reply in respect of the period from 1990 to 30 June 1994.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36967]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has granted no contracts to the companies in question in the last five years. I am not responsible for any agencies.

TREASURY

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyn/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36999]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that information prior to 1991 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  HM Treasury has not let any outsourcing contracts with the companies listed.

  HM Treasury did not have any agencies in the period reported above.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue that would be lost if principal private residences were excluded from asset valuation for the purposes of inheritance tax liability. [36440]

  Mr. Jack
  The full-year cost in 1996–97 of excluding principal private residences from asset valuation for the purposes of inheritance tax liability, is estimated at around £300 million. This estimate takes no account of any consequential behavioural changes.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on house prices of exempting principal private residences from inheritance tax liability. [36441]
  6
  Mr. Jack
  It would be inappropriate to comment on tax matters at this stage in the Budget cycle.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their vehicles for official business. [36351]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The current rates of travel allowance that staff in the Treasury may claim when using their vehicles for official business are as follows:

  Standard rate (pence per mile)

  Cars with engine capacity

  Up to 1500 cc

  1501–2000 cc

  Over 2000 cc

  Up to 5,000 miles

  35.7

  40

  43

  Over 5,000 miles

  17

  21

  27

  Motorcycles with engine capacity

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  First, 4,000 miles at:

  15.4p

  24.7p

  Over 4,000 miles at:

  5.5p

  8.1p

  Public Transport Rate (pence per miles)

  For use of private motor cars and motorcycles not meeting the insurance, ownership and economy and efficiency rules for payment of the standard rate of allowance

  Rate per mile: 22.3

  Pedal Cycle Allowance (pence per mile)

  Rate per mile: 5.6

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36352]

  Mrs. Knight
  The total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in the Treasury in the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  1995–96

  7

  1994–95

  21

  1993–94

  23

  1992–93

  32

  1991–92

  29

  1 To date.

  The saving in the last full year can only be estimated, as the records on mileages travelled on individual trips by individual officials are currently held manually and it would involve disproportionate cost to work through those. Of the £21,000 shown for 1994–95, only £7,700 was reimbursed at our maximum rates. The saving had reimbursement been at our lower rate in that year is estimated to be approximately £2.900.
  7

  EDS
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the savings to the Inland Revenue over 10 years of the contract between the Inland Revenue and EDS; when the contract was(a) awarded and (b) revised. [36702]

  Mr. Jack
  When the Inland Revenue signed a 10-year outsourcing contract with EDS in May 1994, the estimated value based on the work load identified in the invitation to tender was £1 billion, which represented a potential saving of £225 million over the in-house costs.

  The Inland Revenue is in the process of updating the original estimates to take into account the actual changes to the work load identified in the first year of the contract and revising forecasts for the remaining life of the contract.

  This work is not yet complete and therefore revised figures are not yet available.

  Earnings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the distribution of earnings and of ages of households having a first child. [36971]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table shows the breakdown of households by range of total gross weekly earnings and age of eldest dependent child as estimated from the winter 1994 labour force survey. Benefits are excluded.

  Age of eldest dependent child

  0–5

  6–10

  11–15

  >15

  Total

  <£200

  6

  6

  10

  5

  27

  £201–£300

  4

  4

  4

  2

  14

  £301–£400

  4

  4

  5

  2

  16

  £401–£500

  4

  4

  4

  2

  13

  £501–£600

  2

  2

  3

  2

  9

  £601–£700

  2

  2

  2

  2

  7

  £701–£800

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  £801–£900

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  >£900

  2

  1

  2

  1

  7

  Total

  26

  25

  31

  18

  100

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate his Department has made of the hourly average rate of pay in manufacturing in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) in each of the members of the European Union; [30074]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the average hourly rate of pay in food retailing. [37005]

  Mrs. Knight
  Estimates of manufacturing hourly earnings for manual and non-manual workers in the United Kingdom and the other member states of the European Union are published by Eurostat in "Earnings—Industry and Services 1994". This report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  More recent information on hourly earnings by industry of full-time adult workers in Great Britain, is shown in tables X2.1–X2.7 of part A of the April 1995 new earnings survey report, also available in the House of Commons Library. Table X2.1 gives date for all manufacturing, and food retailing is shown in table X2.5.
  8

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the number and proportion of the work force in(a) each county and (b) the United Kingdom that are employed in the agriculture and fishing sector. [36722]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table shows regional estimates from the spring—March to May—1995 labour force survey of the number in employment in agriculture and fishing industries and the proportion they represent of the work force. Estimates for each county are not available.

  Spring 1995

  Agriculture and fishing

  All in employment Thousands

  As a proportion of the work force1 Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  517

  1.8

  Northern region

  22

  1.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  47

  1.9

  East Midlands

  46

  2.2

  East Anglia

  36

  3.3

  Greater London

  n/a

  n/a

  Rest of South East

  70

  1.3

  South West

  79

  3.3

  West Midlands

  51

  2.0

  North West

  27

  0.9

  Wales

  41

  3.2

  Scotland

  56

  2.3

  Northern Ireland

  36

  5.1

  Source:

  Labour Force survey.

  n/a Not available; estimate less than 10,000.

  1 Work force is defined as those who are economically active (in employment or ILO unemployed).

  Small Shops (Security Equipment)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average increase in rateable value for small shops caused by the installation of security equipment; and if he will make a statement. [36947]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information is not available on the average increase in rateable value for small shops caused by the installation of security equipment.

  The effect that security equipment may have on the rateable value of small shops will depend upon its nature and extent. This will vary but, in general, relatively minor security devices fitted in small shops are unlikely to increase the value significantly and in many cases they may not increase the value at all.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines his Department has issued to local valuation offices regarding the rateable value of security devices in small shops. [36945]

  Mrs. Knight
  No specific guidelines have been issued with regard to the rateable value of security devices in small shops, but valuation officers will consider the rateability and value of such items in line with general guidelines on the rateability of plant and machinery.
  9

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of central Government expenditure per head to each English region in each of the last five years. [36726]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Identifiable general government expenditure per head by region and function for 1992–93 was published in "Public Expenditure"; Cm 2821, table 7.9. An exercise to collect regional figures for general government expenditure for one financial year only is

  Name

  Country

  Sector

  Amount (mecu)

  Lender guaranteed

  Panafon, SA

  Greece

  TEN1 telecoms

  54.74

  EIB

  Groupe Banque Populaire (GBP)

  France

  SME2

  75.91

  GBP

  Telecom Italia

  Italy

  TEN telecoms

  101.38

  EIB

  SNAM Trans-mediterraneo

  Italy

  TEN energy

  100.49

  EIB

  Aeroporto di Malpensa

  Italy

  TEN transport

  375.59

  EIB

  Transgas

  Portugal

  TEN

  4107.22

  EIB

  Total

  515.33

  Notes

  1. Trans-European networks (TEN).

  2. Small-and medium-sized enterprise (SME).

  3.1st tranche of 25.9 mecu signed.

  4.1st tranche of 46 mecu signed.

  Source:

  European Investment Fund Annual Report 1994.

  For 1995, the fund's business plan provides for a total volume of guarantees of between 1.2 billion ecu and 1.5 billion ecu, taking into account both business prospects and the recent enlargement of the Union by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. It is expected that the proportion of guarantees on loans granted by the European investment bank will reduce to between 60 per cent. and 75 per cent. of total activity and that the mix between TEN and SME operations will be more in line with the business plan projection of 80:20.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure has been incurred by the European Monetary Institute in respect of preparation for possible designs banknotes or coinage for a common currency; and on whose authority such expenditure was made. [37269]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The European Monetary Institute has the responsibility of supervising the technical preparation of single currency banknotes under the terms of article 109f(3) of the EC treaty, as amended at Maastricht, which has been ratified by all member states. The accounts published by the European Monetary Institute do not separately identify expenditure incurred in fulfilling this responsibility.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to ensure taxation of trading at car boot sales. [37147]
  10
  carried out annually. Figures for the central Government component are not collected separately, nor is a time series available on a consistent basis.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approvals have so far been made under the European Investment Fund for guarantee of loans made for projects within member states of the European Union; and if he will give for each case the purpose of the investment, the amount guaranteed and the financial agency concerned. [37007]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The full list of projects signed is:

  Mr. Jack
  Those who trade at car boot sales are liable to investigation by the Inland Revenue in the same way as any other trader. The Inland Revenue continuously evaluates all areas where there might be under-declaration of taxable profits.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from privatised utility regulators suggesting extra taxation to take account of hidden values in respect of the regulated companies. [37071]

  Mr. Jack
  I receive many representations on a wide variety of tax issues in the run-up to the Budget, but it is not my practice to comment on them individually.

  European Union (Convergence Criteria)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EU countries are currently achieving the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty. [37210]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The question of which countries meet the Maastricht criteria will be decided by the European Council on recommendations from the Commission. On the basis of the latest Commission forecast, Luxembourg, Germany and the UK are likely to have budget deficits below 3 per cent. of GDP and debt ratios below 60 per cent. of GDP by 1996.

  Regulated Monopolies
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals for a special one-off tax on
  11
  gains made by regulated monopolies where the regulator certifies that the gains were unexpected. [37062]

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment on tax measures in the run-up to the Budget.

  Taxation (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie immunity from United Kingdom tax arrangements in respect of the Kuwait investment office in London; and if he will list the other Kuwaiti commercial operations in the United Kingdom to which this immunity extends. [37068]

  Mr. Jack
  The normal rules of tax confidentiality preclude the provision of information about the affairs of named individuals or entities.

  Embassy Staff (Salaries)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place for the disclosure for tax purposes of salaries and benefits in kind paid to British employees of foreign embassies in London. [37072]

  Mr. Jack
  Some embassies voluntarily operate the "pay as you earn" scheme on the salaries of their British staff. Where the embassy does not do this, it is approached at the end of each tax year by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—acting on behalf of the Inland Revenue—for details of the emoluments which it has paid during the year to its staff who are liable to tax. Those staff are also under the normal obligation to declare their emoluments in the returns of income which they make to the Inland Revenue.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  India
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of United Kingdom funded projects in India in each of the past six years have been in the states of(a) Kashmir and (b) Punjab. [37105]

  Mr. Hanley
  One project in Kashmir—hydroelectric power—is currently being funded under the aid and trade provision at a total cost of £17 million. Apart from this, the ODA has not given any bilateral aid for projects in either Kashmir or Punjab in the past six years.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for overseas aid assistance have been made by the Indian Government for projects in(a) Kashmir and (b) Punjab states in the past 10 years; and how many of these were approved. [37107]

  Mr. Hanley
  A hydroelectric power project on Kashmir was approved under the aid and trade provision in 1989. No other British bilateral aid projects have been approved in the past 10 years in Kashmir or Punjab. Information on requests during that time from the Indian Government for assistance for projects in Kashmir and Punjab is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 12
  and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the major projects in India funded by United Kingdom overseas aid in the past six years. [37103]

  Mr. Hanley
  Projects over £5 million funded by UK overseas aid in India in the past six years are:

  Maharashtra Water (1990) £16m

  Calcutta Slum Improvement Project (1990) £13m

  Orissa Health and Family Welfare 2 (1991) £20m

  Vijayawada Slum Improvement Project (1991) £17m

  Programme Aid Grant (1991) £30m

  Coal Project Grant (1991) £ 11m

  Andhra Pradesh School Health (1991) £6m

  Programme Aid Grant (1992) £20m

  Western Ghats Environmental Forestry Project (1992) £25m

  High Voltage Interconnector, Chandrapur, (1993) £65m

  Hirakud Hydro (1993) £20m

  Heat Treated Rails (1993) £15m

  Regional Engineering Colleges (1994) £7m

  Eastern India Rainfed Farming Project (1994) £8m

  Andhra Pradesh Energy Efficiency (1994) £43m

  Maharashtra Earthquake (World Bank Programme) £15m

  Gomti River Pollution Control Project (1995) £4m (initial phase)

  Andhra Pradesh District Primary Education (1995) £46m

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the amount of United Kingdom bilateral aid in India in each of the past six years. [37104]

  Mr. Hanley
  UK bilateral aid to India was:

  1989–90: £75.851 million

  1990–91: £88.260 million

  1991–92: £128.144 million

  1992–93: £94.719 million

  1993–94: £79.231 million

  1994–95: £82.652 million

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on respect of granting overseas aid assistance to India; and to what extent this takes into account geographical location of projects. [37106]

  Mr. Hanley
  Priorities for United Kingdom aid are discussed and agreed with the Government of India at annual talks, taking into account priorities of both Governments.

  For management reasons, major new projects are increasingly being focused in a smaller number of target states, including West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh.

  Overseas Aid Expenditure
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to fulfil the statement made by his predecessor at the Overseas Development Institute that Her Majesty's Government had plans to increase annual expenditure on overseas aid. [37363]

  Mr. Hanley
  In his speech to the Overseas Development Institute on 15 February 1995, the then Foreign Secretary reiterated the Government's plans for
  13
  increased aid spending announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 29 November 1994.

  In common with all other areas of Government expenditure, these plans are reviewed each year during the public expenditure survey.

  Twa People, Rwanda
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the fate of the Twa people of Rwanda, and those of them presently refugees in Zaire; and what plans he has to take any special action to protect these victims of the situation in Rwanda. [37286]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have little specific information about the fate of the Twa people, other than reports by bodies such as the Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organisation. An UNPO mission to Rwanda in late 1994 estimated that 10,000 Twa were killed in the genocide and civil war of 1994—representing one third of that community in Rwanda—and that a further 8,000 to 10,000 Twa had fled the country.

  Other reports indicate that the Twa form a particularly vulnerable group among the refugees, often living outside the established camps and meriting special attention from UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross and Christian Aid have organised separate food distribution and shelter provision for groups of Twa refugees. Inside Rwanda, the Twa have traditionally been a disadvantaged group, subjected to discrimination. A Christian Aid rehabilitation programme has assisted the Twa, and further programmes targeting the Twa as a group are planned. The UK has contributed to these programmes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36836]

  The Attorney-General
  Although none of the Departments for which I am responsible uses the private finance initiative for the funding of any services or projects at present, use of the PFI is being considered for future projects where appropriate. It is not expected that use of the PFI would affect the rights of individuals to complain to an ombudsman.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EU Documents (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for providing additional opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of policies under(a) the second and (b) the third pillar of Maastricht.
  14
  Mr. Newton
  The procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of documents emerging under the inter-governmental pillars work well and are kept under review. I await with interest the publication of a report from the Select Committee on European Legislation on the arrangements for the scrutiny of EU documents, which is planned for the autumn. The Government will consider the report carefully together with any proposals the Committee may have for improving the current arrangements.

  Members' Car Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 914, how many of the Members who claim only one rate of car allowance have cars in each of the three categories.

  Mr. Newton
  There are six Members who submit claims for one rate of vehicle but who have cars registered in all three categories.

SCOTLAND

  Advertising
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those daily and Sunday newspapers used by his Department for advertising purposes in 1994–95; and what was the total expenditure in each case. [36340]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Publicity advertising undertaken by my Department for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 was as follows:

  £

  The Scotsman

  9,176

  The Herald

  8,770

  Dundee Courier and Advertiser

  6,543

  Press and Journal

  7,167

  Daily Record

  51,138

  Scottish Daily Express

  1,876

  The Sun (Scottish)

  8,882

  Daily Mirror

  361

  Glasgow Evening Times

  296

  Scotland on Sunday

  9,724

  Sunday Times Scotland

  6,881

  Sunday Mail

  47,795

  Sunday Post

  49,761

  News of the World (Scottish)

  2,100

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of his Department's advertising budget has been allocated to local weekly newspapers in Scotland in each of the past 10 years. [36341]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The figure for 1993–94 was 5.7 per cent. and for 1994–95, 7.3 per cent. Details for previous years are not held centrally.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission land sold so far during 1995. [36983]
  15
  Mr. Kynoch
  I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Departments. [36827]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Under the private finance initiative, Departments or relevant public bodies may contract with private organisations for the supply of services to specified standards. The rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen are not affected assuming that the responsibility to provide services lies with the public authority concerned.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or Agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36957]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I can confirm that no outsourcing contracts were let to any of the named suppliers during the period in question.

  Population Census
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to include a question on the use of Scots in the next census in 2001 on the same basis as the existing question on Gaelic. [36987]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The General Register Office for Scotland, together with the Census Office for England and Wales, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, has started to consult users of census information about their needs from the next census of population, planned for 2001. A number of letters have been received expressing support for a question on the Scots language. Needs have also been expressed for information about various other languages and other topics.

  The census offices and users will consider whether these requirements can be met by a set of simple questions without the census form imposing an undue burden on the public. For each topic a preliminary assessment will be made on whether the census is the most appropriate means of collecting the required information. Questions for which there is likely to be a good case will be tested to see if the public find them acceptable and can provide answers of a quality adequate to meet user's needs. Business cases for such questions and previously proven questions will then be considered. The Government's proposals will be pubished in 1998, and the final selection of questions will be approved by Parliament.
  16

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now specify the quantity and nature of the drugs found in the debris near Lockerbie after the destruction of Pan Am flight 103. [37394]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The hon. Member is referred to the answer given on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 87.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Crown Office gave to the deputy chief constable of the Dumfries and Galloway police in responding to the letter from the former Bradford police surgeon, Dr. David Fieldhouse, regarding the failure to make further inquiry of him about body DCF12, labelled by Dr. Fieldhouse at a hillside north-east of Shawhill farm, Lockerbie, on 22 December 1988. [37460]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Communications between the prosecuting and Investigating authorities are confidential.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Crown Office has now given to the advancing age of those witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to lead in court in relation to the Lockerbie case. [37446]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 90, and have nothing to add except to note that a further seven months have passed.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now reveal on what dates Scottish police interviewed Dr. David Fieldhouse, Bradford police surgeon, in connection with his work in the Lockerbie area in December 1988; what knowledge he now has of body DCF12, male, hillside north-east of Shawhill farm, found at Lockerbie by Dr. David Fieldhouse, and if the Crown Office has endorsed the apology given in his written report by Sheriff John Mowat to Dr. David Fieldhouse for overlooking his information about Lockerbie body DCF12, male, hillside north-east of Shawhill farm, and for the undeserved criticism of his activities. [37459]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 6 March 1995,Official Report, columns 89 and 90.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has anything to add to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 90, regarding the likelihood of a trial of the Lockerbie suspects taking place. [37464]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Adam Busby
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to secure the extradition of Adam Busby from Dublin. [37364]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements for the backing warrants in Ireland are the responsibility of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and the police. There is a warrant in force for the arrest of Adam
  17
  Busby and it is not the policy of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to discuss the steps which might be taken to enforce such a warrant.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their vehicles for official business. [36355]

  Mr. Hanley
  FCO—diplomatic wing and ODA—staff can claim the following rates when using their private vehicles for official business in the United Kingdom:

  Private cars

  Per mile

  Public transport rate

  22.3p

  Standard rate (up to 4000 miles per year)

  37.0p

  Standard rate (over 4000 miles per year)

  21.0p

  Motor Cycles

  Public Transport rate

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc only

  (Up to 4000 miles per year)

  14.1 per mile

  21.8 per mile

  (Over 4000 miles per year)

  5.8 per mile

  8.6 per mile

  The standard rate for private cars is payable only when public transport is unavailable or impractical.

  Overseas mileage rates are calculated by individual diplomatic missions using a formula set by the Treasury and agreed with the Inland Revenue.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36356]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO—diplomatic wing and ODA—processed over 20,000 travel and subsistence claims during the financial year 1994–95. Information on payments made to staff who use their private vehicles for official business in that year and preceding years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [37000]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.
  18

  Pitcairn Island (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of French nuclear testing on the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island; and what her Majesty's Government's obligations to the Pitcairn Islanders. [36761]

  Mr. David Davis
  We remain committed to the protection of United Kingdom dependent territories. We do not believe that the French nuclear tests should cause any danger to the inhabitants of Pitcairn.

  Food Poisoning, South Pacific
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will commission a study of the increased incidences of the food poisoning strain called ciguatera in so far as it relates to the residents of British dependent territories in the South Pacific, in the context of nuclear weapons tests in the region. [36754]

  Mr. David Davis
  The incidence of ciguatera in the South Pacific is monitored locally. It depends on a variety of factors. We see no need to commission any separate study.

  Middle East
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of progress in the middle east peace process. [36897]

  Mr. Hanley
  The interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was signed in Washington on 28 September. This represents a major achievement in the peace process, which we warmly welcome. The interim agreement paves the way for Palestinian elections in the west bank and Gaza. We will be making a substantial contribution to the EU-organised observation of the elections. Negotiations between Israel and Syria remain suspended for the time being. We hope that they will resume soon.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the source documents which comprise the scientific evidence at Her Majesty's Government's disposal on the environmental risks posed to coral atolls by nuclear tests to which the Minister of State made reference in the adjournment debate on 19 July. [36839]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The scientific evidence is drawn from a number of sources. Copies of key documents will be available in the Library of the House shortly.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36832]

  Mr. Hanley
  Members of the public have the right to make representations to the appropriate ombudsman about any service or project provided by the Foreign and
  19
  Commonwealth Office—diplomatic wing or Overseas Development Administration—including those funded under the private finance initiative.

  Abdel Ghadanfar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date Her Majesty's Government was informed by the German Government of the decision to free Abdel Ghadanfar in November 1994; [37454]

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government was informed of and consulted about the release of, and the decision to free, Abdel Ghadanfar, by the German Authorities in November 1994; and if he will make a statement. [37453]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 9.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) following the court case Air Malta v Granada Television and pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 31 January,Official Report, column 332, what evidence has now been found to substantiate a Maltese connection with the Lockerbie bombing; [37406]

  (2) what information he has sought since March 1995 from Juge Brugiere in France, in relation to the UTA case, with particular reference to a Libyan connection for Lockerbie. [37423]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report column 5.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) for what reason Her Majesty's Government supported the US decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie; and that the preferred action was through the UN Security Council; [37435]

  (2) what consideration has now been given to evidence involving officials of countries other than Libya in relation to Lockerbie; and what efforts her Majesty's Government have made to obtain such evidence concerning nationals of countries, other than Libya, as undertaken on 20 January 1992, Official Report, column 159. [37436]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 6.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Amro Musa, Foreign Minister of Egypt, to discuss the Lockerbie situation; and what contact he has had since. [37448]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs saw the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 27 September, and expects to meet him frequently in future.
  20
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following his undertaking given in Glasgow on 3 February, to look into the claims made by the Bradford police surgeon, Dr. David Fieldhouse, what further action he has taken to verify Dr. Fieldhouse's claims about the body count at Lockerbie on 21, 22 and 23 December 1988. [37438]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995.Official Report, column 5.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 7, regarding his assertion on 3 February at the Scottish Oils Clubs Annual Dinner that a trial in relation to Lockerbie would be prejudiced by a public inquiry. [37463]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will now enter into discussions with Dr. Esmat Abdel Maguid with a view to resolving the Lockerbie case; [37442]

  (2) what representations he has now had from Esmat Abdel Maguid on the issue of Libya's position in relation to the Lockerbie case. [37443]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  At his meeting with Dr. Maguid on 5 April, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) discussed a range of matters, including Lockerbie.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice has now been sought from her Majesty's Government by the German Government on the reply that they should give to the letter to Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl, in German from a German national, Elizabeth Mosey, mother of a Lockerbie victim, of 23 January 1995; and what advice was given by her Majesty's Government. [37447]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 9 December 1993 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will now discuss with the German Government the visit to Germany of the Iranian Intelligence Minster, Mr. Fallahian, and subsequent visits by Iranian Ministers at which the destruction of Pan Am 103 was discussed. [37449]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from Adnan Omran, assistant secretary-general for political affairs of the Arab League, following the meeting between the League and the United Nations in Vienna in July 1995 about the Lockerbie situation. [37455]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.
  21
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's communications with the solicitors of Pan Am, Windels, Marx, Davies and Ives, regarding aspects of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, since May 1995. [37440]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 8.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was last in contact with the Government of Finland about the identity of a caller to the United States embassy in Helsinki on 5 December 1988, warning that within two weeks a bomb would be carried on to an American airliner from Frankfurt, destination New York. [37450]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 8.

  European Legislation|
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the judgments of the Court of the European Community which have required retrospective amendment of any United Kingdom Acts of Parliament or related instrument arising from(a) a Community directive and (b) a Community regulation stating in each case the relevant United Kingdom amended instrument and its principal effect. [37257]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are not aware of any judgment of the European Court of Justice which has required the United Kingdom to amend retroactively legislation arising from a community Directive or Regulation. Some judgments of the Court may have significant retrospective effects without the need for amending legislation, especially in the pensions and social security fields. We intend to address this issue at the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 12 July, what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to the international programme set up under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency to consider the implications of past dumping operations; and what requests he has received from the Russian Government for technical help in relation to the Lepse in Murmansk harbour. [37396]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continue to participate in the international programme established to assess the risks to human health and the environment from radioactive wastes dumped in the Kara and Barents seas, to examine possible remedial actions and to advise on whether any are necessary and justified. This project, managed by the IAEA in co-operation with the Norwegian and Russian Governments, is expected to report in 1996. No specific request to provide technical assistance for the Lepse has been received from the Russian Government. The European Union is, however, proposing to assist the 22
  relevant Russian authorities by funding a feasibility study into the options for dealing with the Lepse and the radioactive material stored on board.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, columns 313–14; what contribution he has made to the recent discussions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. [37108]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to encourage both the Indian and Pakistani Governments to resolve their differences over Kashmir through bilateral negotiation.

  Iranian Airbus
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put in the Library a copy of the recent statements by the Government of Iran, in the possession of his Department, that the skies would rain blood on America, as a result of the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the USS 'Vincennes' [37444]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 8.

  Mr. Prazak
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has now given to the death of British subject, Mr. Prazak, on 22 December 1992, on a Libyan airliner on an internal flight, in the light of approaches from Mrs. Felicity Prazak, a British citizen. [37437]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have helped Mrs. Prazak arrange a visit to her husband's grave in Libya and we are pressing the Libyan authorities to provide a crash report. We are not empowered to launch our own inquiry because the crash involved two Libyan aircraft inside Libyan air space.

PRIME MINISTER

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning his hopes for education, what procedures, flexibilities and diversity will potentially be available to future pupils, or parents, not already available at schools currently under local management arrangements, if they become directly funded under conditions laid down by Her Majesty's Government; and by what means in those circumstances Ministers will ensure that the options now preferred, or currently available, will be maintained under such arrangements. [37358]

  (2) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning education, which freedoms, flexibility, and additional diversity will potentially be available to future parents and pupils in schools now under local management arrangements in England and Wales if they became directly funded under conditions laid down by

  23
  Her Majesty's Government; and by what means Ministers will ensure that options currently available will be maintained. [37383]

  The Prime Minister
  Self-government is a significant and logical step beyond local management. A self-governing school controls its total budget, not just the proportion delegated by an LEA. It is also free to preserve its existing character or to propose changes without reference to the local authority.

  This gives self-governing schools greater flexibility to innovate, and to respond quickly and efficiently to the needs and aspirations of the communities they serve.

  I believe that the benefits of grant-maintained status should be extended to all schools. This option is currently being examined.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require all relevant Government Departments to maintain a register listing sporting facilities in receipt of public funds(a) closed after 1 September 1995 and (b) proposed for closure; and if he will then instruct his Minister for Sport to investigate and report to him on relevant reasons for closure. [37336]

  The Prime Minister
  The sports policy statements issued during the summer recognised the important role which sports facilities, including those provided by public funds, play in the development of sport. The documents detail the measures that have taken and will be taking to safeguard and improve the current level of facilities provision. We will also shortly be consulting on a proposal that the Sports Councils should be given statutory consultee status on planning proposals affecting all playing fields. Additionally, the Government will retain statutory area standards to protect school playing fields. The Government do not see a need for a register of publicly funded sports facilities of the kind that the hon. Member suggests.

  Breast Cancer Campaign
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received expressing support for the national postcard campaign for breast cancer; and how many of these have been answered. [37051]

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received in response to the recent campaign on breast cancer. [37481]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations regarding this campaign.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 January, what strategy, other than demanding a trial of two junior operatives, Her Majesty's Government now have for obtaining justice for all the victims of the crime of Lockerbie. [37461]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 79.
  24
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library a copy of the memorandum from No. 10 Downing street in 1989 adducing the reasons why Her Majesty's Government would not allow a public inquiry into the Lockerbie crime; and at what level the decision on the public inquiry was taken. [37458]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 78.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minster what reports the United Kingdom and United States authorities in Cyprus have now received from Dr. David Lovejoy, an employee of the United States Government, directly or through other sources, on the movement of the United States hostage rescue team, including Matthew Gannon and Major Charles McKee, subsequently killed at Lockerbie, before the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will discuss with President Clinton the reasons why these reports were sought. [37456]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 80.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government were informed by the US authorities on or around 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee. [37405]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 79.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what examination has recently taken place of the Toshiba and Helsinki warnings in relation to Lockerbie, since the fatal accident inquiry. [37457]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 78.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 26 January,Official Report, column 300, in what month of what year allegations were first made to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostashemi had paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out; who were the competent authorities to whom the Prime Minister refers; and how much of the alleged contradictory material came from Abdul Meged Jiacha. [37434]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, columns 80–81.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government have now made of the role of Khaled Jaafar, a Lebanese victim of the Lockerbie bombing. [37407]
  25
  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 79.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now discuss with President Clinton the implications regarding Iranian links and baggage being onloaded on Air Malta 180, destination Frankfurt airport. [37445]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 78.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now discuss with Chancellor Kohl the prima facie evidence that a German-based terrorist organisation used their knowledge of a covert US drugs operation to switch an unaccompanied bag containing drugs with an identical bag containing a bomb which destroyed Pan Am Flight 103. [37441]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 78.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information has come recently to Her Majesty's Government about approaches by members of the Jaafar family offering precise testimony about Hezbollah and Achmed Tibril and their role in using a member of the Jaafar family to get a bomb on board Pan Am flight 103. [37395]

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, no such approaches have been received.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the reasons why the Justice Department of the German Government have challenged Anglo-US explanations of the Lockerbie crime. [36747]

  The Prime Minister
  The German Federal Ministry of Justice has not challenged the basis on which charges have been brought against the two individuals accused of having carried out the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 571, if he will identify the partners to whom he referred in relation to discussions about Lockerbie and UTA 772. [37452]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Intergovernmental Panel on the Oceans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 9 March to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what 26
  recent consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to the recommendation of the Government's panel on sustainable development on the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans. [37291]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is organising an international workshop from 30 November to 2 December to consider the machinery by which global decisions on the oceans take place. The Government will be putting the conclusions of this workshop, with their own views, to the next meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

  East German Security Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have had recently, since 15 July, from the German Government about their interrogation of Edward Bollier's Stasi control, and the sale of timing devices to the Stasi. [37408]

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, none.

  Trafficking in Fissile Materials
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 2 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what progress has been made on the plan of action agreed by the European summit at Essen in December 1994 to improve co-operation between member states of the Union on how to develop programmes of assistance to third countries in relation to illegal trafficking in fissile materials; and if he will make a statement. [37288]

  The Prime Minister
  The Essen report on Illicit Traffic in Radioactive Substances and Nuclear Materials recommended a plan of action to improve co-operation with countries which were potential sources of illicit nuclear material. Since then, EURATOM has promoted a number of projects, the primary aim of which has been to provide assistance on improving nuclear materials accountancy and control. Three projects involving co-operation with Russia are currently under way and five are planned for 1996. The United Kingdom has been pursuing bilateral projects in Russia and Kazakhstan to assist those countries in a range of safeguards-related areas.

  Libya (Extradition)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom now has an extradition treaty with Libya. [37462]

  The Prime Minister
  No.
  27

DEFENCE

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the number of ships for service in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; and if he will make a statement. [36439]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government will maintain the Royal Fleet Auxiliary at the level needed to meet the Royal Navy's requirements. There is at present no requirement for an increase in the number of ships in service.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public interest immunity certificates his Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36693]

  Mr. Soames
  I am unable to provide any details before April 1992. Since that date public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers in this Department to cover a number of individual subjects and, in the event not all the certificates have been used. Total numbers for each year are as follows:

  1992: 3

  1993: 5

  1994: 2

  1995: 3

  Type

  Engine cc Cars

  Full rate p/mile £

  Lower tier p/mile £

  Rate effective date

  Standard Rate Motor

  Cars

  Mileage

  0–1000

  0.27

  0.15

  6 April 1995

  Allowance

  1001–1500

  0.34

  0.19

  (SRMMA)

  1501–2000

  0.43

  0.23

  2001 and over

  0.60

  0.32

  Motorcycles

  0–125

  0.158

  0.062

  6 April 1995

  126 and over

  0.242

  0.090

  Public Transport

  All cars

  0.238

  6 April 1995

  Rate Motor

  Motorcycles

  Mileage Allowance

  0–125

  0.158

  6 April 1995

  (PTRMMA)

  126 and over

  0.238

  Candidates for Employment

  All cars and motorcycles

  0.10

  1 April 1989

  0.05

  Bicycle

  0.062

  6 April 1995

  Note:

  Under current regulations SRMMA may be claimed at full rate to a limit of 4000 miles (1995–96 financial year). Any additional mileage travelled is restricted to the Lower Tier rate.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36366]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total costs of mileage allowances claimed by Ministry of Defence civilian staff using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five year is as follows:

  1990–91: £11,960,000

  1991–92: £11,800,000

  1992–93: £11,840,000

  28

  Submarines (Allowances)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra allowances are currently paid to those employed on submarines. [36335]

  Mr. Soames
  Apart from submarine pay, the details of which I gave to the hon. Member in my answer of 18 July 1995,Official Report, column 1184, no extra allowances are paid to personnel because of their specific service aboard submarines. However, all service personnel who are serving in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who are in receipt of United Kingdom rates of pay and who have served a minimum of two years at sea are eligible for longer service at sea bonus, providing they are serving in a qualifying unit, such as the submarine flotilla. Additionally, in recognition of their sea service they receive a waiver of food and accommodation charges and extra travel warrants on return to the United Kingdom.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36365]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The rates of travel allowance currently in payment are as follows:

  1993–94: £11,230,000

  1994–95: £10,700,000

  The estimated savings in the last year —1994–95—if the mileage rate which could be claimed was set at the lowest rate is:

  £1,680,000(=15.7 per cent. of the actual cost).

  Overseas Troops
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence if he will list the number of British troops in the various countries where they are stationed. [36350]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of british Army troops stationed at permanent overseas garrisons is as follows:
  29

  Number

  Germany

  26,500

  Hong Kong

  2,600

  Brunei

  680

  Cyprus

  2,700

  Falkland Islands

  300

  Gibraltar

  60

  In addition, about 74,000 Army troops are stationed in the United Kingdom.

  Officers and soldiers from these permanent garrisons are deployed on short-term operational and other tours in a further 77 countries including as defence and military attachés.

  Civilian Projects
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times each of the armed services has been(a) used and (b) requested to carry out civilian projects for private individuals in the last five years. [36974]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A large number of requests for military aid to the civil community are for work of a minor nature and are handled on a local basis.

  Some training projects are carried out on private land in Scotland from time to time.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the guidelines and regulations by which the armed services can be used to carry out civilian projects for private individuals. [36975]

  Mr. Soames
  Instructions on the conduct of military aid to the civil community, whereby service personnel and equipment can be provided either in emergencies or as a routine activity, are contained in a joint service publication and are summarised in a pamphlet which is available to civil authorities and others. I am placing a copy of the pamphlet in the Library of the House. Examples of routine assistance on special projects are construction, demolition, repair and rehabilitation work. Tasks must be of social value to the community and of good training value to the services.

  Separate regulations exist to cover circumstances in which Royal Engineer or other service units perform tasks of material benefit to a landowner which offer unusual or exceptional training value, the opportunity for which is not readily available on Ministry of Defence property. Such tasks may be undertaken on the basis that the landowner pays for all materials consumed, while we do not seek to recover the labour, plant and transport costs. These regulations are contained in "Army General and Administrative Instructions", which are classified documents.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times, by whom and what was the cost of using(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy to carry out civilian projects for private individuals in Scotland in the last five years. [36976]
  30
  Mr. Soames
  There are 31 recorded cases of Royal Engineer units of the Army carrying out projects in Scotland in the last five years in the course of training on private land, although the costs are not kept separately from those of the cost of normal training. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have no records of such activities over the last five years.

  Research (Radiation Tests)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research projects his Department has undertaken since 1965 involving radiation tests on humans. [36729]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information in the form requested is not available, but the subject has been investigated and no evidence has been found of any MOD involvement in unethical radiation experiments on humans.

  Duke of Atholl
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to the public funds of the use of armed forces personnel by the Duke of Atholl to shore up the bank at Glen Tilt. [36973]

  Mr. Soames
  The work carried out on the River Tilt presented an exceptional opportunity for a Territorial Army unit to undertake tasks of major training value. The work was primarily of benefit to householders living outside the Atholl estate. No significant extra costs to public funds were incurred as the Duke of Atholl paid for all materials consumed.

  Hawk Weapons
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 525, what studies he will conduct about long-term arrangements to support Hawk detachments at RAF St. Athan; and what is his estimate of the long-term cost of making permanent provision for them. [36963]

  Mr. Soames
  A number of options have been identified to meet the Hawk weapons detachment requirement at RAF St. Athan. An independent option study has been commissioned to examine these options and to determine the most cost-effective permanent arrangement. It is not our practice to publish assessments of the long-term costs of possible options within the defence forward programme.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyn/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net,

  31
  (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m)CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [37003]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number and value of contracts per financial year per group of companies

  £ million

  Company Group

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995 to July

  Anderson Consulting

  <5

  <5

  >5

  >5

  <5

  <5

  2.6

  0.5

  6.5

  1.4

  1.5

  0.1

  AT and T Istel

  nil

  <5

  <5

  25

  >5

  <5

  0.1

  0.4

  3.0

  0.2

  0.1

  BIS Info Systems

  nil

  <15

  10

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1.1

  1.0

  CFM Group

  nil

  <5

  <5

  nil

  nil

  <5

  0.1

  0.1

  4.7

  CMG Group

  <5

  <5

  >5

  <15

  <5

  <5

  0.1

  0.1

  2.2

  2.2

  0.7

  0.1

  Digital Equipment Group

  422

  257

  281

  183

  80

  28

  8.3

  7.4

  8.2

  9.8

  6.4

  7.7

  EDS Group

  <5

  nil

  62

  79

  62

  17

  0.1

  22

  26

  17

  4.9

  Hoskyns/CAP Gemini

  12

  9

  28

  20

  14

  nil

  1.1

  0.2

  1.0

  8.3

  0.1

  ICL Group

  169

  189

  158

  202

  139

  38

  19

  27

  16

  31

  17

  1.0

  Logica Group

  25

  26

  29

  23

  18

  4

  4.2

  2.8

  3.7

  4.3

  0.9

  1.2

  Nixdorf Computers

  <5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  .03

  Sema Group (excluding the BAe-SEMA joint

  18

  10

  6

  5

  4

  nil

  venture)

  2.1

  3.0

  0.1

  0.1

  <0.1

  Siemens Group

  194

  213

  223

  246

  181

  101

  48

  16

  52

  101

  90

  41

  1Nixdorf data is included within Siemens, as Siemens Nixdorf Information.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36837]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The parliamentary ombudsman has, subject to the conditions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, jurisdiction to investigate complaints from members of the public about the way they have been treated by Government Departments, other public sector bodies engaged in the work of central Government, and those acting on their behalf. The ombudsman can investigate complaints about projects or services funded through the private finance initiative if they are carried out by or on behalf of a Department or public body within their jurisdiction, that is those bodies which are listed in schedule 2 of the 1967 Act.

  Market Testing (Health Services)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what personnel implications will follow from market testing health services for British forces; and if he will make a statement. [36979]
  32
  However, such information as is available is detailed in the table.

  We have no records of any MOD contract in this time scale with the following companies:

  Datasolve

  ITN Net

  Centre File

  Telecom Capita

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible at this time to say what the personnel implications of the market test of health services in British Forces Germany will be. The winning tender by the Health Alliance is subject to further detailed contractual discussions as well as consultation with the staff and their representatives in UK and Germany. Any proposals will, however, be in full compliance with the terms and conditions of service, and appropriate British or German legislation.

  Jobs
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of jobs are defence-related in(a) all England and Welsh counties, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [36782]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not available in the form requested. "UK Defence Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House shows that, in 1994, the deployment of service and MOD civilian personnel, and the estimated number of jobs directly associated with my Department's expenditure on equipment, were as follows:
  33

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Service personnel

  156,000

  4,800

  18,400

  MOD civilian staff

  95,000

  4,900

  11,200

  Jobs directly dependent on MOD equipment spending

  93,000

  1,000

  8,000

  Total

  344,000

  10,700

  37,600

  The relevant tables in "UK Defence Statistics 1995" [1.9 and 2.4] break down the figures for England by standard region, but not by county. The figures for jobs in industry do not include jobs dependent on non-equipment expenditure, or on defence exports; nor do they include jobs at subcontractors and other suppliers to MOD contractors. Within the UK as a whole, such jobs are estimated to amount to an additional 280,000, but no breakdown of this UK total is available.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to protect defence-related jobs in the south west in the coming year; and if he will make a statement. [36781]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's objective is to obtain the best value for money possible for the defence budget, rather than to protect employment in any particular area though, as an employer, we naturally have regard to the employment implications of our decisions. As a customer of industry, we believe that where companies locate, and where they choose to carry out work on our contracts, are matters for the companies themselves to decide. They may of course be eligible for regional assistance, but this is not the responsibility of my Department.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total British work force is employed in defence-related jobs. [36784]

  Mr Arbuthnot
  The proportion of the United Kingdom workforce employed in defence-related jobs was approximately 3 per cent., based on the following figures.

  Number

  Strength of Armed Forces on 1 April 1994

  254,500

  MOD UK-based civilian staff on 1 April 1994

  121,600

  Estimated UK employment dependent on defence expenditure in 1993–94 (the latest year for which an estimate is available)

  395,000

  Total

  771,100

  Average UK workforce in employment 1993–94

  25,412,000

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of defence-related jobs in Devon and Cornwall. [36783]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Such information as is available is compiled by region rather than by county. The "UK Defence Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, shows that, in 1994, some 39,700 service personnel, and some 24,800 MOD civilian staff were deployed in the south-west region. In addition, some 18,000 jobs in the region were estimated to be directly 34
  associated with my Department's expenditure on equipment. This last figure does not include jobs dependent on non-equipment expenditure, or on defence exports; nor does it include jobs at subcontractors and other suppliers to MOD contractors. Within the United Kingdom as a whole, such jobs are estimated to amount to an additional 280,000, but no regional breakdown of this figure is available.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has changed his policy about the future of the runway at RAF Chivenor since 3 May; and what information about the future of the runway he communicated to a delegation from north Devon. [36985]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no change in the policy about the future of the runway. I confirmed to members of the delegation from north Devon, whom I met on 26 June 1995, that the runway at Chivenor would not he broken up as a consequence of any relocation of Royal Marine units there, and that the long-term civil aviation needs for north Devon were a matter for the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now commission an investigation into possible joint uses of the runway at RAF Chivenor by any elements of the armed forces, in order to maintain the runway's viability in the long term. [36986]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 526.

  Health Services, Germany
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the statement of requirements for the procurement of community, primary, secondary and dental health services for British forces in Germany. [36977]

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of the statement of requirement is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the companies that tendered for, and those that have been shortlisted for, the procurement of community, primary, secondary and dental health services for British forces in Germany indicating non-profit-making organisations. [36978]

  Mr. Soames
  Tenders for the provision of primary, community and secondary health care to the Army and community and secondary health care to the RAF in Germany for five years from 1 April 1996 were submitted by three potential providers:

  a. The Health Alliance—an in-house bid in partnerships with a consortium headed by Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust and including the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association.

  b. BMI Health Care in Association with Bradford Community Health NHS Trust.

  35

  c. Synapse—a consortium including Trafford NHS Trust, Lakeview Learning and Independent British Health Care.

  BMI Healthcare and Lakeview Learning were the only private sector organisations involved.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 525, what progress has been made in introducing contractorising of support services at RAF Valley; and what bids have been received from the RAF itself in these contracting processes. [36962]

  Mr. Soames
  An invitation to tender was issued on 14 September, leading to a planned contractor award in April 1996. Following consultation with the trades unions and other interested parties, it has been decided not to proceed with an in-house bid.

  Aberport Range
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the sources of income for the Aberport range under agency status. [36984]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 16 October 1995:

  Your Parliamentary Question (No 36984) dated 20 July asked the Secretary of State for Defence for the sources of income for the Aberporth range under agency status. Your letter has been passed to me since I am responsible for the day to day running of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which now includes the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation's site at Aberporth.

  Under agency status, all but a small percentage of Aberporth's income will come from the MOD. The most important customers are the Armed Services (the RAF are forecast to provide about 54% of Aberporth's income and the RN about 5%) and the next most important is the MOD's Procurement Executive with about 33 per cent.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Sea Dumping (Munitions)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken in regard to the reply H-0293/95, by the European Commission to Christine Crawley MEP, in question No. 87 at Question Time in the European Parliament on 17 May, that it is up to European Union member state authorities to provide information on the nature and quantities of munitions disposed at sea and their location, and to investigate the prospective environmental risks arising in order to minimise them. [36763]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 31 March 1995,Official Report, column 875. Current scientific evidence indicates that dumped munitions present no significant risk to human health or the marine environment.

  Trident
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates were made of the cost of the work 36
  to be undertaken at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston in support of the Trident programme before the work started. [37145]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Estimates were made of the manpower and materials costs that would be involved at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the design, development and production of the UK Trident warhead. These were reflected in the budget for the establishment. It was also recognised that, as well as utilising existing AWE facilities, the programme would in due course make use of new facilities, coming on stream, in the normal course of renewal.

  Tornado
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) by squadron, air base and contracted company details of the efficiency of Tornado maintenance contracts since they were first contracted out and (b) by squadron and air base details of the efficiency of Tornado maintenance in the five year period prior to contracting out. [37039]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The level of contractor involvement in Tornado maintenance and rectification at squadron and air base level is minimal. RAF personnel undertake almost all of this work and there are no plans significantly to increase the level of contractorisation.

  Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of hiring from abroad diesel powered submarines for training by the Royal Naval Training College, Dartmouth. [37095]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We do not hire diesel powered submarines from abroad for training by the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

  Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of all papers released since 1988 by the Public Records Office that refer specifically to the 1958 US/UK mutual defence agreement. [37146]

  Mr. Soames
  No. The information requested can be obtained through examination of the lists at the Public Record Office, Kew.

  Submarines
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many diesel powered submarines are owned and operated by the Royal Navy. [37094]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Royal Navy owns four upholder class diesel powered submarines. These are not in operation and we are continuing to examine options for their sale, lease or long term storage.
  37

  Small Arms Ammunition
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the failure rate of small arms ammunition ordered by his Department from Portugal. [37148]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The competition to supply the 7.62mm sniper ammunition for the National Rifle Association for use at its Bisley tournaments in 1995 and 1996 was won by INDEP of Portugal. Following representations from the association about the misfire rate of the ammunition, the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation carried out extensive tests of the ammunition on standard service issue sniper rifles. No misfires occurred in these tests. It is therefore likely that the misfires reported by the association were a result of using the ammunition in non-standard weapons.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the pension arrangements for the Gurkhas serving the Crown are the same as for other members of the armed services. [37096]

  Mr. Soames
  No. Pensions received by ex-British Gurkha pensioners are governed by the 1947 tripartite agreement, between the Governments of the United Kingdom, India and Nepal. Under the terms of this agreement, which requires British Gurkha personnel to be discharged in their homeland of Nepal, pension provision is governed by the rates paid to Indian Army pensioners. All British Gurkha personnel have to serve a minimum of 15 years before they are eligible to receive a service retirement pension.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to share nuclear weapon designs or nuclear weapon technology with the French Government. [37144]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We maintain contacts with France on a range of issues relating to nuclear weapons. These contacts include some technical matters and exchanges between scientists. It is not our practice to reveal further details.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been his responses to the communication sent by Colonel James Sullivan of the office of the Secretary of the US Air Force on 17 November 1994, concerning the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. [37439]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 March 1995,Official Report, column 11.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department received copies of the reports produced by Smit Engineering and Heeremac prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36447]
  38
  Mr. Eggar
  The reports submitted by Shell to my Department are listed in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 4 July 1995,Official Report, columns 152–54. They included studies by McDermott Engineering (Europe) Ltd. and Heerema Engineering Services (UK) Ltd. These studies addressed the fulls cope of work necessary for onshore disposal and showed the cost of that option to be significantly higher than the preliminary assessment by Smit Engineering. The McDermott and Heerema studies contributed to the decision that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option for the Brent Spar.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has commissioned into the cumulative environmental impact of sea dumping 50 to 60 production facilities prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36448]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 18 July 1995,Official Report, column 1215.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what research his or any other Government Department had commissioned and received on the environmental impact of sea dumping Brent Spar on the deep ocean ecosystems prior to approving the sea dumping of Brent Spar; [36449]

  (2) what was the conclusion of the AURIS report on the proposed sea dumping of Brent Spar relating to the possibility of the Brent Spar breaking up immediately after or during the sea dumping operation; [36451]

  (3) what research drew his Department to the conclusion that the contents of the Brent Spar would disperse slowly over thousands of years. [36450]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Brent Spar Impact Hypothesis by Rudall Blanchard Associates Ltd. dated December 1994 succeeded earlier work carried out by Aberdeen university. The later study concluded that the most likely scenario was that the structure would remain largely intact after its impact with the seabed and would corrode very slowly, probably over the next 4,000 years, in the deep waters of the north-east Atlantic. Government scientists also considered the possibility that the Spar would break up during its descent. or on impact with the seabed. They concluded that, in any of those scenarios, the consequences in terms of risk to the food chain, human health and potential environmental impact would have been insignificant.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the samples taken from the contents of the Brent Spar were analysed before the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar was made; on what date they were analysed; and when the results were notified to his Department; [36455]

  (2) what samples were taken from the contents of the Brent Spar by his Department, the Ministry of Fisheries and Food or Aberdeen university prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36454]

  Mr. Eggar
  Independent surveys were carried out which enabled Shell to assess the contents of the Spar and to satisfy Government that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. The Norwegian certifying authority, Det Norske Veritas, has been
  39
  commissioned to undertake a further independent assessment of the structure and contents of the Spar. I understand that the results of that study will be available on 18 October.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department was aware of a memorandum dated 6 December 1993 from W. McMinn, an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the toxicity of the waste water in Brent Spar and recommending the prohibition of discharge prior to the decision to approve sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36452]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department was not aware of the internal MAFF memorandum prior to the decision. Comments made in that memorandum about the discharge of the contents of the storage tanks were made in the context of removing the oily sludge and ballast water as part of an onshore dismantling option and dumping them in shallow coastal waters. That was totally different to the disposal of the entire structure in over 2,200 m of water in the north-east Atlantic. MAFF issued a statement on 20 June 1995 which it made clear that the concerns expressed in the leaked paper did not apply to deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar.

  Research Council Funding
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of grants and their value for responsive mode funding for chemistry and materials by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for the current funding year and comparable figures for the Science and Engineering Research Council in the previous three years. [36408]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The number of grants and their value for repsonsive mode funding in the chemistry and materials programme of the EPSRC, and figures for SERC in the previous three years, are given in the following table:

  Chemistry

  Materials

  Year

  Number

  Value £ Million

  Number

  Value £ Million

  SERC(September-August)

  1991–92

  110

  6.1

  205

  20.6

  1992–93

  180

  12.5

  330

  44.2

  1993–94

  309

  25.2

  256

  29.9

  EPSRC1(April-July) 1995

  1995

  115

  9.1

  100

  10.1

  1The EPSRC came into effect on 1 April 1994 and introduced new procedures for awarding grants from April 1995. The period from September 1994 to April 1995 was an interregnum period in which no significant awards were made.

  Non-fossil Fuel Option
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1011, when he now expects to make an initial announcement about the timetable for NFFO–4 bids. [37277]

  Mr. Page
  I hope to be able to make an initial announcement shortly on arrangements for the fourth round of bidding for electricity from renewable sources of 40
  energy, known as NFF0–4. My expectation is that further details will be given in Renewable Energy Bulletin No. 6, REB-6, to be published soon after the initial announcement.

  British Catalogue Exhibition, Yemen
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the letter of 4 April from the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), if he will make a statement on his Department's efforts to stage a British catalogue exhibition in Yemen [37290]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department is planning to run four catalogue exhibitions in the Republic of Yemen during the first six months of 1996. The exhibitions will be held in the capital, Sana'a and in Taiz, Hodaidah and Aden. Possible dates and venues are being discussed with the local chambers of commerce.

  Trade Promotion (Uzbekistan)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's efforts to promote trade between Britain and Uzbekistan. [36555]

  Mr. Nelson
  Promotion of trade between the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan is spearheaded by a separate section in my Department dedicated to the southern republics of the former Soviet Union. Set up in 1993, following the break-up of the Soviet Union the previous year, the DTI's central Asia and Transcaucasia section is supported by an export promoter for central Asia seconded from the private sector. Its work is complemented by more specialist parts of the DTI such as the oil and gas projects and supplies office, which advises British companies on opportunities in the energy sector, and the projects export promotion division, which assists UK companies in their pursuit of capital projects overseas.

  My Department's trade promotion effort for Uzbekistan is assisted by the Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council, UBTIC, a high-level forum of senior business men and trade promotion officials from both sides, whose role is to facilitate bilateral trade and investment by British companies in Uzbekistan. The DTI provides two permanent members of UBTIC and also acts as the UK secretariat. UBTIC is chaired on the Uzbekistan side at deputy prime ministerial level while the UK chairman is Geoffrey Bray, a retired senior British business man and former chairman of the BSCC, previously the British Soviet Chamber of Commerce.

  In addition to its day-to-day work advising British companies on business opportunities in Uzbekistan the DTI is actively involved in high profile events such as overseas trade missions, VIP inward visits and seminars and conferences. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy led a trade mission of 25 leading business men to Uzbekistan in May 1994. In March this year, my Department provided financial support to the BSCC's trade mission to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Last month, the Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, led a trade mission of British companies in the transport sector to Uzbekistan and elsewhere in central

  41
  Asia; the DTI, in conjunction with the British embassies in Tashkent and Almaty, provided the administrative and briefing support for this mission.

  Here in the UK, the DTI supported the "Doing Business in Uzbekistan" conference in London organised by IBC Financial Focus and will provide support for a similar conference, also organised by IBC, next month. With a number of senior Uzbek Ministers and officials coming to the UK for the conference, the DTI hopes to organise the next meeting of the Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council around that time. The DTI also supported seminars on central Asia at the Government office in Nottingham in June and at the London chamber of commerce and industry in July. The export promoter for central Asia spoke at both these events.

  Officials in my Department are conscious that, while the overall level of UK trade with, and investment in, Uzbekistan is satisfactory, our commercial success there is largely attributable to the activities of just a few major companies. The DTI is accordingly reviewing its strategy for central Asia and Transcaucasia with a view to increasing the awareness among UK companies of the opportunities which exits both in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in the region.

  Radiation Experiments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 July column 1221, what are the ethical guidelines relating to radiation experiments on humans. [36755]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As early as 1953, the MRC defined an explicit requirement that informed consent should be obtained by clinical investigators from participants in research. This was complemented in 1963 by a comprehensive statement, "Responsibility in Investigations on Human Subjects", which outlined the standards relating to the use of volunteers in medical research. These guidelines are kept continually under review, and in 1991 strict MRC guidance was drawn up relating specifically to the conduct of research on the mentally incapacitated.

  The MRC does not carry out experiments on human volunteers without obtaining their written permission, and without providing them with detailed information about the purpose of the study and nature of their involvement. Furthermore, such volunteers can withdraw at any time.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations the Medical Research Council had with the parents of children whose body parts were used for radioactivity-related studies from 1965 to 1970. [36445]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Under the Human Tissue Act 1961, consultation with the parents of the children involved would have been the responsibility of the person in lawful possession of the body. This would have been a member of the hospital staff where the post mortem took place, not the Medical Research Council researchers. As far as can be ascertained, it is believed that appropriate consultation took place and that body parts were removed in compliance with the Act.
  42
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research the Medical Research Council undertook involving the removal of bones from the corpses of children in Clwyd between 1965 and 1970. [36446]

  Mr. Taylor
  Nationwide studies looking into the concentration of strontium–90 in human bones were carried out between 1955 and 1970 under the joint auspices of the Medical Research Council and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. For the purpose of this research, pathologists in various parts of the UK supplied samples of fresh bones obtained at autopsy from the bodies of subjects of different age groups, including infants and children.

  From 1959 onwards, results of this study incorporated regional breakdowns by domicile of the people whose bones were used. Information is available for the former county of Denbighshire which roughly corresponds to the present county of Clwyd. This shows that between 1965 and 1970 samples were taken from 18 children who had died aged three months to 17 years.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Medical Research Council on radioactivity experiments conducted on civilians under the direction of the Medical Research Council without the knowledge of the subjects concerned. [36760]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Medical Research Council does not carry out experiments on human volunteers without obtaining their written permission, and without providing them with detailed information about the purpose of the study and the nature of their involvement. Volunteers are given the opportunity to withdraw at any point. There are strict MRC guidelines relating specifically to the conduct of research on children and the mentally incapacitated.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificate
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many public interest certificates his Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36688]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's records show that, since April 1992, 21 public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers of this Department, five of which did not need to be deployed. No central record is kept of certificates signed before that date.

  Jaguar X200 Project
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he examined the costings before agreeing to subsidise the building of the new Jaguar in the United Kingdom; what considerations led him to decide that the subsidy was necessary; and if he will publish the detailed evidence leading him to his conclusion. [36215]

  Mr. Eggar
  DTI Ministers and officials had long and detailed discussions with Ford and Jaguar to evaluate the X200 project.

  The conclusions reached was that there was a strong and genuine commercial case for supporting the project. Moreover, the project will create a significant number of jobs at Jaguar and in the components supply base. The X200 project will also help secure the long-term future of Jaguar's manufacturing operations in the UK.

  43
  The information provided by Jaguar to enable the valuation to be carried out was commercially and market sensitive and given in confidence to the Department.

  Outstanding Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many outstanding contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to

  Company

  Period of contract

  Value

  Comment

  1. Hoskyns

  November 1994—November 1997

  Dependent on volume of work but estimated to be in the region of £15 million—£25 million

  Contracting out of IT Service provision.

  2. ICL

  April 1994–April 1997

  £25 million approximately

  Project OSPREY—to introduce office automation facilities throughout DTI Headquarters and Regional Offices.

  3. SEMA

  1994–97

  £612k

  In each case, the figure quoted reflects the aggregate value of a number of contracts let during the first year of a framework agreement.

  CMG

  1994–97

  £1,469k

  LOGICA

  1994–97

  £95k

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies have had on the demand for British-produced cars at home and abroad. [36205]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's monetary policy is to deliver low inflation and this has been around 3 per cent. for two years. This gives businesses the confidence to invest in the UK. Along with a competitive pound, increases in productivity over the years have allowed British-based manufacturers to operate much more effectively.

  Continuing healthy demand for British cars was reflected in 1994 total car production figures of 1,466,800, of which 618,700–42 per cent.—were for the export market. This represents a 6.3 per cent. increase in production and 38.7 per cent. in exports over 1993.

  Company Mergers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received urging referral of the bids for Southern Electricity, Midlands Electricity and NORWEB by National Power, PowerGen and North West Water to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [37482]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department has received a number of letters concerning these proposed mergers. In line with standard practice, all correspondence has been forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading, who will, in due course, advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on whether he should refer the proposed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  44
  (a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36997]

  Mr. Lang
  Such information is not readily available for the whole Department and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. However, major contracts let through the DTI's central IT purchasing section relating to the companies listed are as follows:

  Plutonium Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the French authorities have informed his Department or the British nuclear authorities of the research use for which the plutonium exported to France from the United Kingdom was put, to which reference is made at footnote 3(a) of his departmental press release P/95/455 of 13 July on plutonium figures. [36762]

  Mr. Page
  The plutonium exported to France was material for fast reactor research purposes and is subject to Euratom safegards.

  International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals were put by the United Kingdom to the 39th session of the International Atomic Energy Agency general conference in Vienna in September; how were they received; how the United Kingdom responded to or voted on proposals put by other member states of the IAEA; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom submission and final decisions and declarations from the conferences. [37255]

  Mr. Page
  The UK delegation to the 39th general conference of the IAEA played a full part in the drafting and submission by the European Union of resolutions covering the strengthening of IAEA safeguards, illicit trafficking in nuclear materials, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq. These draft resolutions were in some cases amended slightly in negotiation with other delegations, but all were eventually adopted by consensus. The UK delegation also participated fully in discussions concerning other resolutions and decisions of the conference.
  45
  A copy of the document produced by the IAEA containing resolutions and other decisions of the general conference will be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Minors (Credit Facilities)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the extent to which banks, and other commercial institutions may, within current statutory provisions, make direct approaches to juveniles under the age of 18 years offering immediate credit; and if he will make a statement. [37357]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Lenders tend not to provide credit to minors because generally their debts cannot be legally enforced.

  Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 it is an offence knowingly to invite a minor to borrow money, or to take credit.

  The Government have no plans to investigate.

  Mobile Fresh Water Tanks
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statutory or other requirements have been made by Her Majesty's Government to require water companies to have available a given number of mobile fresh water tanks, wheeled or otherwise, related to the numbers of population served; and what national arrangements it has made for supply of such equipment in emergencies. [37304]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to this question by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment today at column 162.

  Nuclear Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what public consultation process he intends to undertake in connection with the proposal to transfer the licenses for nuclear sites to private operators; [36336]

  (2) what public consultation he intends to undertake in connection with the proposal to split ownership and licensing of certain nuclear sites between private and public ownership. [36337]

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for licensing of nuclear sites rests with the independent Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. I understand that the HSE has used its discretionary powers under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, as amended, to direct licence applicants to carry out a public body consultation which will last for a period of three months.

  BMARC
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has anything to add to his answers of 28 April,Official Report, column 725, and 20 June, Official Report, column 175, or to the answers of the Secretary of State for Defence of 25 April, Official Report, column 488, 20 June, Official Report, column 237, 27 June, Official Report, column 601 and 18 July, Official Report, columns 1188–89, on BMARC. [37318]
  46
  Mr. Nelson
  I can only comment on the two answers which were given by my Department. I have nothing to add to those answers.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if action is being taken to bring the scale of fees for industrial and provident societies into line with those now established for limited companies; what efforts his Department is making to ensure that the deregulation initiative guarantees a level playing field between industrial and provident societies and private companies; and if he will make a statement. [32424]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, we intend to bring audit requirements for industrial and provident societies broadly into line with those for companies. This will involve a relaxation of the requirement to prepare and submit accounts and an increase in the audit thresholds. A consultation exercise on these and other deregulatory changes to the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts was carried out earlier this year. The measures will be implemented through an Order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The draft order will be laid early in the next session.

  The Government have no plans to bring the fees for industrial and provident societies into line with those for limited companies. The higher fees in part reflect the more detailed registration procedure for societies, which is needed to ensure that they are either bona fide co-operatives of that they operate for the benefit of the community and so do not need to be registered as companies. However, the Government keep societies' fees under annual review.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with civil service trade unions concerning market testing. [35893]

  Mr. Horam
  Market testing has been a regular subject for discussion at meetings between Ministers and the civil service trade unions.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how he has exercised his new responsibilities. [35894]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role the Cabinet Office will play in enhancing the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry during the next 12 months. [35895]
  47
  Mr. Freeman
  The Cabinet Office takes forward the competitiveness agenda within Government and with industry. The Deputy Prime Minister regularly discusses competitiveness issues with Cabinet colleagues in the ED(C) Committee, and maintains a close dialogue with business. We will produce a third report on national competitiveness next year.

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on morale in the civil service since 5 July. [35897]

  Mr. Horam
  Morale in the civil service is best maintained at a high level by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in their chosen career. This Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high quality public services efficiency and effectively.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their vehicles for official business. [36357]

  Mr. Horam
  The current rates of travel allowance which may be claimed by civil servants in the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and its agencies, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information, are listed. The rates payable in the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, are being reviewed.

  Cabinet office, OPS and agencies

  Motor Cars

  Miles travelled in a financial year

  Up to 1500 cc

  1501–2000 cc

  Over 2000 cc

  Standard rate mileage

  First 5,000

  35.7p

  42p

  46p

  Over 5,000

  18p

  22p

  30p

  Public transport rate

  23p per mile

  Motor Cycles

  Miles travelled in a financial year

  Up to 125 cc

  Over 125 cc

  First 4,000 miles

  Third Party Insurance

  14.6p

  22. 1p

  Comprehensive Insurance

  16.2p

  25.3p

  Over 4000 miles (all)

  6.1p

  9p

  Pedal cycles

  6p per mile

  COI

  Motor Cars

  Standard Rate Mileage—37p per mile up to 4,000 miles in a year and 21p thereafter.

  Public Transport Rate—23.8p per mile.

  Motor Cycles

  Miles travelled in a financial year

  Up to 125 cc

  Over 125 cc

  Up to 4,000

  14.5p

  22.8p

  Over 4,000

  6.2p

  9.0p

  Pedal Cycles

  6.2p per mile

  48
  HMSO

  Motor cars

  Unified Rate—38p up to 4,000 miles and 21p thereafter.

  Public Transport Rate—25p (up to 20,000 miles)

  Motor Cycles

  Miles travelled in a financial year

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  First 4,000 miles

  Third Party Insurance

  14.5p

  22.8p

  Comprehensive Insurance

  17.2p

  26.8p

  Over 4,000 miles (all)

  6.2p

  9p

  Pedal Cycles

  6.4p per mile

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36358]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36835]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Members of the public would have the same rights to make complaints of alleged maladministration to the relevant ombudsman concerning a project funded through the private finance initiative on behalf of my Departments as they would if the project were publicly financed.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the average and median civil service pension in payment, indicating the highest and lowest figures; and if he will provide the same information in respect of dependants' pensions. [37138]

  Mr. Horam
  The average annual rate of civil service pension in payment to retired officers is £4,325; the median is £3,015. The amounts of individual pensions range from £62,460 to £2.87.

  The average annual rate of pension in payment to dependants of former pension scheme members is £1,820; the median is £1,202. The amounts of individual dependants' pensions range from £26,334 to £2.21.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract: and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net,

  49
  (g) Andersen Consulting (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36966]

  Mr. Horam
  The nature of current outsourcing contracts let by my Department and agencies since 1990 with the firms listed is set out in the table. Individual contract values, representing the total anticipated cost of the contracts, have been aggregated to preserve commercial confidentiality. The estimated total value of the contracts is £5,239,149. Further information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Firm

  (a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti

  Management of project risk Software services

  (b) AT and T Istel

  Software, connection and training, and line rental Viewdata information service

  (d) Sema

  Maintenance and support for hardware

  (i) BIS

  Training call-off contract

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/CAP Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) SEMA Group, (e) Datasolve, (j) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre file, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36998]

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1990 my Department has let one outsourcing contract to SEMA Group for the provision of IT support. The contract was let on 1 November 1994 and was worth approximately £50 million over five years, excluding VAT. There has been no additional work added to the contract.

  Convicted Prisoners Inquiry
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on action he has taken since the receipt of new evidence on 8 June 1993 in the case of convicted prisoners Michael Hickey, Jim Robinson and Vincent Hickey. [37476]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Merseyside police were asked to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the petition of 8 June 1993. These inquiries were subsequently widened to take into account further representations submitted during 1994. A report from the police was submitted to us in May 1995 and we are considering it along with all other information about the case in order to decide whether there are grounds for any action.
  50

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and (b) females whose identity is in doubt are currently being detained; and what is the longest current period of detention. [37479]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the total number of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 whose identity is in doubt is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. The longest current period of detention for such a person is nearly 16 months.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will show for each month since money started to flow from the national lottery how much has been(a) disbursed to charities and voluntary organisations, (b) spent on the establishment, administration and running costs of the National Lottery Charities Board and (c) spent, disbursed or deducted for any other purpose. [37485]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is not immediately available in the form requested; I will write to the hon. Member. To date, £493 million has been awarded to good causes by 10 of the 11 distributing bodies. Over 70 per cent. of those organisations which have been awarded funds are charities or voluntary organisations working in the fields of national heritage, sports and the arts. I understand that the National Lottery Charities Board will be announcing its first grant awards on 23 October.

  By then, the board will have spent some £6.5 million—less than 3 per cent. of the money currently available to it—on one-off start-up costs and on administration. This compares favourably with other major grant-giving operations. The board expects to have some £300 million to distribute to the voluntary sector next year and subsequent years.

  The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides for expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the Home Secretary, the Office of the National Lottery and the distributing bodies to be recouped from the National lottery distribution fund. To date these have amounted to £18.9 million out of the £1 billion income from the lottery.

  Firearms
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the incidence of the use of firearms in the pursuit of crime in each of the last 20 years. [36442]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published annually in table 3.1 of chapter 3 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Information for 1994 will be published during November.
  51

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36363]

  Mr. Howard
  There are two classes of reimbursement of cost for staff who use their own vehicles for official business.

  "Public Transport Rate" is currently 23.8p per mile for motor cars, 12.9p per mile for motor cycles with an engine capacity of up to 125cc and 23.8p for cycles over 125cc.

  Standard rate of motor car allowance

  cc engine capacity

  Up to 5,000 miles per annum (pence per mile)

  Over 5,000 miles per annum (pence per mile)

  Up to 1500

  35.7

  19

  1501–2000

  43

  23

  Over 2000

  46

  31

  Standard rate of motor cycle allowance

  cc engine capacity

  Up to 4,000 miles per annum (pence per mile)

  Over 4,000 miles per annum (pence per mile)

  Up to 125

  16.2

  6.2

  Over 125

  26

  9

  Pedal Cycle allowance may also be claimed, at 6.2 per mile.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the least year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36364]

  Mr. Howard
  The Department's computerised travel claims payment systems do not separately record travel expenses claimed by staff for using their own vehicles. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to remove unnecessary liquor licensing regulations. [36557]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995, which extends the times at which public houses, clubs and off-licensed premises may sell alcohol on Sundays, came into force on 6 August 1995.

  The draft Licensing (Sunday Dancing) Order, which is currently subject to Parliamentary consideration under the order making procedures in part 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 includes relaxations of the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964 relating to extended hours orders and special hours certificates. These relaxations will permit the sale of alcohol after the normal licensing hours at dances taking place on a Sunday.
  52
  We have also recently completed public consultation on other reforms to rationalise certain procedural aspects of the special hours certificate system, which allows the sale of alcohol beyond the normal permitted hours at places licensed for music and dancing.

  In addition we plan to repeal section 165 of the Licensing Act 1964, which makes it an offence for a licensee to serve more intoxicating liquor than a customer asks for.

  We are also considering the scope for deregulating other aspects of the liquor licensing system.

  Somali Exceptional Leave Holders
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Somali exceptional leave holders who had not completed four years of status were allowed to be joined by their spouse and children in each year since 1990. [36693]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the number of Somlis who have been joined by their spouse and children within four years of being granted exceptional leave to remain is not available.

  Information on the number of Somalis granted exceptional leave to remain in each year since 1986 is given in table 3.2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Violent Crime (Compensation)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about changes in compensation to victims of violent crime. [36588]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill currently before Parliament provides the framework for an enhanced tariff scheme under which the compensation payable annually to victims should rise from £175 million to £260 million over the next five years. The scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are currently serving in each British constabulary. [36733]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table.

  Police force

  Police officer strength As at 31 March 1995

  England and Wales

  Avon and Somerset

  3,000

  Bedfordshire

  1,126

  Cambridgeshire

  1,261

  Cheshire

  1,932

  City of London

  885

  Cleveland

  1,438

  Cumbria

  1,167

  Derbyshire

  1,797

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,877

  Dorset

  1,288

  Durham

  1,353

  Dyfed-Powys

  976

  Essex

  2,921

  53

  Police force

  Police officer strength As at 31 March 1995

  Gloucestershire

  1,163

  Greater Manchester

  7,037

  Gwent

  997

  Hampshire

  3,256

  Hertfordshire

  1,703

  Humberside

  2,029

  Kent

  3,117

  Lancashire

  3,212

  Leicestershire

  1,839

  Lincolnshire

  1,199

  Merseyside

  4,659

  Metropolitan Police

  27,480

  Norfolk

  1,395

  Northamptonshire

  1,156

  Northumbria

  3,606

  North Wales

  1,366

  North Yorkshire

  1,300

  Nottinghamshire

  2,319

  South Wales

  3,014

  South Yorkshire

  3,040

  Staffordshire

  2,231

  Suffolk

  1,191

  Surrey

  1,676

  Sussex

  2,931

  Thames Valley

  3,854

  Warwickshire

  1,013

  West Mercia

  2,046

  West Midlands

  7,019

  West Yorkshire

  5,050

  Wiltshire

  1,261

  Scotland

  Central Scotland

  656

  Dumfries and Galloway

  391

  Fife

  789

  Table A: Notifiable offences recorded by the police 1992–94

  Offences against property1

  Offences against the person

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Police force area

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  167,699

  166,672

  157,409

  5,151

  5,772

  6,791

  586

  894

  1,091

  1,320

  1,863

  1,715

  Bedfordshire

  56,427

  55,648

  49,135

  1,900

  1,936

  1,965

  254

  417

  417

  605

  543

  580

  Cambridgeshire

  62,428

  61,861

  57,588

  2,777

  2,821

  3,030

  437

  393

  421

  291

  308

  242

  Cheshire

  74,560

  75,293

  69,283

  2,784

  2,975

  3,245

  459

  465

  543

  320

  345

  278

  Cleveland

  80,820

  75,174

  78,267

  2,651

  2,227

  2,359

  268

  216

  236

  289

  336

  466

  Cumbria

  42,818

  41,097

  39,622

  1,945

  1,935

  2,153

  168

  246

  250

  100

  91

  74

  Derbyshire

  83,098

  85,829

  80,248

  3,973

  4,097

  3,984

  418

  478

  493

  345

  357

  421

  Devon and Cornwall

  108,923

  114,344

  102,147

  3,926

  4,114

  4,603

  665

  985

  892

  310

  423

  403

  Dorset

  49,441

  49,037

  52,081

  1,505

  1,736

  1,877

  345

  319

  442

  164

  135

  146

  Durham

  63,803

  63,417

  60,949

  2,447

  2,406

  2,665

  412

  495

  510

  153

  164

  149

  Essex

  108,874

  108,291

  99,579

  4,334

  4,188

  4,505

  620

  709

  549

  530

  430

  423

  Gloucestershire

  58,005

  58,148

  57,136

  1,646

  1,759

  2,140

  269

  314

  466

  268

  303

  319

  Greater Manchester

  376,695

  345,332

  319,832

  10,128

  10,049

  9,281

  1,409

  1,357

  1,228

  4,310

  5,424

  5,361

  Hampshire

  145,051

  138,396

  132,393

  5,245

  5,328

  5,705

  1,121

  1,406

  1,056

  605

  564

  585

  Hertfordshire

  56,181

  53,989

  51,976

  1,882

  1,919

  1,996

  294

  275

  305

  349

  273

  264

  Humberside

  122,091

  134,258

  128,921

  4,950

  4,955

  5,054

  773

  798

  695

  419

  526

  547

  Kent

  151,025

  152,558

  144,724

  5,736

  6,185

  7,127

  1,100

  942

  1,099

  605

  631

  635

  Lancashire

  126,860

  129,453

  121,870

  3,196

  3,134

  3,230

  420

  469

  502

  530

  540

  546

  Leicestershire

  92,028

  94,089

  91,952

  3,490

  3,749

  4,855

  559

  471

  617

  864

  1,039

  1,158

  Lincolnshire

  46,087

  49,253

  44,222

  2,229

  2,282

  2,319

  316

  313

  393

  119

  158

  119

  City of London

  6,381

  5,226

  5,004

  230

  238

  125

  29

  23

  23

  62

  51

  29

  Merseyside

  137,970

  130,350

  124,682

  7,134

  7,359

  7,678

  705

  768

  808

  2,036

  2,204

  2,035

  Metropolitan Police

  869,057

  832,936

  770,119

  37,667

  39,586

  46,788

  5,876

  6,400

  6,972

  23,555

  24,486

  25,764

  Norfolk

  64,088

  61,216

  52,706

  1,833

  2,044

  2,187

  384

  366

  370

  212

  217

  186

  Northamptonshire

  56,091

  56,176

  53,980

  2,466

  2,633

  2,498

  295

  291

  367

  293

  301

  306

  Northumbria

  215,436

  204,666

  194,921

  6,348

  6,358

  6,185

  766

  713

  746

  1,064

  1,227

  1,213

  North Yorkshire

  52,105

  55,089

  59,142

  1,921

  1,993

  2,082

  226

  266

  263

  129

  123

  187

  Nottinghamshire

  153,348

  148,191

  141,771

  8,314

  7,690

  7,718

  1,083

  1,167

  1,141

  1,065

  1,202

  1,193

  South Yorkshire

  129,912

  149,775

  148,984

  4,896

  4,815

  5,027

  593

  638

  664

  716

  943

  1.062

  Staffordshire

  90,763

  91,384

  86,256

  5,452

  5,731

  6,089

  446

  520

  551

  391

  414

  416

  Suffolk

  41,502

  39,967

  36,083

  2,087

  2,116

  2,140

  375

  380

  392

  150

  117

  118

  Surrey

  50,497

  49,293

  42,827

  2,025

  2,175

  2,716

  395

  377

  463

  224

  213

  165

  Sussex

  113,568

  106,099

  101,104

  3,134

  3,269

  3,420

  845

  693

  747

  542

  546

  589

  54

  Police force

  Police officer strength As at 31 March 1995

  Grampian

  1,194

  Lothian and Borders

  2,539

  Northern

  649

  Strathclyde

  7,014

  Tayside

  1,091

  Northern Ireland

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  8,448

  Reserve (full-time)

  3,176

  Reserve (part-time)

  1,507

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes against property and crimes against people were(a) reported to each constabulary and (b) successfully prosecuted by each constabulary in the last three years. [36734]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the tables. Table A gives the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police and table B gives the number of offenders found guilty at all courts. These tables are not directly comparable as it is not possible to match the number of offences committed against offenders convicted: court proceedings can occur in a different year from the crime; one crime could involve more than one defendant being found guilty; and some offenders convicted of one crime may have also committed other crimes for which they have not been caught or successfully prosecuted. A wider measure would also include cautions and informal action taken by the police, both of which do not result in a court appearance.
  55

  Table A: Notifiable offences recorded by the police 1992–94

  Offences against property1

  Offences against the person

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Police force area

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Thames Valley

  189,930

  192,620

  177,106

  4,762

  4,702

  5,564

  845

  787

  870

  1,011

  911

  1,130

  Warwickshire

  43,086

  43,312

  40,411

  1,275

  1,461

  1,411

  237

  332

  288

  128

  131

  136

  West Mercia

  74,504

  78,399

  79,053

  3,429

  3,298

  3,438

  505

  420

  473

  246

  260

  284

  West Midlands

  309,202

  309,792

  295,031

  11,637

  10,980

  10,407

  1,583

  1,504

  1,354

  5,008

  5,978

  7,028

  West Yorkshire

  289,113

  285,571

  273,139

  9,605

  9,189

  9,414

  1,361

  1,465

  1,504

  2,761

  3,174

  2,968

  Wiltshire

  38,624

  37,977

  34,631

  2,570

  2,621

  2,495

  475

  385

  364

  135

  147

  137

  Dyfed-Powys

  25,624

  21,956

  18,605

  2,188

  2,031

  2,192

  389

  361

  250

  49

  31

  41

  Gwent

  37,775

  36,742

  34,687

  2,394

  2,385

  2,533

  334

  313

  270

  117

  116

  79

  North Wales

  45,757

  44,172

  39,846

  2,611

  2,857

  2,612

  336

  556

  352

  113

  117

  100

  South Wales

  160,887

  158,019

  149,261

  5,904

  6,004

  6,141

  552

  597

  550

  391

  483

  419

  England and Wales

  5,268,135

  5,191,067

  4,898,683

  201,777

  205,102

  219,744

  29,528

  31,284

  31,987

  52,894

  57,845

  60,016

  1 Includes offences of burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, fraud and forgery and criminal damage.

  Table B: Number of offenders found guilty at all courts by police force area 1992–94

  Offences against property1

  Offences against the person

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Police force area

  1992

  1993

  21994

  1992

  1993

  21994

  1992

  1993

  21994

  1992

  1993

  21994

  Avon and Somerset

  4,359

  3,923

  4,130

  753

  586

  613

  105

  80

  90

  99

  100

  102

  Bedfordshire

  1,655

  1,596

  1,600

  316

  286

  295

  30

  42

  48

  50

  40

  44

  Cambridgeshire

  2,273

  2,362

  2,143

  596

  621

  510

  75

  50

  60

  70

  56

  53

  Cheshire

  3,653

  3,615

  3,499

  917

  915

  878

  146

  80

  73

  55

  108

  104

  Cleveland

  3,111

  3,159

  3,099

  777

  569

  500

  47

  39

  34

  54

  60

  69

  Cumbria

  2,484

  2,534

  2,467

  660

  609

  592

  27

  40

  33

  25

  37

  31

  Derbyshire

  3,160

  3,075

  3,013

  1,161

  994

  751

  87

  88

  79

  66

  72

  55

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,591

  4,264

  4,222

  931

  842

  839

  103

  110

  134

  73

  53

  66

  Dorset

  2,190

  1,984

  2,024

  356

  405

  312

  76

  62

  69

  25

  44

  24

  Durham

  2,368

  2,259

  2,329

  555

  563

  554

  58

  59

  57

  39

  53

  27

  Essex

  4,626

  4,291

  3,816

  878

  833

  688

  70

  72

  85

  101

  73

  63

  Gloucestershire

  1,865

  1,630

  1,730

  411

  369

  347

  45

  36

  46

  23

  24

  23

  Greater Manchester

  13,574

  12,548

  12,951

  2,847

  2,565

  2,472

  298

  227

  244

  440

  506

  504

  Hampshire

  6,156

  5,341

  5,421

  1,174

  1,052

  1,048

  165

  225

  245

  84

  83

  71

  Hertfordshire

  2,454

  1,979

  1,884

  394

  334

  292

  45

  34

  51

  37

  59

  36

  Humberside

  3,967

  3,721

  3,621

  903

  758

  682

  102

  77

  71

  68

  72

  44

  Kent

  4,112

  3,828

  5,064

  643

  502

  691

  125

  78

  115

  91

  86

  74

  Lancashire

  7,398

  6,647

  6,737

  1,089

  847

  938

  127

  108

  137

  126

  105

  115

  Leicestershire

  3.023

  2,835

  2,456

  664

  620

  547

  64

  63

  59

  105

  96

  73

  Lincolnshire

  2,253

  2,230

  2,153

  627

  643

  530

  44

  53

  48

  15

  22

  24

  City of London

  413

  352

  306

  50

  43

  30

  7

  4

  7

  9

  6

  5

  Merseyside

  7,635

  7,552

  6,605

  1,209

  1,091

  973

  147

  139

  110

  163

  180

  132

  Metropolitan Police

  27,349

  26,328

  29,121

  4,569

  3,846

  4,650

  818

  644

  634

  1,239

  1,191

  1,249

  Norfolk

  3,126

  2,684

  2,601

  549

  415

  397

  54

  51

  82

  58

  41

  30

  Northamptonshire

  1,926

  1,986

  1,969

  524

  488

  337

  49

  53

  44

  59

  61

  41

  Northumbria

  7,086

  6,764

  6,338

  1,486

  1,398

  1,454

  180

  154

  158

  152

  152

  177

  North Yorkshire

  2,675

  2,653

  2,501

  641

  610

  547

  54

  47

  47

  50

  27

  43

  Nottinghamshire

  5,651

  4,714

  4,911

  1,713

  1,302

  1,083

  168

  122

  122

  141

  125

  132

  South Yorkshire

  5,628

  4,840

  4,774

  1,178

  993

  901

  121

  95

  107

  129

  113

  117

  Staffordshire

  3,739

  3,708

  3,648

  1,092

  1,011

  1,019

  81

  96

  113

  74

  57

  74

  Suffolk

  2,272

  2,057

  2,036

  589

  599

  579

  53

  65

  59

  36

  23

  27

  Surrey

  1,825

  1,627

  1,505

  405

  357

  354

  33

  41

  31

  38

  25

  28

  Sussex

  4,933

  4,417

  4,049

  556

  536

  503

  89

  107

  85

  72

  77

  66

  Thames Valley

  5,603

  5,341

  4,956

  1,130

  1,041

  970

  128

  80

  86

  121

  113

  89

  Warwickshire

  1,415

  1,375

  1,365

  346

  368

  398

  40

  43

  45

  33

  34

  23

  West Mercia

  3,566

  3,255

  3,159

  1,050

  1,066

  1,001

  96

  63

  72

  49

  54

  78

  West Midlands

  11,757

  10,387

  9,735

  3,190

  2,677

  2,681

  405

  311

  329

  512

  501

  495

  West Yorkshire

  10,672

  9,950

  9,246

  2,483

  2,265

  2,054

  242

  203

  224

  298

  326

  312

  Wiltshire

  1,854

  1,694

  1,521

  495

  361

  346

  54

  43

  41

  14

  23

  13

  Dyfed Powys

  1,533

  1,547

  1,430

  536

  419

  422

  47

  42

  44

  21

  14

  11

  Gwent

  2,251

  1,904

  2,059

  651

  560

  603

  40

  45

  43

  41

  30

  27

  North Wales

  2,727

  2,793

  2,777

  763

  874

  739

  56

  69

  71

  28

  39

  34

  South Wales

  7,056

  7,041

  6,979

  1,706

  1,643

  1,505

  155

  188

  150

  99

  133

  97

  England and Wales

  201,964

  188,790

  187,950

  43,563

  38,876

  37,625

  4,956

  4,328

  4,482

  5,082

  5,094

  4,902

  1 Includes indictable offences of burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, fraud and forgery and criminal damage.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(1) how many females aged (a) 10 to 14, (b) 14 to 17, (c) 17 to 21 and (d) over 21 years were cautioned or found guilty by magistrates' or crown courts in 1993 and 1994 in total and for (i) violence against the person, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) robbery, (iv) burglary, (v) fraud and forgery, (vi) criminal damage, (vii) theft from the person, (viii) theft from a shop, (ix) theft of motor vehicle,
  56
  (x) theft from motor vehicle, (xi) theft of a pedal cycle, (xii) handling and (xiii) other theft; [36247]

  (2) how many offenders were cautioned or found guilty by magistrates' or crown courts in 1993 and 1994 in total and for (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary, (e) fraud and forgery, (f) criminal damage, (g) theft from the person, (h) theft

  57
  from a shop, (i) theft from the person, (j) theft from motor vehicle, (k) theft of a pedal cycle, (l) handling and (m) other theft; [36249]

  (3) how many males aged (a) 10 to 14, (b) 14 to 17, (c) 17 to 21 and (d) over 21 years were cautioned or found guilty by magistrates' or crown courts in 1993 and 1994

  Table A—Number of female known offenders, those cautioned or found guilty at all courts, for selected indictable offences by age 1993–941

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  Aged 10 to under 14

  Aged 14 to under 18

  Aged 18 to under 21

  Aged 21 and over

  All ages

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  1993

  641

  3,064

  1,139

  4,553

  9,397

  11994

  726

  3,311

  1,087

  4,536

  9,660

  Sexual offences

  1993

  4

  9

  11

  115

  139

  11994

  13

  12

  8

  72

  105

  Robbery

  1993

  44

  206

  58

  87

  395

  11994

  55

  231

  60

  95

  441

  Burglary

  1993

  283

  859

  367

  653

  2,162

  11994

  322

  772

  280

  597

  1,971

  Fraud and forgery

  1993

  83

  553

  1,012

  5,093

  6,741

  11994

  81

  545

  1,000

  5,232

  6,858

  Criminal damage

  1993

  90

  360

  143

  699

  1,292

  11994

  124

  372

  158

  683

  1,337

  Theft from the person

  1993

  50

  111

  82

  292

  535

  11994

  38

  136

  82

  316

  572

  Theft from a shop

  1993

  5,721

  12,394

  5,752

  22,956

  46,823

  11994

  7,076

  13,453

  5,264

  21,282

  47,075

  Theft from a motor vehicle1

  1993

  9

  64

  22

  51

  146

  11994

  9

  59

  10

  64

  142

  Theft from a vehicle

  1993

  30

  131

  58

  92

  311

  11994

  40

  130

  71

  109

  350

  Theft of a pedal cycle

  1993

  26

  59

  13

  27

  125

  11994

  20

  52

  12

  30

  114

  Handling stolen goods

  1993

  183

  875

  1,092

  4,186

  6,336

  11994

  235

  870

  963

  4,537

  6,605

  Other theft

  1993

  520

  1,924

  1,429

  5,378

  9,251

  11994

  534

  1,875

  1,198

  4,924

  8,531

  1 Provisional.

  2 Excludes summary offences of unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  Table B—Number of male known offenders, those cautioned or found guilty at all courts, for selected indictable offences by age 1993–941

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  Aged 10 to under 14

  Aged 14 to under 18

  Aged 18 to under 21

  Aged 21 and over

  All ages

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  1993

  2,058

  10,204

  8,254

  33,067

  53,583

  11994

  2,227

  10,615

  7,502

  31,197

  51,541

  Sexual offences

  1993

  314

  1,170

  693

  5,302

  7,479

  11994

  301

  1,156

  552

  5,366

  7,375

  Robbery

  1993

  392

  1,531

  1,118

  2,362

  5,403

  11994

  393

  1,578

  975

  2,147

  5,093

  58
  in total and for (i) violence against the person, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) robbery, (iv) burglary, (v) fraud and forgery, (vi) criminal damage, (vii) theft from the person, (viii) theft from a shop, (ix) theft of motor vehicle, (x) theft from motor vehicle, (xi) theft of a pedal cycle, (xii) handling and (xiii) other theft. [36248]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the tables.
  59

  Table B—Number of male known offenders, those cautioned or found guilty at all courts, for selected indictable offences by age 1993–941

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  Aged 10 to under 14

  Aged 14 to under 18

  Aged 18 to under 21

  Aged 21 and over

  All ages

  Burglary

  1993

  4,044

  13,889

  11,219

  21,779

  50,931

  11994

  4,122

  13,350

  10,017

  20,031

  47,520

  Fraud and forgery

  1993

  136

  1,110

  2,482

  15,103

  18,831

  11994

  144

  1,181

  2,339

  15,458

  19,122

  Criminal damage

  1993

  1,227

  2,636

  2,085

  6,229

  12,177

  11994

  1,368

  2,920

  2,041

  6,668

  12,997

  Theft from the person

  1993

  151

  489

  491

  1,270

  2,401

  11994

  194

  594

  462

  1,300

  2,550

  Theft from a shop

  1993

  7,450

  13,816

  8,790

  42,262

  72,318

  11994

  7,962

  14,553

  8,108

  37,796

  68,419

  Theft of a motor vehicle2

  1993

  301

  1,367

  839

  1,635

  4,142

  11994

  282

  1,277

  612

  1,362

  3,533

  Theft from a vehicle

  1993

  1,189

  4,333

  3,470

  3,238

  12,230

  11994

  933

  3,792

  3,163

  3,176

  11,064

  Theft of a pedal cycle

  1993

  620

  1,511

  646

  755

  3,532

  11994

  549

  1,411

  561

  681

  3,202

  Handling stolen goods

  1993

  888

  4,426

  5,421

  18,457

  29,192

  11994

  915

  4,658

  5,171

  22,358

  33,102

  Other theft

  1993

  2,986

  11,450

  9,817

  27,205

  51,458

  11994

  2,753

  11,346

  8,824

  24,197

  47,120

  1 Provisional.

  2 Excludes summary offences of unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  Table C—Number of known offenders, those cautioned or found guilty at all courts, for selected indictable offences 1993–942

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  1993

  11994

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  62,980

  61,201

  Sexual offences

  7,618

  7,480

  Robbery

  5,798

  5,534

  Burglary

  53,093

  49,491

  Fraud and Forgery

  25,572

  25,980

  Criminal damage

  13,469

  14,334

  Theft from the person

  2,936

  3,122

  Theft from a shop

  119,141

  115,494

  Theft of motor vehicle2

  4,288

  3,675

  Theft from vehicle

  12,541

  11,414

  Theft of a pedal cycle

  3,657

  3,316

  Handling stolen goods

  35,528

  39,707

  Other theft

  60,709

  55,651

  1 Provisional.

  2 Excludes summary offences of unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to combat crime in the south west in the coming year. [36735]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are four policy objectives which underpin our efforts to combat crime. They are:

  to do all we can to prevent crime;

  to do all we can to help the police catch criminals;

  60

  to ensure that when suspects are caught they are tried fairly and speedily; and

  to make sure that when courts convict criminals they have the powers they need to deal with them appropriately and effectively.

  These objectives apply as much to the south west as to any other part of the country. The latest Home Office crime figures, revealed by my right hon. and learned Friend on 27 September, show a record-breaking fall in recorded crime. They demonstrate the largest ever fall in recorded crime over a two year period; the longest uninterrupted fall in recorded crime since quarterly figures were first recorded and published; the first fall in recorded violent crime for almost 50 years; and falls in burglary of 5 per cent. vehicle crime of 9 per cent., and sexual offences of 9 per cent. In the south west of England recorded crime has fallen by nearly 6 per cent. In the Devon and Cornwall police area, it has fallen by over 8.5 per cent.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners' complaints have been referred to the Prisons Ombudsman in each prison service area; in how many cases he has found in the prisoner's favour; and how many and what proportion of his recommendations have been accepted by the prison service; [36893]

  (2) if he will list by category the prisoners' complaints referred to the Prisons Ombudsman, the number and proportion where the ombudsman has found in the

  61
  prisoner's favour and the number and proportion of these recommendations which have been accepted by the prison service. [36894]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prisons Ombudsman had received 1,664 letters of complaint by 3 October 1995 of which 448 were eligible for investigation by his office; the eligibility of a further 117 was being considered. Two hundred and ninety three investigations had been completed. Of these, the prisoner's complaint was upheld on 128 occasions. A total of 154 recommendations had been made to the prison service, of which 121–78 per cent.—had been accepted. Twelve—8 per cent.—were not accepted. Four partially accepted and a further 17 were under consideration.

  There are 15 prison service areas in England and Wales and as at 3 October 1995 the Prisons Ombudsman had received the following number of complaints about establishments in each area:

  Area

  Number of complaints

  Central

  99

  Chilterns

  62

  East Anglia

  112

  East Midlands

  144

  Kent

  131

  London North

  187

  London South

  157

  Mercia

  42

  North East

  134

  North West

  80

  South Coast

  79

  Trans Pennine

  143

  Wales and West

  101

  Wessex

  90

  Yorkshire

  72

  The remaining complaints concerned matters which were the responsibility of prison service headquarters.

  The number of complaints received by category were:

  Category

  Number of complaints

  Adjudications

  159

  Assaults

  54

  Security categorisation

  123

  Food

  26

  General conditions

  172

  Regime activities

  55

  Links

  88

  Medical

  48

  Pre-release and release

  237

  Property and cash

  295

  Race

  15

  Segregation

  43

  Transfers and allocation

  251

  Miscellaneous

  98

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of(a) men and (b) women from the Ivory Coast who are being held in prisons in England and Wales while they are awaiting decisions on their application for political asylum, as of 17 July; [36113]
  62
  (2) what was the number of (a) men and (b) women being held in prisons in England and Wales while their application for political asylum was being considered as of 17 July; [36115]

  (3) what has been the longest time (a) a man and (b) a woman has been held in a prison in England and Wales while awaiting a decision on their application for political asylum as of 17 July. [36117]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information as at 17 July 1995 is not available. However, as at 19 July 1995, 53 men and one woman were awaiting initial decisions on their applications for asylum whilst being detained in prison service establishments. Of these, the longest time a male and female have ben held in detention is 348 days and 114 days respectively.

  No nationals of the Ivory Coast were detained in prison service establishments as at 19 July 1995.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has taken to ensure that failed asylum seekers cannot be identified on their return home. [35826]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Asylum applications are treated as confidential. Where a failed asylum applicant is returned to his country of origin, the fact that he claimed asylum is not disclosed to the authorities of that country.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding access of foreign embassy personnel to visit asylum seekers held in detention centres and prison establishments. [35825]

  Mr. Baker
  Foreign embassy and high commission personnel are allowed to visit an asylum applicant in detention only if he or she specifically requests or consents to a visit.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in what circumstances his Department gives the names of the asylum seekers in detention, awaiting removal orders, to their embassies. [35827]

  Mr. Baker
  An embassy or high commission will not be notified of the detention of an asylum applicant without the consent of the person concerned. When it is necessary to provide an embassy or high commission with a person's details in order to obtain a travel document, the fact that asylum has been sought is not disclosed.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given to asylum applicants from Sri Lanka. [35960]

  Mr. Baker
  All asylum applicants are given details of organisations to which they may turn for legal advice in pursuing their asylum claims.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Sri Lanka in determining his policy on asylum; and to what extent this has changed in the last six months. [35962]

  Mr. Baker
  We keep the situation under continuing review in the light of information from a variety of sources, including the United Kingdom's high commission in Colombo and reports by independent organisations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
  63
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan asylum applicants have been sent back to Sri Lanka in the last six months. [35961]

  Mr. Baker
  During the period 1 January to 30 June 1995, 13 Sri Lankans refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain after full consideration have been returned to Sri Lanka.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of places available for 12 to 14-year-olds awaiting trial or sentence in each of the last three years. [36260]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally by my Department.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number and proportion of cautioned juvenile offenders who had been cautioned on(a) a previous occasion, (b) two previous occasions and (c) more than two previous occasions for (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [36254]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend. the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 13 June,Official Report, column 480.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of persistent juvenile offenders identified by his Department in 1993 and 1994, respectively. [36253]

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no agreed definition of persistent offender. A special study of court appearances resulting in convictions in three weeks of 1993 gave the following estimates for 10 to 17-year-olds:

  Estimated number of juveniles1 convicted in 1993 who have conviction2 on two or more previous occasions

  England and Wales

  Number of previous court appearances

  Estimated number of juveniles convicted in 1993 (to nearest 50)

  2

  4,350

  3

  2,850

  4

  1,800

  5–9

  3,650

  10 or more

  550

  1 A few juveniles have more than one appearance in 1993, and will be counted more than once in these figures.

  2 Convictions for a standard list offence, which includes all indictable and triable either way offences plus some of the more serious summary offences.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time elapsed from offence to charge or summons for juveniles in 1993 and 1994; and what was the number and percentage of cases dealt with at first appearance at juvenile court and subsequently at youth court for 1993 and 1994. [36251]
  64
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply. The average length of time elapsed from offence to charge or summons for juveniles in a sample week in June 1994 was 37 days, the corresponding figure for June 1993 was 36 days. This information comes from the magistrates' courts time intervals survey. In June 1994 it collected information on 1,478 juveniles; the cases of 292—or 19.8 per cent. of these were dealt with at first appearance. The corresponding number of juveniles about which information was collected in the June 1993 sample week was 1331, of which 312—or 23.4 per cent.—were dealt with at first appearance.

  Financial Penalties
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 398–400, when he expects the study commissioned by the Home Office on the enforcement of financial penalties to be completed; and if it will be made available to hon. Members. [36208]

  Mr. Maclean
  The research on financial penalties commissioned by the Home Office research and planning unit is due to be completed by the end of the year. The findings will be published in due course, and will be available in the Library.

  Deportees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the average period of time that a person has been held in prison in England and Wales awaiting deportation after they had completed the prison sentence they had been serving; and if he will make a statement; [36110]

  (2) what has been the number of foreign nationals who have been deported immediately from prisons in England and Wales after the completion of their prison sentence in each of the last three years. [36116]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is given in the table. Information on the delay, if any, between completion of the prison sentence and removal from United Kingdom is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process

  Following a court recommendation

  On non-conducive grounds2

  1992

  506

  142

  1993

  410

  138

  1994

  225

  104

  1Including "voluntary" departures after enforcement action had been initiated.

  2That is, because their continued presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good, usually following conviction for a criminal offence when the court did not address the question of making a recommendation for deportation.

  Probation Service, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed in the probation service in Wales in(a) l980 and (b) 1994. [36134]
  65
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The earliest available comparable information covers 1987 and 1994 and is as follows:

  Staff employed by probation services in Wales, in post at

  31 December, whole-time equivalent1

  31 December 1987: 6332

  31 December 1994: 842

  Notes

  1Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2 Figure excludes non-probation grade staff employed in hostels. The 1994 total includes 36 such staff.

  Murder Convictions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, length of sentence served, and number of appeals of each person whose murder conviction was overturned or who was given a free pardon or life sentence remission from 1976. [31730]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for those originally sentenced to life for murder and where sentences were subsequently reduced, or lifted on appeal or who were given a free pardon or remission whilst serving their sentences in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  To protect individual privacy, a list of names is not provided but the numbers and average time served under a life sentence are tabulated. Information on the number of appeals of each person is not available.

  Successful appeals and free pardons/remissions from life sentences for murder. Prison Service establishments England and Wales 1976–1994

  Successful appeal

  Free pardon/remission

  Year

  Number

  Time served1 (years)

  Number

  Time served1 (years)

  1976

  2

  0.8

  —

  —

  1977

  4

  0.7

  —

  —

  1978

  8

  1.1

  —

  —

  1979

  4

  2.1

  1

  0.8

  1980

  5

  4.9

  —

  —

  1981

  3

  1.5

  —

  —

  1982

  4

  1.3

  1

  0.6

  1983

  —

  —

  1

  6.1

  1984

  6

  3.7

  1

  0.9

  1985

  9

  1.8

  1

  0.7

  1986

  9

  1.0

  —

  —

  1987

  6

  1.2

  —

  —

  1988

  4

  1.1

  —

  —

  1989

  15

  4.6

  —

  —

  1990

  7

  1.3

  —

  —

  1991

  12

  9.1

  —

  —

  1992

  16

  4.1

  —

  —

  1993

  10

  2.0

  —

  —

  19942

  13

  4.3

  —

  —

  1 Average time served under life sentence, excluding any time spent on remand and any time spent to complete a reduced custodial sentence.

  2 Provisional.

TRANSPORT

  Gateshead Western Bypass
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a variable-trip matrix model has been used to assess his Department's preferred route for the Gateshead western bypass. [36233]
  66
  Mr. Watts
  No, the cross-Tyne study traffic model, updated by additional data from interview surveys carried out at the Metro centre and Town Valley trading estate in 1991, was used.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the environmental assessment for the Gateshead western bypass proposal in accordance with European Council directive 855/337. [36231]

  Mr. Watts
  The work, which commenced when the scheme was placed in the trunk road programme, will continue to be progressed concurrently with the detailed design of the scheme and the result will be published at the same time as the publication of the orders for the scheme under the Highways Act 1980 in accordance with the statutory requirements.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department's proposals in respect of the Gateshead western bypass have been revised to take into account the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report and associated Government guidance. [36232]

  Mr. Watts
  Work is currently in progress to consider the implications for the scheme of the most recent SACTRA report.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account the Highways Agency took of the cost to Dr. Whitelegg of supplying copies of all reference documents referred to in his submission to the inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road; and if he will make a statement. [36155]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.

  The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Mike O'Brien dated 13 October 1995:
  Just before the House rose for the Summer recess you asked the Secretary of State what account the Highways Agency took of the cost to Dr. Whitelegg of supplying copies of all reference documents referred to in his submission to the inquiry into the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. I am sorry it has not been possible to let you have an earlier reply.
  All objectors will incur some costs in presenting their case at inquiry. We do what we can to reduce these costs by providing access to a range of official documents and reasonable copying facilities free of charge.
  The onus is on an objector to substantiate his own evidence. If he is relying on material contained in other publications to support his case, the Inspector and other parties at the inquiry, including the Highways Agency, will wish to satisfy themselves that the references are accurate and relevant. In practice the only satisfactory way of doing that is to provide the document, or the relevant part of it, to the inquiry. Copies will be made by the Agency where possible.
  In the particular case of Dr. Whitelegg, the Agency asked him to provide copies of documents on which he was depending in his proofs of evidence on behalf of a number of residents' groups and societies. In response to representations from two of the groups the Agency did obtain copies of most of the documents. But there were about 14 that we could not readily obtain. Since Dr. Whitelegg was depending on these publications in his evidence we assumed he would have access to them. We offered to make copies for the inquiry. I understand this arrangement has proved acceptable to the groups concerned.

  67
  You also wrote to John Watts enclosing a copy of your letter dated 18 July to David Shepperd, the Agency's Project Manager for the scheme. I can assure you that the Agency is not trying to obstruct those opposed to its proposals. It is quite usual for the Agency to ask objectors to supply copies of reference material and the new Highways Inquiries Procedures Rules do enable the Secretary of State to require objectors to submit a Statement of Case and copies of documents referred to. Prior to the opening of the inquiry the Agency placed on deposit a number of documents to which it intended to refer in evidence. More have been placed in the library as the inquiry has progressed.
  I hope this is helpful. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not a supporting document should be provided rests with the Inspector.

  Deregulation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the measures his Department currently proposes to deregulate under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [36682]

  Mr. Watts
  There are currently six measures which the Department proposes to deregulate under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The first five were published in 1994 in the DTI publication "Cutting Red Tape".

  1. Approval requirement for parking equipment (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984): Abolition of the current arrangements whereby local authorities who control parking by means of a traffic order have to use parking equipment of a type approved by the Secretary of State.

  2. Vehicle inspection of HGVs (Road Traffic Act 1988): Allows Vehicle Inspectors more discretion about when to undertake a physical inspection of heavy goods vehicles.

  3. Advance receipt of MOT certificates (Road Traffic Act 1988): Allows a motorist to obtain their first MOT certificate a month in advance, which will be valid for 13 months.

  4. Driving licence renewal (Road Traffic Act 1988): To excuse drivers who held a full driving licence before 1976 (but failed to renew it), from having to retake their driving test, and to introduce greater flexibility governing the issue of British licences in exchange for those issued in other countries.

  5. Tuition of the Theory element of the Driving Test (Road Traffic Act 1988): Allows classroom teaching of the new theory elements of the driving test, without the need for teachers to be registered driving instructors.

  6. Tolled undertakings: To amend existing legislation for the approval of local authority and privately owned tolled undertakings.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he was informed of the proposals by the Driving Standards Agency to abandon its market testing proposals; if a Minister in his Department made the decision to abandon the market test; and if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence between the agency management and the Department relating to the decision to abandon the market test. [36679]

  Mr. Norris
  I received advise from the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency in June that the implementation of the market test should be modified so as to achieve a better integration of the driving test booking services with those of examiner deployment and residual functions. My decision was based on that advice; I have decided that the disclosure of that advice, which was provided in confidence to assist internal discussion, would be inappropriate.
  68
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of staff likely to be made compulsory redundant as a result of the reversal of the DSA market test, the estimated cost of severance payments and the estimated savings he expects to make by the newly proposed office rationalisation programme. [36680]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the modified arrangements, which have been the subject of widespread consultation with DSA staff and the relevant trade unions, it was assumed that there would be around 70 redundancies, at an estimated cost of £1.4 million. In practice, the final number of redundancies and consequential cost will be significantly smaller. It is hoped that most of these will be on a voluntary basis. The modified arrangements gave additional savings in the region of £20,000 over 10 years.

  Coastguard Stations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions when a coastguard station has been understaffed by date and station for the last five years. [36695]

  Mr. Norris
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to privatise the national air traffic services; and what is the timetable for the proposed sale. [36681]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State for Transport announced in November 1994 that the Government continued to favour privatisation of the national air traffic services in principle but that further work was needed on a number of important issues. We are currently considering the further work that has been done. I hope that we shall be in a position to make an announcement about the direction of NATS later in the year.

  Vehicle Defects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list, by mechanical defect found, the number of heavy goods vehicles found to have a defect during the last 12 months at spot checks undertaken by his Department; [36706]

  (2) if he will list, by mechanical defect found, the number of public service vehicles found to have a defect during the last 12 months at spot checks undertaken by his Department. [36707]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency.

  The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 15 August 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning mechanical defects on heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles found at spot checks undertaken by the Inspectorate during the last 12 months.

  69
  I regret we do not have the information in the form you requested. Mechanical defects described on roadworthiness prohibitions are categorised and stored on the Inspectorate's Roadworthiness Enforcement Database using the relevant Inspection Manual reference number.
  The attached 2 annexes give, for the financial year 1994/95, the number of occurrences of mechanical defects resulting in issue of prohibitions. This information is shown separately for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles, but it includes inspections done in connection with operator licensing work as well as spot checks. Spot check information alone could not be provided at a reasonable cost. Any Inspection Manual reference number missing from the first column of the annex has not yet been allocated.
  Please bear in mind that the total number of occurrences of mechanical defects cannot be related to the number of prohibitions issued over the same period since a single prohibition notice will, in many cases, have been issued for more than one defect.

  ANNEX A; Occurrence of defect category on prohibitions (HGV)

  HGV inspection manual number

  HGV defect category

  Occurrence of defect category for all HGVs including trailers

  3

  Seat Belts

  12

  5

  Exhaust Emissions

  761

  6

  Road Wheels and Hubs

  2,977

  7

  Size and Type of Tyres

  104

  8

  Condition of Tyres

  4,527

  9

  Sideguards, Rear Under-Run Device and Bumper Bars

  254

  10

  Spare Wheel Carrier

  16

  11

  Tractor to Trailer Coupling

  307

  12

  Trailer Emergency Brake

  25

  13

  Trailer Landing Legs

  11

  14

  Spray Suppression, Wings and Wheel Arches

  526

  15

  Cab Security

  66

  16

  Cab Doors

  49

  17

  Cab Floor and Steps

  131

  18

  Driver's Seat

  41

  19

  Security of Body

  158

  20

  Condition of Body

  379

  22

  Mirrors

  84

  23

  View to the Front

  77

  24

  Glass or Other Transparent Material

  125

  25

  Windscreen Wipers and Washers

  239

  26

  Speedometer

  0

  27

  Audible Warning (Horn)

  15

  28

  Driving Controls

  50

  29

  Tachograph

  25

  30

  Play at Steering Wheel

  60

  31

  Steering Wheel

  24

  32

  Steering Column

  97

  33

  Speed Limiter

  15

  34

  Pressure/Vacuum Warning

  47

  35

  Build up of Pressure/Vacuum

  76

  36

  Hand Lever Operating Mechanical Brakes

  69

  37

  Service Brake Pedal

  27

  38

  Service Brake Operation

  225

  39

  Hand Operated Brake Control Valves

  83

  41

  Condition of Chassis

  570

  70

  ANNEX A; Occurrence of defect category on prohibitions (HGV)

  HGV inspection manual number

  HGV defect category

  Occurrence of defect category for all HGVs including trailers

  42

  Electrical Wiring and Equipment

  139

  43

  Engine Transmission Mountings

  27

  44

  Oil Leaks

  2,928

  45

  Fuel Tanks and Systems

  1,532

  46

  Exhaust Systems

  721

  48

  Suspension Pins and Bushes

  1,251

  49

  Suspensions Spring Units and Linkages

  1,929

  50

  Attachment of Spring Units, Linkages and Sub-frames

  1,743

  51

  Shock Absorbers (Dampers)

  242

  53

  Axles, Stub Axles and Wheel Bearings

  316

  54

  Steering Linkages

  1,957

  55

  Steering Gear

  197

  56

  Power Steering

  308

  57

  Transmission

  720

  59

  Mechanical Brake Components

  1,829

  60

  Brake Actuators

  2,835

  61

  Braking Systems and Components

  5,861

  62

  Rear Markings

  8

  63

  Front Position and Front End Outline Marker Lamps

  57

  64

  Rear Position, Rear End Outline Marker, Rear Fog and Rear Registration

  301

  65

  Reflectors

  41

  66

  Direction Indicators and Hazard Warning Lamps

  599

  67

  Aim of Headlamps

  92

  68

  Headlamps

  273

  69

  Stop Lamps

  1,568

  70

  Trailer Parking Brake

  435

  71

  Service Brake Performance

  2,341

  72

  Secondary Brake Performance

  884

  73

  Parking Brake Performance

  1,264

  ANNEX B; Occurance of Defect Category on Prohibitions (PSV)

  PSV Inspection Manual Number

  PSV Defect Category

  Occurance

  3

  Seal Belts

  11

  5

  Exhaust Emissions

  357

  6

  Road Wheels and Hubs

  276

  7

  Size and Type of Tyres

  11

  8

  Condition of Tyres

  319

  9

  Bumper Bars

  6

  10

  Spare Wheel/Carrier

  3

  11

  Vehicle/Trailer Coupling

  3

  14

  Wings and Wheel Arches

  4

  16

  Passenger Doors. Drivers Doors and Emergency Exits

  632

  71

  ANNEX B; Occurance of Defect Category on Prohibitions (PSV)

  PSV Inspection Manual Number

  PSV Defect Category

  Occurance

  17

  Driver's Accomodation

  10

  18

  Driving Seat

  11

  19

  Security of Body

  12

  20

  Exterior of Body Including Access Doors/Haps, Luggage Compartments

  224

  21

  Interior of Body, Passenger Entrance, Exit Steps and Platform

  662

  22

  Mirrors

  9

  23

  View to the Front

  15

  24

  Conditions of Windows, Glass and other Transparent Materials

  45

  25

  Windscreen Wipers and Washers

  100

  26

  Speedometer

  1

  27

  Audible Warning (Horn)

  6

  28

  Driving Controls

  32

  29

  Tachograph

  2

  30

  Play at Steering Wheel

  18

  31

  Steering Wheel

  6

  32

  Steering Column

  13

  33

  Speed Limiter

  17

  34

  Pressure/Vacuum Warning

  6

  35

  Build up of Pressure/Vacuum

  7

  36

  Hand Lever Operating Mechanical Brakes

  10

  37

  Service Brake Pedal

  6

  38

  Service Brake Operation

  10

  39

  Hand Operated Brake Control Valves

  16

  41

  Condition of Chassis

  37

  42

  Electrical Wiring and Equipment

  39

  43

  Engine and Transmission Mountings

  18

  44

  Oil Leaks

  702

  45

  Fuel Tanks and Systems

  632

  46

  Exhaust Systems

  170

  48

  Suspension Pins and Bushes

  87

  49

  Suspensions Spring Units and Linkages

  286

  50

  Attachment of Spring Units, Linkages and Sub-frames

  124

  51

  Shock Absorbers (Dampers)

  31

  53

  Axles, Stub Axles and Wheel Bearings

  28

  54

  Steering Linkages

  205

  55

  Steering Gear

  39

  56

  Power Steering

  76

  57

  Transmission

  82

  58

  Additional Braking Devices (including Regarders)

  4

  59

  Mechanical Brake Componants

  118

  60

  Brake Actuators

  132

  72

  ANNEX B; Occurance of Defect Category on Prohibitions (PSV)

  PSV Inspection Manual Number

  PSV Defect Category

  Occurance

  61

  Braking Systems and Components

  354

  62

  Rear Markings

  4

  63

  Front Position and Front End Outline Marker Lamps

  4

  64

  Rear Position, Rear End Outline Marker, Rear Fog and Rear Registration Lamps

  20

  65

  Reflectors

  3

  66

  Direction Indicators and Hazard Warning Lamps

  63

  67

  Aim of Headlamps

  13

  68

  Headlamps

  33

  69

  Stop Lamps

  226

  71

  Service Brake Performance

  206

  72

  Secondary Brake Performance

  94

  73

  Parking Brake Performance

  181

  Fish Factory Ships
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) of 27 February,Official Report, column 461, when he expects the consultation document on fish factory ships to be published. [36822]

  Mr. Norris
  We hope to be able to publish our consultation paper examining the problem of substandard and uninsured shipping in United Kingdom waters next month. The paper will include proposals to deal with the particular problems found with fish factory ships — klondykers. Copies will be made available in the Library.

  Railway Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been made in respect of the choice of route and permitted break in rail journeys following the privatisation of railway services. [37387]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board is currently developing draft proposals for a routing guide which will set out unambiguously the routes over which passengers may travel when holding any particular ticket. The intention is to document and safeguard existing practice. Where a route is currently widely accepted and used it will be included in the routing guide. There has been no change in respect of the right to break a rail journey at an intermediate station.

  When ready, the guide will be issued to all operators so it will be clear which route or routes passengers may use for their journey. This will eliminate the uncertainty which can arise currently from different interpretations of ticket validity, and will provide a safeguard against piecemeal erosion of the facility to use alternative routes. The BRB is consulting the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee on the proposals and guide which will be subject to final approval by the franchising director and the rail regulator.
  73

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the powers under which he proposed to make changes to the driving licence design; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for introduction. [37109]

  Mr. Norris
  Section 98 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that a driving licence shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.

  A proposed EU directive allowing the introduction of plastic photocard driving licences is at present under discussion; I will make a further statement on the introduction of photocards when these discussions are more advanced.

  Bus Service Companies, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the approximate additional sum that will be paid by each of the principal bus service companies in London in respect of the cost of non-rebateable fuel duty to be paid in 1995–96 [37340]

  Mr. Norris
  It would not be appropriate for the Government to disclose such information about the London bus companies, all of whom are in the private sector.

  Utility Street Works
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what obligations are placed on water, gas, electric, electricity or other cable or pipe service providers whose equipment is located beneath public bus stops and pavements, other than in emergencies, to(a) inform the police and highway authorities of their intention to excavate road or pedestrian routes and (b) to obtain their permission to do so. [37267]

  Mr. Norris
  Utility street works are governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, under which undertakers with a statutory right to execute street works must give advance notice to the street authority of their planned works, other than minor works; in the street, including the footway; the length of notice is prescribed in regulations and varies according to the circumstances. There is no requirement for undertakers to give advance notice of their works to the police but a code of practice issued under the Act sets out circumstances in which the street authority or traffic authority should inform police of planned works.

  Undertakers do not have to seek permission of either the street authority or the police, but before executing works in a protected street, the consent of the street authority must be obtained. The Act also empowers the street authority to direct the timing of undertakers' works in certain circumstances. The procedure is set out in regulations.

  Bus Fares
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he expects to take to ensure that fares in public stage carriage bus services are no higher than providing a just return on invested capital(a) on
  74
  all routes and (b) where competition has been eliminated by an initial period of free travel or heavily subsidised fares. [37329]

  Mr. Norris
  The setting of fares on bus services is a commercial decision for bus operators. We have no plans to interfere with this process.

  Airline Subsidies
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which EU Governments subsidise their airlines; and which subsidies have been ended since January.

  Mr. Norris
  The Governments of France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain currently give state aid to their national airlines in accordance with approvals granted under article 93 of the treaty of Rome. There is no example of a subsidy which has ended since January 1995.

  Driving Tests (Accidents)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish statistics maintained under health and safety at work regulations of the number of accidents involving vehicles during the driving test; and if he will include statistics in respect of(a) vehicles written off, (b) injuries to examiners and (c) absence from work of examiners as a result of injury while carrying out the driving test. [37116]

  Mr. Norris
  Between 1 April 1995 and 30 June 1995, there were 72 accidents involving vehicles during the driving test which resulted in injury to driving examiners. These were:

  Number

  Whiplash—medically diagnosed

  19

  Whiplash—self diagnosed

  16

  Cuts/bruises

  1

  Pulled muscles

  6

  Back pain

  1

  Neck pain

  18

  Headache

  2

  Shock

  4

  Multiple

  3

  Other

  72

  20 per cent. of these required medical treatment; broken down into:

  35 per cent. Hospital treatment

  56 per cent. GP treatment

  6 per cent. First aider treatment

  3 per cent. Physiotherapist treatment

  DSA has no details of vehicles written off during the driving test.

  As a result of the above accidents driving examiners were absent for a total of 1,320 days during this period.

  Aircraft Inspections
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inspections are undertaken by his Department or the Civil Aviation Authority on the mechanical fitness of aircraft; how many aircraft have been inspected in each of the last five years; and if he
  75
  will list by airline operator the number of defects found for each of the last five years. [36709]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to the Viscount Goschen's letter of 30 August explaining the CAA's policy on aircraft surveys, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The numbers of surveys carried out on aircraft above 5,700 kg maximum total weight authorised—which include all large passenger aircraft—in each of the last five years were as follows:

  1989: 1,206

  1990: 1,120

  1991: 1,096

  1992: 1,056

  1993: 835

  1994: 732

  Information on numbers of defects found during surveys could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by defect found the number of aircraft found to have defects during the last 12 months at inspections undertaken by his Department or the Civil Aviation Authority. [36710]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not undertake aircraft inspections. The information in relation to inspections undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Scheme

  Completion date

  Tender cost works only

  Outturn cost

  M63 Stage 4 Widening

  March 1990

  —

  —

  A43 Peartree Hill—Wendlebury Imp

  April 1990

  20.16

  34.122

  A17 Fosdyke Bridge Imp

  May 1990

  2.72

  —

  A40 Swakeleys Road Junction Imp

  May 1990

  10.20

  —

  A408 Great Cambridge Road GSJ

  May 1990

  —

  —

  A19 Peterlee GSJ

  June 1990

  —

  —

  A52 Nottingham Outer Ring Road (Abbey Street GSJ)

  June 1990

  4.59

  —

  M40 Banbury Bypass Section 2

  June 1990

  17.91

  25.39

  M5 Catshill—Lydlate Ash

  June 1990

  13.52

  —

  A35 Charmouth Bypass

  June 1990

  10.73

  —

  A36 Codford Bypass

  June 1990

  2.08

  —

  A14 Catthorpe Interchange

  August 1990

  —

  —

  A13 Lakeside GSJ (S278)

  September 1990

  4.18

  —

  A23 Waddon Marsh Bridge

  September 1990

  —

  —

  A896 Woolsington Bypass

  September 1990

  —

  —

  A140 Dickleburgh Bypass

  October 1990

  2.21

  —

  A435 Alcester Bypass

  October 1990

  8.81

  12.949

  A46 Newark Relief Road

  October 1990

  31.48

  —

  A47 Guyhim Diversion

  October 1990

  3.66

  —

  A66 Addingham Bypass

  October 1990

  —

  —

  A66 Stockton Racecourse GSJ

  October 1990

  —

  —

  A11 Thetford Bpass

  November 1990

  13.05

  —

  A14 Kettering—Thrapston

  November 1990

  25.66

  —

  A41 Bicester Bypass Stage 1 (Ploughley Road—A421 Bicester)

  November 1990

  4.73

  —

  M40 Banbury Bypass Section 3

  November 1990

  52.20

  76.75

  A1 Newcastle Western Bypass (Contract 3)

  December 1990

  24.85

  39.011

  A1 South of Brampton Junction Imp

  December 1990

  1.40

  —

  A27 Pevensey Bypass

  December 1990

  7.71

  —

  A303 Llchester—South Petherton Imp

  December 1990

  —

  —

  A47 East Norton Bypass

  December 1990

  1.17

  —

  M40 Banbury Bypass Section 1

  December 1990

  24.20

  33.88

  M40 Banbury Bypass Section 4

  December 1990

  59.52

  63.84

  M40 Gaydon Section

  December 1990

  34.00

  45.84

  M40 Waterstock—Wendlebury

  January 1991

  64.10

  92.484

  A14 Thrapston—Brampton (A)

  February 1991

  14.19

  —

  76

  Road Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years all the road schemes that have been completed, their projected costs and the actual cost on completion. [31835]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 30 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Road, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to you recent Parliamentary Question concerning road schemes completed in the last 5 years.
  You asked for details of projected costs for each of these schemes together with the actual cost on completion. I enclose a list of all schemes completed in the last 5 years together with details of tender costs (works only) and actual cost on completion, where that information is readily available.
  It has not been possible to supply the actual cost on completion for many of the schemes concerned because final accounts have not yet been agreed with the contractors concerned. To publish estimates of the final outturn in such cases would undermine the position of the consulting engineers appointed by the Agency to administer those contracts in dealing with claims for extra payment submitted by the contractors and therefore place public funds at risk. Also on some schemes records are not immediately to hand and I will write to you again when further information is available.
  77

  Scheme

  Completion date

  Tender cost works only

  Outturn cost

  A1079 Market Weighton Bypass

  March 1991

  3.96

  —

  A12 Capel St Mary GSJ

  March 1991

  3.58

  6.076

  A42 Castle Donnington North Contract 1

  March 1991

  24.73

  27.45

  A42 Castle Donnington North Contract 3

  March 1991

  2.77

  3.234

  A500 Nantwich Bypass

  March 1991

  5.09

  7.268

  M4 J12 Imp

  March 1991

  1.27

  —

  A69 Brampton Bypass

  April 1991

  4.94

  6.17

  A42 Castle Donnington North Contract 2

  May 1991

  16.79

  19.058

  A43 Bilsworth and Milton Malsor Bypass

  May 1991

  15.08

  16.582

  M20 Maidstone—Ashford (Contract 1)

  May 1991

  27.31

  50.86

  M20 Maidstone—Ashford (Contract 2)

  May 1991

  28.67

  37.969

  A14 Rothwell—Kettering

  June 1991

  4.41

  —

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Dyke Road-Patchem) Contract 1

  June 1991

  16.62

  20.023

  A141 Chester Imp

  June 1991

  17.50

  21.7

  A30 Zelah Bypass

  July 1991

  2.63

  —

  A31 Picket Post Junction Imp

  July 1991

  1.79

  —

  A13 Leamouth Road Junction Imp

  August 1991

  1.54

  —

  A16 Louth Bypass

  August 1991

  5.00

  6.621

  A30 Plusha—Bolventor Imp

  August 1991

  10.67

  13.718

  M40 J4—5 Widening

  August 1991

  35.92

  48.063

  A11 Red Lodge Bypass

  September 1991

  4.84

  —

  A282 Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Approach Roads, Kent

  September 1991

  27.69

  —

  A47 Castor—Allsworth Bypass

  September 1991

  7.51

  —

  M45/A45 Dunchurch GSJ

  September 1991

  1.67

  —

  A16 Boston—Algarkirk Diversion

  October 1991

  8.96

  11.544

  A282 Dartford—Thurrock Crossing

  October 1991

  —

  —

  A282 Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Approach Roads, Essex

  October 1991

  8.32

  —

  A47 Eye Bypass

  October 1991

  5.19

  6.90

  A59 Monk Bridge Imp

  October 1991

  —

  —

  A6 Burton Latimer Bypass

  October 1991

  2.63

  —

  A6 Quorn and Mountsorrel Bypass

  October 1991

  31.76

  43.329

  A14 Kettering Northern Bypass Advance Bridge Works

  November 1991

  —

  —

  A14 Kettering Southern Bypass (M1-A1 Contract 5S)

  November 1991

  30.74

  —

  A35 Axminster Bypass

  November1991

  8.02

  10.943

  A38 Alrowss—Barton Turn (Dogshead Lane

  November 1991

  1.88

  —

  A650 Drighlington Bypass

  November 1991

  4.99

  6.399

  M62 J17–18 Widening

  November 1991

  3.75

  5.75

  A1 Dishforth—Leeming Imp Phase 1 (Gatenby Lane Junction)

  December 1991

  2.66

  4.653

  A127 Rayleigh Weir GSJ

  December 1991

  11.84

  —

  A23 Warninglid-Brighton (Sayers Common-Muddleswood) C2?

  December 1991

  10.47

  —

  A27 Brighton and Howe Bypass (Hangleton—Dyke Road) Contract 2

  December 1991

  8.77

  12.998

  A30 Penhale—Carland Cross Imp

  December 1991

  9.14

  11.628

  A303 Stockton Wood—Chicklade Bottom

  December 1991

  1.30

  1.74

  A35 Yellowham Hill—Troytown Imp

  December 1991

  4.31

  —

  A585 Hensingham Bypass

  December 1991

  4.29

  4.7

  A65 Draughton Bypass

  December 1991

  2.19

  2.79

  M3 Compton—Bassett Widening

  January 1992

  41.60

  51.864

  A10 Brandon Creek—Southery

  February 1992

  —

  —

  A516 Etwell Bypass

  February 1992

  2.66

  —

  A59 Mellor Brook Bypass

  March 1992

  —

  —

  A13 West India Dock Road Interim Junction Imp

  April 1992

  1.00

  —

  A38 Marsh Mills Junction Imp

  May 1992

  22.48

  24.038

  A406 Chingford Road—Hale End Road

  May 1992

  —

  —

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Patchem-Coldem) Contract 3

  June 1992

  14.77

  19.333

  A6 Market Harborough Bypass

  June 1992

  7.87

  9.531

  A3 Liphook and Petersfield Bypasess

  July 1992

  35.84

  65.72

  A303 Mere—Wincanton Imp

  July 1992

  15.28

  19.404

  A41 Whitchurch Bypass

  July 1992

  8.95

  13.716

  A423 Southam Bypass

  July 1992

  2.22

  —

  A523 Macclesfield Relief Road

  July 1992

  18.80

  25.00

  A1 Marshall Meadows Imp

  August 1993

  —

  —

  A47 East Dereham—North Tuddenham Imp

  August 1992

  6.896

  8.987

  A5/A49 Telford—Shrewbury Bypass

  August 1992

  63.96

  —

  A423 Maidenhead Thicket—Burchetts Green

  September 1992

  8.44

  12.73

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass Contract 1

  September 1992

  7.99

  14.673

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass Contract 2

  September 1992

  8.59

  13.094

  78 79

  Scheme

  Completion date

  Tender cost works only

  Outturn cost

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass Contract 3

  September 1992

  14.75

  18.478

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass Contract 4

  September 1992

  29.861

  —

  A49 Weaverham Diversion

  September 1992

  4.20

  6.33

  A16 Stickford Bypass

  October 1992

  1.01

  —

  A5 Kilsby Diversion

  October 1992

  0.83

  —

  A66 Bowes Bypass to County Boundary Imp

  October 1992

  9.88

  11.795

  A16 Ludborough Bypass

  November 1992

  1.23

  —

  A2 London Boundary—M2 Imp

  November 1992

  -

  —

  A47 Narborough Bypass

  November 1992

  2.24

  —

  A11 Thetford—Bridgham Heath

  December 1992

  2.22

  2.363

  A14 Thrapston—Brampton (B)

  December 1992

  7.04

  —

  A23 Warninglid-Brighton (Muddleswood-Brighton)

  December 1992

  15.36

  —

  A3 Milford Bypass

  December 1992

  7.89

  10.77

  A38 Bell Bridge—Airewas

  December 1992

  1.45

  —

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor Bypass

  December 1992

  4.30

  —

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  December 1992

  5.838

  8.773

  A585 Fleetwood Dock Street Diversion

  January 1993

  2.20

  3.6

  A30 Okehampton-Launceston Imp

  March 1993

  26.81

  32.999

  A11 Newmarket—Red Lodge

  April 1993

  4.08

  5.083

  A339 Bassingstoke Northern Bypass Stage 3 Dualling

  April 1993

  8.60

  11.9

  A59 Greengates—Gutteridge Imp

  April 1993

  —

  —

  A596 Wigton Bypass

  April 1993

  4.05

  6.324

  A27 Crossbush Bypass

  May 1993

  2.95

  4.43

  A41/A421 Bicester Bypass Stage 2 (A421 Bicrester—Wendlebury) M4

  May 1993

  3.90

  —

  A595 Egremont Bypass

  May 1993

  6.67

  9.169

  A23 Warninglid—Brighton (Warninglid Flyover—Sayers Common) C3)

  June 1993

  14.32

  20.95

  A39 Wadebridge Bypass

  July 1993

  8.30

  —

  A41 Kings Langley Bypass

  August 1993

  19.97

  32.741

  A12 Gorieston Relief Road

  September 1993

  20

  —

  A14 Thrapston—Brampton (C)

  September 1993

  16.36

  —

  A41 Berkhamsted Bypass

  September 1993

  23.9

  —

  A1 Brownieside Imp

  October 1993

  3.49

  —

  M5 J6–8 Widening (Warndon—Strensham)

  October 1993

  59.37

  79.945

  A1(M) Bramham—Wetherby Imp

  November 1993

  15.71

  21.933

  A20 Folkstone—Dover Stage 1 (Folkstone-Court Wood Con 1A)

  November 1993

  3.858

  4.163

  A20 Folkstone—Dover Stage 1 (Folkstone-Court Wood Con 1)

  November 1993

  27.31

  35.697

  A20 Folkstone-Dover Stage 1 (Folkestone-Court Wood Con 2)

  November 1993

  11.55

  15.884

  A27 Westhampnett Bypass

  November 1993

  6.92

  10.118

  M20 J5 and 8 Widening (Maidstone Bypass)

  November 1993

  69.55

  —

  A20 Folkstone—Dover Stage 2 (Court Wood-Dover Con 3)

  December 1993

  21.69

  39.258

  A49 Onibury—Stokesay

  December 1993

  1.85

  —

  A590 Dalton in Furness Bypass

  December 1993

  7.91

  11.364

  M4 J4B-5 Widening

  December 1993

  4.97

  7.55

  A11 Four Wentways—Newmarket

  January 1994

  10.80

  —

  A13 West India Dock Road Junction Imp

  February 1994

  0.28

  —

  M1 J9–10 Widening

  March 1994

  9.72

  13.416

  M25 J15–16 Widening

  March 1994

  29.8

  —

  East London Traffic Control System

  April 1994

  3.71

  —

  A650 Bingley Relief Road Advanced Bridge Works

  May 1994

  —

  —

  A14 Cattorpe—Rothwell (A and B)

  July 1994

  35.62

  —

  A23 Handoross—Pease Pottage Imp

  July 1994

  8.16

  11.925

  A30 Shallowater Hill Imp

  August 1994

  1.70

  —

  A40 Long Lane Junction Imp

  August 1994

  23.88

  —

  M62 J14–17 Widening

  August 1994

  10.20

  16.846

  M1 J1 Imp

  September 1994

  4.23

  —

  A40 Long Lane—West End Road

  October 1994

  —

  —

  A52 Ashbourne Relief Road

  October 1994

  3.19

  4.223

  A19 Easingwold Bypass

  November 1994

  4.58

  —

  A406 Hanger Lane—Harrow Road

  November 1994

  —

  —

  A588 Widness Eastern Bypass (North)

  November 1994

  14.60

  26.19

  A66 Stainmore—Banksgate Bypass

  December 1994

  —

  —

  M3 Bar End—Compton

  December 1994

  25.88

  —

  M56 J4–6 Widening

  December 1994

  11.80

  14.248

  A17 Leedenham Bypass

  March 1995

  3.323

  3.325

  80 81

  Runway Incursion Incidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) runway incursion incidents and (b) incidents of runway overshoots there have been at Heathrow and Gatwick airports in each year since 1985. [36685]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of runway incursion incidents which occurred at Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the years since 1985 are as follows:

  Year

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  1985

  6

  3

  1986

  7

  3

  1987

  2

  0

  1988

  8

  2

  1989

  13

  2

  1990

  0

  0

  1991

  5

  0

  1992

  3

  0

  1993

  2

  1

  1994

  3

  1

  Statistics for runway overshoots for the whole of the period requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However figures are available for 1994 when there were 406 runway overshoots at Heathrow airport and 332 at Gatwick.

  Specialist Vessels (Marine Pollution)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the EC countries which have dedicated and purpose-built surface vessels available for at-sea recovery or dispersal of pollution; and if he will list the vessels. [35743]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 20 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  Information from the EC Community Information System 1994 is in the table attached. The EC System does not distinguish between vessels which are purpose-built and solely dedicated for at-sea recovery or dispersal of pollution, and those vessels which are equipped and available for such duties but which may have other roles.

  Country

  Vessels available for at-sea recovery or dispersal of pollution

  Belguim

  Belgica, CMT x 3 Ter Streep

  Denmark

  Preserver, Preventer, Promoter, Protector, Gunnar Seidenfaden, Gunner Thorson, Marie Miljoe, Mette Miljoe

  France

  Citerna

  Germany

  Bottsand, Eversand, Foline, Jansand, Kiel, Kopersand, Marcus, Marline, Mellum, Mposs, Norderhever, Nordsee, Oland, OS01, OS02, OSKI, Scharhorn, Thor, Transporter, Westensee

  Greece

  Argo, LS100, Observer

  82

  Country

  Vessels available for at-sea recovery or dispersal of pollution

  Italy

  Cassiopea x 4, Castor, Cavallino, Ecol Spezia x 2, Giovani M, Grecale Primo, Maestrale, Maria Sole, Montoforte x 6, Nichessa x 16, Priamar, Santa Barbara x 6, Santa Ciro, Scavenger, Spazzamare Airone, Spazzamare Impaemare

  Netherlands

  Barracuda, Cornelia, Frans Naerebout, Ham 310, Hein, Lesse, Mitra, Oilcrab, Orca, Remedie, Rijndelta, Roteb 6, Rotterdam, Sedia, Smal Agt, Terschelling, Zirfaea, Dg Harmsen, Dullaert, Hedinzee, Holland, Roteb 12, Roteb 9

  Portugal

  CDM 423 Barge, Golfinho Do Sado, LDM 421' Barge, Mar Azul, Mar Limpo, Rio Limpo, Tarambola, Tetis

  Spain

  Abasco Limpiamar I, Abasco Limpiamar II, Abasco Limpiamar III, Abasco Limpiamar IV, Alonso De Chaves, Cartagonova, Catalunya, Explorador, Golfo De Vizcava, Hispania, L'Albufera, Marinero, Punta Mayor, Punta Salinas, Punta Service, Remolcanosa Cinco, Ria De Vigo

  United Kingdom

  Oil Recovery: Forth Explorer, Seaspring Oil Dispersal: The following 25 vessels are fitted with marine pollution control unit dispersal systems; Albeit Bightwell, Clandeboye, Deben, Deft, Dextrous, Edengarth, Eskgarth, Fingal, Holmsider, Lady Debbie, Lady Moira, Margam, Norna, Northsider, Oakgarth, Oxcar, Pharos, St. Gluvius, St. Piran, Sulisker, Sun Essex, Sun Kent, Trimley, Westra

  Seat Belts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those areas of EC legislation that prevent the British Government introducing the compulsory fitting of seat belts aboard existing coaches and buses. [36684]

  Mr. Norris
  The Commission has competence to regulate in the area of vehicle standards and, in the case of seat belts in buses and coaches, has introduced standards covering both the seating positions which should be provided with belts and the standards the installations should meet. These requirements are contained in directives 76/115/EEC and 77/541/EEC, both as amended, which cover anchorages and seat belts respectively. Member states may not impose construction standards which go beyond the provisions of those directives.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his proposed scheme for the control of noise of night flights at London's airports incorporates(a) the period of 2300 hours to 0700 hours currently defined as "the night period" and (b) the period of 2330 hours to 0600 hours currently defined as "the night quota period". [36703]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. The hours of "the night period" and "the night quota period" were confirmed in my announcement on 16 August 1995 stating that the night
  83
  flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted from winter 1995–96 to end of summer 1998 would remain as previously announced on 6 May 1994.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account his proposed scheme for the control of aircraft noise at night in and around London's airports takes of the proposed reductions in the length of the night quota period; and if he will make a statement. [36704]

  Mr. Norris
  The current hours of night quota period were announced on 6 May 1994 and confirmed by my announcement of 16 August 1995. Both the current movements limits and noise quotas apply to the 2330 to 0600 period but there are also restrictions on the noisiest types of aircraft from 2300 to 2330 and from 0600 to 0700. There are also fewer types of aircraft exempt from the current night restrictions than under the 1988–93 restrictions.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by airline company the number of noise limitation breaches committed over the last 12 months at Heathrow airport. [36711]

  Mr. Norris
  Penalties for infringements of the noise limits set by my right hon. Friend are imposed by Heathrow airport Ltd. The airport company provides information on the infringements and on the fines collected to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee. I have asked the company to send the reports for the last 12 months to the hon. Lady.

  Accident and Disaster Reports (Implementation of Recommendations)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which recommendations from the report of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster have not yet been implemented; for what reasons; and what is the target implementation date. [36660]

  Mr. Norris
  All the recommendations of the court of inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise have been taken forward. After consultation and consideration, one recommendation was not supported at the time and some others were not developed further in the light of subsequent technical appraisal, or were taken forward in ways different to those recommended by the inquiry for reasons of technical practicality or because of international developments.

  Two long-term recommendations of the court of inquiry were not implemented. These were the recommendation that roll-on roll-off passenger ferries should have dedicated pumps capable of stripping at a rate of at least 600 tonnes an hour and that there should be drain valves which must be controlled remotely and operable from the bridge.

  Both recommendations were considered, but after consultation were felt to be unnecessary because, in practice, existing drainage arrangements could already cope with amounts of water approaching these levels. Moreover, pumps of the size recommended could not cope with the significantly larger volume of water involved in catastrophic flooding as occurred on the Herald of Free Enterprise and, indeed, on the Estonia. There may also be difficulties in guaranteeing power
  84
  supplies in situations of catastrophic flooding. Automatic drain valves are now fitted as a matter of course, so there is no need for their remote control.

  Two long-term recommendations were implemented in alternative ways. These were the recommendations that the freeboard from the margin line to the vehicle deck should be increased to a minimum of perhaps 1 m, and that attention should be given to recommendations were addressed through an extensive research programme and the subsequent adoption of the SOLAS 90 survivability standard for existing ships.

  The Government believe that there are no recommendations left to be implemented. All have been considered and action taken where appropriate.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the Manchester airport disaster in 1986 that have not been implemented, the reasons why and the target date for implementation. [36667]

  Mr. Norris
  The air accidents investigation branch made 31 safety recommendations in the report into the Manchester airport accident. All of the recommendations were addressed to the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA reports that only recommendation 4.31, which concerns fire hardening of the aircraft hull, has yet to be brought to conclusion. The research in this area is being carried out jointly by the joint aviation authorities and the US federal aviation administration. It is not possible to predict when action on this recommendation will be complete. The status of AAIB recommendations made to the CAA is contained in "Civil Aviation Publication 652: Progress Report 1995".

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the Kegworth aircrash that have not been implemented, the reasons why and the target date for implementation. [36666]

  Mr. Norris
  The air accidents investigation branch made 31 safety recommendations in the report into the Kegworth aircrash, all of which were addressed to the Civil Aviation Authority. Recommendation 4.09, to fit indicator warning devices alerting pilots of maximum engine vibration levels, was initially accepted but later rejected following extensive consideration. The CAA reports that only recommendations 4.23 and 4.31 have yet to be brought to conclusion. These relate to passenger seating and overhead storage lockers. Both need to be agreed at an international level before action can be taken. The CAA expects agreement to be reached on these issues by the end of 1995. The status of AAIB recommendations made to the CAA is contained in "Civil Aviation Publication 652: Progress Report 1995".

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the Lockerbie bombing that have not yet been implemented, the reasons why and the target implementation date. [36662]
  85
  Mr. Norris
  Two relevant reports have been published in the UK into the Lockerbie disaster. These follow the investigation by the air accidents investigation branch and the fatal accident inquiry.

  The AAIB made five safety recommendations in its report on the disaster: four related to the CAA and one to my Department. All of these recommendations have been implemented and related research projects are underway.

  The sheriff principal made 20 findings in his report on the FAI. Of these, one related to my Department and criticised airline baggage reconciliation procedures. New legal requirements were placed on airlines last year to account for, and to authorise, the carriage of all hold baggage.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the Donaldson report that have not yet been implemented, the reasons why and the target date for implementation. [36664]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed in the Library of the House a note showing the current position on each of the recommendations of the Donaldson report.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the Marchioness disaster that have not yet been implemented, the reasons why and the target implementation date. [36661]

  Mr. Norris
  All the recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch's report into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle have been implemented.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the King's Cross fire that have not yet been implemented, the reasons why and the target date for implementation. [36665]

  Mr. Norris
  Of the 127 Fennell recommendations aimed at London Transport/London Underground, 112 have been implemented in full. Work is in hand on the remainder, which are of a more long-term nature. Progress is regularly monitored by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. The expected dates of implementation, where appropriate, are shown in the following table.

  Fennel recommendation number

  Recommendation

  Completion date

  2

  Escalator replacement programme

  Ongoing

  6

  Non-inflammable escalator lubricant

  Ongoing

  8

  Line Controller's facilities

  By 2001

  16

  Research on air movement

  Ongoing

  36

  Replacement of wooden treads on escalators

  By 2003–2004

  49

  Station ventilation systems

  By December 1995

  52

  Elimination of VIR cable on trains

  By March 1998

  69

  Hazardous materials on rolling stock

  By 2001

  86

  Fennel recommendation number

  Recommendation

  Completion date

  74

  Occupiers of premises complying with code of practice

  Ongoing

  93

  Rule Book

  By December 1996

  114

  Improvement to CCTV

  Ongoing

  115

  Public payphones

  By December 1995

  124

  Secondary means of escape

  Ongoing

  125

  Control of smoke and ventilation

  Ongoing

  142

  Subway link at Kings Cross

  Under consideration in light of CTRL proposals.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations from the report of the Clapham rail disaster that have not yet been implemented, the reasons why and the target implementation date. [36663]

  Mr. Watts
  Sir Anthony Hidden's report into the Clapham accident made 93 recommendations, 78 of which related to British Rail and the British Transport Police. Action has been taken on all the recommendations addressed to BR and the BTP. Many of the recommendations are on-going, and BR and Railtrack are monitoring compliance. The position on outstanding recommendations is as follows.

  Recommendation 13 related to BR's departmental instructions. BR took immediate steps to ensure understanding of departmental instructions. This did not extend to requiring all staff subject to annual appraisal to sign a statement every two years to the effect that such instructions had been read, because alternative systems for briefing staff on the issue and amendment of departmental instructions were put in place.

  Recommendation 23, that the annual appraisal system, albeit in a simplified form, should be extended to senior technician level was included in restructuring proposals for signalling and telecommunications staff, but was not agreed by trade unions. However, the recommendation has been overtaken by a competence-based approach, as required by the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994.

  Recommendation 27 on the non-statutory reporting of wrong side failures of signalling was implemented on 1 January 1990. Legislation making such reporting a statutory requirement will become effective in April 1996, when revised industry-wide incident reporting requirements are planned to come into effect—recommendation 28.

  As regards on-train data recorders—recommendation 40—this equipment is specified for new rolling stock.

  The major part of the programme to install the national radio network system of communication between driver and the signal man—recommendation 43—was completed by the target date of 1992. Complete fitment of this system is expected by early 1996. A review of this programme led to a decision by BR to install the cab secure radio system in south-east England, which is more appropriate to driver-only operated routes. This system

  87
  will be completed by 1997. Technical difficulties and higher priority safety projects have extended completion of this programme beyond BR's original target date of 1995.

  Recommendation 46 related to automatic train protection. On 30 March, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) endorsed the view of the Health and Safety Commission that, following extensive work by BR and Railtrack, ATP measures may be justified in parts of the rail network but that the fitment of ATP as developed by BR could not be justified throughout the network. A programme of alternative train protection measures is being developed. Railtrack and BR continue to examine the implementation of these measures.

  Recommendation 55 concerned the structural integrity of rolling stock. BR completed its programme of research—recommendation 54—by the target date of April 1991. BR then discussed this with the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. HSC endorsed BR's conclusion that very few of those vehicles in classes 411, 413, 415, and 416 were projected to remain in service for eight years or over and that it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out structural changes to these or to the remainder of mark I vehicles.

  Cowden Rail Accident
  Mr Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State when he received, and when he expects to publish, the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate into the Cowden rail accident. [37266]

  Mr. Watts
  Part I of the inspector's report was published on 9 June by the Health and Safety Executive, and copies were placed in the House of Commons Library. The first report explains how the accident happened and addresses the adequacy of the safety mechanisms and procedures on the line. It was called for in advance of the coroner's inquest in order to avoid delaying publication of the conclusions that were not dependent on the outcome of the inquest. The report concluded that the line was adequately and safely signalled and that the signalling equipment was working as it should be.

  Part II of the report will address who was driving the train at the time of the accident, taking into account the additional forensic evidence given at the recent inquest. The inspector's final report will be published by the HSE as soon as possible.

  Departmental Role
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced recently within his Department on the future role of his Department and its perception in Whitehall. [36673]

  Sir George Young
  The Department has not produced a report on its future role and its perception in Whitehall.

  River Thames (Injuries and Fatalities)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the number of serious injuries and fatalities sustained on the River Thames. [36683]
  88
  Mr. Norris
  Figures for the central area of the Thames, between Staines and Dartford creek are as follows1

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Bodies recovered

  43

  44

  51

  46

  43

  Accidents where ambulance called

  14

  17

  11

  13

  12

  Persons rescued from the river

  568

  855

  119

  120

  175

  Attempted suicides

  44

  60

  64

  102

  111

  1 Figures provided by Thames division, Metropolitan police.

  Vessel Inspections
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, by defect found, the number of vessels found to have a defect during the last 12 months at inspections undertaken by the Marine Safety Agency. [36708]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. The hon. Member has already received a reply from the chief executive and I attach a copy.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley
  Thank you for your letter of 1 August requesting details of inspections carried out on ro-ro passenger ferries on Dover and on merchant ships in the UK in general.
  With regard to your first query, relating to inspections carried out on ro-ro passenger ferries in Dover, I would refer you to the answer given by Mr Norris to PQ 1479 and 1467, which can be found in Hansard volume 258 columns 614 to 615.
  Moving on to your second query, relating to inspections carried out by the Marine Safety Agency throughout the country over the last 12 months, a list showing the result of all such inspections by deficiency cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. However, the United Kingdom carries out its port state control inspections in co-operation with members of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU). The results of each inspection carried out in the MOU are recorded on a central database and statistical information is published annually by the Secretariat of the Paris MOU. The number of ships, by deficiency, inspected in the region covered by the Paris MOU can be found in The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control Annual Report 1994, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons' library.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the average amount of overtime worked by air traffic controllers and the number of staff in post. [36712]

  Mr. Norris
  The vast majority of the United Kingdom's air traffic controllers are employed by the Civil Aviation Authority. Data for other air traffic controllers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  No overtime has been worked by the CAA's air traffic controllers in the last five years.

  The following figures give the number of air traffic controllers employed by the CAA since 1992.

  1992: 1,298

  1993: 1,297

  1994: 1,380

  1995: 1,428

  89
  The figures requested for 1991 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has as to the contribution of the worst(a) 10 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. of vehicles to noxious and harmful vehicle emissions. [36640]

  Mr. Norris
  Vehicle emissions are strongly influenced by operating conditions and driver behaviour. However, in an analysis of exhaust emission measurements, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on a sample of 200 cars selected to be typical of the in-service fleet, 10 per cent. were found to contribute 22 per cent. of total carbon monoxide and 27 per cent. of total hydrocarbon emissions under urban driving conditions; similarly, 20 per cent. of cars tested contributed 39 per cent. of CO and 40 per cent. of HC emissions.

  Large Vehicle Brake Efficiency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it a requirement that all heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles be driven on a rolling road test installation immediately after work is done on brakes. [36741]

  Mr. Norris
  Heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle brake efficiency is checked on a rolling road as part of the annual roadworthiness test.

  Operators are encouraged through the guide to maintaining roadworthiness to have access to appropriate brake testing equipment as part of their routine safety inspections. I have no plans to make this a legal requirement.

  Permitted Vehicle Sizes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the(a) longest and (b) largest vehicle allowed to travel on the roads in the United Kingdom. [36737]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations specify a maximum permitted length of 18.35 m for drawbar vehicle combinations and a maximum permitted gross vehicle weight of 44 tonnes for both articulated and drawbar vehicle combinations engaged in combined transport.

  Vehicles exceeding these weights and dimensions can operate under provisions contained within the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979. However, for vehicles carrying very large and heavy abnormal indivisible loads the Department authorises each movement by issuing an individual special order to the haulier. Such orders are made under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future for heavy vehicles using roads in the United Kingdom indicating suggested weight and size. [36738]

  Mr. Norris
  The present general weight limit in the UK for the largest lorries is 38 tonnes, with 44 tonnes allowed for certain vehicles used for combined road/rail transport. We will be reviewing the effectiveness of the 90
  latter at the end of the year. From 1 January 1999, the UK will have to accept the European Union weight limit of 40 tonnes for international traffic.

  European Union Transport Ministers recently agreed, subject to approval by the European Parliament, to amend the directive on vehicle weights and dimensions so that national rules on dimensions of goods vehicles will be harmonised. This will result in an increase in (i) the maximum length of drawbar-trailer combinations from 18.35 m to 18.75 m and (ii) the maximum width of non-insulated vehicles to 2.55 m.

  In the case of buses, there is no harmonisation of dimensions for vehicles used on national journeys. The maximum length of non-articulated buses remains at 12 with 18 m for articulated vehicles. Some member states allow longer non-articulated buses and we will keep our national dimensions under review.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions apply to 44 tonne vehicles using the roads in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  Vehicles operating between 38 tonnes and 44 tonnes may do so only when taking a container or swap-body to or from a rail terminal on the road leg of a combined road/rail journey. These vehicles must have six axles and road-friendly suspensions, and must carry documentary evidence to show either that the loading unit had travelled by rail terminal or that it was destined to do so.

  Bus Companies (Complaints)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many cases the traffic commissioner has taken action since 1986 as a result of complaint against bus companies failing to fulfil their advertised timetables; which companies have been involved; in what areas of the country; and what level of fines has been charged. [36764]

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

  Air Safety Regulatory Authority
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions are currently being held within the joint aviation authority about the establishment of a single regulatory authority for air safety across the joint aviation authority countries; what is the status of the draft convention adopted by the joint aviation authority hoard in March concerning a single regulatory authority; what form of consultation will take place on any moves to establish a new body to regulate aviation safety; what steps he will take to ensure accountability and enforcement with steps he will take to ensure accountability and enforcement within any new structure; and if he will make a statement. [36892]

  Mr. Norris
  No discussions are being held with the joint aviation authorities about the establishment of a single regulatory authority. We are considering a draft convention which would enable national aviation authorities of JAA member states to act through the JAA as ade facto single aviation authority, but expressly does not establish such an authority on a de jure basis. The Civil Aviation Authority would remain the aviation safety

  91
  regulator in the UK. The JAA is, and will continue to be, accountable through the JAA board, on which the UK is represented.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36824]

  Mr. Watts
  Members of the public have the same rights to make complaints to the relevant ombudsman about alleged maladministration in relation to a project funded through the private finance initiative as they would if the project had been publicly financed.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public interest immunity certificates his Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36687]

  Sir George Young
  I am unable to provide details for 1987–89. Central records were not kept and information before 1989 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since that date, the position is as follows. As is already a matter of public record, in 1990 the then Secretary of Sate signed four certificates in connection with the fatal accident inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster but, in the event, none was produced at the inquiry. It is also a matter of public record that in 1992, the then Secretary of State signed two certificates relating to the Lockerbie disaster concerning the taking of evidence for proceedings in the United States. In the event, the taking of that evidence did not proceed and the certificates were not produced in that regard.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the risks to the health and safety of driving test examiners while undertaking driving tests. [37115]

  Mr. Norris
  An assessment of the risks to health and safety of driving test examiners while undertaking driving tests was prepared in early 1994 and circulated to all driving examiners on 17 May 1995. This assessment is introduced to all new driving examiners at a very early stage in their training and is included in a Driving Standards Agency health and safety manual held at every DSA location.

  An assessment of risks resulted in the issue of a DSA policy for assaults to all DSA staff on 10 February 1995. This is introduced to trainees as above, and is held in DSA health and safety manuals.

  An assessment of the risks to motorcycle driving examiners resulting from the wearing of radio equipment has recently been completed.

  Railway Safety Centre, Derby
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his proposed sale of the railway safety centre of the British Railways Board at Derby, who 92
  will determine the minimum price at which it will be sold; on what criteria such a decision will be reached; and on what basis a privatised unit will charge when asked for information, advice, or services, (a) urgently and (b) otherwise, by those responsible for (i) operations, (ii) other parts of the national railtrack, train services and stations and (iii) other activity relevant to the safety of staff or public. [37356]

  Mr. Watts
  BR is selling quality and safety services by means of competitive tender and in pursuance of the Secretary of State's objectives set out in section 113 of the Railways Act 1993. Charging arrangements after sale completion will, as now, be a commercial matter for the business and its customers.

  Atlantic Conveyor (Hull Cracks)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list each occasion that his Department's surveyors have visited the former Cunard Line vessel Atlantic Conveyor to investigate the appearance of cracks in her hull; what course of action was ordered to be taken; and what was recorded as being the cause of such cracks; [36670]

  (2) if he will list each occasion that a Lloyd's surveyor has visited the former Cunard Line vessel Atlantic Conveyor to investigate the appearance of cracks in her hull and to oversee or examine any repairs. [36668]

  (3) on how many occasions the former Cunard Line vessel Atlantic Conveyor has had to have cracks in her hull welded. [36669]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your three Questions about ATLANTIC CONVEYOR.
  During the period in which ATLANTIC CONVEYOR was registered in the United Kingdom, surveyors from Lloyd's Register made 42 visits, beginning in 1985, in connection with the investigation of cracks in the hull structure. The cracks were repaired immediately either by welding or part renewal of the structure, or conditions of class were imposed on the vessel until permanent repairs could be effected within a defined period. The survey of the hull structure is a matter in which classification societies may act under delegated powers and surveyors from the Department of Transport have not visited ATLANTIC CONVEYOR to investigate the appearance of cracks.
  It is not unusual for some vessels to suffer fracturing of this nature from time to time, particularly if they are exposed to heavy weather, as this vessel has been in North Atlantic trade. Provided that proper maintenance and repairs are carried out by the owners, and repairs to the ship are surveyed by the classification society in accordance with classification procedures, the safety of the vessel is not compromised. At the time of ATLANTIC CONVEYOR's transfer to the Bahamian flag in July 1995, there are no extant conditions of class relating to cracks and I understand there are none at present.

  Newbury Bypass
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to public funds of the construction of the A34 Newbury bypass. [36674]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  93
  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 16 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the cost of constructing the A34 Newbury Bypass.
  The current estimate for the cost of the works and the land is £70 million.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the public consultation he has undertaken in respect of the Newbury bypass. [36676]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 16 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Road, Mr. John Watts has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the public consultation undertaken in respect of the Newbury Bypass.
  The public were consulted about route options in 1982; as well as the public we also sought the views of statutory bodies and other interested parties. Exhibitions were held at the same time.
  Following consideration of the comments received at Public Consultation, the preferred route for the bypass was announced in June 1984.
  In 1988, following the publication of draft Orders, a Public Inquiry was held by an independent Inspector to enable objections to the published line to be fully aired.
  In 1990, the Inspector's Report was published along with the decision letter. This followed detailed consideration not only of the report, but of representations received following the public Inquiry and revised National Road Traffic Forecasts. The decision letter also announced modifications to some of the draft Orders, which required further consultation with people likely to be affected by the proposed changes.

  Road Building (Recycled Material)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to encourage the use of recycled materials in road building. [37044]

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

  Letter for Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Minister of Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning action being taken to encourage use of recycled materials in road building.
  Wherever practical, the Highways Agency seeks to provide the opportunity in trunk road contracts for including recycled materials. There is already considerable scope for recycling and extension of this is being investigated as part of the Agency's research programme. A recent change has increased the permitted proportion of many reclaimed bituminous materials from 10 to 30 per cent. In June, the Agency published new advice on the conservation and use of reclaimed materials in road construction and maintenance which highlights the scope for reuse and recycling and is aimed at encouraging a greater awareness of the opportunities available.
  94

  Roadworks Planning
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of road surface renewal or repair contracts if highway authorities are empowered to include in such contracts provision in respect of minimum potential vehicle flow at given periods in the day and week. [37384]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 16 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what is the policy in respect of road surface renewal or repair contracts if highway authorities are empowered to include in such contracts provision in respect of minimum potential vehicle flow at given periods in the day and week.
  Roadworks planning is a matter for the highway authority. On local roads this will be the local authority, but on trunk roads including motorways the Highways Agency manages works in accordance with requirements set out in our Business Plan.
  The aim is to minimise economic costs through careful planning and specification of lane availability needs.
  Costs minimised through an economic evaluation of maintenance schemes, taking account of works cost and the increased costs to road users and others from the presence of the works. These increased costs are calculated by a computer program which takes into account the extra costs incurred due to delays, vehicle running costs, and accidents. The cost is different for each site and is dependent, amongst other things, on the type of road, traffic flows, percentage of heavy goods vehicles in the flow, the length of the works, and the number and configuration of lanes closed off.
  In order to further reduce traffic disruption and delay at roadworks more schemes are being let using the Lane Rental form of contract. The contractor is given the incentive to expedite the works by earning a bonus for early completion, but incurring a charge for late completion.
  Work is increasingly carried out at night, starting after the evening peak traffic flow has subsided, and finishing prior to the build-up the following morning. The closures take place when traffic volumes are low, and all lanes are available to traffic during the day.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consideration he has given to the electrification of the railway between Acton main line station and Acton Wells junction in order to give future direct access for fast electrified train services from Heathrow airport stations on the North London line, and the east and west coast main lines; [37264]

  (2) what is the current estimated completion date for the re-electrification of the railway between Kew Bridge and Willesden Junction high level; and if he will now request Railtrack and the relevant railway operator companies to initiate, in part or in whole, a frequent electrified train service from North Woolwich to South London via Willesden and Clapham Junction; [37261]

  (3) what consideration he has given to the electrification of the railway between South Acton at Kew Junctions and the Kew Bridge chord in order to give direct access from the south-western electrified networks to the North London line, the east and west coast main lines, and an alternative route for channel tunnel passenger stock to and from its North Pole depot and Waterloo International; [37263]
  95
  (4) what considerations he has given to electrification of railway between Action Wells Junction and Cricklewood in order to give direct access for electric trains from the Midland main line to electrified route to the Channel tunnel and the electrified lines of the former Southern Railways. [37262]

  Mr. Watts
  Work is currently under way on the North London line to prepare for the introduction of EPS/Eurostar services beyond London during 1996. This is being accomplished, in part, by the introduction of modern AC electrification between Acton Central and Camden Road which should be accomplished by spring 1996.

  Significant investment is taking place on this route which will improve delivery of existing train services as well as allow international services to be established beyond London.

  The changes will allow Railtrack and the train operating companies to explore other opportunities for the introduction of services to meet markets they may identify. It will be up to them to prepare investment and service changes as they see fit.

  Trains (Carriage of Cycles)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate studies, as part of his policy to minimise the increase in the person miles travelled in motor cars, into the means whereby the effects of the disadvantageous actions taken by British Railways in respect of passenger-accompanied pedal cycles, taken subsequent to the announcement made by it and the Cyclist Touring Club be eliminated, or minimised. [37328]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The carriage of cycles on trains is an operational matter for train operators, balancing cyclists' needs with those of ordinary passengers.

  The franchising director intends to include a requirement in each franchise agreement that franchise operators shall, so far as reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on their rolling stock, ensure that facilities are made available for bicycles on trains at a reasonable, if any, charge to passengers.

  The Cyclists' Public Affairs Group, with the assistance of the Department has produced a guidance document for rail operators "Bikes and Trains—Opportunities for the new operators"—foreword by John Watts) explaining how they can make their services more attractive to cyclists. The document includes advice on the carriage of cycle on trains and the provision of cycle facilities at stations.

  Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what criteria or job description he published with his advertisement for the new chair of the rail passengers advisory committee; and what consultation he had and what reports he had received relating to the work of the committee, and the position of its chairperson, from the Select Committee on Transport; [37404]
  96
  (2) how many applications, suggestions, or recommendation he received in respect of persons to be appointed chair of the rail passengers advisory committee; how many he shortlisted; and if he will make a statement concerning his method of filling this further vacancy. [37273]

  Mr. Watts
  Advertisements for the post of chairman of the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee made clear to applicants the criteria needed for the post. An example of the advertisements has been placed in the House Library.

  Advertisements for the post were published in March, eliciting 147 applications, and 17 candidates were shortlisted for initial interview. Further advertisements were placed in September to broaden the field of candidates. An additional 235 applications have been received and are under consideration.

  The Select Committee on Transport has not reported on the work or chairmanship of the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee.

  Railtrack (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirement is made on Railtrack to contract out its functions; what is the number of such arrangements extant and how many of these were made when its activities were the responsibility of the British Railways Board; and if he will list those functions newly contracted out since its creation which are related to operational safety. [37359]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the objectives set by the Government for the Railtrack board for 1995–96, the company is expected to procure services from the private sector where appropriate.

  Full data on the number of functions contracted out and the number of these made when Railtrack's activities were the responsibility of the British Railways Board are not held centrally, but in 1994–95, Railtrack contracted out approximately £1.8 billion of work.

  Almost all of Railtrack's functions, including those newly contracted out since Railtrack's creation, relate in some way to operational safety, and are subject to the rigorous safety regime which applies to all Railtrack's activities.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdort, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [37001]
  97
  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is set out in the accompanying table. The value of each contract, and any additional work undertaken, has not been revealed on the grounds that this information is commercially confidential.

  Year

  Contractor

  Nature of Contract

  1990

  Siemens

  Maintenance of the Manchester Box

  1991

  Bis

  Hardware and software support for Management Information System

  1992

  Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segati

  Maintenance and support of file servers and networking system

  ICL

  Enabling agreement for supply of network infrastructure products and services

  Siemens

  Maintenance of NMCS North East region

  Siemens

  Supply of national motorway communication system 2 equipment

  Siemens

  Maintenance of NMCS Eastern and Greater London Region

  1993

  Digital Equipment

  Installation and management of Computing facility

  EDS

  The provision of on-site IT services/management (including supply, advice, support and development) to the Department and several of its Agencies

  Siemens

  Maintenance of SPLC software

  1994

  Digital Equipment

  Provision of a national street works register

  EDS

  Development of new Information systems strategy

  Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segati

  Technical support contract for new information systems strategy

  Logica

  Supply and installation of NMCS central logging facility

  Sema Group

  A study of new and combined technologies and optical technique in variable message signs

  Siemens

  M25 trials of message sign subsystems

  Siemens

  Software maintenance of message sign subsystems

  Siemens

  Supply and installation of mimic driver system

  Siemens

  Supply of NMCS2 Equipment (21 bit transponders, signal drivers, PSU's, site data entry terminals

  Siemens

  Supply, installation and commissioning of motorway signals

  Siemens

  Upgrade NMCS2 to semi-cobs status at Godstone and Manchester control offices

  1995

  Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segati

  IT system strategy study

  Siemens

  Installation commissioning of NMCS2 Outstation Equipment

  West Coast Main Line (Modernisation)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding delays in modernisation of the west coast main line. [37114]
  98
  Mr. Watts
  The modernisation is progressing well and the evaluation of tenders for developing the train control system will begin shortly with a contract to be let early next year. Work is also at an advanced stage on the strategy for the main implementation contract and this will be let in 1996.

  Coastguard Staff and Operations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the ratio of managers to regular staff at each coastguard station; [36694]

  (2) if he will list the required number of staff in a coastguards operations room and the level of training required for the staff; [36698]

  (3) how many coastguard stations including auxiliary and part-time stations closed in each of the last five years; [36672]

  (4) if there is a limit on the amount of overtime a coastguard watch officer can undertake; [36696]

  (5) how many MRII/SCS complexes are equipped with sleeping accommodation, restrooms and comprehensively equipped galleys; and what assessment he has made as to whether the equipment provided is enough to sustain a shift for a 24-hour period of duty; [36699]

  (6) if he will list the average amount of overtime a coastguard watch officer did per week for each of the last five years. [36697]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard Agency. The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 28 September 1995:
  Thank you for your letter of 23 August requesting information on various aspects of Coastguard Operations.
  1. The number of managers to regular watch keeping staff (Watch Officers and Senior Watch Officers) at each Coastguard Rescue Centre is as follows:

  Rescue Centre

  Senior Watch Officers and Watch Officers

  Regional or District Management Team

  Shetland

  12

  3

  Pentland

  12

  3

  Aberdeen

  19

  5

  Forth

  12

  3

  Tyne Tees

  13

  3

  Humber

  14

  3

  Yarmouth

  15

  5

  Thames

  13

  3

  Dover

  25

  5

  Solent

  18

  3

  Portland

  14

  3

  Brixham

  14

  3

  Falmouth

  16

  6

  Swansea

  18

  5

  Milford Haven

  13

  3

  Holyhead

  12

  3

  Liverpool

  14

  3

  Clyde

  14

  5

  Oban

  12

  3

  Stornoway

  12

  3

  Belfast

  13

  3

  99
  District and Regional Management Teams (DMT/RMT) comprising Station Officers, District Controllers, Regional and Deputy Regional Controllers as well as Coastguard Officers (Senior Watch Officers and Watch Officers) are all "regular staff'; i.e., uniformed, professional Coastguards. DMT and RMT members have an active Operations Room role in major emergencies and at any time if required.

  The above figures do not include the 92 regular Sector Officers, nor the Auxiliary Coastguards who keep watch in rescue centres.

  2. The required number of staff in operations rooms are as follows:

  Senior Watch Officer

  Watch Officers

  In each MRCC except Dover

  1

  3

  In each MRSC

  1

  2

  Dover

  11+1

  3

  1 At MRCC Dover, each watch is headed by a Station Officer, in addition to the Senior Watch Officer.

  All New Entrant Coastguards undertake an initial training lasting approximately one year. After a short familiarisation period (usually six to eight weeks) at their parent station, they undertake six weeks intensive training at the Training Centre. They then return to their parent station for about nine months, during which time, under the guidance of the District Management Team, they work through a taskbook compiled by the Training Centre. They return to the Training Centre for a two week revision and examination period at the end of the year. Subject to successful completion of the taskbook, the exams, an interview board and management reports, they are appointed Coastguard Watch Officers.

  About two years later they could be ready to take Senior Watch Officer and Sector Officer Qualifying Courses. Passing the examinations on these courses, together with management reports indicating their fitness, qualifies them for selection to these posts.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants receive 80 hours initial training locally culminating in examinations. They receive 20 hours refresher training per annum thereafter.

  3. No rescue centres have closed in the last five years. The following sector bases and lookouts have closed in the last five years:

  1991:

  Three

  (Seaton Sluice, Tyne Tees District)

  (Maryport and Aberdon lookouts)

  1992:

  Five

  (Sizewell and Orford, Thames District)

  (Bass Point, Portland Bill and Whitehaven lookouts)

  1993:

  One

  (Polrvan lookout)

  1994:

  Six

  (Sea Palling, Yarmouth District)

  (Ives, Gwennap Head, Phyl, Cemaes and Aberdovey lookouts)

  1995:

  Three

  (Prawle, Peveril Point, Fleetwood lookouts)

  The above does not include the relocation of rescue centres or sector bases in new buildings or the amalgamation of sector bases (there have been two of these).

  4. There is no specific limit on overtime other than that applied by the Regional and District Controllers to ensure that individual performance is not compromised.

  5. There have been no occasions when a Coastguard station has been under the control of an unqualified Watch Officer. Staff are selected for the post of Senior Watch Officer (SWO) and allocated to rescue centres one per watch. In their absence they are either replaced by another SWO or a deputising Watch Officer. A deputising Watch Officer is a Watch Officer who is qualified by his or her initial establishment as Coastguard Officer having successfully completed the new entrants' process and who has been approved as deputy by the Regional Management. In order to be selected as SWO on a permanent basis Watch Officers are required to complete a SWO (Qualifier) course run by the Coastguard Training Centre. It is not a requirement that a deputy should have passed this course.
  100
  6. All rescue centres are equipped with rest rooms and comprehensively equipped kitchens. There is no requirement for officers to sustain a 24 hour shift or to need sleeping accommodation.

  7. The table below shows the average amounts of overtime (in hours per week) for each Region in each of the last five years. The averages include all regular watchkeeping staff, ie Senior Watch Officers as well as Watch Officers.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  North and East Scotland

  5.4

  5.3

  5.5

  4.2

  6.8

  Eastern

  4.4

  4.6

  3.9

  3.5

  3.4

  South Eastern

  2.6

  2.8

  2.4

  1.5

  1.9

  South Western

  5.7

  5.8

  4.9

  4.4

  5.1

  Western

  4.5

  4.6

  4.0

  3.8

  3.9

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland

  8.7

  7.4

  6.7

  3.8

  3.6

  8. The basic watch level at a rescue centre is the watch level required to meet the normal day-to-day operational commitments at that centre.

  Road Projects, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those projects in the road programme in Greater London approved in principle, which add no route mileage to the road system but are designed principally to improve traffic flow or safety on existing routes indicating for each its cost, current state of planning and statutory processes, and likely commencement and completion dates; [37372]

  (2) if he will list the constraints on increasing the traffic lanes on the Iron bridge spanning the River Lea at Canning Town from six lanes to eight; [37272]

  (3) what is the current number of traffic lanes on trunk roads crossing the River Lea at or adjacent to Canning Town; what is their total maximum predicted traffic flow in each direction; what plans he has to increase the number of such lanes; and what is the increase in traffic flow estimated to result. [37271]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 16 October 1995
  I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, in which you sought information about the A13 Ironbridge to Canning Town Improvement scheme and other schemes in Greater London.
  I wrote to you on 17 October 1994, as did Mr. Norris on 3 March 1995, about the constraints on the use of the existing Iron Bridge. The overriding constraint is that the existing bridge is not wide enough to carry four lanes in each direction and there is no satisfactory way of modifying the structure to do so. There is nothing that I can usefully add.
  I enclose at Appendix A a list of schemes which are in the trunk road programme for Greater London. It shows their cost (as quoted in last year's Review of Trunk Roads in England) and the last stage reached in their preparation. Further progress will depend on the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures and the continuing availability of funds. All of the schemes arc designed to improve existing routes rather than to extend the trunk road network.
  There are currently three trunk road traffic lanes crossing the River Lea in each direction at or near Canning Town. Only two

  101
  lanes in each direction cater for through traffic: the others serve the slip roads to and from the Canning Town Roundabout. Maximum predicted traffic flows are governed by the capacity of adjacent junctions, link roads and traffic signal installations. The maximum predicted traffic flows quoted at the recent public inquiry for the existing trunk road were as follows:

  Westbound: 2,200 vehicles per hour through traffic with an additional 1,000 vehicles joining from the slip road.

  Eastbound: 4,400 vehicles per hour. (This figure includes about 900 vehicles which peel off at the slip road.)

  The improvement scheme would provide three lanes in each direction for through traffic and two lanes in each direction for slip roads, but one of the latter would be a dedicated bus lane. There would also be a cycle lane on the slip roads.
  At the inquiry, the maximum predicted flows of through traffic on the improved trunk road were quoted as follows:

  Westbound: 4,800 vehicles per hour.

  Eastbound: 4,800 vehicles per hour.

  (There would be no junction constraints in the new configuration.)
  In addition up to 700 vehicles per hour would use each of the slip roads, the peak being in the morning.

  Appendix A

  Order of Total Scheme Cost £ million, excluding VAT

  A40 Gypsy Corner Improvement (LB Hounslow); awaiting construction

  32.4

  A40 Western Circus Junction Improvement (LB Ealing): awaiting construction

  38.2

  A13 West of Heathway—Thames Avenue Improvement (LBS Barking and Dagenham); awaiting construction

  86.9

  A406/A1/A598 Regents Park Road Junction Improvement (LB Barnet): awaiting construction

  57.3

  A13 Movers Lane Junction Improvement (LBs Barking and Dagenham): draft Orders published. Public inquiry completed

  36.8

  A13/A117 Junction Improvement (LB Newham): draft Orders published. Public inquiry completed

  26.3

  A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane Junction Improvement (LB Newham): draft Orders published. Public inquiry completed

  37.0

  102

  Appendix A

  Order of Total Scheme Cost £ million. excluding VAT

  A406 Bounds Green—Green Lane Improvement (LB Enfield): draft Orders published, but to be revised and reissued

  131.8

  A406 Golders Green Road Junction Improvement (LB Barnet): Orders have been made and advance works have started

  22.4

  M4/A4 Link, Hounslow (LBs Hillingdon and Hounslow): at an early stage. Consultants yet to be appointed

  24.0

  A102 Blackwall Third Crossing (LBs Tower Hamlets and LB Greenwich): Public Consultation held—no firm conclusion. Further feasibility work to be done 137.4

  A406 Popes Lane—Western Avenue Improvement (LB Ealing): Secretary of State's decision has been announced. Further work is required on smaller scale options 82.4

  A406 East London River Crossing (LBs Greenwich and Newham): in the Longer Term programme i.e, currently in abeyance

  n/a

  A13 Ironbridge—Canning Town Improvement (LB Newham): draft Orders have been published. Public inquiry to be held

  55.5

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement (LB Lewisham): Side Roads Order confirmed. Compulsory Purchase Order yet to be confirmed 12.6

  A4 Henlys/Waggoners Corner Improvement (LB Hounslow): Public Consultation held

  9.9

  A2 Kidbrooke Park Road Interchange Improvement (LB Greenwich): Public Consultation held

  14.1

  M4 J3–4B Widening (LBs Hillingdon and Hounslow): Public Consultation held

  35.4

  M25 Terminal 5 Spur (Heathrow), Surrey (LB Hillingdon): Public Consultation held

  23.4

  Primary Route Network Signing: pilot completed. Completion by 1998

  12.5

  Cable and Communications: in progress. Completion by 2000

  13.8

  The Highways Agency's Business Plan lists 47 Network Enhancement Projects in London, costing between £50,000 and £1 million each, at a total cost of £9.8 million, which are due to start in 1995–96. There is also an ongoing programme of smaller schemes in 1995–96 at a cost of £4.9 million.
  103

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what saving will result from reducing the period of absence during which housing benefit is payable from 52 weeks to 13 weeks; and how many claimants will be affected; [36744]

  (2) how many housing benefit claimants in each of the last three years were convicted prisoners serving sentences of (a) less than 13 weeks, (b) between 13 and 52 weeks and (c) more than 52 weeks. [36746]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We estimate that up to 10,000 claimants a year may be affected by reducing the period of temporary absence for which housing benefit is payable and that this will save up to £10 million. No information is collected on the number of convicted prisoners of housing benefit during the last three years.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the powers under which he proposes to change the social security order payments book for plastic smart card; and if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable of the change. [37093]

  Mr. Heald
  Section 5(1)(i) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations which"provide for the … manner in which a benefit … is to be paid and for the information and evidence to be furnished in connection with the payment … "
  Regulation 20A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, inserted by Regulation 4 of
  SI 1994/3196 was made under the above power and provides, in effect, for benefit payments to be made on production of a card. We anticipate that the first benefit payment cards will be issued in 1996 with completion of the changeover in two to three years.

  Financial year

  Agency

  Nature of work

  Value of work (estimated) £

  January 1990 to March 1990

  Contributions Agency

  Night time security

  1,349,000

  April 1990 to March 1991

  Benefits Agency

  Security

  725,000

  Contributions Agency

  Day time security

  1,031,000

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Computer Operations Management

  12,931,000

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Benefits Agency

  Estates Management (London)

  1,155,000

  Estates Management (London)

  508,000

  April 1992 to March 1993

  Child Support Agency

  Accommodation and Office Services

  2,313,000

  Audit

  309,000

  Training

  547,000

  April 1993 to March 1994

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Audit

  1,264,000

  DSS Headquarters

  Accommodation and Office Services

  761,000

  Contributions Agency

  Cleaning

  771,000

  Benefits Agency

  Travel Services

  211,000

  Storage/Archives

  516,000

  Accommodation and Office Services

  884,000

  Training for various areas/offices:

  540,000

  679,000

  646,000

  683,000

  637,000

  616,000

  104

  Attendance Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of claimants who have been refused attendance allowance; and to what extent the criteria to award attendance allowance takes account of people with restricted mobility being able to attend to their solid fuel heating systems. [37196]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  In 1994–95, the last full year for which figures are available, the Benefits Agency cleared 486,506 claims for attendance allowance, of which 146,924 were refused.

  Entitlement to attendance allowance depends on the extent to which a severely disabled person needs attention in connection with their bodily functions and/or supervision to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others. The criteria do not relate specifically to a claimants' home heating arrangements.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM,(n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36958]

  Mr. Burt
  Details of the nature and value of contracts awarded to external suppliers following a competitive tender of work previously performed in-house by civil servants are in the table. No additional work has been awarded on these contracts to the companies in question. In-house teams who have retained work following a market test obtain a range of services through contracts with external suppliers. Information on those contracts is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  105

  Financial year

  Agency

  Nature of work

  Value of work (estimated) £

  April 1994 to March 1995

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Security Guarding

  436,000

  Area Computer Centre

  6,297,000

  Benefits Agency

  Publishing Services

  4,466,000

  Accommodation and Office Services for various sites:

  Building management and cleaning services

  905,000

  Facilities management

  3,952,000

  Typing and secretarial

  945,000

  Facilities management

  789,000

  Security services

  192,000

  Office Support

  1,402,000

  Facilities management

  1,375,000

  Office Support

  1,444,000

  Building and facilities management services

  1,517,000

  Security, messengerial, stewards, reprographics and post opening

  646,000

  Typing, secretarial, telephonists and building management

  2,875,000

  Post opening, telephonists, typing, stationary and distribution

  838,000

  Facilities management

  4,251,000

  Postal, security and consumable services

  2,265,000

  Building and facilities management

  1,193,000

  Facilities management

  5,547,000

  Building management services

  1,010,000

  Facilities management

  5,613,000

  Facilities management

  5,275,000

  Typing, word processing, switchboard and reprographics

  2,459,000

  Local accommodation facilities management

  1,654,000

  April 1995 to July 1995

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Computer operations management and distributed IT implementation and support services

  231,400,000

  Housing Benefit and Family Credit
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will bring forward proposals to take account of the value of capital assets by way of property other than the main residence, in applications for family credit. [37089]

  (2) if he will introduce proposals to take account of the value of capital assets by way of property other than the main residence, in applications for housing benefit. [37092]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In the income-related benefit schemes, taking capital assets, such as property other than the home, into account is the norm. With effect from 2 October 1995, regulations have been amended to restore the policy intention that, in general, tenanted properties should also be taken into account as a capital asset.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the latest annual expenditure of the treatment section of the War Pensions Agency; and what cash limits apply to this expenditure, [37088]
  106
  (2) how many war pensioners are currently receiving financial help from the Pensions Agency treatment section in respect of (a) travel costs for treatment and (b) private treatment not available on the NHS. [37084]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  However, in the year ended 31 March 1995, 4,925 payments were made to meet the travel costs of war pensioners attending hospital for treatment for disablement in respect of which war pension is payable. In the same year 8,389 payments were made for treatment not available under the national health service—including remedial treatment, dental treatment, chiropody and other private treatment such as osteopathy and physiotherapy.

  Total expenditure in the year ended 31 March 1995 was £8,337,770.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the payments of housing benefit subsidy by his Department to each London borough and metropolitan district in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will list those financial penalties imposed as a result of non-compliance with regulations. [37111]
  107
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  London Authorities

  Authority

  Subsidy paid for non-HRA rent rebate expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy paid for rent allowance expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy penalties incurred 1993–94 £

  Barking

  0

  6,355,827

  0

  Barnet

  2,320,996

  31,407,483

  0

  Bexley

  315,858

  14,211,026

  0

  Brent

  2,170,702

  66,579,836

  0

  Bromley

  853,129

  37,150,509

  0

  Camden

  2,334,989

  50,110,032

  0

  City of London

  34,652

  512,846

  0

  Croydon

  944,009

  36,764,101

  0

  Ealing

  1,451,433

  46,387,342

  0

  Enfield

  1,879,740

  22,110,066

  0

  Greenwich

  2,195,119

  19,370,751

  0

  Hackney

  12,127,983

  49,971,026

  0

  Hammersmith

  2,271,817

  34,374,285

  0

  Haringey

  1,757,001

  69,423,145

  0

  Harrow

  407,633

  18,049,007

  0

  Havering

  0

  9,124,385

  0

  Hillingdon

  1,171,542

  15,247,872

  0

  Hounslow

  1,603,733

  22,687,110

  0

  Islington

  1,155,175

  30,038,272

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,323,709

  43,448,050

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,643,633

  8,413,307

  0

  Lambeth

  2,482,802

  53,201,704

  0

  Lewisham

  446,516

  33,636,229

  0

  Merton

  72,112

  17,178,195

  0

  Newham

  6,039,682

  56,981,242

  0

  Redbridge

  84,763

  28,287,889

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,267,410

  12,478,354

  0

  Southwark

  1,469,200

  31,511,360

  0

  Sutton

  265,735

  11,149,812

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  4,866,915

  17,890,177

  0

  Waltham Forest

  1,053,839

  29,348,006

  0

  Wandsworth

  2,355,688

  45,354,684

  0

  Westminster

  1,251,400

  74,463,340

  0

  Metropolitan authorities

  Authority

  Subsidy paid for non-HRA rent rebate expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy paid for rent allowance expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy penalties incurred 1993–94 £

  Barnsley

  320,405

  7,238,878

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  75,161,007

  808,405

  Bolton

  300,876

  12,027,988

  0

  Bradford

  280,087

  32,830,162

  0

  Bury

  1,284,583

  7,338,627

  0

  Calderdale

  656,648

  8,465,058

  0

  Coventry

  766,696

  21,825,790

  0

  Doncaster

  27,288

  10,203,816

  0

  Dudley

  89,094

  7,157,873

  0

  Gateshead

  27,757

  10,643,184

  0

  Kirklees

  1,538,545

  15,083,052

  0

  Knowsley

  26,305

  7,245,949

  0

  Leeds

  274,447

  43,366,356

  0

  Liverpool

  657,053

  57,289,298

  0

  Manchester

  3,127,525

  72,273,662

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  356,293

  22,576,129

  0

  108

  Metropolitan authorities

  Authority

  Subsidy paid for non-HRA rent rebate expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy paid for rent allowance expenditure 1993–94 £

  Subsidy penalties incurred 1993–94 £

  North Tyneside

  121,067

  10,420,023

  0

  Oldham

  539,851

  11,008,362

  0

  Rochdale

  859,235

  10,924,769

  0

  Rotherham

  57,795

  7,716,837

  0

  Salford

  1,911,307

  15,882,162

  0

  Sandwell

  17,515

  10,281,120

  0

  Sefton

  319,051

  18,869,832

  0

  Sheffield

  805,338

  23,815,044

  0

  Solihull

  42,283

  4,475,569

  0

  South Tyneside

  530,190

  8,391,289

  0

  St. Helens

  107,903

  7,072,757

  0

  Stockport

  145,624

  12,986,302

  0

  Sunderland

  402,524

  14,660,492

  0

  Tameside

  1,053,548

  9,958,030

  0

  Trafford

  175,092

  11,162,270

  0

  Wakefield

  289,146

  8,714,297

  0

  Walsall

  94,590

  7,790,772

  0

  Wigan

  1,502,261

  7,854,034

  0

  Wirral

  96,094

  23,564,463

  0

  Wolverhampton

  64,045

  11,094,765

  0

  Water Charges
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the designated amount for water charges included in the calculation of income support levels. [37480]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Income support does not designate separate amounts for particular items in the household budget.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many outsourcing contracts were granted by her Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i)BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [37002]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Departmental records show that no outsourcing contracts have been awarded to any of the companies listed.

  Quality Assurance Document
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what date responses are required to the paper entitled "Quality Assurance Regime for Institutions"; and if she will place copies of the responses in the Library.
  109
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responses to the quality assurance consultation document are to be sent to the Department by 13 October 1995. There are no plans to place any of these responses in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list for each grant-maintained school the number of pupils permanently excluded during each year since the school became grant-maintained; [36645]

  (2) if she will list for each grant-maintained school the number of pupils excluded during each year since the school became grant-maintained. [36167]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  Education and Training Report
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the OECD survey of education and training in the United Kingdom; and if she will provide a refutation of its claim that departure from principles extant in public education since 1870 until 1992 are inappropriate. [37381]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State issued the Department's comments on the OECD report in a Departmental press notice on 27 July 1995—Ref: 167/95. My right hon. Friend has no plans to comment further on the report.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the proportion of school leavers from(a) the independent sector and (b) the maintained sector entering degree or teacher training courses in higher education institutions at the latest date for which figures are available. [37478]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a breakdown in percentage terms of the numbers of unemployed people for each quarter since 1990 to the present who have been unemployed for(a) up to and including six months, (b) six months up to and including a year, (c) from between a year up to and including two years and (d) over two years who have (i) academic qualifications, (ii) vocational qualifications and (iii) no qualifications. [32367]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is available from the "Labour Force Survey" for Great Britain, annually until 1991 and quarterly from spring 1992 onwards, and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.
  110

  Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average weekly earnings are of(a) full-time female workers, (b) part-time female workers, (c) all female workers and (d) all male workers. [31998]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Employees on all rates whose earnings were not affected by absence: April 1994

  £ Week

  £ Hour

  Part-time females

  98.0

  5.06

  Full-time females

  259.2

  6.83

  All females

  197.7

  6.43

  All males

  343.9

  8.46

  Note:

  The weekly earnings of all female employees relative to all male employees is distorted by a greater proportion of female part-time workers.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees in each G7 country are earning at or below the equivalent of £2.50 per hour. [23313]

  Mrs. Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on proportions of employees earning less than £2.50 in each G7 country is not available.

  Second Jobs
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of people with a second job. [32818]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is published in table 2 of the "Labour Force Survey" quarterly bulletin, No. 12, June 1995. A copy of the publication is available in the Library.

WALES

  Farm Data
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of farms of the size(a) 1–25 hectares, (b) 26–50 hectares, (c) 51–75 hectares, (d) 76–100 hectares, (e) 101–150 hectares, (f) 151–200 hectares and (g) 201 or more hectares for (i) the last available year and (ii) 1985. [36432]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Farm sizes in Wales

  Holding size

  1985

  1994

  0.1 to less than 1.0 hectares

  238

  342

  1.0 to less than 26.0 hectares

  13,395

  14,145

  26.0 to less than 51.0 hectares

  6,958

  6,216

  51.0 to less than 76.0 hectares

  3,784

  3,574

  111

  Farm sizes in Wales

  Holding size

  1985

  1994

  76.0 to less than 101.0 hectares

  2,033

  2,037

  101.0 to less than 151.0 hectares

  1,821

  1,924

  151.0 to less than 201.0 hectares

  679

  749

  201.0 hectares and over

  900

  923

  All main holdings

  29,808

  29,910

  Note:

  These figures exclude minor holdings.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (1) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36954]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has granted no outsourcing contracts to any of the listed companies since 1990. Information on all agencies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ely Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received the full resettlement plan for Ely hospital residents; and when he expects to make his decision on the plan. [37201]

  Mr. Hague
  I have yet to receive a full resettlement plan for Ely hospital residents.

  In-patient Activity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 514, if he will make a statement on the comparative benefits of the use of finished consultant episodes relative to deaths and discharges as the basis for remuneration of hospitals by (a) general practitioner fund holders and (b) health authorities, for in-patient activity. [37385]

  Mr. Hague
  As a basis for purchasing treatment and care from hospitals, whether by GP fundholders or health authorities, both measures have strengths and weaknesses.

  Finished consultant episodes have the advantage over deaths and discharges of allowing the cost of treatment to be associated with the consultant responsible for providing it. The major drawback of finished consultant episodes is that definitions can vary both within and between hospitals, making comparisons difficult whether in terms of activity or cost. By contrast, the definition of an entire episode of treatment or care is more straightforward in the case of deaths and discharges.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have been approached in the last two years with regard to service on quangos; how they were selected; how many indicated they were members of(a) the Labour party and (b) the Conservative party; and
  112
  how many (i) Labour party members and (ii) Conservative party members who expressed a willingness to serve were subsequently appointed. [37211]

  Mr. Hague
  I and my predecessor have made 597 appointments to non-departmental public bodies since 1 September 1993. Details of all appointments by Welsh Office Ministers are held in the Library of the House and updated quarterly. Appointments are made on merit. Candidates are drawn largely from the Welsh Office register of candidates. In addition to self-nominations, names of people willing to serve on a public body are regularly canvassed through advertisements in Welsh newspapers and by letters to professional, public sector and community organisations. I welcome candidates from all sources. Candidates are not currently required to declare any political affiliation: information is not therefore available in the form requested.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what proposals he has to reinstate levels of Government grant in aid to the Welsh Development Agency to remove conditionality on receipts from the European regional development fund for 1996–97. [37203]

  Mr. Hague
  None. As I confirmed to Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on 4 October, European funding is not a factor in determining the level of grant in aid to the WDA.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the European Union Commissioner responsible for the European regional development fund; concerning the suspension of ERDF funds to the Welsh Development Agency; and when he expects to reach agreement on the balance between ERDF grant and United Kingdom Government grant-in-aid to the Welsh Development Agency. [37207]

  Mr. Hague
  I met Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on 4 October. I confirmed that European funding was not a factor in determining the level of the Welsh Development Agency's grant in aid. We agreed that officials should consider ways of improving the transparency of these arrangements. I also volunteered to provide an account of my Department's general procedures for the management and monitoring of European programmes. We agreed to complete this work within two weeks to enable early clearance of outstanding applications.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to compensate the Welsh Development Agency for loss of receipts from the European regional development fund, following a suspension of ERDF payments to the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [37202]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I expect early agreement with the European Commission to allow clearance of outstanding applications.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what subsidies were paid out for environmentally sensitive areas in Wales for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94,

  113
  (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96; and how many individuals were recipients of these payments in these years. [37127]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of subsidies paid out for environmentally sensitive areas in Wales was:

  1992–93:£1,503,000

  1993–94: £1,542,000

  1994–95: £1,536,000

  Provision for 1995–96 is £6,971,000 as shown in the 1995–96 Main Supply Estimates, Class XV, Vote 1 (CM 271-XV).

  Information on the number of recipients receiving payments by financial year is not held.

  The number of live management agreements at the end of each financial year was:

  31 March 1993: 857

  31 March 1994: 794

  31 March 1995: 883

  The number of current management agreements as at 31 August 1995 was 1,111.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what area, in hectares and percentage terms, of environmentally sensitive areas in Wales is made up of productive, or potentially productive, agricultural land. [37126]

  Mr. Jones
  The following is the information:

  Hectares productive land

  Percentage of total area

  Cambrian Mountains

  118,780

  77.3

  Lleyn Peninsula

  41,304

  90.9

  Radnor

  91,769

  91.6

  Ynys Mon

  66,063

  92.5

  Preseli

  113,878

  94.2

  Clwydian Range

  25,725

  92.3

  457,519

  88.1

  The figures quoted exclude urban areas, mineral workings, open water and rivers, unvegetated land and coniferous forests which are within the respective environmentally sensitive areas.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest out-turn estimate for expenditure on regional selective assistance in Wales for the year 1994–95. [37200]

  Mr. Hague
  £56.95 million.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the most recent allocation of grant in aid to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to cover the administrative running costs of the Cardiff Bay Opera House trust; if he will specify how it relates to previous estimates of the trust's running costs for 114
  1995–96 and previous allocations of grant in aid; and if he will make a statement. [37494]

  Mr. Hague
  There is no grant-in-aid allocation given to the Cardiff Bay development corporation specifically to cover the administrative running costs of the Cardiff Bay Opera House trust. The question of specific payments to the trust is an operational matter for the corporation and I have therefore asked the chief executive to give those details.

  18th Birthday Greeting Letters
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales;

  (1) how many responses have been received to 18th birthday greeting letters sent out by Welsh Office Ministers in their ministerial capacity; [37466]

  (2) what has been the cost to public funds of the practice of Welsh Office Ministers sending 18th birthday greetings in their ministerial capacity to members of the public in each of the last three years and in the current year to date; [37468]

  (3) when the policy of Welsh Office Ministers sending 18th birthday greetings to 18-year-olds outside their own constituencies and in their ministerial capacities was initiated; [37467]

  (4) how many letters of birthday greetings to young people reaching the age of 18 have been sent out by himself and his Ministers in 1994 and 1995 in their Welsh ministerial capacity. [37469]

  Mr. Hague
  There have been no such communications issued from my Department and hence no costs to public funds.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his department. [36780]

  Mr. Hague
  Members of the public have the same rights to make complaints to the ombudsman concerning a project funded through the private finance initiative in my Department as they would have had if the project had been publicly funded.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications are awaiting departmental approval in principle under the private finance initiative in(a) the health sector, (b) transport sector and (c) other sectors; if he will list each one and its estimated capital value, if he will give his current estimate of the number likely to be approved for actual commencement in this financial year; and if he will make a statement. [37493]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office examines all of its capital expenditure programmes to identify projects that
  115
  might be taken forward under the initiative. Some projects, such as an energy management scheme at Llandough hospital and a combined heat and power scheme at Withybush hospital, are already in place. Twenty-five projects, with a combined capital value of about £750 million are being examined at the moment with a view to taking them forward under the initiative. There projects in health, transport, Welsh Office administration and other sectors. I hope to make announcements on some of these in the next few months.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list by grade the current establishment at his Ministry's site at Sand Hutton, north Yorkshire; what is the current funding; what percentage of the funding is for salaries; and what were the equivalent figures 12 months ago; [32996]

  (2) if he will list the types of work currently being carried out at his Ministry's site at Sand Hutton, north Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [32997]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have asked the chief executive of the Central Science Laboratory to reply direct.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1995:

  THE STAFFING, FUNDING AND WORK OF THE CENTRAL SCIENCE LABORATORY, SAND HUTTON, N. YORKSHIRE

  You asked two questions about the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) laboratory at Sand Hutton and it may be helpful if I first of all explain the present situation. [32996 & 32997]

  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of MAFF in April 1992 and was re-launched as an enlarged agency two years later following its merger with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) Food Science Laboratories.

  CSL provides a wide range of scientific services to its major customer, MAFF including policy advice, technical support and training, underpinned by research and development (R&D) in the areas of plant health, the authenticity, safety and nutritional value of the food supply; pesticide safety: veterinary residues; the control of pests and diseases of growing and stored foodstuffs; wildlife management and the impact of food production on the environment and the consumer. In addition CSL offers R&D and advice to other Government Departments and public and private sector organisations on a commercial basis.

  CSL is currently located at five major sites in Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Norfolk and Grampian and at several smaller sites throughout the Country. It is planned to relocate the major part of the Agency in summer 1996 to Sand Hutton, N Yorkshire, where a new purpose-built laboratory is at present under construction. The types of work carried out at existing CSL sites and described above will also be carried out at the new site. Precise information about grades and salaries at Sand Hutton are not yet available but I expect that in total about 450 staff will be employed at the new laboratory.

  CSL income in the 1994/95 financial year was £26.267K and staff costs amounted to £14.414K (55%). In the previous financial year respective figures were £16.908K and £9.427K (56%). The increase in income and costs in 1994/95 was the direct result of the enlargement of the Agency following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen. CSL's published Annual Reports and Accounts give full details and copies should be available in the House Library.
  116

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries, and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries, for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33921]

  Mr. Boswell
  Centralised records are not kept of individual contracts between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and consultants. It is not, therefore, possible to provide the information requested in the required form. However, the total amounts paid to the consultants named in the question in the relevant years were as follows:

  Year

  Consultant

  Spend

  1993–94

  Cooper and Lybrand

  175,000

  Peat Marwick

  372,718

  Ernst and Young

  212,258

  Arthur Andersen

  nil

  Price Waterhouse

  190,531

  Grant Thornton

  nil

  Stoy Hayward

  22,326

  Robson Rhodes

  nil

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  nil

  1994–95

  Cooper and Lybrand

  5,571

  Peat Marwick

  319,357

  Ernst and Young

  123,140

  Arthur Andersen

  nil

  Price Waterhouse

  72,507

  Grant Thornton

  nil

  Stoy Hayward

  16,450

  Robson Rhodes

  nil

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  nil

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34708]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy. The Government continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate.

  The competitiveness White Paper, published in May 1995, outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.
  117

  Public Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in respect of documents on listeria in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [34406]

  Mrs. Browning
  So far as I am aware, only one public interest immunity certificate in respect of documents on listeria has been signed by any agriculture Minister.

  The one certificate signed, in December 1993, followed the issue of a writ against the Ministry. As the law then stood, the Minister was under a duty to draw to the attention of the court any documents which, because of their nature, would normally be withheld from disclosure in the public interest. It was then for the court to decide whether, on the facts of the particular case, the overall public interest would best be served by disclosure of the documents.

  The High Court recognised that the Minister had followed correct procedures. It also decided that disclosure would be appropriate in this case, and all documents have been made available to the plaintiff in this case.

  It was not until July 1994 that the House of Lords—in the case of "Wiley"—ruled that Ministers can make voluntary disclosure of such documents where they are satisfied that this is in the public interest. Where the issues involved are difficult, and Ministers decide that they cannot judge where the balance lies, the certificate is made and it remains the function of the courts to decide whether the grater public interest favours disclosure.

  Potato Prices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons for recent fluctuations in potato prices. [34994]

  Mr. Boswell
  Supplies, and thus the prices, of all vegetables including potatoes are very much affected by weather conditions. A cold wet spring in 1994, then summer drought followed by a wet harvest resulted in a reduced potato crop throughout Europe. The quality of potatoes also suffered. These factors led to a substantial increase in the price of potatoes of an acceptable quality to consumers.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost to United Kingdom public funds of administration of the CAP; and if he will make a statement. [35131]

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the cost of administration of the CAP within the UK is contained in the departmental reports of the Ministry and Intervention Board, Cm 2803, and those of the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland Office, copies of which are available in the House. An overall position for the Ministry and the Intervention Board can be obtained from annexes 1 and 5 of the report.

  In addition, the report details the expenditure, including administration costs, for the 80 programmes which describe the Ministry's activities. Twenty-two of these
  118
  programmes are directly related to the operation of agricultural schemes, including agri-environment schemes, formulated under the CAP.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the cost to the average United Kingdom household of the common agricultural policy. [37117]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 9 March 1995,Official Report, column 328.

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many applications have been received under the EC surplus food scheme in each of the last five years by region; how many were(a) accepted and (b) rejected by the Intervention Board; and if he will make a statement; [34733]

  (2) how many applications have been received by his Ministry under the European Community surplus food scheme; what was the number, by category for each of the last five years; how many applications for each category were turned down; and if he will make a statement. [34734]

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of applications received by the Intervention Board, acting on behalf of the four agricultural Departments which are responsible for the designation process, in each of the last three financial years, is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  England

  1,050

  816

  899

  Northern Ireland

  86

  66

  50

  Scotland

  272

  235

  168

  Wales

  95

  78

  86

  The number of organisations designated by the Agriculture Departments was as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  England

  948

  713

  669

  Northern Ireland

  82

  62

  36

  Scotland

  256

  213

  151

  Wales

  81

  64

  80

  The number of unsuccessful applications was as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  England

  102

  103

  230

  Northern Ireland

  4

  4

  14

  Scotland

  16

  22

  17

  Wales

  14

  14

  6

  These figures include applications received after the closing date or withdrawn, and those rejected because the

  119
  applicant did not fulfil the conditions of the scheme or planned to operate in an area covered by a more suitable organisation.

  A list of organisations designated in England in 1994, by region, has been placed in the Library.

  Information on applications prior to 1992–93 and further breakdown by geographical regions or type of organisation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Botanic Gardens
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for establishing national botanic gardens in each of the four home countries; and if he will make a statement. [34888]

  Mr. Boswell
  We have no plans to establish new botanic gardens anywhere in the United Kingdom.

  Countryside Access Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the countryside access scheme costs will be incurred in Wales in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [34986]

  Mr. Boswell
  Approximately 3 per cent. of the total payments to farmers for the countryside access scheme—which operates in England and Wales only—will be incurred in Wales in 1995–96.

  Postgraduate Studentship Awards
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the postgraduate studentships supplied by his Department were granted to people studying at Welsh institutions in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34890]

  Mr. Boswell
  Four studentship awards were allocated to Welsh institutions in 1994–95.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of his Department have in the past been seconded to work with DGIII; what part such secondees played in drafting the European Commission discussion document on nutritional supplements produced in December 1991; if they have now(a) returned to placement with his Department, (b) remain with DGIII or (c) obtained employment with pharmaceutical companies; and if he will make a statement. [35097]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 July 1995, c. 1058]: I can now inform the hon. Member that the member of staff who returned to the Department in 1992 resigned from the Department in 1994 to take up a post in a pharmaceutical company. I understand that this company is not involved in producing dietary supplements.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35628]
  120
  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry, including its executive agencies, has in place a comprehensive programme aimed at improving the recruitment, retention and development of women staff particularly in the middle and senior management grades and in those specialist scientific, professional and technical areas where the proportion of women is relatively low.

  Priorities under this programme include the provision of assistance with child care and the encouragement of the wider use of alternative working patterns. The Ministry also runs a career break scheme which provides for periods of unpaid leave of up to five years to enable staff to cope with domestic responsibilities such as caring for children or elderly relatives.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35690]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: The information requested for permanent non-industrial staff in my Department including executive agencies on 1 April 1995 is as follows:

  (a) Total male staff

  6,028;

  Total female staff

  4,651

  (b) Grade

  Total officials

  Women employed

  Percentage women

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  6

  1

  17

  3

  23

  1

  4

  4

  14

  1

  8

  5

  104

  9

  9

  6

  160

  18

  11

  7

  934

  173

  19

  SEO

  681

  131

  19

  HEO

  2,147

  601

  28

  EO

  2,410

  904

  38

  (c)

  AO

  2,407

  1,566

  65

  AA

  1,792

  1,246

  70

  The information is provisional. It is not separately available for executive agencies. Casual and seasonal staff are excluded. For earlier years, the information is not available in the form requested but details by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including executive agencies, can be found in civil service statistics for each year from 1985 to 1994—copies available in the Library. Details for 1995 will be published later this year.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female and (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35469]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: The numbers of permanent non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995 in my Department were as follows:
  121

  Grade

  Total men

  Full-time men

  Part-time men

  Total women

  Full-time women

  Part-time women

  Gl

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G2

  5

  5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  G3

  22

  22

  0

  1

  1

  0

  G4

  13

  13

  0

  1

  1

  0

  G5

  95

  95

  0

  9

  9

  0

  G6

  142

  139

  3

  18

  15

  3

  G7

  761

  757

  4

  173

  151

  22

  SEO

  550

  546

  4

  131

  112

  19

  HEO

  1,546

  1,537

  9

  601

  514

  87

  EO

  1,506

  1,490

  16

  904

  819

  85

  AO

  841

  830

  11

  1,566

  1,357

  209

  AA

  546

  524

  22

  1,246

  929

  317

  Total

  6,028

  5,959

  69

  4,651

  3,909

  742

  Notes:

  1.Executive agencies are included, for which figures are not kept separately.

  2.Casual and seasonal staff are not included.

  3.Information is provisional.

  Poisons Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1037–38, which herbal products or remedies have been placed under surveillance by the poisons unit at Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital Trust, in the project funded by his Department. [36322]

  Mrs. Browning
  No specific products or remedies are under surveillance. The purpose of the project is to investigate any reported cases of suspected adverse effects from exposure to traditional remedies and food supplements.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the number of United Kingdom fishing vessels that has been decommissioned in each of the last three years; and what has been the cost of this exercise. [36114]

  Mr. Baldry
  There was no UK decommissioning scheme in 1992–93. Some 135 vessels were decommissioned under the 1993–94 scheme at a cost of £7.8 million, and 162 were decommissioned under the 1994–95 scheme at a cost of £8.8 million.

  Crop Planting
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the acreages to be planted in respect of cereals, rape or other specified crops; and if he will give urgent consideration to the time scale for planting rape. [36246]

  Mr. Baldry
  Plantings of oilseed rape may take place in the autumn or spring. Exact timing will depend on individual circumstances but plantings of winter rape are expected to begin in August.

  Claims for 1995 are currently being verified and input into the computer system. It is not possible to determine provisional figures earlier than mid-September when details are notified to the European Commission and
  published.

  Set-aside (Appeals System)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a system of appeals for farmers aggrieved by decisions made within his Department with particular reference to cases where there may be disagreement about what is or not good agricultural practice in regard to set-aside decisions. [36236]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the possible need for a more formal system for hearing appeals against the loss of CAP support scheme entitlement arising from alleged breaches of scheme conditions; he is always prepared to ask his officials to look again at the cases where farmers are genuinely aggrieved at decisions taken by his Department.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish those non-personal interests of the Food Advisory Committee listed in the committee's register of members' interests. [36428]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of the non-personal interests of members of the Food Advisory Committee are contained in the Committee's annual report, which is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Copies of the report have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Codex Alimentarius Commission
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of his Ministry regarding an increase in consumer representation on the Codex Committee. [36427]

  Mrs. Browning
  Only member nations and associate members of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and/or the World Health Organisation may nominate delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Some intergovernmental and international non-governmental organisations are invited to attend as observers. We have always indicated to UK interests, both industry and consumers, that, if they wished to nominate individuals to attend meetings, we would he happy to include them in UK delegations. Consumers International—formerly the
  123
  International Organisation of Consumer Unions—has observer status at Codex meetings and does send representatives.

  The UK Codex Consultative Committee which meets to discuss items on the agenda of Codex meetings, has in membership the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the Consumers in the European Community Group, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards, which represents a cross section of interests in the matters under discussion. A number of other organisations have expressed interest in membership. It is, however, difficult to adjust the membership without upsetting the balance of interests or making the committees too large to operate satisfactorily. I thus have no plans for change; particular interests are co-opted to particular meetings as the need arises.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36838]

  Mr. Boswell
  At present there are no services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in the Department. However, the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who has jurisdiction in these matters, subject to the conditions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, will be maintained for services or projects funded through the private finance initiative.

  Medicines Licensing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the cases where information has been withheld by his Department under section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. [36756]

  Mrs. Browning
  Section 118 protects information furnished for the purposes of the Medicines Act, and thus may affect all activities concerning medicines licensing. I am committed to making as much information available as possible within this constraint, but examples of information which would be withheld would include details of manufacturing processes or the addresses of sites at which companies are trialing products under development.

  Table 1: Tonnage of destroyed produce for which EU withdrawal compensation was paid (t)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Holland

  Portugal

  UK

  Apples

  6,832

  0

  54

  141,251

  136,627

  657,371

  139

  0

  0

  0

  8,906

  20,019

  Pears

  430

  0

  77

  1,234

  19,594

  32,361

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,572

  17

  Cauliflowers

  1,872

  0

  1,783

  202

  2.143

  104,203

  138

  930

  0

  0

  241

  16,598

  Tomatoes

  5,853

  0

  208

  3,169

  49

  22,975

  118

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Apricots

  0

  0

  0

  5,393

  492

  13,605

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nectarines

  0

  0

  0

  114,587

  3,895

  46,368

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Peaches

  0

  0

  0

  597,684

  38,241

  82,373

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,947

  0

  Lemons

  0

  0

  0

  1,610

  79,163

  116

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aubergines1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  148

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grapes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90

  3,116

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  124

  Insecticides
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the national, European Economic Community or international agreement that imposes conditions concerning use of insecticides, or other potentially harmful substances, in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables imported into the United Kingdom for human consumption. [37265]

  Mrs. Browning
  All imported fruit and vegetables must meet the general provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 and other specific legislation concerning the use of insecticides and other substances. This includes:The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1985), as amended, which set maximum residue levels for pesticides which may be used on certain commodities, including some fruit and vegetables;
  The Antioxidants in Food Regulations 1978 (SI 1978/105), as amended, which set maximum residue levels for certain substances which may be used on apples and pears;
  The Preservatives in Food Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/533), as amended, which set maximum residue levels for certain substances which may be used on citrus fruit and bananas;
  Directive 86/2783, which controls the use of sludge for agricultural purposes implemented in the UK by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1263), as amended.

  In addition, the use of products on home produced fruit and vegetables is controlled by the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlie the non-publication of payments of public money to companies in the farming industry for not growing crops. [37119]

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the set-aside schemes to which the hon. Gentleman refers, we have given an undertaking to claimants that all information regarding their claim is held in confidence. Therefore, no information is published which would enable individual claimants to be identified.

  Overproduction
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage and value of fruit and vegetables destroyed due to overproduction in the United Kingdom and each EU member state in the latest year for which figures are available. [37118]

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the tonnages and value of produce destroyed in each member state for which EU compensation was paid in 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available is as follows:
  125

  Table 1: Tonnage of destroyed produce for which EU withdrawal compensation was paid (t)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Holland

  Portugal

  UK

  Satsumas

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,587

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mandarins

  0

  0

  0

  2,493

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clementines

  0

  0

  0

  966

  15,502

  8,867

  0

  18,531

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oranges

  0

  0

  0

  215,679

  200,097

  622

  0

  87,862

  0

  0

  318

  0

  1 Refers to total volume of aubergines for which EU withdrawals compensation was paid. Information on proportion of withdrawn aubergines destroyed is not available.

  Source:

  European Commission.

  Table 2: Cost to FEOGA budget of EU withdrawal compensation for the tonnages shown in Table 1 (ecu)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Holland

  Portugal

  UK

  Apples

  790,411

  0

  8,072

  20,235,503

  16,655,255

  75,974,481

  16,775

  0

  0

  0

  837,479

  929,248

  Pears

  42,417

  0

  8,392

  134,624

  1,939,255

  3,205,452

  0

  0

  0

  0

  133,807

  713

  Cauliflowers

  177,864

  0

  176,736

  85,308

  221,774

  11,596,014

  14,517

  177,929

  0

  0

  26,663

  844,150

  Tomatoes

  433,871

  0

  34,963

  250,971

  2,931

  1,682,891

  8,230

  0

  0

  0

  0

  210

  Apricots

  0

  0

  0

  1,128,643

  78,436

  2,660,195

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nectarines

  0

  0

  0

  25,478,004

  804,266

  9,402,688

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Peaches

  0

  0

  0

  107,336,391

  4,297,182

  14,997,163

  0

  0

  0

  0

  340,201

  0

  Lemons

  0

  0

  0

  230,468

  10,704,524

  16,421

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aubergines1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8,195

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grapes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9,999

  349,697

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Satsumas

  0

  0

  0

  0

  221,170

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mandarins

  0

  0

  0

  445,170

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clementines

  0

  0

  0

  118,480

  1,705,287

  966,909

  0

  2,053,059

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oranges

  0

  0

  0

  35,576,560

  25,818,502

  76,934

  0

  10,795,070

  0

  0

  37,876

  0

  1 Refers to total volume of aubergines for which EU withdrawal compensation was paid. Information on proportion of withdrawn aubergines destroyed is not available.

  Source:

  European Commission.

  Environmentally Sensitive Farming
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken towards encouraging farming methods which support conservation measures and promote habitats for breeding birds. [35147]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: We are expanding the range of schemes to encourage environmentally sensitive farming and plan to spend over £100 million on such schemes in the UK in 1996–97. The environmentally sensitive areas, countryside stewardship, habitat and moorland schemes in particular will benefit a wide range of habitats and species, including birds.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves from herds known to have had BSE have been exported over the last five years; and to which countries they have been exported. [34863]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: The information requested is not available. In any case, it is not an EC requirement that calves exported from the UK have to originate from herds in which no case of BSE has been diagnosed.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what proportion of calves exported from the United Kingdom are checked by his Department's vets at the time they are given an export certificate to ensure they are not from herds with a history of either BSE or EBL. [34865]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: It is not an EC requirement that calves exported from the UK have to originate from herds in which no case of BSE has been diagnosed. However, before signing an export health
  126
  certificate for any consignment the certifying local veterinary inspector must obtain documentary evidence from owners/exporters/auctioneers and MAFF that none of the calves is the progeny of a BSE-infected dam or originates from a herd in which EBL has occurred within a specified time.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves from herds known to have had EBL have been exported over the last five years; and to which countries they have been exported. [34867]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: We are aware from audit procedures that one animal exported to Belgium in 1994 originated from a herd in which EBL had occurred during the previous three years. Under EC rules, the animal will have been slaughtered by six months of age.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards he has put in place to ensure that animals exported from the United Kingdom with further fattening certificates are not immediately slaughtered on arrival at destination. [35479]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: EC animal health and welfare rules do not preclude the slaughter of animals exported for further fattening and accompanied by further fattening health certification. It is the responsibility of the veterinary authorities of the importing country to ensure that appropriate controls are imposed once exported animals arrive at their place of destination.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were exported from the United Kingdom in 1994 and 1995 to date with a further fattening export certificate; and how many animals
  127
  during the same period were exported with a for slaughter certificate. [35478]

  Mrs. Browing
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: Information in respect of exports to other member states is as follows:

  1994

  11995

  Cattle for further fattening

  301,009

  104,400

  Cattle for slaughter

  1,623

  760

  Sheep for further fattening

  1,038,572

  202,327

  Sheep for slaughter

  79,901

  4,126

  Pigs for further fattening

  10,718

  358

  Pigs for slaughter

  9,471

  296

  Goats for further fattening

  0

  0

  Goats for slaughter

  2

  0

  1 To end of May.

  Note:

  These figures are collated from the ANIMO system and show the number of animals certified for export from the United Kingdom to other member states. The figures remain provisional and subject to change.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the number of landowners receiving payments under the arable area payments scheme of(a) less than £25,000, (b) between £25,000 and £50,000, (c) between £50,000 and £1 million and (d) above £1 million, for the latest year for which figures are available. [35364]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: It is not possible from information held to differentiate between landowners and tenants receiving payments under the arable area payments scheme and such information could not he obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department.(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34585]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, selected aggregated data are provided by the Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety Agency on an annual basis. Provisional data for the 1994 calendar year show that in the core-Department—including the Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate Agencies—59,572 working days, 3.28 per cent. of the total, were lost through sickness. The OHSA is not able to provide the cost of such absences except at disproportionate cost.

  Responsibility for such matters within ADAS, Central Science Laboratory, Central Veterinary Laboratory and Meat Hygiene Service Agencies has been delegated to the agency chief executives and—with the exception of the
  128
  Meat Hygiene Service Agency, which was formed only on 1 April 1995—I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question number 1679 in which you sought details of how many days were lost in sickness in the last twelve months by employees in his Department (a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. (34585)

  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office in April 1992.

  During the period 1/7/94 to 30/6/95 the total sick leave taken by all ADAS staff (permanent, casuals etc.) was 11,012 days. This equates to 1.9% of the number of days worked. We are not able to put an exact value on the cost of these absences, but estimate that it was approximately £650,000 (based on average salary costs).

  You may wish to note that these figures have not been adjusted for weekends and bank holidays where sick leave extended beyond the normal working week.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 16 October 1995:

  NUMBER OF DAYS LOST IN SICKNESS AND THE RELATED COST

  The Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the number of days lost in sickness in the last twelve months and the cost of this absence, as this is a matter within my operational responsibility. (34585)

  The most recent data I am able to provide relates to the 1994 calendar year. The figures are provisional and have been adjusted to take account of weekends and Bank Holidays. The number of days lost in sickness by Central Science Laboratory employees was 4077. As a proportion of the number of days worked this amounts to 2.48%.

  I am unable to tell you the cost of this absence as a grade/salary breakdown is not readily available and such information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about sickness absence during the last twelve months at CVL. (34585)

  For the calendar year 1994, 6,546 days were lost through sickness. This represented 4.34% of the days worked. I am afraid I am unable to provide you with the cost of absence since the records do not readily show this information. It could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The figures are still provisional for 1994 and are adjusted by bank holidays and weekends. The source was the Occupational Health Safety Agency sickness/absence database.

HEALTH

  Osteoporosis
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines he has issued in respect of preventive and treatment strategies for patients in high-risk groups of osteoporosis; [36332]

  (2) what action has been taken to consider the role of diet in the prevention of osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement. [36333]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of professional bodies to develop clinical guidelines where a need has been identified. Discussions have begun between the Department and the relevant medical royal colleges with a view to their developing clinical guidelines for
  129
  osteoporosis. In addition, a new expert advisory group has been set up and will be considering the dietary aspects of osteoporosis prevention. Details of the group will be announced shortly.

  Prescriptions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to remove the statutory requirement for a prescription charge to be paid for each drug contained in hormone replacement therapy preparations. [36334]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Where two, or more, prescribed drugs are dispensed, a prescription charge is payable for each one even though, for patient convenience or through manufacturers' packaging arrangements, they may be supplied together in a single combination pack or duo pack.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will conduct a review of the principal factors underlying the non-redemption rate of prescriptions issued by general practitioners; and if he will make a statement; [37047]

  (2) if he will undertake a comprehensive review of the prescription system; and if he will include in such a review the option of altering pharmacists' regulations to allow individual pharmacists to offer patients the option of paying the cost price where this is less than the standard per item prescription charge. [37049]

  Mr. Malone
  Extensive charge exemption and remission arrangements, among the most generous in Europe, ensure that only those able to afford the national health service prescription charge are asked to pay. The scheme was last reviewed in 1993 as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure. There are no current plans for a further review, either of the scheme itself or of the reasons why patients may choose not to present prescriptions for dispensing.

  Total fundholders budgets

  General Practitioner Fundholding (retained) Savings

  Management allowances

  £ million

  £ million

  As a percentage of budgets set

  £ million

  As a percentage of budgets set

  1991–92

  400

  14.5

  3.7

  10

  2.5

  1992–93

  800

  28.3

  3.5

  19

  2.4

  1993–94

  1,800

  64.2

  3.5

  38

  2.1

  Final figures for 1994–1995 are not yet available.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(i) what evaluation his Department has made of general practitioner multi-funds as purchasers of secondary health care services; [36614]

  (2) what is the number of general practitioner multi-funds in the NHS by regional and nationally. [36613]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about multi-funds is not collected centrally. Multi-funds are administrative arrangements whereby one or more fundholders work together to share administration or purchasing expertise
  130
  Where a medicine is available only on prescription, doctors may already issue private prescriptions free of charge to NHS patients, although they are not obliged to do so. Pharmacists then set and charge patients a price for the medicine and a private dispensing fee.

  Temazepam
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department is taking to reduce the illegal use of Temazepam; [36624]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the illegal use of Temazepam. [36625]

  Mr. Bowis
  On 10 May,Official Report, columns 747–59, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced a range of measures to help combat its misuse. This included a public consultation exercise on a proposal to ban national health service prescribing of the soft gelatin gel filled capsule formulation of the drug under schedule 10 to the NHS (General Medical Service) Regulations 1992. The Department of Health received 168 responses to the consultation exercise and these are being carefully considered. An announcement will be made shortly.

  On 12 September my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department also announced that the drug was to be moved from schedule 4 to schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, which would make unlawful possession an offence, require pharmacies to store the drug more securely, and impose import and export licensing controls. Manufacturers and wholesalers will also be required to store the drug securely.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that the administrative costs of GP fundholding are less than budget savings. [36634]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about fundholder savings and management allowances expenditure is shown in the table, which does not include start-up costs.

  which can provide improved services for patients. How general practitioners choose to manage their fund, whether singly or in groups, is a matter for individual fundholders.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which sites within the NHS have been subject to market testing; and which services on those sites have been market tested. [36642]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.
  131
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department or the NHS executive has issued to health authorities or trusts about the market testing of physiotherapy services. [36646]

  Mr. Sackville
  None that is specific to physiotherapy.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of NHS contracts by district and region placed with independent sector providers for

  Contract value £000

  Region

  Catering

  Domestic services

  Other hotel ancillary services

  Anglia/Oxford

  1,199.10

  8,563.82

  17,793.14

  North West (including Mersey)

  4,462.85

  18,013.65

  35,460.27

  Northern and Yorkshire

  13,363.11

  16,159.02

  65,212.49

  North Thames

  3,159.30

  31,181.71

  50,592.81

  South Thames

  3,587.23

  18,087.73

  36,782.08

  South and West

  1,407.20

  9,469.60

  29,948.07

  Trent

  1,483.34

  4,023.60

  9,469.44

  West Midlands

  4,632.55

  5,417.98

  23,329.61

  Total

  32,294.68

  110,917.11

  209,587.91

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of NHS clinical contracts by district and region placed with independent sector providers for(a) radiology, (b) pathology, (c) imaging and (d) other clinical services for (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [36794]

  Figures in £000

  Region

  Radiology

  Pathology

  Imaging

  Other clinical services

  Anglia and Oxford

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  52.6

  North Thames

  Nil

  224

  98

  280

  North West

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  305

  South Thames

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  277

  South and West

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  893.5

  Trent

  Nil

  Nil

  182

  Nil

  West Midlands

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  3,181.6

  Sheep Dipping
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the health risk associated with long-term exposure to chemicals used for dipping sheep. [36612]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health's staff continually assess evidence relating to the health risks associated with long term exposure to chemicals used for dipping sheep. In particular officials provided expert input into the two meetings held by the Veterinary Products Committee in 1992 and 1993 to discuss the future licensing of organophosphorus sheep dips. The Department continues to provide expert input to the medical and scientific panel which the VPC set up to investigate the long-term health effects of exposure to these products. The panel has yet to report its final conclusions.

  Cancer
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by region the proportion of NHS
  132
  (a) catering (b) cleaning and (c) other ancillary services for (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [36795]

  Mr. Sackville
  From information recorded on the national health service executive market testing database, the aggregate value of contracts awarded by NHS trusts to another contractor, including other NHS trusts, for the baseline year 1992–93 is shown in the table by region for each service grouping requested. For later years the records are incomplete. Information is not maintained by district.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the information recorded on the national health service executive's market testing database, and covers market testing of the specified services by NHS trusts, where the contract was awarded to a non-NHS contractor. The analysis is by region, but not by district, for 1992–93. Information for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is still incomplete.

  cancer patients receiving modern anti-emetics, HT3 antagonists, while on chemotherapy; [36628]

  (2) what is the proportion of NHS cancer patients receiving modern anti-emetics, HT3 antagonists, whilst on chemotherapy in (a) England and (b) other OECD nations. [36627]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement in full the recommendations of the Calman report on the commissioning of cancer services in the NHS. [36626]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the report's recommendations and welcomed the aim of delivering a uniformly high level of cancer care based on a network of expertise covering primary as well as secondary care. We support the development of designated specialist cancer units and centres and look to the national health service to make systematic progress in implementing this strategy.
  133
  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new patients are seen per year by NHS oncologists; and what are the comparable figures in other OECD states; [36635]

  (2) if he will publish figures, by region and nationally, for the proportion of NHS cancer patients referred to a cancer specialist. [36637]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36369]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department, with the exception of the Medicines Control Agency, has adopted a single motor mileage rate of 30p per mile for all motor cars and 15p per mile for all motor cycles. The Medicines Control Agency rates are as follows:

  Engine cc:

  Up to 1500 cc

  1501–2000 cc

  Over 2000 cc

  Up to 5000 miles

  35.7p

  42p

  46p

  Over 5000 miles

  23p

  27p

  35p

  Hospital Medical Consultants at 30 September each year England—whole-time equivalents

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Palliative Medicine

  12.1

  13.4

  14.1

  19.5

  22.1

  31.8

  Medical Oncology

  24.7

  23.7

  30.7

  32.7

  41.5

  61.5

  Clinical Oncology

  190.2

  185.6

  202.5

  200.1

  198.8

  221.2

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of consultant oncologists per head of population in(a) England and (b) other OECD countries. [36615]

  Mr. Malone
  There were 282.7 hospital medical and clinical consultant oncologists—whole-time equivalents—in England as at 30 September 1994, 0.6 per 100,000 population. Data on the number of oncologists per head of population in OECD countries are not available centrally.

  Intensive Care Unit Beds
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up a central telephone and computer system to provide accurate information for clinicians on the availability of ICU beds across the country. [36622]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is one of the points being considered by a working group of experts looking into admission to intensive care.

  Bloomsbury and Islington College of Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the numbers and grades of those
  134
  The Agency pays 23p per mile when a car is used in preference to public transport.

  Consultant Oncologists
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to meet the recommendation of the Royal College of Radiologists that there be a minimum of 470 NHS consultant oncologists by 2000; and what progress is being made towards this target. [36638]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government seek to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each specialty, including both medical and clinical oncology. This involves planning the number of doctors in higher specialist training on a specialty basis and including all relevant parties in the process. However, employment of consultants is a matter for local employing bodies, who make medical staffing decisions in the light of competing priorities and the health care needs of the local population.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today for the number of consultant oncologists up to and including September 1994.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for the number of(a) consultant medical oncologists, (b) consultant clinical oncologists and (c) palliative care specialists working in the NHS for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [36636]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  who will be made redundant because of the closure of the Bloomsbury and Islington college of nursing and midwifery; [36632]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of the Bloomsbury and Islington college of nursing and midwifery; and if he will make a statement. [36633]

  Mr. Sackville
  The closure of the Bloomsbury and Islington college of nursing and midwifery is a matter for the North Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Dental Services
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the recommendations of the committee convened to review the provision of NHS dental services and the date on which he expects to publish the recommendations. [36443]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government have not convened such a committee. We have, however, been working closely with the General Dental Services Committee on the detailed development of the reform proposals that I announced to the House on 5 April,Official Report. columns 1214–15.
  135
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dental practitioner posts have been(a) approved and (b) filled since 1 January 1994. [36809]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of salaried dentist posts approved from 7 January 1994 to 22 September 1995 is 36. Over the same period the net increase in the number of salaried dentists was 26.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many referrals were received by the community dental service in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1994–95 and (c) in respect of patients unable to obtain treatment within the general dental service. [36819]

  Mr. Malone
  Family health services authorities in England report that between 1 August 1994 and 22 September 1995 that they suggested to 1,399 patients that treatment might be available through the community dental service. Information is not available in this form before 1 August 1994.

  Numbers of patients waiting for orthodontic in-patient or day case treatment, by region and monthly time band, at 31 March 1995

  Region

  0–2

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  Total

  Northern and Yorkshire

  23

  16

  1

  0

  0

  40

  Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  29

  37

  23

  33

  22

  144

  North Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Thames

  15

  5

  0

  0

  0

  20

  South and West

  31

  19

  1

  0

  0

  51

  West Midlands

  7

  8

  0

  0

  0

  15

  North West

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  SHAs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  110

  85

  25

  33

  22

  275

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of children by region waiting for orthodontic treatment on the NHS for each month since January 1994. [36811]

  Mr. Malone
  Children are not identified separately in information collected on numbers of patients waiting for in-patient or day case treatment.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve dental care for elderly people in residential and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [36821]

  Mr. Bowis
  Last April the Government announced a range of reforms of national health service dentistry, including its intention to strengthen the community dental service's role in ensuring continued access to NHS dental services for all who wish to use them. This development should benefit those patients in residential and nursing homes unable to use the mainstream general dental service.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in the United Kingdom are accepting children for orthodontic treatment on only a private contract basis. [36810]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.
  136
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to initiate pilot studies on purchaser-provider arrangements for the dentist service; and if he will make a statement. [36815]

  Mr. Malone
  The package of reforms I announced on 5 April reaffirmed the Government's aim to introduce a system of local contracts between health authorities and dental practices similar to that which operates elsewhere in the health service. Such a system will need careful piloting and evaluation before a decision is taken on nationwide introduction. To run pilot projects would require primary legislation. The Government will seek to introduce the necessary legislation when parliamentary time allows. Bids for pilot projects will then be invited.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time by region for orthodontic treatment at hospitals. [36813]

  Mr. Malone
  At 31 March 1995 there were 275 patients waiting for in-patient or day case orthodontic treatment. No patient had waited more than 15 months and information by region is shown in the table. Waiting times for patients being treated on an out-patient basis are not collected centrally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget for the community dental service in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and what is the projected budget for (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [36820]

  Mr. Malone
  Expenditure on the community dental services in 1992–93 was £75,770,000. Figures are not available for later years. The level of future expenditure on the community dental service is a matter for health authorities, as the local purchasers of health care, to decide.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount allocated by his Department to dental schools for capital improvements in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and what proportion of this amount in each year was passed on to dental schools by hospital trusts. [36816]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not allocate capital funds direct to dental schools for capital improvements. Up to and including 1994–95 a central allocation for the re-equipment of dental hospitals was made to each regional health authority for the schools in its area. The total allocated was £4,608,000 in 1993–94 and £4,788,000 in 1994–95 which was split equally between the schools to produce £384,000 and £399,000 a year respectively. These amounts were allocated by the
  137
  RHAs to the appropriate health authorities and national health service trusts. Records are not kept centrally of any additional capital allocated to dental schools by the health authority or trust.

  From 1995–96 there is no central allocation. Dental schools are required to put bids in for capital funds from the trust's capital programme. Records are not kept centrally of the capital allocated.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of trained orthodontists for each year since 1991; and what was the estimated requirement for orthodontists in each of those years. [36812]

  Mr. Malone
  Any dentist who has the necessary facilities, experience of expertise may provide orthodontic treatment.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount allocated by his Department for orthodontic training for each year since 1991; and what is the projected budget for orthodontic training for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [36818]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the working of the capitation payment system to dentists for dental care of children; and what plans he has to change this system. [36814]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government have commissioned two research studies on the operation of the capitation system since it was introduced in 1990.

  The reports are at different stages of readiness. That from the university of Birmingham is in its final form and I have today placed it in the House of Commons Library. The report from the university of Manchester will be available shortly. Both research teams have plans to disseminate their findings more widely.

  The improvement of the capitation system was one of the package of proposals for the reform of NHS dentistry that I announced on 5 April. The Government intend to reform the capitation system by relating payments to dentists to disease levels in children. We are discussing the detailed development of this and the other elements of the package with the representatives of the dental profession.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, formerly health services authority if he will list by region and in total the number of people(a) deregistered from NHS dental treatment and (b) seeking help from their local FHSA to find a NHS dentist, since July 1992. [36994]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library. At 31 July 1995, as at 1 July 1992, there were 27.3 million patients registered with national health service dentists in England.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer on 27 March,Official Report, column 412, if he will publish a breakdown of the
  138
  grades of staff made redundant and the cost of redundancy payments, made to each grade of staff, for each of the last 10 years. [36647]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the cost of redundancy by grade is not collected centrally.

  Nursing and Midwifery Education
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the real terms NHS expenditure on nursing and midwifery education, for each of the past 15 years nationally and by region. [36621]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public interest immunity certificates his Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36689]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 19 July, column 1286.

  Deaths
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly, over 65 years of age, people died last year in their homes in(a) Lancashire and (b) each other county in England. [36453]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Deaths at home for over 65s in 1994 for each country in England

  65 and over

  Greater London

  9,785

  Greater Manchester

  4,449

  Merseyside

  2,564

  South Yorkshire

  2,309

  Tyne and Wear

  2,270

  West Midlands

  4,705

  West Yorkshire

  3,343

  Avon

  1,786

  Bedfordshire

  674

  Berkshire

  971

  Buckinghamshire

  957

  Cambridgeshire

  1,282

  Cheshire

  1,587

  Cleveland

  1,082

  Cornwall

  1,186

  Cumbria

  1,108

  Derbyshire

  1,825

  Devon

  2,268

  Dorset

  1,531

  Durham

  1,273

  East Sussex

  1,703

  Essex

  2,988

  Gloucestershire

  1,125

  Hampshire

  2,720

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,407

  Herefordshire

  1,454

  Humberside

  1,562

  Isle of Wight

  329

  Kent

  2,816

  Lancashire

  2,715

  Leicestershire

  1,523

  Lincolnshire

  1,173

  Norfolk

  1,674

  Northamptonshire

  834

  Northumberland

  644

  139

  Deaths at home for over 65s in J 994 for each country in England

  65 and over

  North Yorkshire

  1,361

  Nottinghamshire

  1,472

  Oxfordshire

  948

  Shropshire

  805

  Somerset

  979

  Staffordshire

  1,919

  Suffolk

  1,375

  Surrey

  1,605

  Warwickshire

  932

  West Sussex

  1,315

  Wiltshire

  992

  Total

  85,325

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will remove public schools from the provisions of the Children Act 1989. [36556]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Children Act covers the welfare of children in England and Wales wherever they are. There are no plans to amend its provisions to exclude the welfare of children in independent boarding schools.

  Chlamydia
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has concerning the

  Expenditure on mental health services 1978–79 to 1992–931

  Year

  Hospital expenditure £ million

  Percentage change year on year

  Community expenditure2 3£ million

  Percentage change year on year3

  Health authority expenditure £ million

  Percentage change year on year

  1978–79

  489.8

  —

  20.7

  —

  489.8

  —

  1979–80

  507.9

  3.7

  —

  —

  507.9

  3.7

  1980–81

  560.9

  10.4

  —

  —

  560.9

  10.4

  1981–82

  567.9

  1.2

  —

  —

  567.9

  1.2

  1982–83

  564.6

  -0.6

  —

  —

  564.6

  -0.6

  1983–84

  568.5

  0.7

  —

  —

  568.5

  0.6

  1984–85

  577.0

  1.5

  —

  —

  577.0

  1.5

  1985–86

  572.9

  -0.7

  —

  —

  572.9

  -0.7

  1986–87

  593.2

  3.5

  28.6

  —

  593.2

  3.5

  1987–88

  638.2

  7.6

  29.3

  2.4

  638.2

  7.6

  1988–89

  659.8

  3.4

  87.3

  —

  715.1

  3—

  1989–90

  647.5

  -1.9

  103.8

  18.9

  713.6

  -0.2

  1990–91

  636.4

  -1.7

  113.9

  9.7

  709.6

  -0.6

  1991–92

  739.9

  —4

  140.4

  4—

  817.7

  4—

  1992–93

  754.0

  1.9

  165.9

  18.2

  845.0

  3.3

  1 All figures are expressed at 1978–79 prices. The mental health expenditure is made up of the following:

  (a) Hospital: in-patient and out-patient expenditure—the consultant specialities of mental health, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy and old age psychiatry, day patient expenditure—in the categories mental health (alcoholism, drug abuse, psychogeriatrics and general), child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

  (b) Community: community mental health nursing expenditure and local authority personal social services for people with mental health problems.

  (c) Health authority: hospital expenditure and community mental health nursing expenditure.

  2 Local authority personal social services data are not available for the years 1979–80 to 1985–86.

  3 Figures for 1978–79, 1986–87 and 1987–88 are local authority personal social services expenditure only. The percentage change figure for 1987–88 on 1986–87 reflects this. Community mental health nursing expenditure was not collected separately in years before 1988–89. It was included with other community expenditure.

  4 Figures for 1991–92 cannot be compared with those for 1990–91 for the following reasons:

  (a) The introduction of the NHS reforms in 1991–92 and changes to accountancy practices; and

  (b) The revision of the local authority personal social services expenditure return meaning that information on client group spend was provided directly by local authorities rather than being apportioned by the Department of Health.

  Note:

  1. Increases in local authority personal social services expenditure data in 1992–93 are, in part, due to refinement of the basis for Department of Health apportionment.
  140
  incidence of chlamydia; and what measures his Department is taking to combat the spread of infection among the population with particular reference to women. [36952]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about chlamydia is published in the statistical bulletin entitled "Sexually Transmitted Diseases, England 1994", copies of which are available in the Library. The Health Education Authority and other organisations issue materials on sexually transmitted diseases, including chlamydia, to help people understand what bacterial and viral infections exist and how they should be treated. People who think they may have been at risk can make use of the network of open-access genito-urinary medicine clinics which offer confidential advice and treatment. In addition, the Department plans to set up, in parallel with on-going research, an expert group to consider the practical implications that might arise if any screening programme for chlamydia was to be introduced for different population groups and in different settings.

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the real increases and real reductions in spending on mental health services for(a) hospital, (b) community services and (c) health authorities, for each year since 1979, taking 1979 as the base line. [36898]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.
  141

  NHS (Private Patients)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of the recent decision by BUPA to withdraw automatic cover for intensive care treatment for patients who undergo routine surgery. [36623]

  Mr. Sackville
  This will depend on factors which are not predictable, including future patients' individual circumstances and unexpected complications during treatment. People who have a right to national health service treatment retain their right whether or not they are receiving, or have received, private treatment.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the projected capital spending within the NHS for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and how much of that total he estimates will be funded through the private finance initiative; [36787]

  (2) what is the projected capital spending on family and community health services within the NHS for (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and what proportion will be funded through the private finance initiative. [36789]

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross capital spending within the National Health Service for 1995–96 is estimated to be £2,028 million. The Government's spending plans for 1996–97 will be announced in the Budget.

  Spending on family health services and on community health services is not separately identified.

  These figures are additional to capital arising from the private finance initiative. At present, capital projects with a total value of approximately £1 billion are being tested for private finance.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36831]

  Mr. Sackville
  The rights of complaint of members of the public about NHS services are unaffected by the private finance initiative.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital expenditure bids have been exempted from normal private finance initiative rules. [36981]

  Mr. Sackville
  The potential for private finance is always thoroughly investigated before public funding is made available. This rule applies to all capital investment projects submitted for approval since the issue of the capital investment manual to the national health service in June 1994.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he proposes to offer to trusts negotiating contracts under the private finance initiative in relation to foreclosure in the event of default on obligations. [36796.]

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on the general principles to be applied in contracting with construction companies is 142
  set out in the National Health Service Estates publication "Contracts and Commissions for the NHS Estate", issued to all NHS trusts. Trusts, in consultation with the NHS executive headquarters, are responsible for ensuring that contracts with the private sector cover the eventuality of default by the private sector partner. Trusts are therefore urged to take legal advice at all stages of negotiating such contracts.

  NHS Clinical Contracts
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of NHS clinical contracts placed with independent sector providers by district and region for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; and what proportion this represented of the total NHS budget for each of those years. [36793]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Infant Formula Advertising
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ban the advertising of formula milk products in hospitals and clinics. [36805]

  Mr. Sackville
  The advertising and promotion of baby milks are restricted by the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations which came into force on 1 March 1995.

  Private Companies (Advice)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private companies that have advised his Department during the past five years. [36991]

  Mr. Sackville
  No central record is kept and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Acute Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department classifies as an acceptable level of occupancy for acute beds in respect of(a) the district general hospitals and (b) teaching hospitals. [36791]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has not attempted to set-a definitive level for bed occupancy rates. Optimum levels are dependent on an examination of local factors and are not therefore suitable or capable of being the subject of central advice.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's target remains to reduce the number of acute beds, by 40 per cent. by 2005 in England and Wales. [36790]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no national target for reducing acute beds in England. The number of acute beds needed has to be decided at local level, based on contracted work loads and taking account of local circumstances, such the local rate for emergency admissions, the level of day case treatments and the availability of alternative services, such as hospital at home schemes.

  Responsibility for hospital services in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  143

  Breastfeeding
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount spent by his Department on the promotion of breastfeeding for each year since 1991; and what is the projected budget for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [36801]

  Mr. Sackville
  The expenditure by the Department on publicity materials to promote breastfeeding is as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1991–92

  Nil

  1992–93

  30,000

  1993–94

  28,000

  1994–95

  58,000

  1995–96

  51,000 (estimated)

  1996–97

  not yet determined

  Total expenditure, through section 64 grant aid programme, to voluntary bodies concerned with the promotion and support of breastfeeding, is as follows:

  1991–92: 66,000

  1992–93: 58,000

  1993–94: 70,000

  1994–95: 55,500

  1995–96: 57,000 (provisional)

  1996–97: not yet determined

  In addition, we have contributed £38,000—paid over the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96—of the £50,600 funding from the United Kingdom Health Departments towards the costs of the "Invest in Breast" training programme introduced jointly by the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association which was launched last May.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the potential savings to the NHS of encouraging more mothers to breastfeed their babies in the last five years. [36802]

  Numbers of patients on waiting lists on 31 March 1995 who had been waiting for:

  Region

  0–2 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  In-patients

  Day cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Northern and Yorkshire

  36,356

  37,550

  20,677

  14,110

  12,879

  7,028

  7,969

  3,265

  (45.8%)

  (60.3%)

  (26.1%)

  (22.7%)

  (16.2%)

  (11.3%)

  (10.0%)

  (5.2%)

  Trent

  26,908

  23,728

  14,086

  8,192

  8,538

  3,737

  4,614

  1,674

  (48.5%)

  (63.3%)

  (25.4%)

  (21.9%)

  (15.4%)

  (10.0%)

  (8.3%)

  (4.5%)

  Anglia and Oxford

  29,759

  24,662

  16,414

  9,517

  9,797

  4,461

  5,742

  2,263

  (46.7%)

  (59.2%)

  (25.7%)

  (22.8%)

  (15.4%)

  (10.7%)

  (9.0%)

  (5.4%)

  North Thames

  40,708

  39,115

  22,467

  16,148

  15,817

  9,020

  11,673

  5,935

  (40.5%)

  (51.8%)

  (22.4%)

  (21.4%)

  (15.7%)

  (11.9%)

  (11.6%)

  (7.9%)

  South Thames

  35,628

  39,348

  19,694

  15,369

  13,181

  8,685

  8,791

  5,065

  (42.2%)

  (54.4%)

  (23.3%)

  (21.2%)

  (15.6%)

  (12.0%)

  (10.4%)

  (7.0%)

  South and West

  37,479

  34,739

  19,207

  12,057

  8,362

  4,489

  2,105

  1,043

  (55.8%)

  (66.4%)

  (28.6%)

  (23.0%)

  (12.4%)

  (8.6%)

  (3.1%)

  (2.0%)

  West Midlands

  25,861

  27,933

  14,265

  11,340

  6,877

  4,834

  128

  24

  (54.8%)

  (63.3%)

  (30.2%)

  (25.7%)

  (14.6%)

  (11.0%)

  (0.3%)

  (0.1%)

  North West

  42,891

  48,113

  21,309

  15,679

  12,822

  7,674

  6,692

  3,640

  (51.2%)

  (64.1%)

  (25.5%)

  (20.9%)

  (15.3%)

  (10.2%)

  (8.0%)

  (4.8%)

  Note:

  Figures in brackets represent proportion of all in-patient or day case patients waiting on 31 March 1995 at each region.

  Source:

  Provider based Körner returns.
  144
  Mr. Sackville
  Publicly funded research studies have shown that there are substantial health benefits for babies who are breastfed rather than bottle fed.

  The Department's "Breastfeeding: good practice guidance to the NHS" provides an estimate, based on the research findings on the benefits of breastfeeding and of the potential savings to the national health service that could be achieved from increased breastfeeding. The guidance was issued in May and copies are available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make training on breastfeeding mandatory for general practitioners and other health service professionals. [36804]

  Mr. Sackville
  The body responsible for general practice vocational training—the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice—expects general practitioners to be skilled in recognising and making appropriate decisions about all health problems presented by their patients. The specific curricular arrangements to achieve these attributes are the responsibility of regional postgraduate organisations.

  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is responsible for approving—to standards set by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—institutions to provide courses for these three professions. Midwifery and health visiting courses include breastfeeding.

  Hospital waiting Lists
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the waiting times for in-patient admission and day surgery by(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months by region. [36798]

  Mr. Malone
  Information in the form requested is not available. The numbers of patients waiting, by regions, for in-patient and day case treatment as at 31 March 1995 are shown in the table.
  145

  GP Surgeries
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many administrative and clerical staff have been employed in general practitioners' surgeries by region, including London, since 1990–91; [36989]

  (2) what has been the total of practice managers located in general practitioners' surgeries employed by GP fundholders or non-fundholders by region, including London, since 1990–91. [36988]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the type and number of general practitioner practice staff is contained in the publication "GMS Basic Statistics—England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. The fundholding status of GPs is not separately identified.

  Baby Friendly Initiative
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State. for Health (1) how many hospitals have been awarded UNICEF/WHO baby friendly awards; [36807]

  (2) what support his Department intends to give to hospitals working towards baby friendly status; and if he will make baby friendly status a mandatory requirement for NHS trusts. [36803]

  Mr. Sackville
  Two hospitals in England have been awarded the WHO/UNICEF/UK baby friendly initiative status which indicates an international standard in the promotion of breastfeeding. Others are working towards this.

  The Department's "Breastfeeding Good Practice Guidance to the NHS" was issued to the national health service, including trusts, in May this year. It was prepared in consultation with the national breastfeeding working group on which the UNICEF/UK baby friendly initiative were represented. The guidance gives some prominence to the baby friendly initiative "10 steps to successful breastfeeding" and asks purchasers to incorporate its principles within their purchasing plans. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) management, (b) medical and (c) other consultants employed by his Department during the past five years. [36993]

  Mr. Sackville
  No central record is kept and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medicines Act 1968
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cases in which information has been withheld by his Department under section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. [36757]

  Mr. Sackville
  Except where disclosure would be in performance of duties placed upon holders of information, including public safety, the Medicines Act 1968 protects information obtained, furnished or gathered as a146
  requirement of the Act. This would include trade secrets and manufacturing processes.

  Fluoridation
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that water companies comply with requests from local health authorities for water fluoridation other than when technical considerations prevent them from doing. [36817]

  Mr. Malone
  Fluoridation of water supplies is a matter for local decision. Local health authorities have no power to compel water suppliers to fluoridate.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if men and women in the NHS pension scheme have contributed the same percentage contributions since 1972; [36800]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding discrimination against women doctors in the NHS pension scheme in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [36799]

  Mr. Malone
  The contribution level of both men and women in the national health service pension scheme has been at 5 per cent. of pensionable earnings for manual workers, 6 per cent. of pensionable earnings for other staff, since 1972. Widower benefits were introduced into the scheme at no extra cost in April 1988. A voluntary purchase scheme was available until June 1989 to enable those members who wished to have additional widowers benefits cover to buy past service, costs being shared by NHS employers.

  On 6 April the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), met representatives of the British Medical Association seeking retrospective improvements of widowers benefits. Since I July 1994, 29 right hon. and hon. Members have written on the same subject.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre Files, (i) Centre Files, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36955]

  Mr. Sackville
  No central record is kept and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GP Premises
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected capital spending by region on GP premises for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [36788]
  147
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 25 January, column 259.

  Formula Milk
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to limit the use of formula milk products by the NHS. [36806]

  Mr. Sackville
  While recognising and promoting breast feeding as the best start to life for infants the Government recognise some women will choose not to, or will not be able to, breastfeed. The use of formula milk products will reflect the choice mothers make about how to feed their babies.

  Wellhouse Trust
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Wellhouse Trust will be exempted from the private finance initiative rules in raising funds for the new Barnet hospital project; [36980]

  (2) what factors underlay his decision regarding capital expenditure by the Wellhouse Trust; and if he will make a statement. [36982]

  Mr. Sackville
  No. The trust is pursuing private finance initiative procedures for phase 1b of the redevelopment of Barnet general hospital. Phase la is under construction at a cost of £29 million. The new hospital will help to ensure local people have access to comprehensive and high quality acute services.

  Private Contracts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private companies that have been awarded contracts by his Department during the past five years. [36992]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Senior Registrars and Registrars
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received relating to his proposal to remove the contract of small registrars and small senior registrars from the regional health authority to national health service trusts. [36742]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received letters from representatives of senior and junior doctors about our plans for junior doctors' contracts. He met with them on 13 July and emphasised Ministers' commitment to ensuring that the high standards of medical education and training are maintained. A package of safeguards has been developed that will protect the continuity and high quality of training programmes. Guidance to the service is now being worked up in conjunction with the medical profession.

  GP Paperwork
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of time GPs devote to paperwork on 148
  average, by fundholder and non-fundholder, (a) now and (b) for whichever dates information is conveniently available in each of the last five years. [36990]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Personal Social Services Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the social services standard spending assessment in each English and Welsh county for the current financial year. [36714]

  Mr. Bowis
  Personal social services standard spending assessments for 1995–96 for English county councils are set out in the standard spending assessment handbook 1995–96, 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.

  Variations in Health
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the sub-group of the chief medical officer's health of the nation working group, variations in health is due to report; and when the report will be published. [36792]

  Mr. Sackville
  The variations sub-group of the chief medical officer's health of the nation working group has now reported. Its report will be published shortly.

  Health Advisory Council
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the reinstatement of the Health Advisory Council; and if he will make a statement. [36808]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of a body of that name.

  Community Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of total national spending the Department of Social Security was spending in each English and Welsh county in the financial year prior to transfer of responsibility for care in the community to local authorities; and what proportion of funds allocated by his Department for care in the community are distributed in each English and Welsh county. [36713]

  Mr. Bowis
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to community care and not the mental health care in the community. The Department of Social Security figures for 1992–93 relate to the amount paid in income support to residents of the independent sector residential homes. All other community care, residential, domiciliary and day services, were provided by social services departments. The information for England will be placed in the Library. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population in each English and Welsh county is over pensionable age; and what is the English and Scottish average. [36715]
  149
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is in the table.

  Mid-1994 population estimates Persons of pensionable age(1) as a percentage of all residents

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  18.3

  England

  18.3

  Wales

  19.9

  Scotland

  17.8

  Counties.-

  Greater London

  15.7

  Greater Manchester

  17.3

  Merseyside

  18.7

  South Yorkshire

  18.5

  Tyne and Wear

  18.9

  West Midlands

  17.8

  West Yorkshire

  17.4

  Avon

  18.7

  Bedfordshire

  14.8

  Berkshire

  14.5

  Buckinghamshire

  14.6

  Cambridgeshire

  16.4

  Cheshire

  17.6

  Cleveland

  16.8

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  22.8

  Cumbria

  20.3

  Derbyshire

  18.7

  Devon

  22.8

  Dorset

  25.2

  Durham

  18.6

  East Sussex

  24.8

  Essex

  18.7

  Gloucestershire

  19.7

  Hampshire

  17.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  19.0

  Hertfordshire

  17.1

  Humberside

  18.7

  Isle of Wight

  26.4

  Kent

  19.0

  Lancashire

  19.2

  Leicestershire

  17.0

  Lincolnshire

  21.3

  Norfolk

  22.1

  Northamptonshire

  16.6

  Northumberland

  19.6

  North Yorkshire

  20.4

  Nottinghamshire

  18.0

  Oxfordshire

  16.1

  Shropshire

  18.3

  Somerset

  21.9

  Staffordshire

  17.3

  Suffolk

  20.3

  Surrey

  18.6

  Warwickshire

  18.1

  West Sussex

  23.5

  Wiltshire

  17.7

  Clwyd

  20.5

  Dyfed

  22.0

  Gwent

  18.9

  Gwynedd

  22.8

  Mid-Glamorgan

  18.1

  Powys

  22.0

  South Glamorgan

  18.1

  West Glamorgan

  20.6

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  1 65 and over for Unit, OPCS.

  Postgraduate Education (Registrars)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to ensure that high standards of 150
  postgraduate education and training for registrars are protected. [36743]

  Mr. Malone
  The medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties are responsible for the standards of training and education of registrars. Under the reforms of specialist medical education currently being implemented, the registrar and senior registrar grades will be abolished and replaced by the new specialist registrar grade. We are working with the royal colleges and postgraduate deans to ensure that training in the specialist registrar grade will be of the highest possible standard.

  Booth Hall Children's Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the occupancy rate and number of patients seen in the last three years at Booth Hall hospital. [37355]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. T. F. Lavin, chairman of Manchester Children's Hospitals national health service trust, for details.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the future of Booth Hall; from which organisations; and what has been his response; [37354]

  (2) what replacement services are proposed in replacement of those provided currently by Booth Hall children's hospital. [37353]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers have replied to eight letters from hon. Members. Officials have replied to 37 letters from members of the public.

  Under the health authorities' proposals, all services currently available at Booth Hall children's hospital would be re-provided elsewhere. It is envisaged that routine paediatric services for local children would be provided at North Manchester general hospital. The more specialist, regional services would move to the Royal Manchester children's hospital, Pendlebury.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the report on paediatric care in Greater Manchester and when he will make an announcement on the future of Booth Hall children's hospital. [37352]

  Mr. Sackville
  The North West regional health authority commissioned Sir David Hull, professor of child health at Nottingham university, to carry out an independent and thorough review of service and make recommendations for the future. On the basis of Professor Hull's recommendations, Manchester and Salford and Trafford health authorities drew up specific proposals for the development of high quality, city-wide services for children. The proposals are currently set aside pending the outcome of a possible judicial review.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction or advice his Department has issued to regional or district health services concerning criteria for contracts which they make with providers of accident and emergency services on a capitation or other basis and in relation to patterns of access to those services: and where such advice or information is published. [37330]
  151
  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are expected to enter into contracts with appropriate providers covering all accident and emergency attendances, regardless of the district of residence of the attenders.

  This was explained in the document "Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles" published in September 1989, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many district health authorities place restrictions, other than age-related ones, on the availability of fertility treatment; [37309]

  (2) if he will list the district health authorities which have an age-related policy regarding the purchase of fertility treatment, together with details of the age at which each of these denies treatment, specifying what kind of fertility treatment is being limited. [37308]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to introducing guidelines to ensure consistency of provision of fertility treatment across district health authorities. [37310]

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on the services available under the national health service for the treatment of infertility is contained in the effective health care bulletin on "The Management of Subfertility", August 1992, published for the NHS management executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Local health authorities are responsible for the provision of local health services, including the provision of infertility services. Decisions about the availability of these services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate his Department has of the number of complaints made about care in(a) residential and (b) nursing homes during the last year; [37010]

  (2) what estimate his Department has of the number of (a) residential and (b) nursing homes that are holders of BS5750, and of investors in people awards; [37012]

  (3) what estimate his Department has made of the number of care assistants in residential homes that have nursing qualifications. [37015]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has of the number of registered residential homes and the number of registered nursing homes. [37013]

  Mr. Bowis
  As at 31 March 1994 in England, there were 17,600 residential care homes for adults registered with local authorities and 5,100 nursing homes registered 152
  with health authorities. A number of homes may be registered for both residential and nursing care under the terms of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the average gross and net profits made by private residential and nursing homes. [37018]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally on which to base such an estimate.

  Blood Stocks
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on the development of a national computing system to control blood stocks. [37137]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the National Blood Authority expects to go out to tender shortly for bids to supply a new computer system for the national blood service.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps health authorities are taking to safeguard health staff carrying out their duties. [37042]

  Mr. Malone
  Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, it is a requirement that employers and staff agree appropriate methods locally for ensuring the safety of their working environment.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has(a) to introduce safety guidelines to all health authorities aimed at minimising risks to staff and (b) to introduce a legal obligation on all health service bodies to ensure that such staff in the course of their duties are protected and in the event of sustaining injuries or contracting diseases have legal safeguards against employer negligence. [37043]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive has issued guidance to NHS employers on health and safety at work issues, EL(93)66 and occupational health service matters HSG(94)51, which underline NHS employers' statutory duties to promote a safe working environment for staff, and on security "The NHS Security Manual", 1995. Copies of these documents are available in the Library. In the event of staff sustaining an injury or contracting a disease at work, they may be eligible for benefits under the NHS injury benefits scheme.

  Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for legislation to introduce new national health service complaints and disciplinary procedures for general practitioners; on what date would these procedures take effect; and if he will make a statement. [37046]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government intend to lay measures before Parliament to introduce new national health service complaints and disciplinary procedures for family health services practitioners from 1 April 1996.
  153

  Excess Winter Death Rates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 763, what methodology is used to calculate excess winter death rates; and if he will publish the figures for all deaths in the relevant periods in each year since 1989. [37311]

  Mr. Sackville
  Excess winter deaths are defined as the number of deaths in the four months from December to March less the average of the numbers in the preceding autumn—August to November—and the following summer—April to July.

  The excess winter mortality index is the number of excess winter deaths expressed as a percentage of the average of the number of deaths in the autumn and winter periods.

  The numbers of deaths in each winter period in England and Wales since 1989 are as follows:

  1989–90: 225,790

  1990–91: 214,259

  1991–92: 209,509

  1992–93: 198,092

  1993–94: 208,425

  Hospitals (Car Parking)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require all district health authorities, as a condition of any contract entered into with providers of hospital services, to refrain from making any charge for car parking for those visiting patients or receiving out-patient treatment at their establishments. [37371]

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Islington Social Services
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority social service departments have made inquiries of his Department in respect of the index he holds of ex-employees of Islington who were referred to in the White report. [37099]

  Mr. Bowis
  Three.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure local authority social service departments have access to the list he holds of names of former employees of Islington social services department named in the White report. [37098]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has undertaken to check against its consultancy service index any names submitted by a local authority of any employee of theirs in the child care field who is understood to be a former employee of Islington social services department.

  Information Disclosure
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the matters which staff of his Department are precluded by employment conditions from discussing with their Member of Parliament. [37102]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no list of matters which staff of the Department are precluded by their employment conditions from discussing with their Member of 154
  Parliament. They may not, however, without prior permission, disclose official information held by the Department or another Government Department unless it has already been made public, nor should they discuss matters in such a way as to bring into question their political impartiality.

  Private Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many extra contractual referrals were made by health authorities to private psychiatric hospitals containing source accommodation in(a) 1994 and (b) the first six months of 1995; and how many were made in each case to hospitals run by Partnership in Care Ltd. [37025]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Home Visits (Security)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from NHS trusts on arrangements in place to improve the security of midwives, district nurses and other carrying drugs to relieve pain to patients in the community. [37100]

  Mr. Malone
  No. There is a continuing responsibility on national health service trust management to ensure that staff in the community can practice in safety. The NHS executive provides guidance to local managers who must devise local solutions in their own particular circumstances. The NHS security manual includes a suggested "check list" to be used by staff involved in home visiting.

  Hospitals, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of hospital provision in South Manchester; when he expects to make any further assessment; and if he will make a statement. [37168]

  Mr. Sackville
  In November 1994, the North West regional health authority considered a report by Professor Herbert Duthie into the future shape of health care in south Manchester. Following amendments to the original proposals and a further period of public consultation, Manchester health authority has now agreed plans to improve health services in south Manchester, including those based in hospitals. In doing so, the health authority has accepted a number of demands put forward by South Manchester community health council and is currently working with South Manchester university hospitals NHS trust and others on the detailed arrangements.

  NHS Staff Retirement
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total of NHS staff(a) retiring on pension and (b) taking early retirements on pension for each of the last 10 years; and what was the annual cost of early retirements in each of the last 10 years. [22739]

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May, c. 569–70]: I regret that the information provided in the previous reply was incorrect. I have asked the chief executive of the NHS Pensions Agency, Mr. A. F. Cowan, to send the hon. Member a revised answer.
  155
  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 13 October 1995:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is the total of NHS staff (a) retiring on pension and (b) taking early retirements on pension for each of the last 10 years; and what was the annual cost of early retirements in each of the last 10 years."

  I regret that the information previously provided was incorrect.

  Age retirements over the last 4 years

  1991–92: 11,734

  1992–93: 12,774

  1993–94: 11,666

  1994–95: 11,364

  Ill-health retirements over the last 4 years

  1991–92: 7,323

  1992–93: 8,327

  1993–94: 9,520

  1994–95: 9,030

  Early retirements over the last 4 years

  1991–92: 2,818

  1992–93: 3,313

  1993–94: 5,837

  1994–95: 5,732

  Full cost of early retirements for the Scheme, excluding ill-health retirements in each of the following financial years is:

  1992–93: £137.291m

  1993–94: £158.827m

  1994–95: £211.383m

ENVIRONMENT

  Civil Servants (Allowances)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36367]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The mileage allowances payable to civil servants using their own vehicles in my Department are:

  Cars—Standard mileage rate

  Engine capacity

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  Pence per mile

  Up to 4000 miles (pa)

  34

  43

  47

  Over 4000 miles (pa)

  19

  23

  30

  A special rate of 23.8p per mile is payable where staff choose to use their own car, even when public transport is available.

  Motor Cycles and Motor Cycle Combinations

  Engine capacity

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  Up to 4000 miles (pa) (comprehensive insurance)

  16.2

  25.3

  Up to 4000 miles (pa) (third party insurance)

  14.5

  22.8

  Over 4000 miles

  6.2

  9.0

  Pedal cycles

  6.2p per mile

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total cost of travel expenses 156
  claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last five years if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36368]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total cost of travel expenses claimed by staff using their own vehicles for official business was some £450,000 in 1993–94 and £640,000 in 1994–1995. Records are no longer available for earlier years and records showing the actual rate claimed are not kept. It is not possible, therefore to estimate the saving if the lower rate had not been claimed in each case.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public interest immunity certificates his Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36692]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has not produced a public interest immunity certificate in legal proceedings in any year since 1986.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are estimated to be homeless in each English county. [36730]

  Mr. Clappison
  Data on households which local authorities accept responsibility to secure accommodation for under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act are reported by local authorities districts on a quarterly basis. Total acceptances by the districts in each county for the quarter ending June 1995, the latest available are set out in the table.

  Number

  Avon

  580

  Bedfordshire

  187

  Berkshire

  345

  Buckinghamshire

  279

  Cambridgeshire

  243

  Cheshire

  1—

  Cleveland

  481

  Cornwall

  210

  Cumbria

  111

  Derbyshire

  656

  Devon

  1—

  Dorset

  345

  Durham

  162

  East Sussex

  587

  Essex

  631

  Gloucestershire

  216

  Greater Manchester

  2,469

  Hampshire

  848

  Hereford and Worcester

  435

  Hertfordshire

  1—

  Humberside

  268

  Isle of Wight

  58

  Kent

  1—

  Lancashire

  1—

  Leicestershire

  1—

  Lincolnshire

  217

  London

  6,320

  Mersey side

  744

  Norfolk

  1—

  North Yorkshire

  1—

  Northamptonshire

  219

  Northumberland

  130

  157

  Number

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  Oxfordshire

  1—

  Shopshire

  231

  Somerset

  292

  South Yorkshire

  591

  Staffordshire

  1—

  Suffolk

  290

  Surrey

  394

  Tyne and Wear

  855

  Warwickshire

  131

  West Midlands

  1—

  West Sussex

  346

  West Yorkshire

  1,568

  Wiltshire

  373

  1 Not available—returns have not been received from all authorities in the county. Details of acceptances in individual authorities are available in a supplementary table which is released alongside the quarterly information bulletin on homelessness statistics.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each English county has received via district councils under the housing investment programme. [36731]

  Mr. Clappison
  English counties do not receive any resources via district councils under the housing investment programme.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each local authority received per head through central Government grants in 1994–95. [36732]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed the information in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total standard spending assessment funding allocated to each English and Welsh county for this financial year. [36768]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The requested information for English counties is available in the Library. The standard spending assessments for authorities in Wales are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with Staffordshire fire service the effects of the revised standard spending assessment calculation on fire service operations; and if he will make a statement. [37037]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Shortly after the Budget, we will consult on our proposals for the local government finance Settlement for 1996–97. We are willing to discuss our proposals with any authority at that stage, so far as time permits.

  Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to stop the decline in population of(a) song thrushes, (b) bullfinches, (c) lapwings, (d) reed buntings, (e) grey partridges, (f) tree sparrows and (g) turtle doves; and if he will make a statement. [36904]
  158
  Mr. Clappison
  A number of steps are being taken by my Department, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to help in the recovery of these species. These include:

  Habitats beneficial to these species are included in the sites of special scientific interest and special protection areas classified under the EC birds directive.

  Agri-environment schemes developed under EC regulations, stewardship and woodland grant schemes encourage farming practices which help conserve habitat important to farmland birds;

  Targets for the conservation of habitats to be developed under the UK biodiversity action plan;

  Funding research and development projects on the effect of farming techniques on farmland bird populations;

  Sponsorship of Royal Society for the Protection of Birds projects to provide practical information on farmland birds for farmers, their advisors and others.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he can take to increase the number of breeding pairs of(a) corncrake and (b) stone curlew on the British Isles. [36942]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since 1991, the Government have been involved in schemes in Scotland to provide financial incentives to landowners and farmers to introduce farming methods which are more conducive to breeding corncrakes. The Government are also working with landowners to protect nesting stone curlews on arable land in Wessex and East Anglia.

  The biodiversity steering group is expected to advise the Government on action plans for the corncrake and stone curlew to improve their conservation status. The steering group will report later this year.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial support he will make available to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds towards its song thrush research project. [36941]

  Mr. Clappison
  Although we are not planning to give financial support to this project, my Department is currently negotiating with contractors on research to assess whether the use of herbicides and insecticides on agricultural land be contributing to the decline in the number of certain UK species, including song thrushes, and to provide information about the impact of pesticides on bird populations.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also funds research related to farmland birds.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsman about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative through his Department. [36833]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Members of the public have the same rights to make complaints of alleged maladministration to the relevant ombudsman concerning a Department of the Environment project which is privately financed as they would have had if the project had been publicly financed.
  159

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG, and (q) Logica. [36965]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally by my Department and to collect it would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Water
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gave and what(a) statutory and (b) other bodies he consulted concerning the impact on personal health and hygiene and public health, particularly on children, the elderly and the sick, of his policy to encourage the use of water meters for domestic premises; and if he will place the relevant documents in the Library. [37369]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment and the Office of Water Services commissioned a survey on "The Social Impact of Water Metering" the report of which was published in August 1992. A copy of the report is in the Library. The views of a wide range of organisations were sought in the Department's consultation paper "Using Water Wisely" published in July 1992. A copy of this document and a list of the organisations which responded to it are available in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the approximate revenue cost per given annual volume of water lost by leakage from(a) high and (b) low pressure water mains at which it becomes non-economic to eliminate such leakage, using average or median national costs for producing potable public supplies. [37337]

  Mr. Clappison
  The economic cost of leakage varies significantly, not only between companies but also within each company's operating area. An average national figure would not be meaningful.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to annex B, paragraph 8 of his document "Water Conservation; Government Action", what were the methodology and assumptions used; and what is the range of cost/value calculations he has used in determining his public targets for reduction by water companies in leakage for their mains distribution system. [37370]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government does not at present propose to set mandatory leakage targets. The water companies themselves are in the best position to judge costs and benefits of leakage control. It will be for the Director General of Water Services to negotiate demanding voluntary leakage targets which take account of varying local circumstances.
  160
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what(a) advice has been issued and (b) regulations have been made by her Majesty's Government concerning the desirability of fitting of cisterns in domestic premises for the continued supply of water for hygiene and hot water systems during interruptions in mains supply. [37274]

  Mr. Clappison
  Section 66 of the Water Industry Act 1991 allows water undertakers to require certain properties to be provided with a cistern. In the case of a relevant house, the cistern should be capable of holding sufficient water to provide an adequate supply for a period of 24 hours.

  Except in an emergency, a water undertaker may cut off a supply of water to any premises for the purposes of carrying out any necessary works only after having served reasonable notice on the consumer. If any supply of water to those premises for domestic purposes is interrupted for more than 24 hours for the purposes of carrying out those works then the water undertaker has a duty to the consumer to provide an emergency supply of water within a reasonable distance of the premises.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the mean daily evaporation rates from free water surfaces of reservoirs and rivers over a given period for known locations in England and Wales for an appropriate period of summer drought. [37368]

  Mr. Clappison
  Standard hydrological textbooks provide the equations, and the Meterological Office reports the data, from which estimates of free water evaporation can be made.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following his conclusions in paragraph 29 of his White Paper, "Water Conservation, Government Action", that reduction in the need for additional capital investment in supply of water leads to consequential savings of cost for consumers, what are(a) nationally and (b) on a local basis the appropriate percentages of water charges that have been devoted to such investment (i) by undertakings which were previously regional water authorities and (ii) other water companies. [37382]

  Mr. Clappison
  Between 1989–90 and 1994–95 the water industry's investment on water resource development was about 5 per cent. of total investment on the water service during this period. Water company capital programmes may be funded by a combination of debt or equity finance and retained profits. Information on the percentage of water charges that has been devoted by the various water companies to this resource development is not held centrally.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names or descriptions of the relevant statutory or non-statutory bodies now fulfilling the duties, including reportage, of(a) the former National Water Council and (b) the former regional water authorities, as specified in sections 4 and 24 respectively of the Water Act 1973 before their replacement or repeal later. [37276]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Water Act 1983 provided for the dissolution of the National Water Council, which was primarily a consultative and advisory body on matters
  161
  relating to national water policy, and for its functions to cease by order of the Secretary of State. Subsequently, water authorities established their own non-statutory body, the Water Authorities Association—now the Water Services Association—to promote their interests nationally and to inform consumers about their activities.

  Following the reorganisation of the water industry in England and Wales in 1989, the functions of the former water authorities are now largely undertaken by a combination of the National Rivers Authority, the drinking water inspectorate and the successor water and sewerage companies themselves.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support from public funds, by nature and amount, ceased to be available to the former regional water authorities in England and Wales in privatisation. [37270]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water companies ceased to have access to the national loans fund on privatisation. The amounts borrowed would have varied annually depending upon their capital requirements. They continue to be eligible to apply for Government grants and support from European funds for qualifying schemes.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will request the relevant bodies, agencies or organisations concerned with the conservation, purification and distribution of potable water supplies in England and Wales to prepare a report on national water resources, taking into account circumstances of the winter of 1976 and those of the summer of 1995; [37367]

  (2) what is the general increase in demand for potable water supplies in periods of summer drought over average summer consumption (a) for each of the principal water regions and (b) nationally; and what assessment he has made of the purposes to which that extra demand is put. [37365]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 1 September that the Department will be conducting a review of all aspects of legislation, planning, organisation and preparation for droughts. This will include consideration of changes in patterns of demand for water which have happened or which seem likely, and will involve all the interests concerned.

  Sewers (Rodent Infestation)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory powers he exercises over suppliers of water disposal services in respect of levels of rodent infestation in sewers; where standards relating to such infestation are publicised; and what powers elected authorities or district health authorities possess to inspect and enforce levels of infestation. [37268]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no specific duty on water and sewerage companies in relation to the control of rats in sewers. However, all sewerage undertakers have programmes to control and reduce the number of rats in their systems. Local authorities have a long-standing duty to keep themselves informed about the sufficiency of drainage systems in their area to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health. Failure to control rat 162
  infestations on property could be enforceable by the local authority environmental health officer under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if it is judged to be a statutory nuisance.

  Mobile Fresh Water Tanks
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory or other requirements have been made by Her Majesty's Government to require water companies to have available a given number of mobile fresh water tanks, wheeled or otherwise, related to the numbers of population served; and what national arrangement it has made for supplying of such equipment in emergencies. [37281]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water companies have a duty under the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989 to have plans in place to ensure the provision of essential water supplies at all times. The direction also requires that the water companies shall provide such facilities, including works, plant and equipment, as will secure the implementation of these plans, which should be mutually complimentary and co-ordinated between the companies.

  Urban Renewal Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the urban renewal grant repayment conditions in the case of a dwelling where the grant recipient dies within the statutory three years and the dwelling is then sold by a new owner. [37113]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We propose to extend the house renovation grant repayment conditions to cover such cases at the next suitable legislative opportunity.

  Fire Authorities (Coastline Factor)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that fire authorities with a coastline incur extra costs from the coastline factor. [37036]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The measure of coastline was introduced into the fire SSA formula in 1995–96 to reflect additional costs that authorities with coastline face compared with inland authorities. Authorities situated on the coast have less scope than inland authorities for drawing reinforcements from neighbouring brigades and therefore need greater self-sufficiency to provide the same standard of service as other local authorities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from fire services adversely affected by the inclusion of the coastline indicator in the standard spending assessment calculation for fire services. [37035]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During consultation on the 1995–96 local government finance settlement, the Secretary of State for the Environment received two representations from local authorities concerning the use of a coastline factor in the fire standard spending assessment. Other representations have been received subsequently.

  Urban Development Areas
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer concerning
  163
  employment in urban development areas, Official Report, 18 July, column 1427–28, how many of the 63,025 jobs quoted for the London docklands area existed in the same, or equivalent form outside that area prior to the re-location of the enterprises or services concerned.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The London Docklands development corporation does not hold records which enable an analysis of gross jobs in the way requested.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been contributed(a) item by item (b) in toto by public funds to the infrastructure serving the complex of the Canary wharf project; and what is this figure as a proportion of the estimated current freehold value of the property, or the highest public offer extant, together with the purchase price of the site from the Port of London Authority and its selling price to the first Canary Wharf Company. [37332]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Public spending on infrastructure serving the Canary wharf area totals £44.5 million and is broken down as follows:

  £ million

  West Ferry Road Phase 1 Heron Quays Roundabout

  5.3

  Canary Wharf Eastern Access Road

  22.3

  West Ferry Road Electricity sub-station and National Grid Enhancement

  16.9

  Of course, all infrastructure expenditure by the London Docklands development corporation brings regeneration benefits to the economy and attractiveness of the docklands overall. Isolating separate areas of expenditure and attributing it to particular projects distorts its significance and broader benefits.

  No valuation of the current freehold value of the Canary wharf complex is available.

  The LDDC acquired land within the Canary wharf site from the Port of London Authority as part of a package deal—including water areas—and no separate breakdown of the land value is available. Of the 72 acre site purchased by Olympia and York, about 22 acres of land and 21 acres of water were in LDDC's ownership and these were sold for £8 million cash plus £12 million towards additional infrastructure.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on advertising the post of chairman of the Countryside Commission; what was the cost of employing St. James Management Recruitment; what other costs were involved in making the appointment; and if Mr. Simmonds applied for the post. [37386]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total cost of employing St. James's Management Recruitment was some £31,000, of which some £8,000 represented advertising costs. The other costs involved in making the appointment relate to the time spent on the recruitment process by Ministers and officials in the Department, for which figures are not available. Mr. Simmonds did not apply but was approached by St. James's.
  164

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory, or other, consultations are being initiated by Her Majesty's Government with statutory and other bodies in fulfilment of obligations arising from(a) the biodiversity convention and (b) legislation of the European Community consequent on the biodiversity convention. [37275]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have consulted widely in the development of the UK biodiversity action plan which was produced in accordance with article 6 of the biodiversity convention. The publication of the plan in January 1994 followed a consultation involving some 300 organisations, including a two-day seminar in May 1993. In June 1995, a biodiversity steering group was established to advise Government on taking forward the plan. The group includes representatives from central and local government, the statutory conservation agencies, industry, the national collections and academia, landowners and land managers and the voluntary conservation bodies. It will publish a report in December and a Government response is planned early in the new year. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library.

  The UK delegation to the first meeting of the conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention held consultation meetings with interested parties both before and during the meeting in Nassau last year. This approach is being repeated in preparation for the second conference next month in Jakarta.

  The Government issued a public consultation paper in October 1993 about the legal transposition of the EU habitats directive. The Conservation (Natural Habitats & C.) Regulations 1994, approved by Parliament in October 1994, were prepared in the light of the consultation. In March this year, the Government consulted interested parties on a list of possible special areas of conservation under the directive. Similar consultation takes place before the classification of special protection areas under the birds directive.

  Basking Sharks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to include basking sharks on the list of endangered species; and if he will make a statement. [37038]

  Mr. Clappison
  The basking shark has been considered for protection under the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981 on two previous occasions but there was insufficient evidence to support protection.

  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Government's statutory conservation adviser, is currently considering which species should be recommended for protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act as part of the third quinquennial review. The case for the basking shark is being reviewed, but it is too early to say whether the evidence will result in the species being protected.

  Water Companies (Share Value)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the(a) total and (b) percentage increase in the capital value of those publicly owned

  165
  assets, now privatised, on the basis of share capital at the time of issue and valuation on total share value at a given date during 1995. [37366]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the market capitalisation at floatation of the 10 water holding companies in England and Wales, is contained in the National Audit Office report "Department of the Environment: Sale of the Water Authorities in England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library. Current share values vary daily according to fluctuations in the stock market and this information is not held by my Department.

  Industrial Estates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many industrial estates are owned by local authorities; and what is the total value of such estates. [37132]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's records show that between 260 and 290 local authorities have an interest in industrial estates and that the total value of these industrial estates is in the region of £750 million to £1,000 million.

  City of London Common Council
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received

  Percentage

  Region

  Shops

  Offices

  Warehouses

  Factories

  Other

  Northern

  +28

  +48

  +41

  +26

  +18

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +26

  +55

  +35

  +24

  +21

  East Midlands

  +24

  +34

  +21

  +18

  +20

  East Anglia

  +16

  +14

  +14

  +4

  +18

  Inner London

  -16

  -58

  -12

  -10

  -11

  Outer London

  +10

  -4

  +7

  -2

  +14

  Rest of South East

  +8

  -12

  +3

  -3

  +12

  South West

  +12

  +13

  +14

  +6

  +17

  West Midlands

  +32

  +55

  +49

  +35

  +28

  North West

  +35

  +49

  +44

  +29

  +22

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to introduce(a) amending legislation, (b) revised guidance to rent officers and rent assessment committees or (c) any other action to reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal judgment on the use of comparables in setting fair rents in the case of Spath Holme Ltd. v. Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee. [37488]

  Mr. Clappison
  The statutory basis on which fair rents are determined is set out in section 70 of the Rent Act 1977, which consolidated the Rent Act 1968. In essence, a fair rent is what a landlord could achieve in a market in which the supply of, and demand for, accommodation are in balance—that is, in the absence of scarcity. This has been the understanding since fair rents were introduced, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal does nothing to change that. We therefore do not propose to legislate to change the current statutory basis.

  The Secretary of State does not issue guidance to rent officers and rent assessment committees to seek to influence them in the exercise of their independent statutory jurisdiction, and it would be wrong to do so.
  166
  regarding the abolition of the Alderman's veto and extension of the franchise in the City of London; and if he will make a statement. [37112]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have received one such representation. We have no plans to reform the arrangements for election to the common council.

  Commercial Leases (Rent Reviews)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in the development and publication of a code of practice in relation to rent reviews in commercial leases. [37120]

  Mr. Clappison
  The commercial property industry and professional bodies are now completing their discussions on the code, and plan to publish it before the end of the year.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average change in rateable values between 1990 and 1995 for(a) commercial and (b) industrial properties for each region in England. [37136]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest information I have is as follows:

  Employment Trends (Effect on Mortgage)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate studies concerning the impact of the spread of employment by short-term contract instead of permanent contracts of employment, on the ability of persons and families to obtain mortgages for the purchase of homes. [37334]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has no current proposals for studies concerned specifically with the impact of labour market changes on the mortgage/housing market. However, employment trends figure prominently in many housing research areas and in our discussions with mortgage lenders.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Heritage Funds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage the distribution of heritage funds to those areas which receive none at present. [35899]
  167
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I want to see the widest possible distribution of heritage funds, whether for grant in aid or the proceeds of the national lottery. Already the lottery has made possible a total of 1,405 grant awards the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, with a total value of over £543 million.

  Sport in Schools
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responses she has received about the Prime Minister's proposals for sport in schools. [35909]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I have received 23 letters from hon. Members and 252 from members of the public commenting on aspects of the policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game." Some 68,000 copies of the statement have now been distributed, many in direct response to requests from members of the public. The response has been overwhelmingly positive and we welcome any ideas that emanate as a result of publication of the statement.

  Public Library Service
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received on the public library service. [35910]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have received representations on both the Aslib report, which is a key element in the public library review, and the KPMG/Capital Planning Information report on the scope for contracting out in public libraries. My right hon. Friend plans to make a further statement to Parliament by the end of the year.

  Television Coverage of Sport
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how she intends to ensure that the country's great sporting events are shown live on terrestial television. [35911]

  Mr. Sproat
  Sports rights holders should be free to dispose of their broadcasting rights in the way they choose. Rights owners should be allowed to judge the balance between the level of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of coverage and the impact on potential spectators and supporters.

  Piers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what priority is given by her Department to the maintenance and development of piers in seaside areas; and if she will make a statement. [35912]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Seaside resorts play a significant role in the tourism market—accounting for nearly 50 per cent. of domestic tourist spend on all holidays in this country—and piers are an important feature of the traditional seaside resort. My Department has listed some 29 piers in England, including Southend pier in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will implement the 168
  recommendations of the Rowntree report on "The Impact of the National Lottery". [35913]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Rowntree report was one contribution to a lively debate. The Government are keeping all aspects of the national lottery under review.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of sales of national lottery tickets is made in the north-west; and what percentage of the distributed proceeds to date has been made in the north-west. [35919]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  A report is placed in the Library of the House each month which includes a breakdown of awards made by region. Some 100 projects in the north-west region have so far been awarded almost £18 million. I shall ask the Director General of the National Lottery to write to you about the sale of national lottery tickets.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals there are to change the competition arrangements and the good causes allocation of the national lottery. [35921]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The lottery is making a tremendous contribution to the good causes agreed by Parliament. I have no plans to propose changes to these arrangements.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all recipients of lottery funding over 50,000. [35923]

  Mr. Sproat
  A report on the distribution of national lottery proceeds is placed in the Library of the House each month which lists awards made. To date, 620 of 1,405 awards made have been for more than £50,000.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when further details will be available regarding the financing of sport from national lottery funds. [35918]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council will announce the next set of awards in the first week of November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to arrange that Camelot be required to give details of national lottery ticket sales at each outlet; and if she will make a statement. [36416]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to my hon. Friend, placing copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to provide additional funding for public sports facilities. [35915]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for local authorities and other suppliers of public sports facilities to determine their level of expenditure on sporting provision, in the light of their own priorities. The Department recognises the important role that both local authorities and the other suppliers of public sports facilities play in this area and the Sports Council will continue to work closely with them, as appropriate, in pursuing its objectives.
  169

  Royal Opera House
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the future capital funding of the royal opera house. [35916]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The royal opera house is looking to a number of sources of funding for the new development project. These include major donations as well as the national lottery.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures her Department is taking to attract film makers to make films in Britain. [35917]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department funds the British Film Commission, which actively markets to overseas producers, the United Kingdom's considerable wealth and diversity of locations, facilities and industry expertise.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the Government's review of the film industry. [35926]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Since publication of the Government's policy paper on the British film industry in June, I have received seven representations from various members of the British film industry. On the whole these have given a very positive response to the paper, generally welcoming the various initiatives we announced.

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has had from major orchestras concerning teaching of music to children [35920]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have had no such representations.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what she is doing to reduce the concentration of national media in the hands of a small number of owners. [35924]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's proposals for the future regulation of media ownership are set out in its policy document, Cm 2872, published in May 1995. These aim to preserve the diversity of the broadcast and press media, while introducing greater flexibility in ownership to reflect the needs and aspirations of the industry.

  British Academy for Sports
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has held so far concerning the location of the new British Academy for Sports. [35925]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The GB Sports Council is taking this initiative forward. The council is at present developing proposals for the possible structure and 170
  content of the British Academy of Sport and, following consultation this autumn, the sports councils across the UK will, by 31 March 1996, be open to consider bids to the national lottery to establish the academy.

  Football Transfer Fees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last met officials of the Football Association to discuss the issue of transfer fees. [35927]

  Mr. Sproat
  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with all the football bodies to discuss various issues of significance to the sport.

  Violence on Television
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to curb violence on television. [35922]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Broadcasters in the UK are independent of Government but have clear responsibilities with regard to programme content. Both the BBC and ITC undertook to monitor violence on television as a result of meetings with my predecessor last year. I have now received the findings of the study, and I am pleased to note that the amount of television violence broadcast on the terrestrial channels in the UK is down. I will be meeting with the chairman of both the ITC and BBC to discuss how the findings of the study can be taken forward. However, it will remain the duty of the broadcasting regulatory bodies to continue to monitor the amount of violence broadcast on television.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsman about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in her Department. [36829]

  Mr. Sproat
  The parliamentary ombudsman has, subject to the conditions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, jurisdiction to investigate complaints from members of the public about the way they have been treated by Government Departments, other public sector bodies engaged in the work of central Government, and those acting on their behalf. The ombudsman can investigate complaints about projects or services funded through the private finance initiative if they are carried out by or on behalf of a Department or public body within his jurisdiction, that is those bodies which are listed in schedule 2 to the 1967 Act.

  The Department itself has no capital projects so does not engage directly in the private finance initiative. However, its two agencies, the Royal Parks agency and the Historic Royal Palaces agency, have a substantial number of private finance initiative projects, for activities ranging form car park systems to restaurant refurbishment. Both agencies are under the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman and so members of the public are able to pursue complaints about the agencies'

  171
  services or projects funded by the private finance initiative through this avenue.

  The Department is also contributing to the new Royal Armouries museum in Leeds, a private finance initiative scheme due to open in spring 1996. This is being financed in partnership with a private company, Royal Armouries (International) plc. The Royal Armouries does not come under the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman, so members of the public are unable to make complaints through this avenue. However, the Royal Armouries will have in place at the new museum a charter standard statement which will explain to members of the public how they can complain to the Master of the Armouries if they are dissatisfied with the museum related services they receive.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in her Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36361]

  Mr. Sproat
  Mileage allowance rates in the Department of National Heritage with effect from 1 October 1995 are as follows:

  Car Standard Rate

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  Up to 4,000 miles

  34p

  43p

  47p

  Over 4,000 miles

  19p

  23p

  31p

  Public Transport Rate

  23p

  —

  —

  Passenger supplement

  First passenger

  2p per mile

  —

  Others

  1p per mile

  —

  Equipment supplement

  3p per mile

  —

  Motor Cycles

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Third party insurance

  14.6p

  22.1p

  Comprehensive insurance

  16.2p

  25.3p

  Over 4,000 miles

  6.1p

  9.0p

  Bicycles

  Mileage allowance

  6p

  —

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in her Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36362]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was created only in April 1992.

  The available figures for standard rate motor mileage claims in my Department are as follows

  1993–94: £82,273

  1994–95: £75,210.28

  172
  For the period 13 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 the information is not available in the format requested.

  The saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate—until 1 October 1995—of 35.7p per mile would be £1,985.36.

  Eurotica Satellite Service
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to prescribe the TV Eurotica Satellite Service under the terms of section 177 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. [36444]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that my hon. Friend's question relates to TV Erotica. There is, however, a similarly named satellite service called Eurotica. The Independent Television Commission has not, under section 176 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, notified us that the satellite service Eurotica is unacceptable. The Secretary of State has however, been notified of the unacceptability of a similar service, TV Erotica, and the ITC has recently confirmed that that service has repeatedly been broadcasting unacceptable material. Discussions with the European Commission and Sweden, with the objective of reaching an amicable settlement, are in train, and we shall shortly be considering what further action to take.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many outsourcing contracts were granted by her Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, Equipment supplement 3p per mile (g) Andersen Consulting (h) Centre File, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Seimens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (g) Logica. [36960]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was established on 13 April 1992. IT service provision has been outsourced in line with the policy set out in the White Paper on "Competing for Quality". Sema Group won the contract through competitive tender. The value of the contract is of the order of £1 million per annum. Neither of my Department's two agencies has outsourced any contracts to the companies mentioned in the questioned.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department allocates for tourism promotion in each tourist board area. [36718]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage sponsors the English tourist board which makes grants to the regional tourist boards in England for the operation of national programmes. The formula for funding RTBs is agreed between the ETB and the RTBs and is based on scale, need and performance. The regions can also apply for additional funding for specific projects from a tourism development fund.

  In 1994–95 the total funding made available to the regional tourist boards, including their allocation from the TDF, was as follows:

  173

  £

  Cumbria

  473,000

  East Anglia

  618,000

  East Midlands

  456,000

  Heart of England

  537,000

  London

  754,000

  Northumbria

  394,000

  North West

  558,000

  South East England

  522,000

  Southern

  1,106,000

  West Country

  615,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  490,000

  Total

  6,523,000

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Former Mental Hospital Patients
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the number of killings by discharged mental hospital patients with personality disorders; what assessment he has made of the scope of the current laws in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain to prevent such killings; and what proposals he has for change. [36716]

  Mr. Moss
  I am aware of one such case in Northern Ireland, the circumstances of which are currently the subject of an independent review.

  The operation of the powers of detention under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and of the Mental Health Act 1983, is not significantly different in practice. Neither the Act nor the Order is intended to allow the detention in hospital of someone whose condition is not amenable to treatment. Under the Northern Ireland Order, personality disorder alone is not sufficient grounds for detention for treatment, but a person may be detained where he or she is also suffering from mental illness. In England and Wales, a patient with a psychopathic or personality disorder may only be detained under the 1983 Act where treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition.

  I have no proposals for change to the Northern Ireland mental health legislation, but the need for change is kept under regular review. In addition, the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland has a statutory duty to monitor the operation of the order.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36828]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland ombudsman has, subject to the conditions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, jurisdiction to investigate complaints from members of the public about the way they have been treated by Government Departments, other public sector bodies engaged in the work of central government, and those 174
  acting on their behalf. The ombudsman can investigate complaints about projects or services funded through the private finance initiative if they are carried out by, or on behalf, of a Department or public body within his jurisdiction, that is those bodies which are listed in schedules 1 and 2 respectively, to the above Acts.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subsidies were paid out for environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Ireland in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–5 and (d) 1995–6; and how many individuals were recipients of these payments in these years. [37129]

  Mr. Ancram
  The expenditure on ESAs for the years 1992–93 to 1995–96 and the number of persons receiving payment is as follows:

  Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Expenditure (£'000s)

  465

  586

  527

  697

  Claimants

  1,062

  1,059

  1,050

  526

  1 To 6 October 1995

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what area, in hectares and percentage terms, of environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Ireland is made up of productive, or potentially productive, agricultural land. [37128]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total land area of the five areas designated as environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Ireland is 247,000 hectares. Of this, 221,800 hectares—89 per cent.—is productive agricultural land.

  Queen's University, Belfast
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amount of financial support Her Majesty's Government distribute to Queen's university, Belfast and the amount of additional financial support Queen's university receives from the European Union. [37209]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the 1993–94 academic year, the latest year for which figures are available, the Queen's university of Belfast received financial support amounting to £55.8 million directly from central Government sources and additional support amounting to £6.4 million from the European Union.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of playing the national anthem at graduation ceremonies at Queen's university, Belfast. [37361]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Queen's university, as with all other universities in the United Kingdom, is an autonomous and independent body, and as such is responsible for its own internal affairs, practices and procedures. The playing of the national anthem at graduation ceremonies is not a matter of Government policy; it is entirely for the university authorities to determine.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many military service personnel have
  175
  received awards following injuries received in Northern Ireland from the Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme; how many cases have been reviewed after an award has been made; and how many awards were increased as a result of review. [37097]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding the number of military service personnel who have received compensation under the Northern Ireland criminal injury compensation scheme.

  Compensation is paid under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which provides a right to compensation for injury or death caused by violent (including terrorist) offences in Northern Ireland. This scheme applies equally to civilians and members of the security forces.

  The number of claims resulting in payment to military service personnel in each year since 1989–90 is set out in the table below. (Military service personnel has been taken to include members of the regular Army and both full-time and part-time members of the UDR/R Irish.)

  Awards of Compensation to Military Service Personnel

  Financial Year

  Number of awards

  1989–90

  336

  1990–91

  375

  1991–92

  146

  1992–93

  382

  1993–94

  307

  1994–95

  295

  Information about the number of awards prior to 1989–90 is not available.

  It is not possible under the legislation to re-open cases or increase amounts once awards have formally been settled and the appeal period passed or where, in contested cases, awards are made by the Courts. Neither the Courts nor the Secretary of State can subsequently reinstate cases.

  You may also wish to know that most applicants obtain the services of solicitors and will therefore have received legal advice before accepting offers of compensation in full and final settlement of their claims. Army Legal Services provide military personnel with advice at no cost to the individual and, in cases where outside solicitors are engaged, the Agency pays the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in making out and verifying successful claims, which normally includes the costs of such solicitors.

  I trust this explains the position fully.

  Proposed Legislation (Consultation)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which external bodies, bodies and individuals have been consulted to date in the drafting process of(a) the proposed Race Relations Order and (b) the proposed Contracting Out and Deregulation Order (Northern Ireland) 1995. [37390]

  Mr. Ancram
  We have not yet reached the drafting process stage in relation to the proposed Race Relations Order and accordingly no formal consultation has taken place.
  176
  In advance of publication of the proposals for a Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order, an extensive number of bodies and individuals was consulted. On publication of the proposals, a number of additional bodies are individuals received copies. A full list of consultees has been placed in the Library.

  Bangor-Belfast Road
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans are under consideration for the Bangor to Belfast road in relation to noise abatement, traffic calming and safety; and what measures are(a) already decided or (b) in progress. [37165]

  Mr. Moss
  Although there are no plans under consideration for this route in relation to noise abatement, a number of traffic management and road safety measure are proposed. These measures include, in particular, the introduction of new technology which will enable traffic signals along the route to be controlled remotely so that signal settings can be optimised to cater for varying traffic flows, and the provision of right turning lanes at the busiest junctions along the route. It is planned to start work on most of the proposals in the next financial year, subject to the availability of the necessary finance.

  Public Works Loan Board
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the transfer of responsibilities for local authority lending from his Department to the Public Works Loan Board would(a) result in savings to public funds and (b) provide a more effective service. [37197]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Loans to local authorities in Northern Ireland are made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund by the Department of Finance and Personnel on similar terms to those which are extended to local authorities in Great Britain through the Public Works Loans Board. The administrative charges to local authorities in Northern Ireland are in most cases the same as those levied in Great Britain. In a minority of cases the Northern Ireland charges are less.

  It is appropriate that the scheme continues to be administered locally along with other transferred matters.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people gave their nationality as(a) British and (b) Irish on the electoral registration form in 1994–95; and what other significant numbers and nationalities were otherwise specified. [37213]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information about nationality included on the 1994–95 electoral registration forms in Northern Ireland was not recorded centrally as there is no legal requirement to record statistics on nationality.

  Information is available, however, on the nationality of those EU nationals who registered separately to vote in the 1994 European election. The nationalities were as follows:

  177

  Number

  Belgium

  1

  Denmark

  7

  France

  54

  Germany

  51

  Greece

  1

  Italy

  5

  Netherlands

  38

  Portugal

  4

  Spain

  8

  Total

  169

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review Northern Ireland planning legislation to ensure that the powers available to him regarding the unauthorised dumping of wrecked or abandoned vehicles are(a) as strong as those in Great Britain and (b) sufficient to protect the environment properly. [37248]

  Mr. Moss
  District councils in Northern Ireland have the power to remove or dispose of abandoned vehicles and to initiate proceedings under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. This legislation is broadly similar to that obtaining in Great Britain. Planning legislation would not be an appropriate code to deal with abandoned vehicles.

  Nursery Education
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration was given to extending he under-fives initiative to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [37315]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 11 July,Official Report, columns 519–20.

  Civil Service Transfers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy by mutual agreement specifically to permit transfers of staff between the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service on marriage. [37392]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service are separate civil services and there are no formal rights of transfer between them. It is the policy of both services, however, to seek to facilitate inter-service transfers on compassionate grounds, whenever possible, and the criteria for compassionate transfers include those who need to move to be with their spouse.

  Joyriding
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people have been charged with offences relating to(a) joyriding and (b) other traffic offences since 1 September 1994; [37040]
  178
  (2) how many people have been charged with offences relating to (a) joyriding and (b) other traffic offences in the nine months before 1 September 1994. [37041]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Figures for the number of persons charged are not available. The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts was as follows:

  1 Dec 1993–31 August 1994

  1 Sept 1994–31 May 1995

  Number proceeded against for unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle1

  420

  408

  Number proceeded against for other motoring offences2

  16,815

  17,375

  Notes:

  1 "Joyriding" is taken to be the offence of 'unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle'.

  2 'Other traffic offences' is taken to mean summary motoring offences and to exclude indictable offences such as "reckless driving causing death/grievous bodily injury".

  Police Staff
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people are employed in the Police Authority of Northern Ireland departments in respect of(a) information technology, (b) buildings and (c) transport; and what is the cost of running these departments annually; [37059]

  (2) how many people are employed in the Royal Ulster Constabulary departments in respect of (a) information technology, (b) buildings and (c) transport; and what is the cost of running these departments annually. [37058]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Police authority

  Number of staff

  Staff costs (estimate 1995–96) £

  Information

  Technology1

  68

  1,931,500

  Buildings

  28

  650,850

  Transport

  197

  3,620,650

  RUC

  Information

  Technology1

  68

  1,931,500

  Buildings

  11

  443,040

  Transport

  102

  3,154,840

  1 Information as to annual running costs of these departments, other than staff pay and related costs, is not available. The information technology department operates on a joint basis.

  Farming and Forestry (Accidents)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recorded accidents in the farming and forestry industry have occurred in each of the last three years; and how many have been fatal. [37135]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the calender years 1992, 1993 and 1994 there were 64, 64 and 70 accidents respectively reported to Department of Agriculture's health and safety inspectorate.

  There were six fatalities in 1992, 10 in 1993 and 14 in 1994.
  179

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to ensure that interest rates for local authority lending are issued in advance. [37199]

  Sir John wheeler
  Interest Rates are fixed on a weekly basis by the Treasury and are promulgated by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Public Works Loans Board at the same time. They take effect from their time of issue. It is not possible to give advance notice of interest rate changes since these are subject to market volatility.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which perceived religious category the fair employment monitoring process of the Northern Ireland civil service places those applicants or employees who have attended integrated secondary schools. [37391]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland civil service relies on the primary school attended for the longest period of time, "The First Schools Method", as its principal method of making a determination of the perceived religious category of an applicant or employee. Where use of the "Schools List" fails to produce a determination of Protestant or Roman Catholic the service then relies on information specified under the "Residuary Method" in the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 to make a determination, insofar as this is possible. Under the "Schools List" maintained by the Fair Employment Commission for the purposes of the regulations, integrated schools, whether primary or secondary, are among the schools which are unclassified for religious monitoring purposes.

  Small Loan
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of Finance and Personnel expects to introduce a rule similar to the PWLB circular 105 allowing a refinancing of small loans. [37198]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of Finance and Personnel, having consulted with the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the approving authority for loans to local government in Northern Ireland, intends to apply the terms of PWLB circular 105 as they relate to refinancing of small loans, from 1 November.

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 have been invoked in Northern Ireland. [37214]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Statistics on the operation in Northern Ireland in 1995 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are available in the Library, but I am sending the hon. Member the information he seeks.
  180

  House Building
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will assess the special circumstances pertaining in the current year that have affected the cost of house building and construction in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the measures he intends now to take to deal with the cost and budgetary consequences within this financial year. [37389]

  Mr. Moss
  Tender prices for public sector housing contracts have shown a sharp increase in the past year and the reasons for this are being examined. The budgetary consequences will be considered in the context of in year monitoring of the amount allocated to the Northern Ireland public expenditure block.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals applied to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its most recent round of recruitment; and of these how many were(a) women and (b) Catholics. [37060]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The most recent recruitment competition was advertised in March/April of this year.

  The total number of applicants was 2,058 of whom 811, or 40 per cent. of applicants, were female and 467, or 23 per cent. of applicants, were perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community.

  Race Relations Legislation
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations underlay the decision to bring race relations law into operation in Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council; what consideration was given to amending the existing Great Britain legislation to include Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [37212]

  Mr. Ancram
  The consultative document published in December 1992 considered a number of ways in which race relations legislation could be enacted in Northern Ireland. Having considered the responses, it was decided that the commitment to the early introduction of race legislation would be best achieved by way of a separate race relations Order in Council.

  The extension of the Race Relations Act 1976 was not included as an option for legislation on the grounds that it would not be appropriate in the context of the particular circumstances and scale of race relations issues in Northern Ireland.

  Country Parks
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce an environmental sensitivity forum to advise on the future arrangements for, and operation of, Crawfordsburn and Redburn country parks. [37156]

  Mr. Moss
  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside advises my Department on the
  181
  management of country parks. I am not clear as to what the hon. Member has in mind regarding an environmental sensitivity forum and perhaps he would write to me with further details.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the current life sentence prisoners who have served more than 14 years in prison, indicating whether they are loyalist or republican prisoners. [37208]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Prisons Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Rev. Ian Paisley, dated 16 October 1995:

  Sir John Wheeler has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question in which you have asked for a list of life sentence prisoners who have served more than 14½ years in prison, including whether they are loyalists or republican prisoners.
  182
  The paramilitary affiliation of prisoners is recorded for prison management purposes, not for classification. In addition, it is not the policy of the Prison Service to disclose particulars pertaining to individual prisoners.

  There are currently 25 life sentence prisoners who have served more than 14½ years in custody. They are broken down by perceived affiliation as follows:

  Loyalist: 15

  Republican: 7

  Others: 3

  Of these 11 (7 loyalist and 4 republican) are already in possession of provisional release dates. They are currently involved at various stages of the Pre-release Scheme.

  Boundary Commission Reports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take in respect of the fourth periodical and second supplementary reports of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland. [37475]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today laid before Parliament the fourth periodical and second supplementary reports of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland together with a draft Order in Council for giving effect, without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the reports.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Viscount Samuel Viscount Samuel—Took the Oath.

Tributes to the late Lord Home of the Hirsel
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the whole House will have been saddened by the news last week of the death of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I can think of no one who was held in greater respect or affection by this House, by his party or by this nation at large. And your Lordships, who were so often privileged to hear him speak, will wish to remember today his distinguished career, his charm, his wit and his service to this place.
Your Lordships will already be familiar enough with the outlines of my noble friend's political life. I therefore do not need to rehearse them in detail this afternoon. However, the length of his political experience, particularly of foreign affairs, has been equalled by few modern statesmen; and for me it is something of a shock to realise that we are today paying tribute to a man who was already at the centre of affairs by the time Hitler rose to power. Thus, when he came to occupy the great offices of Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, his natural courage and judgment were nourished by a length of perspective which is perhaps often the victim of the parliamentary hurly-burly of today.
His achievements at the Scottish Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office have been justly and widely recognised. As Foreign Secretary he inspired trust, affection and respect in equal measure. However, I suspect his achievements as Prime Minister and party leader have not received the notice they deserve. After all, he inherited—I make no comment about this—a demoralised and divided party, some of whose leading lights refused to serve under him, and he faced a young and formidable Leader of the Opposition who, encouraged by the howls of derision Lord Home attracted from much of the press, must have thought him easy prey. Yet after only a year he lost the election by a mere four seats. His diffident manner was deceptive. Here, indeed, was a tough and tenacious politician, qualities after all which had always distinguished his Border ancestors. It was that toughness, as well as his natural lack of rancour, that enabled him to continue in politics and to return in due course to the Foreign Office where the same quality enabled him famously to expel 105 Soviet spies from London.
I have said that my noble friend was tough. His grasp of essentials was also rapid and striking to those who witnessed it. His kindness in accepting invitations to address small audiences was legendary and I was one of
566
those fortunate in being a beneficiary of that kindness in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Arriving with a couple of minutes to spare he would ask, "Now what do you want me to say?". I tried as best I could to explain the situation as I saw it and confess to wondering whether he was even listening to my briefing. I need not have worried. His speech two minutes later showed not only that he had listened to every word but that he had understood implications of events that his briefer had not yet begun to spot.
I was fortunate to know Lord Home a little and to have been the lucky recipient of his kindness and hospitality. Anyone who saw him on his native heath would realise that Lanarkshire and the Border country were as much a part of him as his rod and his gun. He belonged there and covered their accidented ground with effortless speed. However, I venture to suggest that he also belonged in your Lordships' House. Indeed, he was the last Prime Minister to hold that office while a Member of this place—albeit for only four days. It is for this reason that his bust stands in the Norman Porch. His unassuming courtesy, his experience, his judgment, and his wit—above all he was a very funny man—perhaps made him seem peculiarly at home in this place and I venture to suggest that we are grateful for the lustre he added to our proceedings.
I cannot finish without sending our best wishes and sympathy to his family. This, of course, is a conventional courtesy on occasions of this kind and a very proper one. However, in my noble friend's case, the extraordinary happiness of his marriage and the affection in which he was so obviously held by his many relations make that convention particularly important to observe today. Lady Home's death must have been a terrible blow to him but it was one that he faced with his customary courage and indeed his customary modesty, and with the love and support of his children.
I am sure that the whole House will recognise that he was a remarkable man and a great servant of the state. He was also, which is rarer, a man who was much loved.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we on these Benches are happy to join with the Leader of the House in the sentiments he has expressed. Lord Home was for over 60 years a dedicated public servant of whom the party opposite and the country as a whole should be justly proud.
Born into a noble and ancient Border family, he determined to devote his life to politics. Educated at Eton, where he was no mean cricketer, and Christ Church, where he just failed to get a Blue, he could have spent his time in much more aristocratic pursuits. That he did not was very firmly his own decision. His father believed strongly—to use Lord Home's own words—that,
"it was a duty for one born with the means to be independent to undertake public service"—
but not, apparently, he tells us, in politics, for he wrote of that part of his life:
"My father strongly advised me against politics as a career. He also told me that no Home could drink champagne. Otherwise a dutiful son, on both these points I disagreed and proved my point".

567
First elected to Parliament in 1931, his career spanned some of the more turbulent years of this century. I myself always felt that it was indicative of his nature and character that, having been Prime Minister, nevertheless he found it possible to serve as Foreign Secretary in the government of his successor as party leader.
Reading the obituaries of Lord Home, the two words which recur again and again are "decency" and "integrity". While we on this side of the House did not and indeed could not be expected to agree with all his views, there is no doubt that he held those views sincerely and advocated them honourably. Together with the late Lord Stockton and others, some of whom are still in your Lordships' House, Lord Home was one of those who put their distinctive stamp upon the Conservative Party at least until 1979. As the Guardian wrote of him:
"He was the embodiment of a moderate British Conservative tradition".
It is that very moderation and decency for which we will remember him. He was invariably courteous and considerate, and party confrontation was hardly his style. Indeed, he became Prime Minister in 1963 precisely because of those qualities, which perhaps meant that he disunited the party less than any of his competitors. They were qualities that he displayed throughout his career.
The intensity and depth of the political battle today might have surprised and perhaps upset him. I was reading his autobiography again over the weekend. I came across a few sentences which perhaps I may share with your Lordships today since they seem to me at any rate to encapsulate the nature of the man. He said that,
"the Party Leaders should exercise restraint in the use of the power of the majority to a point where it is not necessary for an Opposition to pledge itself to undo what the government of the day has done. It is not an easy assignment but politics is a profession not for the bully with a bludgeon but for the artist with a baton".
That seems to me to sum up his whole approach to politics and public administration. He may have been tough and shrewd—as the Leader of the House said—but honourable, decent and a man of integrity he clearly was too. For that, we mourn him.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, Alec Home, whose death we deeply regret, became Prime Minister almost accidentally, though, as is often the case with accidents, causing a few casualties in the process. He occupied the office briefly. If I try to think of a 19th century comparison it would be with his fellow Scottish Earl, the somewhat elusive Lord Aberdeen, who was also a long-serving Foreign Secretary. But Lord Aberdeen had a deeply melancholic private life, losing two wives and five children while young, whereas Alec Home, I hope and believe, had a full and happy old age—more so, perhaps, than any Prime Minister except perhaps Attlee and Macmillan.
Lord Home had an exceptionally long post-ministerial retirement, yet he was far from a shadow during those post-Downing Street years. He was Foreign Secretary for three-and-a-half of those years. He was a frequent attender in your Lordships' House until fairly recently.
568
I find it peculiarly easy to summon up a picture of that sparse figure and cranial yet benevolent head sitting somewhere between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Home never pushed himself forward. He had the most perfect good manners, based, as high good manners mostly are, on a dual foundation of self-confidence and self-effacement. He was not an emotional orator but he could make a speech with a faultless touch and a delicate wit which I have never seen rivalled. I suppose in some ways he was the final station of a railway line which may not survive the harsh commercialism of privatisation. He was the last, thus far, of Eton's 18 Prime Ministers and the last thus far of Christ Church's 13. But who knows, Fettes and St. John's College are thrusting in the wind. Whatever the future holds, we should cherish the memory of Alec Home, the more so perhaps for we may not, alas, see his like again.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, for many years the Cross-Bench Peers have included several Members who served under Lord Home. I am one of them, and I hope I may be permitted to recall some of our experiences and impressions of him. Strangely enough I have the clearest recollection of seeing, over 70 years ago, a picture of the Eton team in the Cricketer weekly magazine. Seated in the centre was Lord Dunglass wearing the captain's cap. I knew that our lives would never cross on the cricket field, but I did not imagine that I would ever work with that captain if he became Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary of our government at some distant date.
It is of the period 1970 to 1973 that I now briefly want to speak—when I knew him best and when I was his Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The calm and friendly atmosphere of his Whitehall office was unique. His desk was usually clear of official papers. Within easy reach of his right hand was a copy of Ruff's Guide to the Turf. Often there was a welcoming smile on his face as he came off the 'phone after advising his brother William where to place their money. If there was a morning meeting of officials he usually put the first question of the day to the most junior officer in the room, who rose visibly in stature. Many of those who saw Lord Home working in Whitehall know how encouraging he could be. There were no short tempers and no rebukes, even when justified. And those of us who were fortunate enough to travel with him abroad know what an inspiration he was and what an asset he could be to this country.
Lord Home's foreign opposite numbers, either friends or potential foes, clearly held him in great respect, often even affection, whether it be Gromyko, Cho En Lai in China or Ian Smith in Rhodesia, to say nothing of American, European or Commonwealth leaders. Those of us who were with him could not but be proud of him. I refer to two dramas in which he played a central role, one success and one setback. The first was the expulsion from this country of 105 Soviet intelligence agents, which has already been mentioned: the second was his attempt to solve the problem of Rhodesia.

569
The mass expulsion of Soviet agents was opposed by certain fellow Cabinet Members who claimed that we would he the laughing-stock of the world. They were fearful of the extent of Russian reaction. Lord Home stuck to his guns and in the event his action was fully justified. Other friendly countries followed suit. Marshal Tito expelled one Soviet agent who had worked in London. Lord Home sent the marshal a telegram of congratulation saying, "Well done. Keep them moving".
Lord Home's failure to settle the Rhodesian problem was a great disappointment to him. At one time he thought he was being obstructed by some of those who claimed to be his friends. But the sincerity of the Secretary of State could be questioned neither by people at home nor by the suspicious Africans when he accepted at once the negative conclusions of the Pearce Report which had been delayed by events beyond the control of any of the parties. It was a most important action for the Commonwealth and for our international relations worldwide.
Finally, Lord Home's stamina at home and on exhaustive tours was remarkable. When abroad it was characteristic that he did not hesitate to eat and enjoy the most exotic oriental food without the slightest damage while others fell by the wayside. Alec Home and his wife Elizabeth always acted as a team. From the angle of my life and my profession I can think of no political pair who have made a comparable contribution to the interests of this country.
On his 70th birthday we in the Foreign Office, with the assistance of Kew Gardens and Sir Anthony Acland, gave him 91 trees and plants to mark the variety of the countries he had visited on his official duties. They are now planted in the grounds of The Hirsel, his family home, for all to see in the years to come.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, many years ago I was privileged to spend an evening with Lord and Lady Home at the home of one of my parishioners. I wish now that I could recall more of the conversation but even after 25 years the impression upon a young rector remains vivid—a kind of wonder that this man of eminence should be such easy and delightful company. Before my hostess had a chance, he introduced himself as though he expected I would have no idea who he was. That simple and humble courtesy was of course characteristic. I remember regretting afterwards that I had not asked him more questions because, as those of your Lordships who knew him will remember, he was a generous listener who had the endearing gift of making one feel that what one said was interesting and important, even if it was not.
Much has been made by journalists of his privileged upbringing. But it was not that which marked the man; rather it was his total and unselfconscious dedication to the service of his fellow human beings. That sprang of course from long family tradition, but beneath was a profound faith in God which was transparent though never exhibited. Nor was his faith merely the inheritance of a Christian upbringing. He valued the habit of churchgoing and spoke more than once of the benefit of habit closely allied to duty, that much derided virtue. He made his own journey of faith, not evading hard questions but, through a combination of intellect and
570
intuition, reaching not final answers but certainly a faith by which to live. In the final chapter of his autobiography, after expressing gratitude to his family, and especially to his beloved wife, he says:
"Finally I am glad that I was brought up in the Christian faith and provided with the hope of a God who is a Redeemer. I do not think I have been unduly influenced by the prospect, so to speak, of saving my own skin".
He was, in matters of faith as in all things, modest, but he was also, in faith as in life, a man of total integrity.
Among those who share his faith and who had the privilege of knowing, even slightly, Lord Home, none can doubt that passing from this life he earned that simplest and noblest of all accolades, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant".

Prescription Charges
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to review the present NHS regulations on pharmaceutical prescriptions, under which pharmacists can appear to be in breach of regulations if they supply items at a charge lower than the standard prescription charge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords, because we believe that although a standard prescription charge may mean that in some cases patients pay more than the cost of an item, in others they will pay less.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. In view of the reply to my Question on pharmaceutical matters during the summer months, when it was confirmed that 80 per cent. of National Health prescriptions are totally free, can she state what is the element of beneficial cross-subsidisation that results from this fixed charge for NHS prescriptions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, about half of the items that are charged at £5.25 cost less and about half cost more. But the estimated average cost of each item is about £8.80.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main point is the one that she mentioned in her reply to the noble Baroness's supplementary question—that more than half the number of existing prescriptions are charged at less than the NHS prescription charge? Surely this must lead to completely unnecessary administrative costs. The new Secretary of State for Health is, I understand, conducting a 90-day review of unnecessary costs and administrative burdens in the Health Service—burdens which have presumably grown up under his predecessor. Will the Minister try to find a way to include the issue of prescription costs in that 90-day review?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to make two points. It was the Labour Party which introduced prescription charges. In 1968 the Labour

571
Party re-introduced prescription charges. The charges raise £310 million a year, which is the equivalent of 75,000 hip replacements and 235,000 cataract operations. It is income which the National Health Service sorely needs.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, by how much would it be necessary to increase the national insurance contribution to cover the total cost of prescriptions? What administrative saving would be made by doing that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a great many people on the poverty line who are not receiving income support, and thus the passported benefits, are going to pharmacists and saying, "What can I do without on this prescription because I cannot afford to pay for the whole of it?"? Can the Minister say whether any research is being conducted within the Department of Health to find a more equitable way of charging people? For example, some pensioners can afford to pay for prescriptions. Can she say what is being done?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, many groups of people are exempted from prescription charges. As my noble friend mentioned, 80 per cent. of the medicines dispensed do not attract a charge. With regard to old age pensioners, the Government have no intention of introducing prescription charges for old age pensioners.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to my point on whether or not prescription charges will be included in the 90-day review. The matter is particularly relevant because, as I hope the Minister will be aware, the committee on this subject in another place said that it wished to look at this whole issue and I believe that the Government's response was that they would examine the potential for change in the prescription charging area.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness is, no. A fundamental review of health expenditure took place in 1993. The conclusion of the review was that the present scheme operates effectively, is well targeted and does not cause hardship.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Baroness has obviously done some research on prescription charges in order to deal with this Question. Can she say when the cost of the prescription began to outstrip the cost of the drugs? Is that a new phenomenon or did it happen some years ago?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, every year the prescription charge increases, but so does the cost of some of the drugs. Indeed, some of the drugs, for which people have to pay only the £5.25 prescription charge, are extremely costly. For instance, some drugs for diabetes and for lowering cholesterol cost around £70 a month. The recipient has to pay only £5.25.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whenever we are talking about prescriptions we should remind ourselves how successful our drug industry is?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Ten out of the world's top 35 medicines were discovered in the UK and more than one-third of all European biotechnology companies are based in this country.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, how many asthma sufferers are without nebulisers, which ease their lives considerably, just because they cannot afford to purchase them? Cannot those items be supplied by the National Health Service? Many children, particularly in the Birmingham area, are suffering very severely.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, children are exempt from prescription charges.
Lord Rea: My Lords, what is the position with regard to National Health Service general practitioners giving private prescriptions to patients registered with them when the cost of the drug concerned is below the prescription charge?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is open to GPs to offer private prescriptions to those who need their medicines.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a follow up question to that asked by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I understand that if someone feels unable to afford any form of National Health treatment, whether it be dental or ophthalmic treatment or a prescription, special forms can be completed for exemption from the cost. Does that apply to pharmaceutical products in the same way as it applies to medical and dental treatment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are anxious to ensure that people who need medication and who are on low incomes are exempt. Indeed, they are. As the noble Baroness said, 81 per cent. of all items are free of charge. That compares with 60 per cent. in 1979.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness put something right? Unless people are on income support and in receipt of passported free prescriptions they cannot have their prescription charges waived. People have to be in receipt of income support, or be over the age of 60 in the case of women and 65 in the case of men, or be children or suffer from special illnesses. There are people who cannot afford to pay for prescriptions.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I made it very plain to your Lordships' House that there is an enormous number of exemptions. I believe that those on income support, family credit, the disability allowance and low incomes, etcetera, are exempt. We do not find cases of people being unable to get medication because they cannot afford it.

Brent Spar
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received from the Norwegian Government any indication of how long Norway will allow the Brent Spar offshore installation to be moored in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction under the terms of the Exchange of Notes dated 7th July 1995.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Norwegian authorities gave their permission for the Brent Spar to remain moored in Erfjord for a period of one year from the date of the original agreement on 7th July 1995. If Shell UK Limited requires an extension, it will need to seek the agreement of the Norwegian authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. Because this giant storage buoy ended its working life four years ago and is liable to start breaking up, is not an early decision needed on its disposal, time already having been lost by the misguided and misinformed campaign by Greenpeace, although the deep Atlantic will probably prove still to be the best and safest option?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, Brent Spar is at present in relatively shallow water; it is safe and not subjected to any of the stresses of weather. What is important is that the right decision on its disposal should be taken. Our view was that on a case-by-case basis the most appropriate was deep-sea disposal. If Shell UK Limited comes forward with a proposal or any proposal is put to it for another means of disposal, we shall want to be satisfied that it is at least as good as the originally proposed deep-sea arrangement.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what will happen to the Brent Spar if Norway does not give an extension to the safe anchorage licence?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is still some time to go before July of next year. As the noble Viscount will appreciate, Shell UK Limited has been very open about the proposals which it is prepared to consider. Indeed, it is inviting a further round of suggestions. It has received proposals for anything from a floating casino to a reef in the North Sea to provide cover for fish. It will be for the Norwegians and Shell UK Limited to come to an agreement if it is felt necessary to have an extension. Shell is properly asking anyone who has a better solution to come forward with it now. Clearly something will have to be done with Brent Spar in the fulness of time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while the question of the Brent Spar is a matter of immediate concern, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is only one of a number of cases of this sort which are likely to arise in the future? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to address the whole problem?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we must not exaggerate the scale of the problem. Something like three-quarters of the platforms to be found in the North Sea are likely to be entirely removed and probably disposed of on land. That is because most of them are to be found in the shallow part of the southern North Sea. We have no doubt whatsoever that the only way to approach this matter is on a case-by-case basis. We should not have a broad policy. As regards Brent Spar, the clear conclusion of a deep-sea disposal was the right one. I believe that that is the right way to approach the matter. In the past we have taken the views of other signatories to both the Oslo and Paris Conventions. I believe that we were right to approach this case in the way we did.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that keeping the public in the dark over the negotiations between Shell UK Limited and the British Government has meant that the emotive arguments were much easier to harness, to the eventual disadvantage of both Shell UK Limited and Her Majesty's Government? Does not the Minister further agree that transparency would have avoided all that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot accept for a moment that there has been any lack of transparency. In fact, before the decision was taken all the governments who were signatories to the conventions were advised. No one offered any objection to the proposed disposal agreed to by the United Kingdom Government and Shell UK Limited. It was only after Greenpeace occupied Brent Spar that attitudes changed. The noble Lord may have seen in an editorial in The Times last week that it was described as "environmentalist" headbutting by Greenpeace. I believe that, when one has regard to the cavalier disregard which Greenpeace had for scientific measurement of what remains on Brent Spar, that assessment was a touch generous.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, since Brent Spar is neither a platform nor a rig and has no comparable duplicate in the North Sea, does my noble and learned friend agree that its eventual disposal should not be a precedent for platforms which are mostly steel towers without residues? As we are a maritime nation, and as we expect to be kept informed, can encouragement be given to the media to identify marine structures correctly, as would be done in distinguishing a liner from a battleship, a ferry or a fishing boat?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely valid point. That is why I believe that our approach of taking this matter on a case-by-case basis is the only correct one. I am not aware that there is any proposal to dispose of anything similar to Brent Spar. As my noble friend said, some of the structures are steel and others are concrete. We need to look at each individual case. What is clearly important is that because of what happened over Brent Spar the option of deep-sea disposal should not be rejected. All the sound reasoning that led us to the conclusion that it was the right one remains. I believe that my noble friend will be aware that the Research Council's advice to us has been that, even if Shell UK

575
Limited miscalculated as regards the extent of the contamination by 10 times, the effect on the sea would nevertheless have been negligible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that under no circumstances will the Government allow the Brent Spar platform to be brought to British shores if there is any danger either to those who will dismantle it or to those in the area where that is to happen, including the environment of the area? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that it is still the Government's view that the platform is disposed of in deep water in the North Atlantic, because I believe that that is the best solution and always was.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very glad to agree with the noble Lord. If there were to be disposal on land there would be risks to the workforce dismantling the structure. That appears to be the present advice. One of the most significant risks will be mildly radioactive scale deposits on the insides of the tanks. If they were to dry out and be released into the atmosphere as dust, I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that the risk would be not only to the workforce but to other people as well.

War Crimes Act 1991
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many applications for consent to the institution of proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991 are now under consideration by the Attorney-General; and whether any such consents have been granted and, if so, when.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, on 12th July, 1995, the Attorney-General granted his consent to the prosecution of one case under the War Crimes Act 1991. There are no outstanding applications for consent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for that reply. Do the Government accept, in these belated trials on assumed extra-territorial jurisdiction already having retrospective effect for the best part of 60 years, that the judicial recommendation, which takes into account all relevant circumstances as to the time to be served before release from the mandatory life sentence, should be made in open court and should not be extended by the Home Secretary, there being no prospect of reoffending? Will the Government take an initiative to introduce pre-trial measures of safeguard to seek to ensure that under the inherent jurisdiction only fair trials may ensue, as approved by this House in Clause 3 of the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take the second question first. The Government's belief is that the powers of the court to secure a fair trial in any case are available as regards cases under this Act. As
576
my noble and learned friend will remember, my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich invited the House to take a course which made that clear as regards the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill, on the second occasion, but the House declined to follow his advice. On the first question, the case to which I refer is at a very early stage, and the matters to which my noble friend's Question relates are very much later on the scene. I think that it would be premature to attempt to deal with them today.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord remind us of the approximate costs of administering the Act leading to that one prosecution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as at the end of September 1995—so, strictly speaking, I am not reminding your Lordships of figures you have already had—the Metropolitan Police costs were £5,368,646 and the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service were £1,463,800. Those figures relate to England and Wales. Costs in Scotland are in addition. As your Lordships know, the Lord Advocate indicated that, on the basis of the investigations made, there would be no prosecutions in Scotland.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the solitary octogenarian who is now to be tried survives the trial and is convicted, what is to happen to him? Can he be sent anywhere other than to a prison hospital? Are not the figures which have been given a rather expensive indication of what that would cost?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there were investigations other than that relating to this particular trial. My noble friend indicated that there would be a trial. I think that there may be issues to determine before a trial actually begins. They were referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In any event it would be unwise for me to prophesy what might be the proper outcome in certain circumstances at the conclusion of the trial. The costs to which I have referred are the costs of the investigation and proceedings so far.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand from the original Answer that we are unlikely to have further applications for prosecutions? If so, is the whole achievement of the Government in this area a single trial which may or may not take place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not certain that I regard as a measure of achievement in relation to the preservation of law and order the number of cases that are brought to prosecution. I had the privilege once of being in the United States and was told that New York City had given much extra money to the police but no extra money to the courts in respect of criminal prosecutions. The judge was very annoyed that there was to be no more money for the courts, but the police answer was that the money would be used to prevent cases ever reaching the courts because law and order would be so well preserved. Therefore, I do not think that that is a measure to apply to this matter. On the policy, the legislation was passed by Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, would it not give a better sense of proportion to this matter if your Lordships were to bear in mind as regards the investigations concerning the mass murder of over 61/2; million Jewish people that the sense of another place was completely outraged by the thought that in this land we might be sheltering some of those criminals? If we bear those facts in mind, we might have a more tolerant attitude on the question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the matters to which the noble Viscount refers were debated in the course of the passing of the Act. The sense of my perhaps somewhat long answer to the previous question was that the policy underlying this is one which Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, regarded as important.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he would be prepared to answer the question as to whether the Government now accept that the judicial recommendation applicable on conviction in such trials would be made now in open court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have indicated that, in my view, that matter would arise, if it arises at all, at a much later date. The present law applying to such matters allows the judge the option of doing so if he thinks it appropriate. That matter would be for the judge to determine if and when the question arose.

Benefit Disentitlement: Monitoring
3.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they do not monitor the effects of policies which disentitle people to means-tested benefits.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, information from a variety of sources is used to monitor the effects of policy.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I cannot say that I found it informative. The Minister will know—for he has often told me so—that the Government do not monitor the behavioural effects of disentitling people to benefit. The Minister will also know—for he has often told me so—that it is important to cost measures accurately. How can we cost the effects of disentitling people to benefit if we do not know what the behavioural effects of such disentitlements may be?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have explained to the noble Earl on a number of occasions, research into the behavioural aspects of benefit changes or the way in which benefits impinge on people is extremely difficult to conduct for a number of reasons, including one's ability or inability to obtain a proper control group. However, the Department of Social Security has an outpouring of statistical information on which it can base some of its judgments at least in these matters. We collect numerous statistics on, for example, the participation rates in YT of 16 and 17 year-olds, the
578
attainment of trainees, the number of people waiting for places and the length of time that they wait, the number who claim severe hardship payments and the rate of success in claiming severe hardship payments.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that those in the DSS are not the best people to evaluate the information which the noble Earl seeks? It is quite common knowledge outside this House among people who consider such matters, including people who are in the midst of crime or who are its victims, that disentitlement to benefit is high on the list of causes of crime, together with the effects of television and living on some of our housing estates. Those in the DSS are not the only people who should be evaluating such things. Indeed, in my view, the DSS is not the body which should do that. The Minister should be considering more scientific methods. Perhaps the police and the courts can help. Certainly, agencies other than the DSS should be involved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, people become disentitled to benefit for a number of reasons. They may have found employment or they may have had employment while claiming benefit. They may have other income or their circumstances may change. Disentitlement to benefit takes a considerable number of forms. It includes people who do not, for example, take up the offers of YT places that are made to them. If such people become disentitled to benefit they have a way of re-entitling themselves to it; that is, by accepting the job prospects or YT prospects that are on offer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has indicated that he has a considerable amount of information on these matters from a number of sources and that the Government have made a number of judgments. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will publish their judgments, supported by the necessary facts to which, apparently, they have unlimited access?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for most of the past Session I have been not only publishing but explaining the Government's judgments on a range of Department of Social Security policies. We also produce statistics. One important statistic relating to 16 and 17 year-olds is that 72 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds in England are in full-time education today compared to only 49 per cent. in 1979.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the large amount of legislation we have had, which has resulted in reducing entitlement to benefit (the Jobseekers Allowance Act is the most recent example), will undoubtedly mean that more people will come off contributory benefit and go on to means-tested benefit? In view that, should we not know what happens to such people if they later become disentitled to means-tested benefit? Surely we should know the result of legislation which we pass in this House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have already explained, such things would be extremely difficult to quantify and research. Perhaps I may say also that anyone who becomes disentitled to, for example,

579
the jobseekers allowance has become disentitled because of a deliberate decision that that person has taken—either not to take the jobs on offer or not to take the YT course on offer. It is not the Government or the taxpayer doing the disentitling, it is the people involved disentitling themselves by not obeying the entitlement criteria.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister recently drew my attention to the Government's reply to the Social Security Select Committee of another place which says that it is a Treasury instruction to other departments that they should consider the cost to the DSS of their measures. Is it an instruction to the DSS that it should consider the cost to other departments of its measures? If so, is it obeying it? If it is not, why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, when in the DSS and elsewhere in government we are considering proposals for change we attempt, as well as we possibly can, to quantify the costs and savings which may arise from those changes. Indeed, in the course of the four pieces of legislation I have brought before your Lordships' House this year on a number of occasions—a great number of occasions some of your Lordships may feel—I have expanded on those costs and savings.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.45 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on prison security: the Learmont Report.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
If your Lordships agree to the Motion, the Committee of Selection will meet shortly to put forward members for the ad hoc Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government. Thereafter, a further Motion will be tabled to appoint the committee. I hope therefore that your Lordships will feel able to accede to the Motion.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 89) be agreed to.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT
1. The Liaison Committee recommends that the proposed ad hoc Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government should have the following terms of reference:
To consider the relationship between central government and local authorities in Great Britain; and, in particular, to consider—

(1) the balance in that relationship between the powers exercised at central and local level;

580

(2) the effect of that relationship on local authorities' activities, particularly as regulator, service provider and community leader;

(3) the need for regulation of local authorities as a means of ensuring appropriate standards of service and value for money, and the forms such regulation should take;

(4) the financial relationship between central government and local authorities including the extent to which financial independence for local authorities is desirable and practicable.

The Committee also recommends that the Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government should be invited to make its report to the House by the summer recess 1996.
2. We also recommend that Lord Houghton of Sowerby's Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill should (if re-introduced) be referred to a Select Committee, which should report within three months of its appointment. Thereafter, we recommend that a further ad hoc Committee on the Public Service should be appointed, on which we will report further.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very happy to support the Motion. Paragraph 2 of the Liaison Committee's report gives me great satisfaction, so I am well behind the report just for that purpose alone, although there are some other very ambitious projects within it.
All I need say, apart from expressing a word of thanks to all concerned for the favourable way in which they received my submissions, is that the procedural steps to be taken, which are referred to in paragraph 2, are already in hand. The timetable for them has already been fixed. I hope to get the Second Reading of the Bill over before Christmas, and thereafter the reference to the ad hoc committee mentioned in the report. I am very happy about that and I hope that the committee to be appointed immediately after Christmas can do a satisfactory job and finish its job. I am much obliged.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It gives me great pleasure to be able to move the Motion, if only because I think the way that he has reminded your Lordships of the importance of the subject—which he has brought before your Lordships many times—has been recognised by the Liaison Committee.
I should like just to remind your Lordships that the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place has now decided that it too would like to conduct an inquiry into the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. There is a tradition in your Lordships' House—I believe that it has been observed in another place—that it is not always expedient for two similar inquiries to be conducted in both places simultaneously. I feel guidance of that kind is to be honoured, of course, purely in practical terms, and I should be perfectly happy, with your Lordships' permission, to be guided by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. If he would prefer this committee to continue, despite the inquiry which the committee in the other place is also conducting, I would be perfectly happy to see that happen. On the other hand, if he would prefer to withdraw it, I am equally happy. The respect with which the noble Lord is viewed in this House must make it his choice rather than mine.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [District court: jurisdiction and powers]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("not").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects an error in the consolidation. The amendment, and all the other amendments which I have to move this afternoon to this Bill, as well as to the Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, have been seen by the Lord Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has indicated that he considers that the amendments do not alter the character of the Bills as consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Bail: circumstances where not available]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 18, line 10, after ("24") insert ("(except subsection (2))").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment clarifies the effect of a number of provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 which have been combined in one provision in the consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148 [Intermediate diet]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 95, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects the consolidation to take account of the amendment made at a late stage to the Bill which is now the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 187 [Leave to appeal against sentence]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 116, line 25, after second ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as he considers appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 5 rectify what is an obvious omission in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 by bringing this provision on appeal into line with changes made by that Act to other provisions on appeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 116, line 44, after ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as he considers appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 254 [Forfeiture of property]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 254
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Clause 254 be omitted from the Bill. The clause consolidates two sections of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 which have been repealed by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. The Bill which became that Act was amended at a late stage in its proceedings to repeal the sections in question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 3 [Transitional Provisions, Transitory Modifications and Savings]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 28, line 19, leave out ("by regulations").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment acknowledges the fact that commencement provisions will usually be made by order rather than by regulation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Page 59, line 8, leave out ("44") and insert ("45").
Page 59, leave out lines 12 to 17.
Page 59, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In section 50 (treatment of child's case on remission by court)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "section 173, 372 or 373 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" there shall be substituted "section 49 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "the said section 373" there shall be substituted "subsection (7) of the said section 49".").

Page 59, line 18, leave out ("51") and insert ("52").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 8 to 11 are required because of amendments made at a late stage in your Lordships' House to the Bill which became the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and which affect the consolidation exercise. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Roger of Earlsferry Lord Roger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 59, line 18, after ("supervision)") insert ("—
(a)")
Page 59, line 21, at end insert (";
(b) in paragraph (g), for the words "sections 2A to 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976" there shall be substituted "sections 1 to 3 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments substitute for a reference in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to the Sexual Offences (Scotland)

583
Act 1976, which is consolidated in the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill, the reference to the consolidated provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 11:
Page 59, line 22, leave out ("52") and insert ("53").
Page 59, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In section 63(1) (duty of Principal Reporter where informed by constable of detention of a child) for the words "section 296(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" there shall be substituted "section 43(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act I995".").
Page 59, line 25, leave out ("75") and insert ("78").
Page 59, line 32, after ("of") insert ("section 3 or).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Roger of Earlsferry Lord Roger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert—

("1995 c.36.

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

Section 49.

In Schedule 4, paragraphs 24, 27 and 29.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment repeals certain provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which textually amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and which arc incorporated in the consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 2Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The Scheme, and any variation to it, shall be contained in a statutory instrument; and the Scheme, and any variation to it, shall not take effect until a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Scheme or, as the case may be. the variation of the Scheme, has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his co-operation in agreeing that it would be in the interests of the Committee to dispose of the issue of parliamentary control of
584
delegated legislation before moving on to the content of the Bill. The noble Lord's first amendment was a paving amendment for his important amendments of substance, which no doubt he will be explaining.
In moving Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 69 and 72. The purpose of this series of amendments is to draw the attention of the Committee to the 14th report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It was published on 21st July and therefore became available only after the Second Reading debate on the Bill. In its report the scrutiny committee stated that the power to establish a scheme for compensation for criminal injuries is a delegated legislative power (paragraph 6); that important elements of the legislation and its administration are included in the scheme and not in the body of the Bill (paragraph 7); and that the Bill is unusual in that it does not make the document embodying the delegated legislation a statutory instrument and that the exercise of the majority of the powers would not be subject to parliamentary control (paragraph 9).
In the form in which the Bill was passed by another place and debated on Second Reading in this Chamber only the tariff proposals were subject to parliamentary control. When, in Standing Committee in another place, an amendment was tabled on this matter the Minister of State declined to go any further. He said that the amendment was impractical as the scheme itself contained so many matters of routine detail and that it would impose an unnecessary burden on Parliament and introduce a cumbersome degree of rigidity. That view might be open to challenge but this is not the place to rehearse it because, spurred on perhaps by the amendments giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee tabled by my noble friends and myself and joined by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government have had second thoughts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has tabled amendments to Clause 10, which were printed only last Thursday. They concede parliamentary control over both the scheme itself, contained in Amendment No. 61, and any alterations in future to the provisions within the scheme, contained in Amendment No. 66. The decision is greatly to be welcomed. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that, as I read her amendments, the affirmative resolution procedure applies to the introduction of the scheme and the negative resolution procedure applies to any subsequent amendments to the scheme. That seems entirely appropriate because there may well be a number of detailed amendments which are not suitable for the affirmative resolution procedure. If the noble Baroness can confirm those points, the main proposals of the scrutiny committee are met.
The remaining points in the report of the committee can be dealt with briefly. Given the significance of the delegated powers, the committee recommended that the Secretary of State should undertake a process of consultation before formally laying proposals before Parliament in draft. That has been done. During the Recess copies of the draft Criminal Injuries (Tariff Based) Compensation Scheme were circulated. A number of Peers in the Chamber today will have

585
received the draft, as did Members of another place who took part in the debates there. The draft was also sent to a list of interested parties, including Victim Support of which I have the honour to be president. In the case of Victim Support, the opportunity was taken to express views to the Home Office, and no doubt others responded as well. There has therefore been consultation as recommended by the scrutiny committee. I hope that the noble Baroness is able to confirm that Parliament will be notified in some way of any changes made to the scheme as a result of those representations. The process of consultation may not yet be complete, but when it is I believe it is right that Parliament should ask to be kept informed.
The final point raised by the scrutiny committee dealt with transitional provisions. In paragraph 5 of the 14th report the Minister was invited—I quote the language of the report—to give an undertaking to keep the transitional period to the minimum. As she has been so willing to initiate action or proposals to meet the other matters to which the attention of the Committee has been drawn, I hope she will have no difficulty with this one either. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise to speak briefly as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, to which my noble friend referred. Its 14th report on the Bill was published only on 21st July, the day we went into Recess.
I have been a member of that committee since it was created two or three years ago and on the occasions on which the committee has drawn attention to matters for the consideration of this Chamber the Government have almost always acknowledged the points and then taken action, proposed amendments or made changes. That has been gratifying. The action taken, to which my noble friend referred, is also encouraging because it is clear that during the Recess my noble friend and other Ministers have been looking at the points raised by the committee. Like my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I shall be interested to hear how far the amendments go in meeting the points raised in the 14th report.
Lord Renton: In recent years there has been a growth of ministerial documents which are non-legislative but which purport to have legislative effect; for example, codes of practice, guidance offered under statute, departmental directives and, as in this case, schemes. Unless we are very careful, Parliament has no control over those ministerial documents.
Of course, if those documents are merely administrative or explanatory of legislation which has been approved by Parliament, that is all well and good. But if they purport to have a legislative effect of which Parliament has not approved, then we must be extremely vigilant. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Windlesham on his vigilance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee will be pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his introduction of these important matters and to acknowledge, as he does, the extent to which the Government have taken heed of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which are extremely welcome.
586
As the noble Lord said in his opening speech, the issue of affirmative resolution appears from the later amendments to Clause 10 to have been covered very thoroughly. It is also the case that consultation has taken place. Indeed, the Minister was good enough to see me towards the end of last month and I know that the Minister and her colleagues have been accessible to quite a wide range of organisations concerned with the principle and details of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
I am not sure that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which deal with the commencement and transitional provisions are not rather severe. They would require that the new scheme should come into force within a month of Royal Assent. That may be rather tough. Personally, I am reasonably satisfied with the indication that the new scheme should come into force on 1st April of next year. Although I fear that my later amendments have been tabled in the wrong place, they are intended to achieve that effect. No doubt we shall reach a suitable resolution of that final issue which exercised the minds of the members of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was kind enough to say that I had agreed not to move Amendment No. 1. However, he did not say that as an experienced ex-Leader of the House. He made it clear that, if I did not so agree, he would move a manuscript amendment before Clause 1 which would pre-empt me. I do not think that I can get round the noble Lord that easily and I should not dream of trying to do so.
The implication of the debate on this series of amendments must be that on these issues the Government have been amenable to persuasion and reason in their consideration of the Bill. I cannot say the same about later amendments because it would be a mistake for the Committee to be given the impression that the Government's flexibility went so far as to cover a wide range of detailed amendments which we have tabled and which we shall debate over the next two days.
Of course, it is valuable for the detail of the tariff and the scheme to be subject to affirmative resolution. But I remind the Committee that, in itself, that is of very limited value because there is no opportunity for amendment. These are extremely detailed, amendable issues. From these Benches in this Chamber there is no opportunity to overturn the Government on an issue of delegated legislation. That is why we have tabled amendments to be considered in Committee which either bring on to the face of the Bill the enduring elements of the scheme without amendment—that is, when we agree with them—or which propose to bring them on to the face of the Bill with the amendments which we consider necessary. That will provide the House with an opportunity to debate all the details of the scheme. Therefore, the Committee stage of the Bill will no longer be a Committee stage of an enabling Bill. I hope that the Committee will recognise that the effort which we have put into the detailed consideration of the extremely complex elements of the scheme which have been published is essential to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Government will be as flexible in

587
considering favourably the arguments which we shall put forward as they have been in responding to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: There is always a danger in being premature—anticipating the speech of a Minister and assuming that what one wishes her to say will indeed be said. But I too welcome the amendments that are proposed by the Minister and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on having the perspicacity to table the amendment and thereby encouraging the Minister in the course that she has adopted.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in regard to the shortcomings of affirmative resolutions. But it is certainly better that an affirmative resolution should be laid before the House rather than having no opportunity whatever to discuss the matter. I noted his caution, although expressed in a round-about way, about the idea of amending affirmative resolutions and, most important, occasionally voting against them. In due course I hope that if the House feels fit it will exercise that power, if necessary, on the right occasions. But I say that without prejudice to the welcome which I give to the steps which the Minister has apparently taken.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for his introduction of the amendments. I hope that my reply will help to reassure my noble friend and others who have spoken. Perhaps I may say also, as a Minister speaking at the Dispatch Box, how much I value the work of the scrutiny committee because it makes us think very carefully about some of the reservations held by that committee. I believe that that work probably smooths the procedure of work through the Chamber.
The scrutiny committee seemed generally satisfied with the Bill's delegated powers, but drew the attention of the House to four points. I shall consider each of those in turn. First, the committee felt that the Minister might wish to give an undertaking to the House that the transitional period between Royal Assent and the start of the new tariff scheme will be kept to a minimum. I can give that assurance.
Our intention that the new scheme should start on 1st April 1996 has been known for a long time. That will allow just sufficient time for, among other matters, Parliament to approve the new scheme. That process will require the affirmative approval of both Houses; for the new authority and complementary appeals panel to be established; for the authority to prepare the accompanying guide to the scheme; for the authority to arrange the printing and distribution of the scheme, its accompanying explanatory guide, and all the new forms which will have to be brought into use; for the authority and appeals panel to arrange appropriate training for their staff and members; and for getting the computer system and other administrative procedures ready for the new scheme.
That represents a great deal of detailed work which will have to be undertaken quickly and efficiently. There is no realistic prospect of compressing that timescale; indeed, if Parliament were to delay, or even withhold, approval of the new scheme it could not be met at all.
588
That is why it would be quite impracticable to accept the third and fourth of my noble friend's amendments. They would effectively require us to bring the new scheme into force within one month of Royal Assent. If we did so, we could not continue to operate the current scheme. I am afraid that that would leave the victims in limbo. I am not sure that we could even continue settling residual old scheme cases already lodged. But we certainly would not be able to accept new applications because there would be no scheme in operation under which they could apply. I am sure that my noble friend would not want to be held responsible for such a state of affairs, particularly, as he said, as he is president of Victim Support.
Secondly, the scrutiny committee commented that the House may be satisfied that the Bill sufficiently defines the essential elements of the proposed scheme, although important elements of the legislation and its administration will fall to be included in the scheme itself.
We think that we have achieved the right balance, particularly in view of what I shall say next. As Members of the Committee are aware, the Bill is essentially enabling legislation which enables the Secretary of State to make, subject to parliamentary approval, a scheme for compensating the blameless victims of violent crime. As the committee will have seen, the Government have tabled amendments to Clause 10 intended to give Parliament rather than the Executive the final say over all aspects of the scheme.
As the Bill presently stands, certain key elements of the proposed new arrangements—relating to the tariff itself and bearing on quantum—will be subject to prior parliamentary approval before they can be incorporated into the scheme. Our proposed amendments go much further. They will require the whole scheme to be approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. Subsequently, any changes to the more important or key features of the new scheme would require prior parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while changes to any other features would require prior parliamentary approval by the negative resolution procedure. The Executive would no longer be free to make any changes whatever to the scheme without the prior consent of Parliament. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this represents a most significant change in the proposed control arrangements, giving Parliament the last word.
Thirdly, the scrutiny committee commented that, given the significance of the delegated powers, this Chamber may wish the Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a process of consultation before he can proceed formally to lay his proposals before Parliament in draft.
The Government have in fact already undertaken a process of consultation on the proposed new arrangements. We issued a draft of the proposed new scheme towards the end of August. That set out clearly, and in detail, the proposed rules and procedures of the new scheme. That draft had a wide circulation. It went to Members of both Houses of Parliament who had taken part in earlier debates, and a copy was placed in the Library of the House. It also went to the Law

589
Society, the Bar Council, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Victim Support, the TUC, the police representative bodies, and the equivalent bodies in Scotland. We have already received some useful comment on the draft proposals, and some of that is likely to be reflected in the revised draft of the new scheme which we shall now have to lay before Parliament under the procedures I described a little earlier.
Given that extensive consultation process, I do not think that there is any need to consult yet again in the way the scrutiny committee suggested or in the way that my noble friend's second amendment would require. We would be unlikely to receive any comment that had not already been made under the current consultation exercise, and a further consultation exercise would eat further into the time available to get the new scheme up and running by next April. As I explained earlier, that timetable is already a tight one. However, I can give my noble friend the assurance that he sought; namely, that any changes would be notified to Parliament.
The fourth point that the scrutiny committee made was that the Committee might like to consider the case for allowing the delegated powers to be exercised by a scheme which was not contained in a statutory instrument. But the scrutiny committee went on to say that this Chamber may consider that Clause 10 confers an appropriate degree of parliamentary control of the exercise of delegated powers.
As I have just explained, since the scrutiny committee reported we have tabled amendments which would extend the Clause 10 powers and require the whole scheme to be subject to prior parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution process. Again, I can confirm to my noble friend the fact that any subsequent amendments would also require parliamentary approval by either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure, depending on whether or not they affected key elements of the scheme. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that that confers the appropriate and necessary degree of parliamentary control.
I should perhaps say here that we see no compelling need for the scheme to be set out in a statutory instrument. We want the scheme to be easy for victims to understand, without recourse to legal advice which could be expensive and slow down the process. As far as possible, therefore, we want to use every-day terms that are readily understood. That would be less easy if we had to draft in the legal language and format necessary for statutory instruments. In doing so, we might inadvertently circumscribe any capacity for exercising common sense or a degree of discretion where that was appropriate and quite likely be to the victim's advantage.
However, I can assure Members of the Committee that not only will the negative and affirmative resolution procedure be used, but all the appropriate consultation in advance of any changes would also be followed. I hope that the Committee will share the view and agree that my noble friend's first amendment is neither necessary nor appropriate for a scheme of this nature. I also hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we have given most careful consideration to the
590
points raised by the scrutiny committee, to which my noble friend's amendments were addressed. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wonder whether I can persuade the Minister to take her argument just a little further. I must say right away that I am personally most grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of the scheme during the Summer Recess. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it has been customary through the years for Parliament to establish such a scheme and then, after the scheme has been established and approved by Parliament, to appoint the authority.
I should like to persuade the noble Baroness to give some thought to appointing the authority, if not the appeals panel, as soon as possible and then consult the authority which will be responsible for operating the scheme about the scheme itself. I accept the fact that the Minister and her officials have consulted widely. But would it not be a good idea in this particular instance if the authority were to be appointed as soon as possible and then consulted about the scheme? In that way, we could get away from the custom that Parliament has developed down through the years whereby the scheme is first introduced by Parliament and then the authority which will administer it is appointed. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that aspect of the matter.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the noble Lord's point. We certainly need to get on with such arrangements as soon as possible; and, indeed, appointing the authority is most important. However, so too is getting the scheme through all its statutory stages and the Bill passed with Parliament's approval of the scheme. As I have already spelt out, that process will tax all of us as regards ensuring that we meet the deadline of 1st April 1996. But, where consultation can be carried out—certainly subsequent to the original scheme being placed before Parliament and approved—I agree that it is absolutely essential that the authority should be the first point of consultation for any changes, however minor.
Lord Windlesham: The reply from my noble friend the Minister is entirely satisfactory. I regard it as a matter of some encouragement that we have been able to resolve the first issue with consent from all sides of the Committee. I shall not be moving my remaining amendments in the series—that is Amendments Nos. 3, 69 and 72. What was said about transitional arrangements, not only by my noble friend but also by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was persuasive. The subject will no doubt be discussed again when we reach the later amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But I shall not move any of the amendments in the series in my name and those of my noble friends. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble and learned Lord said: One ventures to hope that the atmosphere of consensus which has so far pervaded our debate may augur well for the future. It may be to the convenience of the Committee if, with this amendment, the Committee discusses Amendments Nos. 5 and 27 for a reason which I shall endeavour to explain later. The purpose of these amendments is to write into the Bill the definition of a key term. If we had been told prior to the introduction of this Bill that it was about criminal injuries and had then been informed that it would be necessary to write into the Bill by amendment a definition of the term "criminal injury", we might have expressed some surprise. Parliament is being invited to pass a Bill which does not define the very term which is central to the entire purpose of the Bill. It simply declares that the definition "may be specified".
I doubt whether our anxieties would have been laid to rest if we had been told, "It is all right. After Parliament has passed the Bill and it is on the statute book the Government will produce a scheme to explain what they mean by the term which is the key to the whole thing". It is true, of course, that the noble Baroness helpfully circulated to a number of us the draft of the scheme in advance of this debate and for that we are grateful. I am sure, however, that she would not regard that as a substitute for placing in the Bill something which ought to be in the Bill.
At Second Reading I ventured to question a matter which seems to have occasioned some surprise to the scrutiny committee—the constitutional propriety of a Bill which has no content, just a series of blanks, and empowers the Government to fill in the blanks after Parliament has parted with the Bill. Surely, normal constitutional practice is for the Executive to submit a proposal to Parliament and then Parliament rejects it or passes it or amends it, but Parliament is the legislature and that is what is meant by legislating. Of course the proposal need not consist of every detail of the scheme. Lord Hewart back in 1929 thought that it should. He thought that subordinate legislation itself endangered democracy. He was a former Conservative Law Officer. They do not make Conservatives like that any more, and no one would now argue for so extreme a view. But what the Government are doing is to invite Parliament to pass a Bill which virtually declares that the Secretary of State may do as he likes. That is not legislating; that is signing a blank cheque.
Of course, as we were told at Second Reading, it is more flexible to leave it to the Government to make changes and amendments whenever they think fit. So it is, of course. A blank cheque is always more flexible than one in which the drawer inserts what he is agreeing to. The conclusion of that argument would be to abolish the legislature altogether and leave everything to the Executive. No doubt the Home Secretary would be rather in favour of such a proposal, particularly when the judiciary told him that it was a usurpation to introduce a scheme on the very subject on which Parliament had legislated while ignoring the conditions which Parliament had imposed. I remember that some time ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke of a elected dictatorship. This is a legislative vacuum.
We are told that there will be an affirmative resolution and for that we are grateful. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having raised that matter so early in our proceedings. However, I hope we will be forgiven if we are not wholly comforted. We all know the shortcomings of subordinate legislation, even when it is subject to an affirmative resolution. My noble friend Lord McIntosh mentioned some of them a few moments ago: an unamendable scheme; a brief debate in the silent hours of the night. In this busy generation I suppose that must suffice for matters of detail, but that does not mean that Parliament must abdicate its legislative role in the very structure of what is proposed. We would wish to register our protest against this haemorrhaging to which parliamentary democracy is being subjected.
As to the definition of a criminal injury which we invite the Committee to write into the Bill, it is unlikely that there will be much controversy about that, because it is the Government's own definition in the draft scheme. Our quarrel is not with the definition. However, if it is ever to be changed we want to see Parliament invited to alter it by a proper constitutional process because it is a key term in the whole Bill. If some future Home Secretary decided to exclude half the crimes of violence to which the scheme applies, we want not merely to be told but to be part of the decision. To be informed that it will be subject to an affirmative resolution does not meet that anxiety. As to that part of the definition which relates to the place where the offence took place, we are content for that to remain in the scheme. There is room for discussion as to what is a matter of detail. However, we are troubled when we find that the definition of a detail is in effect everything which the Government may seek to do. Henry VIII might have approved of that, but Henry VIII, of course, is dead.
Finally, as regards Amendment No. 27, we suggested that that might conveniently be grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 because it is an example of what they are about. We have no quarrel with what the scheme proposes. We are saying simply that this is an example of matters which ought to be in the Bill. Our Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 say that in any event to have a Bill about criminal injuries which does not define the term "criminal injury" is a constitutional impropriety. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before I read out Amendment No. 4 I should inform the Committee that a mistake occurs in Amendment No. 5, which is grouped with Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List. The third line from the end, which refers to subsection (3)(a), should refer to subsection (1)(a).
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The aim of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is to bring onto the face of the Bill some of the more detailed provisions of the scheme itself, those which establish what constitutes a "criminal injury" for the purpose of the scheme, and those which provide for the payment of awards by structured settlements. We do not think that is either necessary or appropriate.

593
Clause 1 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of criminal injury. Among other things Clause 1 of the Bill requires the scheme to specify the meaning of "criminal injury". The substance of new Clause 1 draws heavily on the draft scheme we have published in this respect. The remaining clauses of the Bill set out various matters in respect of which provision must be made in the scheme, and also give a clear indication of the scope of the Secretary of State's powers by giving examples of particular matters in respect of which provision may be made. The Bill thus clearly sets out the basic parameters of the scheme but leaves the detail to be set out in the scheme itself made under the Bill's powers.
I propose to set out arguments which will apply to other amendments which seek to insert the detail of the scheme onto the face of the Bill. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House was clearly not averse to this approach. As has already been said, in its fourteenth report it commented, among other things, that the House may be satisfied that the Bill sufficiently defines the essential elements of the proposed scheme. It also said that the House may consider that Clause 10-requiring approval of the most significant parts of the proposed scheme by the affirmative resolution procedure—confers an appropriate degree of control of the exercise of the delegated powers. Since then, as the Committee will be aware from the amendments we have tabled to Clause 10, we are proposing to go further and make the whole scheme subject to prior parliamentary control by the affirmative resolution procedure. Subsequent amendments will also be subject to parliamentary control in the form of either the affirmative or negative resolution procedure, depending on whether or not the changes relate to key features of the scheme.
I invite the Committee to consider the disadvantages of trying to put too much detail on the face of the Bill. That would be too prescriptive, too unwieldy and too inflexible, requiring further primary legislation to make any changes that prove necessary in the light of experience or changing circumstances. I should say here that although these amendments seek, by and large, to replicate in the Bill some of the detailed provisions of the draft scheme which was widely circulated at the end of August, it has already become clear from the very useful feedback we have been receiving that some of those provisions may need to be amended in the interests of clarity and accuracy. Thus, to incorporate such provisions in the Bill—knowing already that some changes may well be needed—would be irresponsible and could only work to the disadvantage of victims. On the other hand, there is no disadvantage to victims in not having the detail set out in the Bill itself.
It might be argued nonetheless that we should accept these amendments—and similar ones—and change them as necessary during the remaining stages of the Bill. However, as the Committee will be aware, there is very little time left, and I would not be able to give an assurance to the Committee that we would be able to get everything right in the time available, particularly as we are still receiving comments on the draft scheme which could necessitate further change.
594
As an alternative it might be suggested that we accept the changes as drafted but provide a further power in the Bill to make any changes that subsequently prove necessary by subordinate legislation. I doubt that taking such Henry VIII powers would be regarded as acceptable. The Committee may agree that having gone to all the trouble of setting out a detailed scheme in primary legislation it would be inappropriate to allow it to be changed by secondary legislation. That would not seem to serve any good purpose. We think our approach is much better. It is pragmatic, sensible and transparent. That is important. In addition, it will not place victims at any disadvantage. Similar arguments apply to Amendment No. 27. That aims largely to replicate paragraph 42 of the draft scheme, which makes provision for structured settlements.
I have explained why we think it inappropriate and unnecessary to include such detail on the face of the Bill, and I would have asked the Committee to reject the amendment on that point of principle alone.
Furthermore, the substance of the amendment is unacceptable because it makes no provision for the cost of setting up the structured settlement to be met from the award. That would mean that the cost would have to fall on the scheme administration. That does not accord with usual practice and is not acceptable.
I hope that for those reasons the Committee will reject the amendments if they are pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, perhaps I may suggest that a simple solution to the definition of criminal injury could be to add the words "as may be specified in terms of the scheme". The scheme is defined in the next clause.
Baroness Blatch: The point at issue is whether the definition itself should appear on the face of the Bill or be contained within the scheme. We argue that it should be within the scheme, and therefore that is where the definition of criminal injury should reside.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My noble and learned friend Lord Archer made the point very forcefully from this side of the Chamber that there may well be a simple solution. I declare an interest as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. All members of the board are very anxious to make sure that we have a scheme which is workable and understandable. We do not want to get involved in semantics. As has been indicated from both sides of the Chamber, we are trying to agree on a workable scheme. I was only trying to be helpful, but perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Archer may not agree with me.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In moving the amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said that it merely repeated what was contained in the draft scheme proposed by the Government. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that it repeats the existing procedure under the 1990 scheme and makes no difference in substance in terms of the definition of criminal injuries?

595
While I am on my feet perhaps I may ask my noble friend a further question. The only substantial change to the scheme is proposed in Amendment No. 27 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, under which it is intended that there should be power to make structured settlements. At present under the criminal injuries compensation scheme there is no power to make structured settlements. Many of us who are members of the board have believed for some time that it would be in the interests of certain seriously injured victims if we had such a power. I ask my noble friend whether she can confirm that it is the intention of the Government, once the Bill has been passed, to permit the present board, in implementing the existing non-statutory scheme, to provide for structured settlements.
If my noble friend wants a moment or two to obtain an answer to that question, perhaps I may ask her a further question. Am I also right in saying that there is a change in the definition of mental injury, which is brought into line with certain decisions of the House of Lords as to the type of mental injury which will be compensated when the individual himself has not been physically attacked?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is the second Bill this Session under which a statutory phrase is to "have such meaning as may be prescribed". I well understand that, and the noble Baroness made it very clear why she likes that approach in this Bill. However, we should be very chary of conceding that type of draftsmanship. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, the most essential phrase in the Bill is "criminal injury", and "criminal injury" is to "have such meaning as may be prescribed".
The noble Baroness made it very clear that the Government may wish to tinker with the details. That is understandable. However, that drives us back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, earlier that we are allowing adjustments in the detail to be made by subordinate legislation; in other words by legislation which cannot be amended. I have felt for a long time that the unamendability of subordinate legislation particularly endears itself to Whitehall and is probably a sticking point. However, we ought to think very carefully about how far we accept provisions that require amendment and are intrinsically subject to the requirement of amendment, and indeed are called into being because they require adjustment and amendment, and whether such provisions should not be subject to some procedure whereby they can be amended notwithstanding that they are subordinate legislation.
Techniques are available. On occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has used a resolution procedure in relation to subordinate legislation asking that the Government take account of this or that. I am not sure that that procedure goes far enough, but it is necessary that where we have provisions which need amendment and which have been called into being because they need amendment, the amendments should be subject to parliamentary control in some way. At present we do not have that directly. What we have seen over the past decade or so is the gradual attenuation of parliamentary control over legislation; and that is a very serious matter
596
indeed. The arguments regarding flexibility are paraded every time. Nevertheless, Members of the Committee will not wish to be beguiled for all time into, in effect, surrendering parliamentary control over important areas of legislation.
Having said that—it is only by way of warning—I do not invite the noble and learned Lord to press the amendment to a Division. However, we should be very careful, very chary, as we go along that path. Officials in Whitehall should be warned that noble Lords are unlikely to put up indefinitely with the phrase that a statutory provision shall have such meaning as may be prescribed, or that a measure requires amendment and adjustment from time to time which, it is asserted, calls for a procedure which is unamendable.
I do not oppose the measure on this occasion; I believe that it may be a special case. However, there are few special cases. We should be aware of the path that we have trodden—namely, a substantial abnegation of parliamentary control of legislation over the past decade.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: First, I am grateful to the Committee. It has been an important and useful debate. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Carlisle that I can give him all the assurances that he seeks. The definition of "criminal injury" is indeed a replication of the scheme as it stands. I can also say that when Royal Assent is given to the Bill the existing scheme will be amended to allow structured settlements for residual claims. I know that that is an important point.
There will be a change regarding the definition of "mental injury" in the interests of clarity if nothing else. I hope my noble friend will accept that I shall write to him on that. I shall copy my reply to anyone who is interested.
We have had the main debate about what should be on the face of the Bill and what should be contained in the scheme. We have the safeguard that the scheme itself, and the key points of the scheme—this issue would certainly be regarded as a key point of the scheme—would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and lesser points would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. On that the Government rest their case and hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I confess that I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness described the definition of "criminal injury" in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill as one of the more detailed provisions of the Bill. I was fortified that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, shared my surprise.
I wholly agree with the noble Baroness that one does not wish to put too much detail in a Bill. I am no disciple of Lord Hewart. However, how does one draw the distinction between what is detail and what is essential to the structure of the measure being undertaken and how should we retain control over changes in that structure?
I was also a little surprised that the noble Baroness stated that one of the difficulties regarding the amendment was that, although we have accepted the Government's

597
own formulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, sought to confirm, the Government still wish to be in a position to amend their own formulation in the light of consultation. If the appropriate consultation had been carried out before the Bill was introduced, the Committee would not be confronted with such a difficulty.
I take the view that what we initially stated on this matter is still the case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out, we have seen an attenuation of the powers of parliamentary control over legislation over the past decade. One can think of a number of examples even within the past two Sessions. We regard the issue as a matter of very real principle. I see no sign that the Government—not even the Home Office, to whom one normally looks for an appreciation of or a sensitivity to the constitutional proprieties—have taken that matter on board or that there is any meeting of minds on the subject. Therefore, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested that I might think again about taking the opinion of the Committee, I believe that this is one of the essential matters of principle in the Bill and I propose to take the opinion of the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may add one point. I suggest that he stated quite wrongly that the Government are putting the definition into the scheme because they may want to change it. That is not the reason why that definition is in the scheme. Should a change be necessary, it is important to recognise that we should have a faster track to allow that change to take place than we would have if the provision were on the face of the Bill.
It is true that in recent times changes have been made to the definition. Therefore it is a question of convenience, of the benefit being wholly in the interests of the victim and of getting the matter right. The long stop must be that at the end of the day with regard to any change, and in particular a change of this nature, the Government must have the last word.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: If I misunderstood the noble Baroness, I apologise. I thought that she was arguing that, because we are still carrying on consultations about the draft scheme, we may want to change what is in the draft scheme and therefore we do not want to put the definition into the Bill; that we may want to change the provision before anything is done under the scheme. That seems a different point from arguing that at some point in the future we might want to change the matter and would like to keep it flexible. The arguments are different in the two cases. On either limb it seems to me that the Government have not made out their case. If they are likely to want to change the draft scheme in the immediate future, the consultations and reflections should have been undertaken earlier. If they are talking about the advantages of flexibility, we are back to the flexibility of the blank cheque.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, will reflect for a moment on what he says. It is a fact, I am sure he will agree, that
598
the current non-statutory scheme has been changed from time to time over the years to the advantage of the scheme. Does he not believe that if every desired change in future had to he by primary legislation, that is imposing too great a burden on the Government and on the scheme and that it is better to have the flexibility proposed by the Government?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I agree that we should have a degree of flexibility. That is why I attempted to draw a distinction between matters which should properly be left to flexibility and those which are part of the essential structure of the measure that Parliament is being asked to agree. I hope that the noble Lord does not seek to argue that the definition of "criminal injury" in a Bill on criminal injuries should be left flexible. That is the issue between us. That is why I seek to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Desai, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Eatwell, L.

Seear, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shannon, E.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Simon V

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Headfort, M.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

599

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Inglewood, L.

Abinger, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Addison, V.

Kimball, L.

Ailsa, M.

Kintore, E.

Aldington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Blaker, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northesk, E.

Chelmsford, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Palmer, L.

Courtown, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Prentice, L.

Pym, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rawlings, B.

Davidson, V.

Rennell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Donegall, M.

Romney, E.

Downshire, M.

St. Davids, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Selborne E

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Finsberg, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tebbit, L.

Gridley, L.

Templeman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Tryon, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Harrowby, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Westbury, L.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wilberforce, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wise, L.

Hothfield, L.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prison Security: Learmont Report
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on prison security that is being made in another place. The Statement is as follows
"I am today publishing the report by General Sir John Learmont into prison security. I am extremely grateful to Sir John and to his two fellow assessors, Sir John Woodcock and Mr. Gary Dadds, for their comprehensive and authoritative report.
"Let me begin by reminding the House of the circumstances which led me to ask Sir John to conduct his inquiry. In September 1994 six exceptional risk Category A prisoners escaped from Whitemoor Prison. I asked Sir John Woodcock to conduct an inquiry into the escape and I presented his findings to the House on 19th December last year. I also asked General Sir John Learmont to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of physical and procedural security in the Prison Service in England and Wales and to make recommendations.
"On 3rd January this year two Category A prisoners and one Category B prisoner escaped from Parkhurst. All three were recaptured on 8th January. I pay tribute again to the police for that successful operation.
"An immediate inquiry was carried out by the Prison Service Director of Security. As I told the House on 10th January, this immediate inquiry highlighted very serious deficiencies in procedural and physical security at Parkhurst. I asked Sir John Learmont to extend his inquiry to include an independent assessment of the events surrounding the escape.
"The report makes the most serious criticisms of Parkhurst and its management. On security procedures, Sir John found that the Prison Service's own security manual was disregarded and that the most basic security procedures were not observed. Sir John also makes a number of criticisms of the physical security of Parkhurst, including the failure of the Prison Service to provide the prison with the full benefits of technology.
"I am also publishing today the report of the inspection of Parkhurst by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim. The inspection took place in October last year and the report was submitted at the end of February.
"Judge Tumim also makes a number of severe criticisms of the situation at Parkhurst, including weak and inadequate security, unacceptable conditions in health care and drug dealing which

601
pervaded the whole sub-culture of the prison. There was a reluctance by staff to assert proper control in areas such as searching and accounting for inmates. The judge considered the problems were so serious that he wrote to the director general before he even left the prison, with a copy to me, drawing attention to the serious shortcomings he had found. As I told the House on 10th January, I immediately spoke to the director general and asked for a full report. He assured me that all Judge Tumim's recommendations had been implemented.
"Sir John Learmont recommends that Parkhurst should be taken out of the dispersal system as soon as possible and consideration given to its replacement by a more appropriate establishment (paragraph 2.179). I accept this recommendation. Parkhurst has not in practice operated as a dispersal prison since April when all Category A prisoners were removed from normal location. I have asked the Prison Service to identify another prison in the south-east of England to take Parkhurst's place in the dispersal system as soon as possible.
"Sir John's inquiry was not a disciplinary inquiry. Sir John has recommended to me that no disciplinary inquiry should be undertaken into the escape from Parkhurst. He is of the view that such an inquiry could finally break the resolve and commitment of many of the staff at Parkhurst, with the very real possibility that the secure running of the establishment could be severely compromised. He is also of the view that it is difficult to see what a disciplinary inquiry would achieve. In considering this recommendation I have been influenced by the fact that more than one of those concerned will not be staying in the Prison Service. I have therefore decided to accept this recommendation.
"The Learmont report makes it clear that responsibility for the Parkhurst escape was not confined to management and staff at Parkhurst. On the contrary: the report says that,
'alarm bells should have been ringing throughout the Prison Service' (paragraph 2.255),
and that many of the ingredients,
'can be traced along the lines of communication to Prison Service headquarters'.
In his covering letter Sir John Learmont makes it perfectly clear that responsibilities ultimately reach the level of the Prisons Board and that is where criticism stops. Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine, directly or indirectly, caused the escape.
"I turn next to the organisation of the Prison Service and its relationship with the central Home Office. It is now some two-and-a-half years since the Prison Service became a next steps executive agency. The decision to make the service an agency was taken on the recommendation of an independent inquiry conducted by Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo. Sir John Learmont does not recommend that there should be any change in the agency status of the Prison Service. He does recommend that someone with wide experience of the workings of agencies should undertake an in-depth study of the relationship
602
between the Prison Service and the Home Office. This work is under way and I shall report on it to the House when it is complete.
"Sir John's report makes 127 detailed and wide-ranging recommendations. I accept the broad thrust of Sir John's analysis. About half of the recommendations endorse actions that have already been completed, are under way or arc already planned. I will deal today with Sir John's key recommendations and I will come back to the House with a full response in due course.
"A key recommendation of the report is that there should be one maximum security prison to house the most dangerous prisoners in the system. This was a recommendation first made by the Mountbatten Inquiry in 1966 and accepted by the then Home Secretary (who is now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead). But the Radzinowicz Report in March 1968 recommended against it and it was not implemented. Since then the policy has been to disperse such prisoners among a small number of high security prisons. Sir John concludes that,
'the continuous development of explosives and weapons and their availability to criminals and their associates pose a much greater threat to the security of our maximum security prisons than the Service has previously encountered'.
He believes therefore that the most dangerous prisoners should now be housed in a purpose designed and built maximum security prison.
"This is a very far-reaching proposal which would represent a major departure in penal policy. The report makes a strong case for it. I have already asked the Prison Service to consider the feasibility, costs and benefits of building such an establishment and report to me in six months' time. The Prison Service will also consider Sir John Learmont's proposal for a single control prison to hold the most unruly and disruptive prisoners. I should welcome comments on these proposals.
"Sir John also recommends a fundamental review of the system under which prisoners are allocated to different security categories according to the threat to the community and the likelihood of escape. I accept that a review of this system should take place.
"Sir John also recommends that minimum physical security standards should be set for each category of prison. Work is well under way on bringing the dispersal estate up to the standards of security recommended by Sir John Woodcock. National standards exist for all new prisons. Decisions on the appropriate security standards for non-dispersal prisons will be based on the outcome of the review of categorisation.
"One particular aspect which I asked Sir John to consider was the extent to which visits should be closed. He recommends that there should be closed visits for exceptional risk Category A prisoners other than in exceptional circumstances. This coincides with the policy I introduced in June this year.
"I turn finally to Sir John's recommendations on the ways in which physical security is enhanced by activities and incentives. I told the House in December last year that the Prison Service would

603
introduce a national framework of privileges and incentives. That framework is already in place and implementation has begun. Sir John recommends that a system requiring early release to be earned, not granted automatically as at present, would be a significant additional inducement to good behaviour. Last week I set out proposals for ending automatic early release and for introducing a system of earned remission.
"But there are two issues on which Sir John and I must agree to differ. I reject his proposal that in-cell TV should be made widely available. This would not be consistent with my view that prison conditions should be decent but austere. Nor can I accept Sir John's proposal that home leave should be more widely available. In my view, the restrictions introduced earlier this year have an important role in protecting the public; and I have no plans to relax them.
"Sir John Learmont has found a great deal that needs to be put right within the Prison Service, spanning leadership, structure, the management chain and the ethos of the service. He says that responsibilities ultimately reach Prisons Board level—and the criticism stops there.
"These comments, coming so soon after the Woodcock Report on Whitemoor, cause me great concern. I must be able to assure this House, and through it the public, that the grave weaknesses in the service which have been disclosed will be put right.
"I have come to the conclusion, with some sadness, that this requires a change of leadership at the top of the Prison Service. The present director general has served in his post for nearly three years. I pay tribute to him for what he has achieved. But I cannot overlook the serious criticisms in the report. I believe the service requires a change of leadership to carry forward the programme of reforms which is needed and to increase public confidence in the security of our prisons.
"The director general has accordingly ceased to hold his post with effect from today. The director of security will take over temporarily until a successor is appointed.
"I believe that this report will be seen as a major milestone in the evolution of the Prison Service. I heartily endorse Sir John's conclusion that:
`There is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job'.
"The changes that I have announced today will help them to achieve that goal".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that lengthy Statement. Let me make it clear from the outset that I have not had an opportunity to study the report, but I have no reason to suppose that Sir John Learmont and his colleagues did their work in anything other than an
604
exemplary way. The fact that they produced 127 detailed recommendations covering a wide range of security issues in our prisons is evidence that their work must be taken extremely seriously.
I feel that there are three levels at which we should consider this report. The first is the particular recommendations. I have one or two questions to ask about them. The second level is the implied re-opening of the issue of the next steps agency status of the Prison Service. The third and, I believe, the most important level for our consideration today is the political responsibility: the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Secretary and, through the Home Secretary, Parliament.
As I said, I have not had an opportunity to study the report or see anything other than the summary of the recommendations which is contained in the Statement. But if the intention is to explore over the coming months the prospects for a single prison for maximum security prisoners, we certainly wish to co-operate with such an inquiry and will be keenly interested in the results of such a review. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how long it will be before such a review takes place.
An important recommendation is on allocations policy. The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendation that there should be a review of allocations policy. My only comment on that is that many of the complaints about bad conditions and lack of security in prisons have arisen because allocations policies have been distorted by overcrowding in our prisons. That is the fundamental reason why, in many prisons—not just Whitemoor and Parkhurst—there are prisoners in locations where they should not be and where it was never intended that they should be. That in itself—I ask the Minister to comment on this point—is a potential security risk.
Is it not the case that the announcements made by the Home Secretary in his speech at Blackpool last week at least raised the prospect of a very substantial increase in overcrowding in our prisons? If our prison population is to increase by the 20,000 or so implied by the Home Secretary's statements, it will be many years before a prison building programme could accommodate those prisoners without affecting not just decent conditions but also bad allocations policy.
I notice that the Home Secretary feels free to pick and choose among the report's recommendations. Where he thinks that they fit in with the stance that he takes at his party conference, he leaps at them; but where they contradict his own judgments—for example, in-cell television and home visits—he rejects them without so much as an attempt at serious argument. He also claims that the abolition of automatic remission and its replacement by earned remission of sentence is an important part of his policy. That is not how I understood his statement last week, which seemed to everybody who read or heard it to be going much further than that in reducing the application of the parole system. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whom I am glad to see in his place, in a devastating letter to The Times today has criticised some aspects of the Home Secretary's speech. So the Home Secretary has accepted some of the recommendations and rejected others. We

605
look forward to an opportunity to have a full debate of the recommendations, which we certainly cannot have now.
The next question is whether it is right that the Prison Service should be a next steps agency. The Statement simply says that:
"Sir John Learmont does not recommend that there should be any change in the agency status of the Prison Service".
But does not Sir John then go on to say that:
"someone with wide experience of the workings of agencies should undertake an in-depth study of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Office"?
Does not that imply that Sir John is unhappy about the relationship but is simply reserving his judgment on the issue until he has further evidence in order to help him take a position on it? I ask the Minister, when the review that has been recommended is completed, whether Sir John and his colleagues will be asked to reconvene and submit a report to the Home Secretary on that very important issue.
The final and most important issue is, above all, political responsibility. The Statement says that:
"Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine,"—
that is the Home Secretary—
"directly or indirectly, caused the escape".
He says not once but twice that:
"responsibilities ultimately reach the level of the Prisons Board and that is where criticism stops".
That is not good enough. The responsibility to Parliament for the Prison Service is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minster responsible for that service. He cannot shrug it off simply by saying that Sir John did not explicitly criticise the Home Secretary.
Let us remind ourselves of what Sir John was asked to do. He was asked to conduct:
"a comprehensive and independent review of physical and procedural security in the Prison Service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations".
He was not asked to investigate the issue of political responsibility. It is politically irresponsible of the Secretary of State to imply, because of the absence of such a criticism, that he has been exonerated. It is the Home Secretary who is responsible for the state of affairs in the Prison Service. It is not good enough for him simply to shrug it off by sacking Mr. Derek Lewis, against whom I have no personal animus at all, and claiming that he has no responsibility.
If it is the case that we cannot secure parliamentary responsibility by our next steps agency system, so much the worse for the next steps agency system. If we can secure such parliamentary accountability and it is the Home Secretary who has been at fault, so much the worse for the Home Secretary. He is not let off the hook in any degree by this report.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too thank the Minister for the Statement that she repeated in the House today. Clearly, this is a deeply alarming report. The Statement that has been given to the House is very far from reassuring.
The report was leaked to the Daily Mail last week and was referred to on the BBC in its early programmes today and discussed in detail in "The World at One". It
606
seems to me quite inadequate and an offence against Parliament itself that we did not have this report to consider before the Statement was made while others have clearly had an opportunity to examine it in detail.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on the question of parliamentary responsibility, the need to debate and the responsibilities of the Home Secretary in these respects. In repeating the Home Secretary's Statement, the Minister said there would be a full response in due course to Sir John Learmont's report. Can she tell the House when that full response is likely to take place? Though she was not able to give an undertaking to the House that there will be a debate, can she say to the House today that she will make representations to her right honourable friend that there should be a debate at an early stage when the response is available, if not before?
We must all hope that Mr. Derek Lewis has not been made a scapegoat in any way. It is too soon to draw a conclusion. I say only that, according to his lights, he has done his best to serve the Prison Service during his period of office and there should be no personal animus against him. Clearly he inherited a situation which was far more difficult than he or anyone else could anticipate and there is every reason to believe that he has not had the support of the Home Secretary in those areas which should properly be his if the next steps agency is to function in the way intended.
In that respect it is interesting to read what is now proposed in regard to the Prison Service. The Home Secretary refers to the recommendations of Sir John and says:
"This work is under way and I shall report on it to the House when it is complete".
The Statement says that Sir John recommended that someone with wide experience of the agency should undertake the work. But who is undertaking the work? Is it a person of independent status or somebody who is responsible to a Minister who may well be less concerned with finding a solution to these problems than finding a solution acceptable to Ministers alone?
Perhaps I may say, without being unreasonably mischievous, that the Minister may like to re-read her speeches of 25th January last. On that occasion we on these Benches raised the whole question of the relationship between the Home Secretary and the Prison Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dismissed all our anxieties as being of no account. Now, less than one year later, because Sir John Learmont says what we were saying then, there is to be an inquiry. I welcome it. But the noble Baroness should look carefully at the way in which she dismissed what we said at that time as being of no account and matters which in some ways should not properly be the concern of this House.
I note also the way in which the Home Secretary selected the recommendations—in so far as he declared his attitude to them—by choosing those with which he agreed and turning down those he found to be inconsistent with his own policies. Again, a difficult question of responsibility arises. What are matters appropriate to the Home Secretary and what are matters appropriate to the Prison Service? If Sir John recommends in-cell television for purposes he sees as

607
totally consistent with his report on security, it should not be for the Home Secretary to reject that recommendation because—to use a phrase to which he attaches great importance—
"prison conditions should be decent but austere".
On the question of home leave, Sir John proposes that it should be more widely available, but the Home Secretary says that he has no plans to relax the restrictions introduced earlier this year. That is a selective choice. If Sir John believes that the recommendations are consistent with higher security, then it follows that in rejecting them the Home Secretary is not adopting the course that Sir John believes to be in the best public interest.
I have one further question for the Minister relating to the cost of the proposals that Sir John Learmont is putting forward. On the face of it a large sum is involved and it would be interesting to hear the Minister say today that, whatever the cost of implementing the recommendations, there will be no delay in doing so. I appreciate that the Minister and the Home Secretary, in deciding how much can be allocated and how much the Chancellor may be asked to bring forward to implement the recommendations, must also have in mind the proposals put forward by the Home Secretary in his Blackpool speech a week ago. If indeed it is the case that the restrictions he then indicated (the intervention he made in matters normally left to the judiciary) will result in an increase in the prison population of 10, 15 or 20 per cent., that will be a large addition to the cost of the Prison Service.
Again, it will help us to assess the relevance and the likelihood of the implementation of Sir John's proposals if the Minister can tell the House today what estimates the Home Office has made already in relation to the cost of implementing the proposals set out one week ago by the Home Secretary. We cannot judge the importance of the Home Secretary's Statement and the expectation we have of the implementation of Learmont except against the wider cost of the Prison Service which the Home Secretary now anticipates. I hope that in replying to these questions the Minister will give the House at least some provisional figures. They must be available and they should be the property of Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the difficulty, with such an important and detailed report, of responding to it in any kind of detail in the time allowed, and am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said so far. Perhaps I may address some of the points raised by the report.
First, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the timetable for the "supermax" prison. A feasibility study is already under way examining the supermax principle and its impact on the remainder of the prison estate. The Home Secretary expects to receive a report in six months and a decision will then need to be taken as to the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned also about the impact of the Home Secretary's new proposals on the population within the prisons. That will depend very much on the sentencing decisions of the courts. Of
608
course we expect there to be some increase in the size of the prison population as a result of that change. There is already a substantial building programme. It is difficult to assess the demand for places. Some will be needed but I would expect a significant deterrent effect and incapacitation of those locked up to moderate that.
It is also important not to exaggerate the requirement. It will need to be assessed once consultation is concluded on the details of the proposals. It is worth noting how much work has been done on reducing overcrowding in prisons. The Prison Service has done much to deal with increased population. There have been 22 new prisons since 1980; 11,635 new places have been found and 8,000 extra places at existing prisons. There is no evidence of that having a negative effect on security.
Much has been said about the Home Secretary's responsibilities for policy and his role in all this. I am reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of the exchange we had on a previous occasion in regard to the role of the Home Secretary. At no time did I dismiss the anxieties people felt about this matter. They are legitimate anxieties and it is a legitimate question. But if he goes back to the records he will find that I was more concerned with the tone and some of the accusations being made by the noble Lord at that time.
There is no doubt that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service. I believe he has carried out that accountability with considerable openness and much candour. It is not an easy situation and some of the decisions to be taken will not be easy. But he has never shirked from taking difficult decisions and certainly will not shirk from taking them at this stage. I thought it was entirely characteristic of my right honourable friend to come clean straight away and not to delay on the recommendations. Out of 127 he immediately wishes to reject two and it was right that he should say what they are. He says—and I agree with him—that in-cell televisions should have no place in prisons. He believes that the privileges sought in prisons should be earned and not given automatically as they are at the moment. The changes that he made recently in regard to home leave are beginning to bear fruit and the record is there for all to see.
Reference was made to the agency status of the Prison Service and it was suggested that it had failed. I do not believe that it has failed. With agency status the service is responsible to a far greater degree for managing its own affairs than it was when it was simply another part of the Home Office. Its objectives and its expectations are quite clear and are published. It has a greater degree of accountability both to Parliament and to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about implementing Sir John's advice that there should be a more arm's length relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service agency. Work has already started to look at the relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service agency and my right honourable friend will be considering Sir John's recommendations in the light of the outcome of that work. But while Ministers and the Home Secretary are accountable to Parliament for the

609
running of the service it is important that they have good liaison with the service in order to be able to fulfil that role effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was concerned about accountability. The Prison Service's framework document makes it clear that the director general is responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. However, the framework document also makes it clear that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is to be consulted by the director general on the handling of operational matters which could cause grave public or parliamentary concern. In that sense my right honourable friend is accountable to Parliament as are his Ministers.
I was asked how long it would be before we give a full response to the report. My right honourable friend says that he will place an implementation plan in the Library as soon as he possibly can. I attach top priority to implementing recommendations, as indeed does my right honourable friend, which directly bear on security. That has to be the priority. My right honourable friend has already given another place his initial response to Sir John's principal security recommendations and I have had the privilege of repeating that here today.
I believe that I have responded to at least some of the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked for a debate. That must be a matter for my noble friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. The House will want to debate this matter at some time and I do not believe that I would be giving too much away in saying that the request for a debate will be received sympathetically.
Questions were asked about costs. I hinted in the Statement that work is being done on costs. My right honourable friend will keep Parliament informed of any detail about costs and any consultation documents issued will include costs.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that concern over the substance of the report is not confined to the other side of the House and that, on the contrary, there is considerable anxiety among her noble friends? Will she add a word to what she has just said about the desirability of a debate? I would suggest to her, with respect, that an early debate, during which the views of noble Lords on both sides of the House can be considered in conjunction with the other ideas which are put forward, would be valuable. Although I know perfectly well that my noble friend the Leader of the House shudders when noble Lords ask for a debate—
Viscount Cranborne: Oh no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to have that reassurance, however surprising. An early debate would be a very great advantage in enabling your Lordships' House to influence the discussions at an early stage. I beg of my noble friend to use her influence and good will to secure that such a debate takes place.
There is only one other point on which I would ask my noble friend to expand a little. She touched on the effect of home leave on some of these issues. I should
610
be very grateful if she would explain whether, as I believe to be the case, there are a very considerable number of offences committed by prisoners on home leave, and if that is so whether it is intended to restrict that development very considerably so as to prevent the commission of those offences.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the substance of the report is a matter of concern to all sides of the House. Therefore, I have no difficulty in accepting that point. Secondly, the request for a debate is noted. I have to pray in the defence of my noble friend the Leader of the House that he is the soul of reasonableness. I know that he is listening to all the requests about an early debate.
My noble friend is right when he refers to the issue of home leave. The protection of the public from people who go free from prison, sometimes on parole or on early release, and commit further crimes is one of the factors which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took into account. That is an important point. When my right honourable friend announced the new rules governing temporary release from prison, which made the protection of the public of paramount importance, the changes resulted in a 50 per cent. reduction in grant of temporary release from prison. In 1994–95 there were 1,600 temporary release failures. So far this year, with the new changes, there have been only 500. That is a fall of 80 per cent. I believe that the Home Secretary needs to be congratulated on that.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I have met Derek Lewis, the director general of the Prison Service, on a number of occasions. He struck me as a conscientious and able man working in exceptionally difficult surroundings. I regret the circumstances of his departure. As chief executive of a next steps agency, the director general of the Prison Service is expected to exercise operational control. But there is ample evidence, as anyone with any connection with the prison system is aware, of a marked reluctance of Home Office officials and Ministers to let go. To some extent that is inevitable. One can see the reasons. The Home Secretary regards his ministerial responsibility for the prisons as a delicate and sensitive one. There is the question of presentation as well. So the report raises a question that has caused anxiety for some time. Is agency status, whatever that may mean, something that can be reconciled with ministerial responsibility, or does it blur the issue of where responsibility lies?
The relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service is now a matter of urgent public importance. I am pleased to hear that it is to be reviewed, although some of the remarks made just now by the noble Baroness make the heart sink. She said that within the principle of agency status the director general is responsible for day-to-day operational decisions until, I paraphrase, it looks as though there are going to political implications. Then the Home Secretary is responsible. That is a circle that cannot be squared.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes important points. I made the point in the Statement, and I repeat it now, that much has been achieved by Mr. Derek Lewis as the director general of the Prison

611
Service. My right honourable friend meant that phrase when he put it into the Statement. But it is also true that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary cannot possibly ignore some of the very serious criticisms contained within the report. Therefore it was very important that he took those criticisms seriously.
My noble friend referred to agency status and asked whether it can be reconciled with the proper management of the service. What is important—I alluded to this in the Statement and it is work that is in hand—is that the relationship between the Home Office and the service and Ministers and the service is in need of review. That is being reviewed. But as long as Parliament wishes the Home Secretary to be accountable for the service—it is reasonable to expect that no Home Secretary of whatever party could possibly be responsible for the day-to-day running of the service—there has to be a proper review of how those two relationships can be reconciled in a way that allows the service to be run properly and Parliament to be properly accounted to for the running of the service.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his first report on this series of episodes, pointed out that it was impossible for people within the service to understand the distinction between operational and policy issues? That was in his report. Is the noble Baroness aware that this problem will not be resolved until the matter is clarified?
In that context, can the noble Baroness answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Who is going to conduct the review? Is it to be someone who is wholly independent of government or an official? It would be helpful to have a response to that question. Is the noble Baroness aware that most of us recognise that prison escapes will take place under governments of any political party? The question is how Ministers respond to those critical situations. If a belief begins to establish itself among prison governors in particular that there will be a relentless search for scapegoats after such episodes, that will do grave damage to the morale of the Prison Service.
One of the unsatisfactory features of the Statement, as my noble friend Lord Rodgers pointed out, is that this report was leaked to the Daily Mail and obviously quite deliberately. It occupied a great deal of the news on "The World at One" today, yet none of us has had the opportunity of looking at the report. The Statement made by the noble Baroness is a summary. For instance, we have no idea why the author of the report suggested in-cell television. It will be extremely interesting to have an answer to that question. As we have not had an opportunity to read the report, we are put in an impossible position. All we know is that the recommendation has been made and rejected because it is not consistent with what the Home Secretary said in a statement earlier this year. It seems to me pretty odd to ask a distinguished man to conduct an inquiry of this sort and simply to disregard one of his principal recommendations in the way that has happened.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Lord concerning the relationship between the Home Office and the service, there always will be a tension. Perhaps I may remind the House that very often when we switch on the radio in the morning or read the newspapers, something quite dramatic has happened in the community; for example, a prisoner has murdered someone while on early release. Whatever the incident may be, it is very important that Ministers seek information from the service in order to account to Parliament or to deal with what is a public safety and protection issue on the day. How that is done gives rise to possible ministerial interference. I notice that there is a passage in the report which refers to a meeting which was being held with the director general within the course of a day and where that meeting was interrupted a number of times by a Minister seeking information. That information was as a direct result of having to come to the Dispatch Box in Parliament and answer questions. There are legitimate reasons when the relationship is under tension. It is right that the matter should be properly reviewed and its outcome reported to Parliament.
As regards the leak, I am almost offended by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it was deliberate. I cannot tell you the lengths to which we have gone as Ministers—to the point that I had not had a copy of the report until today when I was answering for it at the Dispatch Box—because of the sensitivity of the people involved, if for no other reason. It was wrong that the report should be peddled publicly before we had the opportunity to come to Parliament. I can tell the House that my right honourable friend is also very concerned about the fact that we heard about the report publicly over the weekend.
I am sorry that I did not come to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about independence. It is an important point. I can assure the House that the review will be independent as regards the relationship between the Home Office and the service. The work is already under way. The report will be independent of the service and the Home Office, but I cannot give names. If it is possible to do that following this debate, I shall do so.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter with the noble Baroness which so far has not been referred to; namely, the need to reassure those who reside in the area of the prisons concerned. Is the noble Baroness aware that one of the main features of prison policies is to reassure local residents who live in the area of these establishments? What measures are being taken to reassure in particular the residents on the Isle of Wight? Am I correct in saying that on the island there is not one institution but three, built and running side-by-side, with a very high number of dangerous prisoners contained within them? Has not the time come to reconsider the policy of concentrating so many high risk prisoners in such a small geographical area? Can the Minister reassure people, particularly those living on the Isle of Wight, that the Government will treat this as a matter of great urgency? I have to say to the Minister that many of the aspects to which she has referred today are long term and not short term in terms of reassuring the local population.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I regard that as an extremely important point. If the noble Lord recalls the Statement, I made it clear that Category A prisoners were removed some time ago from that particular prison. There has been a policy of dispersing the most serious criminals to a number of locations. That is the very policy being criticised by Sir John Learmont in his report. Sir John is suggesting that there should be one geographical location but in a maximum security prison specially designed to contain the prisoners and protect the public.
As regards the important point made by the noble Lord about the residents of the Isle of Wight, I can certainly give an assurance that they are safe. Again, referring to the Statement, many of the changes announced by Woodcock needed to be made quickly. They are almost all complete. That work is very much in hand and it is continuing apace. As I say, for the moment, Category A prisoners are not on the Isle of Wight.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with which the Minister agreed; namely, the repeated leaks to the media and the press before Parliament is informed. We hear morning after morning that the BBC has acquired information followed by discussion about a matter which should be first brought before Parliament. It cannot be beyond the ability of intelligence within the Government to discover how that is happening. It is outrageously unsatisfactory from the parliamentary point of view. It is regular; it is not an occasional happening. We have to register the fact that the situation is totally unsatisfactory and that action should be taken to stop it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. It is an important point. My heart sinks when we go to such lengths to keep a matter confidential until Parliament has actually heard the case. I am as disturbed as the noble Baroness. One of the difficulties with this kind of report is that a very large number of people have been interviewed as a result of it and have made statements to Sir John in the course of the investigation. Consistent with convention now, a large number of Salmon letters were sent out to people who have been interviewed as part of the investigations, and perhaps critically. Therefore, they are given the opportunity to respond to the criticism and to any inaccuracies which they pick up in the report. They are then considered by Sir John before the report comes to Parliament. So it is very difficult to pin down that someone who has been party to the inquiry and who has a fairly good idea of what is going to be contained in the report has not actually pre-empted the announcement. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness's basic point.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and reiterate the calls made from other parts of the House for a debate on the report. The question of a "supermax" prison—I believe that that is how the Minister described it—needs careful consideration. That will not form part of my questions this afternoon, but we shall obviously need a debate on the subject.
614
My question is: what alternative steps will be taken to protect prisoners' families, prison staff and the community at large, given that the Government have apparently taken significant decisions that fly in the face of the report's recommendations? I refer particularly to in-cell television and home leave. I think that we would all accept the validity of having in-cell television in order to prevent idle minds getting up to mischief. I am sure that we would all also accept the importance of home visits when it comes to reintegrating prisoners into society and family life. Therefore, what alternatives to in-cell television and home leave are to be provided?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, many privileges can be earned in prison. I have visited a number of prisons where the system of earning privileges works well. I have visited a prison in the Channel Islands where prisoners start with a basic level of provision and almost everything they receive is earned by good behaviour in the prison. However, those privileges do not extend beyond radios in the cells. They do not extend to television. The principle of privileges having to be earned as opposed to being given automatically seems an inducement to good behaviour. If prisoners are better behaved, that makes life easier for those running the prisons. We know to our cost—this is behind much of the Parkhurst report—that in the end the policy of appeasement never works.
I hope that your Lordships will accept a correction of something that I said earlier. I must put this on the record. In answer to an earlier question, I said that there were no Category A prisoners on the Isle of Wight. I am told that there are no Category A prisoners in normal locations but that there are some in the segregation and psychiatric units at Parkhurst which are secure. Therefore, as I was seeking to say, residents of the Isle of Wight can sleep safe in their beds. I hope that your Lordships will accept that correction.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, may I submit—
Noble Lords: Time!

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
5.43 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Basis on which compensation is to be calculated]:
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 4, after ("compensation") insert ("or an amount within a defined band of compensation").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to propose that, within the tariff system, instead of having merely one specific figure for each type of injury, there should be as an alternative for certain types of injury a band of figures from which the appropriate amount of compensation may be chosen.
In declaring an interest as the present chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, perhaps I may say that in moving this amendment I in no way depart from the view that I expressed originally that it is sad

615
that we are moving away from the common law system of damages to a tariff system as a whole. As has been said on many occasions, a tariff system is unable to take account of the very different effects of similar injuries on different people. Such a system can take no account of age, occupation, sex, way of life or other obvious matters which should be taken into account when deciding compensation. I shall not repeat those arguments today because the House has had two opportunities to debate these matters and our views were expressed then.
As I said on those occasions, I recognise that there is a need for change and that one cannot say that a system that is now required to deal with 70,000 cases a year can be the same as that which was required originally to deal with 3,000 cases a year. Therefore, I recognise and accept—although I regret it—that the tariff system is probably necessary in the vast majority of cases. At the moment, in something like 85 per cent. of the cases dealt with by the board the award is less than £5,000. Many such cases are straightforward. I accept that given the need for simplicity and speed there is an argument that there should be a tariff system, as proposed in the Bill, for a general type of injury. We could have tariff compensation for those who suffer a broken nose, broken arm or broken cheekbone.
However, I still believe firmly that there are certain types of injury or certain offences for which a single tariff figure is, frankly, so unrealistic as to become almost unworkable. The purpose of my amendments—the others are consequential on Amendment No. 6, which I am now moving—is not merely to accept the principle of the tariff system which the Home Office is proposing and which has been accepted by this House and another place and to accept that there should be published figures for types of injury, but to say that for certain types of injury there should be bands with a lower and a higher figure within which the individual claims manager—I think that that will be his title—can decide on the proper amount of compensation in the case in question.
I should like to give the Committee the four examples—one might say the three areas—for which I believe that such a system is necessary. I urge that this he considered by the Home Office. I refer to scarring cases, to cases involving mental shock, to sexual abuse cases and, perhaps as a further category, to cases of abuse against children.
In my submission, it is not realistic to believe that scarring cases can adequately be dealt with by a single figure. In the tariff which the Government have provided, it is intended that so far as facial scarring is concerned there should be three categories. I accept that that is done in an effort to make distinctions. The three categories are minor disfigurement, significant disfigurement and serious disfigurement. The difference between "significant" and "serious" may be a question of semantics to some extent, but amounts apparently to £4,000. If you suffer significant disfigurement, you get £3,500, whereas, if you suffer serious disfigurement, you get £7,500. One knows from experience on the board that the effect of scarring, particularly facial or
616
visible scarring, varies enormously with different people. It is absurd to suggest that substantial and clearly visible scarring on a young girl of 17 or 18 does not have enormous emotional effects as well as physical effects compared to such scarring on someone of adult or even elderly age.
In fairness to the individual, that is one of the areas in which there should be a band within which people should attempt to put the individual rather than suggest that they can fall into those three categories. It may be that £7,500 just is not enough for the really bad case of scarring. Those cases should be looked at by photograph and, where necessary, by seeing the person concerned. There should be a wider area of choice than that which exists.
I move on to the three other areas that I mentioned: mental anguish, mental injury, and shock. Those cases differ enormously depending upon the make-up of the individual concerned. With the best will in the world, I recognise that the Home Office has accepted—it has had to accept, though it may be a bad acceptance—and has attempted in its most recent tariff to meet the board's own recommendation as to how, if it is to be done by a tariff, a tariff should achieve that end. However, we still believe that a tariff is not appropriate. To say that the compensation for a disabling mental disorder which lasts for over one year but which is not permanent is £7,500, and then to say in the next breath that the next step is that the amount for a permanently disabling mental disorder is £20,000, is far too wide a gap.
I do not believe that the proposals I am advancing—if the Home Office is concerned, as I understand it is, about the costs of the scheme—need necessarily increase costs in any way. For example, if one takes the case of mental shock, one could say that the compensation should be up to whatever the figure is in the tariff at the moment. What I believe—and what I believe experience has shown in the past year when we have had to review the cases that were carried out under the aborted tariff which the Home Secretary attempted to bring in—is that a great many awards of public money are being given which are far more substantial than were being given under the board and far more substantial than we would have recommended in those cases.
Then there is the whole area of sexual abuse. How can one have a single tariff figure for abuse of a child? Is the effect the same if the child is four or if it is 14 or 15, and conscious of what is happening to it? The suggestion is that if the severe abuse is for less than three years—however many offences within that time, and whatever effect they may have—the victim will receive only £3,000 whereas if the child should be shown to have been abused for just over three years it will receive £6,000. It is not a question of the length of time for which the child is abused. It is the relationship with the abuser, the type of abuse, and the effect on and the age of the individual child and its emotional development. Again, it is unrealistic to look at the matter on a single-figure basis.
Finally—I know that this is always highly controversial, and I tread warily into this field of adult sexual offences—I notice now that for rape there are

617
to be two figures: for non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse £7,500, and for non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse with other serious bodily injuries—whatever those bodily injuries are—the figure jumps to £17,500. Surely, again, that cannot be right. Of course there are some rapes of extreme degrees of seriousness, but often a rape at gunpoint or knifepoint without any physical injury to the individual concerned is just as serious as when that knife inflicts the slightest wound, which presumably would take it into the field of being "other serious bodily injuries".
Therefore, what I would ask the Home Office to consider, and what the board has repeatedly asked the Home Office to consider once we accepted, as we do, that the Home Office was determined to stick to the principle of the tariff—it is not inconsistent with the principle—is whether in certain areas of what I would call generic offences a band of figures would not be more appropriate than a single figure. That is the purpose of my amendment. It is for the purpose of obtaining debate on that issue that I put it down today so as to hear the views of other Members of the Committee on what I believe is a proposal which would improve the tariff system as now proposed by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have already declared an interest in this matter. I have heard the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and sympathise with his approach to the matter. He and I have had discussions with other members of the board over a considerable number of years and also with the Home Office and various junior Ministers to try to achieve some system that will do justice to the victim. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the technicalities of the system. The important person is the victim.
Having listened to what the noble Lord had to say, it occurs to me that one of the difficulties with his amendment might be—I underline the words "might be"—that once there is a band everyone goes for the top end of the band. Everyone thinks that they are severely shocked. If there is a band from £5,000 to £7,500, and the board member gives £5,000 that will almost inevitably be appealed on the basis that that person was more severely shocked than the board member thought and therefore he should receive £7,500.
I emphasise again—subject to anything my noble friend on the Front Bench might say—that there are great difficulties in the working of the scheme. If we are to have a scheme at all, it must reflect the interests of the victim. We cannot have a defined figure for child abuse. If, as I believe I said on Second Reading, some Members of the Committee were to visit and, with the permission of the victims of terrible abuse, listen to the horrible—I really mean horrible—tales of sexual abuse, deprivation and all the rest of it which would not be believed if they were read about, then Members of the Committee would see how the system is supposed to work.
We are getting judicial intervention now. I have never seen a judge sitting with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to see how it works. Judicial review has become an industry, and that is wrong
618
because what we want is a system which does not reward the victim but which recognises that the victim has had something done wrongly to him.
We are not discussing the tariff scheme because that is a matter for another debate. The important thing is—as I understand it, this is what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, was saying—that discretion has been removed, and the essence of justice is discretion. Once we remove discretion, we remove justice. We have members of the board—I kid you not—sitting with large piles of blue bags each of which contains 20 cases resulting from the illegal actions of the Home Secretary. I am not making a political point, but that is the way life is. We are reviewing the cases, and it is astonishing to see some of the awards that were made and some that were not made. An element of discretion must be built into the system, however the Government intend to do it.
Perhaps I may make an important point in conclusion. One of the large areas is child sexual abuse. There is no time clock on the abuse of children. We know that because we see such situations day in and day out. It is sickening but we must deal with it. However, just to put down a tariff and say, as the noble Lord has already said, "Well, you give somebody £5,000 for that. That was too bad. But that is the way it happened", is not the way the system should operate.
From an examination of the files which we have to look at, it is also becoming patently clear that the tariff does not take into account the circumstances in which an assault takes place. It is all very well for an HEO in the Civil Service to press a button on the tariff scheme and say "Scarring", or whatever it might be, but that does not take into account the circumstances in which the assault takes place. We hear horrendous tales of assaults which have no long-term consequences, but the event is worth an award which is not given in the tariff scheme. Although we are both members of the board we are at one in believing that an element of discretion must be built into the scheme; otherwise it will act unfairly towards the most important people—the victims of violence in this country.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I too listened with deep attention and respect to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. After all, he knows far move about the subject than almost any of us and certainly far more than I do. However, I suggest to him that my noble friend Lord Macaulay is right. The implications of allowing, as the noble Lord's amendments allow, for a band of compensation amounts across the board would be in the first instance that everyone would go for the top of the band. We would end up with a great many appeals and a great deal of additional expense. I urge the noble Lord to look at subsequent amendments which we have tabled and which address the points that he has so eloquently addressed. I hope that they deal with those points more precisely and more effectively.
The noble Lord talked about the differences between injuries to a young girl and to an older man. Our Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 allow for additional payments to be made, taking account of sex, of occupation and of dominance as between injuries to the

619
left and right upper limbs. They also include a wider difference for age, which would take account of the points that the noble Lord has correctly made but would do so more exactly and without so much potential damage to the tariff scheme as a whole.
We have not specifically covered the point that the noble Lord made about scarring, which I acknowledge. However, in Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 we have gone further than the noble Lord and have suggested that, in cases concerning the abuse of children, sexual abuse and shock, the tariff virtually gives up. That is particularly so in respect of shock where there is no definition but simply a footnote at the end of the tariff stating that such definitions are available pending the forthcoming Law Commission report.
I suggest to the noble Lord that by limiting the amendments to the point that we make in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and to the exclusion from the tariff altogether of shock, sexual abuse and the abuse of children, we are dealing more directly with the failings of the tariff system than he does in his amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I know how deeply my noble friend feels about this and I know that he speaks from considerable experience. Therefore, it is with diffidence that I take issue with him on his amendments.
Perhaps I may take the first proposed provision for compensation bands. That would undermine the whole rationale of the tariff system. In effect, it would reintroduce a common law damages scheme, which my noble friend has hinted he would prefer, with the associated delays and complexity. The whole point of a tariff system is that it provides a quicker, simpler and more transparent arrangement.
We have made the point on many occasions that there is no right or precise figure of compensation for a particular injury. We also believe that victims want their compensation as quickly as possible. Under the enhanced tariff scheme, therefore, we are no longer attempting to make finely judged assessments. Instead we are making a generous payment—based on the board's own awards—in recognition of society's concern for the blameless victims of violent crime.
At the same time the tariff in its current draft form contains over 300 different injury descriptions. A more severe case of a particular injury can therefore be assigned the appropriate higher tariff amount. And where the injury is particularly severe, or its effects prolonged or severe, there are additional payments for loss of earnings and the costs of special care.
A further problem with a system of compensation bands, which was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is that since many claimants, quite understandably, would believe their cases to be exceptional there would probably be far more requests for review and appeals. I slightly argue that it would increase further the demands for reviews and appeals. And reviews and appeals would be longer and more complex. However, claimants will be able to appeal on the grounds that they believe that their injury should have been placed in a higher rated category.
620
As I said, these amendments would also provide for the tariff to define the harm done to the claimant in terms of the offence rather than the injury. However, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary since subsection (5) of Clause 2 already makes it clear that an injury may be described in the tariff in whatever way the Secretary of State considers appropriate. We take the view that this will permit reference to offences in so far as that may be necessary and, indeed, we do refer in the tariff to indecent assault. Perhaps I should explain that, as far as possible, we wish to avoid reference to specific offences in the tariff because this may produce uncertainty where the law differs between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Offences would have to be defined in terms of the relevant legislation, which can be complex and may differ for England and Wales. The use of such terms might also be confusing to claimants who may not understand the technicalities of legal definitions.
The tariff, therefore, seeks to describe the injury, wherever possible, in terms of the harm done. Should the injury include mental or emotional harm serious enough to warrant compensation in its own right the tariff allows for that. And of course should it become apparent that the way in which a particular injury is described in the tariff requires amendment for whatever reason, the Bill gives the flexibility to do that. We are confident that in practice the tariff will be able to produce awards which reflect the range of injury and suffering of victims with, as I have said, the advantage of greater speed and simplicity.
The issue is important, but if we are to go for, on the one hand, the suggestion made by my noble friend in the particular amendments in front of us or the suggestion which was not defined but put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, that there should be some element of discretion, we believe that that flies in the face of what we are trying to do; that is, to produce a simple, understandable, transparent and speedy system of compensating people for injury when it has been caused by a criminal act.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I have heard what has been said and, if I may put it in the vernacular, I know when I am beaten. However, I wish to make one or two brief remarks with reference to the comments that have been made. Perhaps I may say, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, that of course if there is a maximum figure someone may ask, "Why haven't I got the maximum?", and there may be appeals from people who believe that they should have been awarded the maximum amount. However, I believe that many people will appeal saying, "You may say that my scarring is significant but I say that it is serious". I do not believe that one is avoiding appeals by taking bands rather than categories, which I believe will encourage people always to argue that they are in the highest category. That is particularly the case when they see that the amount is not £500 but £4,000 or more depending on the use of a word.
I have looked at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I differ from him as regards the best way to achieve flexibility. With great respect, he is going a lot further outside the tariff system than I

621
was attempting to do. I was attempting to provide a degree of flexibility within the tariff system. Of course, the noble Lord would take out of the system entirely all the sexual, shock and multiple injury offences. He prefers the hybrid system. I had rather accepted that the argument for that had been lost at an earlier stage.
The noble Lord's proposal for a percentage within which the tariff could be moved means that every type of accident and injury to any individual would have to be assessed individually, whether it was within the 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. band. I notice also that the bands proposed by the noble Lord all go upwards rather than downwards. The Government will not find that acceptable for that reason. That is why I proposed an alternative method to provide flexibility in those three closely defined areas. But as I say, I know when the feeling of the Committee is against me. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and loss of pension rights").
The noble Lord said: At the outset I should declare my interest in that I am one of the advisers to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I should inform the Committee that I have spoken to the federation before deciding to table the amendment.
Of course, this Bill is not aimed specifically at the police and helping the police but one should bear in mind the fact that 16,000 police officers are assaulted every year; that many of them are injured seriously; and that in 1994 over 3,000 claims were submitted on behalf of police officers to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Therefore, the police service is particularly concerned about the issue of compensation for criminal injuries and the amendment which I have put before the Committee.
Police officers tend to retire earlier than people in other walks of life. It is their duty to remain physically very fit and therefore it is normal for a police officer, unless he reaches senior ranks, to retire at the age of 55 or after 30 years. Therefore, any injury to the body and mind of a police officer is likely to hasten retirement or make more likely forcible retirement.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee to Clause 2 of the Bill which states:
"The amount of compensation payable under an award shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme…Provision shall be made for…an additional amount of compensation calculated with respect to loss of earnings".
This amendment proposes that the words:
"and loss of pension rights"
should be added. I believe that loss of pension rights is as important to the award of compensation to a victim of criminal injury as is loss of earnings. Bearing in mind the fact that pension receipts will be set off against loss of earnings, it seems unfair that a victim will not also be able to claim compensation for the loss of those pension rights. Any claim put to the board should take into account the fact that an injured officer's pension as well as his earnings has been reduced sharply because he was forced to leave the service early.
This amendment takes into account the fact that the earlier any such calamity occurs, when a victim is so badly injured that he must retire, the greater is the loss of pension rights, simply because he accrues those rights by length of service.
I believe that wounded police officers and other victims should be enabled to receive the full benefit of the pension that they would have earned had they continued to serve until normal retirement age. There are signs that the Government accept that principle. My honourable friend Mr. David Maclean, in a letter dated 27th September, informed the Police Federation of England and Wales that his view was that a police officer should have his loss of pension taken into account when the claim is assessed.
At the moment it seems that the question of pension rights is not addressed by the Bill or the draft scheme. I wonder whether my noble friend will assure me either that she will accept the amendment or that it will be included in the scheme. If it is to be in the scheme, are we to take it that the scheme thus changed—thus improved, I would suggest—will be put before your Lordships and another place as envisaged by Amendment No. 61? In other words, can we take it that if the spirit of the amendment is to be included in the scheme it will eventually become not just a guideline but also part of the law of the land? I await with interest my noble friend's reply.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I support the amendment on the very simple basis that pensions are deferred pay. One's remuneration package consists of one's instant, immediate pay and the pension, which is merely pay deferred until retirement. Accordingly, if compensation is to include loss of earnings, it should include both loss of one's immediate, weekly pay and one's deferred pay, which is one's pension.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This amendment opens up a very wide field indeed. If the Committee is to discuss the whole question of loss of pension rights because of criminal injuries, the principle must extend way beyond the police forces. In your Lordship's House there is no greater supporter than I of the police, but once we begin to create special categories in legislation we lay all sorts of minefields for ourselves.
Even in the police force itself it must be remembered that when a police officer retires he receives his pension the day after he retires, at whatever age he may be. That is not true of all other people who are entitled to occupational pensions. There are many instances in which people retire early because of ill health or for some other reason but they do not receive their pension until they reach pensionable age. That is not true in the case of police officers.
Nor is it true or accurate to say that police officers retiring early retire only because of criminal injuries. There is a whole host of reasons for that. Perhaps I may take the example of the Hillsborough disaster. That was a regrettable incident at Hillsborough football park in Sheffield where police officers were subsequently retired, not because they were injured in that disaster but

623
because psychologically they could no longer handle the situations which they faced. Where do they fit in with the amendment?
I want to make it clear that I am in favour of pension rights being taken into account in the settlement of such injuries and of the consideration that is given to the victims of crimes. However, I am in favour of that principle for all people and not just one category because that begins to divide society. That is the last thing that we should be doing especially in relation to criminal injuries.
Lord Ackner: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make it clear that my support for the amendment was based upon its general application because it does not seek to point out or emphasise the police. Indeed, as I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, was merely using the police as an example. My comment that pension is deferred pay is of general application and my support for the amendment was based upon the proposition that it is illogical to limit the compensation to the immediate loss of pay and to remove from it deferred pay.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may speak now in order to assist Members of the Committee. My noble friend has given good reasons for such a provision relating to a particular category of victim, while other speakers have mentioned the general point. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that we do consider that the loss of pension rights are included within the scope of the term "loss of earnings". The draft scheme will be amended before presentation to Parliament to make that clear. Therefore, it will be generally applied. In the light of that assurance, I hope that I have allayed all the anxieties on the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I may say so, that is all very well; indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, will be pleased with the Minister's answer. However, there are two kinds of effects on pensions of an injury caused by crime. One is that the person concerned receives a pension early because he or she can no longer work. The other is that, at the end of a normal working life, someone who has been injured is able to work but is no longer able to achieve promotion or undertake a certain kind of job. The pension is, therefore, diminished as a result of the injury.
We considered whether to put the pension elements of the scheme on the face of the Bill in the form of an amendment, but paragraph 35 of the scheme is so dense that it is virtually impossible to understand what it means. There is still an anomaly in paragraph 35 of the scheme. It says that an award will be offset—that is, the amount will be reduced—by the amount of any pension arising from the injury. In other words, if someone takes early retirement and has a pension, that will be offset and then there is special provision as to whether or not the payment is taxable.
However, if a pension is contributed to entirely by an individual—that is, by the applicant—it is not offset. That distinction does not seem to be fair. I say that because an occupational pension is usually a combination of payments by the individual and by the
624
employer. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister should attempt to answer the issue now because it is not referred to in the noble Lord's amendment; but perhaps the noble Baroness would give consideration to the point about the fairness between self-employed or self-contributory pension schemes and jointly contributed occupational pension schemes.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that in calculating loss of earnings loss of pension would be subsumed therein. That will be made clear as a result of today's debate; and, indeed, had already been thought about before my noble friend raised the matter in relation to the police. I also understand that, where pensions are paid, clearly there will not be a double payment. We are talking about a situation where there is a loss of pension as a direct result of a criminal injury which is properly recognised by the authority and where the loss of pension rights would also be subsumed within the calculation for loss of earnings. I do not believe that Members of the Committee should be concerned about the issue. However, I shall read what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said and we shall continue to try to make the matter as clear as possible in the hope that all fears are allayed.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before we leave the matter, I do not wish to make my noble friend's life more complicated but, while listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it occurred to me that there may be another problem involved. The compensation for loss of earnings mentioned by my noble friend the Minister is payable only if the person is off work for 28 weeks. It seems to me that there are many cases at present of people in public services—especially, as it happens, in the police—where a person may have a substantial future loss of pension by being retired without in fact having had 28 weeks off work at the time immediately following the injury. Therefore, although the matter may already be covered, it is important to ensure that the scheme will provide for the effect of loss of pension even where the individual concerned has not been off work for 28 weeks immediately following the original injury.
Baroness Blatch: I must now admit to being somewhat confused. However, I shall read what my noble friend said. Again, if someone is out of work as a result of criminal injuries but then returns to work within 28 weeks, the tariff will be paid and loss of earnings will not apply. However, if that person is subsequently out of work as a result of the criminal injury beyond the 28 weeks when loss of earnings starts to apply, then loss of pension will also be taken into account in the calculation. If I am wrong about that I shall return to the matter.
Lord Bethel: I am grateful to all those Members of the Committee who have spoken. I should like, first, to confirm to the noble Lord opposite that in mentioning the police I was only using them as an example. If the spirit of the amendment is accepted by the Government it would apply to all victims of criminal injuries. If there is a category involved, that is the category; namely, victims of criminal injuries and not just the police.
I was most encouraged by the response made by my noble friend the Minister about loss of pension rights being subsumed into loss of earnings However, perhaps

625
I may ask my noble friend to make that absolutely clear. I have the impression that she accepts the spirit if not the precise text of my amendment. In subsuming loss of pension rights, is it the case that it would be part of the scheme that my noble friend expects in the fullness of time to submit to the Committee under proposed Amendment No. 61?
Baroness Blatch: Yes it is. In the new scheme that will be put before Parliament that change will be made to make it absolutely beyond doubt that the loss of pension will be taken into account as well as loss of earnings.
Lord Bethel: I am most grateful to my noble friend. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No.10:
Page 2, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert
("(c) where the applicant has lost earnings or earning capacity for longer than 28 weeks as a direct consequence of the injury or, if not normally employed, is incapacitated to a similar extent, additional compensation in respect of special expenses, payable from the date of the injury, shall be awarded for—

(i) loss or damage, as a direct consequence of the injury, to property or equipment belonging to the applicant on which the applicant relied as a physical aid;

(ii) the cost other than by way of loss of earnings or earning capacity of attending for medical or dental treatment;

(iii) the cost of private medical or dental treatment, but only if the claims officer considers that, in all the circumstances, both the private treatment and the cost of it are reasonable;

(iv) the reasonable cost of special equipment or adaptations to the applicant's accommodation or of care, whether in a residential establishment or at home, which are not provided or available from the National Health Service, local authority or any other agency free of charge, provided that the claims officer considers such measures to be necessary as a direct consequence of the criminal injury; and

(v) the reasonable cost of housework, childcare, maintenance of the applicant's home, garden or means of transport to the extent that the applicant cannot perform such maintenance to the extent he did before the injury and as a consequence of it.").

The noble and learned Lord said: We come now to another example or perhaps, more accurately, other examples of problems which arise when we begin with a totally inflexible scheme and then seek, somewhat belatedly, to introduce some flexibility into it. I wonder whether it would be more sensible to go back to the beginning and start again. However, if I made such a proposal to the Government I assume that it would not readily be accepted.
Clause 2 makes some attempt to repair the damage; indeed, subsection (2) sets out the heads of compensation which will be available under the scheme. Paragraph (c) makes provision for "special expenses", but that enigmatic provision is where the Bill leaves it. For further enlightenment one must turn to paragraph 23 of the draft scheme.
Perhaps I should have said at the outset that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 10 has two purposes. First, it seeks to write certain provisions into the Bill because we believe that they are of major importance. However, we have already discussed that principle and, if I were to invite the Minister to reply, I envisage that we would hear the arguments that she has already employed.
Secondly and more particularly for this purpose we are concerned to include under the heads of compensation a provision which on our understanding is absent from the scheme. Amendment No. 10 proposes to add paragraph (v) which makes provision for a head of loss which is recognised in the common law scheme of damages but, as I say, appears to be missing from the scheme.
One serious financial burden which may follow from a physical injury is that the victim is unable to do some of the things which are part of civilised living. I nearly referred to a woman but I suppose these days a woman or a man may be unable to do the housework. A person who takes a pride in the appearance of the house and its surroundings may be unable to keep the garden tidy and if those tasks are to be done that person may need to pay someone to do the work. As I say, I understand that that is now accepted in common law as a head of damages but it does not appear to be recognised as a special expense in the scheme. It is not a fanciful concept. For those who find themselves in that situation it is an intensely practical problem. I look forward with interest to hearing the response of the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 24 repeats what is in paragraph 23 of the scheme but again adds another paragraph. Incidentally, for reasons which are not wholly clear to me, I note a reference to subsection (4). Clearly it should be paragraph (d). If we are confronted with that technicality today, it is a matter we shall have to face up to. The provision covers the case of someone who has provided care for a victim without making a charge and who has, himself or herself, suffered loss in consequence. Perhaps that person has had to give up work which he would otherwise have done, or something of that kind. Technically, that does not represent a loss to the victim but it seems in common fairness that recompense should be made. If the relative had charged for those services, that charge, as I understand it, would be recoverable as a loss to the victim. I hope that the Government see that justice indicates that where a person has not charged he might also be properly remunerated if he has lost financially in consequence. While we would like to see those provisions in the Bill we would be mollified if the noble Baroness felt able today to tell us that they will be written into the scheme. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The aim of these amendments, as the noble and learned Lord said, is to bring onto the face of the Bill more of the more detailed provisions of the scheme itself, this time those relating to special expenses. For the reasons I have already explained we do not believe that that is necessary or indeed

627
appropriate. We had a long discussion a while ago about the point of principle involved, and I do not propose to run through those arguments again. Suffice it to say that I shall have to ask the Committee to reject these amendments for the reasons adduced previously.
With regard to the examples given by the noble and learned Lord, for example the reasonable cost of housework, or, possibly, child care, maintenance of the applicant's home, garden or means of transport and detriment—other than financial—suffered by a relative caring for a victim, which appears in the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 2, it is clear from the draft of the scheme which we circulated in August what sort of things will be covered by the term "special expenses".
In general the new scheme will cover the "core" losses which are covered under the present arrangements. However, the scheme is not intended to cover each and every item which might be allowable under common law damages either now or in the future. That is because the scheme is no longer based on common law damages, and it is not the function of a scheme funded by the taxpayer to make good each and every potential loss which a victim might conceivably suffer. That is why the more peripheral losses of the kind mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, will be outside the scheme's scope. Such losses are less susceptible to precise quantification and would provide endless scope for argument and, quite possibly, fraud. For example, how could one assess the extent to which an incapacitated victim had previously done his own gardening or housework or cared for someone else, and what that was worth? I am afraid that the term "other detriment" is far too wide and far too vague to be included in the scheme. For those reasons I must ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I was not wholly surprised when the noble Baroness said that the Government would object to writing these matters into the Bill for the reasons which we have debated already. I say simply that I am unrepentant. These seem to me to be matters of sufficient importance to be in the Bill. As regards the specific matters which I sought to raise with the noble Baroness, I was a little sorry that she regarded these as peripheral expenses. It seems to me that getting one's housework done or making one's garden look tidy are matters of some considerable importance to someone who has suffered an injury. The noble Baroness asked how we could possibly assess what those tasks are worth. In many cases people have to pay someone to perform those tasks and therefore there is no difficulty in assessing that. I fail to understand the Government's objection. If the noble Baroness had said that the Government would try to write this provision into the scheme I would have been mollified. However, I am not mollified and I propose to invite the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 10.
Baroness Blatch: I do not rise to deter the noble and learned Lord from doing that. I simply rise to say that I hope that I have not been misunderstood when I used
628
the word "peripheral". I certainly did not use it in a derogatory sense. I meant that the provisions mentioned were peripheral to the core compensation which the Government have recognised; that is, the tariff for the injury, loss of earnings, care and aftercare for an injury. Those are the core considerations that have been accepted by the Government. It is in that sense only that these other expenses are considered peripheral. Although someone may have to pay for his garden to be done that is still no proof that it was a task that he necessarily did before his injury. It is difficult for the board to prove the validity of some of these other claims for compensation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I readily forgive her use of the word "peripheral". However, we want these heads of compensation in the scheme. The noble Baroness says that we cannot have them. I fear that we are no closer than we were before she explained her use of the word "peripheral". The noble Baroness said that one could not know whether someone had done his garden before he was injured. However, if I were injured on my way home this evening and the question arose as to whether I had done my garden I could easily invite members of the board or anyone else to look at the garden. It seems to me that the Government are clutching at straws to find reasons why a perfectly reasonable head of compensation should not be included in the scheme. In those circumstances I propose to invite the opinion of the Committee.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L. [Teller]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Serota, B.

Falkender, B.

Simon, V.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Bethell, L

Aldington, L.

Blake, L.

Balfour, E.

Blaker, L.

Barber, L.

Blatch, B.

Beloff, L.

Blyth, L.

629

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Flather, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Prentice, L.

Goschen, V.

Rawlings, B.

Greenway, L.

Rennell, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harvington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hertford, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kingsland, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakeham, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsay, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("or otherwise determined in accordance with the Scheme").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 is intended to make it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may provide for awards in fatal cases to include, in addition to the fixed tariff award, additional amounts calculated in accordance with the scheme. That will allow payment to be made for such other elements as reasonable funeral expenses and loss of dependency and support. Those elements are not fixed or specified, and so provision could not be made for them under subsection (2)(d) as it stands at present. Rather, they will be calculated by reference to the circumstances of the case, not on the basis of the fixed tariff. The amendment simply ensures that such payments can properly be made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("which amounts may include additional compensation to reflect the extent the claims officer is satisfied the applicant was financially dependent on the deceased and (in the event of the deceased's income at the time of death being limited to state benefits) the extent the claims officer is satisfied the applicant was likely to become financially dependent on the deceased.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may begin by expressing our appreciation of the open-mindedness shown by the Government up to this stage about fatal injuries. The concessions in Clause 2(2)(e), as elaborated in the scheme, are very much to be welcomed.
One of the concessions that the scheme includes is the possibility of additional compensation where the claimant was financially dependent on the deceased. So far so good. However, there is one limitation which puzzles us. It is provided that a dependency will not be established if the deceased's only normal income was from state benefits. We are puzzled for two reasons. First, if someone was in receipt of benefit which included an element for dependent family we are not clear why that ought not to be reflected in compensation if that income ceases to be forthcoming. If there is a reason for that it is not self-evident.
There is a further point which puzzles us. We wonder whether it is really the intention to exclude the family of a victim who had reasonable prospects of future employment but who happened at the moment of his or her death to be dependent on public benefits. If a person had been receiving a small amount in wages at that time he would not have been excluded. Why exclude him because at that moment he happened to be fully in receipt of statutory benefits? We move the amendment more in bewilderment than anger. I await the response of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can clarify the point for the noble and learned Lord. The amendment seeks to ensure that in fatal cases payment may be made to reflect the applicant's financial dependency on the deceased victim. But, as the noble and learned Lord already knows, the amendment is not necessary to secure that. The scheme already provides for that.
As we made clear when we first announced the broad parameters of the enhanced tariff scheme, it was always the intention that in fatal cases, in addition to the fixed tariff award, additional payment would be made for loss of dependency and loss of parental support. When we came to draft the scheme itself we quickly realised that the powers conferred by Clause 2(2)(d) of the Bill were not in fact adequate for that purpose. That is why we brought forward an amendment of our own—we have just discussed it—to correct that omission.
The government amendment will ensure that loss of dependency can be paid. It will also ensure, as this amendment does not, that we will be able to pay for loss of parental support as well.
The new scheme will carry forward the position from the previous ones whereby financial dependency cannot be founded on social security benefits which the deceased has received. It nevertheless allows an

631
assessment of dependency to be made where, for example, the deceased was only temporarily unemployed or where there was otherwise clear evidence that the deceased was about to start work, thereby enabling a reasoned assumption to be made about the extent to which his family had lost the benefit of his potential earnings.
If one partner dies who at the time of death had been receiving state benefit, that state benefit ceases on his death. If the dependent partner, still living, qualifies for state benefit in his or her own right, that issue will be addressed by the state. If the need for state benefit disappears, the person will not receive state benefit. State benefit is paid only where the beneficiary qualifies for it. For example, if state benefit were given to a husband who subsequently dies as a result of a criminal injury and the wife is left bereft without means of support she will qualify for state benefit. It is not the scheme but the state that should compensate for the particular circumstances of a person if he or she qualifies under the rules of state benefit.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister will remember that the original abortive scheme as published did not allow for any payment to the dependants of those who were killed. One of the most major and welcome changes between the previous and present proposals is the fact that payments are to be made to those who are shown to be dependent on someone who, sadly, has been killed.
Perhaps I may ask one question out of interest. Since the Government have made that change, have they given any consideration as to why they leave the fatal award—it is the equivalent of the bereavement award—at a higher figure than at present and higher than the bereavement award figure? Had they consulted the Lord Chancellor's Department when they made that decision? What pressure do they believe that that will have on the Lord Chancellor's Department to raise the bereavement award in other cases?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot answer the second part of my noble friend's question. The Lord Chancellor's Department was consulted in arriving at this level of tariff.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand that if the dependant receives state benefit after the death, account will have to be taken of that factor in calculating the amount of compensation. I do not believe that that is an issue between us. That does not require the blanket condition in the scheme. But what of this situation? The dominant wage earner has been unemployed at the time of his or her death but had every expectation of receiving employment within the next week, fortnight or month. That has nothing to do with whether someone else benefits from state sources. It represents a genuine loss of dependency. If the noble Baroness explained that, I confess that I did not follow the argument. If there is anything else to explain, I shall be happy to listen. If not, we shall have to continue to differ.
Baroness Blatch: While I have a clear understanding of what I said I am always prepared to go back to the record to see how I answered the noble and learned Lord and to read what the noble and learned Lord asks me now.
My understanding is that if person A is in receipt of state benefit the other person, the husband or the wife, who is a dependant will represent part of the calculation of that benefit. When the person dies his or her claim for state benefit dies with him or her. However, the element representing the dependent monies for the wife or husband would be recalculated by the state. It is not for the scheme to compensate for that state benefit, but genuine qualification for state support which has ceased with the victim's death is addressed by the state.
I shall go back to the record and will continue to consider the matter. I believe that I am right in my understanding of it.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: With great respect to the Minister, surely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has a point. If someone is temporarily not working at the time of his death, it does not mean that there is no dependency if he were about to take up another job. One has to consider the whole work record in assessing whether there was dependency, whether he had been providing for the family and whether it would be reasonable to assume that he would provide again through work rather than referring to the short period that he was on state benefit. As I understood it, that was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
Baroness Blatch: On that specific point, I have made it absolutely clear that if the person were temporarily unemployed, or there was an expectancy that the person was about to go to work, that would be a loss of dependency which would properly be catered for in the compensation arrangements.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. That does not diminish my gratitude to the noble Baroness. I had put two hypotheses to her, not one. I believe that that is where the confusion arose.
As she correctly appreciated, my first hypothesis related to a person in receipt of state benefit which includes an element for dependence. I believe she answered that point and I am grateful.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, the other hypothesis related to someone who is temporarily in receipt of state benefit but who has every likelihood of shortly being employed, and where there will be a dependency. The noble Baroness states that that is provided for in the scheme. I confess that if that were true we have probably misconstrued the scheme. Perhaps we may consider the matter together at some stage. If we agree that the measure should include that provision, I am content.
Baroness Blatch: I think that I can be helpful. I repeat the point. If the unemployment is temporary—someone would be expecting to obtain a job if a job is available, or had a job lined up which he had not yet taken up—there would be a potential for employment, a potential for earning, which the partner would lose in

633
the event of a death as a victim of a criminal injury. In that case the scheme would be compensating for potential loss of earnings from that person rather than for losing state benefit.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I think that I follow that argument. We are close enough now to make it imperative that I seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I propose that the Committee stage be now adjourned and begin again at 8 p.m.
[The sitting was suspended from 6.59 to 8 p.m.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The person determining an award of compensation may increase the standard amount of compensation shown in respect of the relevant description of injury in the Tariff by a sum not exceeding 20% of the Tariff amount to reflect special factors relating to the applicant including but not limited to the applicant's—

(a) sex;

(b) occupation or intended occupation; and

(c) dominant limb, in the case of injury to an upper limb.").

The noble Lord said: In rising to move this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 17. These amendments refer, in what I believe to be a constructive way, to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on an earlier amendment. He suggested the possibility of a band of compensation for each of the amounts specified in the tariff. Our suggestion is in my view more limited, since it makes it possible for the person determining the award—be it a scheme manager, claims officer or adjudicator—to increase the standard amount of compensation shown by a specified percentage to take account of differences of sex, occupation, intended occupation and of dominant limb. Amendment No. 17 proposes a wider range of discretion for differences of age.
The unfairness of the undifferentiated tariff has already been adequately expressed both in earlier debates today and at Second Reading. It is the case—and I do not believe that anybody can deny it—that the tariff as specified does not make an adequate distinction between individuals, each a victim of a crime with the same injury, who suffer in a totally different way owing to their circumstances.
The examples are numerous. A young child who loses an eye clearly suffers very much more over his or her lifetime than an elderly person. The disability lasts for many decades longer. Loss of fertility—one of the items in the tariff—is clearly enormously different for a young woman, or indeed a young man, than for somebody older. As I said at Second Reading, a facial scar is unimportant to an unattractive person like me but very important to a young woman.
We have discussed the issue of dominant and non-dominant limbs. I have searched the scheme and the tariff very carefully and I find no reference to people being left-handed or right-handed. When the Minister was kind enough to meet me at the end of last month I
634
was assured that the distinction was provided for, as the tariff provided for the dominant limb. Even so, it is not stated. It mentions "left" and "right", and distinguishes between the two. However, I find it difficult to understand exactly how the preference for the dominant limb is achieved.
While making this point, perhaps I may correct an inadvertent error in the Hansard report of my Second Reading speech. What I said was that I was gauchiste, which is Left-wing, and gauché, which is left-handed. Hansard recorded it as "gauche". I may be gauche as well, but I am definitely gauché. I should be grateful if Hansard would put the acute accent on the final "e".
For all these reasons, which are well-known to the Committee and which represent real differences in the suffering caused to victims of crime, we suggest that some method of differentiating must be found. We propose providing for the possibility of an increase of the tariff by a sum not exceeding 20 per cent. for differences of sex, occupation or intended occupation: clearly those in manual occupations suffer more from certain kinds of physical injury than those in sedentary occupations, and from injury to the dominant limb in a case of injury to an upper limb; and in the case that I have already exemplified provision is made for differences in the age of the applicant.
In parenthesis, perhaps I may say that we had a little difficulty in trying to write these issues onto the face of the Bill. The scheme is rather badly drafted. It sometimes refers to the person involved as a "person", sometimes as an "applicant" and sometimes as a "victim". I hope that when any new scheme is drawn up, some rationality will be applied to it. I know that these elements of the scheme come from different places, but they could have been rationalised prior to be its being placed before your Lordships.
I do not think I need continue with the argument. I am not wedded to the particular solution that we have found. I am not wedded to 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. But I am wedded to the idea that any scheme which is to be just, and seen to be just, must reflect these differences. I await with interest the Minister's remarks on how that can be achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I had considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. However, I also accept that if bands are brought in the concept of a tariff is substantially modified, if not substantially changed. I therefore did not speak in favour of the amendment. Clearly the Government are insistent that there should be a tariff scheme and the justification, which is wholly understandable, is that this provides a much quicker determination than using the common law approach.
On the other hand, one would expect that the Government would wish the scheme to be fair—not only to be perceived as fair but to be fair in fact. The Government will have to accept that the scheme will be perceived as being in many respects unfair for the simple reason that the compensation is not related to the victim; it is related to an injury in the air, not an injury to a particular person. Therefore the compensation is just a rough and ready guess at what might be

635
appropriate. If the scheme is to be fair, the Government will have to give way. If they do not give way, it means that they are insistent that the scheme will be unfair in many cases.
It seems to me that what is proposed here is a compromise. The amendment does not propose bands, since that would be to bring in the common law approach—the bands that are set out in the Judicial Studies Board's publication for the assistance of judges who have to deal with the common law. What is proposed is a measure of discretion based upon a percentage uplift, to use that horrible expression. That may mean that one disadvantage of the scheme is that it will have to be operated by a civil servant of a somewhat higher IQ than that anticipated at the moment, but that may be no bad thing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene. I do not believe he would wish to assert that ranks in the Civil Service were associated with different IQs. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if he used the words "seniority" or "experience", but junior civil servants also have high IQs.
Lord Ackner: I do not shrink from the reality that mental capacity is meant to have some connection with the position that is held. I am surprised that the noble Lord flinches from that inference. Clearly, if there is to be a measure of discretion which is exercised by a judicial function, the person who exercises that discretion must be better aware of the subject with which he deals. However, all that is by the way. I simply suggest that what is proposed is a compromise. It provides a measure of discretion of a limited kind. Of course, it will result in a number of people being dissatisfied that the discretion has not been exercised in their favour, which is one of the disadvantages of discretion. What needs to be balanced is the demand for a scheme which clearly is not in many respects unjust and unfair against the administrative disadvantages of providing a situation in which there are more appeals and effort involved in the decision-making process. I believe that to use a percentage increase as the measure of discretion is a fair compromise. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I am not wedded to a particular percentage, as long as it provides a realistic element of discretion. Therefore, in principle I support these amendments.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I should like to add my support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Because he was intent on correcting an earlier report in Hansard, he was perhaps rather modest in moving this amendment. It is a very important debate, though it goes back to matters discussed earlier in the course of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, the tariff is inevitably rough and ready. However, the Government have settled upon it, and all of us find it very difficult to say categorically, in view of the previous discussion, that that may not be the right course. Having settled on that course and agreed on a
636
tariff of the kind before us now, it is up to the Government to consider whether there is any way of differentiating, within the idea of a tariff, between the very different circumstances of individuals.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, also said that the scheme had to be fair and seen to be fair. Although only experience will show, in my judgment there is a very real danger that the good intentions behind the scheme will be undermined by the extent to which inexperience is seen to be unfair. Whatever the Committee may decide, and whatever Parliament may eventually contrive in this Bill, I find it very difficult to believe that within the next four or five years proposals will not be made to have a scheme which includes the flexibility that is now absent. How much better it would be if the Minister today or on Report or at a late stage could say that within the idea of the tariff there would be a degree of banding.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that, if bands were introduced, the idea of a tariff would be substantially changed. I do not agree with him. I believe that the idea of a tariff remains even if banding is introduced either in the terms of this amendment—to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says he is not committed in detail—or in some other way. It is possible to have flexibility to take account of differences of age, sex and circumstances and yet preserve the idea of a tariff which will make it much easier to administer the scheme and make clear to those who may wish to claim under it what claims they can make. What is being asked for is a measure of discretion. I hope that, even if the Minister feels unable to accept this amendment, she will be prepared to look again at the possibility of an element of discretion being introduced into the basic scheme to which the House has been committed.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It appears to me that this amendment meets the issue raised earlier in the debate, in that it introduces a compromise between a tariff scheme and a common law scheme, having regard to the equation that compromise equals fairness to the individual who has been injured. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said by all parties in support of this amendment.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not mean to insult any of the civil servants who were running this scheme under great difficulties. I can assure him that they are working under tremendous pressure from all sides. Having worked with them in London and Glasgow, I can assure the Committee that in both cases there are tightly structured and controlled teams of civil servants. Whatever happens to this particular Bill, those civil servants make decisions which enable the scheme to function. Without their dedicated service this scheme would have ground to a halt about four or five months ago following the Home Secretary's illegal actings.
Baroness Blatch: Taken together, these amendments would allow the tariff award to be increased by up to 20 per cent. to reflect so-called special factors, and by a further 50 per cent. on account of the applicant's age; in

637
other words, in some cases the tariff award could be increased by up to 70 per cent. That is on top of the most generous scheme in the world. I have noted and taken account of the points spoken to by everyone in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not hooked on a particular percentage. One can negotiate percentages. However, whatever they are, the percentages are in addition to a very generous scheme. We find this unacceptable. The whole point of a tariff scheme is to have a quick, transparent means of getting money to victims of crimes of violence. It does away with the individual assessment inherent in a scheme based on common law damages, which is inherently more complex and tends to militate against speedy decision taking. I take gentle issue with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Any introduction of discretion, which would sweep all the way through the list—mention was made of age, whether somebody was pretty or ugly, and all sorts of exceptions—would invalidate the whole point of a tariff scheme. There is a legitimate debate about whether there should he a tariff or common law scheme, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. But once a tariff scheme has been accepted the integrity of the system needs to be thought about.
As the Government have sought repeatedly to explain, there is no right figure that can compensate the blameless victim for the pain and hurt that he or she has suffered as a result of a crime of violence. Under the enhanced tariff scheme we do not try to make a finely judged assessment of compensation, in the sense of attempting to put the individual back into the position in which he or she would have been had the attack not occurred. What we aim to do is to make a generous payment in recognition of society's concern for the blameless victim of a violent crime. In our view, a simple, transparent system, where the awards are based on the most typical award for the injury concerned—the median award—is the right way to do that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that the scheme is not that rough and ready. The scheme is based on actual awards made by the present system, which is based on the common law approach. Over a period the average has been taken, and in every case the dominant injury is in the tariff. So we have erred on the generous side in that sense. It is not so rough and ready, as the noble Lord said.
We therefore cannot accept the amendments. They would mean in effect reverting to a system of individual assessment, very much as happens under the present scheme. The introduction of such subjective assessments would inevitably mean that cases would take longer to settle. It would also mean that requests for review and subsequent appeal would become the norm, since claimants—or their representatives—would have nothing to lose by claiming that there were special factors in their case. There would inevitably be upward award drift, with more and more awards tending to be tariff plus "something additional". That would take us back to the position where costs would no longer be predictable or controllable and where claims took an increasingly long time to settle as their handling became increasingly convoluted and subject to dispute.
638
Where the victim is particularly badly injured or the effects of the injury are most prolonged or serious, the new scheme includes provision for the claimant to receive additional compensation for loss of earnings and the cost of special care. In such more serious cases, that will enable variations in impact of the same injury on different people to be taken into account, so that, for example, a young person who loses an eye is likely to receive a considerably higher award than a pensioner who suffers the same injury.
Finally, I repeat the point that the tariff awards are in fact based on the injury to the dominant limb. There is therefore no case for adding to the tariff award for such an injury. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned references to "right" and "left". I have looked all the way through the tariff. There are references to losing a hand or both hands, a leg or both legs, but there is no reference to right legs and left legs or right hands and left hands. If we are being logical, there is a case for reducing the award. If the argument in this Chamber is for a relativity between the award for a dominant limb and the award for a non-dominant limb, if someone would like to bring forward an amendment, that can be considered. I feel that one should take what there is on the table at the moment and be generous all round rather than consider, for artificial reasons, introducing a relativity. If there are to be relativities, at the moment we rather favour the non-dominant injury and pay the right award based on actual awards for the dominant injury.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With the best will in the world, I call that a defence of despair. The Minister has done nothing to defend the tariff that is before us except to say that it is transparent. If the only justification for the tariff is transparency, it may be that it is transparent because there is nothing there.
In these amendments we do not propose a fundamental departure from the tariff for physical injury. We may have to do that for certain kinds of injury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will refer to that later. But, so far as concerns physical injury, we accept that the tariff is a gallant attempt to categorise the enormous complexity of different types of injury which may occur as a result of crime.
The Minister is right to say that there is no difference between "left" and "right". She is also right in saying that, if one were to be logical about the matter, we say that we are being too generous. If I were to lose my right hand, it is less serious than if the Minister were to lose her right hand and I should be paid less. The actual amount will depend on the budget for the scheme, inflation and all sorts of things. But the Minister has never sought to deny that there is a real difference between the dominant upper limb and—whatever the alternative is—the "recessive" in genetic terms upper limb. I believe that she has not answered that question.
In these amendments we are not departing from the principle of the tariff. We accept that there has to be some form of an enhanced tariff. We accept that in certain circumstances the loss of earnings payment will compensate for particular difficulties and extra expenses. But, once we have accepted that there has to be a tariff, surely it is right that the tariff should be as

639
close as possible to reality. What we propose is not a departure from the tariff but an extra dimension for certain elements of the tariff.
When introducing his amendments earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that he was suspicious of our amendments because they would open too much of the tariff to additional payments. I do not believe that, if one looks at the wording, that is the case. It would be evidence that a very large number of injuries in the tariff are not susceptible to change by age, sex, occupation or dominance. It is only those to which that really does apply, particularly in the case of dominance for upper limbs, that it is a serious issue.
I said at the beginning that I was not wedded to the percentages. Therefore I shall not be caught in the Treasury's trap of being told that I am proposing an additional expenditure of 70 per cent. of £460 million and that that is the Labour Party's policy for the next general election. In case anybody starts adding that to the list, let them forget it, because it will not work.
The Minister has not adequately defended the tariff. It could be made better than it is. It could reflect reality better than it does. The Government are in a better position to try to do that than I am. If they are not willing to do so, I shall try again. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 18.
Page 2, line 26, after ("State") insert ("after consulting such persons or bodies as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also at this time to Amendment No. 67. They both raise the same issue; namely, that there should be proper consultation between the persons or bodies affected by the introduction of the new scheme before the tariff scheme is laid before this Chamber. The noble Baroness the Minister has already spoken in relation to this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am not clear why these amendments should be thought to be necessary. If the intention is to require the Secretary of State to consult before changing the tariff, the amendment to Clause 10 would achieve it, making the amendment to Clause 2 unnecessary and superfluous. Accordingly, I shall confine my remarks largely to the Clause 10 amendment.
Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the draft of certain provisions or amendments to the scheme. The Clause 10 amendment would first require him to consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals and such other persons or organisations as he considers appropriate. I suspect that we can all see the benefits of appropriate and timely consultation. Any well organised administration would want to use its discretion to seek the views of informed individuals and organisations on a particular issue when that was appropriate. But this
640
amendment goes further than that and is too prescriptive. It requires consultation before any change to the tariff whether or not such consultation is likely to be helpful either to the Secretary of State or the bodies or persons consulted. I believe that that is a recipe for unnecessary bureaucracy, delay and frustration.
There may well be occasions when a very minor change might need to be made to the tariff, for example, to make a very small technical change to an injury description or to make a minor change to the accompanying notes, which may even emanate from the authority itself. In such circumstances I have no doubt that we would want to consult with the authority and the appeals panel. But I cannot see that any wider consultation is likely to be helpful, if one has to consult simply for the sake of consulting.
In short, I can assure the Committee that we would always want to consult as necessary and appropriate before recommending to Parliament any changes to the tariff. Let us not forget in this connection that under the enhanced tariff scheme the Government are not free to change the tariff administratively. They have first to secure parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure. With such a safeguard I see no need to put such an unnecessary and overly prescriptive amendment on the face of the Bill. However, I do not want anything I have said in response to the amendment to indicate that we do not regard consultation as an important part of the process.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comprehensive and informative answer to Amendments Nos. 18 and 67. We appear to be getting into some difficulty as to the difference between the Bill we are considering and the scheme. The scheme is not before the Committee at the moment, as I read it, though I may be wrong. It will come before the Chamber at a later stage. In this debate we appear to be cross-referencing the scheme and the Bill, and we are dealing purely with the Bill.
Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee whether a final consultation date was given in relation to the Bill before us, and if so what that final date was? I am sure that many Members of the Committee have been inundated with information from various organizations—I shall not name them because that would not be fair—concerned with the introduction of the new scheme. Was there a consultation period for the purposes of the Bill? If so, when was the end of that consultation period? What response was received in relation to it and from whom?
Baroness Blatch: At some point during the afternoon I explained that the Bill is largely an enabling Bill to allow a scheme to be established. The Committee accepted that that scheme shall not be on the face of the Bill but will nevertheless be subject to parliamentary approval. The whole of the scheme will initially be subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Consultation was substantially in regard to the scheme; for instance, the setting up of the scheme and everything to do with it which will affect those who will

641
run it and those who will benefit from it. That is what was consulted upon. The amendments to Clause 10, which is the Bill, are to do with making sure that we allow the scheme in its entirety to be presented to Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure.
That consultation ended at the end of August. We have not closed the door on receiving comments. We are still receiving comments into the department and no one is setting their face against them. Indeed, this debate will be used to reflect on the details of the scheme and already this evening I have had words with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the fringe of the debate in relation to one of the amendments discussed this evening. While the principle of the response to the amendment does not change, nevertheless we shall look again at the clarity of the words in the scheme to reflect what I have said across the Dispatch Box. In that sense there is a continuing dialogue in regard to the scheme until it is presented to Parliament for its approval.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Again I am grateful for that explanation. I received certain indications that the end of the consultation period was set out as the end of October, which we have not yet reached. I was obviously ill-informed and apologise to the noble Baroness for raising the point.
In connection with the general principle encapsulated in the two amendments, we must be careful on all sides of your Lordships' Chamber that an enabling Bill does not become a disabling Bill. With that observation—I do not know whether or not it is pertinent—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No.19:
Page 2, leave out line 28.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 19 I shall deal also with Amendment No. 20 because they really run together. Amendment No. 19 is a probing amendment which raises a question in relation to the Secretary of State having the power to remove the "description" of an injury. The word "description" is not defined. Is it deemed that the Secretary of State in the future will be able to remove the injury itself—for instance, a "severely broken leg"—or the description of the injury; that is, the word "severely"? Are the words,
"by removing a description of injury",
happily phrased within the context of the Bill? I put it no higher than that. This is a probing amendment to see what the word "description" means in the context of the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 is perhaps more important because it gives the Secretary of State the power either to increase or reduce the standard amount of compensation. If one's nose is broken in 1995, can the Secretary of State come along in 1996 and reduce the award one received in 1995? I am not sure what the phrase means, especially in relation to the cases we discussed earlier in regard to child abuse, sexual abuse and so forth, which I shall not repeat.
A tariff has been drawn up. We have all seen it and the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me a copy some time ago. If the tariff scheme has been drawn up as representing the values for awards as of now, how can the Secretary of State reduce the value of an award, bearing in mind that we live in a time of inflation, even with the Government's best expectations? It may be that in three years' time they hope to bring inflation down to nothing, but I would have thought that that was a pious hope.
Assuming that inflation runs at 1.5 per cent. per annum, how can an award be reduced for someone who received a broken nose in 1995, whose claim is settled in 1997, because the Secretary of State says that it is worth less than it was in 1995? It is perhaps a conundrum. I leave it with the noble Baroness and I am sure that all those involved will be interested to hear her reply. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to make one point to my noble friend the Minister. With respect to my noble colleague on the hoard, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I do not agree with his intention to remove the words "or reducing" in Amendment No. 20. However, I ask the Minister in all seriousness what thought has been given to the views expressed by the board in relation to some of the figures in the tariff.
I am not trying to be cheeseparing; I am concerned generally about the overall cost of the scheme. When the original tariff was produced, it was not intended by the Government, sadly, that any loss of wages or future care should be taken into account. As a result, as we know if we look at the top end of the tariff, figures of £250,000 were put in as general damages for quadriplegia or tetraplegia and £175,000 for paraplegia. We felt it our duty to point out to the Home Office that those figures are way above those accepted by the courts as appropriate for general damages for tragic accidents of that kind.
As the Minister knows, as well as ignoramuses like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, the board also consists of several practising personal injury senior barristers and solicitors. Their assessment was that the going award although that is perhaps a cheap way of putting it and I shall substitute the phrase, the normal award, for tetraplegia or quadriplegia for general damages in the High Court is £125,000 and for paraplegia around £100,000.
I am concerned, and those who practise particularly in the personal injuries field are concerned, that the Government are to publish a tariff with figures apparently double the size for the general damages aspects only of tetraplegia, paraplegia and these other very serious injuries. What thought have they given to the effect of the inflation on damages in the civil courts and to the effect on insurance companies generally? It was clearly right when there was not an intention to pay loss of wages, future earning capacity or loss of care—I totally agree with their intention not to pay—to put in figures above the normal figure for general damages. But once they had decided and conceded on the issue of paying for loss of earnings and future care I do question—not on behalf of the taxpayer but on behalf, I

643
hope, of the responsible view from the legal profession—whether it is right to leave figures in the tariff which roughly are double the amount being paid by the civil courts at the moment without any apparent consideration of the effect this may have on inflation. I raised this matter under the question of the bereavement award under fatal accidents and I think it only right to raise it again now.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may take that point first. My noble friend will understand if I do not give him a specific answer at this moment as we have not yet determined the tariff that will be put before both Houses as a final document. All the comments that have come in and all the consultation is still being considered. The point made by my noble friend is part of that consultation and we shall consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked what will happen to someone who makes a claim in 1995 which is dealt with in 1995 or 1996 when the new scheme is in place. It will be dealt with under the rules applying when the applicant applied. I have referred to one change that will be made. There will be an amendment to the present scheme in order to allow for structured settlements. That is intended to follow Royal Assent.
The power provides for the Secretary of State to revalue the standard amount of compensation payable in respect of a particular description of injury. It is also the power under which all or part of the tariff would be revalued. Increases or reductions in tariff amounts, or removal of injury descriptions from the tariff, could be required for sound, practical reasons. For example, it is possible that a number of broadly similar injury descriptions might need to be amended under Clause 2 (6)(a) or (d) of the Bill if experience showed that the tariff could better describe injuries of the relevant type. It might be necessary to add a new, more serious injury description, while reserving an existing one for less serious injuries for which a lower amount was now appropriate. Or it might be better to describe an injury in a new way, which might make the former injury description redundant. Leaving the old description in the tariff in such circumstances would create unnecessary confusion.
All the reasons I have just given are also the reasons why a scheme under the affirmative resolution procedure is so necessary, to allow for making sensible changes to the scheme which will arise from the operation of the scheme. Perhaps I may also remind the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—this is probably his underlying concern—that the Secretary of State is not free to make any changes to the tariff. Under the arrangements I have spelt out today, any changes to the tariff will require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and/or the negative resolution procedure. Thus, if Parliament is not happy with the changes the Secretary of State wishes to make to the tariff under this clause—in this instance, if it does not agree that injury descriptions should be removed or a lower tariff value substituted—Parliament can simply refuse approval for the proposed changes. That is the safeguard in the Bill. To go back to what the noble Lord,
644
Lord Macaulay, first said, no Home Secretary is in a position simply to change anything to do with the scheme or the tariff within the scheme.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her reply. One of the difficulties with the Bill, which we have had to consider at fairly short notice, is in its operation. Where is responsibility to lie? There is a theme throughout the Bill with regard to the managers, office managers and so on that none of them will be deemed to be acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. We shall perhaps come to that at a later stage, if not during Committee then certainly on Report, and ask where responsibility lies for the administration of the Bill. I am sure that what the Minister said will be noted with interest by those concerned with these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, leave out line 33 and insert ("Provision shall be made for the Scheme to").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 35 and 51. For the convenience of the Committee perhaps I may say that I do not intend to deal with Amendments Nos. 21 or 35 at this time. It may be more appropriate to leave Amendment No. 51 until we reach it in the Marshalled List. I understand that that is acceptable practice.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("Scheme") to end of line 35 and insert ("shall—
(a) not provide for any maximum amount of compensation;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment may appear to drive a coach and horses through government spending constraints but it really does not. The overall maximum provided in the tariff for individual awards is £500,000, which I acknowledge straight away is an improvement on the £250,000 in the tariff which was found to be illegal. In moving an amendment which removes that cap on total compensation of £500,000 I am not opening the floodgates of public expenditure. In 1993–94 there were only seven cases exceeding £500,000, the total excess being less than £1.38 million. It does not seem sensible to have this quite arbitrary cap.
Perhaps I may give two examples of the way in which larger amounts can be built up. I hope that the Committee will understand that the strictures which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, placed on some what he called excessive awards for quadriplegia and paraplegia do not really apply in the cases that will arise under the terms of this amendment. I have an example of a case of paraplegia where the general damages were £90,000. It concerns a man aged 33 at the date of the assault and 39 at the date of the hearing. He was stabbed in the back. He has complete paraplegia with all the difficulties associated with that—frequent episodes of severe pain, recurrent urinary tract infections and

645
pressure sores. He needs permanent live-in care which had been provided by his wife and would continue to be provided by her in the future.
The total award of £785,000 was made up as follows: £90,000 for general damages—for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; £45,000 for loss of past earnings; £62,000 for loss of future earnings; £39,000 for future replacement of equipment; £22,000 for equipment already purchased or needed; £72,000 for past care; and £242,000 for future care. This is where the cost really starts to add up.
There are various other items for medical expenses. There is the future cost of transport at £39,000; accommodation at £60,000; future household expenditure, £75,000, and so on. It is a total of £784,000. One can very well see how, with the special expensive provisions which are made in the scheme and the tariff, one can get up to that figure and not he unduly generous.
A second example concerns a woman aged 19 at the date of the assault. She was attacked and suffered a fractured skull, a fractured cervical spine and fractured ribs. She also suffered severe head injuries. The severe head injuries caused severe memory impairment and concentration and organisational difficulties; in effect, severe brain damage. She had an interim award of £100,000, but she was awarded in the end £65,000 damages for injury, £7,500 for past loss of earnings, £60,000 for past care, £84,000 for future loss of earnings, £522,000 for future care (which is a multiplier of 15.5) and court and protection costs of £32,000. That is a total of £800,000. Again, one can see how that kind of amount builds up without any individual item being excessively generous. For the sake of what is probably less than £2 million in total, can the Government not give up this arbitrary £500,000 maximum? I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may express support for the motive behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and do so in the light of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I fully understand what he said about comparing the tariff with a normal figure for damages under industrial injuries. It was a very fair point and one which the Minister indicated, as I understand it, will be looked at.
I approach these matters very much as a layman. Although the Minister has said today, as on previous occasions, that this is a very generous scheme—and no doubt it is on a comparable basis with schemes available elsewhere—when I look at some of the tariffs I do not believe that I would feel that they were very generous if they applied to me. If noble Lords themselves were subject to criminal injury, I do not believe that they would feel that the compensation was adequate. It may he that I am very fastidious and unworldly in this respect, but the idea that one gets compensation to the extent of £40,000 for the loss of a tongue is absolutely extraordinary. For the loss of both legs the sum is £100,000. Would we be prepared to see ourselves lose a tongue for £40,000 or two legs for £100,000?
646
As I say, the tariff may be generous taken as a whole—but £100,000 for the loss of both eyes? Would any of us feel that that was adequate compensation for the loss of a facility of that kind? We have to say that because the courts approach these things in a very hardheaded way. They have precedent and they have to take that view. I say this in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said, in case his remarks are thought to be representative of the views of the Committee. A number of the individual items are totally inadequate as compensation for the degree of injury which is described.
At the bottom end of the scale some of the figures are perfectly acceptable. Indeed, I am surprised that compensation is payable at all for some very minor injuries. But at the top of the scale one can see what it would mean to the life of a man or woman to be injured in this way. This comes back to a matter we discussed about being 15, 16 or 17 years of age, at the beginning of one's life. I do not believe that the message should go out that these levels of compensation are seen to be generous.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is now of course exercising excessive prudence in relation to public expenditure. He says that he does not want to open the floodgates. He is saying that now in case he is in the position of the noble Baroness within a relatively short time. It is not for me to judge whether that will be so. But I do not want it to go on record that, expensive though this scheme might be seen to be by some criteria, the compensation offered to those who suffer injuries will ever be considered to be true compensation for what has happened to them.
I ask this question of the Minister. Although it may sound very nave, it is genuine. In the light of that, what really is the purpose of compensation? It may be an elementary question for those who deal with these matters from day to day in courts and tribunals. But what is £50,000 or £100,000 meant to do? If the Minister, myself or any other Member of this Committee lost our eyes, what would £100,000 mean to us? I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, continues with the self-indulgence of inviting the Committee to pass amendments to spend more money, and then says that it should not be taken too seriously because he does not wish to talk about money at the moment. This is another amendment which is very open-ended. The noble Lord has said that he believes that at the end of the day it would not be very expensive. But one has to add this to the other amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was interesting in what he had to say. It is never possible properly to compensate somebody for losing their legs or their tongue or ending up a quadriplegic. The scheme is not attempting even to try fully to compensate someone: I do not believe it can be done. It is attempting to represent society's concern for blameless victims of crime. Society has seen fit, through its taxes and other money, to put in place a compensation scheme which

647
will be approved by Parliament in order to make some amends for discomfort, medical needs and possible incapacity to work.
I remind the House yet again that the original common law scheme contained within it an element for loss of earnings and care. That has remained in our calculations. It has not been stripped away. In addition to that and quite separate from it, I refer to the example of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of the person who loses a tongue or who loses his legs. The noble Lord mentioned only the tariff amount. That amount is only one part of what a person would receive. In addition to that £100,000 or £40,000, there would be compensation for medical care, loss of earnings, loss of pension and so forth.
As the Committee knows, our intention is that the scheme should set an overall cap for awards. Already my noble friends have said that there is the generous figure of £500,000. That is double the amount set up under the earlier tariff scheme which had to be withdrawn. It is pertinent to the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to take into account the fact that for the first time it is possible to purchase an annuity with that £500,000. The income stream generated from that annuity would be entirely tax free for life for the victim of criminal injury.
If we were talking about legal liability on the part of the state to pay damages for acts which its employees have committed, there could be no such limit. But that is not the case here. As I said earlier, the scheme pays compensation as an expression of society's concern for and sympathy with the victim. It is not reasonable to expect a state-funded scheme to make good each and every loss a victim may have suffered. That would place an undue burden on the taxpayer, on whom the cost of the scheme ultimately falls.
I ask the Committee to agree that £500,000 is a very large sum of money. It has already been queried. Fewer than 10 of the board's awards in 1993–94 under the present scheme exceeded that amount. But it is no argument to say that, if that is the case, the potential cost of removing the cap cannot be very great. We need the certainty to control costs that the facility of setting an upper ceiling on awards will give. We cannot have an open-ended system under which costs in any one year cannot be predicted or controlled. I remind the Committee again that with a new facility to make payment by structured settlements—that is the purchase of tax-free annuities which this Bill introduces—the value of high awards to claimants during their lifetime will be considerably increased. For all those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister claims that I am simply asserting that there will not be significant extra expenditure if the amendment is agreed to. That is not the case. I have given exact figures for 1993–94, which is the most recent year for which I have figures. It is clear that the number of such cases in that year would have been seven and that the total amount
648
of money involved would have been £1.38 million. In terms of the total cost of the scheme, that is not a significant amount by anybody's standards.
Indeed, it is not as if removing the cap is removing the basis upon which the compensation is paid. I am not claiming for a moment that there should not be any restraint on what should be awarded for loss of earnings or future loss of earnings, for care or for future care. I am saying—if the Minister is listening—that without making any change in the tariff, without in any way relaxing the financial constraints which exist both in the tariff itself and in the calculation of special expenses, it would be just, equitable, not expensive and common sense to remove an arbitrary limit of £500,000. I acknowledge that £500,000 is a larger limit than in the interim illegal scheme, but it is also the case that there was no limit before and that there was no exploitation of the lack of a limit under the previous scheme.
It is not the case that very large numbers of people will have their awards totalled. Such awards will be made only under severe scrutiny by claims officers, systems managers and adjudicators. There will not be a free-for-all of any kind. I find the Minister's attitude to this modest reform quite inexplicable. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I cannot promise that I shall not return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 25:
After clause 2, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS
(". Where the applicant has lost earnings or earning capacity for less than 28 weeks as a direct consequence of the injury, an additional award of compensation in respect of loss of earnings will be made in a sum equivalent to the difference between the applicant's actual income and the higher rate of statutory sick pay applicable to that period.").
The noble and learned Lord said: We return to dealing, by way of an amendment to the Bill, with a quarrel that we have with the scheme. Paragraph 22 of the draft scheme provides for compensation for loss of earnings after earnings have been interrupted for 28 weeks. That provision was introduced by the Government on second thoughts and will indeed benefit the more seriously injured. I say at once that we welcome it.
However, those who suffer loss of earnings for less than 28 weeks may suffer real hardship. I assume that the period of 28 weeks was chosen because up to that period there is statutory sick pay. However, that is hardly a fortune. It may amount to substantially less than the victim's normal earnings. If the victim is committed to, say, periodical mortgage repayments or similar outgoings, it may lead to a financial crisis at a time when the victim is least able to cope with such financial and family problems.
Some employers have a contractual sick pay scheme to make up the shortfall but, unhappily, that is far from true of all employers. There is, if anything, some

649
correlation between being in the kind of employment which subjects one to high risk and not having a contractual sick pay scheme. Self-employed people do not receive statutory sick pay at all, yet a taxi driver is at greater risk of criminal injury than most of us. That is equally true of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.
From the figures which I have been privileged to see by courtesy of the Library in another place, it appears that by the 28-week rule as many as 12 million people could be excluded from the scheme who in consequence may suffer real hardship. There are some 3 million self-employed people; some 3 million who at present are below the lower earnings limit; 1 million who are on short-term or temporary contracts and so do not qualify; some 2 million people have employers who do not have such a sick pay scheme; and 3 million people have not worked for an employer for long enough to qualify. Therefore, it does not follow that because many people will qualify for sick pay up to 28 weeks, those who are disabled for less than 28 weeks have no problem.
I cannot believe that the Government intended that situation to arise. The 28-week rule must have looked a fairly simple and just way of effecting a division. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will accept that it is not. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may reply briefly to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has just said. Obviously anyone who loses a job as a result of injury or who is unable to work for a short time suffers a blow. I accept that that must be so, but one must to a degree be pragmatical in approaching this matter. The board is now facing something like 70,000 cases a year. At the moment the scheme requires us to look at any potential loss of earnings for however short a period of time. A great deal of the time of the board's staff is taken up in inquiring as to the loss of wages claimed by someone who may not have been off work for three or four weeks but for, say, two or three days. Then you have to write to the DSS to inquire whether they received benefits, deduct the benefits from the wages to discover whether they have an additional claim on top of the general damages or, in many cases, whether there is an excess of what they received in benefits as against their losses to be deducted from the sum for general damages.
Based on my experience over the past five years with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, I am bound to say that the amount of time spent finding out the answer to that question often far outweighs the result. I have put that badly, but a great deal of time is taken up finding very small sums owed one way or another. Although I believe that it is in some ways harsh, it is, regrettably, pragmatically correct for the Government to say that the first few weeks of earnings should not count. Whether they have the right point with 28 weeks, I do not know. The submission we put to the Home Secretary when he was putting forward his revised tariff was that we thought that it was reasonable up to three months not to account for the loss of earnings. The Government are right to say that we cannot have such a finely tuned scheme any longer and account for every day's earnings lost. With a degree of regret, because I believe that the
650
arguments of principle are on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, the Government are right to say that the amount of work involved is not justified by the outcome. The awards at the lower end, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, are on the generous side compared to those we pay in general damages and have attempted to take into account that fact. So I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend because he has put the argument rather more eloquently than I could have done. That is precisely some of the thinking behind having to choose a period. We believe that 28 weeks is about right. It is the period for which statutory sick pay is paid, and many employers, as we know, pay full sick pay for that long anyway. Those ineligible for statutory sick pay are usually able to claim incapacity benefit or some other state benefit according to their need.
There is just one other point to add to what my noble friend said. Under the proposed scheme, payment for loss of earnings or earning capacity will be capped as at present at one-and-a-half times the national average wage. The amendment makes no allowance for such capping, which could mean that a higher wage earner off work for fewer than 28 weeks could receive considerably more for loss of earnings from the scheme than a lower paid worker who was off for more than 28 weeks. I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment, and it is not the intention of the scheme. It would greatly increase the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer and would, in effect, mean a return to something close to the present system. As we have already heard from my noble friend, this would make the system work rather better.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and by the Minister. Of course I understand that the administration of effecting justice can sometimes be itself a substantial drain on the resources which could otherwise have been devoted to the doing of justice. Sometimes, I believe, we would be financially better off if we allowed every claim rather than devote the resources which we do to adjudicating on claims. However, there are obvious arguments against that.
Clearly in all these cases one has to balance the amount in issue against the cost. I could take that point more readily if the cut-off point were, say, four weeks or even six weeks. Someone deprived of his earnings and reduced to SSP for six weeks might suffer real hardship, but it would probably, in most cases, be hardship with which he could cope. If we are talking about 28 weeks, the hardship is mounting up week after week after week. The mortgage has to be paid and then there comes a time when the children need new clothes, and so on. By the end of the 28 weeks, the family, unless it is particularly robust, could be in a state of chaos. I believe that 28 weeks is too long to sustain that argument.
I see too the point made by the Minister, that there could be some anomalies, and we should be happy to see how they could be eliminated. We remain unhappy at this. There would be, not everyone, perhaps not

651
massive numbers of people, but a substantial number of people who would suffer real hardship because of this rule. I should like to reflect upon what has been said in the course of the debate to see whether there may be other ways of addressing the problem. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
After clause 2, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION FROM TARIFF OF MULTIPLE INJURIES
(". The Scheme shall provide for the calculation of a compensation award to an applicant who has suffered two or more injuries each of which would otherwise attract a Tariff based award at level 7 or above to be made upon the same principles as an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at common law.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 26 deals with multiple injuries and refers to the changes that have taken place between the original common law scheme, the illegal scheme that was introduced and has now been replaced, and the proposed new scheme. Unfortunately, this is one of the examples of defects in the illegal scheme being continued in the proposed new scheme. We are not talking about multiple minor injuries. There is a note to the tariff which states the way in which minor injuries such as grazing, bruising, black eyes or bloody noses shall be dealt with. The amendment is not concerned with those; it is concerned only with injuries at tariff level 7, which is £3,000 or above.
The first tariff scheme provided that there should be a 100 per cent. payment for the first injury, a 10 per cent. payment for the second, a 5 per cent. payment for the third and nothing for any subsequent injury. I wish to give two examples in order to illustrate how that results in total awards which are not only very much less than the original common law scheme but so low as to be unreasonable and even unjust.
Perhaps I may give the example, first, of a man who was attacked and landed on his head on the pavement. He received a right-sided haematoma causing compression of the brain with evidence of confusion of the brain. As a result of that he suffered epileptic fits for a number of years in a continuing period after the injury. He had right-sided headaches and tinnitus and a tendency to become depressed and irritable. Indeed, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on four or five occasions after the incident. His speech incapacity for language was significantly impaired. He was virtually unemployable, his personal life was destroyed and his marriage broke down after the incident. Under the common law scheme his award of general damages—and I shall stick to those—was £50,000. Under the tariff scheme he would have received £20,000 for the psychiatric injury, only 10 per cent. of £12,500 for the epilepsy and only 5 per cent. of £7,500 for tinnitus. That is a total award of £22,000 as compared with the £50,000 that he would otherwise have received.
The second example is of a woman who was aged 23 at the time of the incident. A hand-held distress flare hit her in the left eye and exploded. She lost the sight of
652
her left eye, she has a traumatic cataract and severe retinal damage and is left with double vision in her left eye. She is unable to wear an occlusive contact lens, she has a shrunken eye, a shattered eyebrow, a fixed dilated pupil and divergent squint and she cannot close her eye because of the tethering of the skin. She has had plastic surgery but that has not worked. She was pregnant at the time but she has since been diagnosed as depressed. She was a trained hairdresser but she could not continue in that employment. Under the common law scheme she was awarded £33,500. Under the tariff scheme she would have received £20,000 for loss of sight, only 10 per cent. of £7,500 for scarring and only 5 per cent. of £7,500 for psychiatric injury. Therefore, she would have received £21,000.
There are literally hundreds of examples such as those in which the arbitrary figure of 100 per cent. for the first injury, 10 per cent. for the second injury, 5 per cent. for the third injury and nothing thereafter amount to injustice. That is not a challenge to the tariff; the tariff is not being attacked in this amendment. However, what is being attacked is the over-simplistic way in which the tariff deals with multiple injuries. Again, this is not an open door to huge numbers of claims. There were only 641 applications in respect of multiple injuries in the year of the operation of the 1994 scheme and it is difficult to imagine that there would be a significantly greater number in the future. I cannot calculate what the expenditure would be but on that number of applications it clearly would be very small indeed. However, there would be a significant improvement in the justice and acceptability of this scheme if those arbitrary limits were removed. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: On the last occasion I rose to support the Minister on an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. On this occasion, I make a brief intervention in support of the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The provision for serious injuries as working in practice is frankly unfair. I agree with the noble Lord entirely in that approach. As a result of the decision of the judiciary of your Lordships' House which held that the tariff was unlawful, we had to look again at all those awards which had been decided under the then tariff. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will agree with me that one of the most common comments of ourselves and our colleagues has been that that was shown to be very unfair when one is dealing with someone who has multiple injuries.
Of course, if you have a broken nose and a scar on the nose, it might be said that that is one injury which can be approached in that way. If you have a broken jaw and you have lost a tooth, again those are related injuries. But let us say that you have an accident which causes you to be blind in one eye. That does not mean that there is no effect if you have also broken your leg or badly broken your ankle. When you have injuries which are totally distinct, it seemed to those of us on the board who looked at those cases to be unfair to limit the award for the second injury to 10 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, demonstrated in the

653
examples he gave, a figure is reached which does not compare with the degree of injury caused to the individual.
Between now and Report I ask the Minister to look again at the tariff proposal in relation to multiple injuries. She may not go along with the idea that they should be removed entirely from the tariff but I believe that the percentages are unfair and deserve to be looked at again.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger that I was not suggesting necessarily that £100,000 could ever compensate a person for the loss of their eyes or for becoming paraplegic. The point that I was trying to make was that through the courts, society has accepted that there is a generally agreed figure for the pain and suffering element. The Government should not move too widely from that figure without at least reflecting on the consequences which that might have on the settlement of cases in the courts. I was not wishing to he hard on the paraplegic. I merely said that if other expenses were allowed on top, we should look again at the figure given for general damages.
Baroness Blatch: I am afraid that this amendment—like a number of others we shall consider later—effectively rules itself out of court straightaway by talking in terms of assessment on the basis of common law damages. We have made it clear—indeed, it is a central tenet of our tariff approach—that we want to break right away from the present system based on individual assessment. We are looking for a system which is simple, quick and transparent, and one under which costs are more predictable and controllable. Our enhanced tariff scheme provides just such a system. Against that rationale, there can really be no question of reverting to the common law method of assessment for any category of case.
Before addressing the point at issue on the amendment, perhaps the Committee will bear with me while I say a few words about the general principle involved. It has been argued by many—and it will no doubt continue to be argued—that certain categories of case are not susceptible to a tariff-based approach but require assessment on an individual basis. We do not accept that view. I remind the Committee that the tariff was constructed extremely carefully on the basis of 20,000 awards made by the board. That extensive sampling exercise demonstrated clearly that it was quite feasible to group injuries into bands of comparable severity—including complex or sensitive cases—and that it was possible to assign a typical monetary value to that grouping (the median value). The exercise enabled us to devise a range of awards for all cases, including the difficult ones, depending on their relative seriousness.
As regards the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he seemed to me to be comparing a common law award with a tariff and ignoring any loss of earnings payments or any after-care payments. Therefore, it was not an absolutely true comparison with what could be received by an applicant at the end of the day. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was comparing the damage element of the common law with the tariff; in other words, I was excluding extra payments, loss of earnings and so on from both sides of the equation. So I was comparing like with like.
Baroness Blatch: In that case, I entirely withdraw the assumption that I drew.
Great care has been taken in the tariff to provide injury descriptions which can be readily applied. We therefore see no justification for departing from the straightforward tariff approach for particular classes of injury or type of case. That tariff approach is open, readily understood and provides certainty and consistency in the level of awards.
Victims will know where they stand. We think that that is most important. A return to subjective assessment—for that is what the amendment and a number of those which follow amount to—of the pain and suffering attributable to the injury would mean that cases would take longer to deal with, that there may be more appeals about quantum and that the costs of the scheme would be far less certain. What the scheme provides is a tariff payment plus an objective assessment of financial loss attributable to the injury. That is intended to deliver a fair, generous and consistent outcome across the whole range of cases.
As I have said before, and I shall no doubt have to say again, we are no longer aiming to provide finely-judged compensation on the same basis as hitherto. That is no longer appropriate, or affordable, for a scheme funded by the taxpayer which has to deal with over 70,000 claims a year. Many victims and their families think that their case is special and deserving of particular consideration. But we believe that our enhanced tariff scheme will provide for all types of case, without reintroducing delays.
Having made those more general remarks, I should now like to say something about the point at issue here. The draft scheme presently provides for serious multiple injuries to be assessed according to the formula of 100 per cent. for the first injury, 10 per cent. of the award for the second and—where appropriate—5 per cent. for the third.
The sampling exercise to which I referred a moment or two ago showed that in cases of multiple injury most of the award was made for the most serious injury, with very little added on for additional, lesser injuries. That approach is also recommended in the Judicial Studies Board guide to damages for personal injury. The tariff adopts the same approach, and the formula that we have adopted for assessing multiple injuries closely reflects board practice. We think that that is the most sensible way of dealing with such injuries, and can see no defensible basis for going down any other road.
In some circumstances I can see that our formula might be considered to leave the victim under compensated to some degree; for example, where he had lost both an arm and a leg and received only 10 per cent. of the award for the loss of the arm. But such cases are extremely rare. As I have sought to make clear at a number of points during consideration of the Bill, the

655
scheme is not aiming to make good each and every loss an individual victim may have suffered. As there is no "right" figure for compensation, we are aiming instead to make a generous payment to most victims as quickly as we possibly can. We believe that the tariff scheme achieves just that aim. If the Committee accepts that point of view on the treatment of multiple injuries, then the consequential amendments to Clause 10 must also fall as the scheme will have set out how such injuries will be dealt with.
My noble friend posed the question of whether or not I would consider, think about, or continue to read what has been said during the course of the debate between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I can give my noble friend that assurance unequivocally. Indeed, we shall go on thinking about all such matters until the Bill passes its final stages in this Chamber.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response has two parts. First, because we are discussing the first amendment which refers to a reversal to common law procedures, she makes the defence that she has made previously of the statistical procedure on which the tariff is based. As a statistician I am not opposed to the general principle on which the analysis was made. It was right to take a sample of cases—a sample of 20,000 is a large number of cases—and I was right to take the median rather than any other form of mean. However, I would still argue that the analysis of this proper sampling procedure has been inadequate.
If the analysis of each of the items in the tariff had taken account of the age of the victim, the sex of the victim, his or her occupation and the dominance and extent of multiple injuries, there are various ways in which it could have been made more sophisticated. We would have then obtained a more complex tariff—there is nothing wrong in itself with a complex tariff—and a tariff which more closely approached reality. At the moment we have a tariff which, through its ignorance and rejection of further discrimination by age, sex, occupation and dominance, is extremely crude. The Minister defends this, as she has throughout the Committee proceedings, on the grounds of transparency and speed. I do not reject that analysis; I agree that speed and transparency are important. However, a complex tariff can also be made transparent and can also be made accessible to the layman and it can be applied more speedily. It is better than a crude tariff. The same is true as regards multiple injuries.
Secondly, I come to the specific point which the Minister makes. She says that there is a relatively small number of cases of multiple injuries. Indeed I said that in my opening speech. There were only 641 in the first year of the tariff scheme. The Minister says that most of the people who receive these injuries receive a large amount for the first injury and a smaller amount for the second injury. However, that is an even stronger reason why the amounts that exist for the second and third injuries should not be reduced to 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively, because it confirms that the cost of a more equitable recognition of the pain and suffering
656
caused by multiple injuries would not be very great. However, such a provision would increase the credibility of the tariff scheme without breaching it.
I would not have wished to put down an amendment which reverted to common law damages for multiple injuries if I could have avoided it. If I could think of a way of providing for multiple injuries within the tariff which was fairer than the 10 and 5 per cent. system, I would still prefer to opt for that. However, I do not have the resources to do that; the Minister and the Home Office do. They must acknowledge, as they have been urged to do by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the case for providing better treatment for those who have suffered multiple injuries is a sound one. Surely something could be done, if not by giving 100 per cent. awards for all injuries, then at least by providing something better than 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. In that way we can avoid what all of us want to avoid, which is a return to the common law scheme. It is because our amendment represents a return to the common law scheme and because I want to pursue the matter constructively with the Minister before we reach a later stage that I shall withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord does that, I should say that I wish to support his suggestion. Having obtained a sample of 20,000, which is a good start for an analysis, it should be possible at this stage to do a special analysis of the particular group of people who are affected in this way, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested. The noble Lord probably has all the data and such an analysis could be carried out. It would be illuminating to see such an analysis. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agrees with me but I believe that from a technical point of view it could be done and it would be useful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends entirely on whether adequate records were kept of age, sex, multiple injuries and so on. Technically, the noble Baroness, who is a fellow social scientist, is quite right. Perhaps that is something that the Minister may like to pursue. One can make much better use of data of that kind if one has collected them correctly in the first instance. I am encouraged by the sampling exercise. I should like to feel that it can be used to greater effect than it has been, and I very much agree with what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps that is also a matter that we could consider "off line". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 28:
After clause 2, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION FROM TARIFF OF CASE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
(". The Scheme shall provide for the calculation of a compensation award to a claimant who was below the age of 18 years on the date of the injury and who claims compensation for the consequences of sexual assault or other sexual abuse to be made upon the same principles as an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at common law.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Committee may find it convenient to discuss Amendment No. 29 with Amendment No. 28.
Once again we are addressing the inflexibility of the tariff scheme. In the course of the last debate the noble Baroness said that it had been argued that some categories of case are not susceptible to a tariff approach. It has indeed been so argued, and I argue that now, because it is true.
There are some situations which are notoriously difficult to assess in terms of appropriate compensation, whether one is arguing a personal injury case in the courts or one is a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There are some cases where the effects of what is done vary enormously by reason of a whole range of factors of which no account is taken in the tariff. In fairness, I doubt whether account could easily be taken of such factors.
The two categories we raise in this debate were mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, when he introduced Amendment No. 6. His suggestion for dealing with the problem was a series of bands instead of a single inflexible figure against each entry in the tariff. The noble Lord was right when he said that our proposals—he was probably referring to those in this amendment—go further. We believe that there are some kinds of injury which do not fit into a tariff scheme at all, for the reasons which the noble Lord gave. For example, the effects of a sexual assault may vary with a whole range of factors: the degree of violence or intimidation; the place where the offence took place, whether it was a lonely country lane at night or a home which the offender shared with the victim; the degree of relationship between the two sides.
The scheme seeks to deal with those difficulties by forcing them into a series of boxes. At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, gave some examples. In the case of sexual abuse of children, repeated non-consensual vaginal and/or anal intercourse over a period of up to three years compensation would be £10,000; in a similar situation lasting longer than three years it would be £17,500. There is not a gradation but a jump. In the case of sexual assaults other than on children, compensation for non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse the figure would be £7,500; and for the same offence involving two or more attackers there is a jump to £10,000. If there are other serious bodily injuries there is a further jump to £17,500.
The problem is that, if one attempts to produce a tariff by reference to the average of awards that have been made over a period of time, that average will fall very far short of what would be an appropriate level of compensation for the worst cases. My noble friend Lord McIntosh gave some examples in relation to the injuries that he discussed in the course of the previous debate. Perhaps I may give three examples.
The first is the case of a female aged three and a half who was subjected to sexual abuse over a period of time. She experienced disruption of sleep, loss of appetite, a reversion to bedwetting, was reluctant to associate with male adults, and refused to co-operate in a medical examination to assess whether physical damage had taken place. A psychiatric assessment
658
concluded that family and social services support might alleviate acute problems but there was uncertainty as to whether it would be necessary to intervene therapeutically at different stages of development as the child grew up. Here we compare like with like. The general award of damages was £7,500. So far as we can judge, the tariff award would have been £2,000.
Perhaps I may take another example. A boy and girl aged respectively 13 and 12 years were abused by their father over a long period. Despite injunctions, it was believed that he wanted to continue to see the children. It was thought that the harassment and terror were an important contribution to the children's failure to overcome any of their major symptoms caused by the abuse; they had aggravated the abuse. There could not be provision for that situation in the tariff without making the tariff impossibly complicated. General damages in that case were £15,000 for each child. Under the tariff they would have received £6,000.
The effects can vary from permanent psychological damage which may ruin a victim's life to the shock and distress which a particularly robust individual may put behind him or her after a few months.
Perhaps I may turn to the other example: sexual assaults on other than children. Again I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that some of those damages cannot be forced into boxes. I give one example of a female aged 27 at the date of the assault. Already she had developed epilepsy. She had educational learning difficulties and suffered from a pre-existing schizo-affective disorder. She was then living reasonably happily in sheltered accommodation. Following the incident, her mental state deteriorated. Her schizophrenic symptoms flared up. She developed severe depression. The evidence of the consultant was that the change in the pattern of her illness was significant and appeared likely to extend for an indefinite period into the future. Her general damages were £10,000. Under the tariff scheme she would have received £3,000.
One could go on. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will take on board that there are some kinds of injury where the effects vary enormously with a range of factors which have not been included in the scheme and could not reasonably be expected to be included. We do not seek to abolish the scheme. We simply say that every rule has some sensible exceptions. I hope that the Government will find it possible to think again on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said. When I moved Amendment No. 6, I stated to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I preferred my approach to his because I had attempted to meet the Government's intention to obtain a tariff and to find some discretion within the tariff. However, I have to come clean and say that that apart my preference would be for the total exclusion of sexual offences from the tariff for all the reasons that have been stated. The board has always taken the view that sexual assaults on children are not properly or suitably assessed under a tariff scheme. Every word that one heard from the Minister in answer to the last debate on multiple injuries, and from what I suspect she will

659
say on this issue, proves the case that we should be discussing a hybrid scheme with something like 85 per cent. of cases being dealt with under a tariff. The 15 per cent. which are extremely complicated or serious, or involve particularly sensitive aspects of matters such as child abuse, should have been put out to individual assessment. In that way a great deal more money would have been saved than the Government will save at the end of the day.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I endorse what the noble Lord said. Practice has shown that the great majority of children who have been abused, whether boys or girls, are in local authority care. No matter what award a single board member makes to the child, the local authority has to watch its back, so to speak. It has to look after the interest of the child. Inevitably it appeals against the award. It is a very, very difficult, almost impossible, situation to ask members of the board to deal with. I adopt the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that there should perhaps be a special sexual abuse unit, government-funded or otherwise, to deal with these matters, with specialists dealing with local authorities.
A lot of time is wasted. One can readily understand why people in the social services and the local authorities appeal against most awards. It is because they could no doubt be sued in a few years' time by the victim, asking why they did not appeal against a particular award of, say, two-and-a-half thousand pounds. I know somebody who received £15,000, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, just demonstrated. Therefore, a multiplicity of sexual abuse cases are pursued through the board and take up a lot of time. No doubt other areas of life might be excluded from this scheme, but that is a matter for debate on another day or night as the case may be. Certainly, sexual abuse cases represent one of the most difficult areas for adjudication.
Baroness Blatch: To take the special cases contained within both this present amendment and those that are to come, we are not talking about minor variations from the tariff scheme. We are talking about very substantial numbers of cases if taken altogether. The same principle applies. A very real attempt was made to look at 20,000 awards right across the board, including the types of cases to which we are referring, and including some that are very complex and difficult. The aim was to arrive at a semi-scientific judgment on the basis of that sample, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, is a fairly substantial number of cases. We shall continue to consider whether that can be refined. The view has been taken that there should be a tariff scheme. All the arguments about moving away from a tariff scheme continue to apply.
It is very interesting that, while my noble friend hinted that the Government could save money if they took on board some of these amendments, every single example used so far has doubled, trebled or quadrupled the amount of award. All the examples used stated that the general award would be X, the award from the tariff would be Y. In each case the tariff award was lower
660
than would be the general award. That was used as an illustrative case, both by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We are saying: yes, there is an element of rough justice in this; some will receive more under the scheme, and some will receive less. But the scheme is a real attempt to respond speedily to people who have been the subject of criminal assault. We have also tried to make the scheme readily understood. I keep using the word "transparent". It is very important that people see and understand the nature of the scheme, together with money for aftercare, loss of earnings and loss of pension rights. Frankly, I want to stay with that principle. The numbers of occasions and the numbers of groups cited throughout the day in an appeal to move away from the tariff scheme and towards the common law scheme invalidate the whole essential thrust of the Government's case to produce a tariff scheme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble Baroness takes comfort from the fact that the Government looked at 20,000 awards. I have no doubt that they did it very carefully. I accept that the results reflect the average of those awards. The whole thrust of our argument is that there are some kinds of injury where the average simply bears no relationship to the worst cases.
I cannot make it any clearer than I have tried to make it already. When the noble Baroness reflects upon this matter after the benefit of a night's sleep and reads what we have all said perhaps she may at least take in that argument and appreciate that what she has said is not an answer to the argument. It is true that the examples that we have given will increase some of the awards and thus the cost of the scheme, though not, I suspect, as substantially as the noble Baroness appears to think. Perhaps someone may do a little work on this and some figures will be available, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested in another context a few minutes ago. If that is the price of doing justice in the worst cases it seems to be a price that is worth paying.
However, this is perhaps not the occasion to press the matter further. I should like to give the noble Baroness an opportunity to do what I have suggested. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 30:
After clause 2, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION FROM TARIFF OF MENTAL INJURY
(". The Scheme shall provide for the calculation of a compensation award to a claimant in respect of a claim in whole or in part for psychological, psychiatric or other mental injury to be made upon the same principles as an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at common law.").
The noble and learned Lord said: We have been round this course so often that your Lordships shall not be weaned further by it. Psychological injuries are of a type which we argue cannot fit into the categories of a tariff scheme. Those of us who have had to deal professionally with psychological injuries will know the vast amount of psychiatric and other technical evidence with which the court is confronted. It is impossible to

661
expect a tariff scheme to incorporate all of that. When we looked at the scheme to see what was the tariff figure against shock we found that there was a note but no figure at all. The tariff simply does not cater for shock, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said earlier in the debate. I assume that the reason is that the Law Commission is looking at the whole field. I hope that at a not too distant date it will make a number of recommendations which can be given effect to when they arise. But, if we are to be confronted with a tariff, that will not make the process any easier. I shall not repeat all the arguments that we have already traversed in the course of the debate. I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: This is yet another group of people for whom noble Lords opposite believe that the tariff scheme is not appropriate and for whom the common law damages approach is the answer. We can no longer argue that this is just a small example of how a tariff scheme and a common law damage scheme can work alongside each other. Just as the noble and learned Lord cannot add anything to his argument in pressing for yet another special case—we have been dealing with special cases for a long time as part of today's debate—I do not believe I can take the matter much further. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord. I believe that a real attempt has been made to arrive at a tariff scheme that reflects complexity, the range of injuries and what the board has awarded in a large number of cases. I believe that, if we are to have a tariff scheme, to deal with all these matters in a different way is not acceptable or sustainable. It will introduce unpredictability and instability. We know that at the moment with the common law scheme costs escalate uncontrollably. I have suggested that there will be no caps on the highest award. All these categories will be brought back into the common law scheme, with all the complexity of introducing the administrative arrangements to deal with them, taking each of the categories suggested by the amendments today case by case. I believe that it will
662
wholly invalidate the changes that we are trying to make: predictability, stability, transparency and speed of response to people who are the victims of crime. We wish to have something that is predictable, controllable and affordable to the taxpayer who has to meet the bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If these matters were indeed in the tariff, the Minister might have a case; but they are not. The tariff says "Shock—see notes" and then gives five different levels of seriousness of shock, such as disabling or temporarily disabling, over different periods of time. When one looks at the notes, there is simply a list of different kinds of shock or mental injury (which is what we are talking about) and there is no attempt at all to produce an effective tariff. There is no predictability in the tariff so far as concerns mental injury. There is no transparency. There is no certainty, and there is no speed. Beyond that, the Government have already acknowledged that the Law Commission is looking into this matter and that anything that they do in the future will have to be changed.
Whatever my noble and learned friend may decide to do about the amendment, it does not come well from the Government to claim that the tariff provides an adequate description of the compensation amounts for mental injury.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble Baroness does not respond and she is under no obligation to do so. I hoped that she would perhaps reflect on what my noble friend just said. This is not the occasion to seek the view of the Chamber. Perhaps we shall meet again on this same territory. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  Taxing Masters: Professional Qualifications
  Taxing Masters: Professional Qualifications
  Legal Aid Payments
  Legal Aid Payments
  Prisoners: Transfer Criteria
  Prisoners: Transfer Criteria
  Fire Safety: Review
  Fire Safety: Review
  Local and Parliamentary Representatives: Emoluments
  Local and Parliamentary Representatives: Emoluments
  Organophosphates: Research into Effects on Humans
  Organophosphates: Research into Effects on Humans
  Ford Motor Company: Subsidy
  Ford Motor Company: Subsidy
  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Awards
  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Awards
  The Art Market: Effects of European Legislation
  The Art Market: Effects of European Legislation
  Unemployed 16 and 17 Years-Olds: Support
  Unemployed 16 and 17 Years-Olds: Support
  Actively Seeking Work Regulations: Numbers Disentitled to Benefit
  Actively Seeking Work Regulations: Numbers Disentitled to Benefit
  Restart Courses and Benefit Reductions
  Restart Courses and Benefit Reductions
  Jobplan Workshop and Benefit Reductions
  Jobplan Workshop and Benefit Reductions
  Voluntary Unemployment and Benefit Reductions
  Voluntary Unemployment and Benefit Reductions
  Share Options: Tax Treatment
  Share Options: Tax Treatment
  The Economy: Growth
  The Economy: Growth
  EC Budget: Prevention of Fraud
  EC Budget: Prevention of Fraud
  Motability: NAO Investigation
  Motability: NAO Investigation
  Agriculture Council, 17 July
  Agriculture Council, 17 July
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Nectarines: Withdrawal Payments
  Nectarines: Withdrawal Payments
  Tobacco: EU Subsidy Reductions
  Tobacco: EU Subsidy Reductions
  Lettuce: Control of Nitrate Levels
  Lettuce: Control of Nitrate Levels
  Sheep Dipping: Airborne Levels of Organophosphates
  Sheep Dipping: Airborne Levels of Organophosphates
  Organophosphates: Exposure Measurement
  Organophosphates: Exposure Measurement
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Royal Automobile Club
  Royal Automobile Club
  Buses: European Legislation
  Buses: European Legislation
  Defence Procurement: Value for Money
  Defence Procurement: Value for Money
  European Defence
  European Defence
  MoD: Employment of Ex-officials
  MoD: Employment of Ex-officials
  Tomahawk Missiles
  Tomahawk Missiles
  Computerised Systems: Hacker Vulnerability
  Computerised Systems: Hacker Vulnerability
  UK Military Procurement: Cost
  UK Military Procurement: Cost
  UK Military Procurement: US Influence
  UK Military Procurement: US Influence
  UK Military Procurement and Europe
  UK Military Procurement and Europe
  European Community Legislative Instruments
  European Community Legislative Instruments
  European Legislation: Repeal Progress
  European Legislation: Repeal Progress
  European Union Regulations
  European Union Regulations
  European Union: Areas of Competence
  European Union: Areas of Competence
  Self-governing Sovereign States: Characteristics
  Self-governing Sovereign States: Characteristics
  Bosnia: Reported Atrocities against Muslims
  Bosnia: Reported Atrocities against Muslims
  Hong Kong: Consistency of the Law
  Hong Kong: Consistency of the Law
  Hong Kong: Court of Final Appeal
  Hong Kong: Court of Final Appeal
  Beijing UN Conference on Women
  Beijing UN Conference on Women
  China: Population Policy
  China: Population Policy
  European Union: Declaration of Interests
  European Union: Declaration of Interests
  The First Secretary of State: Responsibilities
  The First Secretary of State: Responsibilities
  Scott Inquiry/Nolan Committee
  Scott Inquiry/Nolan Committee
  Divisions in the House of Lords: Government Defeats
  Divisions in the House of Lords: Government Defeats