Sitting of 23 October 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    London Tilbury and Southend Line
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made in privatising the London Tilbury and Southend line. [36458]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Good progress is being made with the LTS rail franchise. The franchising director has short-listed bidders, and aims to award the franchise in December.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the bids for the franchise have to be in by Friday, will the Minister pull out all the stops to ensure that LTS becomes the first privatised line in the, United Kingdom? LTS has been such a continuing disaster under British Rail control that it got the name of the misery line, so can my right hon. Friend give some information about the benefits that will accrue to the public? For example, what about the replacement rolling stock which is urgently required?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his staunch support of the Government's policy on privatisation. I can confirm that the franchising director has decided that the LTS line should be one of the first for which a contract will be let. I hope that the service will be up and running early next year and that the benefits of privatisation will shortly be apparent to my hon. Friend's constituents. For example, my hon. Friend will be aware that fare levels have been frozen in real terms as from January and that service levels will be guaranteed, which his constituents have not benefited from before. I understand that the details of the arrangements governing the provision of improved rolling stock will be agreed imminently with the leasing company. I hope that it will not be too long before the safety clearances are completed so that that new rolling stock can be on track.
    Ms Short: Did the Minister see the report in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday which said that City analysts believe that the sale of Railtrack before the spring or autumn of 1997 could lose public finances as much as £750 million? I am sure that the Minister will have noted that that estimate was not been made simply because City analysts expect a Labour Government, although they do—I warn anyone contemplating bidding for any part of the rail network that there will be no gravy train for fat cats out of that privatisation and that Labour intends that the rail system should remain in public ownership—but—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Ask a question.
    Ms Short: I have already asked two questions.
    684
    Did the Minister note the serious criticism that the information provided to City analysts by his Department is so inadequate that they cannot properly value Railtrack? Will he give a solemn undertaking that it will not be sold cheaply before the election merely to fund a Tory tax cut?
    Sir George Young: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in her new role. I notice that the Opposition's entire transport team was so demolished by us during the debate on the railways last week that they had to be replaced and a fresh franchise secured.
    As for receipts, we have not speculated about the proceeds that will be secured, but a full prospectus will of course be published in due course for those seeking to invest in Railtrack. I hope that at some point the hon. Lady will respond to the questions put to her predecessor on several occasions last week. How will the Opposition pay for their policy of buying back the railways? Will it be achieved through higher fares, higher taxes or higher borrowing?
    Mr. Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he proposes for the London Tilbury and Southend line is extremely good? We are very pleased that that line will be one of the first, if not the first, to be franchised. For many years, there has been a great need for replacement rolling stock. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has said that it will be replaced, but could he give us some more detail?
    Sir George Young: As my right hon. Friend may know, a number of Networker express units currently under construction by ABB Transportation are to be deployed on West Anglia's Great Northern services. That will permit what is called a "cascade" of 25 four-class 317 units to my right hon. Friend's constituency, which in turn will allow the scrapping some old class 302 units, which are more than 35 years old.

    South Yorkshire Rapid Light Transit System
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the effect on local authority standard spending assessments of the South Yorkshire rapid light transit system. [36460]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I answered a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 22 May. I have had no more recent representations on this subject.
    Mr. Illsley: The Minister will be aware that today Sheffield is celebrating the completion of the rapid light transit system, the supertram. In my constituency, which is part of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, there is considerable concern about the impact on local authority budgets of debt charges arising from the cost of the supertram system. Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that the Government agreed fully to fund the system, the debt charges were allocated to the budget of the four authorities that make up the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority? The charges are having a considerable effect on the spending powers of the four authorities. I understand that discussions are taking place—
    Mr. Sykes: Get on with it.
    Mr. Illsley: Oh, shut up.

    685
    I understand that discussions with the Department are well advanced. Is the Minister able to give us any encouragement? Is he able to tell us whether the pressure on the standard spending assessments will be relieved for the forthcoming financial year?
    Mr. Norris: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure that today marks the opening of the Hillsborough extension of the supertram system. I am pleased that it is now able to operate at its full potential. I understand that supertram is offering the residents of the area free travel for the next couple of days so that they can come to know what an excellent system is being offered.
    I appreciate that there is concern about the way in which the financial arrangements impact on the capping levels of each of the member authorities of the passenger transport executive. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with me before. He will appreciate that it is a matter for negotiation between the local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

    Dartford Bridge and Tunnel
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve access to both ends of the Dartford bridge and tunnel. [36461]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Major improvements were made in association-with the opening of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge a few years ago.
    We have a number of further proposals for improving access to the Dartford bridge and tunnel.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the bridge has been one of the Government's great success stories? In co-operation with the private sector, the bridge was built to relieve awful congestion at the Dartford tunnel. With the growth of developments in the area—Lakeside and now Bluewater, and the proposal that there should be a new depot at Ebbsfleet—it is reckoned by those who are running the bridge that congestion will return in three or four years. Does my hon. Friend consider that now is the time, while the bridge is making massive profits, which will soon return to the taxpayer, to reconsider the east London river crossing proposed for Woolwich, which would take a great deal of traffic and be another great Government success story?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend will know that the east London river crossing is the subject of consultation. She is right to say that the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford is a wonderful example of a private finance initiative in operation.

    RAF Northolt
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached about the sharing of runway capacity by civil aircraft at RAF Northolt; what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [36462]
    Sir George Young: Consultation with business aviation users this summer demonstrated a positive reaction to shared use of the newly commissioned
    686
    facilities at RAF Northolt. As outlined in the 1995 competitiveness White Paper, my Department is currently working closely with the Ministry of Defence to identify further ways of enhancing the service offered.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern in my constituency that the sharing of runways at RAF Northolt could result in increased traffic noise? Will he give me an assurance that, in the event of sharing, there will be no increase in the permitted number of air traffic movements at Northolt?
    Sir George Young: I am indeed aware of the local concern that my hon. Friend has expressed to Ministers in my Department on several occasions. The station continues to operate on the basis of 7,000 movements a year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will there be any consultation with people in the locality with regard to further aircraft movements, particularly civil airline movements, because that part of London already suffers excessively from aircraft noise?
    Sir George Young: Yes, of course; local opinion will be taken into account in connection with any plans to change the use of the airport.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Local residents feel most strongly that the current limits should be maintained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) has said, and that the existing operating hours for civil air transport movements should be kept at 0800 to 2000, with no weekend operation.
    Sir George Young: I am aware of the strong feelings in the area, which are well represented by my hon. Friend. As I said a few moments ago, we will, of course, ensure that local opinion is taken into account when we look at any future use of the airport.

    Road Casualties
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to reduce road casualties. [36464]
    Mr. Norris: The Department is currently considering, with other representative organisations, the next casualty reduction target and the measures needed to achieve it. The trend in fatalities and serious injuries is that they continue to fall. A package of measures is being introduced to improve the safety of newly qualified drivers and we have invited bids to participate in the safe town initiative.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister congratulate DHL, which recently removed all bull bars from its 300 vehicles? What assessment has he made of the Australian evidence that proves that bull bars represent an increased risk not only to pedestrians and cyclists but to those who are driving, and to passengers in vehicles with bull bars? Why does he not take action on the three practical steps outlined by Commissioner Kinnock from Europe, who said that the British Government could take steps to banish them? Why does he hesitate to remove these fatal fashion accessories?
    Mr. Norris: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to express his interest in the subject of bull bars in the way that he has, because not only is his interest

    687
    entirely appropriate but I join him in congratulating a major company that has decided that an unnecessary fashion accessory that can also be dangerous is inappropriate in a responsible company. It is ludicrous of the hon. Gentleman, frankly, to describe the Government's attitude as being prepared to delay while Commissioner Kinnock rushes to the fore. All the proposals that the Commissioner has made rely on precisely the evidence of the survey, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting into the incidence of bull bar-related accidents. He will appreciate that, to invoke any of the three measures that Commissioner Kinnock outlined in his letter to me, there is a precondition that we should have that evidence. I believe that bull bars, which make the fronts of vehicles less safe than they would otherwise be, should be removed without delay.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend carried out an examination of the possible impact on the number of road casualties in London of a strike on the London underground? Would he like to draw a contrast between his policy of upgrading the Northern line with that of certain trade unionists of disrupting traffic in London?
    Mr. Norris: Sadly, my hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the many sad consequences for Londoners of disrupting underground services is that there will indeed be more congestion on London's roads and, indeed, inevitably more accidents. This underlines the futility of this kind of neanderthal action. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is the only union not to have accepted London Transport's package. I hope that, even at this stage, it will see the wisdom of getting on with the job and keeping London moving in the way that any responsible trade union ought to be prepared to do.
    Mr. Wigley: What progress is the Minister making on the vexed issue of cut and shut vehicles? He will recall that I brought a delegation to see him some months ago on that matter. It is extremely serious; vehicles that have been involved in accidents and should not be on the road are stitched together without any controlling mechanism. What progress does he expect to be made to control those very dangerous vehicles?
    Mr. Norris: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman a couple of days ago and asked him to pass on a copy of my letter to Mr. George Austin, whom he brought to see me on this subject. It is indeed a serious matter. As the hon. Gentleman understood when we discussed it, there are some practical difficulties in implementing a system that identifies vehicles that have previously been involved in serious accidents, particularly when, for example, they may be insured only for third party and therefore the insurance company concerned is not notified when the vehicle is effectively written off.
    Sadly, some of the initiatives suggested to us earlier have not proved effective, and the Association of Chief Police Officers, responding to some of our inquiries, has said that it is unhappy with some of our proposals. As I said in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, I therefore propose to continue to explore other ways in which we can deal with this serious problem.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend familiar with research that suggests that, if we adopted double summer time, we could save more than 140 lives a year on the
    688
    roads? Does he agree that the putting back of our clocks only yesterday ought to remind us that that opportunity is within our grasp?
    Mr. Norris: The issue of summer time and double summer time interests a number of Departments. I speak only for the Department of Transport when I say that it is a simple matter of fact that allowing for more daylight in the way that my hon. Friend suggests has a demonstrable impact on accident statistics. For that reason, certainly, such action is to be encouraged.
    Mr. Allen: No doubt the Minister, like other drivers, has felt a frisson of fear when overtaking or being overtaken by a heavy goods vehicle on the motorway lest its driver has put in far too many hours on the road. Did he read yesterday's article in The Observer which claimed that 200 deaths a year could be prevented if that danger were eliminated from our roads? Will he now end the Department's complacent attitude, and present proposals to ensure that tachographs cannot be tampered with? Will he also undertake some serious research into the effect of over-long hours on drivers who are forced to work those hours by bullying employers?
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the transport team as one who has managed to survive as a Front Bencher for longer than almost any other Member on either side of the House. It is a pleasure to see him join the ranks of the instant transport experts, one of whom he clearly considers himself to be.
    The United Kingdom inspects more than twice the European average number of tachographs, because we are pre-eminent in the Community in recognising the problem of overtired drivers as extremely serious. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify it as a major source of accidents. Indeed, simply listing the number of fatal accidents that may have involved tachograph offences probably underestimates the true figure.
    The hon. Gentleman should understand two points, however. First, the practice is much more widespread in all the other European countries, in which the issue prompts very much less interest. Secondly, only the very worst operator would recognise the description of the robber barons of the transport industry grinding drivers' faces into the dust. As the hon. Gentleman will come to recognise, being the fair man that he is, the standard of operators in this country is excellent.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in my constituency about the safety record of the Birmingham A456 road from Kidderminster to Blakedown? There have been two fatalities on the road in the past 12 months, and the average speed at Blakedown—in a 30 mph area—was recently gauged at some 50 mph.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem would be alleviated by the construction of a Kidderminster-Blakedown-Hagley bypass? Does he realise that we have now been waiting for no less than 12 months for the Government to publish the inspector's report, and will he ensure that progress is speeded up?
    Mr. Norris: I note my hon. Friend's observations, and acknowledge his consistent concern about the scheme on behalf of his constituents. I hope that he will appreciate that I can make no firm announcement today.

    Woolwich Rail Tunnel
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits of the proposed Woolwich rail tunnel. [36465]
    Mr. Norris: London Transport, British Rail, Railtrack and the London Docklands development corporation continue to co-operate in their study of that proposed project and I await their further report with interest.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Minister acknowledge that the proposed east London river crossing, if built, would produce increased congestion and pollution in the Woolwich, Belvedere and Plumstead regions, which already have some of the highest rates of asthma and respiratory illness in the south-east? Does he recognise that, in terms of economic regeneration, the Woolwich rail tunnel would provide enormous benefits to a region that has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom? In view of the support for the Woolwich rail tunnel—which is environmentally acceptable and cheaper to produce than the east London river crossing—of the London Docklands development corporation, London Underground, British Rail and local authorities, will he now get the Government to pull their finger out and start construction of that vital rail project?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the outcome of the consultation exercise on. east London river crossings in general, which was embarked on several months ago, and I cannot do so; nor can I anticipate the dedication of resources before considering the wider pattern that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will need to examine in the public expenditure settlement. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the east London river crossing, he will know that we withdrew the original scheme for the long east London crossing, but that a number of other proposals, which interrelate in east London, are still on the table in the consultation document. There again, at this moment it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the conclusion of that consultation.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my borough of Bexley, considerable support exists for that rail tunnel, that there is also, however, considerable support for additional road crossings between Tower bridge and the Dartford crossing, and that it is essential, if we are to develop the east Thames corridor-Thames gateway, to have them as soon as possible? When are we likely to have an announcement on those developments?
    Mr. Norris: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have had a chance to consider all the consultation responses and to issue a further statement on this subject before the end of the year, but I note what my hon. Friend says. I fear that it is always convenient and, in a sense, something of an intellectual cop-out merely to assume that a public transport scheme, however desirable, will be able to absorb all the demand in a particular transport corridor. The consultation exercise points out—frankly, it is not a matter of great political disagreement—that a mixture of further access across the river will be necessary if the river is to cease to be an impediment to economic and social progress, and to be an asset.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress has been made on the west coast main line reinvestment project; and if he will make a statement. [36466]
    Mr. Watts: The west coast main line modernisation programme is moving firmly forward. Tenders for the development of a new signalling system for the line have just been received by Railtrack. Railtrack expects to let a contract for the main modernisation works next year.
    Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his colleagues at the Department on the work that they are doing in that regard. It is important that the work goes ahead as soon as possible. This is an important route that serves many communities and is so important to the business sector the length and breadth of the country, from Scotland to south England. Will he take this opportunity of telling the House how successful he has been in obtaining European moneys to add to the private finance initiative, and give me an assurance that he and his colleagues will deal with the present Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in the same way that they dealt with the last lot?
    Mr. Watts: On the latter point, we will do our best.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced during the monumental debate last Wednesday, the west coast main line upgrade project is one of the top priority projects in the trans-European network programme, being one of the Christopherson group, and we have secured a first-year allocation of £7 million from the TENs budget towards the—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Seven million pounds?
    Mr. Watts: Seven million pounds is not to be sneered at. If the hon. Gentleman considers the total amount of money to be allocated to all the projects across the Union, he will find that the allocation for the west cost main line, plus the allocation for the channel tunnel rail link, are a fair share of resources for this country, as compared with other member states.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Minister like to tell us simply how much has been spent—wasted—on privatisation up to this point?
    Mr. Watts: No money has been wasted on privatisation.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that his announcement today about the signalling contracts and the full contract for the west coast main line upgrade will be welcome not only to my constituents but to constituents living up and down the route? Does he further agree that the successful completion of the project will once again demonstrate that the Government's policy of bringing in private sector finance to help upgrade the railways is vastly more successful than the policy that the Labour party would put in place, which would waste taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right. The signalling competition is being developed under the private finance initiative. In addition, the modernisation programme will bring major improvements in safety and reliability, the right quality and the capacity for more trains. The new

    691
    state-of-the-art signalling system will create potential for reductions in journey times and will, of course, provide automatic train protection.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the Minister agrees that services on the west coast main line depend on the reliability of the rolling stock. Will he confirm that the turnover last year of the three rolling stock companies was £800 million, with a profit of £450 million? Will not those companies have a guaranteed income stream for the next eight years? In those circumstances, does he recognise that it would be a monstrous fraud on the taxpayer if the rolling stock companies were sold for £1.5 billion, which is about half their true value? Does he accept my assurance that, under Labour, the rolling stock companies will be brought under the control of the regulator to prevent them from holding the rest of the industry to ransom?
    Mr. Watts: I am confident that once the line has been upgraded there will be both operators wishing to operate the services on the line and rolling stock providers prepared to provide the necessary rolling stock.

    North-west Main Line
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled on the north-west main line. [36468]
    Sir George Young: I travelled on the line to Blackpool on 9 October for what proved to be an excellent party. conference.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a funny old thing to say. Who would believe that? Will the Secretary of State have a word with British Rail and ask it to withdraw the rail passengers charter, in particular as it affects the west coast main line, so that timetables can be restored? Does he realise that, when the Government introduced the nonsense of the so-called charter, all that happened was that BR extended the journey times so that it did not have to pay compensation?
    Sir George Young: I am genuinely surprise to hear the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the passengers charters should be removed. That is no part of our manifesto. Indeed, far from removing them, we want to improve them and drive up the standards so that railway passengers get an even better service under privatisation than they did under nationalisation.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is not the best way to restore reliability and investment on the north-west line—and, indeed, across the whole railway system—to proceed as quickly as possible with privatisation? We no longer have questions about lack of investment in telephones, water, gas or electricity because those industries were privatised and they have access to the capital that they need—something that the amateur corporate financiers on the Opposition Front Bench would not understand.
    Sir George Young: The whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he read the Sunday Express yesterday, as I hope Opposition Members did. It contained an interesting article by John Edmonds, Railtrack's chief executive, in which he said:
    "It is unquestionable that rail privatisation will lead to more investment."
    That is exactly what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Pike: The Secretary of State will know that the electric west coast main line does not go to Blackpool because the through train service has been discontinued. Does what he has just said mean that he is committed to ensuring that, when the west coast main line is upgraded, Blackpool has an electric train service running from London to Blackpool?
    Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the franchising director to decide whether to permit that service. However, I travelled via Preston, which is indeed on the west coast main line.
    Mr. Brandreth: When my right hon. Friend next uses that excellent service, will he take the trouble to stop off at the city of Chester, where he will see the new improved station? He may realise that the station would have been improved some years ago, had it been privatised earlier, because the potential for investment in our railway stations is considerable. Will he also please pay tribute to the people who work on the line and are giving us an improved service of a very high standard despite the carping comments from the Opposition?
    Sir George Young: Invitations from my hon. Friend to visit his constituency are difficult to resist. He invited me to visit the tax office in Chester when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am sure that my visit to his railway station will be every bit as exciting as my visit to his tax office.

    Public Transport, Manchester
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public transport in Greater Manchester. [36470]
    Mr. Norris: Public transport in Greater Manchester is primarily a matter for the local authorities and transport operators concerned. Subject to financial constraints, the Government will continue to consider funding worthwhile public transport schemes in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Bennett: The Minister will appreciate that there has been great difficulty maintaining a reliable bus service in the Ashton and Denton areas of my constituency because of the problems of traffic spilling off the M66, which at present stops in my constituency rather than continuing to Oldham. My constituents had been hoping that the motorway would be completed so that pressure on ordinary roads would be relieved. Can the Minister assure the House that the rumours circulating in Tameside to the effect that there are to be further delays with that motorway are ill founded?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention to me the nature of his question shortly before Question Time began. From the inquiries that I have been able to make, I can confirm that progress on the M66 contracts is proceeding normally, so I do not believe that there is any foundation for the rumours that the hon. Gentleman may have heard.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend the Minister surprised that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) did not mention the tens of millions of pounds of investment by the Government in Manchester in support of its 2002 Commonwealth games and Olympic games bids? Does he not accept—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Had the hon. Gentleman done so, he would have strayed far from the question and I would have stopped him.
    Mr. Fabricant: But is not it a consequence of that investment that the tram system and other public transport systems now operate in Manchester?
    Mr. Norris: Rushing to the aid of my hon. Friend, I entirely agree that the £140 million investment in the Manchester Metrolink has substantially improved the public transport scene there and put it in an even more agreeable position than heretofore to mount a very credible Olympic bid.
    Madam Speaker: I call Question 14.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What happened to Question 12?
    Madam Speaker: Question 12 has been withdrawn.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I should like to raise that matter on a point of order after Question Time, Madam Speaker.

    European Union Transport Networks
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss the improvement of European Union transport networks. [36471]
    Sir George Young: I plan to attend the Transport. Council on 7 and 8 December at which I would expect progress with the development of trans-European transport networks to be discussed.
    Mr. Griffiths: When the Secretary of State attends that meeting, will he press the very strong claims being made in south and north Wales to complete the European transport networks, which are currently under threat due to privatisation? Will he also give a commitment that there will be high quality rail services from our west Wales ports to Europe?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept the premise on which he based his question—that privatisation poses some threat to the railway service in Wales. Having put that on one side, however, I assure him that I shall of course fight the United Kingdom's corner in the discussions as hard as I can. It is worth pointing out that of the 14 priority projects endorsed by the Essen European Council, four are projects in which the United Kingdom has an interest. As for the future programme, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to suggest some of the networks to which he referred as they are eligible under the TENs framework.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: In discussions with his counterparts in Europe, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the A120 as a strategic network? Is he aware that the dualling of that road is badly needed, not only for traffic travelling from the east coast ports, but to serve the airport at Stansted.
    Sir George Young: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the strategic importance of the road to which he has referred.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Minister aware that my colleague Robin Teverson, a Member of the European Parliament, persuaded the European Parliament to make
    694
    rail links through to the west country, Exeter and Penzance the highest European priority for investment, bringing in European funding towards those improvements? It is understood, however, that Ministers are opposing that inclusion. Given that Ministers need to approve the inclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman argue for the improvement that the west country needs?
    Sir George Young: My understanding of the situation is somewhat different from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. My understanding is that at the June Transport Council the Government put forward the addition of both the Waterloo-Exeter rail line and the Taunton-Reading line to the draft trans-European networks. Those additions were approved by the European Commission and by the Council of Ministers.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many statisticians are employed by the National Audit Office. [36502]
    Sir Peter Hordern (representing the Public Accounts Commission): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 19 June at columns 15–16. The numbers have increased marginally since then. Thirty of the staff of the National Audit Office have degrees in statistics or mathematics, and there are nine full-time professional statisticians or operational researchers.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the quality of the work of the National Audit Office? Does he believe that the office has sufficient powers to check the accounts of agencies and organisations such as the national lottery, which disburses large sums of public money?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Yes, I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. The Public Accounts Commission and the House are extremely grateful to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office for the work that it does on our behalf. At present, the NAO is responsible for the audit of about half the executive non-departmental bodies. Both the Commission and the Public Accounts Committee are in favour of its being responsible for the audit of all of them and are making representations to that effect.
    On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I understand that the Public Accounts Committee would like to have the right of access to Camelot. The difficulty appears to be that the Department of National Heritage may not have the right to give it permission to do so. However, I understand that Camelot is happy to have conversations with the NAO to see how that might be done.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Llwyd. The hon. Gentleman rose earlier to put a supplementary question. Does he now wish to do so?
    Mr. Llwyd: The point that I wished to make has been made, so I shall not ask the question.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that there are reports in today's paper that the Secretary of State for Social Security may introduce legislation to enable bailiffs to track down over-payment of benefits, will the Chairman seek an urgent meeting with the head of the National Audit Office and the Secretary of State to find out why the Benefits Agency makes mistakes of the order of £600 million per year? Should the bailiffs not be put on the Benefits Agency rather than the claimants?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I think that that would go beyond the work of the NAO. It is certainly true, however, that the NAO has the right of access to the Department of Social Security and no doubt will continue to uncover such faults. As for the activities of bailiffs, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question to the appropriate Ministry.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many inquiries were undertaken by the National Audit Office in the last 12 months. [36503]
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office achieved its planned level of 50 published reports to Parliament in 1994–95, as well as a wide range of additional outputs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not about time that the National Audit Office found a way to look at organisations such as Nirex, which has so miserably failed in its research programmes? As that organisation is, in effect, owned by the general public, in so far as it has' mucked up its research programme and in so far as the project that it is now promoting in the county of Cumbria is a waste of money and is upsetting the wider public, should not the NAO be allowed to move in?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make his own point in his own way. In terms of the National Audit Office, I can at least give him this comfort. If the body concerned is a non-departmental executive body, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission are agreed that the National Audit Office should be responsible for its audit. To that limited extent only, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not, however, agree with his other remarks because I have no idea whether they are right or not. I strongly suspect that they are not.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Parliamentary Papers
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what plans he has to ensure sufficient financial provision to make parliamentary papers more readily available to the public. [36489]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the House of Commons Commission): Negotiations have been proceeding in recent months between the House authorities and Her Majesty's Stationery Office on a new agreement for the printing and publication of House documents. One of the objectives of the negotiations has been to achieve significant price reductions to the public. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the price of the weekly Hansard was reduced from £22 to £12 from 6 June this year at no additional cost to the House.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an effective democracy demands freedom of information about what happens in Parliament and that £12 a week is way beyond the means of most ordinary people? Does he agree that the cost of parliamentary documents, even if they are falling substantially in price, is way beyond what ordinary people can pay and that this simply increases the power and influence of mercenary commercial lobbyists? Will he seek to make information much more readily available to the public, perhaps by making documents free of charge to public libraries?
    Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dissemination of information is of the greatest importance in a democracy. Significant progress was made by the Commission and the scale of the reduction, especially when it was at no cost, was quite large. There is also a discount scheme which further reduces the cost to public libraries of having the information available. I hope that public libraries will continue to stock Hansard. Some are declining to do so on the ground of space rather than of cost. The Select Committee on Information is looking at many aspects of the matter, including the more electronic means of disseminating information, and the Commission will be ready to consider the advice that it receives.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman has almost answered the question that I am about to put on the electronic dissemination of documents. Has he been able to establish what it would cost to allow Internet access to parliamentary electronic documents and does he intend to put forward a time scale for when this could come about?
    Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission has not had any detailed discussions about the possibilities of using the Internet in that way. The Information Committee is, I understand, considering it, as is a working party of officials. I know that the matter is of great interest to many hon. Members. The Commission will certainly want to consider the advice it receives as soon as possible.

  TRANSPORT

    Cycling
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to make it easier for people to cycle to work. [36472]
    Sir George Young: We have taken a number of initiatives, building on the Government's policy statement last year. The most recent is our £2 million cycle challenge competition, which is designed to generate new ideas and partnerships capable of widespread application in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Khabra: Does the Secretary of State agree that this country has the lowest percentage of cyclists compared with our European counterparts and that there is, therefore, much more to be done? However much the Government blow their own trumpet about the difference that £44 million from the millennium fund will make, that is no substitute for real action across the country through Department of Transport spending. I hope that the Secretary of State, as a well-known cycling enthusiast, will back up his words with action. If he is really concerned, will he consider making new money available from his Department's budget to make cycling available to people in all our villages, towns and cities?
    Sir George Young: I agree with the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question: there is scope to increase the percentage of journeys travelled by bicycle in this country, as the percentage in many other European countries is far higher than in the United Kingdom. So far as policy is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are bringing forward a national strategy for cycling in concert with a wide range of other interested parties. On resources, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the very welcome contribution from the millennium fund, and the Department is supporting the national cycle network—particularly where it crosses roads owned or managed by the Department. On local authority investment, we are promoting the package approach by local authorities, and I shall certainly look for transport policies which make fuller provision for cycling so that the potential for cycling is unlocked.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many ways to heaven? Will he legislate to enable people wishing to ride a horse to work to use cycle paths?
    Sir George Young: This exchange has so far been exclusive to Members representing the London borough of Ealing, but I am sure that the interest in cycling goes far wider. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I say that I will take note of his suggestion about the greater use of cycle paths by horses; perhaps I may write to him when I have completed some extensive research into the possibility of combined use.

    Buses, South Yorkshire
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of bus deregulation in south Yorkshire. [36473]
    Mr. Norris: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having left a steaming cup of tea when he realised that Transport Question Time never ends—it is merely interrupted.
    Deregulation has brought great benefits to bus travellers in south Yorkshire. There are now more operators providing more bus miles and better services. Competition has led to lower fares and new buses on some routes. Substantial savings in bus revenue support are still being made.
    Mr. Betts: There must be two south Yorkshires in this country, because the reality is that bus fares have gone up five times since deregulation, there is no timetable to which anyone can refer and whole sections of the community are left without transport after 6 pm and at weekends. The buses on the road look more tired and worn out than Government Ministers and while there are 40 per cent. more buses in service, 40 per cent. fewer people are riding on them since deregulation. Is not the transport policy a shambles? Should not the Government give powers back to the transport authority to enable it to integrate services, not least with the supertram system which is now in competition rather than co-ordination with the bus services?
    Mr. Norris: No. The reality is that subsidies have been halved, operating costs reduced by one third and the mileage run increased by nearly one third, all of which represents a substantial improvement on the previous appallingly overregulated local authority system. I can
    698
    understand why that system might appeal to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, and he is obviously prepared to ignore last week's news that Stagecoach has just ordered 1,000 brand new buses to buttress the considerable success that it, among many other bus companies, is having throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply never want to see success. The bus industry is a huge success and—thank goodness—that will continue under the Government.

    Traffic, London
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the percentage of traffic within Greater London carried by (a) road, (b) rail and (c) river. [36474]
    Sir George Young: In 1993, 80 per cent. of freight lifted in Greater London was carried by road, 16 per cent. by river and 4 per cent. by rail.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not regrettable that one of the least used highways in our congested capital is the River Thames? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make a mark in his new role—perhaps to mark the millennium—by supporting proposals submitted to him by me with the Transport On Water organisation for a series of piers along the river like a string of pearls to facilitate a regular river-borne passenger traffic service before the year 2000?
    Sir George Young: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I will look at the imaginative proposition that he has put to us. I assume that it was piers rather than peers that he had in mind. I agree entirely with what he said at the beginning of his question: we must unlock the potential of the Thames as an important transport network and do better than we have done so far. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that total freight lifted on the Thames increased by 8 per cent. from 1993 to 1994.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Given the huge imbalance between the amount of freight carried on London's roads and that carried by other means, why have the Government lifted the London lorry ban, which at least managed to keep some heavy goods vehicles off residential routes? If there is a commitment to using our river to transport heavy freight, why do the Government insist that millions of tonnes of London's waste which is normally carried on the river must be taken off that route and put back on the roads?
    Sir George Young: I understand that we have not lifted the London lorry ban. The decision by Westminster council to transport most of its waste by road rather than river was disappointing. From 16 September, two thirds of the waste will be transported by road to the incinerator at Lewisham. It is worth pointing out, however, that it will be used there to generate heat and power. The remaining third—some 50,000 tonnes per year—will continue to be transported by barge and on to landfill.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Standing Order No. 143
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about

    699
    the operation of Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House). [36492]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): None, but my hon. Friend may wish to draw any concerns that he may have to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanism of "I spy Strangers" either does not or should not have any useful purpose in this day and age? Does not this archaic procedure, which is inexplicable to the general public, lower the reputation of the House and should it not be abolished without further ado?
    Mr. Newton: Leaving aside any views that I might have on that matter, one view that I strongly hold is that changes to the procedures of the House are best made after proper consideration by the Procedure Committee and consultation through the usual channels. I know when I am getting into dangerous water, so I will refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. Winnick: As the procedure in question is a way for Opposition Back Benchers from time to time to cause difficulties for the Government, does the Leader of the House agree that in the next Parliament it is far more likely to be used by Tory Back Benchers than by Labour ones?
    Mr. Newton: It has already been used, I believe, once in the current Session, by a Tory Back Bencher sitting not. very far from me in a new capacity. However, I do not want to take any party position on the matter, which is for all of us to consider as good Members of the House of Commons.

    Divisions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there were in the House between January and 19 July 1995 and in the comparable period in 1994. [36494]
    Mr. Newton: The number of Divisions in the House between 10 January 1995 and 19 July 1995 was 185. That period covered 116 sitting days. The number of Divisions in the House between 11 January 1994 and 21 July 1994 was 246. That period covered 118 sitting days, including an extended period during which the usual channels were blocked.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House accept that what has really happened is that the House of Commons sits for a smaller number of hours and the result is that there have been fewer Divisions? Does it not also indicate that there is not so much clear blue water between the two Front Benches? Perhaps in future he will remind all the speakers at the Tory party conference that the clear blue water looks a bit purple at the present time.
    Mr. Newton: I readily accept that there is even more clear blue water between the Government Front Bench
    700
    and the Bench below the Gangway on which the hon. Gentleman sits than between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. What I suspect is also revealed is that there is a lot of clear red blue water in the Gangway.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to do a little further analysis of those figures? Will he enumerate the occasions on which the official Opposition Front Bench has voted against measures to try to reduce crime, to reduce Britain's competitiveness and to increase public expenditure? Will he also analyse how often the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has actually voted against the wishes of the Opposition Front Bench?
    Mr. Newton: I think in both cases the answer is probably that the occasions are too numerous to recall.

    Electronic Information Services
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to provide more information from his Department to the parliamentary data and video network and to improve electronic information services for hon. Members and the public. [36496]
    Mr. Newton: The parliamentary data and video network is a private network exclusively for the use of the Houses of Parliament. Public access is expressly not permitted. As part of the recently installed Internet link, however, plans are in hand for the provision of a public World Wide Web server, which would allow access by the general public to limited information. Possibilities for future developments on the data and video network are considered by the relevant staff Committees of both Houses, together with the House of Commons Information Committee and the House of Lords Library and Computer Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will have noted that I specifically asked about Members' services as well as access for the public. I welcome the fact that the public will be able to obtain more information on the Internet. However, as we are spending a large amount of public money putting in a network for the use of Members and their staff, would it not be better to move very quickly ahead with getting as much information as possible about what is happening in the House on to the parliamentary data and video network so that we can cut out an awful lot of the paper currently being created day by day?
    Mr. Newton: I find myself quite in sympathy with that as a general proposition. However, as I have said, those matters would need to be considered by the appropriate Committees of the House.
    Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—relating to Question Time.
    Madam Speaker: We have a statement first. I shall, of course, come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Contraceptives
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to a make a statement about the steps taken last week to inform women of the latest evidence about the safety of some oral contraceptives.
In July this year, information was brought to the attention of the Medicines Control Agency by the World Health Organisation which appeared to show an increased risk of thrombosis associated with certain oral contraceptive pills. That information was discussed at a meeting with the World Health Organisation in Geneva on 10 and 11 July. The Medicines Control Agency immediately concluded that further evidence was necessary to test the preliminary conclusions from the work carried out by WHO.
The Medicines Control Agency was aware of another study on the same issue being carried out by Professor Spitzer, and requested accelerated analysis of his data. It also agreed with Professor Jick that he should conduct a further study using evidence from United Kingdom general practitioners.
Information from the studies conducted by Professor Jick and Professor Spitzer became available in early October. These data led the Medicines Control Agency to convene a special meeting of the Government's independent expert advisory body, the Committee on' Safety of Medicines, for 13 October. That committee advised:
"there is an urgent need to communicate the new evidence and appropriate recommendations to the professions and to the public prior to publication of the evidence."
On 16 October, Ministers accepted the advice of the committee, and asked the Medicines Control Agency to make arrangements to release the advice later in the week.
The following arrangements were therefore put in place by the MCA. First, letters were dispatched on Wednesday 18 October by first-class mail to 190,000 doctors and pharmacists. Secondly, every director of public health was contacted during working hours on Wednesday and told that he or she would receive important health information through the chief medical officer's Epinet electronic communication system overnight and asked to make arrangements to disseminate it to GPs and relevant hospital doctors immediately. That aspect of the communication arrangements reflects the method of urgent communication between the Department and doctors that we have agreed with the British Medical Association. Thirdly, faxes were sent directly to hospital drug information pharmacists.
Against that background, the Medicines Control Agency planned a public announcement on Thursday afternoon in order to allow doctors and pharmacists time to assimilate the information being provided to them. However, the first inquiries from the electronic media were received in the Department at around 9 am on Thursday. The Medicines Control Agency therefore decided to bring forward the public announcement to midday in order to ensure that a properly balanced message was made immediately available.
The key points of that message are the same today as they were last Thursday: first, that the increased risk of thrombosis from taking the seven relevant brands of pill
702
remains roughly half the risk of thrombosis associated with pregnancy; secondly, that women who are taking one of the seven relevant brands should continue to do so until they have seen their GP or family planning doctor.
The Government have a duty to evaluate information on the safety of medicines as soon as it is available, and to ensure that doctors and their patients are in possession of the information necessary to allow them to make informed choices about their own health. That is what we have done. Such information inevitably involves extra work load for professionals, and I am most grateful to those who responded over the past weekend to the extra work load that has unavoidably been placed upon them.
Ms Harriet Harman: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making his statement. He will be aware that I do not seek to question the judgment of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and that I entirely accept that, as a lay person, he must accept its advice. If it advises that three new studies must be acted on, he had no option but to act.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with two points that are his responsibility: first, what happened last week; and secondly, what action he will take in the future. Is not the heart of problem the fact that over 1 million women were told that they must seek advice about a serious risk to their health, but that the doctors to whom they turned for advice were themselves in the dark?
Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that it was wholly unsatisfactory that GPs and doctors in family planning clinics were not informed in advance, and had to base advice to their women patients on what they saw on Thursday's news and read in Friday's papers? Does he agree that GPs are right to be angry that they had to rely for medical advice on page 2 of The Guardian and the BBC's "Nine O'clock News"? Would it not have been possible, in this age of information technology, to ensure that GPs got the information ahead of the press, or, at the very least, at the same time?
The press conference was planned for Thursday, but some doctors had still not received notification by the end of Friday. The notification was so slow that some doctors are calling it "snail mail". The Epinet urgent procedure, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement, is supposed to notify doctors on the next working day after it is activated: that did not happen. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to review its operation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Department of Health also woefully underestimated the number of calls to the helpline, which was swamped with calls and engaged all day on Friday?
The Secretary of State has just told the House that the Government have a duty to ensure that doctors and their patients are in possession of the information necessary to allow them to make informed choices about their own health. That did not happen; last week, the Government failed in that duty. What action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to make sure that this does not happen again?
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, although he has been saying all weekend—and is saying again to the House today—that he is satisfied with what happened, GPs have been saying all weekend, and are saying again today, that they are not? As it is they who are the front line to whom patients who have been alerted

703
must turn, is it not essential that GPs have confidence in the system? Will he, at the very least, undertake a review, and agree procedures that restore the trust of GPs?
Finally, I would like to join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking all the doctors, nurses and other health staff who, although completely taken by surprise, laid on extra telephone lines and clinics throughout the weekend, printed their own leaflets for their patients and generally worked their socks off. Our GPs and their patients deserve better than the complacency and incompetence that the Government have shown.
Mr. Dorrell: All my hon. Friends will join me in welcoming the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to her new responsibilities. I am grateful for the fact that she does not question the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. In that, at least, I entirely agree with her. We are dealing with serious information concerning the health of women. We are dealing not with the stuff of party politics but with matters that people care about, which directly affect people's lives.
The hon. Lady says that not every GP knew at the ideal moment to give advice to his or her patients. I concede that that is true, and recognise that, after any incident of this kind, we must ensure that the arrangements are reviewed to learn any lessons available to be learned.
But the hon. Lady offered me no suggestions from the Dispatch Box about how the arrangements could be further improved. She did not respond to the fact that the. arrangements planned for Thursday demonstrated that we expected to be able at least to have the morning for GPs and other doctors and pharmacists to assimilate the information made available to them. The Secretary of State for Health simply cannot carry on a cosy correspondence with 190,000 health professionals. These are issues in which the public have a legitimate interest, and it is neither possible nor desirable to carry on that correspondence in private.
The hon. Lady offered no method whereby I can ensure that professionals are briefed before their patients come to see them. She talked about electronic communication—we used it; she talked about prompt use of the mail and faxes—we used them. All those procedures were used. We shall ensure that any lessons are learned, but let us not imagine that we can deliver such information to GPs and health professionals in an orderly fashion hours before their patients come to see them. That is not the real world.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing that information as soon as he received it? Had he not done so, he would, quite legitimately, have been accused of a cover-up. Does he accept that, once he knew that there had been yet another leak—goodness knows where it came from—and that the media knew about it, he had no option but to hold a press conference? We all thank him for dealing with the matter as he did.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, I agree with her. I am encouraged when I consider what the hon. Member for Peckham would have said at the Dispatch Box today, had the impression got around that the Government were somehow sitting on that information without making it available promptly to every professional and patient with a legitimate interest in the
704
availability of the information. My first duty was to make it promptly available to every person who had a right to know.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Although I readily acknowledge that the Secretary of State found himself in a difficult position and did what he thought was right, will he give the House the benefit of his comment on Dr. Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Association's General Medical Services Committee, who remarked:
"I see no reason as to why the profession could not have been alerted to the potential risks of these drugs well before alarmist statements were issued to the press"?
In that context, although Dr. Bogle's comment may not be justified, will the Secretary of State undertake to consult the profession to ensure that such issues can be dealt with more professionally in future, including the need for doctors who receive information to maintain confidentiality so far as possible for whatever time is needed?
To reassure women following this episode, will the right hon. Gentleman embark on a campaign of public information about contraception and the risks associated with it, including the problems arising from different types of contraceptive and further information on the much higher risk of taking oral contraceptives and smoking at the same time?
Mr. Dorrell: The responsibility for reaching clinical judgments about which contraceptives satisfy the standards required by law rests on me, subject to the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. I do not propose to seek to interfere in its assessment of clinical risk. It is qualified to make such assessments, and its advice is that on which any sensible Secretary of State will rest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to look again at the procedures and to learn lessons. Of course it is true that we have a continuing dialogue with the medical profession and with pharmacists. We will seek to learn any lessons that are to be learned, but the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get away with quoting Dr. Bogle and then seeking to distance himself from Dr. Bogle's remarks.
The question for the hon. and learned Gentleman is whether he agrees with the view he attributes to Dr. Bogle. Does he think that it is possible for us to carry on a correspondence with Dr. Bogle and the medical fraternity in secret from their patients, or does he recognise that, in the real world, information on such issues is almost bound to be provided simultaneously to health professionals and their patients? That is the real world in which we live, and it would be nice to have a clear answer to that question from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Roger Sims: I assure my right hon. Friend that he has the full support of the Conservative party for the action he took, and for coming to the House as soon as he possibly could to make a statement. Once furnished with the information, he clearly had a duty to bring it into the public domain. Once that information had been leaked, he had no alternative either but to call a press conference.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he took every possible step, not only via the mail, but through electronic or other means, to communicate with all those who should

705
have had the information? If those lines of communication were subject to delay by some means or another, can he assure me that the fault does not lie with him?
Mr. Dorrell: I told the House about the steps we took to draw the relevant information to the attention of health professionals and their patients. I believe that we took all the steps that were open to us to make that information efficiently and promptly available. I have given the House the only rational answer: following an incident of this nature, we will, of course, review what happened and learn any lessons that are available to be learned.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State think it might have been better if he had come here this afternoon and said sorry for the real distress he caused to many millions of women who were absolutely frightened out of their lives by a half-perceived threat? When obvious chaos and consternation has been caused, is it not a Minister's responsibility to come to the House to say that he will ensure that that does not happen in future, and to apologise to the doctors and, above all, to the women concerned?
Mr. Dorrell: As for the hon. Lady's proposition that millions of women were upset and rang up to seek advice, I can give the hon. Lady the relevant figures. We set up an information service to make available the information to all affected women, in fact to anyone who rang us up over the weekend.
Ms Harman: The line was engaged.
Mr. Dorrell: I heard the hon. Lady try to ring up that line when she appeared on "The World Tonight" on Friday night, but it was engaged. The problem for her was that the presenter had rung up before her appearance and had got through, so that tack did not work so well. As for callers seeking information, on Saturday 1,174 calls were received, and on Sunday 1,658 calls were received. This morning, I took the precaution of asking about the tone of the women who rang, and I was told, frankly, that they were a great deal more calm and more sensible than many of the people who have commented on the subject in the past few days.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Family Planning Association, to which many women turn in such circumstances, said that there was very little panic, and that women were asking simple and sensible questions? It said that my right hon. Friend behaved perfectly sensibly in making the information known. As has been said several times, the panic was on the part of members of the Labour party and the press in pursuit of some story to fill their papers on a Friday afternoon.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely. The evidence, not just the impression, is clear; most women, when given information about the health risks associated with oral contraceptives, understood the message clearly. The message was straightforward. It was that the thrombosis risk associated with pregnancy is almost exactly twice the thrombosis risk associated with the seven brands of pill.
It clearly follows, first, that a woman on a course of these pills is better advised to continue to take them, as the Committee on Safety of Medicines said. Secondly, she
706
should continue to take them until she has have received advice from her doctor, general practitioner or family planning doctor. Those were the messages that were put out on Thursday. The evidence is that they were understood by almost every affected woman. The only people who seem to have difficulty understanding them are a few commentators, some of whom are in the Chamber now.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I assure the Secretary of State that the women who contacted me in Halifax were not in the category that he has described? Will he accept that women were confused and frightened when Professor Spitzer came from Canada to reassure women that everything was all right, and then the Committee on Safety of Medicines said that there was a slight risk?
Would it not be in the best interests of all women if they were given a clear answer and complete reassurance about taking the pills in question? Never mind messing about with statistics and saying that it is safer if women do not get pregnant. Surely it would be better if the pills were withdrawn if there is any risk to women's health.
Mr. Dorrell: The thrombosis risk associated with pregnancy is a relevant consideration if we are talking about a contraceptive pill. Professor Spitzer must account for himself. My responsibility is to form my own judgment, based on the evidence available to me from the Government's independent advisory committee. The hon. Lady describes it as confusing, but the evidence is that most women do not find it confusing. There is a clear piece of advice from which I quoted. It was given to me by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. That led the Government to act, and I believe that the Government were right to act.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend was right to castigate the Opposition for putting fears among people about a perceived threat. He is right that the matter is far too serious for political slandering, which the Opposition are doing. I believe that the evidence that has been made available is still in the hands of the Department of Health. Will he make the evidence available to other medical experts and to the manufacturing companies involved, which are still very much in the dark about it? They should be told, and should be able to make their own defence, if need be.
Mr. Dorrell: Yes. Arrangements are being made for publishing all three of the courses of evidence on which the advice was based. I remind the House that our decision of last week was based on the explicit advice of the CSM that there was an urgent need to communicate the new evidence and appropriate recommendations to the professions and the public prior to the publication of the evidence.
The reason for that was to ensure that the advice was available promptly, and that it did not filter out as a result of the publication of a scientific paper in a scientific journal. The key priority is to ensure that the conclusions from that data are acted upon by health professionals. The data themselves will follow at the appropriate time in the appropriate place.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that general practitioners and family planning clinics, for more than

707
25 years, have been scrupulous in inquiring into a patient's family history. If there has been any history of thrombosis, blood clotting or varicose veins, they have advised against, and in many instances refused to prescribe, oral contraceptives. Therefore, the statement that referred to seven such drugs caused especial concern among women who believed that they were not at any risk because of their genetic make-up.
It would seem that the Department of Health was lamentable in not realising that, in placing an embargo on any sort of press release and in not involving the press, it was failing to make it clear that there was perhaps no real reason for panic among the majority of women.
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the last comment that the hon. Lady made: that there is no need to panic. I ask the House to consider what the reaction in the House this afternoon would have been—and, I venture to suggest, that of the hon. Lady—if there had been a report in the Sunday papers to the effect that the Government had received the advice from which I have quoted from the Committee on Safety of Medicines and had decided to ask for am embargo. I wonder how many newspapers would have observed at my request an embargo on information of that nature about the safety of women.
Ms Jackson: Did you ask them?
Mr. Dorrell: No, I did not, and I do not expect that any newspaper editor would have acceded to the request if it had been made.
Mr. David Martin: Is this not a classic case, in which my right hon. Friend is damned if he does something and damned if he does not? On balance, would he not prefer to be damned by the men and women of straw on the Opposition Benches, whose fitness [Laughter.]—unfitness—for government becomes daily more apparent?
Mr. Dorrell: I think that what my hon. Friend meant was their relative fitness for government.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are faced this afternoon with the fact that some Members of the House who have read a few newspaper reports over the weekend are looking for a way of causing trouble by allowing the story to run. What we have heard from none of them is a considered view about what it is right for the Government to do in circumstances in which they have been given advice of this nature. Not one of the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches has offered a conclusion to that question.
Ms Margaret Hodge: If I may assist the Secretary of State in two regards, it seems to me that one thing that went wrong last week in the handling of what has become a panic was that the GPs, who were to be the first port of call for the women who were taking one of the seven brands of pills, were informed of the dangers in the least effective way. What I fail to understand, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider this, is why he did not use electronic mail or faxes to communicate with those GPs. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."[He did not; he wrote to them. That was in his statement.
What further steps are being taken to ensure that all the women who take one of those seven brands of pill will be written to, so that they can have a consultation with their GP to see what appropriate action should be taken for them?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady asked me about the use of fax and electronic mail to communicate to GPs—and,
708
indeed, to other hospital doctors and pharmacists; we are not just talking about GPs. Yes, we did use faxes and electronic communication to GPs, because the approved system for cascading the results of the electronic communication from directors of public health to GPs is to use faxes where GPs have faxes, which is not in every case.
Fax machines were used. Electronic communication was used. First-class mail was used. The hon. Lady has not suggested a form of communication that was not used. However, I repeat to the House that we will, of course, consider the experience of the past few days, and if there are lessons to be learned, we shall learn them.
As regards communications between doctors and their patients about the conclusions to be drawn from this evidence and the way in which women should react to the evidence that was made available last week, that is primarily a matter between the doctor and the patient. The information is now in the public domain, and the advice has been given clearly that women should consult their GP or family planning doctor before embarking on the next cycle of any one of these seven brands of pill. The advice has also been clear that, if for any reason that is not possible, the health interests of the woman are best served by starting the next cycle of the same pill.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of what he just said about communication, that the bogus waffle from Opposition Members should not be allowed to overshadow the real achievements of last week, including the ability to dispatch simultaneously 190,000 letters from the Medicines Control Agency, and should it not be congratulated and praised for that?
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend. A number of different communication modes were used, and the fact that they were all used together and over the same extremely short period is a tribute to the commitment and professionalism of the MCA and the people who work in it.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State asked for practical suggestions of what could be done to make such situations easier to manage if they occurred again in future. Given the present state of medical infomatics, there is no reason in principle why all GPs should not be able to use their computers to dial into an electronic database—basically, an electronic British National Formulary—which would give them the most up-to-date information.
Having spoken to both fundholding and non-fundholding practitioners in my constituency, I know that, since fundholding started, the lion's share of money for computers in GPs' surgeries has gone to fundholders. I have raised cases of individual non-fundholders who have not been able to secure the money. When the Secretary of State considers how improvements could be made, will he take account of the proportion of fundholders and non-fundholders with whom he has been able to communicate electronically, and then give the House a guarantee that computer resources will be put into all practices—those of both fundholders and non-fundholders?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman forgets that GPs are independent contractors. It is not up to me to go into a general practice and put in a computer system; what I

709
do—or, rather, what the national health service does—is reimburse the expenses incurred in the installation of information technology. The initiative properly rests with the independent contractor—the general practitioner. It is for him or her to decide to use information technology for what seems the most appropriate purpose.
The NHS, through the system of fees and allowances, has a clear commitment to develop information technology as an important resource available to GPs. We shall continue to do that, but it is not up to us to impose it on them.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) made a ludicrous suggestion, which would lead only to hundreds of thousands of women traipsing into their GPs' surgeries and clogging up the system? It is much more sensible for my right hon. Friend to stick to his well-established method of communicating such facts to the public.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Amid all the excitement here, we need to keep in sight the key relationship between the health professional—the GP, hospital doctor or family planning doctor—and the patient. That is the channel through which advice should be given. A Secretary of State for Health should be extremely chary of intervening in that relationship, or. seeking to impose himself on it.
Responsibility for using the information that is now in the public domain rests with doctors, pharmacists and patients. The Government have ensured that that information is made available to those with a duty—in the case of professionals—and an interest—in the case of patients—in using it.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: First-class post is not considered good enough for every hon. Member to receive the Whip each week; we must use special delivery. Was special delivery considered a more efficient way of sending documents to doctors?
Mr. Dorrell: No. As I have said, we shall review the arrangements, and if there are better ways of ensuring that information is available promptly, we shall seek to learn any lessons that can be learned. We must not, however, set ourselves the objective of conducting a private correspondence between the Department and doctors whose time scale is different from that governing the provision of information to patients. Our objective should be to ensure that such information is made available to all health professionals who need to use it in a timely and efficient manner, at roughly the same time as it is available to their patients—preferably a few hours earlier.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend think back as far as last Thursday, when his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was at the Dispatch Box defending himself from incorrect accusations that he was interfering with an agency and exceeding his powers? Does my right hon. Friend accept that complete humbug is today coming from the Opposition Benches?
Perhaps we are missing the major point in all this, however. The electronic and printed media did a wonderful job, albeit somewhat prematurely, in ensuring
710
that all women who were taking the seven brands of pill took action to find out whether they should continue. Indeed, the information that was printed and broadcast by the BBC and ITV was clear about the real risks. We politicians often condemn the media, but they did a good job on that occasion.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend. When questions about the electronic media are posed to people at this Dispatch Box, it is not every time that the person answering feels inclined to offer generous praise. All the programmes I saw and heard on Friday gave a clearer and more balanced report of the advice that was coming from the Committee on Safety of Medicines than we have heard from the Opposition Benches this afternoon.
Any woman listening to the television and radio reports on Thursday and Friday last week was clear that the advice was, first, that it was safer to use the seven brands of pill than to get pregnant; secondly, that the course should be completed; and, thirdly, that, during its completion, medical advice should be sought. That was the message that was put out last Thursday. It was carried on all the electronic media, in clear language. It is only since then that some people have been trying to stir up excitement.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Further to the last question, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the press announcement had not been brought forward as it was, a media scare story would have been running wild, with no official, definitive version of the facts available to the general public?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why the timing of the announcement was brought forward on Thursday from afternoon to morning, to ensure that the first major coverage of it by the electronic media on the lunchtime news on Thursday carried a balanced message, not a leaked half-message.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend please be kind enough to remind the House why, in principle, any form of contraception is offered on the NHS, which was never anticipated when the health service was set up with all-party support in the 1940s? As it is not an illness to have a baby, why should the prevention of a baby be regarded as a health measure?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer is partly that that has grown up over the years, and partly that the delivery of the objective of every pregnancy being a wanted pregnancy is an important objective of social policy. We cannot bemoan the problems associated with single-parent families and with parents who are not interested in their children, and remove the wherewithal for family planning and planned pregnancies; so the objective of every child being a wanted child is a desirable one that is served by this policy.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Listening carefully to what the Secretary of State has had to say today, I have two quite straightforward questions. First, will he tell us exactly the proportion of GPs who had faxes and were therefore faxed on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or whenever? Secondly, given that, during those three or four days, some of the women may have been out of the country, either on holiday or on business, will he take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) that all the women who are prescribed these brands should be written to with a careful explanation of exactly what has been going on?
Mr. Dorrell: I do not have the answer to the first of the hon. Lady's questions, but if she puts down a written question and the information is available at acceptable cost, I will be glad to provide it. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) laughs. I put in the qualification because I do not know whether I have the information in the Department on the number of GPs with faxes.
Ms Judith Church: How did the Secretary of State know which GPs to fax, then?
Mr. Dorrell: It was the responsibility of the local directors of public health, not of the Department of Health.
On the second question of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), let us just be clear what she is saying. We are talking about 1.5 million women taking these pills. As she rightly says, it is possible that some of those 1.5 million—a few thousand, perhaps—were outside the country last weekend. Is she really suggesting that we should circulate the information to all 1.5 million of them to cover the possibility that a few thousand were out of the country?
I rest my case on the proposition that the responsibility for giving advice on the health effects of these pills rests with the clinicians who sign the prescriptions. That is their job. We have provided them with the information that allows them to do that effectively.

Points of Order
4.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to questions today, in particular Question 12 in my name, relating to crossrail, and Question 5 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby).
You will recall that I wrote to you at the end of last week intimating that Question 5 related to matters at RAF Northolt that are of acute concern to my constituents, because that RAF base is in my constituency. I said that, if possible, I would seek to catch your eye to ask a supplementary question. Your secretary, with great courtesy, did me the favour of telephoning me this morning to suggest that, were I to catch your eye for a supplementary to Question 5, I would not have the opportunity to ask a supplementary to my primary Question 12 on the crossrail project.
As you know, I was lucky enough to catch your eye, and I asked a supplementary about RAF Northolt. However, I was surprised when you judged that I had withdrawn my primary Question 12 about crossrail. That most certainly was not the case.
Is it not a fact that an hon. Member can withdraw a question only if he writes to that effect to either you, Madam Speaker, or the Table Office? What I suggested to your secretary—and there may have been a misunderstanding—was that I was quite happy to forgo the opportunity to ask a supplementary to my Question 12. Would it not be the case that, in those circumstances, the primary question would be put?
Whether an hon. Member exercises the option, which is entirely his, to ask a supplementary is for him alone. No precedent can be set in this matter, because it would be wrong for hon. Members not to be able to put a supplementary question relating to matters in their constituency if doing so deprived them of asking any primary question that they might happen to have on the Order Paper on that day.
Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. He did have Question 12 to the Department of Transport on the Order Paper today. He let it be known to me that he wanted to ask a supplementary to an earlier question which he said had a bearing on his constituency, which indeed it has. I let it be known to the hon. Gentleman that I did not look favourably upon hon. Members asking two questions within a 40-minute question period when there was great pressure at Question Time.
Therefore, I let it be known that it was a question of choice—we hear a great deal about choice in this House—and that either the hon. Gentleman asked a supplementary to the earlier question, in which case his Question 12 would be unstarred and would receive a written answer, or I would not call him on the earlier question and he would put his Question 12. The choice was his.
If there has been some misunderstanding, that is to be regretted, but I believe it right to uphold the system that I have always adopted, which is that hon. Members put only one question during Question Time. That is especially the case with the pressure during a 40-minute question period from Members who want to ask two questions.
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just over 18 months ago, when this House was debating the Sunday Trading Act 1994, the Sunday Hours Reform Council—which includes all the major retailers—gave an unequivocal commitment to the House that it would maintain existing premium payments, including double payments on Sundays. That commitment clearly influenced and persuaded many hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill.
Asda has just announced that it is unilaterally reneging on that commitment for newly employed workers after 1 November. As that flagrant breach of promise means that many hon. Members were deceived, I ask for an opportunity for this House to re-debate the matter and to secure whatever regulation is required, if the retailers cannot be trusted to deliver their promises.
Madam Speaker: From what the hon. Gentleman says, I am not certain whether anyone has acted illegally, but if so, it is a matter for the courts. The hon. Gentleman may be anxious to raise the matter again, but it is a question of the Government allowing the necessary time. On Thursdays, business questions can be put to the Leader of the House; the hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity then to ask for time to debate the matter.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are talking about Sundays, and last Sunday, the lamp posts outside the House of Parliament were festooned with advertisements pointing out that apartments were available for sale in county hall. Surely it cannot be in order for a firm to have used the immediate environs of the House for that purpose. I borrowed a penknife from a courteous police officer and cut down the advertisements, of which I have sent you an example.
While on the subject of how the flats are being advertised—I am not questioning whether county hall should have been made into flats—I notice that, in the advertisements being circulated, in this country and abroad, constant use is made of the Houses of Parliament's icons. For example, something approaching a portcullis is used on the advertisements, and there is a superb view of the Houses of Parliament, purporting to have been taken from one of the flats.
I know county hall like the back of my hand, and I know that one would have to be suspended from the roof to have got such a picture. It is rather like the old east London song which states that one could see the Hackney marshes
"if it wasn't for the houses in between."
Surely such use is wholly improper. I hope that you will tell the firm involved that it should not use the Houses of Parliament to sell its flats.
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the future use of county hall. I have seen the notices to which he referred, as he sent me one, but as they were not attached to parliamentary buildings, it is not a matter for me. I have also seen the logo to which he refers, which is, in fact, quite distinct from the Crown portcullis, which is the emblem of the House. I think that it is in rather bad taste; nevertheless, I do not consider that its use can be interpreted as reflecting adversely on the House.
Even so, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to point out to the firm involved that, to avoid the possibility of any
714
misunderstanding, it would be preferable that it discontinued the use of that particular logo. I have high hopes that it will do so.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Madam Speaker: I do not usually allow hon. Members to make a further point of order, but I shall of course allow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to do so.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to ask a supplementary. As guardian of Back-Bench interests, Madam Speaker, I am sure that you are concerned about this.
When an hon. Member tables a question, he has no idea what other questions may be found, perhaps with one's own, among the first 12 or so on the Order Paper. If it so happens that a question tabled by another hon. Member, but relating to one's own constituency, is among the first 12 or so, one is on occasion honour bound to ask a supplementary question. In those circumstances, is it not entirely wrong that one's own primary question should automatically lapse?
Is it not the case that, for a question to be withdrawn, the hon. Member involved must write to inform the House authorities—the Table Office and/or you, Madam Speaker—that he is withdrawing it? I did neither of those things, happy in the knowledge that, were I to forgo my supplementary, the Minister's reply would be on the record. As it related to hybridity, it would be of interest to the House as a whole, and other hon. Members might or might not have been able to catch your eye thereafter.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I had always understood from your predecessors that it was considered most inappropriate for an hon. Member ever to lobby the Speaker about being called to ask a supplementary question to another hon. Member's question at Question Time. Frankly, I think that that should be your ruling.
Madam Speaker: Let me respond to the first part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). At Question Time, many references are made to other hon. Members' constituencies. There is no way that the Speaker can pick up those hon. Members in order to allow them to ask a supplementary question. It is reasonable for hon. Members to discipline themselves: if they are keen to ask a supplementary question to another hon. Member's question, they cannot ask a primary question further down the Order Paper. The wise thing to do is to unstar the question, because, by that method, hon. Members get a written answer from the Minister. That is the reasonable way to do it.
As for lobbying me, I am lobbied by all sorts of people and hon. Members in the House. I listen to them all, but I make up my own mind. Without commitment, of course, I listen to hon. Members. I want to be helpful if I can. I have been a Back Bencher myself. Anyone can lobby me, but the bottom line is that I make up my own mind what to do about it. I think that we should now move on.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I just wanted to help.
Madam Speaker: Help from Mr. Skinner—thank you.
Mr. Skinner: Next time anybody rings you up like that, Madam Speaker, you want to look at the number on

715
the Order Paper. The question of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was No. 12. Anybody who knows anything about this place knows that, if the question is No. 12 and Question Time finishes at 3.10, the chances of being reached are on the margin. So if Members are smart, they think that, by ringing up the Speaker, they can get a commitment on No. 5 and play both horses in the race. That is roughly what happened: he wanted his cake, and he wanted to eat it as well.
Madam Speaker: I am well aware of what takes place, believe me.

Orders of the Day

  Public Accounts
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the 40th and 42nd to 51st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1993–94, of the 1st to 40th Reports of Session 1994–95, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 2732, 2739, 2754, 2757, 2786, 2825, 2832, 2906, 2921, 2988, 2990, 3013), with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1994–95:
  First, Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report (1993);
  Second, The Sports Council: Initiatives to Improve Financial Management and Control and Value for Money;
  Fifth, Council Tax Valuations in England and Wales;
  Twenty-eighth, Severance Payments to Senior Staff in the Publicly Funded Education Sector;
  Thirty-third, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Representation: Irregularities at the Sana' a Embassy;
  Thirty-fourth, Lord Chancellor's Department: Qualification of Audit Opinion and Alleged Frauds on the Green Form Scheme.
  The Public Acounts Committee is presenting 51 reports to the House; 11 from the Session 1993–94 and 40 from the Session 1994–95. The number of reports indicates the amount of work that the Committee does—it is a large number and the Committee has been extremely busy, as is normal.
  My first pleasant duty is to welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his post. We were very grateful to his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Transport, for the way in which he welcomed the Committee's eighth report, on the proper conduct of public business. His welcome was of enormous help. The report paved the way, as we know, to some of the Nolan recommendations, which we watched with some interest. I look forward to the new Financial Secretary's contribution and I shall welcome him, in due course, to an early meeting of the Committee.
  My next pleasant duty is to thank the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn; the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, John Dowdall; and the Clerk to the Committee, Ken Brown, for helping to bring about the 51 reports which are being brought to the attention of the House.
  Producing such reports is a burdensome task for members of the Committee, but it is essential. It is unquestionable that Gladstone got it right 130-odd years ago when he decided that the Public Accounts Committee should be set up. Surprisingly enough for those days, as well as for these, he decided that the Chairman should be an Opposition Member. I doubt whether that would have happened in any subsequent year. The choice of Chairman from the Opposition is central to the work of the Committee because it ensures that the examination is conducted with a more open mind than might otherwise be the case.
  The evidence that the Committee gathers from accounting officers is of enormous importance. It monitors Government expenditure and looks for economy, efficiency and effectiveness. When permanent secretaries—accounting officers usually are permanent secretaries—come before the Committee, its members

  717
  have in mind the assessment of their abilities and standing. I suppose that that in some way makes the PAC almost unique—I think that it is unique—among Committees of the House. Accounting officers come before the Committee again and again and we are able to assess their value to their work.
  I know how much we depend on those servants of the country to prepare for their meetings with the Committee. I am aware that it is a great burden on them, but the result must be to ensure that their responsibilities are scrutinised properly.
  Unanimity is the most important aspect of the roughly 500 reports we have produced since I had the honour of becoming the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1983. We are utterly dependent on that unanimity which, strangely enough, is not difficult to obtain. We get it because, at the end of it all, we are there to protect the taxpayer. Anyone who came to our meetings would find it difficult to know, on most occasions, who was an Opposition Member and who was a member of the party in government—we are united in the defence of the taxpayer.
  Even when we have discussed matters such as privatisation, which most divides the House, we have come up with unanimous reports, not fudged reports in which we try to show that we are agreed when we are not. We say that it is not for us to look at policy, but to examine how policy has been implemented. Although we may disagree with policies—very strongly, in many cases—we want to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money once a policy is accepted. We have come out with important points even on issues on which we are obviously divided.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the key point is that, over a number of years, perhaps going back to 1981, many lessons, which have been taken up in subsequent privatisations, have been learnt from Public Accounts Committee reports?
  Mr. Sheldon: That is undoubtedly correct. Some of the most important lessons were set out by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who I am pleased to see in his place. He pointed out the need to sell the issues in tranches. That was a valuable point. Why did the Government sometimes insist on trying to sell everything off at one go? They do not do that with Government debt. Sensibly, at the beginning of the year, the Government study the situation and try a billion pounds here or half a billion there—they test the market. Government brokers become expert in testing the market; that is what they are for.
  When it came to selling off public assets in the privatisation procedure, however, the Government did not proceed in the same way. We should have had the expertise that Government brokers have in gilts so that we could have got the best price at any time. The Government could have saved themselves much of the strong argument that they experienced on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. We have welcomed the changes—there have not been enough in my view—that have come about as a result of that useful part of our reports.
  718
  We have also considered many other aspects of privatisation, such as brokerage fees and advertising. Even in the areas that divide us most as individuals—this is a most important matter—we are able to come to unanimous conclusions.
  The National Audit Act 1983 gave us legislative rights to propose matters to the National Audit Office for investigation. Our success—and the success of the National Audit Office—is not only what we uncover, important though that is, but what our presence as a Committee prevents. We act as a deterrent to what would incur our displeasure.
  We have the recruitment by Sir John Bourn and his staff of those who have a much better reputation than was the case years ago. In the old Exchequer and Audit Department, they were civil servants who were usually recruited as executive officers at the age of 18 and given training which amounted to not a great deal more than book-keeping.
  Now, the civil servants involved are proper auditors. They have Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy qualifications and chartered accountancy qualifications. The enormous difference is that now, when they go into Departments and have discussions with senior officers up to the level of permanent secretary, they are seen as equals. Previously, they used to be seen as executive officers. Firms in the City now want their services and angle for them. Some have been made tempting offers but, fortunately, we have been able to retain their services. When they go into Departments, they are much more hightly respected as a result.
  There have been considerable changes during the past 20 years since the days of the old Exchequer and Audit Department. Almost without exception, institutions—including the universities, the judiciary and the civil service—have been under attack and pressure, and had criticism levelled at them, but the National Audit Office's reputation has steadily improved, year by year. The reports of the old Exchequer and Audit Department were perfunctory compared with those produced now, as were the initial reports of the NAO itself.
  In its 12 years of existence, the NAO has developed. Whereas in the beginning it produced tentative reports, it now displays a mastery of the subject. It has impressed us all. I am visited regularly—far too often for my poor battered diary—by people from different countries who want to see what we are doing and how they can learn from us.
  Parliament should be proud that the Comptroller and Auditor General is now an Officer of the House—that was not the case previously—as that does more to maintain standards of probity, as well as those of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, than anything else that we could have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) realised that Gladstone's ideas had been whittled down, and he showed how they could be reformed.
  I should like more changes in the work of the NAO. One of the areas it is to examine—it is starting to do so already—is the regulatory framework of the public utilities. There is a range of methods of regulating the utilities; the NAO will want to ask whether they are the most suitable. It will ask what lessons can be learnt from the successes of each regulatory operation.

  719
  Another success was our important report on the proper conduct of public business. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport who, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave the report a great welcome. The PAC report showed that there were great weaknesses in certain methods of dealing with fraud. Normally, fraud does not take up a great deal of the Committee's time—although it takes up more time now—but when it appears on the scene, it must take priority over everything else in our discussions.
  I was pleased to see that, as a result of our eighth report and the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee, the Treasury accepted that notes of dissent should be made available to the PAC. If a permanent secretary disagrees that an expenditure is correct, he can write a note of dissent. Previously, if the permanent secretary came before the PAC, the note could be held up as evidence that it was the Minister, not the permanent secretary, who had instructed the accounting officer with regard to the expenditure, but the Committee would know about the note only if there had been an investigation or if there was a question of fraud. In the case of the Pergau dam, the Committee was fortunate in that an examination, which allowed us to learn about the role of Sir Tim Lankester, was being undertaken. I note that he is to be moved. I hope that that has nothing to do with his notes of dissent. I wish that I could be completely happy about that one.
  The safeguard that we now have is of great importance. Even if a note of dissent does not relate to a question of fraud, the Public Accounts Committee will now be able to receive details of it. I am a little worried that notes of dissent will become less common because people who might write them will be uneasy that details will come before the Public Accounts Committee and that that might prevent their having the success that they might otherwise have had if the matter had been dealt with between the accounting officer and the relevant Minister. I should like to offer some guarantee that that will not be the case. We will not seek to capitalise on notes of dissent. Such matters should be open, perhaps to the Comptroller and Auditor General, to ensure that notes of dissent are not handled in that manner.
  I know that a number of notes of dissent have been written, and that even more are written at night but, in the cold light of morning, are not delivered to the Minister. There are some good reasons for that. The relationship between the Minister and the permanent secretary would obviously be weakened or even damaged by such a note of dissent.
  Fraud and probity in the civil service represent a continuing aspect of our work. Value for money and saving money are important, but most important are standards in public service. We pride ourselves on those standards. The need to prevent any fraud arises from the fear that there can be collusion between a number of people. The great help that we have is the enormous reputation of standards of conduct in public life. The greatest protection is the honest person who is feared by anyone who tries to commit such acts.
  The task of the Public Accounts Committee is essentially simple with regard to value for money. What is required—I made this clear when we first started with the National Audit Office—is to compare the objectives with the achievement; the input with the output. It is simple. There is a certain amount of monitoring, so if
  720
  people get it wrong at least they are able to stop it. We want monitoring phased so that, at any one time, we can see where we are. Sometimes it is not easy to quantify things, but almost always it is possible to quantify in some way. It is a wonderful discipline. That is what we try to achieve.
  Many of this year's reports have lessons of one kind or another for us. The Committee's first report in the Session 1994–95 was "Ministry of Defence: the Major Projects Report (1993)". In paragraph 19 we say:
  "We are concerned that some 80 per cent. of major projects were unlikely to achieve their in-Service date. We note that the Department have in the past tended to take an optimistic view of the in-Service date and that they are now taking initiatives to improve realism, such as 'three-point timings"'—
  the three points being the best case, the worst case and the most likely case. The report continues:
  "The Committee intend to monitor the outcome of this initiative closely."
  The report deals with 25 projects totalling more than £25 billion. Although that is a small proportion of the total number of projects, the amounts of money are very large. Except on Trident, the overspend on each project was just less than £1 billion. What worries us most is the slippage, which is more than 30 months.
  Mid-life updates occur when, half way through a programme, it is decided that improvements can be made in the weapons system. That creates a danger of slippage and cost overruns. We note that there is a five-year slippage, which is unacceptable. In paragraph 41 we say:
  "Most of the upgrade programmes examined by the National Audit Office have been ambitious in scope."
  They have a
  "wide variety of proposed enhancements."
  We used to call that "gold plating", meaning improvements that exceeded what was essential.
  The danger of being at the front end of technology is that one does not know how much that technology will cost or how long it will take to produce. If one continues on that basis year by year, one will seek further improvements and, in theory, never obtain the weapons system at all.
  A line must be drawn somewhere, and we say that we must be sensible about drawing it. We say that that process has
  "led to the scope of programmes being reduced during their implementation to make them affordable."
  The Department starts off with great plans to improve the weapons system. Some way through, it realises that it has overdone the cost and starts scaling down the project. There is not only slippage, but a poorer result.
  We say in paragraph 44:
  "there had been very little dissemination of experience between the project officers involved in such programmes."
  We understand and hope that the Department will improve matters in that respect.
  The Eurofighter is one of the most serious of our expenditures. The National Audit Office detailed a cost overrun at 29 April 1994 of £573 million. The latest overrun is £1.25 billion for the development programme alone—44 per cent. over estimate. Cost overruns of the whole project will probably be about £2.2 billion. That is phenomenally expensive, and it leads us to embark on a fresh examination of the way in which collaborative projects are undertaken.

  721
  Collaborative programmes involving several countries—in that case, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom—unquestionably cost more than single-country programmes. At one time, it used to be reckoned that collaborative programmes cost 10 per cent. more. That figure is being revised. Language difficulties and pressure to obtain work in certain places add to the costs. We need to get that one right, because there will be much more international collaboration.
  Ideally, one would have wished the smaller and well-defined programmes—the things that can be done more easily—to have come first, enabling us to learn lessons that would help with larger-scale expenditures. The trouble with smaller, well-defined programmes is that they can be done by individual countries, so there is less need for them, but we need to undertake some of them in collaboration. I believe that savings can be made there as well, because one obtains the advantages of scale and experience. That might be an approach to the large developments somewhere near the frontiers of technology in due course.
  I shall now discuss our second report, "The Sports Council: Initiatives to Improve Financial Management and Control and Value for Money". We point out that the Sports Council receives £48.8 million grant in aid, which is 95 per cent. of its income, from the Department of National Heritage. We were worried about standards of propriety. In paragraph 24, we said:
  "We are particularly concerned that the former Director General and Accounting Officer and the former Finance Director had conflicts of interest".
  They arose from the setting up of a private subsidiary company, which happens in several Government Departments. For good reasons, they set up subsidiary companies to deal with, perhaps, the marketing of one or two aspects of their work—and very good they are, too—but there must be a clear distinction between the work of the Government Department or Government-funded body concerned and that of the private organisations.
  We say that there were conflicts of interest
  "despite numerous reports by this Committee drawing attention to such dangers."
  Clear dangers exist. At all stages there is a need to establish an arm's-length relationship.
  We discovered that there was not an arm's-length relationship, and we noted specifically in paragraph 42 that, on the retirement of the director general of the council,
  "the Trust Company appointed"
  him
  "as their part-time Chief Executive without the post being advertised."
  He went from director general of the council to chief executive of the trust company without the post being advertised. It is obviously very dangerous to act in that way.
  We say in paragraph 52:
  "We are very concerned that the Council awarded a contract to Blenheim SportsCo Limited"—
  another subsidiary company—
  "for twenty years to manage the Council's annual exhibition as this does not allow the Council regularly to test the market."
  722
  There was no testing of the market, and preference was given to certain people.
  Although commercial spin-offs are desirable, they must be handled with great care. We have the enormous advantage of the standards in public life, which we must do our utmost to protect. The Committee fully accepts that.
  The fifth report is entitled, "Council Tax Valuations in England and Wales". The council tax came into effect on 1 April 1993. Properties were placed in eight broad bands from band A, for properties worth less than £40,000, to band H, for those worth more than £320,000. The bands were slightly different for Wales. The responsibility for valuing properties rested with the Valuation Office Agency of the Inland Revenue.
  It is important to get the banding right. The major problem that we have had with the council tax—as with the poll tax—is the weakening of the discipline of taxpayers. We must do our utmost to return to the position in which people did not, in the main, try to avoid their responsibilities as taxpayers. People's respect for the system is enormously important to us. It is important, for that reason also, to get the bandings right. Accuracy is important.
  The banding was undertaken. We found that 2 million properties might be in the wrong bands—that slightly fewer than 1 million might be too high, and that slightly more than 1 million might be too low. When we examined the situation, we found that many appeals would not be resolved until more than two years after the introduction of the council tax.
  The "Treasury Minute on the Fifth and Sixth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1994–95" says:
  "the aim is to settle appeals within 12 months",
  which is better, but there is a serious problem with the wide variation between the level at which the bands were set in different parts of the country.
  Some bandings by the private sector were undertaken at 19p a valuation. That might appear to be a good deal, but if there is an appeal it is likely that it will cost 70 times as much to correct, so it could prove to be a rather bad deal. We note that the Valuation Office Agency has not yet analysed the number of appeals it has received to determine whether they relate to the private sector or to Valuation Office Agency valuations. We recommend that that be done to provide further assurance that common standards are adopted.
  We note that the Valuation Office Agency was not able to record the time spent by its staff on the banding exercise, but it tells us that it intends to introduce a better time recording system to allow the work to be fully costed. We welcome that.
  I shall now discuss two aspects of our report, "Severance Payments to Senior Staff in the Publicly Funded Education Sector". The first is the university of Huddersfield and the vice-chancellor's severance package.
  There are 151 higher education institutions in England, 21 in Scotland and 16 in Wales. They are independent bodies that manage their own financial affairs. We are concerned at the way in which the whole undertaking was conducted. The root cause of the problems with the original severance agreement at Huddersfield was the decision made at the end of 1993 to exclude staff and student representatives from the membership of the

  723
  university council there. That led to considerable upset among staff. In consequence, there was a breakdown of trust between the governing council, the vice-chancellor, staff and students.
  As a result, although the university is independent, the Higher Education Funding Council objected when a severance package amounting to more than £411,000 was given to the vice-chancellor—let us be open about this—to shut him up and get rid of him in the easiest way. The university used our public money to satisfy its own purposes. We cannot accept that.
  Worse than that, there was a gagging clause in the agreement which insisted that the vice-chancellor should not say anything about the reasons for his dismissal or the amount of money that was involved. Luckily, we heard about it indirectly, partly from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and partly from elsewhere. As a result, I stated clearly that gagging clauses cannot be justified. We cannot spend public money to enable people's positions to be changed on the basis that nobody will ever know about it.
  The package included additional compensation and we understand that leading counsel for the HEFC advised that the settlement arrangements were irrational and excessive and could be ultra vires. As a result, we have agreed that, in nearly all cases, gagging clauses will not be allowed and that we must ensure that severance packages are justifiable and acceptable.
  The second case involved the university of Portsmouth. The vice-chancellor there resigned after a no-confidence vote by the staff following an investigation into his expense claims. A settlement of £52,000 was paid to avoid possible legal action. We regarded that action as being similar to the first case and argued that public money cannot be used to keep people quiet. It might be done in private industry—that is its business—but taxpayers' money as voted by the House cannot be used to settle such matters. Purely as a consequence of that case, we came across the surprising fact that the former vice-chancellor had been paid an annual salary of over £17,000 as chairman of an NHS trust. The rate had been in accordance with a scale relating to the size of the trust and based on a notional time commitment of three and a quarter days a week. He got £17,000 for three and a quarter days a week and the rest of the time he was a vice-chancellor, for which he was paid £90,000. We stated:
  "We are also surprised at the University's decision to pay the former Vice-Chancellor a salary of £90,000 a year while allowing him to continue with another important public sector job which had a notional time commitment of 3 1/4 days a week."
  It is important that the National Audit Office should have the right to examine all such organisations.
  We examine just over half of the non-departmental public bodies. I would want us to examine all of them. The National Audit Office should be able to examine them all. That does not mean that private firms of auditors would not be involved. There would be many cases, perhaps almost as many as there are now, where the National Audit Office could contract with the private sector to carry out the audit, but it would remain in charge. That way there would be more consistency between audits. In addition, the National Audit Office has the standing to which I have referred and its involvement would give the House reassurance.
  724
  There is the problem that many private sector auditors make a fair amount of their money through consultancies. It is difficult for them if their efforts are not well received by companies and they fear losing the audit contract and the profitable consultancies that go with it. By all means let auditors keep those consultancies if they wish, but at least let the audits be undertaken under the auspices of the National Audit Office.
  The next report with which I wish to deal is the 33rd report, which deals with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and irregularities at the Sana'a embassy. "Irregularities" is a wonderful word for a disgraceful, scandalous fraud—one of the worst for some time.
  A Mr. Ryan, who was a member of the diplomatic service, had access to a sterling account from which he could draw money and convert it into Yemeni rials. The money was changed at the black market rate. The report states:
  "During 1993 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office became concerned about possible contractual and current irregularities at their post in Sana'a, in the Yemen. The existence of these irregularities was confirmed in November that year … Mr. Gerald Ryan … former Second Secretary, Management Officer/Consul in Sana'a was arrested.
  Mr. Ryan admitted to the police that he and the
  accountant … had been involved in these irregularitio
  He said that his share of the gains was about ikA),000 at the current exchange rate and he was released on police bail while under suspicion of false accounting and theft. The police discontinued the investigation after Mr. Ryan died on 24 December 1994. Mr. Ryan accepted that he made $50,000—about £30,000.
  The Yemeni rials were
  "drawn from the post's sterling account at the official exchange rate. Enough of that was then converted at the higher market, or 'parallel' rate to replenish the … account and the rest pocketed by Mr. Ryan"
  or his associate.
  The report continues:
  "The 'parallel' exchange rate was up to four times higher than the official rate.
  The Department estimated the potential for profiteering in this way to have been between £607,000 and £677,000."
  We will never know the exact amount.
  That was not all that Mr. Ryan did. He was involved in other irregularities, such as issuing visas without following established procedures and interviewing clients and completing application forms, apparently without the receipt of a fee. That is serious because 405 visa applications were made and it can reasonably be assumed that he did not deal with them without any financial recompense. The report states:
  "we find it astonishing that the management at Sana'a also allowed their staff to use public money to gain up to £670,000 from manipulating the local currency markets. And we are concerned that the Department did not inform us of other possible irregularities at Sana'a, possibly involving the use of Overseas Development Administration funds until after the evidence session."
  That is a serious matter. The report says that we were concerned that
  "there were no job specifications for locally-engaged staff, that Mr. Ryan was able to recruit local staff known to him and that those appointed may not have been the best candidates."
  Mr. Ryan might have got his accomplices in that way.
  The report then deals with the role of the ambassador. Mr. Ryan arrived in Sana'a in January 1989 and returned to the United Kingdom just over four years later, but there

  725
  were two ambassadors during that period. We asked why action had not been taken, because failures had been reported by internal auditors, but the warning signals had not been appreciated immediately. The report says:
  "The Department told us that, although there had been much visiting, action subsequently taken had not been sufficiently decisive. Management of the post by the Ambassador, Mr. Marshall, had been defective."
  We therefore asked why he had not been removed, or some other pressure brought to bear. We were told that the Department knew about the management weakness in the initial period and about serious shortcomings in Mr. Marshall's performance, but that they were not judged to have reached an unacceptable level. One and a half years later, in January 1994, a visiting officer from the overseas accounts section found that many of the deficiencies reported by internal audit still existed. The report singled out several weaknesses.
  The report says that the management by senior officers at the embassy was "appalling"—that was undoubtedly the right word to use—that that was the root cause of the problem, and that we looked forward to receiving information from the Department on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings as soon as it was available. I hope that we shall hear from the Financial Secretary about that when he responds.
  The next report is the 34th report on the green form scheme. The criminal legal aid concerned amounts to £432. million. The accounts have been qualified for the fourth year in succession, which is an extremely serious matter. That part of the operation of the Lord Chancellor's Department had its accounts qualified year after year without proper action being taken. Payments to solicitors on green form schemes amounted to £141 million. We say:
  "the Department has failed to resolve satisfactorily the problem of inadequately completed statements of means."
  Justices' clerks are supposed to have statements of means, which are used to decide whether legal aid should be granted. In our report, the justices' clerks say that, in too many cases, they are still failing to comply with regulations that have the force of law. We go on to say:
  "We find this inexplicable given the Department's assurance about the continued co-operation of the Justices' Clerks Society."
  We strongly believe that that failure to carry out the law and comply with the regulations should not be allowed to continue.
  We know that, in many ways, this is a blank cheque and that the Government do not carry out a proper investigation of the green forms. Moreover, an increasing number of solicitors advertise their services—that is perfectly sensible and no one is against it—knowing full well that the green form system is available. It therefore occurs to some of us that the two can be brought together: the green forms as a blank cheque and advertising for those blank cheques. This is a serious matter.
  The idea behind the green form system is first class because people with limited means are helped to understand the law and to deal with certain matters, but the scheme cannot continue in that way. Either the law must be changed or we must insist that the justices' clerks obey the law. If justices' clerks in a court of law cannot obey the law, one wonders who can. The matter is totally absurd. There is a legal requirement and they must follow it. If for some reason which I fail to comprehend they cannot, we must change the law.
  726
  We note that a system of franchising is being set up, which will be available to firms whose control systems have been rigorously audited. We understand that, by March 1996, the board hopes to have between 1,200 and 1,500 firms, accounting for one third of the expenditure, in the franchising system. I hope that the Financial Secretary can tell us how that is proceeding.
  On the wider question of legal aid and the high fees paid under it, I note that the Lord Chancellor is urging, in a Green Paper, a fixed rate for lawyers. That matter deserves further examination and, in the light of public expenditure constraint, that area cannot be left untouched. The Public Accounts Committee may wish to examine it in due course.
  Time allows me to deal with just one or two other reports. I wish to comment on more reports this year than in most previous years, which makes it difficult to bring out the issues. Even if I picked out one of our less contentious reports, we could have a whole day's debate on it, but the very number of reports frightens people off a little and, as a result, the reports do not get the examination that they deserve.
  I should say a word on a few of the other reports and, if I hurry through them, it is only because I think that the issues that concern us should appear somewhere on the record.
  The third report deals with the Merseyside development corporation, which was set up in 1981 to secure the regeneration of the designated area. In August 1992, tall ships went to Merseyside, there was a grand regatta of Columbus, a splendid programme was held to commemorate the quincentenary of Christopher Columbus's trip to America and there was a gala concert and fair for the new world. In the event, neither the regatta nor the concert recovered its costs. Some £1 million was spent and the net cost was some several hundred thousand pounds.
  The aspect that concerned us most was that there were major overruns on hospitality and publicity. Certain firms gained advantages from that expenditure and public money was used to purchase and distribute, free of charge, concert tickets worth more than £100,000. We say in the report:
  "We note the Corporation's explanation of the terms of the additional £150,000 payment to a separate company formed to stage. the concert … four days before the concert. However, we find it astonishing that the Corporation were … required to bail it out at such short notice"
  by purchasing sponsorship tickets and rights. That was an obvious and notable failure.
  Another failure to which I should draw attention was raised in the 19th report on business sponsorship of the arts in 1994–95. The programme director in charge of the scheme authorised payments totalling £175,000 to fictitious organisations. That is a serious matter. Mr. Nick Wood, an association programme director in charge of the scheme, authorised that programme having first constructed elaborate fraudulent documentation. He was prosecuted, found guilty of fraud and imprisoned. Some of the money was recovered, but some was not.
  Our sixth report deals with the Wolds prison. A contract was given to Group 4 on the basis of best value for money, although it was not the lowest price. We have no objection to that, because contracts are sometimes not given on the lowest price, but one of the eight members

  727
  of the panel that recommended Group 4 left the Prison Service nine months after the contract was placed—to join Group 4.
  Although the final decision was that of Ministers, a full explanation about why Group 4 was awarded the contract was not given. The Committee advised that, to avoid any question of impropriety,
  "detailed reasons should always be recorded whenever a contract is not awarded to a tenderer who submits the lowest bid and is judged capable of meeting the key performance criteria. This would also provide a basis for informing the other short-listed firms why their bids had been unsuccessful, a practice we would recommend the Prison Service to consider."
  That applies to many cases. The award of a contract should be subject to greater openness and, when it is not given to the lowest bidder, the reasons for that decision should be given.
  The Welsh Development Agency has caused the Committee a great deal of concern and has been the subject of lengthy discussion. Our 29th report on the WDA for 1994–95 is not as serious as some of our earlier ones on it—it has an exceptionally serious history. We note that Mr. Michael Scholar, from the Treasury, is now permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, and we look forward to his putting the Department into somewhat better order than it used to be in.
  We were concerned about the acquisition and sale of a site in Aberdare to Tesco plc. We were concerned that, in a number of key areas, the WDA did not know what was going on when it should have done. The PAC's particular concern involved the sale of the Gadlys road site to Tesco plc. The agency received a late and unsolicited offer from Tesco and it did not notify that fact to other interested parties. We questioned whether it was wise that two directors of Tesco should have been directors of the agency with responsibility for deciding on matters such as the disposal of the Gadlys road site. We were deeply concerned that that action was not fair to the other offerers and that the agency appeared to have given preferential treatment to Tesco. The PAC noted:
  "We consider that the assessment by the Welsh Office that the disposal of the … site was badly handled severely under-estimates"
  the serious matter of probity in the public sector. We considered that the disposal had been handled in a totally unacceptable manner. I hope that we will not hear any more about the WDA and its failure to carry out its responsibility for the proper conduct of public money.
  I must also mention Dr. O'Connell, a consultant who was paid for 11 years because no one could bring himself to dismiss her or to bring her case to a satisfactory conclusion. That consultant was paid year after year until the matter came before the PAC and we saw what had gone on. I hope that we will not discover any similar examples.
  Hospital catering was also the subject of one of our reports. We discovered that people inherit the catering requests of the previous occupant of their bed. In the week after the previous patient left, the new person in the hospital bed has to have the same meals that his predecessor ordered. That is nonsense. Some hospitals manage to change the catering orders on computer on the same day. I could detail a few more nonsenses, but time is pressing and colleagues would like to speak. Such matters deserve further attention.
  This year, the PAC has had to deal with more questions of fraud than in most other years, and I hope that they will take up less of our time in the future.
  5.13 pm
  Sir Michael Shersby: I join our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in paying tribute to Sir John Bourn and his colleagues at the National Audit Office for the splendid work that they have done during the year and to the Clerk of our Committee, Mr. Ken Brown. I also pay tribute to our Chairman for the great assiduity he displays in his work and the impressive tour d' horizon of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee that he has given hon. Members.
  This annual debate provides us with the opportunity to consider the PAC's outstanding reports, of which, as we have heard, there are 51. As I listened to the right hon. Member's speech, I could not help thinking that perhaps few members of the public realise what is involved in producing 51 reports. It might be appropriate to mention that the Committee meets twice a week when the House is sitting and sits on average for about two and a half hours. Any member of that Committee who is doing his homework will spend at least two hours preparing for each of its sittings. It is probably the busiest Committee of Parliament and, as the senior Select Committee, it carries considerable clout.
  As usual, today the Chamber is populated by colleagues who are members of the PAC, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom we are pleased to see in his place. Also listening to our deliberations is that distinguished parliamentarian, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission and a former member of our Committee.
  I should like to drallo the attention of the House to the 34th report of the PAC, which deals with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the qualification of audit opinion and alleged fraud on the green form scheme. The Chairman of our Committee has already referred to it, but such is its importance that I should like to mention one or two other aspects.
  Expenditure on criminal legal aid in 1993–94 comprised £194 million paid for legal proceedings in magistrates courts and £238 million for proceedings in the higher criminal courts—a total of £432 million. By any measure, that is a huge expenditure of British taxpayers' money and it is absolutely essential that it should be properly accounted for. Most awards of legal aid, which provide the authority for payments to solicitors and counsel, are granted in the magistrates court. It was in the light of the audit findings of those courts that the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified his opinion for the fourth year in succession. He did so because of the limited evidence available to ensure full compliance with the regulations relating to the granting of legal aid.
  Grants to the legal aid fund total the staggering amount of £975 million. As hon. Members know, the fund is administered by the Legal Aid Board under the general guidance of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. One of the schemes offered by the Legal Aid Board—the well-known green form scheme—relates to legal advice and assistance. Payments to solicitors under that scheme amounted to £146.6 million in 1993–94. The Legal Aid Board and the police are investigating allegations of fraud in claims for legal advice and assistance.
  Given the serious nature and possible implications of the alleged frauds, the Comptroller and Auditor General reported the facts to Parliament. It was on the basis of his

  729
  report that the PAC took evidence from the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department about the alleged frauds. We say in our report:
  "we are dismayed that, after four years in which the Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified his opinion of the accounts and eight separate initiatives, the Department has failed to resolve satisfactorily the problem of inadequately completed statements of means."
  Despite all the efforts of the Department, in too many cases justices' clerks are still failing to comply with the regulations which, as the Chairman of the PAC has pointed out, have the force of law. To me, and I dare say to any hon. Member, that is an extraordinary situation. Justices' clerks, surely the most thoroughly respectable and upright citizens, are failing to comply with the force of law. The Committee considers that failure inexplicable
  "given the Department's assurance about the continued co-operation of the Justices' Clerks' Society."
  It is still not possible to find out whether legal aid should be granted and, as a result,
  "irregular expenditure is likely to result".
  The PAC is seriously concerned that the Lord Chancellor's Department has no means of enforcing the regulations. It is a matter of urgency and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House whether the legal aid regulations are enforceable.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two tests before someone can obtain legal aid? First, one has to ask whether it is in the interests of justice that the individual should do so. Secondly, there is a means test. As the Lord Chancellor's Department and the justices' clerks seem unwilling to deal effectively with means tests, is it not about time that the responsibility was taken from them and given, perhaps, to the Benefits Agency or another body that is more familiar with implementing means tests?
  Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend is right. I have considerable sympathy with his suggestion. There is much concern about the matter in my constituency and in my hon. Friend's. I can say that about my hon. Friend's constituency without a shadow of doubt because I am one of his constituents. There is general concern, however, that stems to some extent from the publicity that has been given to some high-profile cases such as those of Jawad Hashim and the Maxwell brothers. It is unacceptable to most ordinary citizens that grants of legal aid were made in some cases, given the large sums of taxpayers' money that were involved. Contributions were assessed on insufficient information about the applicants' claims to financial resources. We must remember the huge sums of public money that are at stake and the anger that has been expressed in certain newspapers—especially in the London Evening Standard but in many others—about a scheme that seems to most people to be extraordinary in its implementation.
  I put several questions to the distinguished civil servant who is the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Sir Thomas Legg is also the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. In one instance, he replied that he could not say why grants of legal aid were made improperly because
  "these assessments, or the lack of them, were made by the courts and here we are talking about 500 magistrates' courts that are dealing with over half a million applications a year."
  730
  I asked Sir Thomas if the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the operation of the magistrates courts. He replied in a fascinating way. He said that it was "yes and no." He told me that my question required a two-part answer. I wondered whether I was listening to one of those wonderful Gilbert and Sullivan operas all over again. I was told that the magistrates courts are undertaking an essentially judicial function in granting or refusing legal aid and that they are not in any sense part of central Government.
  It seems that members of the staff are not civil servants. They are not part of Sir Thomas's Department. They are not subject to the Department's direct control. Central Government, in the form of the Lord Chancellor's Department, grant-aids 80 per cent. of the expenditure of the courts, but it does not control the courts' administration in any detail. That is done by more than 100 local magistrates courts committees. According to Sir Thomas, they are fiercely independent of central Government. There we have it. Fiercely independent people are responsible for an extremely important job that is not, unfortunately, being done very well.
  We are told that the Department and the Legal Aid Board have together produced a comprehensive guide that sets out what they consider to be the proper application of the interests of justice criteria, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred. It seems, however, that the various sets of guidance have not yet proved to be effective, bearing in mind the huge sums that are involved. I was assured that the Justices' Clerks Society is well aware of that view. I was told that
  "if the present system, by which legal aid is granted by the magistrates' courts, cannot be seen to deliver propriety and regularity then the Lord Chancellor will have to consider taking that function away from the courts and vesting it in other hands."
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will tell the House about the progress that the Lord Chancellor is making. Has he considered recently taking the responsibility away from the courts? If not, why not? After all, the record to date cannot be said to be very good. Public concern must be responded to urgently.
  The PAC was told by the Legal Aid Board that over the past three years, there have been 12 prosecutions following alleged fraud on the green form scheme. It appears that 90 firms of solicitors have been reported to the police and about 90 to the bureau dealing with complaints about solicitors for abuse of legal aid. That is an unhappy situation. After all, we are dealing with an important profession.
  The Legal Aid Board told the PAC that it has recovered £250,000 and was withholding £550,000 pending the outcome of inquiries. It appears that it has secured agreements with individual firms to refund a further £85,000, which has not yet been paid. Of all the cases investigated over the past two years, the board estimated that the loss through fraud would be between £1.9 million and £3 million. That is a significant sum. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will expand on the Treasury minute, which we have studied, which takes the matter a little further forward.
  The 30th report, entitled "Entry into the United Kingdom", is one of the most important to come before the House. It deals with issues that affect almost every citizen. The decisions of the immigration service of the Home Office, which turn on whether many millions of passengers arriving each year at airports and ferry ports have valid

  731
  documents and are entitled to enter the country under our immigration laws, are of the greatest interest and concern. The report is of especial interest to my constituents because my constituency is adjacent to London airport. The House will know that Heathrow is in the borough of Hillingdon. That fact brings some special and expensive problems to the local authority, especially in caring for unaccompanied child refugees at a cost of much more than £1 million a year to council tax and income tax payers.
  When the PAC examined the permanent secretary at the Home Office on this and other matters he told me, in answer to my questions, about the steps that are being taken to ensure the detection of child refugees when they leave the airport or vessel. Their entry into the United Kingdom appears to be a growing problem. He made the important point that the problem rests not so much with unaccompanied children but with such children who claim asylum. There were 357 in 1994. The rate at which they came in increased during the year. It was 69 in the first quarter of 1994, rising steadily to 109 in the final quarter. Heathrow is the principal port of entry.
  After a good deal of correspondence with the Home Office, I was glad to be told that surveillance officers will be operating at the gates of airports and that closed circuit television will be used to detect young people when they arrive by aircraft. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what financial assistance can be provided to the borough of Hillingdon. As I have said, substantial sums are at stake.
  I strongly believe that it is important for the House to. approach the question of unaccompanied child refugees, bearing in mind the considerable problems that it poses for them and for those who have to care for them. I am glad to know that steps have been taken to investigate the possibility of the young persons concerned being repatriated to their country of origin—only, of course, where it is safe to do so—so that they can be cared for there instead of in the United Kingdom.
  On the more general question of preventing illegal entry, I am glad that the immigration service has introduced a computerised suspect index at major ports. It provides the immigration service with almost immediate access to some 340,000 entries. It will even allow for the different way in which foreign names are spelt, so it looks as though we shall have some fairly sophisticated equipment to help with the difficult problem that is faced by the immigration service at Heathrow and elsewhere.
  One or two of the comments in the Treasury minutes deal with these particular problems. The first is that on unaccompanied minors. In minute No. 84 of the Treasury minutes, which were published in Command 3013, we are told:
  "The Immigration and Nationality Department continues to address the issue of children abandoned in the United Kingdom. A specialist section was established in May 1995 in order to consider asylum applications from unaccompanied minors. The Immigration and Nationality Department has agreed to co-operate with the British Red Cross Society in its project to establish a register of unaccompanied children to facilitate the restoration of family contacts and eventual reunion with their families. Additional measures and options to combat abuse of the immigration control, such as improved surveillance, procedures for documents/visa issue and extending the Airline Liaison officer programme are being considered and, where appropriate, pursued with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."
  I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the investigation that is being carried out includes co-operation with the London borough of Hillingdon, which has unique experience of dealing with that difficult problem.
  732
  I just want to say how much I, and other members of the Committee, support the work that the immigration service is doing to build up its intelligence work so that it is able to detect the changes in the method used by people to gain illegal entry. The increasing use of forged documents is becoming a significant problem, which must be tackled with all the sophisticated technology that is available. The measures that have been taken have led to a significant increase in the number of immigration offenders detected, but there is no room for complacency. It is necessary for the service to use all the resources at its disposal if this illegal flow is to be stemmed.
  The Committee also recommended that the immigration service keeps the size of the detention estate under review so that sufficient places are available to meet any increase in asylum cases and the number of passengers detained for further inquiries. Therefore, I was pleased to see from the Treasury minute that action is being taken to enhance the quality and size of the immigration service's detention estate, and to make more efficient use of available facilities. The Treasury minute tells us that there will be an increase in the total number of detention places available by mid-1997. It also tells us that it is intended to replace the 95-bed detention centre at Harmondsworth with larger, purpose-built accommodation. That move is very good, and long overdue. The immigration service also shares the Committee's concern about the use of police cells, which, as everyone who has studied this matter knows, are unsuitable for the detention of immigrants while their cases await examination.
  Visa regimes are another important way of preventing illegal immigration. Pre-entry controls are supposed to transfer the problems back to the originating country. The PAC heard evidence to the effect that, out of 1 million applications for visas in 1994, 60,000 were refused. The controls that operate on entry into the country form the second line of defence, but the visa regime will, in my opinion, be effective only if our high commissions and embassies overseas are adequately staffed and entry clearance officers have sufficient time to interview each applicant properly. There also need to be adequate intelligence staff to investigate the information that is obtained, quite frequently from local sources.
  Two weeks ago, I was in Sri Lanka for the annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and took the opportunity to visit our high commission in Colombo and to discuss those matters in some detail with the visa officer. I was concerned to find that there is no intelligence officer in post in Colombo. Sri Lanka is a comparatively small source of illegal immigrants to the United Kingdom—there are about 1,000 a year, which is pretty small compared with a number of other countries—but if forged documents are to be detected, it is vital that adequate entry clearance and intelligence officers are in post overseas. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will look into that matter. I pay a warm tribute to the work of those entry clearance and intelligence officers overseas. A number of them are young officers, who have a difficult job to do in deciding that very emotive and personal question of whether a person should be granted a visa.
  It is interesting to note that, between 1989 and 1993, the number of immigration offenders identified has steadily increased. Between those dates, the figure rose from 7,000 to 10,300. The Home Office told the Committee that, in 1994, the figure had gone up to 12,727.

  733
  The proportion of people who were subject to further examination and subsequently refused leave to enter has also risen. The figures are quite dramatic. In 1992, 16,937 out of 60,623 passengers stopped for further examination were later refused leave to enter. In 1993, the respective figures were 19,000 and 63,000. In 1994, they were 23,000 and 66,000. Therefore, I hope that the Government will continue to make available to the immigration service the resources that are clearly necessary to deal with this rising trend.
  The 27th report, dealing with general practitioner fundholding in England, is an important report because it is the first time that Parliament has, through the PAC, examined closely and at first hand the work being done by GP fundholders, and most important of all, the impact of the scheme on patients. It might be of some interest if I mention briefly to the House the evidence that we received from the national health service executive about the effect on patients. The report said:
  "Many GP fundholders taking part in the National Audit Office survey said that they had achieved a wide range of benefits for their patients."
  The report went on to say that GPs
  "would not have said services had improved as a result of fundholding unless they believed this to be the case; GPs have been amongst the biggest critics of services provided by hospitals and other health services. They told us they had found that GPs had painted a realistic picture of the level of services provided and had demanded improvements in service, and that GPs had been quite successful in doing that … there was evidence that the impetus of GP fundholders had often led to faster turnaround times on pathology results and faster response times on discharge letter … The Executive stated that GP fundholders were often leading the way in relation to open access to physiotherapy, X-ray and reduced waiting times."
  All the evidence that we received from the executive was very impressive, and led us to conclude that the fundholder service was working extremely well.
  We also asked the executive
  "whether all non-fundholding GP patients received all the benefits that patients of GP fundholders received. They considered that the fundholding scheme had not operated to the detriment of people who were registered with non-fundholding practices."
  That, too, is important evidence.
  The Committee was concerned about value for money; so we asked the executive
  "whether the extra costs of administration would yield better value for money. They told us that GP fundholders were out performing non-fundholders in terms of coping with the ever increasing pressure on the drugs budget and that over the three years 1991–92 to 1993–94 they estimated that GP fundholders had saved in the order of £70 million on the costs of drugs."
  That report should certainly be taken into account in consideration of the organisation of the national health service.
  We also took account of the executive's view that
  "fundholders have been achieving a faster delivery of patient care and improving the range and level of care; but that other initiatives, such as the Patient's Charter, will also have contributed to downward pressure on, for example, waiting times for hospital appointments."
  There we have it: the GP fundholding scheme has not operated to the detriment of patients of non-fundholding GPs. It is working well, in conjunction with the patients
  734
  charter, to achieve shorter turnaround times, shorter waiting lists and a better standard of medicine in our country.
  As this is a highly political matter, I make no apology for stating that the PAC's work is not party political. One of our great attributes is that we try to examine impartially all the matters that come before us. I hope that all politicians who must decide whether the GP fundholding scheme is a good idea will pay attention to the interesting and useful report from which I have quoted.
  I regard it as a great privilege to serve on the PAC. It is the one parliamentary Committee whose members have access to precise, factual information, and to an agreed report from the National Audit Office on which we can question witnesses. That is a powerful means of ensuring effectiveness, economy and efficiency in Government, and value for money for the taxpayer. When things go wrong, we can identify the mistakes and ensure that the Departments concerned learn the lessons. We always look forward to the Treasury minutes, which usually accept our recommendations. It would not stretch the figures too much, I think, to say that the PAC's work saves the taxpayer an average of well over £200 million a year.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on his tour de force in opening our annual debate. As he said, we are considering 51 reports, which shows the depth and extent of the Public Accounts Committee's work in ensuring probity in the spending of money by the authorities to which Parliament has voted that money.
  The report on general practitioner fundholding, referred to by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), reveals a number of problems to which the hon. Gentleman did not draw attention. It shows, for instance, that fundholders currently have nearly £100 million in their balances, which they are not required to spend for four years. That is a great deal of money, which would be much better spent on patient care. The report also points out that 20 per cent. of fundholders have underspent their 1993–94 allocation by more than £100,000. That money, too, would have been much better spent on patients.
  Mr. Langlands pointed out in his evidence to the Committee that the establishment of GP fundholding had cost the NHS £150 million—money that would have been better spent on health care than on bureaucracy. I am glad that Mr. Langlands placed that information on the record, especially for the purposes of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
  In opening the debate, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee mentioned the 33rd report, which concerns irregularities at the Sana'a embassy in the Yemen. Those irregularities concern me, as they have clearly cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. The financial transactions carried out by Mr. Ryan probably imposed a direct cost of £300,000 on the taxpayer, and Mr. Ryan's profits were probably of the order of £600,000, although the amount is difficult to quantify. The cost of the investigation of the fraud was some £41,000, and 17 visits were paid to the Yemen at a cost of some £100,000.
  Another part of the report draws attention to the fact that while Mr. Ryan was in the Yemen he negotiated the lease for the ambassador's dwelling in Sana'a. The

  735
  embassy is the most expensive in the diplomatic service. For a five-year period, it will cost the British taxpayer £1.35 million. It is clear that Mr. Ryan received what is known as a backhander for the contract. I find it astonishing that such an amount of taxpayers' money should be spent on an embassy, but I am even more astonished that a five-year lease cannot be renegotiated to save money for the taxpayer. That in itself is a disgrace.
  We were not helped by the evidence of Sir John Coles, the permanent under-secretary of state and head of the diplomatic service. Just before the hearing, he submitted a note to the Committee saying that issues involved in some of the disciplinary hearings were sub judice, which made it impossible for the Committee to follow certain lines of questioning. I considered the attempt to constrain the PAC's role undesirable and criticism was made by the Committee itself.
  The evidence given by Sir Jones Coles began straightforwardly: one ambassador had been removed from his post with no enhancement. By the time we finished taking evidence, however, two ambassadors had disappeared with enhancements at a cost to the public purse of £221,000 for the first and £131,000 for the second. They were given those enhancements so that they would take early retirement because they were incompetent at the job that they had been charged to do. That cost to the taxpayer could clearly have been avoided.
  When we asked Sir John Coles why it had taken rigorous cross-examination to extract information from him, he came up with a number of less than convincing answers. He apologised for slightly misleading the Committee, saying that it was simply due to his "own poor memory": he did not set out to mislead the Committee, but his memory in regard to pension enhancement was defective and the facts had slipped his memory. He said that he was sorry if his evidence sounded evasive and stated:
  "I appear to have misled the Committee".
  That was an unconvincing body of evidence, and the report is damning. I believe that the two ambassadors involved in that pitiful example of poor expenditure of public money should have been sacked rather than being told to take voluntary retirement or compulsory redundancy.
  Out of that inquiry, 153 recommendations for improvements to the internal audit of the diplomatic service have been brought forward. I hope that every one of them is being carried out and that when the Financial Secretary sums up the debate he will be able to give us that assurance.
  The 23rd report of the Public Accounts Committee was published on 17 May 1995 and entitled, "Value for money at grant-maintained schools in England: a review of performance". It contains the second set of evidence that the PAC has taken on the issue of grant-maintained schools. Clearly, a number of issues remain to be resolved in the GM school funding sector. The PAC has drawn attention to the double funding of GM schools, where the Government overestimate the central service charges of local education authorities and underestimate the amount of money that they delegate in their local management of schools budget. That means that when the Government recover the annual maintenance grant paid to GM schools from LEAs they take more money than necessary from the LEAs and give it to the GM schools.
  736
  That inflated payment to GM schools is made at the direct expense of other schools in the LEA. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. In Tower Hamlets and Lambeth, two regions of high deprivation in London, state schools were badly affected by that double funding. The PAC has called straightforwardly for
  "the central services element of annual maintenance grant … to reflect accurately local education authorities' delegation of central services to schools."
  We are pleased to note that the Government have taken that on board. Clearly, earlier action would have allowed authorities in Lambeth, Tower Hamlets and elsewhere to have the right level of funding available for schools remaining with the local education authority.
  If we have a state system of education, it is essential that all schools in that system are treated fairly, and that all pupils receive a fair amount of grant per head in each school. The example that the PAC has identified has been reluctantly taken on board by the Government and we hope that within the next two years the practice will have been removed. We are assured that new schools coming into the GM sector will not benefit from such double funding.
  One of the other problems with grant-maintained schools is the lack of declarations of pecuniary interest by governing bodies. In 22 of the 70 schools visited by the National Audit Office, there was either no register of pecuniary interest or the register had not been kept up to date. The Public Accounts Committee is charged with ensuring probity in the expenditure of public finances. One of the best ways of doing that, where school governing bodies are involved, is to ensure that each individual member declares a pecuniary interest, so that when a governing body awards a contract there is no conflict of interest and no question mark over the probity of those schools' actions.
  I have been told that a number of hon. Members are lining up to participate in the debate and to ensure that my remarks are succinct and to the point. To go back to pecuniary interest—
  Mr. Don Foster: More.
  Mr. Hall: I am sure that that echo of encouragement will reflect on the points about pecuniary interest. Wherever contracts are awarded, whether it be in state schools under the local education authority or in grant-maintained schools, it is essential that a register of pecuniary interest should be maintained so that people who could be involved in the contract do not take part in decisions to award contracts to companies for which they work.
  Clearly, we are concerned about some aspects of that matter in the incorporated and further education sectors. That approach is recommended by the PAC and its adoption by the Government would be a positive step. I look forward to hearing an assurance from the Financial Secretary that under the regulations of non-departmental public bodies it is a requirement to establish a register of pecuniary interest to ensure probity in the administration of public affairs.
  Another example to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention in relation to grant-maintained schools was their ability—or, currently, their lack of ability or legal power—to borrow money. We are assured that, where money has been borrowed or leased, its

  737
  legality may be questionable and that the Government are examining the matter. In evidence, the PAC has been told that when GM schools are given permission to borrow money, so long as the governing body has acted properly, within the scope of its functions and procedures, with honesty and without ulterior motive, and it has reasonably carried out its business in a commonsense way, it will be protected from the risk to its assets. That is straightforward. If the governing bodies have done it properly, there will be nothing for them to worry about.
  I am still concerned about what will be used as security for the loans that GM school governing bodies may take out. Will it be the school buildings? Will it be some other form of security? If a loan is not paid back but defaulted on, what will happen next? We want some assurances from the Government that they have followed that aspect through. If GM schools start to take out large loans on school buildings, the value of the school playing fields or some other asset, and then default on their loans, we shall start to experience problems with the delivery of education. We want to be sure that that will not be the case. I do not want to be a member of the PAC in the future, to be asked to sit in judgment and to find out that loans have been defaulted on and that the Treasury has underwritten them and paid them off.
  Another aspect of grant-maintained school funding that is of great concern involves evidence given to the PAC by the chief executive of the Funding Agency for Schools. Under cross-examination, he conceded that if they opted out of the national pay scheme head teachers and deputy head teachers in GM schools would be entitled to have what is commonly known as a company car and private medical health insurance as part of their remuneration.
  Having spent a lifetime in education before coming to this place, I think—and I cannot be faulted for believing—that if money is available for company cars and private health care for heads and deputy heads, the money involved would be better spent directly on education provision. It is not the state's role to provide private health care for head teachers in the state sector. That is a totally inappropriate use of public funds. I look forward to the Financial Secretary saying some words about that when he responds to the debate.
  Clearly, we want confirmation that double funding has now ended, that the annual maintenance grant is calculated accurately in relation to the LEA's expenditure on central services and takes into account how much money it delegates to its schools, and that schools which remain within LEAs are not disadvantaged by preferential finance going to schools in the GM sector. It is a straightforward view that schools in the state sector should all be equally and adequately funded.
  The 40th report of the PAC has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. It deals with the suspension of Dr. Bridget O'Connell and it is a woeful tale of inadequacy. The sums involved are quite substantial, given that one individual is involved. The final settlement will have cost the taxpayer just short of £600,000—a total of £593,409, which includes £439,259 in pay for doing nothing for more than 12 years, £105,000 in settlement of the legal case out of court, and £11,000 in legal expenses and enhanced superannuation benefits assuming that Dr. O'Connell will live to the age of 75.
  738
  Dr. O'Connell was suspended in 1982 by North East Thames regional health authority because she did not get on with the staff in the paediatric unit where she worked and in the hospital generally. It took 12 years to resolve that personal difference in the hospital. It is astonishing that things could get so far and that the chief executive of the national health service management executive, Mr. Langlands, had to settle out of court. Clearly, the NHS management executive did not have a leg to stand on.
  In my cross-examination of Mr. Langlands, I suggested that he "sued for peace". He did not agree with my analysis of what had happened, but said that he thought that the settlement was the best value that could be gained for the taxpayer after the case had gone on for so long. The case should have been resolved a great deal earlier.
  The other extraordinary aspect of the case is that the evidence from Sir Duncan Nichol, the former chief executive, and from Mr. Langlands himself shows that the NHS does not like gagging clauses in severance contracts. However, under examination Mr. Langlands confirmed that there was a gagging clause in Dr. O'Connell's contract. He said that he did not like it, but that he was not too concerned about it because he knew that the case would hit the headlines. He was certainly right about that. In all fairness, it was not the NHS executive that asked for the gagging clause, but Dr. O'Connell's solicitor. It would have been better if the NHS executive had resisted that request and published the details in full. It would have saved the Public Accounts Committee a great deal of time and effort.
  I hope that the case will prove to be an isolated one. We have received an assurance from Mr. Langlands that he has trawled the NHS to ensure that there are no other examples of people receiving full pay for 12 years and enjoying the full benefits of pay increases year after year without turning a tap for the health service. There has been poor management and weak procedures. We want an assurance that the weak procedures have been sufficiently strengthened to ensure that nothing like this case could ever happen again at the expense of the taxpayer.
  I wish to refer next to a report that I have mentioned previously in the House, entitled "Merseyside Development Corporation: Grand Regatta Columbus and Fanfare for a New World Concert"—the third in this series of PAC reports. I am extremely disturbed by the report and astonished at the amount of taxpayers' money that has been lost through the incompetence of the MDC. The concert and the regatta were the brainchild of the chairman, Sir Desmond Pitcher, who is coincidentally also chairman of North West Water.
  As the PAC Chairman has already said, the two events cost the taxpayer and private business £1.1 million. They actually exceeded the permission on expenditure granted by the Department of the Environment. A letter from the Merseyside task force dated 3 March 1992 stated:
  "Further to my letter of 23 January, my Headquarters have now agreed to MDC's proposals as set out in your letter of 20 December. However, they do not consider MDC to be underwriting expenditure but rather estimating a potential financial contribution."
  There is then the key sentence:
  "My colleagues have been reassured by your having estimated the maximum possible contribution in a worst case scenario, by your recognition that MDC expenditure will have to be met from within the EFL, and by the scope that exists for MDC to prune costs if necessary."

  739
  The cost referred to was about £200,000. The letter then said that if the MDC expected to spend any further money on the regatta, approval from the Department of the Environment should be sought first.
  That was a clear instruction about the maximum that the DOE expected the MDC to spend or lose. The letter clearly said that if further contributions were required, approval should first be sought. The warning was clear even before approval was sought because the MDC had spent money on the regatta and the concert before it wrote to the DOE seeking permission.
  On 12 July 1992, in an estimate of what the two events would cost, the MDC in a handwritten memorandum estimated the loss for the concert to be £187,840. The MDC knew that the event would lose money, yet it proceeded with the concert. It did not cancel it, nor were strict measures taken to mitigate the losses. The MDC carried on with the concert, but in a rather peculiar way. Four days before the concert took place it signed a deal with a private shell company, with a share value of £2, to take over the whole of the financial responsibility for the concert and the regatta.
  With the stroke of a pen, the MDC transferred the losses from the public purse to the private purse. That was deplorable. It knew that the events would lose money, so it moved the debt from the public to the private sector. Private business on Merseyside was left £375,819 out of pocket. That is a phenomenal amount of money which the MDC wrote off with the stroke of a pen for an event that. was the brainchild of its chairman.
  Questions must be asked about the clear lack of supervision by the Department of the Environment. Questions must also be asked about the role of the Merseyside development corporation, which has played fast and loose with public money. From the response by the Treasury to date, it appears that nothing is to be done.
  In addition to those losses, the MDC gave away £100,000 worth of tickets. Hospitality was overspent and the whole thing was a complete shambles. However, three and a half years later, not one member of the board has been removed from office and the chairman is still in place. The time has come for action. First, the private sector should have its losses reimbursed. Secondly, disciplinary action should be taken within the MDC so that future activities will be kept within the terms of its charter to oversee the economic regeneration of Merseyside, rather than fall in blindly with the wishes and whims of its chairman to produce glossy brochures about fanfares which prove to be a heavy cost on the taxpayer.
  I end with the report entitled, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business", the eighth report of the 1993–94 Session, which draws attention dramatically to the failures identified by the PAC. It states:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years. This was the period following the publication of the Northcote and Trevelyan Report".
  The PAC has considered 51 reports this year and it is obvious that there are still serious problems with the proper conduct of public business. However, it is not the final tale of the PAC's work over the past 12 months because a number of reports are yet to come before the House. There are to be reports on fraud in the
  740
  Metropolitan police, the royal palaces, the Mount Vernon sale, the sale of county hall and the incompetencies of the Child Support Agency. Those are five major reports that we can look forward to debating in 12 months' time. I hope that there will then be a far better picture of the proper conduct of public business within the United Kingdom.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to complete the last of the three key initiation rites required to become a fully fledged Member of Parliament. It is almost three months since I passed the first and most important test, when the people of Littleborough and Saddleworth elected me to represent them.
  I want to begin my speech with a few words about my predecessor, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens. In a parliamentary career spanning 16 years, he became a familiar figure on the Conservative Benches. For 10 of those years, I was his political opponent locally, and, in truth, found that our views rarely coincided—but I always knew that he was not a man to underestimate.
  From the moment of his election, Mr. Dickens made his home in the constituency. His total commitment to the area that he represented was never in doubt, and he will long be remembered locally as a Member of Parliament who served his constituents well and as an individual who had the ability to mix comfortably with people from all walks of life and all backgrounds.
  Mr. Dickens was literally a larger than life figure. His opinions made him a popular speaker at Conservative party conferences, although they were perhaps not always welcomed by some hon. Members. I understand that, from time to time, the views that he expressed here were heard with amusement, but Geoffrey Dickens possessed a most important virtue—that of being able to tell a joke against himself. It was a characteristic of the man's humanity which was much to be admired.
  We should not forget that Mr. Dickens also became known as a leading parliamentary campaigner against the sexual abuse of children, helping to bring the issue to public attention more than a decade ago. His campaign gained support across party lines, and his efforts deserve full and proper public acknowledgement. For seven months, he fought cancer with cheerfulness and courage, and his death robbed his family of a much-loved husband and father, and the House of one of its real characters.
  A hard-fought by-election projects a constituency into the spotlight. I am sure that most of my constituents will have been pleased about the way in which their local area was portrayed, as visiting journalists found that their impressions of Oldham and Rochdale, which were perhaps perceived as grim, dark and oppressive places, were proved false, and that the towns and villages of Littleborough and Wardle, Milnrow and New Hey, Shaw and Crompton and Lees and Saddleworth, all proved to have a distinctive character.
  Far from being dark, grim and oppressive, those places proved cheerful. Journalists discovered that, from a doorstep in almost every part of the constituency, one can see over the rooftops to the south Pennine hills.
  My constituency is indeed an attractive area. That fact was brought to the fore by television coverage of the by-election. I admit to nursing a desire to see its further

  741
  enhancement by the removal of the electricity pylons which mutilate some of its finer views and the replacement of the barbed wire fences with restored stone walls, but with up to 10 million people living within an hour's travelling distance of the constituency, and especially the south Pennines, the countryside is fragile and under constant threat from those who seek to use it for commercial advantage.
  Activities that were once acceptable when the area was part of the cradle of the industrial revolution are no longer acceptable when the population grows and the open countryside recedes. Those activities must now be curbed.
  I cite, for example, the problem of the planned recommencement of quarrying in New Hey, which I strongly believe is no longer an appropriate activity now that traffic density is so much greater and lorries are so much larger. I seek greater protection for the countryside from such developments, and in particular, for our sites of special scientific interest, a topic partly dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee in its 11 th report, on which I shall comment later.
  Our hills and moorland are beautiful and precious and deserve special protection, but they are bereft of people, and it was the people of Littleborough and Saddleworth who elected me. During the by-election campaign, I spoke out strongly for change, for investment in public services—especially education—for those in politics to be more honest about the problems we face as a society, and for all hon. Members to look more to the long-term needs of our country—and, indeed, of our planet.
  The House provides opportunities—many opportunities, perhaps—for individual Members to raise matters of concern on behalf of their constituents. I certainly intend to use those opportunities to the full, but I have long nursed the gravest doubts about whether the institution itself is capable of performing the essential functions that my constituents and others have the right to expect from their legislative assembly.
  Parliament should ensure that legislation is sensibly considered and emerges clear and effective, but few of my constituents believe that the chaos of rail privatisation demonstrates for a moment that it succeeds in doing that. Parliament should ensure that it provides real challenges to the policies and practices of public and private sector organisations when that is needed.
  Although I greatly admire the work of the PAC and the Select Committees, I fear that they are exposed as toothless tigers in the face of even the slightest Government resistance. Parliament should be able to challenge the Government when Executive power is abused, but that will never be the case so long as the whipping system prevails in the larger parties, and there is no proper separation of powers. My first few days in this place have done nothing to dispel these concerns.
  To walk into the inner sanctum of the Members' Dining Room and look up at the pictures of Gladstone and Disraeli is to be reminded that so much of the present House of Commons was moulded in their day; but that day was 120 years ago. Those Prime Ministers in their time were reformers who worked to broaden the franchise. I wonder whether they would be pleased to know that in the last years of the 20th century, the people of Britain still do not possess votes of equal value, and that our democratic system is so flawed that, for 16 years, it has
  742
  kept in place a Government opposed by 57 per cent. of the voters, and denies millions of Liberal Democrat, Green and even true socialist supporters the representation in the House to which their votes should entitle them.
  I found from the Library that I am the 68th—only the 68th—person to be elected as a Liberal or Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament since the end of the second world war, yet the votes that my party won at the previous general election alone would have entitled it to more than 100 Members of Parliament under any system that genuinely purported to be democratic. It means, I fear, that the very basis of representation in the House is a sham and a disgrace.
  The House of Commons may be a cosy club for those who are here, but radical reform is needed if it is once again to do the job for which it is intended, and to wipe away some of the cynicism with which it is now regarded by the majority of people in this country.
  As we have heard, however, there is much to admire in the work of the PAC. I am pleased that it has turned its attention to matters such as the protection of sites of special scientific interest. Of the almost 3,800 such sites in England, just four are in Oldham, and one, I understand, in Rochdale, covering the south Pennine moors. They represent the basic minimum area of habitat that needs to be conserved if the range and distribution of plants and animals in this country is to be maintained. It must therefore be a matter of great concern that nearly a quarter of these exceptional areas have been damaged in the past seven years alone. That is on the basis of English Nature's figures, which I think are generally accepted to be an underestimate of the true situation.
  Within its limited remit, the PAC report makes some reasonable suggestions. Although I have some doubts about recommendations that, for example, English Nature should be finding ways to reduce the average payment made in return for a management agreement, I generally endorse them. However, surely more consideration should be given to the promotion of positive conservation measures within such agreements, rather than simply paying owners not to cause damage in the first place. I commend to the House the ideas for the protection of SSSIs in the draft wildlife Bill being prepared by Friends of the Earth.
  The PAC's 42nd report deals with renewable energy research. The PAC is absolutely right to ask rigorous questions about the way in which public money is being spent, even though the £20 million a year spent on such research is tiny in comparison with the money poured into nuclear research and subsidy for many decades. I fear, however, that the Committee's narrow remit prevents it from taking the wider and longer-term view which should be so essential in energy matters. The basis of our economy continues to rest on the exploitation of finite resources laid down over millions of years. We continue to use that precious asset as though it were infinite, with no attempt in our national accounts to make allowances for depreciation. The present exploitation of our limited gas reserves demonstrates that short-term approach only too well.
  The potential for energy conservation in this country is still said to be immense: sufficient to reduce energy consumption by 50 per cent., I am told. Such a programme would conserve the country's resources, generate employment and reduce energy costs. But so long as our finite energy resources continue to be treated

  743
  as infinite, market forces alone will never encourage such investment and energy conservation measures to take place.
  In recognition of the fact that the protection of our environment and the earth's resources is a duty for all of us in elected positions, many enlightened local authorities are now including environmental impact statements in reports, so that councillors may take account of the full long-term consequences of their actions, which so often fall outside the narrow scope of a local authority's balance sheet. The metropolitan borough of Rochdale is one authority which now conventionally makes use of environmental impact statements. Indeed, the metropolitan borough of Oldham, of which I am still a member, is starting to do the same.
  I would feel happier about the PAC's recommendations if its conclusions took account of environmental impact in the same way. I hope that the Committee will consider such a course in future. It would be a step which might well influence its future judgments, and would deserve a warm welcome.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) on surviving the ordeal of the maiden speech. Everyone who comes to this House says that it does not matter how experienced one is in public speaking or in broadcasting, making one's first speech in the House is a very intimidating experience. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great clarity and strength of feeling. There is a tradition that one is non-controversial in maiden speeches—and he almost managed it—although I think that it is observed more in comment than in practice.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth on the graciousness of his comments about his predecessor, for whom there was great affection in the House. His predecessor was one of the personalities and characters of the House. All of us, especially those of us who are a little longer in the parliamentary tooth than others, would say that it is one of the sadnesses of Parliament that there are fewer personalities today than the history books lead us to believe—perhaps—that there were in the past.
  I remember when I had to make my maiden speech—it is relevant to the party of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth because I was sitting in its corner of the Chamber—on the first motion of censure of the 1964 Wilson Government. I go back that far, so there is hope yet for the hon. Gentleman since I too won a marginal seat.
  The Speaker got in touch with me in the morning, with the kindness that Speakers and Deputy Speakers always show to hon. Members who are about to make their maiden speeches, and said, "I just thought that I would let you know, you will be speaking fourth this afternoon." I said, "Oh really. It is a motion of censure. What does that mean?" I was told that Alec Douglas-Home would open, Harold Wilson would speak second, Jo Grimond would be third and I was fourth. I immediately volunteered to make my maiden speech the following week. However the Speaker of the day was rather adamant about such things, and as I had put in to make my maiden speech, I had to make it.
  744
  In the end I need not have worried. That is not meant in any derogatory way. I sat there listening to the first vicious attack by Alec Douglas-Home on the Wilson Government, followed by Harold Wilson making a rather humorous reply, and became increasingly depressed. But when the Speaker stood up as Harold sat down and called Mr. Jo Grimond, I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth that about 600 Members stood up and walked out.
  That happened not because there was not great affection for Jo Grimond—there was—and it was not due to lack of respect for him. He was a good questioner and a delightful colleague, but he was not noted for making the most stirring of speeches. So I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth on commanding an audience approximately four times the size that I was able to command on that particular day.
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made an important point when he referred to the need for us to have regard to finite resources and not to treat energy sources as though they are infinite. History will show that the great tragedy of this century, and the great opportunity of the post-war era, was the period of energy plentifulness in the 1980s, which was sadly squandered. Energy cannot be made infinite, but we could have reinvested the surpluses, the profits, the returns to the Exchequer from the North sea, which could have given the country further earning power through a second industrial revolution. None the less, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and wish him well. I hope that he has many more years in the House and I look forward to hearing him when he is in a more confrontational mood, when I shall remember not to sit too near.
  I want to make only a couple of main points—I am sorry to depress my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth referred to Select Committees as being toothless tigers. Most of us would recognise a great deal of truth in that. That is not to underestimate what they have achieved. The innovation of the Select Committee system, based on shadowing individual Departments, is probably one of the most important innovations of the past quarter of a century. They have done a great deal of good work, but the problem for Parliament and members of the Committee is shown by today's debate.
  Here we are, with a massed audience in the House and an even fuller Gallery—I am talking of course about the Press Gallery [Laughter.] We are trying to discuss 51 reports in one day. Yet in doing that, we are privileged because the other Select Committees have great difficulty in finding any time in which to consider their reports. The Government are only too happy to put the reports on a shelf and leave them there. So the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is quite correct in saying that if parliamentary accountability means anything, we have to consider the next stage for Select Committees to ensure that they have more bite and more power.
  For the PAC and the House—if I may return to a particular hobby horse: the process of parliamentary accountability—regardless of the rights and wrongs of the development of agencies and trusts, such bodies present a problem in accountability, in that they create increasing numbers of accounting units. There has been a proliferation of accounting units which have to be monitored and audited, on which the NAO may need to

  745
  report, and on which we as members of the PAC have to deliberate. I know that the following viewpoint commands support from just one member of the Committee at this stage—myself. We shall have to consider whether, at some stage, we go down the route of some of the other Select Committees and break down into a Sub-Committee system because inevitably, the Public Accounts Committee is the bottleneck in the whole system. Any Government can create extra accounting units as they wish. The National Audit Office can expand, given the manpower which, in fairness, it has had and the resources it has had, to accommodate those extra accounting units. What cannot expand under the present format is the capacity of the Public Accounts Committee.
  Hon. Members who have served on the Committee and anyone who has been acquainted with the Committee will confirm that it is extremely hard working. One of the difficulties and joys of the Public Accounts Committee is that unlike other Select Committees which consider the same subject week after week, pursuing it in great depth, we have the problem that on a Monday, we consider something to do with the Department of Health and then on Wednesday, we consider major capital projects in the Ministry of Defence. Sitting as a whole, as we do at the moment, we could not accommodate a larger work load from the National Audit Office. I return, therefore, to my suggestion to my right hon. and hon. Friends that at some time, we must consider whether a Sub-Committee system would be appropriate.
  I join in congratulating our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), on the diplomatic and assiduous way in which he manages to keep the Committee together and to keep the consensus which marks the Committee. That does not mean that we do not have different viewpoints. It does mean that when we produce reports, they are unanimous simply because individuals have made concessions—I am talking about all Committee members—when they disagree with various points and because they regard getting the main report out as the most important objective.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has carried out his work in a way that has won admiration from hon. Members on both sides. I also pay tribute to the National Audit Office and to the Clerk—I should say Clerks—of our Committee. I use the plural because we have had several Clerks. The Committee is a good training ground for hon. Members. Indeed, for Opposition Members, it seems to have become almost an essential part of progress towards Front-Bench service. The Public Accounts Committee has become for us what the Whips Office has been, for many years, for the Conservative party. I notice a smirk of pleasure on the face of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Government Whip, in anticipation of the logical consequence of what I have just said about the Conservative Whips Office. The Opposition treat the Public Accounts Committee as somewhere where one can get good experience of how Governments work, how Departments work and how the Committee system works.
  One of the most interesting of our reports this year—I shall not deal with it in great depth—is the report on the Trident base. The project was important not only because it was the biggest civil engineering programme, second only to the channel tunnel, in this country, but
  746
  because it was fascinating as a case study of how not to go about managing a capital project. One could hardly find a more perfect example of many errors bundled together.
  There was an £800 million overrun on the Trident base. We must be fair to the Ministry of Defence. I am not saying that an overrun is the same as being wasteful and I am not saying that money was squandered or used improperly. The overrun happened because despite the scale of the project, it was devised as it was being built, day by day. Some 7,200 variations were introduced in the design of a ship lift alone. There were as many as 10 variations a day throughout the life of the project. Anyone who has experience of a major construction will know that that is a contractors' paradise because every variation means a renegotiation. In effect, the Ministry of Defence completely lost financial control of the project, and it is worth mentioning for just that reason.
  I understand the strategic reasons and we well understand that the Government said that a policy decision was being taken which had to be implemented as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, although the errors may have been made as a result of a desirable objective from the Government's point of view, as they may concede, it is important that we as a House of Commons do not overlook the lessons that, clearly, should be learnt.
  With some regret, I now turn to matters Celtic. I am glad to say that despite a rather bad press at times for some of the Welsh quangos, the reality is that almost all the organisations at which we look in the Public Accounts Committee and which have problems are London based rather than based in Wales or in Scotland. We must be careful not to get one or two instances that relate to Wales, to Scotland or to Northern Ireland out of proportion. However, that does not alter the fact that one cannot condone what happened at the Welsh Development Agency.
  It is a matter of sadness to anyone who cares for the future of Wales that an agency on which we depend for inward investment and for the strategic development of our economy fell into the hands of people who did not understand the public ethic and who did not necessarily share the civil service attitude towards probity and standards of conduct. We had a fly-by-night period at the Welsh Development Agency and, I am sad to say, one particular individual who was responsible for appointments, from outside politics, made appointments in his own likeness.
  Unfortunately, the cutting of corners, which may or may not have been well intentioned, led to the first report on the WDA. Again, we had the gagging clauses, the free cars for private use as well as for business use, redundancy schemes that had never had Treasury approval and did not conform to Treasury rules and, above all, the case of the operation known as Wizard. A group of senior members of the WDA connived at using public funds, through three consultancies, to try to devise a package for management buy-outs—that is really what it was all about—of the most lucrative parts of the WDA. So that the Treasury and the Welsh Office would not know what was going on, the three consultancy projects were spread into different parts of the budget. It was hoped that no one would realise that an attempt was being made to undermine the standing of the WDA.

  747
  Again, it is salutary to realize—we have referred to this before—that even the National Audit Office, for which we all have enormous respect, did not discover Wizard, so well was it buried. We came to know about Wizard only because we were contacted by a couple of whistle-blowers within the Welsh Development Agency who were appalled at what they saw and came to meet three members of the Committee in one of the small Committee Rooms next to the Great Hall to tell us what was going on. The Chairman of the Committee could confirm that, for the first time in a PAC report, we praised people for leaking, and we stated in the report that had it not been for those whistle-blowers, we would not have been aware of what was going on.
  I say to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth that, while I am aware of the courtesies of the House, he may want to make comments to the press and—I mean this nicely—I do not want him to feel that he has to sit through my tedious speech as a courtesy. The hon. Gentleman should by all means feel free to leave the Chamber, because most of what I shall be talking about will not be familiar to him.
  I am sad to say that the Welsh Development Agency reappeared on the scene in another matter when its conduct was utterly unacceptable, as the Treasury itself indicated. There was a virtual conspiracy between one senior member of the Welsh Development Agency and other parties in a joint venture set up with local authorities to promote a property deal in the Aberdare area, and to deliberately try to sink an existing project that was being developed by others in which a great deal of money had been invested.
  Prior to the joint venture with the Welsh Development Agency, Tesco had been in discussion with another company called Landare relating to a site elsewhere in the valley. Landare had not only achieved planning permission for the development from the local authority, but had reached an agreement on planning gain in which the council would receive a sports hall and transport facilities as part of the project. But the project needed one more thing. The two councils that owned the property had agreed to sell a narrow strip of land which blocked the access from the site to the main road, as this was crucial to the project.
  The joint venture between the Welsh Development Agency and the councils was chaired by a director of the WDA, and the WDA board decided that Tesco would not be allowed to bid for the site which the WDA was developing as part of that joint venture. A deadline was set, and tenders were invited. The tenders were received, and the councils and the joint venture team decided to have further discussions on the final details of the proposals with the bidders. Then, out of the blue, Tesco—which, we understood, had been banned from bidding in the contest—came in with a bid after the final date for bids which, to and behold, proved to be the highest.
  Understandably, the Committee was deeply concerned, and the Chairman pinpointed the fact that Tesco had two representatives on the board of the Welsh Development Agency—the then chairman of the agency, Dr. Jones, was a director of Tesco, while another member of the board still is a director of the company. After the bids had been opened, and when one would have thought that the last financial offer had been received, in came Tesco whose bid won the day. There were delays to allow Tesco to get its bid in, and meetings were postponed to ensure that the company could make its bid.
  748
  We received assurances from Mr. Scholar, the permanent secretary—who, in fairness, was not the permanent secretary at the time this happened—that the two directors of Tesco had declared their interests and had taken no part in the making the decision. But the crucial point was made by the Chairman, who said that although the two gentlemen may have taken no part in the decision-making process, who can say what information was passed from them to other people? The Committee felt, and this was a point with which the Treasury agreed, that such conduct was utterly unacceptable and way below the standards we would expect from a public body.
  Having received the bid from Tesco, the parties involved then set out calculatedly to sabotage the other side. In questioning Mr. Scholar, I quoted a minute of a meeting of the joint venture in which a letter from Chestertons, the agents and advisers for the sale of the site, to the Welsh Development Agency was read. The letter said that Chestertons was "facing untimely competition" from an alternative site, and went on to say:
  "The scenario outlined above is of great concern as it may prejudice or even possibly prevent the successful disposal of the Gadlys site … The answer to this potential problem is to minimise any opportunity for an operator to swap sides. In this particular case … this is possible, given that the Joint Venture partners control the access to … the alternative site".
  The parties involved then tried to ensure that the councils—which had offered to sell to Landare land that was crucial for access—withdrew their offer, which would completely blight that site. The site would then cease to be an attraction to the retailer Landare had in mind, or to anyone else. I am sure that Conservative Members who have not been involved in this matter would admit that if they were being treated in such a manner by a governmental body, they would feel that that body was stepping way beyond its powers.
  I received at my house one Sunday a copy of a report by Vernon Pugh QC. He said in the report that the Welsh Development Agency was guilty of half truths and untruths, had acted ultra vires and was guilty of serious omissions.
  The report by the QC had been delivered to the Welsh Office, but the Welsh Office did not deliver it to the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne so that he was aware of it before our hearings. So, with the hearing on Wednesday, there was a ring on the bell at my home in Swansea and, to my surprise, on the doorstep was my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Swansea, West. A Conservative represented the seat until 1964. He was acting for Landare in a professional capacity. He brought me a copy of the QC's document. It was devastating.
  What followed was even worse. Not only did the report show that there had been conduct by the WDA which was unacceptable by any standards, but the way in which it was subsequently ignored revealed that there was a wish to pretend that it did not exist. There was a wish to bury it. In fairness, Mr. Hugh Rees, who was a Government Whip from 1959 to 1964 during the Conservative Administration and a former director of the WDA, did not try to embarrass his party. Instead of making a public fuss about the matter, he started writing letters to try to get things dealt with on the basis of sensible discussion.
  Mr. Rees wrote to the then permanent secretary at the Welsh Office. The permanent secretary did not write back to him directly, but telephoned and suggested that Mr.

  749
  Rees might see someone from the WDA rather than himself. This Mr. Rees agreed to do. He also wrote to various Ministers, including the then Minister of State, Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He also wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was originally a Swansea man. No one really wanted to know. Indeed, the sort of answer that Mr. Rees received was summed up by the brief letter from the Minister of State, which said:
  "As you know, the new Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency has looked into the Agency's involvement in the Tir Founder Fields case very carefully. His conclusion is that, while he believes matters might have been handled more tactfully, the complaints made against the Agency are in the main unjustified."
  Anyone who read the Pugh report would find it impossible to say that the complaints were unjustified. No Minister has made the slightest attempt to respond to the points that were made in that report. For that reason, I believe that my ex-opponent and his commercial colleagues have a legitimate grievance to air against the Government. I believe that Ministers should answer to the House for the way in which they, rather than behaved, have failed to behave.
  The last report with which I wish to deal is on the occupied royal palaces. It was inevitable that I would refer. to it in view of my special interest in the subject, but I shall be brief. The report is important because it is the first time that Parliament has examined in detail any of the money that is spent on the royal household. I must admit that I could not carry my colleagues on the Committee with me. I wanted to examine the whole £50 million that is spent by the various Departments. I could get agreement to examine only the £25 million that was then being spent on the occupied royal palaces.
  Even more worthy of examination would be the £20 million that is spent on royal travel. I have had to do a great deal of the work on that myself, through parliamentary questions. The occasion was interesting because Parliament is incredibly sycophantic about matters royal. I do not understand for the life of me why we should apologise for asking why a family which has two palaces of its own needs five palaces of ours. It seems legitimate for me to ask that question. It is appropriate to seek answers as to why five palaces are needed.
  It emerged that the palaces were not needed to house the royal family. I question whether we have a duty to house the wider royal family. The palaces were needed for 280 grace-and-favour apartments. We would not quibble about some of the apartments. They are for people working on the estate—the equivalent of a tied cottage. No one begrudges someone such accommodation. However, it is a different matter when it comes to lavish accommodation in Kensington palace and so on, occupied by people who, as I see it—I recognise that this is not the way the Committee necessarily sees it—are protected by the aura of the Crown and the deference which is shown in the House to anything royal. They have escaped for many years the sort of attention that should be paid to the benefits that they enjoy at the taxpayer's expense. I am referring now to the royal civil service—the royal household.
  750
  The Committee called as a witness Mr. Peat, formerly of Peat Marwick. He put up a spirited defence of the grace and favour system. Towards the end of the hearing, the impact of that defence was somewhat diminished when my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) was discourteous enough to ask him whether he had a grace-and-favour house. He said that he did not, but he hoped to move into one in a few months.
  Mr. Hall: He has achieved that ambition.
  Mr. Williams: Indeed, he has now moved in. It strikes me as incredible that we should sanguinely accept that more than £250,000 was spent on furnishing, fixtures, fittings and decoration for that one apartment so that someone who already had a house in Battersea could live in Kensington palace. In order to be near his work in Buckingham palace, he had to be housed in Kensington palace. It is the most nonsensical case I have ever heard.
  I must be careful not to go into too much detail because we are producing a second report on the matter. What worries me is the obstruction that one comes up against from the Department and from the palace when one simply tries to obtain information. For example, 46 of the senior members of the royal household—not the royal family, but the royal civil service—enjoy lavish accommodation because, or so we were told, it is necessary to facilitate their work and increase their efficiency in carrying out their work for the palace.
  I ask two simple questions. May we know whether those 46 staff work part time or full time—not exactly a dangerous question—and may we have a job description for each of them? I have been told no—that Parliament is not entitled to that information because those people are paid from the civil list.
  We cannot ask even general questions about the civil list, as I know that a Clerk of the House would confirm—such as whether, in the most general sense, the civil list has been exceeded—so we cannot ask detailed questions. The royal household continues to refuse to provide the information that I have asked for about the work that those people do and whether it is full time or part time.
  Yet there is a flaw in the argument of the royal household, and it should be important to the House. We were told that part of those people's salary is the accommodation. We were told that they cannot be offered the salaries that they might command elsewhere. In evidence we were told that therefore the accommodation makes the job more attractive to them. However, that accommodation is not paid for from the civil list; it is paid for from grant in aid. If it was paid for from grant in aid from the Department of National Heritage, I am entitled—Parliament is entitled—to know what work those people do and whether they work full time or part time, in order to judge whether the public receive good value for money in allowing them to have that accommodation in addition to the salaries, whatever they may be, that they receive from the civil list.
  To the best of my knowledge, unless the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, has heard anything since I last discussed the subject, as yet we have had no firm decision as to whether that information will be forthcoming.
  In the same way, I found out that, during the five years before the £0.25 million was spent on Mr. Peat's accommodation, the six directors of the royal household

  751
  had £325,000 spent on decorations and furnishing. I am now trying to find out how much they have had since the provision of furnishing and decoration and so on started in 1982. Every obstacle is being placed in the way.
  As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am horrified at that lack of transparency about matters relating to taxpayers' money. Some of my constituents survive on housing benefit; some must sign away their homes to obtain care in old age. Yet I am not allowed to obtain the information that I need about people who live in the grandest housing benefit scheme that anyone has ever devised. The royal household is not willing to provide us with the information that I want.
  I apologise for going on for so long. I apologise especially to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), who I know is deeply concerned that my comments should be as succinct as possible. I hope that, if I voluntarily sit down now, I shall have done my share to facilitate a 10 o'clock Division.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that it was most enlightening for members of the Committee to hear someone with such knowledge, especially of what I would call the housing benefit scam for the elite, which the Government do not appear to be worried about tackling.
  Obviously, several Public Accounts Committee reports are of interest to me as a Scottish Member. I look forward to the final report on the Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. inquiry. We have the minutes of evidence of Wednesday 21 June 1995 with us. If a private investor had subsidised a company to the tune of £27.6 million and a further £9.4 million, and that company had gone into receivership in less than a year, there would have been a scandal and a serious investigation.
  We have evidence before us, in paragraph 3 of page 1 of the report, that Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. built a hospital in Clydebank in the Clydebank enterprise zone, that expenditure of £9.4 million was incurred by the Scottish Office to make the site safe and capable of development, and that further various forms of public assistance totalling £27.6 million were provided to that company.
  The subsidies were within the budget until July 1994, but, by February 1995,
  "the receivers announced that a new company, HCI Holdings Ltd, which is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Company, had taken over the HCI project"
  and that the money that we had put in had been lost to the country.
  There was serious talk of further subsidies going to the Abu Dhabi Investment Company to entice it to take over the project. That was a private hospital that said that it would gather money by bringing patients from throughout the world to use top world-class surgeons in Scotland, and thereby bring a great deal of money into Scotland's economy. What happened was that more than £36 million of public money went into that project, to be lost for ever.
  I shall not speak at length about that, because I hope that we have a chance to debate the final report, and that the Government will be seen to be so obsessed with the
  752
  private sector in medicine in Scotland and throughout the country that they are willing to throw public money at it without any thought for proper corporate governance.
  I wish to discuss the 48th report of the Public Accounts Committee, entitled "Management and Sale of Houses in Borders Region". I am often told by colleagues that, when one discusses Scottish matters in the House, one speaks a foreign language, because there is not a great deal of interest in them, but the following case translates well into the experiences of public housing authorities in England and Wales.
  The anxieties expressed in the report are many. On page v of the report, in paragraph 3, the Committee states:
  "We are disturbed that the Department allowed the contract to manage these houses to be awarded without competition."
  That is the Government who said that we should have open competition, that competition was good for us, and that the market was the way to clean out the bureaucracies. Yet they were found in that case to have awarded the management of the houses in the Borders to a new housing association, the Waverley, without any other competitor being allowed to bid. As will be seen if one continues to read the report, the Waverley did it in such a way that serious questions arose about whether it even offered to do so efficiently.
  The houses in what became the Waverley housing trust had been managed directly by Ettrick and Lauderdale council on behalf of Scottish Homes for 13 years, and the management costs were considerably less than those that were in the bid for management by Waverley Housing. In fact, the report states that Waverley Housing, in the management contract, offered to manage the houses for £2.5 million and spend a further £1.1 million after the sale of the houses as a result of improvements—basically improvements in the fabric of the buildings. However, Ettrick and Lauderdale council had been able to manage the houses for considerably less than the sum that Waverley Housing bid.
  One would suppose that the Government would have considered the Ettrick and Lauderdale bid, and said, "They are able to manage those houses for much less than Waverley, so let them continue to manage them." That would have made sense to anyone. However, the Government, in the context of the United Kingdom and of Scotland especially, are obsessed with trying to destroy public sector housing in Scotland and trying to force a false third sector into existence.
  In spite of the wish of the tenants of those houses to have Ettrick and Lauderdale council as their landlord, they were not allowed the choice of a public authority that had proven itself to be efficient. They had to take what the Government called the only bidder in town—Waverley Housing.
  That is in spite of the fact that we see on page vii, paragraph 5 that
  "an experienced housing association (Eildon Housing Association) had also expressed an interest"
  in those houses. It was not just a matter of debarring the public sector and the local authority, which had managed the houses so efficiently; the Government debarred anyone else who was in the third sector—the housing association sector—from even putting in a bid. That is unacceptable.

  753
  The Government's stated purpose in allowing competition is given in paragraph 3(iv) of the report:
  "This is not only to secure the best possible value for the taxpayer but to help ensure that the public bodies concerned can demonstrate a clear arm's length relationship with those wishing to bid for the provision of services."
  That cannot be achieved only by examining public accounts.
  The feeling of the people of Scotland is that people in the Scottish Office were under ministerial instruction or persuasion to cosy up to certain senior public officials who had previously worked for local authorities and who had put together the concept of Waverley and ensure that the way was smoothed for Waverley to get the contract to manage the houses in 1989. The Scottish Special Housing Association, which was the predecessor of Scottish Homes, gave the management contract to Waverley in February 1989.
  The Scottish Special Housing Associations's costs for managing 1,800 houses had been £1.2 million yet the Government accepted a bid, without competition, from Waverley to manage 1,300 houses—not 1,800, but 1,300—for £2.4 million. How can the transfer of those houses at twice the cost be justified? It cannot be justified. People are therefore deeply suspicious of the management relationship that was set up by the Scottish Office.
  The Government went further in March 1992, when they sold 1,191 houses to the Waverley housing association, once again without any other competitor being allowed to hid. The local authorities and Eildon housing association were debarred from bidding and so Waverley had a free run. Not only did it obtain a lucrative—and expensive—management contract, but it was then allowed to buy the houses without competition.
  The Public Accounts Committee asked many questions and found many faults. In particular, its report states:
  "It is unclear to us how, in the absence of competition for the contract, the Department have reached"
  the conclusion that £2.5 million for the management was a reasonable cost. No test was made against any other valuation, and there was no evaluation of any outside bid.
  The problem is that the Government were—and continue to be—obsessed with the destruction of the public housing sector in Scotland. In my constituency, there are some 1,200 Scottish Homes houses. The Government have said that they must be put up for a bidder to take them out of Scottish Homes' hands. The choice before tenants is, again, Hobson's choice. They can either stay with Scottish Homes, or they can go to the new housing association.
  A survey has been carried out in Grangemouth and Bo'ness. The tenants showed by a vote of over 90 per cent. that they wished to have a local authority landlord as an alternative to Scottish Homes, but they cannot have that. That is why, back in 1989 and 1992, the Government twisted, bent or broke the rules of good government and sensible finance by selling the houses to Waverley without competition.
  Scottish Homes, we are told, is to become only a builder of houses and mainly for people with special needs, not the bulk of the population. As local authorities in Scotland do not have the funding, or permission to spend from the Government, no one is building houses
  754
  for mainstream public need. There is a distortion in Scotland in respect of the sort of housing being built by the public purse. That all started back in 1989 with this sorry, dubious affair, in which the Government allowed a single bidder to manage, and then purchase, a substantial number of houses in the Borders. That has been the theme ever since.
  The criticisms in the report of the Public Accounts Committee are stark, but it would appear that Scottish Office Ministers are not listening, because the only choice before the people of my constituency and the rest of Scotland is still Hobson's choice. It is take it or leave it. Usually, one housing association is cultivated by the Government and civil servants to tee itself up to take over the housing. It is strange that, in the cases that I have dealt with recently, the people involved were ex-employees and managers of Scottish Homes in the areas where the houses are being put up for sale or transfer.
  People say that they do not want Scottish Homes or a housing association; they want to have a public authority landlord. Just as with Waverley in 1989 and 1992, that option is not being allowed. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee report will be read by people in the rest of United Kingdom, because what happened in Scotland and the Borders can happen anywhere when the Government put ideology before good management and good government.
  I may disagree with the Government about whether there should be a third sector or a large public sector or private housing, but I hope that all hon. Members would agree that the Government do not have the right to give a management contract that costs twice what the previous management cost just because they favour the new managers for personal or political reasons. They cannot be allowed to give away those houses to that same management without allowing open competition. We must be able to see whether the people who are going to pay, through their economic rents, the debts incurred by Waverley have been robbed of better value that could have been achieved had another bidder been involved.
  If a Government do not stand comparison, they must stand condemned. In the report, the Government stand starkly condemned by the people of the Borders, by the former tenants of Scottish Homes, and I hope that they will stand condemned by people who read the account of tonight's debate.
  It is not right that a Government should do deals in such dubious circumstances. The report says that there were six meetings between senior Government officials and the people who were to become Waverley housing association at which no minutes were taken. It was clearly a little behind-the-door arrangement—and a lucrative one for the people who set up Waverley. If the Government are willing to bribe their ideology into reality, then, as far as I and the people of Scotland are concerned, they are not to be trusted with the running of any Department and not only the Scottish Office.
  That is why the Government's popularity stands so low in Scotland, with the massive bribes to private sector health involved in the Health Care International affair and the dubious arrangements that they set up to allow Waverley to take over the houses in the Borders. There is also their continued determination to force people not to have the landlord they want—the local authority—but another one, usually a housing association whose

  755
  managers were previously managers at Scottish Homes. It seems to me that the Government and their policies are sick. That is proven starkly by the report.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), who made a fine maiden speech this evening. The generosity of his tribute to his predecessor was noteworthy, as was the—perhaps controversial—forcefulness with which he put his case. I am sure that it will be the first of many sizeable contributions from him.
  I was struck by the clarity and authority with which the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), presented his case. I know that there is a wealth of information to consider, but the way that he dealt with it was excellent and clear to all concerned.
  Many subjects have been touched upon in the debate, and, I fear, many subjects will not be raised.
  I should like to deal specifically with what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) euphemistically referred to as the "Celtic problem". I shall confine myself to the 29th report, which deals with the Welsh Development Agency.
  Despite the fact that the Welsh Development Agency alleges that the Grant Thornton report was independent, it was neither independent nor impartial. Its terms of reference were tightly drawn, and it was instructed and funded by the Welsh Development Agency, so I do not accept for a moment that an arm's-length investigation has been made into the matter.
  I shall not repeat the facts of the case, which were more than adequately placed before the House earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Swansea, West. The Grant Thornton report has been described by one eminent Queen's counsel, Mr. Vernon Pugh QC, as "selective" in what it decided to investigate. That is a damning condemnation of the report and its terms of reference.
  That things were not right during that period in the Cynon valley goes without need for emphasis. At that time, the Welsh Development Agency had two directors, who were also directors of Tesco and who profited royally from the whole deal. That cannot be right. Even if it was not illegal, it calls into question the veracity of the matter.
  To deny, as has been denied by the agency and the council, that a formal partnership existed between Cynon Valley borough council, the Welsh Development Agency and the county council is plain folly. It is misleading, and an outright untruth. The association, which I would call a syndicate—a partnership for one specific purpose—which is to deal with the land in question, was formed in April 1991, so any denials are unfounded.
  The Public Accounts Committee's report into the matter has been heavily critical, and rightly so. In paragraph 74, it says:
  "We note that the Grant Thornton Report found no evidence of improper pecuniary gain or collusion but … that the Agency had been over-zealous and had left itself open to allegations of undue influence. We note that disciplinary action has been taken … and … trust that the … revised procedures will prevent"
  such actions
  "in the future."
  756
  Given that two members of the WDA board were also members of Tesco plc, the words "over-zealous" and "undue influence" are not strong enough.
  The Department agreed that the agency's handling of the matter was unacceptable. It drew attention to the code of practice, which sets out the principles to be applied in such circumstances, including integrity, objectivity, accountability and openness.
  What happened in Cynon valley was justifiably open to criticism. The leading counsel, Vernon Pugh QC, said that the activities constituted a joint venture or syndicate, and that the moneys expended by the local authorities were ultra vires, and could now validly be claimed back, because no sanction had been obtained under the relevant legislation from the Welsh Office. I therefore suggest that other matters need to be examined, perhaps in another forum, in the coming months.
  The Welsh Office was firmly of the view that the disposal of the land was badly handled. I should have thought, therefore, that some form of in-depth and arm's-length inquiry would have been set up by the Welsh Office. Although the Welsh Office has accepted in several parts of the report that things were wrong, it evidently intends to do nothing about it. In the interests of open and fair government, via the quango system or whatever, this matter deserves a full, independent, arm's-length tribunal of some form, with a broad remit to investigate the whole matter from beginning to end, and to make positive and real recommendations in due course.
  I echo what previous hon. Members have said: that the Welsh Development Agency has not been the flavour of the month with the PAC, and rightly so. Matters have improved of late, and we are now looking back some two or three years to this set of incidents. Despite a considerable improvement in the running of the WDA, this incident is serious and calls for a full, powerful, arm's-length inquiry into the matter.
  7.25 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: As always, this afternoon's debate has been informative and interesting. The work of the Public Accounts Committee is extremely detailed and I commend to all hon. Members a careful reading of its reports, for they teach us much about the actions of Government.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his explanation at the beginning of the debate. He described clearly and precisely many important points in the key reports. I pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It is a hard-working Committee, which has paid a great deal of attention to its work. I also commend the excellent work of the National Audit Office, which has a great deal to do in trying to pursue public money wherever it finds itself and to ensure that it is accountable and transparent in its use.
  For the record, I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), who made his maiden speech today. He was generous in his tributes to his predecessor, Geoffrey Dickens, who was a hard-working constituency Member. He was much respected on both sides of the House and will be greatly missed. His courageous fight against his illness was an example to us all in the dignity of life and the confrontation of such a dreadful and debilitating illness.

  757
  The speech of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth was controversial, but none the worse for that. He talked about the importance of the countryside, its fragility and the pressure on it. In particular, he referred to sites of special scientific interest. He spoke out clearly and strongly about the need for long-term planning, not only for this country but for the planet, if we are to discharge our responsibilities to younger generations. He criticised the House's procedures, and I look forward to him participating effectively in the process of legislation in the House and to his contribution to challenging the Executive. He said that he was the 68th Liberal Democrat to be elected this century. Perhaps there is a message in that for him, which I shall not dwell on tonight. He also spoke about the important issues of alternative energy sources and energy conservation. I am sure that we all look forward to his rigorous participation in debates on those issues.
  The 51 reports of the PAC consider the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; compare input and output and consider the work of Government. Having looked at those reports, I was relieved and consoled that I did not have to pay such close attention to the 500 reports that have been produced by the Committee since 1983.
  As has been said, those reports are passed unanimously by the Committee. Their purpose is to examine the implementation of policy; they do not necessarily question it, and they are none the worse for that. Today's debate has referred again to the relationship between the workings of the National Audit Office and those of the Audit Commission. It echoes last year's debate, when we considered the Committee's important eighth report on the proper conduct of public business. That report stated:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within Departments and other public bodies which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. Those failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that although fraud still represents a small proportion of the Committee's investigations, it is a growing problem. Today's debate has focused again on how the fragmentation of so much of the Government's structure has led to a lack of accountability in the expenditure of public money. We need to reconsider how to ensure that that money is not wasted and is accounted for.
  In last year's debate, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), now the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, and no longer a member of the PAC, referred to a number of major Government initiatives. He said that the Government had made
  "major improvements in the way in which public spending is controlled and managed."—1Official Report, 26 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 926.]
  He said that he was thinking in particular of market testing and competitive tendering. It is a shame that he is not present to discuss those improvements because two of the reports deal specifically with the conflict between market testing and value for money in the privatisation process. I refer in particular to the 39th report on the sale of Forward
  758
  Catering Services and the problems created for the Treasury in trying to deal with market testing and privatisation, and the loss of revenue as a result.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke about the need to consider expanding the role and work of the NAO. He referred specifically to the regulatory structure governing the public utilities. Much has been said about the role of those utilities, the huge profits that have been made and whether value for money for the taxpayer has been exacted. I do not intend to continue to debate that now as I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I reinforce my right hon. Friend's argument about the urgent need to look again at that structure.
  My right hon. Friend also identified, correctly, weaknesses in certain areas as a result of ever-increasing fraud. He raised the important issue of accounting officers and their role. I wonder whether the Financial Secretary can give us an assurance that notes of dissent are now available to the PAC. My right hon. Friend referred in particular to the Pergau dam and the role of Mr. Lankester. He also said that Mr. Lankester may be moved—
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): He has been moved.
  Ms Primarolo: In that case, can the Minister assure the House that that move had nothing to do with notes of dissent and will not act as a disincentive to civil servants writing such notes in the future?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the Eurofighter project and the enormous overspend on its development. He was right to ask whether collaborative programmes, which by their nature tend to be more expensive, will be subject to better controls in the future, because it is inevitable that such programmes will continue to develop as our partnership in Europe strengthens. I hope that the Financial Secretary will he able to provide the answer.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the Sports Council and the problems still emerging throughout the public sector because of conflicts of interest in the administration of public finance and the fact that regulations governing that public finance are not properly met.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to council tax valuations. He was right to point out that although it may have cost 19p for the average valuation, if 2 million properties are incorrectly valued—75,000 of my constituents believe that they are—the appeals cost for correcting those valuations will be extremely high.
  My right hon. Friend also spoke of the irregularities at the embassy in Sana' a in the Yemen. Questions surrounding that amazing episode have still not been properly answered—it is worthy of an episode of "Yes, Minister". The financial irregularities included trading money on the black market; a lease that was too expensive and included a bribe; staff recruitment to cover up errors; no checks on proper financial transactions and problems with the issue of visas. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office explained away all the difficulties at that embassy with the words, "There were also personality problems and the Yemen was not an easy country to live in."
  When those financial irregularities came to light, the FCO assessed the management skills of the then ambassador and described them as "totally inadequate".

  759
  In its judgment, however, those skills had not reached the level of being unacceptable. I would like the FCO to give us its definition of unacceptable because it is obviously different from that understood by the rest of us. After that assessment, the FCO encouraged the ambassador to make several changes. Some time later—several expensive visits later—it was decided that he was not the appropriate man after all. He was given early retirement and more money was paid out of public funds. The problems at the embassy were not, however, sorted out and when the new ambassador was appointed, the problems continued.
  That raises a series of questions about the role of Government Departments and their stewardship of public money. The Financial Secretary must understand that we are seeking undertakings that there will be changes in the difficult environment that apparently exists only in the Yemen to ensure that public funds are not fraudulently removed.
  There is an important report on the green form scheme—legal aid—and the problems that result from incomplete statements of means. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) referred at length to those important issues. The green form scheme is a vital method of ensuring that those whose financial position may prevent them from receiving the legal advice that they require can receive that advice, following assessment. The report makes it clear, however, that something is going extremely wrong. We must give further consideration to improving the necessary controls, but not with a view to reducing access to the scheme to those who need it. Instead, we must ensure that funds are properly spent.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred also to the report on fundholding. Having listened to his comments, I thought that I had read a different report. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) took up the issues. The report is inadequate when it comes to making judgments on the fundholding scheme. The reason for that is made clear by the report; there are no quantified objectives. There has not been a full assessment of the impact of the scheme. The NHS executive has its views but there has been no independent assessment. There is still a case to be answered. I am sure that the PAC will return to it.
  Important arguments have been advanced about value for money in grant-maintained schools. There is unacceptable double funding and a need to ensure that all schools in the state sector are funded equally. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South talked about head teachers being provided with health care insurance and questioned whether that was acceptable.
  The 40th report deals with the suspension of Dr. Bridget O'Connell. She was a paediatrician, a profession in which there is a national shortage. Indeed, there is difficulty in treating children in certain areas. The outline report is a catalogue of the ineptitude of the internal market and of a lack of direction. I fear that these shortcomings have not yet been resolved. I understand that a consultant within the North Durham trust has been suspended for three years. I hope that another seven or eight years do not pass before the case is resolved.
  It remains the fact that Dr. O'Connell was suspended for voicing her concerns about standards of care. She then struggled through byzantine procedures involving disciplinary action in a health service that is breaking ranks with national agreements and procedures. Although guidelines have now been issued by the Department of
  760
  Health to trusts on the disciplinary procedures that they should follow, the guidelines cannot be, and are not being, enforced. As trusts develop their own contracts with their consultants and as local pay bargaining moves apace, the problems illustrated in the Dr. O'Connell episode will continue to arise and cause problems.
  The British Medical Association made it clear that the NHS executive has been moving in a direction opposite to that which has been taken by trusts. Hospitals are persuaded to break or abandon national agreements, including disciplinary procedures, at the very time that we are told that the Department is trying to persuade them to return to a national agreement.
  The report on NHS hospital catering in England is truly fascinating. The Department of Health issued a press release on 4 September in which it stated:
  "Food is at the heart of everybody's life and its quality is even more important when ill in hospital. Meal times bring interest to a boring hospital stay and nourishing food aids healing and recovery."
  I wonder whether the Department read the 49th report of the PAC when it issued its press release. The release adds that nutritional guidelines for hospital catering are to be issued because food, and nutritious food, is vital to the recovery of patients.
  The 49th report makes it clear that some of the catering departments surveyed expected patients to order their meals more than a week in advance. That contradicts the trend within the NHS—unless a patient is seriously ill, his or her chances of staying in hospital for a week are pretty slim. If someone is that ill, he or she is probably receiving sustenance through a drip, not through the hospital's catering department.
  The report questions the costs of meals, which range from £2 to £15 a day. I am sure that all hon. Members know that hospital catering is often complained about by our constituents. Indeed, they complain at length about its quality. The report states that over 25 per cent. of patients surveyed aged younger than 35 years said that the quality of the food was either poor or very poor. Many of those patients would be women in maternity wards, who would be in need of a proper diet.
  It would seem that the promise does not meet the practice. After agreement with the National Audit Office, some Departments are not able to deliver or implement policy. There is sometimes a conflict between what is said in the House and what is delivered outside.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made some challenging points about the functional structure of the PAC and how it might deal with an increasing work load. He referred also to the Trident base, lack of financial controls and the Welsh Development Agency and the Aberdare sites. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the same problems in Wales.
  In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) highlighted the problems in the 48th report of privatisation clashing with value for money, and the lack of proper tendering arrangements in the dealings with the Borders region sale of homes. He rightly pointed out that in this case the deal was very poor.
  I was intrigued by the fourth report of the 1994–95 Session, entitled "Inland Revenue: Getting Tax Right First Time and Dealing with More Complex Postal Queries". I thought that it may be addressed to the Chancellor and his failure last year to get the whisky taxes right, so that we ended up collecting less tax than we had anticipated.

  761
  The debate has been about the importance of public money, of value for money, of ensuring that that money is accountable, that its use is transparent and that waste is eradicated. Although the reports from the Public Accounts Committee are excellent, as they always are, the challenge to the House is that we ensure that the recommendations are implemented. How do we ensure that they are delivered and that the waste and, unfortunately, the fraud, is eradicated? How do we ensure that all public money, and the complex structure of Government now, with their quangos and unaccountable bodies, is still accountable?
  The new Labour member of the Treasury team, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), is to join us in the task of pursuing the Government on waste and on the undemocratic nature of much public spending, and we look forward in the coming months to discussing, through the Budget and the Finance Bill, and into next year's election campaign, the waste of the Tory Government and the probity of a Labour Government.
  7.52 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate, and it has certainly covered a vast number of topics. For one brief moment I thought that I had come to the wrong debate when I saw a number of my former colleagues who used to attend debates on the subject of fishing coming into the Chamber. I thought that a time warp had occurred, until I realised that the debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee was running a little longer than some had expected.
  I, too, add my thanks to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his colleagues for the dedicated work that they have undertaken in their onerous task. He reminded us in his own remarks of the considerable volume of work, and that fact was supported by other hon. Members.
  All who have spoken represent the bipartisan nature of the work of the PAC. That is a very proper approach and I shall in no way seek to challenge it. The starting point for the Committee's examinations and deliberations is the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff, through the good offices of the National Audit Office. We should also not forget a further dimension to this: the work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office. A few days ago, it struck me that I really should visit the NAO, as it was some time since I had been there. As a new Member of Parliament I had been there and was inculcated as to the ways in which it is Parliament's office, being there to protect the interests of Parliament in monitoring the expenditure of public moneys. I went to meet the team again and to refresh myself as to the work that it was undertaking.
  One interesting point that has come out in all that we have said is that, by and large, many of the problems that we have talked about today result from basic human frailties. We sometimes look at each report as though it were a new discovery when in reality it reflects on that frailty. Although in so many cases we look to systems to try to solve those frailties, it is the role of human beings, in what they do in following rules, procedures and codes of practice, which can make the difference between a
  762
  proper system operating, giving value for money, being run in terms of probity and correctness, and that same system becoming the subject of a report by the PAC.
  It is quite right that the NAO and the Committee criticise Departments when they deserve it. I very much hope that the Committee and the NAO see part of their role as drawing attention to examples of good practice, which can be used as a guide by other Departments and, indeed, working with Departments to ensure that the highest standards of financial management are achieved and maintained. I was struck in my discussions with some of the audit team by the fact that that is precisely what they are now doing. I very much welcome that development.
  I see that as a natural remark from a Minister in Government, a Government who have made improvements in efficiency in the public sector such a central part of their policies. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) derided, perhaps, some of our attempts through privatisation and its associated works within government, but we have taken some £500 million in costs out of the running of government and reduced the size of the civil service, against many people who said that government should be reducing their costs if the private sector is being asked to do the same.
  For too long, the debate has overlooked another aspect of this audit. I put on record my appreciation of the work of the Audit Commission, which is responsible for the audit of many billions of pounds of public money, including expenditure by health authorities and NHS trusts. The latter was touched on by some Opposition Members in their comments. One of the interesting features of audit is the fact that the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission are increasing their contacts together, to bring in a cross-Government view of auditing procedure.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne went through a number of key reports, which he drew to our attention. Before turning to those, I hope that he and the House will understand if I say a word about a maiden speech which formed part of our proceedings today—that of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman properly and with great humanity mentioned the work of our dear friend Geoffrey Dickens. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, South remarked on Geoffrey Dickens' bravery in his fight against cancer. He was a politician who brought humour as well as a campaigning spirit to the work of the House. I know that all hon. Members will miss his unique contributions.
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth spoke with passion and vigour, as I would expect anybody new to the House to do, just about staying in order in terms of controversy. Although I wish him well during his time as a Member of Parliament, and in serving his constituents' interests, I fear that many Members on the Conservative Benches may wish that stay to be limited. He mentioned the sites of special scientific interest, and the Government welcomed that report. If he wishes to see more on that subject, a reading of the rural White Paper may be to his advantage.
  In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne discussed the very important subject of the Ministry of Defence, and major projects. He rightly drew our attention to some of the complexities and

  763
  difficulties in dealing with matters connected with complex major projects. I reviewed that particular matter with the National Audit Office during my time there. Listeners to Radio 4 may have heard the diaries of Samuel Pepys and will have been attracted by what he had to say about the costs and complexities of running a naval department, when his mind was not on other things, whether his diaries or his personal affairs.
  Three things came out of my discussions at the National Audit Office which were central to addressing some of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. First, there is the need to get the specification right for the intended purpose at the outset: that is a central issue in the complex matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Secondly, there is the need to stick to logical stages in the project and not to rush into later stages before preceding stages can be adequately implemented.
  Thirdly—this emphasises an important, to me crucial, part of the human dimension—there is the question of continuity of personnel in senior management in such major projects. There may often be a desire to put a new person in to move something along, but the combination of new vigour with wisdom and experience can mean much when such complicated issues are being dealt with.
  The right hon. Gentleman cited a number of specific projects. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Defence has taken account of the Committee's advice about, for instance, the mid-life update programmes that he mentioned, but the report also noted progress. The Government welcome its acknowledgement that the MOD is seeking to adopt procedures for better estimation of programme costs and in-service dates. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned timing, which is crucial to the achievement of those objectives.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a project dear to my heart—the Eurofighter. He may not know that the prototypes are currently being assembled in my constituency. I have been acutely aware of many of the concerns expressed from time to time about cost overruns, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is a collaborative venture, for the very reason that it is doubtful whether any one nation could pursue it and achieve the same value for money. I believe that the MOD would argue strongly that in overall terms this arrangement ultimately constitutes a better buy for the British taxpayer. It will, however, have noted the important points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned fraud, which was dealt with in the report about the Sana'a embassy. When I discussed fraud with Sir John Bourn, he told me that he had recently been reading a hook about accountancy which had tried to collate a list of fraudulent happenings in an attempt to show where risks of fraud were occurring. Those happenings, apparently, conform to 40 basic models. Sadly, fraud has been around for an awfully long time, but the accountancy profession has now narrowed it down to that short list.
  Organisations can find themselves at risk of fraud when there has been too little change for too long, when there has been too much change too quickly and when there is an over-concentration of responsibilities in the hands of one person. Perhaps that covers some of the concerns expressed in the report on the Sana'a embassy.
  I draw comfort from the fact that it is possible to apply disciplines learnt from other areas such as health and safety, in which there is a continued process of challenge
  764
  to accepted procedures. I believe that part of the audit trail, and part of the excellent professional audit work carried out by the National Audit Office, relates to a desire to challenge accepted systems and never to accept that work is being done correctly.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the Sports Council and the need for a separation of powers and responsibilities. The council recognises that need; a financial memorandum has been agreed between it and its trust company for the purpose, and the company's structure is to be simplified as part of the remedial work involved. The report makes an important point about the need to separate responsibilities in organisations which may operate at arm's length from central Government.
  Hon. Members have raised the question of notices received by accounting officers in respect of the PAC. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that accounting officers now need to inform both the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General if they have been given an accounting officer direction in relation to a course which gives poor value for money. That is a useful way of securing proper accountability and indicating the respective roles of Ministers and accounting officers, and an important further discipline in dealing with how to respond to the work of the PAC.
  Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned council tax valuations. I listened carefully to what they had to say, but I think that anyone viewing the arguments the other way round, as it were, would see that the report could have been interpreted as describing the success constituted by the accuracy of 94 per cent. of the valuations, as opposed to making an important observation about the relationship between achieving a particular value for money and the quality of the work undertaken. There was clearly a lesson to be learnt from the costs of remedial action if the original work was not done as it should have been done, but it should sometimes be pointed out that work can be done effectively, which the report attempted to do.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew our attention to some of the difficulties associated with severance payments in publicly funded education. That underlined the importance of good information. In fact, both the Department for Education and Employment and the Higher Education Funding Council have responded positively to the PAC report and will be working together to encourage good practice and to ensure that public expenditure is seen to be both open and accountable.
  The HEFC and other funding councils share the PAC's views about the undesirability of gagging clauses, which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and others. It will be discussing with its institutions the best way to restrict their application to commercially sensitive information. It has already acted to require the disclosure of severance payments in institutions' annual accounts, and to monitor and encourage compliance with the Committee of University Chairmen's guidance on governors.
  The HEFC has acted with commendable swiftness to get the original severance package for the vice-chancellor of Huddersfield university set aside, and has also instigated an investigation of the departure of the vice-chancellor of Portsmouth university. I hope that that shows that robust action has followed. It deals with one point made by the Opposition about the PAC, which was described as a toothless watchdog. The fact that robust action is being taken as a result of the PAC's reports is a clear indication of the importance attributed to them.

  765
  One issue that emerged from the reports was the question of the National Audit Office's access to areas to which it currently has no access. While I acknowledge the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, it should be pointed out that the Comptroller and Auditor General already carries out certification on audits of more than 550 accounts, covering total income and expenditure of £500 billion per annum. While it does not necessarily have direct access to certain bodies, it does have a right of inspection. The activities of the Comptroller and Auditor General, therefore, are perhaps wider than some are led to believe. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, however, that sector is the subject of further consideration by Government and more will be said in due course.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the Sana'a embassy saga, as did a number of other right hon. and hon. Members. They pointed out that disciplinary action had been taken against those who were directly involved in that matter. I wish to reflect on some of the wider issues that came out of that sorry saga.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has acted. It has created a financial compliance unit, a rapid reaction team, able to deploy quickly to investigate reports of financial weaknesses and to get to the root of any problems that may ensue. It has instituted an early warning system to highlight posts at risk through internal management problems or local conditions. The permanent under-secretary wrote personally to all heads of post reminding them of their duties and responsibilities as sub-accounting officers. Finally, the FCO has published a booklet with advice on how to prevent and detect fraud.
  It is right that people should be critical and point fingers, but it is equally right that we should learn lessons from that. Just as the hon. Member for Bristol, South pointed and prodded her finger in my direction, one could equally say that perhaps there are local authorities run by members of her party in which some of the lessons learnt from all these exercises may be properly applicable.
  The final matter that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) also touched on, involved the whole question of green forms. There is no doubt that there is a serious problem there, which is why something that has been in operation in its current form for some 50 years is the subject of investigation by the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman will know that steps have been taken through the franchising operation to try to control much more carefully the operation of the solicitors' end of the green form activity, but the whole subject is to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has announced a fundamental review of the whole basis of the matter. I shall take pleasure in drawing his attention to the many sage comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
  My hon. Friend went on to talk on the subject of Hillingdon. One could sense from the passion with which he dealt with that subject that he was talking very much in his capacity as Hillingdon's excellent Member of Parliament. To that extent, I hope that he will not mind if I draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which were relevant and should be attended to in some detail.
  766
  On the other comments, I should like briefly to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). He, too, mentioned the Sana'a embassy and I have given our response on that. He touched on the subject of grant-maintained schools. The Funding Agency for Schools shares his concerns and, as part of the review and updating of guidance on financial management to such schools, the agency will place a mandatory requirement on them to maintain a register of pecuniary interests of governors and of staff with significant financial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will find that that matter has been taken seriously, as have some of his comments on events on Merseyside.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) touched in their own ways on matters connected with the Welsh Development Agency. That matter has been thoroughly commented on in public. They picked out their own particular matters of concern. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West touched on matters connected with a land deal at Gadlys road. The Government agree that aspects of the agency's handling of the case were unacceptable and, as he knows, appropriate action has been taken. The Welsh Office has issued new guidelines to the agency which have revised its procedures, and a code of practice has been issued to all staff. Lessons have been learnt not only from that but, as I have said, from all the reports by the Public Accounts Committee. Those matters have been taken extremely seriously and I am sure that further note will be taken of what hon. Members have mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy touched on the Grant Thornton report. The agency has commissioned that report at the instigation of the Secretary of State for Wales. The report examined all the issues relevant to the development at Aberdare, including the Tirfounder fields, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The agency has accepted all the recommendations of the report. Both those examples show the way in which the role and work of the Public Accounts Committee lead to robust action to deal with particular matters.
  The final speech was made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and included points on housing. The Government maintain that the objectives of the sale were met, particularly in terms of tenants' interests. I understand that the tenants had already shown a preference for the Waverley housing association that he mentioned. I have noted his particular comments.
  As we come to the conclusion of a wide-ranging debate which has touched on value for money, fraud, matters of control and complex projects, it is right to put on record the fact that Conservative Members have sought to improve the efficiency of Government by effectively removing Government from many areas where we should not be operating. The result of that has been a dramatic improvement in efficiency, a reduction in the number of civil servants, a substantial reduction in levels of public expenditure, and due note being paid to the question of value for money, which brings us full circle to where the debate started and to where the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne drew the House's attention to the continuing importance of the PAC's work in the vital matter of value for money. I thank him for the way in which he introduced the debate and all those who have

  767
  spoken in it. Without doubt, it shows that the PAC is as robust as ever in probing properly the inner workings of Government and the positive way in which the Government have responded by taking action in so many of the ways that the reports have recommended.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the 40th and 42nd to 51st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1993–94, of the 1st to 40th Reports of Session 1994–95, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 2732, 2739, 2754, 2757, 2786, 2825, 2832, 2906, 2921, 2988, 2990, 3013), with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1994–95:
  First, Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report (1993);
  Second, The Sports Council: Initiatives to Improve Financial Management and Control and Value for Money;
  Fifth, Council Tax Valuations in England and Wales;
  Twenty-eighth, Severance Payments to Senior Staff in the Publicly Funded Education Sector;
  Thirty-third, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Representation: Irregularities at the Sana'a Embassy;
  Thirty-fourth, Lord Chancellor's Department: Qualification of Audit Opinion and Alleged Frauds on the Green Form Scheme.

  Fisheries
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6588/95 relating to NAFO conservation and Greenland Halibut, 6191/95 and 7618/95 relating to European Union and Canadian fisheries and the NAFO Convention, 6/92/95 relating to drift net fisheries and salnwnids, 6196/95 relating to drift net fisheries and tuna and 7599/95 on NAFO fisheries, the Observer scheme for Community fishing vessels operating in the NAFO area, the scheme of joint international inspection adopted by NAFO and the provisions for the application of certain control measures adopted by NAFO.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that she has also placed a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers throughout the debate.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could not Madam Speaker have selected amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) bearing it in mind that we are asked to make a decision on the basis of 120 pages of paper which I am sure some of us have not read—we received them only on Friday? As the decision will in any event be taken in Brussels on Thursday on a majority vote, would not it help the House more if we were to debate amendment (b) and have a proper debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already explained to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  8.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents No. 7596/95, on establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, No. 7465/95, relating to Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. 8817/95, concerning a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the list of species to be recorded in the fisheries logbook and landing declarations; welcomes the agreement reached at the Fisheries Council on 15th June on fishing effort levels; and supports the Government's efforts to secure effective measures to monitor and enforce fishing activity in Western Waters, including the Irish Box, while not placing unnecessary burdens on the fishing industry.
  I shall try not to take up too much of the House's time as this debate is short and I am sure that a number of hon. Members want to speak. To help, I have sought in advance of today's debate to keep informed those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have a particular interest in this subject, but it will be helpful briefly to put tonight's debate into context.
  The United Kingdom joined the European Community on 1 January 1973, nearly a quarter of a century ago. It must have been abundantly clear at that time that, by joining the Common Market, Britain would be taking part in a European fisheries policy. Articles 38 to 46 of the EC treaty set out the provisions that deal with agriculture. Fishery products are specifically mentioned in article 38 and in annex 2 to the treaty. The common fisheries policy is very much part of the EC treaty.
  To put the matter beyond all doubt, the treaty on European Union in 1993 amended the objectives of the Community in article 3 to refer specifically to
  "A common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries."

  769
  Nor was the UK's involvement in a European fisheries policy seen to warrant great concern in the years after we joined. When the Labour Government renegotiated the terms for Britain's entry into the Common Market prior to the referendum in 1975, there was no mention of fisheries policy; nor, once the European Commission's common fisheries policy was agreed in 1983 and the Community enlarged, was there much interest from the Opposition. Indeed, at the general election, the Labour party did not mention fisheries policy in its manifesto. It was a lengthy document, but there was no mention of fisheries policy.
  I fully appreciate that the nationalist parties have their particular angle, consistent with their broad political philosophies, but other than that it would be extremely disingenuous of anyone to suggest that the solution to the challenges facing the United Kingdom fishing fleet is for Britain to seek unilaterally to leave the CFP.
  The House should acknowledge that, when Spain joined the European Community some 10 years ago, its accession had been agreed with the existing member states, including the UK. I have re-read all the debates on Spain's accession, both in this House and in the other place. The Committee stage of the Bill was taken on the Floor of the House. There were reasonably lengthy debates, but in none of them, and in not one speech either here or in the other place, was any query raised about Spain's accession to the European Community and the possible effect of that on the CFP in general and the UK fishing industry in particular.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister makes a somewhat disingenuous point. The treaty of accession for Spain and Portugal did not envisage full Spanish and Portuguese access to Community waters until 2003. That is not on offer now. The House has never been told when and why it was agreed that access should take place from 1 January next year. What was the deal and why did the UK subscribe to it?
  Mr. Baldry: It is not me who is being disingenuous. Throughout the debates to which I referred, it was clear that the treaty of accession contained very specific references to fishing, to Spain and to the fact that Spain would not have access to the North sea. The fact that no hon. Member raised the matter of Spanish accession and its impact on the CFP should be taken into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his point about 2003—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely seeking the truth, let me help him.
  It was quite clear that when Norway and other applicant states sought to join the European Union, they negotiated on the basis that the CFP would apply to them once they had joined. Therefore, it was difficult for existing member states to insist that the transitional arrangements for Spain should continue for a long time after the new applicants had joined the EU. That is the perfectly straightforward reason why the date was changed.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Why was it difficult to resist countries that had freely signed the treaty of accession? Why did the Government agree to a six-year acceleration in the access arrangements? The Minister has given us rather more of an explanation than we have ever had previously, and I am grateful for that, but will he deny
  770
  outright that the basis of the deal between Iberian countries and the British Government was Spanish support for Major on qualified majority voting and British support for the Spanish on accelerated access? Was that the deal?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in an enormously complex conspiracy theory when in fact the matter is quite straightforward. As I have already explained to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), it was not unreasonable of the Spanish Government to say that, as other countries applying to join the EU were to be included in the CFP immediately, the transitional arrangements for Spain should be brought into line.
  It should be clear that we are talking about an agreement that meant that the Spanish would have no access to the North sea, the Irish sea or the Bristol channel. They have access for up to 40 trawlers at any one time to the Irish box, the vast majority of which is within the territorial waters of the Republic of Ireland.
  It must have been clear to everyone when Spain joined the European Community that, just as previously member states had had to adjust to take on board the entry of the UK, Denmark and Ireland in 1973, so we and the other members of the EU would have to integrate Spain and Portugal within the CFP. It is worth noting that not one Member of Parliament voted against Spain's accession to the European Community at any stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend accept that if hon. Members on both sides of the House had known what the deal would be—if they had been fully informed at the time of Spain's accession—a large number of them would have protested? The Spanish have marauded their way through the south coast and decimated the British fleet. That is why hon. Members, even if they did not protest before, are entitled to protest now.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend reflects rather poorly on a number of right hon. and hon. Members who were in the House at the time in question, many of them on the Conservative Benches. They were well and fully informed of what was involved, but saw it as sensible and proportionate to Spain's accession to the European Community. It is rather disappointing that hon. Members should cast aspersions and suggest that we do not understand what we are doing. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member at the time fully understood what he was doing when the House agreed to the treaty and allowed Spain's accession to the European Community without one vote against.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Spanish marauding through our waters. I appreciate the concerns of the UK fishing industry, but I think that it fully recognises that the deal that we have agreed means that the Spanish fleet will have no access to the Irish sea, the North sea or the Bristol channel. There will be a limit of 40 Spanish trawlers at any one time in the Irish box, the vast majority of which involves waters within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, not the UK.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
  What we are dealing with this evening follows on logically from a number of decisions taken by the House and by the country as a whole in the 1975 referendum, which led to the UK's and, eventually, Spain's accession to the European Community and the involvement of all member states in a common fisheries policy.
  I want briefly to outline some of the history of the transitional arrangements for Spain in relation to the CFP. Under the Spanish accession treaty, the number of Spanish vessels that could fish in western waters north of 48 deg north was limited to 300, of which only 150 could fish at any one time. Those vessels were excluded from the Irish box and the North sea and were required to submit detailed information on their fishing activities.
  The exclusion from the Irish box was due to cease at the end of this year and failure to agree new provisions would have resulted in unrestricted access. That was not acceptable to the Government or to the UK fishing industry. A new agreement that safeguarded UK fishing interests was essential and we achieved that last December after tough and difficult negotiations. As a result, there will be no overall increase in fishing effort in western waters. Effort ceilings are to be established for each member state permitted to fish in the waters and, most important, Spanish access to the Irish box will be limited to a maximum of 40 vessels at any one time.
  I emphasise the fact that the Spanish will not be allowed to fish within the North sea, the Irish sea or the Bristol channel. They will be allowed to fish only in the areas of the Irish box beyond the 12-mile limit. The Irish box covers a sea area of nearly 250,000 sq km of which around 73,000 sq km, or 33 per cent., falls within British fishery limits, so the vast majority of the Irish box is within the territorial waters of the Republic of Ireland.
  In my travels around the coast, talking to members of the fishing industry, it became clear that there is a general recognition that the vast majority of Spanish fishing activity in the Irish box will take place in the waters of the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. John Sykes: My hon. Friend mentioned the North sea. He will appreciate that many hon. Members who represent constituencies on my side of the coast are extremely worried. Does he envisage a time when the Spanish may be allowed to fish in the North sea?
  Mr. Baldry: Not while I am the Minister responsible for fisheries policy. I have only one brief as the United Kingdom Minister responsible for fisheries policy and that is to represent the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. It is perfectly straightforward.
  Everyone, not least ourselves and the Republic of Ireland, wants to be confident of having a system that will enable there to be effective control so that there are no more than 40 Spanish trawlers in the Irish box at any one time. There is also a broad recognition—and agreement among all those involved in the fishing industry—that we have to have effective conservation policies to protect tomorrow's catch and ensure that we have a sustainable industry that can go with some confidence into the next century. That means responsibly controlling effort for today to ensure adequate catches tomorrow. Part of the western waters agreement is that there should be measures to monitor and control fishing effort.
  772
  As the House knows, the Commission was sent away to come up with proposals to achieve those objectives. The proposals that it came up with were overly bureaucratic and would have been unnecessarily burdensome and costly for our fishing industry. They were simply unacceptable to us and to our fishing industry. They would have required the masters of vessels of more than 18 m in overall length or 15 m between the perpendiculars to have notified flag and coastal states, by radio or telex, of each movement into or from a fishing area or port within western waters, including the Irish box. That would have meant that a major part of the United Kingdom fishing fleet would have spent much of its time hailing in and hailing out.
  I estimate that, under the Commission's proposals, our vessels would have had to make some 170,000 calls to the United Kingdom authorities and perhaps a further 50,000 to other member states. The costs of communication alone would have been more than £1.2 million, averaging £1,400 for the 900 or so vessels affected. That is clearly daft, unacceptable and unnecessary.
  I see from reports in some national newspapers that there has been some briefing from Brussels which is a mixture of scaremongering and speculation. The compromise proposals which the presidency will be putting forward to the Fisheries Council on Thursday have wide support among Ministers, as I shall make clear.
  As I have already made clear to the fishing industry in this country, I have only one brief, which is to promote the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. I have no brief for the European Commission, and I have no brief in particular for the European Union. I do, however, have a brief for the United Kingdom fishing industry and a clear responsibility to try to ensure that it has to deal with the minimum level of regulation necessary.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my hon. Friend agree that, if he is to stick to that brief, to put the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry first and to ensure that it genuinely has a future, the best course is undoubtedly for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, which has been ecologically and economically disastrous for our traditional fishing communities?
  Mr. Baldry: I believe that my job, which is to be the best possible advocate for the fishing industry, entails listening carefully to what the industry says and then, like any good advocate, explaining honestly and straightforwardly what I believe to be within the politics of the possible.
  I do not believe that it will ever be within the politics of the possible—nor should it be—for the Government unilaterally to seek to leave the common fisheries policy. It is not possible legally or pragmatically. It would jeopardise something like £500 million worth of United Kingdom fish sales each year and, furthermore, what would it achieve? I or my successor would, I suspect, have to spend something like the equivalent of a Parliament negotiating bilateral arrangements with each and every European Union member state.
  Hon. Members who suggest that the solution to the challenges facing the United Kingdom fishing industry is simply for us unilaterally to try to leave the European fisheries policy are misleading the industry and being disingenuous.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall give way, but I must make some progress.
  Mr. Budgen: Why?
  Mr. Baldry: Because this is a short debate and because a large number of right hon. and hon. Members would like to take part in it.
  Since taking on this job in July, I have spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with the presidency of the European Union and ministerial colleagues in other member states to try to ensure that we come forward with sensible proposals that enable us to control and monitor Spanish activity in the Irish box and to record effort generally in the western waters without imposing further costs or burdens on the United Kingdom fishing fleet. The proposals on which I have been working and which the presidency will be putting to the Fisheries Council on Thursday—where, I am glad to say, I shall have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—are sensible and proportionate to what needs to be achieved.
  First, individual member states will be able to determine the arrangements for monitoring the movement of their own vessels operating within waters of their jurisdiction. Secondly, vessels at sea for fewer than 72 hours but operating in waters of other member states will be able to submit a single report to the flag state and relevant coastal state, advising their fishing intentions prior to departure from port. Thirdly, vessels at sea for more than 72 hours and fishing in the waters of other member states—for example, Spanish trawlers in the Irish box—will have to provide real-time information about their movements, although there will be greater flexibility as to how this information might be communicated.
  Those proposals will enable us and the Irish Government to monitor Spanish trawlers entering and leaving the Irish box, but involve vessels in the United Kingdom fleet calling in only if they are entering other nations' fishing waters and are at sea for more than 72 hours. That should significantly reduce the number of calls and the cost to our fishing industry. Vessels engaged in pelagic fishing will be wholly exempt. For United Kingdom vessels operating within our fishing limits, we envisage making full use of the present logbook system to record and report on fishing effort, supplemented by our extensive surveillance activity at sea, in the air and on land.
  I appreciate that the Northern Ireland fleet has particular concerns about how the proposed regime will impact on its traditional Irish sea fishery, which involves frequent passage between our waters and those of the Republic of Ireland. At present, there is a long-standing agreement that vessels from the Northern Ireland fleet and vessels from the Republic of Ireland go freely in and out of each other's waters.
  Northern Ireland fishermen will be especially interested in how the new control arrangements will apply when they are fishing in the Republic of Ireland's jurisdiction. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) who, with Dick James of the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation, met me last week to set out their concerns constructively and in detail. I hope that they and
  774
  other right hon. and hon. Members will take some reassurance from the fact that extensive discussions have been and are taking place between the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Department of the Marine in the Republic of Ireland. I am confident that sensible and pragmatic reporting arrangements, with which I hope the Northern Ireland fleet will be happy, can be made.
  The proposals that I have just set out, and which I believe to be reasonable and proportionate, now have the support of Fisheries Ministers throughout the European Union. I hope that they will thus be endorsed by the Council of Ministers on Thursday so that everyone will know where they stand as of 1 January next year.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister reject entirely the advice that some of us received from Brussels to the effect that, if the arrangement that he has made is accepted, individual Spanish fishermen could take action to overturn it on the basis of unfair discrimination because Spanish vessels were not being treated in the same way as those from the United Kingdom? Does he agree that he was incorrect to say that there were no votes on Spanish accession? A reading of the proceedings of 10 December 1985 reveals that there were.
  Mr. Baldry: I am not entirely clear about the last point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. Perhaps we could clarify it. I am sorry that he has to pray in aid—an unusual experience for him I am sure—press articles which have as their basis briefings from officials in Brussels concerned at the progress that democratically elected Ministers have made in bringing forward sensible proposals.
  The measures are not discriminatory. They are the same for all member states and they reflect reality. All vessels that fish in the waters of other member states will have to notify their fishing intention prior to departure, and if they are at sea for more than 72 hours they will need to report each entry and exit immediately prior to making that entry or exit.
  I am confident that the arrangements that I and other Fisheries Ministers have made throughout the European Union are perfectly capable of withstanding any legal challenge. It is also absolute rubbish for anyone to suggest that foreign vessels fishing in British waters will be given a blank cheque. I do not think that anyone who is involved with Spanish vessels in this country doubts the rigidity of our enforcement arrangements.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I need to make some progress. It is only fair to others.
  I fully appreciate that, earlier in the year, our fishing industry was quite rightly totally opposed to the Commission's proposals, which the industry saw as being bureaucratic, burdensome and costly. I am sure that the industry now recognizes—I hope that the House will also recognise it, irrespective of the various views that might exist on the European Union—that I and other Fisheries Ministers throughout Europe have been able to move matters a considerable distance during the summer.
  Given the policy objectives that we have to meet, I believe that the proposals place the minimum of extra regulation on the UK fishing industry, consistent with the

  775
  need, which I am sure is recognised by hon. Members of all parties, to ensure that Spain's involvement in the Irish box is properly monitored and supervised. I would certainly welcome the House's support for the proposals tonight. That would send a strong signal to everyone else in the European Union that, on these matters, we stand together, and that we stand together in support of the UK fishing industry.
  I shall deal briefly with Community funding for enforcement. It is a relatively straightforward proposal. It continues the provision of Community financial assistance to member states for fisheries enforcement for a further five years when the existing arrangements finish at the end of this year. It also incorporates special assistance for Ireland, agreed at December's Fisheries Council, which recognises the exceptional demands and costs involved in undertaking enforcement in the waters of the Republic of Ireland, which include the majority of the Irish box.
  Those measures are justified because member states are required to monitor and enforce the Community rules relating to a common resource. It is also an important factor in achieving effective fisheries controls throughout the Community.
  I shall mention the proposal to extend the number of species to be recorded in logbooks and to develop regional arrangements through the Commission's management committee procedures simply so that it will not become a distraction this evening. The proposal will not be considered at Thursday's Fisheries Council. Just as I have been determined that we should not have costly and bureaucratic controls for western waters, I hope that the House and the industry will be confident that I am equally determined to ensure that we keep logbooks as straightforward and as simple as possible.
  The Commission's proposals on logbooks start off as being over-burdensome. How can it expect fishermen to record so many species—even if they were capable of identifying each and every one and of carrying a logbook large enough to record them all? I have made my position perfectly clear to Brussels. I am not prepared to consider any extension of the present number of species unless I receive a clear justification for the addition of each and every species and I have a clear view of the species to appear in regional lists.
  I also wish to see a continuing derogation from the need to complete logbooks for vessels at sea for fewer than 12 hours and less than 17 m in length. I intend to resist further burdens being placed on what is already a very heavily regulated industry. Our energies should be directed to lessening the regulatory burden on our fishermen, not increasing it. Of course I fully support any sensible proposals to reform the common fisheries policy to that end.
  A number of other documents have been tagged to this debate. They are mainly concerned with the arrangements for waters regulated under the auspices of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and with the future arrangements for the regulation of drift nets. The use of such nets in the tuna fishery has been an issue of some controversy over the past two years. On 29 September, I announced that this year's tuna fishery had finished. I am very pleased to report that the arrangements that we have put in place, combined with the co-operation of our industry and efforts of the Royal Navy and the sea fisheries inspectorate, have ensured that the fishery was peaceful and free from serious incidents such as occurred last year.
  776
  Since the three-year decommissioning programme was announced in 1992, we have spent £16.6 million on two schemes—one in 1993 and a second in 1994. The schemes, using a tendering arrangement to give us the best possible value for money, enabled us to reduce the fleet by just over 10,000 tonnes, or some 4.6 per cent. of fleet capacity.
  In January last year, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), announced that a further £25 million would be made available for decommissioning, taking the total over five years to £53 million. That shows the Government's commitment to securing the future of the fishing industry.
  In July, I launched the third round of decommissioning—£12 million was made available. I am pleased tonight be able to announce that 164 vessels have been successful in the scheme. They represent 5,326 gross registered tonnes; equivalent to some 2.5 per cent. of the fleet's capacity. Together those excellent schemes will have removed more than 7 per cent. of fleet capacity. In the light of that, I shall analyse the detailed results of the schemes and consult the industry to see whether we need to adjust the rules for the 1996 scheme to continue to target spending where it is most needed.
  I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are determined to put forward the best interests of the UK fishing industry. We have listened very carefully to what the industry has had to say. I believe that the proposals on which I and other Ministers have been working hard during the summer will enable us to meet our policy objectives of monitoring effort in western waters and controlling foreign vessels in western waters without placing undue burdens or costs on our industry. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the proposals its full support this evening.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, to leave out from 'declarations' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `recognises the widespread concern about the increased pressure on fish stocks in Western Waters including the Irish Box resulting from the failure of the Government to secure a satisfactory agreement on the future access of Spanish and Portuguese vessels; and calls upon the Government to secure arrangements which match fishing effort to available fish stocks and include a system of control and effective enforcement that reflects the operational needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry and the need to protect the interests of local fishing communities.'
  As always, Opposition Members welcome an opportunity to discuss fishing issues, but I must start by saying that it is a disappointment that the debate has been cut to one and a half hours. Previous debates have been three hours. This debate is all the more important—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—because it also refers to a whole series of documents relating to the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, tuna fishing and drift net fishing in the north Atlantic; all of which are important regional interests which we should have had more time to discuss. Yet there is not going to be any opportunity for such discussion in tonight's debate.
  To put the record straight, the Minister's comments from his brief about Labour's manifesto promises or mention of fishing are an old chestnut. In 1992, the Labour party launched a document as part of the election

  777
  campaign in a dedicated policy launch in Tyneside on the fishing industry marine harvest. The Conservative party did no such thing. Although the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), complained about the quality of that document, it must be said that in 1992 we did not have the resources of the Conservative party or, should I say, given its bank account, the overdraft of the Conservative party. That document is very well known to the fishing industry and was warmly welcomed by it, even if it is not known to the Minister.
  Although the Government are known for their cheek, they have the brass neck to try to suggest that Opposition Members are responsible in some way for bringing forward the accession of the Iberian fleets by six years. That subject was never on the agenda when we were discussing matters. So it was somewhat of a surprise that the accession suddenly came forward in the negotiations. Indeed, our amendment points out that it was a failure of the Government in those negotiations to concede to the Spanish and Portuguese in such a way. We believe that such things as the principle of relative stability could have been used far more effectively than they were in those negotiations. I do not doubt that there was a deal in terms of conceding to the Iberian request and I do not doubt that sooner or later, the details of that deal will come out, probably when we are in government.
  We are discussing these documents tonight because promises were given that the Spanish accession would not lead to greater effort; the controls that we are talking about are part of that discussion. Although there is a sensible case for effort control—no one would disagree with that—any scheme should be workable and should not put an undue burden on our fishing fleet. As the scheme stands in its draft form—I accept that the Minister has recognised this—it is totally unacceptable in terms of the burden that it would place on the UK fishing fleet.
  We also expect the Minister fully to comply with the assurances that were given by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Fylde, in a letter to every fisherman in the country, stating that any such effort control would not add further burdens for the fishing fleet. I am a bit concerned that Fisheries Ministers seem to come and go. I very much hope that the assurances given by one Minister are not suddenly ignored by the next Minister. I refer to the Minister's own welcome assurance of protection.
  I also note that although the Government have said that they welcome the presidency compromise, which goes a long way towards improving the draft proposals, even that compromise puts a heavy burden on parts of our fishing fleet, especially south-western vessels which frequently fish in French waters, and our Northern Ireland fleet which frequently fishes in Irish waters. We very much want their needs to be recognised in any deal because even the compromise does not go far enough. I very much hope that the Minister will give some thought to the desirability of reciprocal agreements with the countries I have mentioned if the presidency compromise forms the basis of a future settlement.
  I shall now expand on what we envisage in our amendment when we talk about "control and effective enforcement". The Minister will be aware of the crisis of confidence felt by UK fishermen about the operation of the current common fisheries policy. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations stated in a brief
  778
  that it circulated to hon. Members that it believed that there was no future for the fishing industry within the present structure and that it must be abandoned. Certainly, there must be radical change and the forthcoming Council meeting is an opportunity for the Minister to begin that change.
  In essence, we believe that the member states should have far more control of enforcement and conservation management within their own waters. We would like to expand that into wider areas of fisheries management and control, but for the purpose of this debate, we want to concentrate on control and enforcement. We accept that the intention is to enforce effort and it is also recognised that the Minister has stated that in the UK, that will be done through logbook entries; we accept that that is a reasonable approach in terms of our own fleet.
  However, we also share the concern of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation about what will happen in terms of the enforcement of Spanish vessels in UK waters, especially from 1 January. Will the Minister confirm that current reporting-in regulations for Spanish ships will be relaxed as they are absorbed into part of whatever scheme comes out of the Council of Ministers? Will he also confirm that the current restriction that limits Spanish ships in western waters to 150 will be relaxed from 1 January as the new measures come in and the restriction on numbers is replaced by kilowatt days?
  Will the Minister also confirm that enforcement will be by the flag state? We believe that when there is fishing in UK waters within the CFP and within the principle of the CFP, the enforcement should be by the member states. Yet under the proposals, it seems that in terms of enforcing kilowatt days and enforcing regulations generally, the enforcement authority will be the Spanish authorities. With the best will in the world, the record of the Spanish authorities in terms of enforcement has not been good—I put that somewhat mildly.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of rhetorical questions which will take me a little time to answer. Actually, he is confused on a number of issues. I am sorry that if he had so many questions to which he genuinely wanted an answer, he did not seek to see me beforehand because I could have put him right on some things.
  I hope that we shall not waste time in fisheries debates arguing about matters that are not correct. Of course the Spanish will have responsibility for ensuring that there are no more than 40 Spanish vessels within the Irish box at any one time. It is, however, of course a matter for us to supervise Spanish vessels generally in our waters. Last year, we inspected more than 5,000 vessels at sea; almost half were foreign. We made more than 45,000 sightings. The hon. Gentleman and the House can rest assured that we shall continue to monitor and supervise all vessels within UK waters. There is no question of our abandoning our responsibility for that. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about that, I shall be happy to put him straight.
  Mr. Morley: If the Minister wishes to put me straight, will he tell us whether the management and enforcement of the kilowatt-day regime will be carried out by the flag state or by the member state in which the vessels are fishing? Am I misinformed on that issue?
  Mr. Baldry: We shall monitor effort in our waters through the logbook system. We shall, of course, as the

  779
  flag state, continue to supervise Spanish vessels fishing in our waters, just as we do at present. Of course within the Irish box, the Spanish will have the responsibility of seeing that no more than 40 vessels are within the box at any one time. The Republic of Ireland will also have responsibility. The recognition of the extensive waters within the Irish box is the reason why we in the European Union have agreed to give the Republic of Ireland extra funds for enforcement purposes. The Irish will be able to ensure that the Spanish are complying fully with the arrangement to which we have come. There is no mystery about that. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene and I fully appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful. However, these are long interventions. We have only 50 minutes now for this debate and many hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Morley: I understand that the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will reply to the debate and I am sure that he will have an opportunity to deal with some of these points. The Minister has, however, confirmed what I have said. Enforcement of the kilowatt days for Spanish vessels fishing in western waters will be the responsibility of Spain. I am talking not just about the Irish box, but about western waters, as a result of the accession agreement. The Minister is misleading the House if he is suggesting that the United Kingdom will have absolute control over Spanish vessels in UK waters. My information is that it will not.
  Of course, we have powers to board and to check the logbooks and reporting of Spanish vessels, but those powers do not go as far as they do over UK vessels fishing in UK waters. I believe that within the principle of the CFP, we should have the powers to ensure the absolute enforcement of kilowatt days and that regime. I suspect very much that if we do not, Spanish vessels will not work to the same strict enforcement regime as our own vessels will. Time will tell.
  Rightly or wrongly, our fishermen feel that the rules are often applied more rigidly in our country than they are in others. When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answers, can he tell us whether he has seen lists of vessels yet? Are the lists of vessels that will be fishing ready and what are the details?
  Does the Minister believe that other member states will be ready to implement proposals of this kind on 1 January? It will be totally unacceptable if we implement the proposals fully while other member states do so in a somewhat relaxed way, which—rightly or wrongly—is a perception within the UK fishing fleet.
  I do not wish to take any more time, as I know that more hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind my comments about the time to be allocated for these debates in the future. But I ask the Minister to bear it in mind when he goes to the Council of Ministers that the credibility of the CFP rests on a management scheme that is credible, effective and simple. He must also bear it in mind that it is not incompatible with the principle of the CFP for there to be more UK control over UK waters. I hope that the Minister will argue strongly for more autonomy over the management of our waters.
  8.59 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the House will appreciate that we are making ourselves look rather ridiculous for a democracy—whether we are fishermen or not. Our constituents should realise that we had the opportunity to grab the bundle of papers that we are now discussing in the Vote Office on Friday. Those who were here on Friday will appreciate that hardly any hon. Members were in the House at that time, and Members instead received the papers this morning. As Members have lots to do—I am sure that the Members here now are very busy indeed—how on earth could they read all of the documentation?
  Our constituents should also know that even if some hon. Members had managed to read all of the papers—I know that our friends in the Scottish National party work day and night—it would have been irrelevant because, at the end of the day, what is to happen will be decided by majority vote at Thursday's Council of Ministers meeting.
  Hon. Members should appreciate that there is nothing more pathetic than Opposition parties—I am sure sincerely—putting questions to Ministers on issues over which the Government have no power. We must bear it in mind that whatever the Government do can be overturned by the European Court, and by majority vote thereafter.
  The Minister objects to my intervening in the debate to remind him of tiny matters which are not terribly relevant, such as the vote on 10 December when a former Minister acted as one of the Tellers, and I accept that he is working very hard indeed. The Minister is faced with a nightmare, as the British fishing industry is faced with a situation in which the average boat must spend up to £5,000 on the most ridiculous bureaucracy. The boats must send in messages non-stop, and they could end up sending hundreds of thousands of messages because of the new arrangement.
  We all appreciate that the only way in which we can properly police Spanish vessels coming into the Irish box is to have a Euro-policeman on every boat, or perhaps three Euro-policemen and a computer. That is why the Commission put forward its proposals. The British industry, of course, objected to the proposals because of the cost of the bureaucracy. Therefore, as the Minister kindly wrote to some of us, an arrangement has been made whereby that bureaucracy will be reduced, and it is thought that the arrangement will go through on Thursday. My point is that if the bureaucracy is reduced, the policing of the system will become less effective.
  In addition, if the Government bring forward proposals—as they intend to—which basically discriminate against Spanish vessels by having separate rules for those who work 72 hours or more a week and for those who work fewer than 72 hours a week, they could find that the proposals will be overturned by the European Court.
  I feel guilty taking up time in this debate, although we all know that—as is the case so often in debates on European measures—we are wasting our time. We do not have the power to do anything in this matter, and hon. Members' votes to note or not to note the proposals will not have the slightest effect on what happens. Even if the Council of Ministers agrees on the great new arrangement—I can appreciate that it has been forced on the Minister following the objections by our fishermen—it can be overturned by a European Court decision.

  781
  During the past 30 years, I have become a thorough Euro-bore. Ministers obviously regard me as such, but I ask them to realise what is happening to democracy. I shall mention only one other case. I had the pleasure of attending a political party conference in a place called Blackpool, where I heard someone say that we will fight on the issue of border controls and that we will surrender not an inch. A terribly important Minister—a Minister who is more important than any other—said that the issue was not negotiable. Yet we all know than an action has been started in the European Court on the matter. I have received advice from learned, clever and highly paid people—who must be intelligent—that this country does not have a hope in the matter because the declaration on which we are basing our defence does not hold any water.
  On fishing, as with everything else, we should appreciate that democracy is dying. All of the assurances that the Minister gives with great sincerity to fishermen and all of the hard work that I know he does is basically one great joke. That is why I and some colleagues tabled an amendment—to make people think. There is no solution to the problems of British fishing within the present situation in the EU. In the same way, and despite all of the silly comments we have heard from successive Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we should appreciate that there is no way at all in which the common agriculture policy can ever be reformed within the present structure. We simply have to wake up to the fact that on this mountain of papers we are basically wasting our time, misleading our constituents and misleading the fishermen of Britain, who are probably among the most respectable, hard-working and decent groups in our community.
  I look forward to the time when—if, by any chance, the Labour party is elected to power—we will see exactly the opposite happening. If only the parties would come together, accept things as they are and accept that if we are to save British fishing and avoid the crazy expenditure of vast sums on bureaucracy, we should consult others about the possibility of extracting the British fishing industry from the common fisheries policy. There is no other solution.
  It is sad for our industry that so many people in this House of Commons—good, hard-working people—are not prepared simply to tell people things as they are. If we did that, irrespective of opinion polls, we would all have a great deal more respect. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that, no matter what is agreed on Thursday, it can be overturned. I also hope that he will accept that, irrespective of what the House says, the Council on Thursday can overturn what we think. I hope that he will also conclude that the views of the fishermen of Britain seem to be virtually of no consequence.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: It is worth saying at the outset some words about the background against which the debate takes place. The level of discontent and sheer anger among the fishing communities is well known by all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies. It has never been higher. One sign of that is the growth in support for the aims of the Save British Fish campaign, which seeks to persuade
  782
  the Government to withdraw from the common fisheries policy. It is fair to say that many of the people who subscribe to that campaign appreciate that its aim is probably not a realistic legal objective, but they are so fed up and angry about the way in which the policy has impacted on them and their communities that they feel driven to that extreme solution.
  Over the years, fishermen have had to put up with conflicting advice from scientists about how much of various stocks is left in the seas. That advice leads them from one year to the next to change their fishing expectations and patterns. They are trapped in ever-increasing regulations and restrictions. They fear that the enforcement procedures that we are discussing tonight would represent a major step forward in those regulations and restrictions.
  Fishermen have had to put up with the loss of the financial support that the industry has been able to rely on in the past for renewing and improving boats. They face ever-increasing incursion from foreign boats into waters that they regard as traditionally theirs. As a result of all those factors, fishermen are at the end of their tether. In considering and discussing the regulations before us tonight, and in thinking ahead towards the meeting with his fellow Ministers, it is important that the Minister appreciates the level of anger in fishing communities.
  Fishermen are especially angry in my constituency of the Western Isles. The fishing industry there is a major aspect of the islands' economy. It is a major foundation for maintaining otherwise fragile rural communities. There is a special twist in the Western Isles in that more than 90 per cent. of the catch is shellfish. So the fleet in the Western Isles makes no real contribution to the problem of overcapacity that has afflicted the British fleet in recent years and led to many of the regulations and restrictions that we have had to put up with.
  The Minister mentioned decommissioning. He may not realise that none of the Western Isles boats is eligible for decommissioning because the vast majority of them fish for shellfish—primarily for prawns. The Government have concluded, logically, that because the prawn sector is recognised not to be contributing to overcapacity, it should not be eligible for decommissioning.
  However, if it is true that the prawn sector does not contribute to overcapacity, logically also it should be eligible for a resumption of financial support to help it renew and rebuild the fleet. Not only in the Western Isles but throughout the west coast of Scotland, the boats that are used for fishing are elderly boats that should have been renewed or replaced a long time ago. As a result of the freeze on financial assistance to be spent on fishing boats, that has not been happening. I ask the Minister, as he looks ahead into the next year—I specifically ask the Scottish Office Minister—to consider the possibility of again opening up those sources of financial assistance to help those boats.
  Enforcement, which is the primary subject of the debate, continues to be murky and unclear. Fishermen remain confused as to the way in which Spanish access will work out from 1 January 1996. The Government continually repeat that there will be no increase in overall effort and insist that relative stability will be maintained. If those two things are true, it appears to follow—to Labour Members, at least—that that means that there will be no significant increase in Spanish effort.

  783
  Given the track record of Spanish boats, we find that hard to believe. Given the ability of Spanish boats to evade those rules and regulations that are laid down already, fishermen looking ahead to 1 January 1996 are fearful of what the impact of Spanish access will be. Therefore, in spite of the Minister's attempts, no one will believe his reassurances until the reality of the position unfolds in the new year.
  It is now widely realised that we must think urgently about radical reform of the common fisheries policy. One of the elements of that reform will be an attempt to move to a system of regulation that pays greater heed to regional differences within countries. There are huge differences between the types of fleet, the fish and the problems in different parts of the United Kingdom, even in different parts of Scotland. A policy that pays greater heed to those differences and allows regions greater freedom to set guidelines or to regulate will be one of the elements of a reformed common fisheries policy.
  We heard earlier about the problems caused by a state-based system of regulation. The Minister referred to the briefings that are apparently being given by Commission officials, complaining that what the Minister is trying to do will undermine the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination between states. As long as we think only in terms of state regulation and state criteria, we shall run into those problems constantly. We need to aim much more for a regionally based system of regulation.
  9.14 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to raise matters relevant to Northern Ireland. The Minister tonight rightly utterly rejected the first proposals that were put and pointed out how ludicrous they were and how expensive and discriminatory they would have been. It must be emphasised that the fishermen who would have been discriminated against more than any others by the original proposals were the fishermen of Northern Ireland.
  For example, under the first proposals, vessels out of Kilkeel fishing in the waters of the Irish Republic would be required to report on leaving Kilkeel, upon entering the territorial waters of the Irish Republic, upon exiting those waters and again upon returning to Kilkeel. In some instances, reports would have had to be made to the authorities in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. That burden could not have been borne by the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.
  The Minister tells us that on Thursday, Spain, which holds the EU presidency, will put forward a compromise proposal. That is a step in the right direction, but it will still have a negative impact upon all Northern Ireland vessels. The essence of the compromise is that it would remove some of the clearly excessive parts of the Commission's proposals, such as reporting of catches by radio, and would allow certain exemptions from the reporting requirements. Vessels fishing in their own member state waters would be exempt from the Commissions's reporting rules and vessels operating within another member state's waters for fewer than 72 hours would have to make only one report on leaving port. However, Northern Ireland vessels working in the south-west which have to pass through Irish waters to fish in French and Irish waters will still be hit with the full force of all the Commission's reporting requirements. Each call will cost at least £5.
  784
  The Minister responsible for fisheries in Northern Ireland wrote to every individual vessel owner in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year. He assured them:
  "no new measures to control effort will need to be imposed in the United Kingdom industry".
  The fishermen of Northern Ireland would contend that the requirement to report in and out is a new measure and that the Ministers's undertaking has not been kept.
  The Commission's proposals for Northern Ireland fishermen—even the compromise proposals—are expensive, complicated, excessive and unworkable. The compromise put forward by the Spanish Government as president of the EU may be a move in the right direction but, if adopted, it will leave Northern Irish and south-western fleets exposed to the full rigour of the Commission's excessive reporting requirements. The fishing industry cannot bear that burden.
  The United Kingdom and Europe already have in place numerous measures regarding the minimum size of fish and net mesh sizes. The existing rules should be enforced; by doing so, many problems could be solved. Northern Ireland fishermen who, because of their position with regard to the Irish Republic are the most affected by the proposals, must not be given an extra burden when their living conditions and the making of enough money for them to keep ticking over are already so difficult.
  I appreciate that the Minister says that he is going to fight for the industry, but his fighting capacity in the matter is limited. It is all very well for him to denounce people who did not see into the future but when the accession of Spain was proposed, we were told that it would not happen until into the next millennium. Although Spain's accession has now been brought forward, we have not been given the real reason for that.
  The Minister may fight as hard as he can, but ultimately the interests in Europe that have the power can vote down any suggestion that he makes. I wish him well and hope that he will remember the plight of Northern Ireland fishermen, who will still be discriminated against if the second proposal goes through.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall try to keep my remarks brief because many of the salient points in this debate have already been aired, not least by the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  I thank the Minister for giving us an insight into the reasons why the full Spanish access to our waters has been advanced. Arrangements for the Irish box were due for renegotiation. However, the Minister has not answered the more fundamental question of why, given that Spain had voluntarily entered into a treaty agreement, it was necessary to make that concession to it. One might have thought that there was some kind of quid pro quo, but there is no evidence that Britain has achieved anything from a change in the arrangements. The change went ahead notwithstanding the warnings that the Government received from the fishing industry, which underlines what can happen when important decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers behind closed doors and when legislation is effectively made in secret. It certainly calls for greater openness in the Council of Ministers' deliberation.

  785
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North quoted a letter sent by the Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister to fishing vessel owners at the turn of the year. The same words were used in letters sent by the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), to fishermen in England and possibly even in Scotland. The fishing industry sought comfort from the fact that, if effort did not increase, new measures to control effort would not need to be imposed on the UK industry.
  On 25 August this year, both the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation wrote to the Minister to ask him to confirm that that was still the Government's policy and to give the same assurances as his predecessor had given last December. As of this morning, no reply had been received, so it would be useful if the Minister would say whether that is still the Government's policy. It would certainly not have been consistent with acceptance of the Commission's original proposals. It is to the Minister's credit that he has no doubt resisted those proposals and sought coalitions with our Community partners in an effort to have them taken off the table. He stated clearly what the proposals would mean in terms of increased bureaucracy—up to 170,000 reports to our authorities and 50,000 reports to member states' authorities. He has our support in resisting those.
  As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, even the presidency compromise would lead to an increase in bureaucracy for Northern Ireland boats and boats from south-west England, many of which would be in either Irish or French waters. I understood the Minister to say in his opening remarks that he is trying to negotiate with the Irish Government for some "voisinage" agreements—that is the swank name for neighbourhood agreements—to allow for further derogations to reduce the need to report in. Are similar efforts being made with the French authorities in respect of vessels, particularly from south-west England, which, even on journeys of fewer than 72 hours, would find themselves in French waters? What happens if, having set out on a journey that is intended to be fewer than 72 hours, there is a change of mind midway? Is it necessary at that point to report in again?
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe raised the important question of who will prosecute in those matters. It is not a matter to be discussed before the debate but a matter on which the House should legitimately hear an answer. For example, if a 41st vessel appears in the Irish box when only 40 Spanish vessels are allowed, what is the legal position? Who will take action? Will it be the Spanish authorities, the United Kingdom authorities, or indeed the Irish authorities? Would anyone be prosecuted or would a diplomatic note of protest be sent to the Spanish embassy? We would like to know about such details.
  It is also relevant to point out that the present arrangements on the accession of Spain and Portugal come into effect on 1 January. We would welcome information from the Minister about what will happen then and about whether every country will be in a position to implement and enforce the new arrangements. My understanding is that part of the arrangement means that each country must register with the Commission, which, in due course, will publish the arrangements that it is
  786
  making to monitor the take-up and use of kilowatt days. Can the Minister tell me how many countries have so far registered how they intend to monitor that take-up? Will he assure the House that all will have done so by 1 January? Failing that, what precisely will happen?
  An important point relates to catch reporting. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland recently sent a helpful letter to hon. Members representing Scotland in which he said that the catch reporting proposals had been deferred and would not have to brought before the Council until the end of 1996.
  According to the original regulations relating to Spanish access to our waters, it was a requirement on Spanish vessels to communicate on entry into and departure from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea zone in which they were authorised to fish. They were required to communicate weekly, beginning on the date of the commencement of fishery operations, a series of facts, including the quantity of each species of fish in the holds and the quantity in kilograms of each species caught since the previous transmission.
  I know that a report of the Commission in 1991 suggested that those arrangements were not working effectively, but at least they were something. Do those arrangements fall on 1 January 1996? Can the Minister clarify whether that means that between 1996 and the coming into operation of the new catch reporting regime, whenever that will be, there will be no requirement on Spanish vessels to report their catch?
  I welcome what the Minister said about the recording of the list of species in fisheries logbooks. Will he assure me that there will be full consultation with the industry before that arrangement is subject to further development? When will there be an announcement on the decommissioning awards for the current year?
  We know that a review group is sitting at the moment. I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that that group should have a more regional dimension in terms of the representation of regional waters and nations. That is something worth pursuing. Until such time as that review group reports and the common fisheries policy is reformed, fishermen must continue to earn their living. That is why it is so important to get the proposals right. I assure the Minister that if he adheres to the undertakings made by the then Minister in December about the introduction of no new control measures, he will enjoy the support of the Liberal party.
  9.27 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: It is part of the tradition of the House that individual Members speak up for threatened minorities—of which, of course, our fishing industry is one. That is why I wish to speak briefly in this debate. Although I do not represent a fishing community, it is important for the fishermen of Britain to know that there is widespread support in the Conservative ranks for their Save British Fish campaign.
  Every time I hear a debate about the fishing industry I am struck by its Chamberlainesque tone. It is all about appeasement, peace in our time and a good negotiated settlement, but we know that that inevitably means that our fishermen will lose more of their traditional rights. It ill behoves the Opposition to express their hypocritical concern; they, too, are well aware that they have no will even to constrain the activities of the European Community, still less—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, I must be brief.
  It was depressing to hear from the Minister that more and more money is to be spent on the decommissioning of boats. In the past six months, when I was less than normally constrained by party controls, I had the privilege of visiting the fishing ports of Britain and talking to fishermen. The process of decommissioning begs the question: what are those men supposed to do once their boats have been destroyed? They have no other occupation, their communities are dependent on fishing and no one knows how their traditions and the livelihoods of their families will be maintained without the ability of fishermen to fish.
  We are talking about British vessels having to report their whereabouts every five minutes when our fishing communities have fished for centuries without the need for such frequent reporting. It ill behoves us as a Government and a country to say that fishermen are to be paid as bureaucrats. They will be required to phone, to telex and generally to make known their whereabouts.
  My hon. Friend the Minister poured scorn on the requirement that our fishermen now have to report 20 species within their catch. Under the new proposals, they will have to report on 200. My hon. Friend neglected to say that if the wrong species have been caught, notwithstanding that the fish are dead on the decks, our fishermen are obliged to throw them back into the sea. Parts of the sea are becoming polluted because of the mass of fish that our fishermen are dumping in obedience to such rules.
  I do not wish unduly to detain the House because I am aware that others wish to speak, but I should like to prevail on my hon. Friend the Minister to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has urged, to take the bull by the horns and to insist that our waters are regained for the use of our fishermen. I would welcome the support of other Members, especially those who represent fishing communities. It is possible to do anything if we have the will to do it. If we insist, we can ensure that our waters are policed and that marauding Spanish fleets are kept out. We are talking of fleets that are becoming constantly larger on the strength of EC subsidies while having no natural fishing waters to support the volume of their vessels and the amount of business that they require to sustain themselves.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. William Ross: It is a pleasure to be called to participate in the debate. I shall be brief because I know that many other Members wish to say a few words on behalf of their fishermen.
  It is clear that the Government are worried about Spanish fishermen. The Irish are also concerned. I hope that on this occasion we shall find an ally in Dublin.
  The Government appear to be handling different problems in various parts of the United Kingdom by lumping them all together. In that context, the remarks of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) were especially appropriate. Within the general problem we have several discrete problems which need to be handled and dealt with separately. The measures before us would
  788
  not have come into operation had it not been for the necessity to control the operations of Spanish boats in the Irish box. That being so, we should have it in mind that Spanish boats should not be given any access to the Irish sea. Against that background, what is the necessity for all the controls being proposed?
  The Minister is well aware of Northern Ireland concerns, which I hope that he has taken on board. I hope, too, that the efforts being made between Belfast and Dublin will bear fruit. I know that some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. I suggest that the Minister should consider carefully the existing agreement between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That would be a starting point.
  Some problems have been resolved, but we must go a great deal further. The Minister should not rest on his laurels. Instead, he should reach a sensible agreement and not be deterred by the opposition that will be mounted from other quarters.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall be brief because I wish to allow the Minister some time to answer the substantial questions that have been raised. First, I ask a simple question: who is leading the United Kingdom delegation this Thursday?
  Mr. Baldry: I am.
  Mr. Salmond: I am satisfied with that answer. It was said in another place today that the Secretary of State for Scotland was to lead it. I thought that he would be the ranking Minister. It is of some interest to Scottish Members that the hon. Gentleman will be leading the delegation.
  There is an old, very bad joke whereby someone asking for directions gets the answer, "If I were you, I wouldn't have started from here." Opposition Members are in precisely that position because I do not think that anyone, whatever the Minister says, will have acquiesced in the acceleration of Spanish accession by six years with no apparent valid reason being given for it whatever. The reason why Spain wins fisheries negotiations is very simple: for Spain, fishing is an absolute top priority. It has two major concerns in European Council meetings—the first is fishing and the second is European regional policy—and it has been willing to use any instrument, particularly those in terms of enlargement of the Community requiring unanimity, in order to extract concessions in those key areas. The lesson must surely be that if one makes fishing one's top priority, things are more likely to go one's way than if it is way down the scale of priorities, as it most certainly is for the British Government.
  There are two specific questions that the junior Minister from Scotland should address when summing up the debate. First, as of 1 January next year, when these control regulations come into force, will Spanish boats in western waters be required to report the catch on board, as they are now? That is not clear from the documents that we have. It is a vital question, because merely hailing in and hailing out, reporting in and reporting out, is relatively meaningless if no account whatever is being taken of the fish being caught by Spanish vessels at that time. Secondly, what assurances do the Fisheries Ministers have from their counterparts elsewhere in Europe that as of

  789
  1 January next year the resources will be in place to police what already seems to us a scheme that is full of loopholes and potential ambiguities?
  My final point relates to what the Minister said in answer to a question from his own Back Benches. He said that so long as he was Fisheries Minister, the House could be reassured on these points. As previous Fisheries Ministers have been wandering in and out of the debate all evening, in all honesty that is not much of an assurance to give the House. Fisheries Ministers have very short tenures of office. What the fishermen of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and everywhere else are looking for is an indication from the Government of some determination to make this great natural resource industry a top priority of policy, rather than something that can be bought and sold, a subsidiary element of negotiations in Europe.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am probably the only Member of the House whose constituency has an international water border with another country. South Down has two thirds of the fishing industry of Northern Ireland and is adjacent to the Republic of Ireland. I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Is the Minister going to Brussels this week with a thought-out plan agreed with the Ministry of Fisheries in the Republic of Ireland?
  The deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party was in Dublin today with one of the Northern Ireland fishing organizations—that is very creditable in these political times—trying to get a compromise. We have precedents in dealing with the Irish Republic in terms of quota exchanges year by year. Can the Minister state categorically—or state at all—that he will be making a joint approach in Brussels on Thursday, or whenever it is, which will alleviate the great difficulties that the fishermen of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Republic will enter into if this compromise does not go through? Even if it does go through, there will be many difficulties still remaining and a lot of expense incurred. Will he ensure that some financial burden is taken off the Northern Ireland fishermen because of their position? I see that the Minister is edging off his seat. I should like him to reassure me that he and his Department will do everything on Thursday and afterwards to have this agreement on an all-Ireland basis because of the traditional, historical intermingling of the fishing in the Irish sea.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I shall try to respond to as many points as possible. I am delighted that so many hon. Members with fishing interests—and a few with no such interests—have been able to contribute to the debate, but I must add that as a Scot I was very disappointed that no member of the shadow Scottish Office team spoke or, indeed, bothered to grace the debate with their presence. That is a worry, and I am sure that representatives of the Scottish fishing industry listening to our proceedings will have noted it.
  790
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will reflect the contributions of all hon. Members in agreeing the negotiating line that the Government will adopt at the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg later this week.
  The interest shown in the debate demonstrates the continued importance of our fishing industry. The Government recognise the valuable contribution that the industry makes to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, and the vital employment opportunities that fishing provides for many remote and fragile coastal communities. Various hon. Members have brought that to my attention today and over the summer recess. I stress that the Government are committed to ensuring a sustainable and profitable future for the whole United Kingdom fishing industry—an industry with long and treasured traditions for an island state such as ours.
  Various hon. Members have raised concerns about the future viability of the industry in the light of proposed Community measures to introduce effort control in western waters. Effort control is one of the key issues facing us all: the need to balance the fishing effort of the European fishing fleet with the fishing opportunities available to it is crucial to ensuring continued sustainable and profitable fishing activity for all.
  The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked about specific arrangements for Northern Ireland vessels. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening speech, we are conscious of the circumstances of the Northern Ireland fleet, notably when it is fishing traditional grounds in the Irish sea. The so-called "voisinage" agreement has operated successfully in the past and provides a good foundation for future arrangements. That is why we have opened up a dialogue with the Department of the Marine in Dublin as to how best we can deal with the matter within the framework of the control measures to apply to western waters.
  I am confident that the use of the presidency compromise, as proposed, will cater for the vast bulk of trips by the vast majority of the Northern Ireland fleet, as fewer than 40 vessels go on trips lasting more than 72 hours.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked how the flag state monitored its fleet's effort. Of course the flag state has an important responsibility to monitor the activities of its own fleet. However, I fully recognise the fears of United Kingdom fishermen. We have therefore argued over the summer for a central role for the coastal state. Spanish vessels will have to hail in in real time when entering UK or Irish waters.
  Many hon. Members touched on the subject of bureaucracy. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of negotiations for a practical, sensible system to integrate the Spanish and Portuguese fleets into the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been working hard behind the scenes throughout the summer in bilateral discussions with other member states to canvass support for some alternatives to the bureaucratic, impractical proposals first advanced by the Commission. I do not want to tempt providence, but I believe that we have gone a long way down the road towards agreeing the outline for an acceptable outcome at the Fisheries Council later this week.

  791
  Many hon. Members have rightly identified the many risks and costs attached to bureaucratic proposals for monitoring fishing effort on a real-time basis. The Government have led the way in pointing out how excessively complex such a scheme would be, and arguing against heavy-handed bureaucracy. From the outset, we identified our key negotiating objectives for an acceptable alternative, and we have throughout kept in close consultation with the British fishing industry. I am pleased that we have managed to maintain a close dialogue with the industry north and south of the border, and I commend all concerned for that.
  We want practical measures to integrate the Spanish and Portuguese fleets into western waters. From the outset, we have sought to avoid the unnecessary imposition of any new regulatory burdens on the British fleet, although we recognise that the arrangements should not discriminate between European Union member states. On the one hand, we want to achieve satisfactory protection for fishing grounds of importance to the UK fleet, particularly the sensitive water around Ireland and the Irish box. On the other hand, in order to ensure adequate control of the fleets of other member states, we must accept some of the quota requirements for our own fleet when it is in foreign waters. That is why we have long argued that the coastal state should have a key role in managing waters under its jurisdiction.
  The hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked whether we were satisfied that other member states would be ready to start on 1 January next year. The answer is yes—we believe that all states will be ready on the same date.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked long about the letter of last year from my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to fishermen. I have spent time reading and re-reading that letter, in which he stated:
  "The UK will be able to monitor its own fishing effort and provided this does not increase, no new measures to control effort will need to be imposed in the UK industry."
  Later he explained:
  "Vessels going into or out of the area of the Irish Box and the other defined fishing areas in Western Waters will have to hail in and out to both coastal states and the flag state, which will enable us to keep track of Spanish fishing activity."
  The position is therefore clear: there will be no need to place restrictions on the amount of time that vessels spend at sea so long as fishing effort does not increase.
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: On that point, my hon. Friend must recognise that, particularly in relation to his point about the Irish box, there is considerable concern among fleets in the south-west that the prosecuting authority is the flag state and that, with the best will in the world and not wishing to intrude into too sensitive waters, the Spanish record in prosecuting its own fleet is not good.
  Mr. Robertson: I accept what my hon. Friend says and I assure him that that will be very much on the agenda of both my hon. Friend the Minister and myself.
  I should like to say a quick word to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who talked briefly about quitting the common fisheries policy. It is wrong to talk down the UK industry and to underestimate our ability to defend our fishermen in the European Union. We cannot do that by putting our heads in the sand and by wishing that the CFP did not exist. We must work within it to
  792
  ensure that the regime operates as effectively as possible in the interests of our fishermen. Being at the heart is better than being out on a limb. Some form of common European fisheries policy is essential as fish do not respect international borders and their conservation cannot be achieved unilaterally or in isolation.
  Do the hon. Members who question our involvement in the common fisheries policy really want to call into question the livelihood of our fishermen? If the answer is no, I must point out that if there is no market for their fish, the economic position of fishermen is gravely threatened.
  We have had a good and far-ranging debate and I commend the motion to the House. I believe that the House and the fishing industry in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland can look forward with some confidence to the Fisheries Council on Thursday.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 236.

  Division No. 220]

  [9.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Gunnell, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Hall, Mike

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hanson, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Heppell, John

  Battle, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Benton, Joe

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Berry, Roger

  Hutton, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Keen, Alan

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Coffey, Ann

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dafis, Cynog

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  McAllion, John

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dobson, Frank

  McGrady, Eddie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maddock, Diana

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meale, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Michael, Alun

  Gerard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  793

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Salmond, Alex

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Simpson, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pope, Greg

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wilson, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Dr John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. George Mudie and

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Couchman, James

  Ancram, Michael

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Congdon, David

  Hague, William

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  794

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Page, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pawsey, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heald, Oliver

  Rathbone, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Richards, Rod

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sackville, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Robert B (W'Hertfdshr)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Key, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knapman, Roger

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knox, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sproat, Iain

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Sumberg, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sykes, John

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Luff, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thomason, Roy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexfyh'th)

  Malone, Gerald

  Trend, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Walden, George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Waller, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ward, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Merchant, Piers

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Whittingdale, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wilkinson, John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Willetts, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wilshire, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Norris, Steve

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 152.

  Division No. 221]

  [10.01 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ailken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forth, Eric

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Gale, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gallia, Phil

  Bates, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garnier, Edward

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brazier, Julian

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Horam, John

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knox, Sir David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dover, Den

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Duncan, Alan

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lidington, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  796

  Luff, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malone, Gerald

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spring, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholis, Patrick

  Thumham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whittlingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  RifKind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Gary Streeter.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Banks Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darling, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davis, Terry

  Benton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Berry, Roger

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

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

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  797

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWilliam, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maddock, Diana

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Reid, Dr John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rendel, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  McCartney, Ian

  Simpson, Alan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGrady, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  798

  Stevenson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Touhig, Don

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. George Mudie and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents No. 7596/95, on establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, No. 7465/95, relating to Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. 8817/95, concerning a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the list of species to be recorded in the fisheries logbook and landing declarations; welcomes the agreement reached at the Fisheries Council on 15th June on fishing effort levels; and supports the Government's efforts to secure effective measures to monitor and enforce fishing activity in Western Waters, including the Irish Box, while not placing unnecessary burdens on the fishing industry.

  ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Timothy Kirkhope be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. Derek Conway be added to the Committee. —[Sir Fergus Montgomery.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Elfyn Llwyd be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Cynog Dafis be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery.]

  Kuwait
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: I begin this debate by congratulating the Minister of State on his new appointment. I feel sure that the murder and mayhem of the middle east with which he will now have to grapple and the potentates and dictators with whom he will have to deal will prove to be a more tranquil billet than his previous position. I am sure that his famous good nature and good manners will prevail, and that he will do a good job for our country in that difficult and turbulent part of the world.
  I want to raise the issue of our relations with Kuwait for a number of reasons. We have a long and close relationship with the Emirate of Kuwait, and in a sense we invented Kuwait. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was in the tent when the famous line in the sand was drawn, and one part of the sand was designated to be Kuwait and another part of the sand was designated to be Iraq. That line has caused many problems ever since, but that is a subject for another debate.
  Not only did we invent Kuwait: to a real extent the ruling family of Kuwait was returned to its throne and its all but absolute power at the point of British and American bayonets. That gives us a clear focus of concern about some of the many problems that afflict that benighted country.
  When I describe the ruling family as such, I really mean it. I remarked a little while ago in the House that 11 of the top 12 Ministers in the Government of Kuwait, and four out of the five provincial Governors, share the same surname and are members of the same family. The Amir is Jaber As-Sabah. The Crown Prince and Prime Minister is Saad As-Sabah. The Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister is Sabah As-Sabah. The Minister of Amiri Affairs is Khalid As-Sabah. The Minister of Information is Jaber As-Sabah. The Minister of the Interior is Salim As-Sabah. The Minister of Defence is Nawaf As-Sabah. The Minister of Oil is Ali As-Sabah. The Governor of Ahmadi is Ali Sabah As-Sabah. The Governor of Jahra province is Ali Abdullah As-Sabah. The Governor of Kuwait province is Jaber As-Sabah. The Governor of Faranawiya province is Ahmad As-Sabah. I could go on, but I see that the Minister would prefer it if I drew my own line in the sand at that.
  Kuwait is not so much a one-party state as a family business, and one that owes more to the Corleones than to the Sainsburys. It is my contention in this debate that the As-Sabah family and business are a disreputable lot indeed. The internal repression in Kuwait and the lack of basic human rights and democracy is legendary. It was bad before the Iraqi dictatorship's invasion and it is worse now, despite all the promises that were made to western public opinion, to justify the armed intervention. Some $690 billion was expended in returning the family to its thrones. Many lives were lost—many western lives, many British lives, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of other lives that were lost.
  No doubt the Minister will tell me about what is laughingly described as a parliament in Kuwait. It is a parliament with no woman member, and for the members
  800
  of which no woman can vote. Only male full citizens over 30 educated to university standard may vote. Fewer than one in 10 Kuwaitis have the right to vote. Some democracy; some parliament.
  The Minister may mention, as has been done before, the press and the media in Kuwait, which are more free than in some of the other dictatorships round about, but it is far from a free press, with censorship and self-censorship everywhere. One newspaper was recently closed down for criticising the royal family.
  Of all the human rights atrocities committed by the ruling family in Kuwait, the worst and the greatest is that against the people known as the Bedoons. There are more than 300,000 Bedoons—one third of Kuwait's native population. Half of them—150,000—have been driven into refugee camps in the desert across the Iraqi border by the regime and left there to bake and to rot, The other 150,000 are treated not as second-class or even fifth-class citizens but not as any sort of citizen. They are bereft of all rights.
  The human rights organisation Human Rights Watch/Middle East has said:
  "The totality of the treatment of the Bedoons amounts to a policy of denationalization of native residents, relegating them to an apartheid-like existence in their own country. The Kuwaiti government policy of harassment and intimidation of the Bedoons and of denying them the right to lawful residence, employment, travel and movement, contravene basic principles of human rights … Denial of citizenship to the Bedoons clearly violates international law … Denial of citizenship and lawful residence to Bedoon husbands and children of women who are Kuwaiti citizens violates rules against gender-based discrimination."
  That violates the United Nations conventions to which Kuwait is a signatory.
  The report continues:
  "Denying Bedoons the right to petition the courts to challenge governmental decisions regarding their claims to citizenship and lawful residence in the country violates the universal right to due process of law and equality before the law.
  By retroactively implementing restrictive citizenship and residency laws, Kuwaiti authorities deprive Bedoons of their vested rights to state citizenhip and residence."
  I could go on.
  It is a scandal that almost no one in the world cares a thing about the plight of 300,000 people, 150,000 of them cast out of the land in which they have lived. Many were born to Kuwaiti mothers, and many of those families have lived in the Kuwaiti area for many centuries. Indeed, given the ruling family's penchant for spending time on the Riviera or in the west end of London, many of them have spent a great deal more time in Kuwait than many of the members of the ruling family.
  Literally hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, Sudanese and Yemenis were also sacked from their jobs, evicted from their houses and deported from the country, including constituents of mine who were born in Kuwait, who had never been in any other country but Kuwait and who had loyally served Kuwait, but who, because they were Palestinians, were kicked into the Yemen or into Iraq, where many of their families continue to live in appalling conditions. They are the very people whose labour, skill and dedication built much of the wealth of Kuwait.
  Many times in the past five years, I have detained the House by speaking about individual atrocities against human rights. I have told the House about the British citizen Sulaiman Al-Adsani, who was tortured by a

  801
  member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Sheikh Jabar Al-Sabah, who was put in a swimming pool which was afloat with six dead bodies, who was repeatedly held under the water in that swimming pool, and who was then burnt, suffering 25 per cent. burns all over his body, such that one year later he continued to wear protective clothing.
  I have told the House about Naim Farhat, whose father and younger brother were shot dead protecting her honour, and who was herself raped and shot in the head, such that she is paralysed and permanently disabled, by a policeman in the Kuwaiti state employ, and for whom absolutely no compensation has ever been paid. The criminal, the murderer, the rapist, was sentenced to the grand total of five years in prison.
  I could go on and on about the problems that have afflicted so many citizens in that country, but I intend to speak not only about the behaviour of the ruling family in their own country, but about their behaviour in our country, which gives so many people in their district so much shame and embarrassment. I could detain the House with legendary tales from the casinos and bordellos of London about members of that rapacious family, with more money than sense and fewer morals than the pound notes in their pockets.
  However, I want to confine myself to the case of the London business man, Mr. Salus, which is described in early-day motion 748, supported by no fewer than 66 Members of the House from every party in the House, and by several peers of the realm, senior Conservatives, senior Liberal Democrats and senior members of the Labour party. I table plenty of motions in the House. Few reach 66 signatures, fewer have any Conservative names on them, and fewer still have the support that that motion has.
  The Minister knows the case well. It is that of a London business man, a married man with a young family, ruined by the decision by two princesses of the Kuwaiti royal house, Princesses Nadia and Fatemah Al-Sabah, who commissioned him and other British contractors to renovate flats in Kensington in London and who, midway through the contract, without warning, liquidated their limited liability company and walked away from their liabilities to those British contractors, ruining all of them. Some of them died; the marriages of others broke up; all of them suffered terrible hardship as a result of that dreadful decision.
  When Mr. Salus began to be concerned that his bills were not being paid, the princesses' fellow director pulled out a copy—I have it with me—of a Hello-style photo session in Harpers and Queen, in which the beneficence and massive wealth of the princesses was profiled. The Minister will say that it is a commercial matter, that it is a limited liability company, and that, under the law, it can be liquidated, but as a Minister of the Crown he must know that it cannot be morally acceptable for multi-millionairesses who are members of the Kuwaiti royal family to walk away from their debts and obligations in that way. He and the British Government have an obligation to have a word in the ear of the Kuwaiti Government and royal family to ask them to pay their debts to a man who has been ruined and bankrupted by this decision.
  802
  Members of the Kuwaiti royal family can put £75,400 on a turn of the roulette wheel in London casinos, but they will not pay up to people who did work in good faith, trusting the honesty—the bona fides—of members of the royal family of a friendly country, which was returned to power by the sweat and blood of British and other allied forces' arms.
  The question is a moral, not a legal or commercial, one. Imagine if members of the British royal family decided not to pay their debts in a foreign country and made a company bankrupt. I do not believe that it could ever happen, but if it did, it would be a source of shame to the British people, and the British Government would have something to say about it.
  Our relations with Kuwait are close and of long standing. We have influence there; its investments in Britain are legion, and our economic interests there are legion. I am asking not for a breach in relations with the Kuwaiti Government, but simply, quietly if need be, for the Minister to have a word in their ear about the Salus case and about other instances of behaviour unbecoming to a country that is so indebted to the British state.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has given us an opportunity to debate our relations with Kuwait. This has been a significant year for UK-Kuwait relationships, and has been marked by the highly successful state visit of His Highness the Amir in May, following the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister's visit in February. We also look forward to the Princess Royal's visit to Kuwait in November.
  Last year, visitors to Kuwait included my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Defence Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade. Those visits are symbolic of the closeness of our relationship, which is based on a friendship dating back over 200 years.
  Our friendship is founded on close co-operation in many fields, particularly in defence. For many years, long before the discovery of oil, Kuwait's status as a British protectorate helped to ensure its independence and territorial integrity. That formal relationship ended in 1961, but Britain has continued to work closely with one of its oldest friends in the region. That was apparent immediately after Kuwait became a state in her own right, when we deployed troops in response to a military build-up and threatening moves by Iraq. More recently, Britain played a key role during the Gulf war, and was the first to respond last October when Iraq again threatened Kuwait.
  Defence is only one, albeit important, aspect of the relationship. I am pleased that our trade with Kuwait is growing. The presence tonight of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is proof positive of that excellent relationship. Our exporters have played a leading role in the post-Gulf war reconstruction of Kuwait and in helping Kuwait to re-equip its armed forces.
  British exports in 1994 were worth £312 million, and our performance is strong in many sectors—not least, of course, oil, where companies such as British Petroleum have a long and successful record of involvement. We expect that that involvement will create further

  803
  opportunities, if and when Kuwait decides to allow foreign investment in the upstream sector of its oil industry. As usual, the Government will do all they can to help and support British companies that seek to do business in Kuwait.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a commercial dispute. We are aware of the dispute involving Mr. Salus and two members of the Kuwaiti ruling family, which is several thousand strong. We hope that lawyers acting for both sides in the dispute will meet soon, and that the dispute can be resolved as quickly as possible, but we cannot intervene in a commercial dispute of this nature, which, if necessary, should be pursued through the courts.
  Mr. Galloway: What would the Minister say if I told him that, just prior to the Amir's visit, the Kuwaiti embassy told me that members of the embassy would meet soon and resolve the matter? I was told that, if I would only stay my hand and desist from causing any difficulties during the Amir's visit, the matter would be resolved. I did so, and raised no protest of any kind during the Amir's visit. I behaved impeccably, but the embassy welshed on that promise. So I suspect that whatever the Minister has been told about a meeting that might take place soon is the same kind of falsehood that was conveyed to me.
  Mr. Hanley: I would say that we have mentioned the case to the Kuwaiti embassy, which I believe also has no standing in this dispute. It has been trying to arrange a meeting between lawyers acting for both sides in the dispute, and I hope that that will occur as soon as possible. More than that we cannot do, but I am sure that this debate will come to the attention of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who may realise the urgency of the matter.
  I also welcome the fact that parliamentary links are well established and flourishing. Madam Speaker was able to welcome her Kuwaiti colleagues here last year, and several hon. Members have visited Kuwait since then. Hon. Members may be aware that, last year, the Kuwaiti National Assembly organised and hosted the first inter-Gulf parliamentary conference.
  Every country has the right to develop its political structure in accordance with its culture, heritage and traditions. The ruling family, Government and people of Kuwait have an impressive record. We are encouraged by the contribution made by the democratically elected National Assembly in Kuwait since the election in 1992. We also support recent decisions to extend the franchise to some naturalised Kuwaiti citizens and their male offspring, and we hope to see further extensions in the future. The hon. Gentleman referred to that, too.
  Our links and co-operation with Kuwait are flourishing in other areas too, including medical training and research, education and culture. Each year, an ever-increasing number of Kuwaitis visit this country as holidaymakers, students and longer-term residents. They are most welcome, and I hope that their presence will help to promote a better understanding of Islam and the west, and of our respective cultures.
  Some of our Kuwaiti visitors may be wondering what effect the European Union's common visa list will have on their visits once it is introduced. It was not in our power to block the common visa list, which could have been adopted by a qualified majority after the end of this
  804
  year. We could not persuade our European Union partners that four Gulf states—Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates—should be excluded.
  We expect the majority of Gulf state travellers to be eligible for multiple-entry visas, and we aim to make the issue of visas as simple and straightforward as possible. Unlike most of our partners, we do not operate a system of post-entry checks. We hope that our many Kuwaiti visitors will not be inconvenienced as a result of the common visa list.
  I shall now deal with the threat that continues to hang over Kuwait and Britain's interests there. I refer, of course, to Iraq. Our aim is to ensure that Kuwait never again suffers at the hands of Saddam Hussein. To this end, we co-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 949, which makes it clear that any substantial Iraqi military build-up and deployment towards the Kuwaiti border will be met with a robust response.
  Saddam has often demonstrated that he cannot be trusted, and it is essential that we maintain the pressure on him. This House will know that we remain resolute in our view that Iraq must comply with all relevant United Nations obligations before sanctions can be relaxed. The United Nations special commission's recent revelations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme demonstrate how important it is to remain firm. Some have suggested that the time has come to relax sanctions for one reason or another, but there is no reason to believe that Saddam is repentant. To relax the sanctions regime now would risk allowing Saddam to threaten the region again.
  The reason most often advanced for a relaxation of sanctions is the plight of the long-suffering Iraqi people. We share that concern. We took a leading role in the adoption of Security Council resolution 986, which allows Iraq to sell oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. Sadly, Saddam rejected that offer. We urge him to reconsider, and to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. He is to blame.
  Resolution 986 was welcomed by Kuwait and other countries in the region that share our concern. Kuwait itself has donated humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of Iraqi refugees in Iran. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be aware, the Amir gave a very generous donation to this cause during his state visit.
  One area of Iraqi non-compliance which causes us great concern is the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war and detainees, including other third-country nationals still missing in Iraq. The physical scars of the Iraqi occupation have been removed by Kuwait's impressive reconstruction programme. That unresolved issue, however, prevents the deeper psychological scars from healing and continues to cause much anguish and anxiety for the relatives and families of those missing in Iraq.
  I know that several Members of this House take a close interest, and have visited Kuwait recently to discuss that and other subjects. They and others may welcome an account of what we are doing to press Iraq to provide substantive information on the missing persons.
  Under the terms of UN resolution 687, Iraq has a clear obligation to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in its efforts to obtain information on prisoners of war and missing persons. Britain is a member of the tripartite commission, which was set up to monitor

  805
  progress. We are very disappointed that progress has been so slow. Iraq has had the Red Cross case files on missing individuals for nearly three years, and has so far failed to provide substantive information on all but a few of them.
  We have made it clear that we expect Iraq to provide some answers at the next meeting of the tripartite commission in November. We will continue to raise this issue in the Security Council at each review of sanctions against Iraq, and will take every opportunity to press Iraq to comply with its UN obligations in that and every other respect.
  We are aware of the concern expressed about a number of human rights issues in Kuwait. We welcome the fact that the Kuwaiti Government permit international human rights organisations to visit Kuwait and conduct fieldwork there. The Kuwaiti National Assembly has established an effective human rights committee, and there is a local chapter of Amnesty International now established in Kuwait. Kuwait's democratic system allows for a thorough debate of local issues, which are fully reported in the media. We have made known our concern on specific issues, and will continue to monitor the situation.
  A particular problem exists—the hon. Member made passionate reference to it—with a group of people known as the Bedoon Jinsiya, who are those without nationality. They are stateless persons, primarily of Iraqi or Iranian descent. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights estimates that there are 130,000 Bedoon remaining in Kuwait. The hon. Member mentioned those who are outside it. The Kuwaiti Government regard many of them as illegal immigrants, who have chosen to conceal their true nationality. However, some have strong residence ties. Her Majesty's Government welcome the fact that the Kuwaiti Government have set up a committee to examine the Bedoon problem and recommend possible solutions.
  Mr. Galloway: I appreciate the Minister giving way again. I must tell him that those who briefed him have misled him, inadvertently no doubt, on the origin of the Bedoon, whom he describes casually as of Iraqi or Iranian descent. I am sorry if that allegation disturbs the Minister, but they are of Iraqi or Iranian descent only in the sense that perhaps many in the House are of French descent. William the Conqueror came here many centuries ago, and no doubt some here are the progeny of those invaders.
  806
  These Bedoon have been in Kuwait for many centuries. If they are of Iraqi or Iranian origin, it is from a time when neither Iraq nor Iran existed. It is facile to describe them thus. Every human rights organisation accepts that these are people with an overwhelming claim to Kuwaiti citizenship.
  Mr. Hanley: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about some of the Bedoon, who have lived in Kuwait for several decades and are the spouses or children of Kuwaiti fathers. That group has a good claim to Kuwaiti citizenship. Many of the Bedoon, however—it is likely to be about 80 per cent. of the estimated 130,000 who remain in Kuwait—are citizens of other Gulf countries, and predominately Iraq. They came to Kuwait to benefit from its generous social services, free health care, free education and low-cost housing. They chose to conceal their true identity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can deny that that case exists. A committee has been set up by the Kuwaiti Government to examine the Bedoon problem and to recommend possible solutions.
  The trials of alleged collaborators by the martial law court, and more recently the state security court, have also caused international concern. We and our EU partners have told the Kuwaiti Government that international legal and human rights standards should be respected. We welcome the fact that the state security court has been abolished. We understand that the court of cassation has been active in reviewing state security court cases and has altered sentences, including the commutation of the death penalty, in a number of cases.
  Similarly, we welcome the fact that the Kuwaiti Government have set up an office to look into complaints of abuse against domestic workers, primarily from south-east Asia. We hope that the provisions of Kuwaiti labour law can be extended to protect the rights of these workers.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that Kuwaitis are good friends, with whom we have much in common. We share a strong trading and maritime tradition, and we have both faced unwarranted aggression. Hon. Members familiar with Kuwait may be aware of the diwaniya system, which allows Kuwaiti families and friends the opportunity for full and frank discussion of every conceivable subject under the sun. Our relationship with Kuwait is conducted in similar fashion, and the fact that it is so close today is a tribute to good open communication based on shared interests.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  New Homes
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the total number of new homes started by(a) local authorities and new towns and (b) housing associations in England in each year since 1974, and his estimate of the likely number of starts in 1995 and 1996. [37490]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of new-build homes started in England between 1974–75 and 1994–95 by housing associations, local authorities and new towns is shown in the following table.

  Number of new build dwellings started, by tenure

  Year

  Housing associations

  Local authorities and new towns

  Total

  1974–75

  12,300

  109,569

  121,869

  1975–76

  22,020

  131,015

  153,035

  1976–77

  25,481

  106,566

  132,047

  1977–78

  26,076

  86,334

  112,410

  1978–79

  16,713

  69,068

  85,781

  1979–80

  14,275

  54,588

  68,863

  1980–81

  11,051

  28,781

  39,832

  1981–82

  13,005

  23,499

  36,504

  1982–83

  14,191

  32,210

  46,401

  1983–84

  12,259

  27,469

  39,728

  1984–85

  10,751

  20,496

  31,247

  1985–86

  10,465

  18,284

  28,749

  1986–87

  10,619

  17,001

  27,620

  1987–88

  10,073

  14,517

  24,590

  1988–89

  11,973

  12,263

  24,236

  1989–90

  11,516

  11,731

  23,247

  1990–91

  14,183

  5,362

  19,545

  1991–92

  20,072

  2,018

  22,090

  1992–93

  30,361

  1,571

  31,932

  1993–94

  33,107

  841

  33,948

  1994–95

  30,946

  441

  31,387

  This is, however, not the whole picture. In addition, new social lettings are provided through purchase and rehabilitation of existing properties, and released through home ownership grant schemes, which assist existing tenants to move on to their own properties.

  In 1995–96 we estimate that scheme starts will be made on over 50,000 new social lettings, to be provided by housing associations and local authorities through new build, purchase or rehabilitation, or released by home ownership grant schemes.

  We estimate that some 70,000 new social lettings, or completions, will be provided in 1995–96.

  Plans for 1996–97 and beyond are under consideration as part of the current public expenditure round.
  408

  Water Meters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of domestic premises are fitted with water meters in each of the English regional water companies. [37995]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1995–96 the proportion of metered water customers of the 10 water and sewerage companies is as follows:

  Households Percentage1

  Anglian

  16.8

  Dwr Cymru

  2.8

  North West

  4.9

  Northumbrian

  0.6

  Severn Trent

  8.2

  South West

  9.1

  Southern

  11.8

  Thames

  5.4

  Wessex

  9.7

  Yorkshire

  6.0

  1 Company estimates.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of each of the English regional water companies on the use of water meters for domestic premises. [37996]

  Mr. Clappison
  Companies are developing their policies on the metering of domestic premises in the light of their particular circumstances. Most companies meter new and substantially converted properties. All companies operate voluntary schemes, which provide meters for those customers who are prepared to pay for their installation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on using water meters as the basis for charging domestic customers for their water supply. [37994]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is for water companies to decide the basis on which they charge customers. However, the Government believe that metering is, in the long term, the best basis for paying for water in many circumstances and it is consistent with the sustainable use of our water resources. It is also fair and equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used, and provides an incentive to customers to use water efficiently. For water companies, metering can form an important part of a cost-effective approach to reducing imbalances between supply and demand. The Government wish to encourage companies and customers to consider switching to meters, but we are not forcing them to do so.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are waiting for(a) improvement grants and (b) disabled improvement grants as a percentage of the population for each county in England. [37905]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not readily available.
  409

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest in England have been de-notified since 1981 on the grounds of a decline in their scientific interest. [38358]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1991 statistical information on damage on SSSIs in Great Britain is set out in the annual reports of the former Nature Conservancy Council. Since 1 April 1991 similar detail for England is contained in English Nature's annual reports. Copies of annual reports are in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what basis the company Instafibre was chosen as the sole vehicle for dealing with the discount voucher scheme operated under the Energy Efficiency Office's energy efficiency scheme; [38151]

  (2) what consideration and assessment was made of the impact of the discount voucher scheme operated under the energy efficiency campaign upon those companies who were not able to benefit from the discount vouchers; [38152]

  (3) if the operation of the discount voucher scheme under the energy efficiency campaign was awarded on a lowest-tender basis; and if she will list (a) the details of the dates of the tender documents, (b) the number of respondents and (c) the way in which such tenders were invited and through which publications. [38154]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The voucher book scheme being run as the current part of "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" is a welcome contribution by business to encouraging action on energy efficiency among domestic householders. It involves the provision of discounts or special offers by manufactures, suppliers and trade associations at their own expense to complement the Government's own spending on the campaign.

  The discount relating to cavity wall insulation is no longer to be provided solely by one company. It covers the major designers of fibre-based systems and installers who are members of the industry guarantee scheme or the National Cavity Insulation Association.

  In supporting the voucher scheme the Government took full account of the long-term benefits to all sectors of the energy efficiency industry from a stimulation of the market, and decisions on individual contributors were taken on a value-for-money basis throughout.

  Drilling Wastes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he will be putting forward in June at the North sea ministerial conference of the problems caused for wildlife by hydrocarbons in drilling wastes discharging from rigs. [37298]

  Mr. Clappison
  The next North sea conference will not be until a date in the period 2000–2002. The fourth North sea conference on June 9 1995 asked the Oslo and Paris commissions to introduce by 1997 a ban 410
  on the discharge of oil-contaminated cuttings except in exceptional circumstances and to investigate the need for, the environmental impact from and possible means of cleaning up seabeds contaminated by oily cuttings.

  Tenants
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the protection afforded to tenants who have signed what otherwise is a legally binding contract for a set period of tenure but who, in the event of a landlord defaulting on his mortgage payments, can be given two weeks' notice to quit by a mortgage company, following repossession of the property. [38096]

  Mr. Clappison
  I sympathise with tenants whose landlords default on their mortgages and who face eviction at short notice through no fault of their own. However, I do not believe that legislation is the appropriate solution to this problem. Granting such tenants statutory rights to occupation would lead to lenders restricting mortgage loans. It would also reduce the supply of properties available in the private rented sector.

  Following our discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, it is now a condition of granting a lender an order for possession that a letter has been sent to the occupier to forewarn tenants that they will have to leave.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance has been offered to the RSPCA for decontamination of oiled sea birds following the dumping of oil off the Yorkshire coastline in September. [38494]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department's scientific advisers, English Nature, worked closely with the RSPCA in monitoring the effects of this off-shore oil slick. No financial assistance was provided to decontaminate oiled sea birds.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has of the(a) species and (b) numbers of each species involved as sea bird victims in the Yorkshire coastline oil slick of September. [38495]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department's scientific advisers, English Nature, advise that between 21 and 26 September the numbers of sea birds recovered were as follows.1138 Guillemot, 98 Razorbill, 12 Puffin and 4 other birds were recovered alive; 201 Guillemot, 29 Razorbill and 2 other birds were recovered dead.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Work
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 1990. [38078]
  411
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the departmental reports produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office each year for the last five years, which are available in the Library of the House. Their reference numbers are as follows:

  1991: Cm 1502

  1992: Cm 1902

  1993: Cm 2202

  1994: Cm 2502

  1995: CM 2802

  Sudan
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the governing authorities in Sudan about progress towards peace and democracy; and if he will make a statement. [38144]

  Mr. Hanley
  On 13 September the Secretary of State raised with the Sudanese ambassador our concerns about Sudan's alleged support for extremist groups, its human rights record and the continuing civil war.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in headquarters functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38288]

  Mr. Hanley
  (a) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office envisages a single bargaining unit to cover all 5,440 headquarters staff and the 32 staff of the FCO's only agency, Wilton Park, at grades DS5S and below and their home civil service equivalents.

  (b) The FCO proposes to recognise the Civil and Public Servants Association—CPSA—the National Union of Civil and Public Servants—NUCPS—the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists—IPMS—and the Diplomatic Service Association—DSA—for pay bargaining purposes and to conduct negotiations with them through a single table structure.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are currently resident in Zimbabwe. [38017]

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated size of the British community, which includes British nationals of all categories, is 20,000. Of these, about 6,000 are British citizens.

  Bermuda
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to change Bermuda's constitutional status. [38012]
  412
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There are no plans to change Bermuda's constitutional status.

  Belarus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Belarus; and if he will make a statement about relations with that country. [38013]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I last visited Belarus in July and have no further plans to do so at present. Regular contacts take place at official level and help to develop further our good bilateral relationship.

  Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual cost in each of the last five years of maintaining the diplomatic mission to the Republic of Ireland. [38014]

  Mr. Hanley
  Total operating costs of the British embassy in Dublin, including rented staff accommodation, for the last five financial years are as follows:

  1990–91: £2,117,098

  1991–92: £2,197,640

  1992–93: £2,284,956

  1993–94: £2,514,718

  1994–95: £2,702,525

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth. Affairs at what level the United Kingdom is represented in each of the states of the former Yugoslavia. [38015]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom is represented at ambassador level in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia and by a charge d'affaires in Belgrade.

  Flag States
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions, in each year since 1990, his Department has made representations to flag states in respect of vessels which have been detected making alleged illegal discharges of oil or other pollutants by MPCU surveillance. [37241]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office made seven such representations to other flag states in each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, 14 representations in 1993 and five representations in 1994. It has so far made 14 representations in 1995.

  Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about human rights in Kenya. [37672]

  Mr. Hanley
  We occasionally receive representations from a variety of sources about human rights in Kenya. We have drawn our own concerns about aspects of the situation to the attention of the Kenyan authorities.
  413

  Commonwealth Membership
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries currently applying for membership of the Commonwealth, indicating in each case the date when their application will be determined. [37917]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no outstanding applications for Commonwealth membership. Mozambique and Rwanda have expressed interest in membership, but have made no formal application.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Fatalities
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many fatalities there have been in the United Kingdom over the last five years in(a) boxing, (b) mountaineering, (c) skiing, (d) motor racing and (e) horse-riding. [38047]

  Mr. Sproat
  No figures are held for Scotland or Northern Ireland. The most recent figures available are for the years 1986 to 1991.

  England and Wales

  Fatalities in:

  (a) boxing: 3

  (b) mountaineering: 59

  (c) skiing: 0

  (d) motorsports: 72

  (e) horseriding: 26

  Historic Properties
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support is given to help private owners of homes that have a historic and architectural interest to retain and maintain their homes. [38369]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government believe that so far as possible historic properties should remain in private hands and that their owners should be encouraged to retain and care for them. In addition to grants from English Heritage, and its sister organisations in the home countries, owners of outstanding historic buildings may take advantage of a range of tax measures, for example conditional exemption from inheritance tax and tax relief in relation to heritage maintenance funds.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list those private historic houses which have received grants during the Past five years, giving the amount of grant paid to each house; [38368]

  (2) how many historic houses have received repair and maintenance grants in each year since 1990. [38367]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government funding for the repair and maintenance of historic buildings in England is channelled through English Heritage, which does not hold information in the form requested. However, all repair grants offered by English Heritage to buildings and monuments of outstanding national importance are listed in their publications "Grants 1984–92", "Grants 1992–93" and "Grants 1993–94", copies of which I have placed in 414
  the Library. Private owners of listed buildings will also benefit from a significant proportion of English Heritage's conservation area grants, but a precise figure cannot be given as the minority of these are offered through schemes administered by local authorities. In 1994–95, English Heritage offered a total of nearly £60 million in grants, approximately half of which was for secular buildings and monuments and conservation areas. Local authorities may also themselves offer grants to private owners of historic houses.

  Gaelic Television
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of Gaelic television programmes transmitted by the BBC, are produced by independent television companies; what percentage of such Gaelic programmes produced by the independent sector are directly funded by the BBC; and if she will require the BBC, as part of the current charter review process, to ensure that a minimum of 25 per cent. of future BBC funding for Gaelic television will be allocated to commissions from the independent sector. [38308]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand from the BBC that over 45 per cent. of Gaelic programming broadcast by BBC Scotland in 1994–95 was produced by the independent sector. Of this, over 83 per cent. was funded by the BBC. Along with all other terrestrial broadcasters, the BBC is required to meet a statutory quota of 25 per cent. independent production. It is for the broadcasters to commission programming to meet the quota.

  London Film Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the funding of the London Film Commission. [38080]

  Mr. Sproat
  On Thursday 19 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the offer of a one-off grant of £100,000 to help the London Film Commission meet its set-up costs. The commission has already managed to secure commitments from both private and public sector sources to cover most of its running costs for the next four years, and prospects are good for any gaps in funding commitment to be made good. The commission should soon be ready to open its doors for business. A copy of the relevant DNH news release—No. DNH 188/95—has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Millenium Funding
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimates she has made of the future public revenue costs incurred if either the Welsh National stadium or the Cardiff Bay opera house receives millennium fund funding. [38049]

  Mr. Sproat
  The former Secretary of State issued a direction to the Millennium Commission to take into account the viability of projects and, in particular, the need for resources to be available to meet any running and maintenance costs associated with each project for a reasonable period. The costs of any project under consideration are, therefore, a matter for the Millennium Commission which is an independent body.
  415

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the estimated cost so far to the legal aid fund of the cases of Gaudenzio Castelli v Westminster council and Jose Tristan-Garcia v Westminster council; and what will be the estimated cost of the appeal. [37415]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only payment to date is £380 paid on account in respect of a disbursement in the case of Jose Tristan-Garcia v Westminster council. As no claim for costs has yet been received it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the eventual cost of these cases.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was informed by the Secretary of State for Defence that he was appointing Mr. David Hart as his independent adviser. [38324]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the British defence industry concerning the advice of Mr. David Hart within the Ministry of Defence on procurement contracts. [38325]

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

  Independent Advisers
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if his agreement is required for the appointment of independent advisers to the Secretary of State for Defence. [38326]

  The Prime Minister
  My agreement is not required for the appointment of unpaid independent advisers to Ministers.

  National Crime Squad
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the national police squad announced in his speech in Blackpool on 13 October will operate in Scotland or Northern Ireland. [38586]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is consulting the police and others on the establishment of a national crime squad. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Seal Pup Slaughter
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government last authorised the British embassy in Moscow to raise the issue of seal pup slaughter. [38475]

  The Prime Minister
  The embassy in Moscow was instructed to raise the question of seal culling on receipt of the 1995 seal cull figures. These arrived on 3 October and the embassy is now seeking a meeting with the 416
  relevant authorities to reiterate the British public's opposition to seal culling and to ask the Russians to reconsider their position.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the IGC; and if he will make a statement. [38573]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to my speech on Europe on 1 March,Official Report, columns 1060–74. We will continue to seek a European Union that is open, flexible, free-trading, efficient and responsive to people's concerns.

  Information Technology
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent or allowed for the hire of consultants in each Government Department during the process of assessing bids for IT-related contracts; and if he will list the consultants used and the amounts spent in each case. [38086]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister what safeguards exist to prevent individual firms from establishing monopoly positions during the award of contracts for services that are carried out in all or most Government Departments, with particular reference to those for information technology. [38084]

  The Prime Minister
  All contracts are awarded on the basis of best value for money after a fair and open competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Departments will have regard to market conditions when considering bids. The procedure is no different in the case of information technology contracts.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been put in place in each Government Department to avoid corruption or conflict of interest during the market testing process. [38087]

  The Prime Minister
  The principles to be followed are laid out clearly in "The Government's Guide to Market Testing" and the "Civil Service Management Code". The recent White Paper on procurement, "Setting New Standards", re-emphasised the Government's commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in procurement. All these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms exist in each Government Department during the market testing process to test bids for risk assessment and value for money and, following the award of contracts, to monitor the performance of those contracts. [38085]

  The Prime Minister
  The principles to be followed are laid out clearly in "The Government's Guide to Market Testing", which is available in the Library of the House.
  417

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Policyholders Protection Act 1975
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his review of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975; and if he will make a statement. [39328]

  Mr. Lang
  Following publication of the consultative document "A Review of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975" in July 1994, there has been general support, both from insurers and policyholder interests, for changes in the scope and operations of the Policyholders Protection Act. I have therefore concluded that the Act requires amendment. The amendments will require primary legislation, which I will bring forward when parliamentary time permits.

  The principal change which I propose to make is to the Act's geographic coverage. I propose to restrict it to insurance policies covering European Economic Area risks and commitments underwritten by United Kingdom authorised companies and UK risks and commitments underwritten by UK-located branches of EEA companies. I also intend to extend the Act's scope, subject to de minimis provisions, to include insurance policies covering UK risks which have been underwritten on a services basis by companies based elsewhere in the EEA.

  I also propose to restrict the coverage of partnerships, which are currently treated more favourably under the Act than incorporated companies. I propose to put them on an equal footing by restricting compensation to partnerships and incorporated companies alike only to compulsory insurance classes.

  Neither of these proposals will be retrospective: they will apply to payments by the Policyholders Protection Board triggered by any insurance failure after enactment of the proposals.

  I also propose to make a number of minor changes to the Act which have been suggested during the review to improve the operation of the Act, to improve protection for insureds who are not policyholders and to reduce the Policyholders Protection Board's administrative costs.

  Full details of the proposed changes are contained in a document which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Iran
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further exceptions there have been concerning the Government's export licensing policy towards Iran following his statements of 18 January 1994,Official Report, column 509, and 6 July 1994, Official Report, column 224. [39329]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As I said in my earlier statement, a number of representations have been received by my Department concerning export business entered into before the moratorium on export licences was imposed on 17 December 1992. We have identified a third case concerning the completion of a contract for repair and overhaul in the United Kingdom of non-lethal marine components.
  418
  In the circumstances, we have agreed to issue a licence which would allow these components to be returned to their owners in Iran unrepaired.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expected cost of conducting a prior options review of the public sector research establishments—Cm 2991; and from which budget this will be found. [38408]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The cost of conducting individual reviews of public sector research establishments will vary, but it is not expected to be substantial. The reviews will be undertaken, and the costs borne, by the respective parent or sponsoring Government Department or research council in each case.

  All public sector research establishments are subject to periodic review. The Government's response to the Multi-departmental Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments—Cm 2991—announced that we are bringing forward the existing programme of reviews and extending the prior options process to research council establishments to allow related establishments to be considered together.

  Consultancy Brokerage Service
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what fees were paid in total to the Consultancy Brokerage Service's contractor, Salford University Business Services; [37756]

  (2) what has been government expenditure to date on the Consultancy Brokerage Service including its consultants and set up costs. [37773]

  Mr. Lang
  Some £2.94 million. This sum includes total payments of £650,000 to all contractors, including Salford University Business Services Ltd. The sums paid to individual contractors are commercially confidential. Some £1.37 million of the total expenditure was on information technology hardware, for which alternative uses are being found.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy announced on 14 September 1995 that the DTI would be working with business links to develop regional consultancy databases and that the Consultancy Brokerage Service would not now proceed. It is not expected that this alternative approach will entail any significant expenditure.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances the Astra provisions applied to the privatisation of public bodies; and if they will apply to the takeover of the National Engineering Laboratory by ASL. [38186]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  An "Astra" clause is not normally made a condition of sale when privatising a public body although shortlisted bidders can be invited to say whether they would be prepared voluntarily to undertake not to seek the renegotiation of redundancy terms. The purchaser of the National Engineering Laboratory had made its
  419
  intentions known to the Department and the Department has passed on this information to staff and to the unions which represent staff at the laboratory.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if all contracts by Government Departments or agencies previously placed at the National Engineering Laboratory will now be subject to competitive tendering following the takeover by ASL of the laboratory. [38182]

  Mr. Taylor
  Work outstanding under letters of agreement or contracts with the National Engineering Laboratory will be transferred to the purchaser.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the value of existing contracts, split between private and public sector, held by the National Engineering Laboratory and which will be transferred to ASL on takeover. [38185]

  Mr. Taylor
  The value of the existing contracts of the National Engineering Laboratory is commercially sensitive information which must remain confidential.

  Copyright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letter of 21 August to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when he hopes to complete his review of draft regulations to implement directive 93/98/EEC on the duration of copyright in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [37297]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The review of the proposed legislation to implement directive 93/98/EEC has been completed, taking into consideration the comments received in response to the consultative draft which was circulated earlier in the year. Regulations to implement the directive are now in the course of preparation, and will be laid before both Libraries of the House as soon as possible.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguish staff in headquarters functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38285]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department will contain the following bargaining units for the 1996–97 pay round: for specialist insolvency grades (currently 625 posts); for specialist in the Radiocommunications Agency (326 posts); and for the rest of DTI (9103.5 posts) including any agencies which remain within DTI's remit on 1 April 1996, but excluding staff of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service which will be a separate bargaining unit.

  Proposals have been put to the trade unions—IPMS, NUCPS, CPSA and FDA—regarding the negotiating machinery.

  Encryption
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to resist changes to Government policy on encryption following 420
  consideration of encryption issues by the Council of Europe and the European Union. [38164]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Officials from various Government Departments have been giving consideration to Government policy on the provision of encrypted services on public networks. Such a policy needs to take into account the legitimate requirement of industry, commerce and individuals for a range of cryptographic services and national security needs, including fighting terrorism and serious crime. In addition, the European Union has put forward draft proposals on the provision of European-wide trust services, which the Government, with other member states, are considering. But no decisions have yet been taken.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by NHS trust, the centrally returned figures for expenditure on management consultancy services in 1994–95. [38379]

  Mr. Sackville
  Centrally returned figures do not separately identify this information.

  Departmental Work
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 1990. [38073]

  Mr. Sackville
  The work of my Department is summarised for each year in the departmental report, alongside an explanation of the Department's expenditure plans for the following years. The first such report was produced in 1991, and contains an explanation of the major policy and service developments that occurred in 1990–91. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales together, in each case with the equivalent electoral registration figures also expressed as a percentage of these population figures. [36779]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Low Income Scheme
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1284–85, (1) how many applicants to the NHS low income scheme are for help with prescription charges; how many were allowed; and what is the total value of the benefit consequently paid out; [37319]
  421
  (2) on the health benefits scheme, how much expenditure can be identified as resulting from applications for help through the AG1 scheme instead of total revenue forgone on health benefits. [37320]

  Mr. Malone
  AG1 claims to the national health service low income scheme are treated as claims for help in respect of all relevant NHS charges and travelling expenses. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 19 July, columns 1284–85, for the available information about prescription and dental charge revenue forgone and expenditure on sight tests and optical vouchers. Costs attributable to AG1 claims are not identified separately. Information about AG1 claims and their outcomes is shown in the table.

  Number of AG1 claims received and numbers of charges certificates issued for Great Britain in 1994–95

  Outcome

  Number of AG1 claim forms received

  1,300,963

  Number of NHS charges certificates issued for full help (AG2) which includes entitlement to free prescriptions1

  694,135

  Number of NHS charges certificates issued for limited help (AG3)

  457,254

  1 People receiving income support, family credit and disability working allowance (with capital of £8,000) or less are also entitled to free prescriptions under the NHS low income scheme.

  Calculators (Purchases)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calculators have been purchased by the NHS supplies authority in each of the last five years. [37410]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Specialist Clinics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the result of the National Centre for Primary Care Research study into the cost-effectiveness of specialist clinics in general practice. [37411]

  Mr. Malone
  The Centre for Primary Care Research undertook a study to establish the extent and nature of specialist outreach clinics and to describe specialists' and general practitioners' views on them. The results were published in the British Medical Journal, volume 38, on 23 April 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre is currently conducting research in this area.

  Stress
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 569, what are the first results of the research by Dr. Toby Wall about the mental health of the NHS work force. [37412]

  Mr. Malone
  The first results from this research are not yet available.
  422

  Children's Homes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the main recommendations of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes and on the main provisions of the code of practice issued by his Department following publication of the Warner report; [37700]

  (2) what specific structures and systems have been established by his Department to monitor compliance on the part of local authorities with the provisions of the code of practice arising from the publication of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which each local authority is (a) currently and (b) in the future planning to comply with the provisions of the code; [37701]

  (3) what specific action (a) has been taken and (b) is planned in order to encourage greater compliance on the part of local authorities with the provisions of the code of practice arising from the publication of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes; [37703]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the costs to local authorities associated with compliance with the provisions of the code of practice arising from the publication of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes; [37704]

  (5) to what extent local authorities will be reimbursed in future for the increased costs associated with compliance with the provisions of the code of practice arising from the publication of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes; [37705]

  (6) if he will make a statement setting out the steps which he is taking to encourage compliance with the terms of the code of practice arising from the publication of the Warner report on the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes with particular reference to the advance vetting of those seeking access to children; and if he will indicate those agencies, charities or commercial organisations of which the Department holds details and which are able to provide advice to local authorities on such vetting procedures. [37699]

  Mr. Bowis
  Progress on the implementation of recommendations in the Warner report by local authorities was reported in Children Act reports in 1992, 1993 and 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The code of practice for the employment of residential child care workers, which I endorse, was produced by the independent support force for children's residential care. It is a reference document intended for the use of local authorities and other providers of child care services. It does not impose on local authorities any new burdens or costs. Local authorities are expected to continue to be particularly rigorous in their policies, procedures and practice for the recruitment, selection and retention of staff involved in child care services. This is routinely examined by inspectors of these services.
  423
  The code of practice and existing guidance from the Department of Health provide advice to local authorities on vetting procedures: how they implement the advice is their responsibility.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria are used to ascertain the suitability of an illness for inclusion in "The Health of the Nation" as a key area; and how many of these criteria are met by osteoporosis; [38426]

  (2) what research has been conducted into the suitability of osteoporosis for inclusion in "The Health of the Nation" as a key area; and if he will make a statement. [38427]

  Mr. Sackville
  The criteria used to determine the five key areas as set out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper (Com 1986) were:the area should be a major cause of death or avoidable ill-health;
  effective interventions should be possible, offering significant scope for improvement in health; and
  it should be possible to set objectives and targets, and monitor progress towards them.

  The Department of Health published the report of its advisory group on osteoporosis in January 1995. Copies of the report were distributed to all national health service bodies in England and are also available in the Library. The Department is presently working to implement many of its recommendations, including that further work be done to measure osteoporosis against the criteria for inclusion as a "Health of the Nation" key area. This year, the Department has increased its support for the National Osteoporosis Society from £20,000 to £50,000.

  Unlicensed Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to prevent unlicensed herbal medicines being sold to the public in breach of the criminal law. [38509]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency investigates all reports of unlicensed herbal remedies being sold to the public in breach of United Kingdom medicines legislation, and takes the appropriate action.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total costs of NHS drugs used in each of the past six years; and what is his latest calculation of the number killed by their use. [38642]

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of national health service drugs in England, in each of the past six years is shown in the table. The cost of drugs used by hospital and community services in 1994–95 is not yet available. In 1992, the latest year for which information is available, in England and Wales the number of deaths due to drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use was 141. It is not possible to identify the adverse effects of prescribed drugs only.
  424

  £ million

  Total NHS spending on drugs (England)

  Year

  FHS drugs

  HCHC drugs

  Total

  1989–90

  1,942

  414

  2,356

  1990–91

  2,080

  460

  2,540

  1991–92

  2,317

  591

  2,908

  1992–93

  2,641

  643

  3,284

  1993–94

  2,951

  710

  3,661

  1994–95

  3,230

  —

  —

  Notes:

  FHC = Family Health Services.

  HCHS = Hospital and Community Health Services.

  Source:

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision. Data for 1993 and 1994 are being checked and should be available in 1996.

  NHS Hysterectomy and Dilation and Curettage Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of NHS hysterectomy and dilation and curettage operations carried out in each of the past three years that are now judged to be unnecessary. [38644]

  Mr. Sackville
  Doctors are responsible for deciding whether an operation is needed in individual cases, in consultation with their patients. The relevant medical royal colleges are responsible for issuing guidelines on conditions and their treatments.

  Boneloc Bone Cement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the patients on whom Boneloc cement was used for their operation have now been contacted and informed of Scandinavian research of its failures. [38637]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The Department issued hazard notice HN 9501 to orthopaedic departments in the health service in April 1995 providing advice on Boneloc bone cement. Action taken with regard to individual patients as a result of departmental advice is a matter for the clinical judgment of the health service professional concerned, in light of the patient's individual circumstances.

  Variations in Health
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report of the variations sub-group of the Chief Medical Officer's "The Health of the Nation" working group. [38913]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The sub-group's report on variations in health has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Teacher Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on bringing school teaching appointments within the provisions of Northern Ireland fair employment legislation; and if he will list those
  425
  Protestant churches which have indicated that they wish this teacher exemption to continue in the course of recent reviews. [37155]

  Mr. Ancram
  As provided in section 38 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, the Fair Employment Agency reviewed the exception relating to the employment of teachers in schools in 1981 and 1987. No changes were recommended to the exception. During these reviews, the Church of Ireland, Methodist and Presbyterian authorities indicated that they wished to see the exception retained.

  Fire Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the fire service in Keady was upgraded from being an auxiliary fire unit to become a retained unit; how many call-outs the fire service in Keady had in the last full year prior to it ceasing to be an auxiliary fire unit; how many call-outs the retained unit in Keady had in the calendar year of 1994; and if he will make a statement about the number of fires in the Keady area. [37551]

  Mr. Moss
  In 1952, the then Northern Ireland fire authority established a volunteer fire party in Keady which shortly afterwards was changed to an auxiliary fire service unit. The auxiliary fire service was disbanded nationally in 1967, but following a review of fire cover, a retained fire crew was established in Keady in November 1971.

  Due to the length of time involved it has not been possible to establish the number of call-outs attended by personnel in Keady prior to Keady being upgraded to retained status.

  In the calendar year 1994, Keady station dealt with 144 calls, made up as follows:

  Call-outs

  Major Fires (eg, property or car fires)

  19

  Secondary Fires (eg rubbish or derelict property fires)

  60

  Chimney fires

  23

  False Alarm Calls

  36

  Special Service Calls (eg, road traffic accidents or rescues)

  6

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fire call-outs the fire service has had this year to the districts of Tandragee, Richhill, Markethill, Newtownhamilton, Middletown, Bessbrook, Hamiltonsbawn and Keady. [37550]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of turn-outs to 30 September are as follows:

  Turn-outs

  Tandragee

  28

  Richhill

  14

  Markethill

  14

  Newtownhamilton

  182

  Middletown

  9

  Bessbrook

  110

  Hamiltonsbawn

  2

  Keady

  298

  The figures for Newtownhamilton and Keady relate to calls attended within the station areas, as opposed to specifically within the town.
  426

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the latest estimates of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland together, in each case, with the equivalent electoral registration figures also expressed as a percentage of these population figures. [36778]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 electoral ward population figures taken from the Northern Ireland census, aggregated to parliamentary constituencies are as follows. Subsequent mid-year estimates are provided at district council level only and not broken down by age. Consequently the equivalent electoral registration figures relate to September 1991.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. Of population aged 16 years

  Registered Electors

  Percentage of Column 1

  Belfast east

  54,655

  53,375

  97.7

  Belfast north

  54,931

  55,587

  101.2

  Belfast south

  55,368

  52,556

  94.9

  Belfast west

  54,960

  55,280

  100.6

  East Antrim

  64,621

  63,739

  98.6

  East Londonderry

  78,930

  76,912

  97.4

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  70,489

  71,472

  101.4

  Foyle

  77,264

  75,970

  98.8

  Lagan Valley

  76,053

  73,688

  96.9

  Mid Ulster

  71,186

  70,410

  98.9

  Newry and Armagh

  68,837

  68,716

  99.8

  North Antrim

  71,096

  70,217

  98.8

  North Down

  70,201

  69,604

  99.1

  Strangford

  71,468

  69,855

  97.7

  South Antrim

  71,334

  68,292

  95.7

  South Down

  78,592

  77,371

  98.4

  Upper Bann

  68,675

  68,422

  99.6

  Total

  1,158,660

  1,141,466

  98.5

  Irish Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals he has to improve the access to Irish medium education and teaching of Irish as a second language. [38638]

  Mr. Ancram
  I am prepared to respond to proposals for grant-aiding Irish-medium schools where they are clearly viable in terms of parental support and where financial support would be compatible with the provision of effective education and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. The teaching of Irish as a second language is a matter for individual schools within the common curriculum requirements. A wide range of support is available to schools to assist them in making such provision.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to use expertise from Wales and Scotland on second language education in Celtic languages to improve the teaching of Irish. [38643]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. In Northern Ireland, teachers of Irish, and other European languages, as a second language have a range of curriculum support material available to
  427
  them, and the education and library boards' curriculum advisory and support services provides in-service training in the teaching of modern languages as for all other aspects of the curriculum. These local materials and services are designed to meet the needs of teachers in Northern Ireland, and the boards commission any external contribution to the services they provide as they consider necessary.

  RUC Report
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to publish the 1995 report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. [39120]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Copies of the 1995 inspection report, which is the third RUC inspection report to be published, have today been placed in the Library. I welcome the report and will be considering its recommendations carefully.

  I am grateful to Her Majesty's inspector for the report and am pleased to note that overall he regards the force as efficient.

  Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary inspections offer the opportunity of professional examination of policing policies and priorities. This inspection forms part of an on-going programme intended to examine over succeeding years various aspects of police management. It is the third in the series to be published and has been a wide-ranging examination of the overall performance of the RUC.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria is used by the Department of Health to fund the activities of community psychiatric nurses. [37566]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services does not provide funding for health and personal social services on the basis of specific service needs. It is a matter for the health and social services boards, as commissioners, to determine the specific service needs of their resident populations in the light of available resources.

  The Department allocates the resources available annually to boards by means of a capitation formula which is employed to facilitate equitable distribution of funds on the basis of the overall needs for health and social care of each board's resident population.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people who have been referred to a community psychiatric nurse in the south and east Belfast area. [37557]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, during the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 there were 24,031 face-to-face contacts with community psychiatric nurses in the south and east Belfast HSS trust.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people who have been referred to community psychiatric nurses throughout west and north Belfast in each of the last five years. [37553]
  428
  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, the number of face-to-face contacts with community psychiatric nurses in the north and west Belfast HSS trust in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: 20,908

  1993–94: 21,339

  1994–95: 20,400

  Information is not available centrally prior to 1992–93.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the total number of people who have been referred to a community psychiatric nurse in the Eastern health board area; [37559]

  (2) what is the total number of people who have been referred to a community psychiatric nurse in the Southern health board area; [37561]

  (3) what is the total number of people who have been referred to a community psychiatric nurse in the Western health board area; [37560]

  (4) what is the total number of people who have been referred to a community psychiatric nurse in the Northern health board area. [37562]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, the table shows the number of face-to-face contacts with community psychiatric nurses in each health and social services board area during the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995.

  Health and social services board

  Number of face to face contacts with community psychiatric nurses

  Eastern

  79,418

  Northern

  28,176

  Southern

  26,436

  Western

  60,427

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people with severe mental illness throughout north and west Belfast; [37563]

  (2) what is the total number of people with severe mental illness throughout south and east Belfast. [37564]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. During 1994–95 the number of people suffering from mental illness who were in contact with north and west Belfast trust social services staff was 832 and with the south and east Belfast trust social services staff was 1,603—this includes estimated data for hospital contacts.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people with severe mental illness in each of the four health board areas in Northern Ireland. [37565]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table provides information on the number of people suffering from mental illness who were in
  429
  contact with social services staff in trusts or units of management located in Northern Ireland health and social services board areas during 1994–95—this is provisional data.

  Health and social services board

  Number

  Eastern

  14,284

  Southern

  2,282

  Northern

  21,937

  Western

  2,128

  Total

  10,631

  1 Includes estimated data for hospital contacts by South and East Belfast Trust.

  2 Includes 1993–94 data for Homefirst unit of management.

  Suicide
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available for the numbers of suicide attempts in each of the four health board areas for each of the last five years. [37567]

  Mr. Moss
  Information on the number of suicide attempts in Northern Ireland is not available.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average amount paid per head in value added tax(a) in 1979, (b) in 1985 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37911]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The average amounts paid per head in value-added tax for financial years 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1994–95 are as follows:

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1994–95

  Average amounts

  146

  341

  716

  Taxation (Self-certification)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the numbers of workers employed under SC60 arrangements—self-certification—in each of the most recent five years. [38323]

  Mr. Jack
  There are no current statistics on the numbers of individuals taxed under the SC60 deduction scheme.

  Bargaining Pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in H.Q. functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38287]
  430
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Under the Treasury's own pay delegation, all staff who will not be members of the new senior civil service will be dealt with as a single group. The Treasury's departmental industrial relations agreement provides for discussions between management and the departmental trade union side on matters including pay and conditions.

  Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next consultative group meeting and the next Paris Club meeting on Kenya. [38021]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No date has yet been set for the next meeting of the consultative group on Kenya.

  There is no Paris Club meeting currently planned on Kenya.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of tax revenue lost to the Exchequer as a result of tax avoidance by residents of(a) the Channel Islands and (b) Brecqhou. [38371]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  European Investment Fund
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the number of projects that have been financed through the European investment fund, the value of the loan facilities provided in each case and the date the loan was provided. [38717]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham South, (Mr. Spearing), on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 10. The dates of the loans set out in the reply to the hon. Member are as follows:

  Name

  Date signed

  Panafon, SA

  123 September 1994 and 121 November 1994

  Groupe Banque Populaire

  19 December 1994

  Telecom Italia

  30 November 1994

  SNAM Transmediterraneo

  14 December 1994

  Aeroporto di Malpensa

  12 December 1994

  Transgas

  9 December 1994

  Note:

  1 The Fund's guarantee in favour of Panafon covering an amount below ECU 30 million was signed in September 1994. In November 1994, the Fund's supervisory board approved a further intervention in favour of Panafon bringing the total for that project up to ECU 54.74 million.

  Source:

  European Investment Fund Annual Report 1994.

  Investment Scheme
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the open-ended collective investment scheme, OCIS, will be available. [38492]
  431
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury is currently consulting on draft regulations, under the European Communities Act 1972, to allow the introduction of open-ended investment companies in the United Kingdom. The timetable depends on the outcome of consultations on these regulations, and on draft product regulations to be produced by the Securities and Investments Board. We hope, however, that the regulations will be made during the first half of 1996.

  Loans
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total level of loan facilities provided to the United Kingdom since 1993; and what are the corresponding figures for each of the other EU member states. [38718]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is as follows:

  European Investment Bank financing within the European Union (mecu)

  Member State

  1993

  1994

  United Kingdom

  1,929.1

  2,454.7

  Belgium

  371.6

  615.3

  Denmark

  875.5

  849.7

  Germany

  2,096.6

  2,407.9

  Greece

  511.1

  534.7

  Spain

  4,005.1

  3,011.5

  France

  2,205.5

  2,477.4

  Ireland

  388.2

  291.1

  Italy

  3,362.0

  3,099.5

  Luxembourg

  —

  5.1

  Netherlands

  379.7

  399.5

  Portugal

  1,488.8

  1,109.7

  Austria

  —

  89.5

  Finland

  —

  60.2

  Sweden

  —

  15.3

  Source:

  European Investment Bank annual reports, 1993 and 1994 (the latest year for which figures are available).

  Cut Flowers (VAT)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, columns 782–83, who has proposed a reduced rate of VAT on cut flowers; what are the arguments for this proposal; what is the proposed rate; what is the current rate; and how much revenue would be gained or lost by moving to a reduced rate. [38394]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: The European Commission has proposed an Optional reduced rate for cut flowers in order to resolve a problem arising from cross-border trade.

  In 1992 those member states who applied a reduced rate to cut flowers were allowed to continue to do sc until the end of 1994. Because some of those member states were reluctant to move to their standard rate at the end of last year, the Commission suggested that an option to apply a reduced rate be made available to all member states.

  No specific rate has been proposed, although under existing rates provisions, it could not be less than 5 per cent. Currently most member states, including the United
  432
  Kingdom, apply their standard rate. The rate applicable in the remaining member states is generally in the range of 5 to 8 per cent. If the rate of VAT in the UK were reduced to 5 per cent., the estimated revenue loss would be approximately £180 million in a full year. However, the Government have consistently made clear that they would not exercise the option to apply a reduced rate even it were made available.

  Adoption of the proposal requires the unanimous agreement of member states. Currently they remain divided, particularly because of concerns about cross-border distortions of competition and the revenue cost. The Government favour the application of the standard rate by all member states as the best way of addressing these concerns, and so do not support the proposal.

  VAT (Collection)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT has been collected by assessment and penalty for each of the last five years. [38395]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]Separate figures are not available for VAT by assessment and penalty. Net additional VAT liability, including associated penalties and interest, was established by officers as follows:

  1990–91: £1,044 million;

  1991–92: £1,023 million;

  1992–93: £1,039 million;

  1993–94: £1,365 million;

  1994–95: £2,187 million.

  Rebated Gas Oil
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis owners of pleasure craft are eligible for rebated gas oil; what is the cost of this rebate to the Exchequer, and what plans he has to remove this rebate. [38361]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: A rebated rate of excise duty applies to gas oil used "off road". On this basis, rebated gas oil can be used in pleasure craft as well as in most agriculture vehicles and machinery, in vehicles employed in motorway construction, forestry, mining and quarrying, and in British Rail diesel locomotives.

  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of the application of the rebate to gas oil used by pleasure craft is between £5 million and £10 million.

  Decisions on changes in taxation are matters for the Budget statement on 28 November.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom's aid budget in respect of the various countries in sub-Saharan Africa in each of the last five years. [37627]
  433
  Mr. Hanley
  The total United Kingdom bilateral gross public expenditure on aid to countries in sub-Saharan Africa from 1990–91 to 1994–95 is set out in the table.

  £ thousand

  11990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  1 21993–94

  11994–95

  Angola

  1,530

  2,433

  1,825

  13,550

  8,845

  Benin

  260

  190

  4,016

  0

  9

  Botswana

  7,442

  11,608

  7,462

  8,412

  5,235

  Burkino Faso

  361

  969

  345

  248

  168

  Burundi

  199

  182

  205

  3,231

  1,498

  Cameroon

  3,478

  3,061

  3,353

  2,769

  2,271

  Cape Verde Islands

  96

  113

  97

  48

  11

  Central African Republic

  80

  75

  21

  5

  13

  Chad

  189

  227

  291

  424

  110

  Congo

  277

  353

  281

  95

  1

  Comoros

  7

  1

  42

  16

  21

  Djibouti

  96

  128

  55

  110

  12

  Equatorial Guinea

  52

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Eritrea

  —

  —

  1,979

  5,824

  2,624

  Ethiopia

  23,799

  22,912

  17,506

  20,177

  23,694

  Gabon

  44

  63

  9

  4

  0

  Gambia

  6,094

  5,814

  4,919

  3,685

  2,403

  Ghana

  29,219

  44,659

  41,736

  26,145

  23,347

  Guinea

  499

  957

  504

  405

  279

  Guinea-Bissau

  39

  32

  9

  51

  31

  Ivory Coast

  10,503

  5,813

  7,204

  1,646

  2,065

  Kenya

  49,957

  38,351

  37,514

  31,231

  30,533

  Lesotho

  5,854

  6,454

  27,194

  6,070

  5,124

  Liberia

  571

  722

  691

  2,252

  912

  Madagascar

  715

  699

  940

  897

  813

  Malawi

  43,526

  26,093

  27,378

  27,009

  41,243

  Mali

  1,346

  1,351

  1,223

  811

  921

  Mauritania

  81

  290

  154

  252

  307

  Mauritius

  5,296

  3,055

  3,553

  1,714

  1,486

  Mozambique

  26,593

  18,001

  34,177

  34,743

  25,014

  Namibia

  1,706

  2,366

  4,494

  3,893

  3,572

  Niger

  376

  392

  373

  468

  539

  Nigeria

  35,238

  14,472

  15,767

  9,751

  7,671

  Rwanda

  389

  214

  312

  1,661

  45,280

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  Senegal

  1,159

  1,561

  1,066

  1,010

  1,014

  Seychelles

  1,222

  1,555

  1,226

  2,349

  958

  Sierra Leone

  2,937

  2,486

  6,483

  3,989

  8,262

  Somalia

  1,927

  3,025

  15,804

  5,510

  2,083

  South Africa

  8,093

  9,325

  11,558

  14,432

  15,604

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  11,759

  9,161

  9,065

  9,057

  8,148

  Sudan

  24,613

  21,840

  9,956

  15,519

  12,760

  Swaziland

  5,255

  3,499

  4,194

  8,196

  2,574

  Tanzania

  41,596

  32,321

  62,299

  31,186

  30,747

  Togo

  469

  461

  311

  377

  555

  Uga2nda

  32,211

  27,836

  34,707

  40,470

  46,534

  Zaire

  2,328

  1,503

  1,371

  3,285

  1,244

  Zambia

  49,868

  34,444

  47,978

  47,603

  55,934

  Zimbabwe

  33,627

  47,690

  44,268

  41,239

  35,263

  1 Figures include project aid; programme aid; emergency assistance; debt relief; and CDC investments.

  2 1994–95 figures are provisional.

  1. Prior to 1992–93, assistance to Eritrea formed part of programme to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to make no reduction in United Kingdom bilateral aid in respect of poverty-relief programmes, including the provision of clean water, health care and education services. [38003]

  Mr. Hanley
  The overriding goal of the British aid programme is poverty reduction through sustainable development. The Government will maintain an effective bilateral programme focused on the poorest countries, including help in the water, health and education sectors.
  434
  In addition, countries also receive assistance from multilateral aid organisations to which the UK contributes.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the aid budget will be spent bilaterally in 1998–99 in the event of the aid budget being reduced by(a) 5 per cent., (b) 7.5 per cent., (c) 10 per cent., and (d) 12.5 per cent. between 1996–97 and 1998–99. [37997]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to answer this question directly, since there is some scope to modify certain categories of multilateral spending—for example, contributions to new multilateral replenishments or voluntary contributions to UN or commonwealth bodies—particularly in the medium term.
  435
  The latest relevant published forecast, in the 1995 departmental report, indicates that bilateral aid in 1997–98 is expected to be 41 per cent. of the aid programme as set in last year's Budget.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the effectiveness of British diplomacy in(a) the United Nations, (b) the European Union (c) the Commonwealth and (d) international organisations of other reductions in Britain's bilateral aid programme; and if he will make a statement. [38148]

  Mr. Hanley
  Britain continues to maintain the world's fifth largest aid programme which befits her status as the fifth largest economy. We make a substantial and highly effective contribution to the multilateral institutions of which we are members.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects are currently being supported by the ODA to combat the spread of HIV-AIDS in developing countries. [37751]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom currently supports bilaterally some 60 projects in 24 developing countries. Financial commitments amount to £67.4 million through the bilateral aid programme. A proportion of the United Kingdom's contributions to UN organisations, the World bank and the European Commission is also used for HIV-AIDS-related activities. In particular, the United Kingdom has provided £37.3 million to the World Health Organisation global programme on AIDS since its inception in 1987.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial, food and medical aid has been given by Her Majesty's Government to Sri Lanka during the last 12 months. [37647]

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest figures available show that in financial year 1994–95 total UK bilateral aid to Sri Lanka was £11.48 million. Of that, £1.16 million was financial—capital—aid, £0.52 million was emergency aid, and £0.75 million was provided for relief and rehabilitation programmes, including a small amount for food and medical supplies, which benefited families affected by conflict. The remainder was spent on technical co-operation, aid and trade provision and Commonwealth Development Corporation investments.

  Population Control
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) of 20 June,Official Report, column 164–65 (a) if he will set out the reasons why the Overseas Development Administration considered it appropriate for its recent case studies in certain countries on the work of the United Nations population fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to be carried out using material and documents provided on the basis that information and findings would be treated in confidence and (b) if the information and findings will remain confidential on an indefinite basis. [37613]
  436
  Mr. Hanley
  These studies are commissioned to help ODA assess how effective these organisations are relative to the aims of the United Kingdom's aid programme. ODA believes that the studies will produce more useful evidence and findings if they are undertaken on the understanding with all those concerned that the reports are not to be made public. ODA does not intend to publish these reports.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Nations Family Planning Association and the United Nations population fund have helped the Chinese Government understand how their population policies are viewed by other countries and how approaches based on voluntary choice should be introduced. [37586]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations population fund has done this through its international advocacy of non-coercive policies and other standard-setting work in relation to population policy and family planning, as well as through training of Chinese population specialists and its direct exchanges with the Chinese Government.

  Least Developed Countries
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who represented Britain at the intergovernmental meeting in September to review progress on the United Nations programme of action on least developed countries; and what pledges of financial support Her Majesty's Government made. [38149]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our delegation was headed by the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the United Nations and included officials from the diplomatic and aid wings of the FCO. The meeting reported progress in many international fora in tackling the problems of the least developed countries, for example through debt relief initiatives. No new pledges of financial support were made by any donor.

SCOTLAND

  Student Loans
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many graduates in Scotland are now paying back student loans; how many graduates in Scotland have had student loan repayments deferred under the earnings rule for each year since the introduction of student loans; and how many students in Scotland have applied for student loans in each year. [36404]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  These are operational matters for the Student Loans Company Ltd.

  I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Wild Cat
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to conduct a similar investigation into the possibility of the existence of a large wild cat in Banffshire, similar to that carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Bodmin; and if he will make a statement. [36972]
  437
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department maintains contact with Grampian police who, with the advice of veterinary and zoology experts, have examined reported incidents. The evidence found so far involves dogs and foxes only.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he is prepared to allocate to determine whether there is a threat to livestock in Banffshire and Buchan from a big cat; and if he will make a statement. [36943]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Any incidents reported to my Department will be investigated appropriately.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value, at current prices of(a) exports out of Scotland and (b) imports into Scotland in each year since 1992–93; and if he will give a breakdown of these imports and exports in their respective industrial sectors. [37006]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Vandalism (Schools)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of vandalism in schools in(a) Grampian and (b) Gordon district have been reported to the procurator fiscal. [37936]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of vandalism to schools in(a) Scotland, (b) Grampian and (c) Gordon district. [37939]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: Comprehensive information on the cost to education authorities of vandalism in schools is not collected centrally.

  Film Industry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry; conducted by officials of his Department into Government support of the film industry in Scotland; if he will place a copy in the Library, and if he will make a statement. [38424]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has asked Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to consider how Scotland can be best promoted as a film location and to establish what infrastructure is needed for the production of commercial films in Scotland. He expects to receive their report early in the new year and will arrange to make copies available in the Library in due course.

  Child Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the 438
  working group set up in January to investigate the development of an integrated support scheme for child witnesses; and if he will make a statement. [38423]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The child witness support project working group is not expected to produce a final report until the latter part of 1997. The nature of the aim and objectives of the project is such as to demand a lengthy time scale.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives have been taken at(a) Everthorpe, (b) Parkhurst and (c) other prisons to reduce illegal drug use in the past five years; and what initiatives are planned in the next two years. [38641]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the initiatives taken (a) Everthorpe, (b) Parkhurst and (c) other prisons to reduce illegal drug use in the past five years; and what initiatives are planned in the next two years.
  Everthorpe, Parkhurst and all Prison Service establishments are required to develop a local drug strategy and an action plan for its implementation by the end of 1995.
  A number of initiatives have been implemented at Everthorpe to reduce illegal drug use. The prison has developed and continues to receive community linked counselling services from the Substance Abuse Referral Unit (SARU) at York and the Drug Action Response Team (DART) in Hull. The prison has also developed a voluntary drug testing unit which provides support for prisoners who agree to stay off drugs during their sentence.
  Mandatory Drug Testing was introduced at Everthorpe earlier this year. Further security and control measures planned for the future include the introduction of a drug detection dog and the implementation of new searching strategies in line with the Woodcock report. Everthorpe will continue their involvement with SARU and DART and will continue to work with community drug agencies to tackle drug misuse.
  Parkhurst has made significant progress in improving the security and control measures designed to reduce the level of drug misuse. Drug sniffer dogs have been trained and employed for use in searching all parts of the prison used by prisoners as well as visitors. Two visitors this year have been charged by police following drug finds on their person.
  Similar progress has been achieved in implementing measures to reduce the demand for drugs in Parkhurst. The health care team offers a range of services to prisoners with drug problems. A detoxification programme has been set up for identified prisoners. Recently between twelve and twenty prisoners have been receiving medical treatment for drug addiction. A contract with the community drug agency provides for a drug counsellor to come to Parkhurst on a weekly basis.
  A rehabilitation orientated regime is planned for the near future and a dedicated drug unit is also planned for chaotic drug users which will act as a day centre and community clinic for prisoners with drug misuse problems.
  On 8 April 1991 all Prison Service establishments were issued with a guidance manual on the management of drug users. The manual focused on helping staff who were involved in responding

  439
  to the needs of drug misusers. It included guidance on detoxification, the use of methadone, multi-disciplinary team working, counselling and HIV.
  From 1994 reducing the level of drug misuse became one of the Prison Service's strategic priorities. A new strategy was developed with the main aim of reducing the supply of drugs, reducing the demand for drugs and rehabilitating drug misusers and reducing the potential for the damage to health arising from the misuse of drugs. This strategy was issued to all establishments on 26 April 1995.
  All prison establishments are reviewing their immediate operational requirements for dealing with drugs in prison. They have begun to set up the multi-disciplinary drugs teams which have to produce a local drugs strategy agreed between the governor and the area manager by the end of the year. In the meantime headquarters support is being given to a number of pilot treatment projects and to the introduction of mandatory drug testing (MDT) throughout the prison system, which is scheduled to be implemented across all establishments by the end of March 1996.
  Other measures to reduce and control the supply of drugs include use of CCTV, drug sniffer dogs and enhanced search procedures.
  This year the Prison Service is substantially expanding the number and type of drug treatment programmes and services available to prisoners. The schemes include therapeutic communities, dedicated treatment units, detoxification, education, counselling and thoughcare.
  In the wider context, officials from the relevant departments have started to tackle the practical implications of securing a smooth transition for those who need it between treatment in prison and treatment in the community. Training is being provided for drugs strategy teams and, at a more specialist level, for health care staff and medical officers. An information package for prisoners and prison staff is being devised.
  From 1996 local prison establishment drug strategies will be examined to ensure that they are consistent with the national strategy and will be subject to audit by area managers. The Prison Service will include the reduction of drug misuse as one of its Key Performance Indicators in the 1996–99 Corporate Plan, and will specify a relevant key target in its 1996–97 Business Plan together with an action plan to meet the new target.

  Omasese Lumumba
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish an independent inquiry into the death in Pentonville prison of Omasese Lumumba. [38175]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the death of Mr. Omasese Lumumba in Pentonville prison.
  There are no plans to establish an independent inquiry into Mr Lumumba's death. an internal Prison Service investigation was conducted immediately. Its conclusion was that procedures had been correctly observed. The available evidence did not support the bringing of disciplinary charges against individual members of staff.
  The circumstances of Mr Lumumba's death were separately and independently investigated by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of the Coroner in accordance with normal practice. The police report was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service which concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against any officers. The Crown Prosecution Service reached its decision with the benefit of the transcript of the inquest and all the original case papers. The circumstances of Mr Lumumba's death have already been the subject of thorough, independent and impartial scrutiny and there are no grounds to justify the initiation of a further public inquiry.
  440

  Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the newspapers in which the advertisement for the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Authority was advertised; and if he will make a statement. [38374]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Advertisements for the post of chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Authority were placed in The Sunday Times, The Times and The Belfast Telegraph.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the boards of visitors' annual reports for 1994–95 that have been received by his Department, the replies which have to date been sent to these reports and the prisons in England and Wales to which these were sent. [38392]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Boards of visitors are required to submit an annual report to the Home Secretary"concerning the state of the prison and its administration, including in it any suggestions and advice they consider appropriate".

  Boards were asked to submit their reports for 1994 by 31 March 1995.

  As on 20 October 1995, annual reports had been received from boards of visitors for Her Majesty's prison establishments as listed:

  Acklington

  Albany

  Aldington

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Aylesbury

  Bedford

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blakenhurst

  Blundeston

  Brinsford

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Brockhill

  Bulingdon

  Bulwood Hall

  Camp Hill

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Castington

  Channings Wood

  Chelmsford

  Coldingley

  Cookham Wood

  Dartmoor

  Deerbolt

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dover

  Downview

  Drake Hall

  Durham

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  441

  Elmley

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Exeter

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Frankland

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gartree

  Glen Parva

  Gloucester

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  Guys Marsh

  Haslar

  Hatfield

  Hindley

  Hewell Grange

  Highdown

  Highpoint

  Hollesley Bay

  Holloway

  Holme House

  Hull

  Huntercombe

  Kingston

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington

  Lancaster Castle

  Lancaster Farms

  Latchmere House

  Leeds

  Leciester

  Lewes

  Leyhill

  Lincoln

  Lindholme

  Littlehey

  Long Lartin

  Low Newton

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Moorland

  Morton Hall

  Mount

  New Hall

  Northallerton

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Onley

  Oxford

  Parkhurst

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Preston

  Pucklechurch

  Ranby

  Reading

  Risley

  Rochester

  Rudgate

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Shrewsbury

  Stafford

  Standford Hill

  Stocken

  Stoke Heath

  Styal

  Sudbury

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Swinfen Hall

  Thorn Cross

  442

  Thorp Arch

  Usk

  The Verne

  Wakefield

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Wellingborough

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  Whitemoor

  Winchester

  Wolds

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wymott

  Replies to annual reports have been sent to the chairman of all the above boards—to their establishments—except for the following: Frankland, Portland, Pucklechurch and Parkhurst. In the case of the first two, the reply was delayed because Ministers were not satisfied with the information provided and asked for further investigation. Replies are currently being checked and will be sent shortly. In the case of Pucklechurch and Parkhurst, these reports were only received on 6 September and 15 September respectively. Their replies will follow shortly.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to commence a second phase of market testing of existing prison establishments; and how many establishments are to be market tested; [36194]

  (2) how many existing prison establishments will be market tested within the year ending 31 March 1996. [36193]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about market testing within the Prison Service.
  Information has already been given in the reply to the Question from Mr Gary Streeter on 24 May (No. 232). Final decisions on timing and the number of establishments to be market tested have not been taken.

  Prison Incidents
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by category all reported acts of(a) concerted indiscipline, (b) fires, (c) escapes and attempted escapes from prison, (d) escapes and attempted escapes from escort, (e) deaths, (f) hostage situations, (g) wrongful releases and (h) miscellaneous or any other incidents at (i) Wolds, (ii) Blakenhurst and (iii) Buckley Hall prisons from 1 September 1994 to 30 June 1995. [36196]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  443
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for a list by category of all reported acts of (a) concerted indiscipline, (b) fires, (c) escapes and attempted escapes from prison, (d) escapes and attempted escapes from escort, (e) deaths, (f) hostage situations, (g) wrongful releases and (h) miscellaneous or any other incidents at (i) Wolds, (ii) Blakenhurst and (iii) Buckley Hall prisons from 1st September 1994 to 30th June 1995. Both the Wolds and Blakenhurst prisons were operational on 1 September 1994. Buckley Hall prison did not receive its first prisoner until 14 December 1994.

  The information is listed in the attached table:

  Incident Type

  Wolds

  Blakenhurst

  Buckley Hall

  Concerted indiscipline

  2

  2

  2

  Fires

  2

  5

  1

  Prison escapes

  0

  0

  0

  Prison attempted escapes

  0

  0

  0

  Escort escapes

  0

  0

  0

  Escort attempted escapes

  0

  0

  1

  Deaths

  1

  1

  0

  Hostage situations

  0

  0

  0

  Wrongful release

  0

  1

  0

  Miscellaneous

  5

  15

  0

  Assaults on staff

  12

  19

  0

  Assaults on inmates

  16

  65

  2

  Assaults on others

  1

  0

  0

  Key lock compromise

  0

  1

  1

  Food refusals

  10

  0

  0

  Temporary release failures

  0

  1

  7

  Self harm

  39

  29

  1

  Tool implement loss find

  0

  3

  1

  Drug finds

  77

  122

  7

  Absconds

  0

  1

  0

  Recaptures/surrenders

  0

  2

  5

  Total

  165

  267

  28

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) 16-year-olds, (b) 15-year-olds and (c) 14-year-olds held in adult prisons on remand for any period of time during each of the last five years. [36257]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many 14, 15, and 16 year olds were held in adult prisons on remand during each of the last five years.
  The available information is for the establishments receiving untried prisoners and is given in the attached table.
  Receptions of 14, 15 and 16-year-old untried prisoners into adult Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 1990 to 1994.

  Age

  Year

  14

  15

  16

  1990

  0

  52

  135

  1991

  2

  43

  91

  444

  Age

  Year

  14

  15

  16

  1992

  1

  7

  16

  1993

  0

  2

  16

  19941

  0

  39

  61

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average remand population in England and Wales for each of the last five years; and how many of them were(a) aged under 17, (b) aged between 17 and under 21 and (c) aged over 21 years. [37173]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average remand population in England and Wales for each of the last five years; and how many of them were (a) aged under 17, (b) aged between 17 and under 21 and (c) aged over 21 years.
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, information on the average population of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners is published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 1.4 of the 1993 edition, Cm 2581), a copy of which is available from the Library of the House. The population of young remand prisoners by age on 30 June each year is also given in table 3.2. Information for 1994 is given in the attached tables.

  Average population of remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 19941 2

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Untried

  Aged 15–20

  2,021

  48

  2,069

  Aged 21 and over

  6,675

  303

  6,978

  Convicted unsentenced

  Aged 15–20

  898

  26

  924

  Aged 21 and over

  2,144

  113

  2,257

  1 Excludes 122 untried and 7 convicted unsentenced male prisoners held in police cells.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Population of young remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 19941

  Age

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  15–16

  144

  81

  17–20

  1,974

  864

  Aged 21 and over

  7,098

  2,332

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were remanded in custody in England and Wales; and how many of those were(a) aged under 17, (b) aged between 17 and under 21 and (c) aged over 21 years at the latest date available. [37172]
  445
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many persons were remanded in custody in England and Wales; and how many of those were (a) aged under 17, (b) aged between 17 and under 21 and (c) aged over 21 years at the latest date available.
  The latest available information is for 31 August 1995. On that date, there were 11,308 people on remand in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. Of these, 221 were aged under 17 years; 2,606 were aged between 17 and 20 years; and 8,481 were aged over 21 years.

  Sri Lankan Nationals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamil(a) men and (b) women were being held in custody for immigration reasons as at 9 October. [37650]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information on all Sri Lankan nationals is given in the table; no distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  Sri Lankan nationals in detention under Immigration Act powers on 17 October 1995

  Number of persons

  Category of Person

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Port Cases1

  7

  —

  7

  Persons subject to enforcement action2

  16

  —

  16

  1 Excluding any non-asylum port cases in detention for less than one month.

  2 Illegal entrants and persons subject to deportation action.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been made by Sri Lankan Tamils during each of the last 12 months. [37645]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is given in the table; no distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans. The total number of asylum applications in the last 12 months to September 1995 from Sri Lanka was 1,830.

  Asylum application from Sri Lankan nationals (October 1994—September 1995)

  Number of persons

  1994

  October

  185

  November

  170

  December

  160

  1995

  January

  190

  February

  160

  March

  185

  April

  130

  May

  180

  446

  Asylum application from Sri Lankan nationals (October 1994—September 1995)

  Number of persons

  June

  155

  July

  150

  August

  165

  September

  186

  Total

  1,830

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Horne Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils were deported from the United Kingdom in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) to date in 1995. [37651]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on all Sri Lankan nationals is given in the table; no distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  Sri Lankan nationals removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process1

  Number of persons

  1993

  8

  1994

  4

  1995 January to September

  6

  1 Including "voluntary" departures after deportation action had been initiated, but excluding illegal entrants removed.

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will itemise the costs of running the National Lottery Charities Board since its establishment specifying(a) staff costs, (b) consultancy fees and (c) payments to individual board members. [37921]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In the 14 months to September 1995, the National Lottery Charities Board spent £5.26 million on one-off start-up costs and on administration. This represents less than 3 per cent. of the money available to it through the national lottery distribution fund. Of this, approximately £1.4 million was spent on staff costs, £1.25 million on consulting fees and £44,000 on travel and subsistence payments to board members.

  Fine Defaulters
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women received custodial sentences for fine defaulting on the grounds of culpable neglect in each year since 1989; [37517]

  (2) if he will include in statistics for women serving custodial sentences details of the number of women receiving custodial sentences for fine defaulting. [37519]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking, how many women received custodial sentences for fine defaulting on the grounds of culpable neglect in each year

  447
  since 1989 and if he will include in statistics for women serving custodial sentences details of the number receiving custodial sentences for fine defaulting.
  Prison statistics for sentenced prisoners include fine defaulters. These are published in the annual volume "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (Table 1.1 of the 1993 edition, Cm 2893), copies of which are available from the Library of the House. Provisional information for 1994 shows that 1,420 females were received into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine.
  There are a range of measures available to the courts without the recourse to imprisonment for the enforcement of fines. A defaulter is only committed to custody once these methods have been tried or considered and where the court is satisfied that there has been a wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of fine defaulters for non-payment of the television licence received in prison between 1991 and 1994 by(a) gender and the age groups (i) 18 to 20, (ii) 21 to 25, (iii) 26 to 30, (iv) 31 to 35, (v) 36 to 40, (vi) 41 to 45, (vii) 46 to

  Table 1: Receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television without a licence, 1991–1994

  Year and gender

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Age

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  18–20

  5

  8

  10

  6

  8

  15

  4

  4

  21–25

  56

  35

  80

  46

  103

  78

  85

  70

  26–30

  62

  32

  98

  50

  115

  67

  101

  60

  31–35

  40

  26

  59

  15

  89

  42

  113

  37

  36–40

  35

  11

  39

  21

  71

  31

  53

  36

  41–45

  23

  13

  48

  12

  60

  26

  57

  14

  46–50

  12

  7

  31

  7

  42

  14

  30

  13

  51–55

  11

  3

  21

  1

  32

  2

  25

  5

  56–60

  10

  1

  12

  2

  20

  2

  11

  2

  61–65

  2

  —

  4

  —

  5

  1

  8

  2

  Over 65

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  258

  136

  404

  160

  547

  278

  487

  243

  1 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television without a licence, by gender and ethnic origin, 19911

  Ethnic origin

  Year

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Total

  1991

  Male

  248

  4

  3

  3

  —

  258

  Female

  130

  1

  1

  2

  2

  136

  1 The 1991 figures are based on an ethnic origin coding similar to that used in the EC labour force survey. The 1992 to 1994 figures use a new ethnic classification which is congruent with that used for the census of population.

  Table 3: receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television licence without a licence, by gender and ethnic origin, 1992–1994 1

  Ethnic origin

  Year

  White

  Black African, Caribbean, other

  South Asian Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani

  Chinese and other Chinese, Asian other, Other

  Total

  1992

  Male

  386

  12

  2

  4

  404

  Female

  148

  8

  —

  4

  160

  1993

  Male

  519

  21

  5

  2

  547

  Female

  267

  8

  —

  3

  278

  448
  50, (viii) 51 to 55, (ix) 56 to 60, (x) 61 to 65 and (xi) over 65, (b) gender and ethnic origin and (c) gender and sentence length imposed and average sentence length actually served. [37193]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of fine defaulters for non-payment of the TV licence received in prison between 1991 and 1994 by (a) gender and age (b) gender and ethnic origin and (c) gender and sentence length imposed and average sentence length actually served.
  Information on the numbern of fine defaulters received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for using a television without a licence, is given by age, gender and ethnic origin in the attached tables. The average time served was 11 days for males and 9 days for females. The average time imposed was 4 days for males and 3 days for females.
  449

  Table 3: receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television licence without a licence, by gender and ethnic origin, 1992–1994 1

  Ethnic origin

  Year

  White

  Black African, Caribbean, other

  South Asian Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani

  Chinese and other Chinese, Asian other, Other

  Total

  19942

  Male

  462

  17

  4

  4

  487

  Female

  232

  10

  —

  1

  243

  1 The 1991 figures are based on an ethnic origin coding similar to that used in the EC labour force survey. The 1992 to 1994 figures use a new ethnic classification which is congruent with that used for the census of population.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [36830]

  Mr. Howard
  The parliamentary 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—those bodies which are listed in schedule 2 to the 1967 Act. The schedule covers the Home Office in its entirety.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the contractor has taken to exercise efficiency in the use of energy consuming utilities at Doncaster prison; and what cost savings have been accrued or received to date by his Department as a result of these efficiencies. [37349]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the efficient use of energy at Doncaster prison.
  Doncaster prison operates a computerised building management system specifically designed to optimise energy utilisation.
  Premier Prison Services Ltd have achieved savings by managing and developing this system in combination with arranging competitively-priced contracts with utility providers and heightening staff awareness of the need to conserve energy.
  In line with the partnership agreements between Premier Prison Services Ltd and the Prison Service, the Prison Service receives 80 per cent of such saving. The amount due for this year as a result of these savings has not yet been determined.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions inspectors from(a) the local authority's environmental health department and (b) the Health and Safety Executive have inspected Doncaster prison; what recommendations were made by the inspectors; which recommendations the contractor has implemented; and which recommendations are yet to be implemented. [37345]
  450
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about inspections from the local environmental health officer and the Health and Safety Executive to Doncaster prison.
  The local environmental health officer visited the prison on 3 August. His report is still awaited.
  The Health and Safety Executive have twice visited to examine the alarm systems available to prison staff on 29 September 1994 and 21 November 1994. They were satisfied with the systems that enable staff to raise the alarm when necessary.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amendments or alterations have been made to the contract between the Home Office and Premier Prisons Ltd.(a) at the contractor's request or (b) at his Department's request, since the contract was signed on 18 February 1994. [37343]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about amendments or alterations to the contract to manage Doncaster prison.
  There have been no amendments or alterations to the contract between the Home Office and Premier Prison Services Ltd. since the contract was signed on 18 February 1994.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify which services are subcontracted by Premier Prison Services Ltd. to other companies; and if he will name the companies concerned. [37351]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the sub-contracted services at Doncaster prison.
  Doncaster Prison Services Ltd do not sub-contract any operating functions involving security, the provision of prisoner programmes, health care, food services, works services or laundry.

  451
  There are several specialist contracts in place to deal with the maintenance of computer equipment, electronic locking systems, close-circuit television linked to video recording systems and specialist plant and equipment.
  In addition, specialist medical personnel support Doncaster prison on a contractual basis when required.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the conditions of contract not met in respect of Doncaster prison and for which six default notices were served on Premier Prison Services Ltd. [37347]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the default notices served on Premier Prison Services Ltd in respect of their contract for the management of Doncaster prison.
  To date there have been seven default notices served on Premier Prison Services Ltd since Doncaster prison opened in June 1994. The Prison Service considered that there was a default in relation to the following contractual obligations:
  On 7 September 1994 in relation to Schedule 2.3.15c: for a failure to deal satisfactorily with litter and graffiti.
  On 7 September 1994 in relation to Schedule 2.1.6: This referred to an error in the prison roll.
  On 15 September 1994 in relation to Schedule 2.1.2a: On Sunday 11 September a category A prisoner was not escorted within the prison in accordance with Prison Service requirements.
  On 19 September 1994 and 15 November 1994 in relation to Schedule 1.5.2: On three occasions in September and November individual prisoners were temporarily located in the segregation unit special cell without authorisation by the controller.
  On 24 January 1995 in relation to Schedule 2.13.12: An Induction Board had not been introduced by the date required under the contract and there were no adequate substitute procedures in place.
  On 28 July 1995 in relation to Schedule 2.1.2a: On 25 July 1995 a category A prisoner had been unlocked without the necessary supervision required by the Prison Service
  All faults were corrected within the time specified in the default notices.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the following outcome of inquiries into a disturbance at HM prison, Doncaster on 29 November 1994. [37342]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the outcome of inquiries into a disturbance at Doncaster prison on 29 November 1994.
  A full investigation was carried out by Linda Leivers into the incident. The investigation concluded that there was a clash between young offenders from different areas of Yorkshire, but that there were no warnings or indications to staff before the incident that trouble was imminent. The incident was quickly brought under control. Staff acted properly throughout the incident. The perpetrators were quickly identified and charged under Prison Rules.
  452
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the achievements under all key performance indicators applied to Doncaster prison for the first year of operation. [37350]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the achievements under all key Performance Indicators applied to Doncaster prison for the first year of operation.
  The Key Performance Indicators set out in the attached table were all met.

  Key performance indicators for Doncaster prison in first year of operation

  Target Level

  Actual

  Escapes

  Prison

  2

  1

  Escort

  8

  0

  Time out of cell

  12 hours

  Exceeded

  Positive Regimes

  Available regime activity

  12 hours

  Yes

  Education

  Adults

  6 hours

  Yes

  Yos

  15 hours

  Yes

  Visits

  Statutory

  Exceeded

  Grievances

  90 per cent. within 7 days

  Yes

  Assaults

  Staff

  77

  129

  Prisoners

  148

  92

  Total for Default

  225

  221

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by(a) the contractor and (b) his Department as a result of damage to the building, fixtures and fittings at Doncaster prison as a result of disturbances and other incidents. [37346]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the costs incurred by the contractor and the Home Office as a result of damage to the building, fixtures and fittings at Doncaster prison as a result of disturbances and other incidents.
  Since the prison opened on 20 June 1994, total costs have amounted to £85,925. The costs have been met by the contractor. The Prison Service has not incurred any costs.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates security audits have been carried out by his Department at Doncaster prison; and what were their findings. [37344]
  453
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about security audits at Doncaster prison.
  The Prison Service's standards audit unit carried out a security audit of Doncaster prison between 13–22 March this year.
  The content of the audit report was not disclosed because of the security detail it contains. It would not be in the interests of either the public or the Prison Service for such information to be in the public domain.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates additional prisoner places above the certified normal accommodation have been required at Doncaster prison; what was the number of additional places required on these occasions; and if these requirements have led to cost increases over and above the initially agreed contract price. [37348]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the dates on which the certified normal accommodation has been exceeded at Doncaster; the number of additional places required; and any cost increases over and above the contract price.
  The certified normal accommodation of 771 (CNA) has been exceeded on 47 occasions up to and including 21 September 1995. The dates and figures are given in the attached table.
  There have been no additional costs to the Prison Service as a result of these increased figures.

  Dates and figures for exceeded certified normal accommodation at Doncaster prison

  Exceeded accommodation

  1994

  6 September

  778

  7 September

  774

  10 October

  774

  20 October

  775

  29 October

  774

  9 November

  773

  21 November

  773

  28 November

  772

  3 December

  776

  4 December

  776

  5 December

  780

  6 December

  774

  7 December

  775

  1995

  16 January

  772

  17 January

  774

  26 January

  773

  4 February

  773

  20 February

  775

  27 February

  780

  2 March

  774

  8 March

  772

  9 March

  779

  454

  Dates and figures for exceeded certified normal accommodation at Doncaster prison

  Exceeded accommodation

  13 March

  774

  27 March

  772

  28 March

  772

  29 March

  774

  30 March

  776

  4 April

  780

  24 April

  782

  4 May

  774

  8 May

  778

  9 May

  779

  24 May

  778

  25 May

  773

  5 June

  786

  6 June

  780

  27 July

  776

  31 July

  779

  14 August

  777

  15 August

  774

  16 August

  778

  17 August

  777

  21 August

  773

  22 August

  776

  19 September

  774

  20 September

  774

  21 September

  774

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles are currently being detained under the provisions of section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1993 at the latest date for which figures are available. [37189]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many juveniles are currently being detained under the provisions of section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1993 at the latest date for which figures are available.
  The total number of children and young persons aged under 18, detained under section 53 on 17 October 1995 was 306. Of these, 201 were held in young offender institutions run by the Prison Service and 105 in local authority community homes or in a Youth Treatment Centre run by the Department of Health.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses were received by 30 September to the consultation paper on identity cards, Cm. 2879; and if he will arrange for these to be placed in the Library along with a summary of the responses to the various points listed in paragraph 8.6 upon which views were sought. [37082]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have received some 3,000 responses to the Green Paper on identity cards. I will not be publishing individual replies but a summary of the responses will be made available in due course.
  455

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now set up a Select Committee on Lockerbie. [36495]

  Mr. Newton
  There are no plans to do so.

  Back-Bench Debates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to extend the opportunities available for Back-Bench debates. [36499]

  Mr. Newton
  The current arrangements under which the House sits on Wednesday mornings for Back-Bench debates have proved popular and successful. Subject to the outcome of current consultation, I will shortly invite the House to make these arrangements permanent.

  Staff Support
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has on improving staff support for hon. Members. [36500]

  Mr. Newton
  It is for each hon. Member to decide on the appropriate level of staff support based on his or her individual needs and circumstances.

  The office costs allowance was significantly increased in real terms with effect from 1 April 1986, following recommendations by the Senior Salaries Review Body, and from 1994–95 the enhanced figure is now uprated automatically each year in line with inflation.

  Divisions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received regarding the requirement on hon. Members to wear a hat when raising a point of order during a Division. [36501]

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  Parliament Street Building
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the cost per individual workspace of the new phase II Parliament street building. [37878]

  Mr. Channon
  Phase II of the new parliamentary building is not due to open until summer 1999. The precise number and allocation of workspaces has not yet been decided and some accommodation will be allocated for conference rooms, catering facilities and other services for Members. It is thus not possible accurately to calculate the cost per individual workstation.

  PDVN Network
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what proposals he has to arrange training for hon. Members in the use of the PDVN network of(a) e-mail, (b) the Internet and (c) internal communications. [37712]
  456
  Mr. Waller
  The staff of the information systems office provide training courses in all aspects of the parliamentary data and video network's use. Training courses have recently been revised to cover the new Internet electronic mail and world wide web services and continue to cover the traditional service, including such internal communications facilities as electronic mail, the bulletin board and the diary-scheduler.

  Radio and Television Costs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will estimate the cost of adding BBC Radio 1, 5 live, Classic FM, and Sky News and Sport to the Palace television and radio choices. [38759]

  Mr. Waller
  The estimated cost is £31,400 including VAT, plus satellite programme charges. The Committee plans shortly to review the use of the audio and video channels and make recommendations on changes that might be made. I shall ask the information systems officer to write to the hon. Member explaining the technical details which underly the estimated cost.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what proposals he had to put the proceedings of the House on to the Internet free of charge to all United Kingdom electors. [37714]

  Mr. Waller
  The question of the electronic publication of House documents including the possible release of Hansard on to the Internet is currently being considered by a group of House officials under the chairmanship of the Editor of the Official Report. The group expects to be in a position to make recommendations by early December.

  Procedural Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what further plans he has to reform the procedure of the House; and if he will make a statement. [36497]

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to the satisfactory outcome of current consultations, I hope shortly to invite the House to approve a series of motions to incorporate the current Jopling experiment with revised hours of sittings into the Standing Orders of the House. These proposals represent significant reforms in our procedures which I believe enjoy the support of all sections of the House.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list all child care facilities available to staff and Members in the House. [36488]

  Mr. Beith
  With effect from 1 April, a child care voucher scheme for children up to the age of five years has been available to staff employed by the Commission. Under the scheme, staff receive vouchers to the value of £6 per day worked per family towards child care provision of their choosing.
  457
  The House also participates in the Westminster holiday play scheme, which is available to the children of hon. Members, their staff and staff employed by the Commission. This covers children aged between five and 12 years during school holidays.

  Millbank
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent in the last financial year on energy-efficient lighting at 7 Millbank. [36491]

  Mr. Beith
  Other than day-to-day maintenance, no work was carried out in the last financial year to modify the energy-efficient lighting at 7 Millbank.

  Staff Employment Conditions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the matters about which staff of the House of Commons are precluded by employment conditions from approaching their Member of Parliament. [37401]

  Mr. Beith
  Conditions of service of staff of the House are set out in the staff handbook of which each member of staff receives a copy. Paragraph 169 states:"staff of the House of Commons should not attempt to bring political influence or influence of bodies outside the House of Commons to support their own personal claims as members of staff. This is to ensure that individual staff employed by the House of Commons are not seen to gain for themselves special concessions which are not available to others. This does not override any statutory rights of appeal, such as those conferred by the Race Relations Acts or Employment Protection Acts; nor does it restrict the right of a member of staff to approach the appropriate Member of Parliament on other matters."

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on progress in relation to access to the House by disabled persons. [36490]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 8 February,Official Report, columns 243–46, which describes in detail the conclusions of the review by the Accommodation and Works Committee into access for disabled people. Most of the recommended improvements are now in hand and altogether some 50 separate projects, small and large, will be implemented.

  A copy of a note dated 14 June 1995 by the Director of Works detailing the improved facilities has been placed in the Library. The main achievements are as follows: access is now available for people in wheelchairs from New Palace Yard to the Strangers Gallery, the Terrace, the Principal Floor, the Main Committee Corridor, the Upper Committee Corridor and the Centre Curtain Corridor private dining rooms. The new entrance at Black Rod's Garden enables people in wheelchairs to go directly to the start of the line of route. In addition, adaptations have now been completed on lift Nos. 1 and 15 in order to take people in wheelchairs to the Strangers Gallery and to the four main floors on the river front. There is a further programme to adapt 24 other lifts in the Palace for ambulant disabled people.
  458

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what steps he is taking to ensure the maximum level of British content in the new parliamentary building. [37034]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  All large contracts are subject to competitive tender. In putting together the tender list for each of the packages, an extensive search is carried out to ensure that British firms are invited.

  Prayers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he next plans to meet the Speaker and Speaker's Chaplain to discuss prayers in the House of Commons Chamber; and if he will make a statement. [36498]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Departmental Select Committees
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the opportunities for the House to debate the reports of departmental Select Committees. [36493]

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to the outcome of current consultations, I hope to respond positively to the Procedure Committee's recommendation that a number of Wednesday mornings each session should be devoted to Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Noise
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce traffic noise in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [36459]

  Mr. Watts
  Further reductions in noise limits will be introduced for all new vehicles entering into service from 1 October 1996. Levels of noise from individual vehicles have already been dramatically reduced in the last 10 years so that 10 of today's heaviest lorries make no more noise than a single lorry in the early 1980s.

  Road Construction
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years, at constant prices. [36475]

  Mr. Watts
  Expenditure incurred on motorway and major trunk road construction for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, using the 1995–96 road construction price index of 1995, was £1,082.70 million, £1,196.86 million and £1,148.52 million respectively.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which aspects of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie his Department is currently involved. [36476]
  459
  Sir George Young
  My Department's principal current involvement in respect of the Lockerbie disaster is in continuing to improve the United Kingdom national aviation security programme, taking particular account of the requirements and recommendations made by the International Civil Aviation Organisation immediately after the disaster and since.

  Railway Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about railway privatisation. [36477]

  Mr. Watts
  The programme has irresistible momentum. Over 40 per cent. by revenue of passenger rail services are out to tender and the first three franchises—Great Western, LTS Rail and South West Trains—are due to be awarded at the end of the year. Railtrack will be floated in spring 1996. Businesses with a combined turnover of some £270 million have already been sold. Further, businesses with a combined turnover of nearly £3 billion are already on the market.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost to date of rail privatisation. [37914]

  Mr. Watts
  Costs incurred to date by the Department, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator are as follows. They include running costs and consultancy costs.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DOT

  1.0

  6.7

  213.5

  14.2

  8.8

  OPRAF

  —

  —

  2.4

  16.6

  15.4

  ORR

  —

  —

  1.4

  9.0

  4.0

  Total

  1.0

  6.7

  17.3

  39.8

  28.2

  1 Estimated costs to 30 September 1995.

  2 Includes £1.5 million contribution by DOT to the costs of setting up OPRAF and ORR prior to formal appointments of the Franchising Director and Railway Regulator.

  In addition, British Rail and Railtrack have incurred costs linked to privatisation. These are shown below:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  BR/Railtrack

  —

  —

  92.2

  131.0

  57.0

  1 Estimated costs to 30 September 1995.

  Road and Rail Transport, Severnside
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Severnside to discuss the future of road and rail transport in the area. [36478]

  Sir George Young
  I hope to visit the area later this year to inspect progress on the second Severn crossing. My Department is supporting a number of measures to develop the road and rail network in the area.

  Network South
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had regarding British Rail's NetworkSouth. [36479]
  460
  Mr. Watts
  Since the beginning of July, my Department has received about 50 representations regarding Network SouthCentral. Many were related to the draft passenger service requirement.

  Holyhead-Chester-Crewe Railway Line
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the railway authorities concerning the need to upgrade the Holyhead-Chester-Crewe railway line; and if he will make a statement. [36481]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack continues to keep us in touch with progress on the Holyhead-Chester-Crewe upgrade. I understand that Railtrack is currently discussing upgrade options with interested parties.

  Cardiff-Weston Railway Line
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the evaluation of the Cardiff-Weston line for a second Severn road crossing carried out prior to the closure of the Aust-Portskewett line. [36482]

  Mr. Watts
  No such evaluation has ever been carried out.

  M65
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the additional traffic expected on the M65 once the link with the M6 is completed. [36483]

  Mr. Watts
  It is anticipated that traffic on the M65 will rise by just over 10 per cent.—roughly 4,500 vehicles per day—when the road is complete.

  A259
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in upgrading the A259 in East Sussex and Kent. [36484]

  Mr. Watts
  The A259 Brookland diversion scheme in Kent was completed at a cost of £2 million and opened to traffic on 9 October. Preparation work is continuing on other schemes to improve the A259.

  Bournemouth Station
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the restoration of Bournemouth station. [36485]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government and Railtrack are committed to the provision of a quality rail infrastructure. As part of this commitment, Railtrack is carrying out refurbishment work on Bournemouth station, a listed building, which involves restoring and cleaning the external brickwork and masonry of the station wall facing the town centre. This work began on 14 September.

  Passenger Transport Services
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in his plans for franchising passenger transport services. [36487]
  461
  Mr. Watts
  Passenger service requirements for 55 per cent. of services, in terms of passenger revenue, have been issued for consultation. Many have completed the process and been published in their final form. Tenders have been invited for seven franchises, covering 41 per cent. of all services, in terms of passenger revenue. Invitations to pre-qualify to bid for Chiltern Railways and South Eastern were issued on 3 October. The franchising director aims to award the first three franchises, for Great Western, LTS Rail and South West Trains, in December.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of average traffic speed of buses in central London. [36463]

  Sir George Young
  The Government do not monitor the speeds of buses. London Transport data suggest that in 1994 the average speed of buses in central London was around 8 mph in peak periods and 9 mph in the daytime off-peak.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the hybrid Bill procedure to secure parliamentary approval for the crossrail project. [35469]

  Mr. Norris
  No. The Transport and Works Act 1992 is a more appropriate vehicle for this purpose.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present number of vehicles registered in the United Kingdom; and what is the current forecast for those numbers in 2000, 2010 and 2020. [36480]

  Mr. Norris
  There were 25.8 million vehicles in 1994. The Department does not make forecasts for all types of vehicles.

  Nuclear and Toxic Wastes (Sea Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in the current year on the environmental hazards posed by the sea transport of nuclear and toxic wastes. [36750]

  Mr. Norris
  In February of this year, a representation was received from Friends of the Earth, Guernsey expressing concern about the transport of nuclear waste from France to Japan. I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 6 March,Official Report, column 58.

  A similar representation has since been received from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), concerning the British registered ship Pacific Pintail and its passage around Cape Horn earlier this year while carrying vitrified residue from France to Japan.

  Electric Cars
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many electric cars are estimated to be in use in the London area; what range of speeds the average such car is estimated to have; and if he will make a statement. [36845]
  462
  Mr. Norris
  There are 1,432 electric vehicles currently licensed in Greater London. The range and speed of these vehicles is not known but new commercially available electric cars currently available in western Europe are estimated to have an average range of 80 km–49 miles—and an average maximum speed of 86 kph–53 mph.

  The Government are considering the role that electricity and other alternative fuels and vehicle technologies might play in minimising pollutant emissions from road vehicles. To this end, the development of electric vehicles has been followed with interest; but despite recent technological advances, their price, range of operation and performance still compare less favourably with that of petrol and diesel vehicles, particularly for passenger cars.

  However, electric vehicles do seem to be more suitable for centralised low mileage delivery fleets like those operated by local authorities and bus companies. Such vehicles could offer air quality benefits while avoiding the limitations of electric operation and have been included in the Department's £1.2 million trial of alternative fuels.

  Illegal Vessel Discharges
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many prosecutions have been brought, in respect of illegal discharges of oil or other pollutants by vessels in Scottish waters in each year since 1990; [37239]

  (2) in respect of how many cases report have been made to appropriate shipping companies regarding allegations of illegal discharge of oil or other pollutants, in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence for court action; and if he will make a statement; [37240]

  (3) how many prosecutions have been brought, in each year since 1990, in respect of illegal discharges of oil or other pollutants by vessels in Scottish waters. [37242]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. James Wallace, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as the questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.

  PQ 5/95/96
  Since 1972 17 reports have been made to shipping companies regarding alleged pollution incidents involving their vessels. In all these cases, on the advice of the Treasury Solicitor, there was insufficient evidence to support court action.

  PQ 6/95/96 and PQ 30/95/96
  There have been 14 prosecutions brought in respect of illegal discharges by vessels in Scottish waters since 1990. There was I in 1990, 3 in 1991, 1 in 1992, 4 in 1993 and 5 in 1994.

  Toxic Chemicals (Transport)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the spillage of toxic chemicals on a cross-channel ferry to Ramsgate in the second week of September, and its subsequent journey on the motorway network. [37373]

  Mr. Norris
  This incident concerned the spillage of approximately half a litre of benzyl chloride from a road tanker while leaving the vessel Sally Eurolink at Ramsgate. The incident was satisfactorily dealt with by
  463
  the crew, and the lorry continued its journey. The incident did not demonstrate any deficiencies in the current procedure under the emergency schedule in the international maritime dangerous goods code.

  Road Tolls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to introduce the tolling of vehicles for the use of(a) motorways, (b) estuarial crossings and (c) other roads. [38639]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Non-rebateable Fuel Duty (London Buses)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 73, concerning the additional sums paid by London bus companies in respect of non-rebateable fuel duty to be paid in 1995–96, if he will estimate the total sum so paid consequent on all stage carriage bus services in London. [38398]

  Mr. Norris
  Information on fuel duty is not collected by geographical area.

  Reverse Warning Aids
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to make the fitting of reverse warning aids mandatory. [38409]

  Mr. Norris
  I have undertaken to review the case for the compulsory fitting of reversing alarms when considering other amendments to the construction and use regulations on vehicle noise, which are currently being finalised. I intend to canvass the views of interested organisations on this matter as part of the public consultation on those amendments.

  Gas-powered Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage the use of natural gas-powered public service vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [38038]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are currently considering the role which natural gas and other fuels may play in public service and other vehicles. To that end, they are continuing to sponsor studies of alternative fuels, including the £1.2 million collaborative field trials. Natural gas-powered buses are included. Results should be available in late 1996.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to discourage the use of bull bars; and when he plans to introduce a total ban. [38163]

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory is currently analysing police reports of accidents involving bull bars which occurred in 1994. The results will not be available until towards the end of the year and we will then decide what, if any, legislation is needed.

  Meanwhile, officials of the Department of Transport are discussing the feasibility of prohibiting bull bars with the European Commission.
  464

  Motorway Service Areas
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned as to the extent to which motorway service areas contribute to pollution of the environment resulting from (i) noise, (ii) litter, (iii) illumination of the night sky and (iv) atmospheric degradation from fuel emissions and to the loss of amenity caused by their development on green belt land; and if he will make a statement. [38352]

  Mr. Watts
  None. Since deregulation of the provision of motorway service areas in 1992, it is for private developers to provide an environmental statement for consideration by the local planning authority together with any application for planning permission for a proposed motorway service area.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed cost and length of the Selby bypass. [37880]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 23 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what is the proposed cost and length of the Selby Bypass.
  The estimated cost of the proposed A63 Selby Bypass is £21 million; its length is 6 miles.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for the construction of the Selby bypass. [37881]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 23 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the time-table for the construction of the Selby Bypass.
  A public inquiry into the Compulsory Purchase Order for the proposed A63 Selby Bypass was held in June of this year. In common with all other schemes in the National Roads Programme, the future timing of the Selby Bypass, particularly the start of works date, will depend on the availability of funds.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work on the channel tunnel rail link to commence. [37970]

  Mr. Watts
  The start of the main construction works will follow the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill gaining Royal Assent and the promoter completing sufficient design and other work to achieve the necessary raising of finance.

  Rail Network (Speed Restrictions)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of rail track are currently
  465
  subject to speed restrictions on each major line throughout the rail network. [37568]

  Mr. Watts
  The current number of miles subject to speed restrictions on each of the major lines are:

  Major Lines

  Miles

  West Coast main line

  2

  Midland main line

  1

  East Coast main line

  1

  Great Western

  12

  London Underground (Crime)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) violent crimes and (b) sexual assaults took place on (i) men and (ii) women and (iii) in total in (1) 1993 and (2) 1994 at major railway stations and on London Underground. [37525]

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows the number of recorded offences for violent crime, including robbery, and sexual offences committed against males and females at all railway and London Underground stations in 1993 and 1994. For 1993, separate figures for males and females are not available. Figures for "major railway stations" might be available if the hon. Member would list them.

  Against males

  Against females

  Total

  1993

  Violent crimes (including robbery)

  —

  —

  3,878

  Sexual assault

  —

  —

  723

  1994

  Violent crimes (including robbery)

  3,028

  642

  3,670

  Sexual assault

  93

  472

  565

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Party Political Activity)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the rules relating to(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers participating in party political activity. [37999]

  Mr. Horam
  The rules on civil servants' political activities are set out in chapter 4 of the personnel management part of the civil service management code, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Special advisers are bound generally by the rules applicable to civil servants, with specific exemptions. They may, with the approval of their Minister, attend party functions, maintain contact with party members and take part in policy reviews conducted by their party. They may accompany, act for, or speak for their Minister in situations where the Minister can be seen to be acting in his or her capacity as a member of the Government. In other circumstances, including those where their Minister is taking part in party political activities, it may be
  466
  appropriate for a special adviser to accompany the Minster, to provide liaison with their Department, and advise on any departmental business that may arise.

  Special advisers may assist with other internal party political matters, such as a leadership campaign, if they do so while on leave, or at times which do not interfere with their normal duties—for example out of office hours. In addition, and provided that they have the approval of their Ministers, special advisers are allowed to take part in all forms of local political activity, apart from local activities in support of national political activities.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which regulatory proposals have been abandoned because of their failure to meet the compliance cost assessment. [37755]

  Mr. Freeman
  The purpose of compliance cost assessments is to ensure that regulatory proposals are introduced only where they are justified and that costs to business arising from such proposals are taken into account as the policy proposal develops so that the resulting regulation imposes the least cost burden necessary. This enables different options to be considered at the policy-making stage with a choice of abandoning the proposal or amending it to reduce costs to the minimum. This is part of the Government's approach to "good regulation", making sure we get regulation right first time.

  An example of a regulatory proposal that has been abandoned because of excessive cost is an EC directive which would have required tactile danger warning symbols to be placed on certain liquid petroleum gas containers. The Commission agreed to revise the directive in the light of estimated compliance costs to United Kingdom business of £289 million per annum.

  Deregulation
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new studies have been initiated in response to the deregulation task force report; what is the name of these studies and their estimated cost; and when they are expected to report their findings. [37759]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government accepted the task force's suggestion for a feasibility study into the practicalities of setting up a single information point to provide start-up businesses with details of all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements. An initial study—looking at the regulatory requirements on vehicle component manufacturers, corner shops, small hoteliers and builders—started in August and is due to be completed by the end of the year. It will cost about £160,000.

  The Government also agreed to undertake an independent study into how the total burden of Government surveys might be reduced by up to 25 per cent., and to initiate a study to see how the burden of administrative forms might be reduced. Terms of

  467
  reference for these studies, including estimated costs and completion dates, have yet to be finalised.

  In addition to these studies, all Government Departments have been asked to review the need for existing business licences and to identify suitable areas for merging or aligning different enforcement regimes.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many deregulation units have been set up in different Whitehall Departments. [37757]

  Mr. Freeman
  Each regulatory department has its own deregulation unit consisting typically of two or three staff whose work on deregulation is usually only part of their duties. There are 20 such units in total.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people work for the deregulation unit; and how many are needed to service the deregulation task force. [37772]

  Mr. Freeman
  The current staff total of the central deregulation unit is 41.6 staff years, including three staff who provide secretariat support to the deregulation task force.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the 250 business licences which are to be reviewed as part of the Government's new deregulation initiative, and the date each licence was originally introduced. [37758]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is currently compiling a full list of the licences which apply to business, which will be placed in the House of Commons Library, once complete.

  The review is intended to examine all licences which apply to business, regardless of when they were introduced and by whom, with a view to abolition or, if there are strong arguments for retaining the licence, with a view to reducing the burden on industry. This reduced burden could be attained, for example, by simplifying the structure of the licence, continuous licensing, merging of different licences, offering greater scope for exemptions or narrowing the grounds for refusal.

WALES

  Short-time Working
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates his Department has made of the number of companies currently on short-time working; and how many employees are affected by such short-time working. [37512]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information for Wales is published in table 1.13 of the Employment Gazette, September 1995, which indicates that an estimated 300 operatives in manufacturing in Wales were affected by short-time working in June 1995. Information on the number of companies affected is not available.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of people in employment(a) male full-time, (b) male
  468
  part-time, (c) female full-time and (d) female part-time in Mid Glamorgan and Wales; and what were the figures in (i) 1965, (ii) 1971 and (iii) 1979. [37515]

  Mr. Jones
  The latest available information, which is for 1993, is published in table 4 on page 375 of the Employment Gazette, October 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Data for 1971 and 1978 are available from the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library. Comparable information for 1965 and 1979 is not available.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has of the number of people under the new training for work programme who are working towards an NVQ in(a) Merthyr, (b) Rhymney, (c) Mid Glamorgan and (d) Wales. [37548]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not readily available. Once it is available I will write to the hon. Member and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total cost of the refurbishment of the foyer of Ysbyty Gwynedd and the consequent relocation of the WRVS shop and cafe. [37711]

  Mr. Richards
  This was not a scheme funded from the all-Wales capital programme and is therefore a matter for the Gwynedd hospitals NHS trust.

  Public Appointments
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many advisory non-departmental public bodies there are in Wales; and what is their total membership. [38022]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of advisory non-departmental public bodies in Wales are set out in "Public Bodies" by HMSO. The latest edition shows that at September 1994 there were 24 such bodies with a total of 274 members.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many executive non-departmental public bodies there are in Wales; and how many members are appointed by him in all such bodies. [38024]

  Mr. Hague
  There are 24 executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales to which I, or my predecessors, have appointed 184 members. Details are set out in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Farmers' Wives
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will(a) commission or (b) sponsor a study into the social and economic role played by farmers' wives in Wales. [37706]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to do so. The Rural White Paper for Wales will address a whole range of issues which affect life in the Welsh countryside.
  469

  Marriage Counselling Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the marriage counselling services in Dyfed and Powys, the amount provided from public funds in support of such services and the waiting time for appointments with them. [37707]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hare Population (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if estimates are available in respect of the hare population in Wales(a) as a whole and (b) on a local basis for the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [37708]

  Mr. Hague
  The most recent estimate indicates a population of approximately 50,000 brown hares in Wales in the early 1990s. No estimates are available on a more local basis. Further information can be found in "A Review of British Mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans" published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in 1995.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount he calculates was included in the rate support grant for each county in Wales to support under five education in the settlements for each of the last five years. [38337]

  Mr. Richards
  Welsh local authority standard spending assessments and revenue support grant entitlements are not hypothecated to specific services.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the planning applications which his Department has called in, in each of the last five years and so far this year indicating in each case the reasons for doing so. [38339]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows. Decisions related to applications for listed building consent are not included. All the applications were called in because it was considered that they raised matters of more than local importance.

  APPLICATIONS CALLED IN 1990–95 (1 JANUARY 1990 TO 20 OCTOBER 1995)

  1990

  Proposed residential development and golf course, Tymawr and Bailea Farms, Gilwern, Gwent.

  Proposed retail development, Rhuddlan Road, Rhyl, Clwyd.

  Proposed opencast coal mining, Pwll Du, Blaenavon, Gwent.

  Proposed river protection work Morfordian, Llanidloes, Powys.

  Proposed highway diversion and upgrading B4248 between Brynmawr and Blaenavon, Gwent.

  Proposed anemometer masts, Mynydd Cemaes, Cemaes, Powys.

  1991

  Proposed landfill site, Pen-y-Bons, Chirk, Wrexham, Clwyd.

  Proposed mixed development at Caerleon, Newport, Gwent.

  Proposed mixed development at Oystermouth Bus Station, Mumbles, Swansea, West Glamorgan.

  470

  Proposed coal storage and screening plant, land west of Griffin Valley, Pwll Du, Gwent.

  Proposed extension, Masonic Hall, Tower Hill, Denbigh, Clwyd.

  Proposed refuse disposal site at Blaen Pig Void, Pwll Du, Gwent.

  Proposed quarrying development at Cilyrychen Quarry and
  Glanwenlais Quarry, Llandybie, Ammanford, Dyfed.

  Proposed oil and gas terminal at Point of Ayr, Talacre, Clwyd.

  Proposed residential development at Garthmyl Hall, Garthmyl, Welshpool, Powys.

  1992

  Proposed workshop and car track on land south of Newton Road, Wentloog, Cardiff.

  Proposed mixed development at Oystermouth Bus Station Site, Oystermouth Square and the quarry site, Mumbles Road, Mumbles, Swansea, West Glamorgan.

  Proposed windfarm development on land at Marcheini, Rhayader, Powys.

  Proposed landfill proposal at Aberthaw Quarry, Aberthaw, South Glamorgan.

  Proposed golf course, access road and parking, Croes Bleddyn Farm, Itton, Chepstow, Gwent (Departure Application).

  Proposed golf course Porthcasseg Farm, St. Arvans, Chepstow, Gwent (Departure Application).

  Proposed industrial development, Shotwick, Deeside, Clwyd.

  1993

  Proposed residential development at Rhydyware, Montgomery, Powys.

  Proposed residential development at Maespwll, Llanwnen Road, Lampeter, Dyfed.

  Proposed resiential development at Pant, Nantgaredig, Dinefwr, Dyfed.

  1994

  Propsed golf course, Dynevor Home Farm, Llandeilo, Dyfed.

  Proposed horse schooling and breaking centre Leeswood Hall, Mold, Clwyd.

  Proposed touring caravan site, Lakeside, Llangorse, Brecon, Powys (Departure Application).

  Proposed leisure development, Pentrebach, Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan.

  Proposed residential development Pwllcoch Uchaf, Rhosybol, Ynys Mon (Departure Application).

  Proposed port development, Mostyn Docks, Deeside, Clwyd.

  1995

  Proposed residential development near Tregaron Dyfed (Departure Application).

  Proposed residential development Henllan, Llandysul, Dyfed (Departure Application).

  Proposed development at Mostyn Docks, Mostyn, Deeside, Clwyd. Proposed residential development, Gurrey, Millfield, Llandeilo, Dyfed.

  Proposed residential development, Jordanston, Milford Haven, Dyfed.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current estimate of the administrative cost of his proposed voucher scheme for nursery education in Wales. [38363]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brigend (Mr. Griffiths) on 18 July,Official Report, column 1197.

  Departure Applications
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of departures for county structure plan policies notified to his Department in each of the last five years and so far in this year for each county in Wales. [38338]
  471
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Departure applications notified by county area 1990–95 (1 January 1990 to 30 September 1995)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Clwyd

  8

  4

  1

  4

  4

  0

  Dyfed

  4

  2

  11

  8

  12

  6

  Gwent

  1

  4

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Gwynedd

  1

  2

  0

  2

  4

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Powys

  1

  1

  0

  2

  6

  2

  South Glamorgan

  1

  0

  1

  3

  3

  2

  West Glamorgan

  2

  2

  0

  2

  3

  1

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Worldwide Fund for Nature report on the alternative feeding grounds for wading birds displaced by the Cardiff Bay barrage. [38761]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 19 October at Column 341

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the formal application for the transfer of the accident and emergency services from the Cardiff royal infirmary to the University Hospital of Wales at the Heath, for his determination under the statutory procedure for opposed changes; how long he expects he will take to make the determination; what provisions he is making for evaluating the alternative scheme proposed by the Cardiff community health council: and if he will make a statement. [38763]

  Nursery schools

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1989–90

  Number

  292

  166

  1,052

  1—

  1,107

  —

  725

  184

  3,526

  Per cent.

  2.8

  1.9

  8.8

  1—

  7.5

  —

  6.4

  2.0

  4.7

  1990–91

  Number

  146

  190

  1,051

  1—

  1,120

  1—

  737

  184

  3,428

  Per cent.

  1.4

  2.2

  8.7

  1—

  7.5

  1—

  6.4

  2.0

  4.5

  1991–92

  Number

  169

  188

  945

  1—

  1,150

  1—

  737

  191

  3,380

  Per cent.

  1.6

  2.2

  7.4

  1—

  7.4

  1—

  6.3

  2.0

  4.3

  1992–93

  Number

  171

  196

  913

  1—

  1,099

  1—

  713

  182

  3,274

  Per cent.

  1.6

  2.3

  7.2

  1—

  7

  1—

  6.1

  1.9

  4.2

  1993–94

  Number

  195

  181

  914

  1—

  1,084

  1—

  725

  181

  3,280

  Per cent.

  1.9

  2.2

  7.4

  1—

  7.1

  1—

  6.2

  1.9

  4.3

  472
  Mr. Hague
  I understand that South Glamorgan health authority's proposals for the future of the Cardiff royal infirmary, together with the Cardiff Community health council's alternative proposals, will be submitted to me very shortly.

  I shall of course treat the matter with the urgency it deserves. I will, however, need to consider all the issues involved very carefully, including the community health council's alternative proposals. My decision will be made on the basis of clinical safety, access and value for money.

  Millennium Commission Projects
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Millennium Commission in relation to the funding of and priority for projects in Wales and in particular the national botanical garden, the Welsh national rugby stadium redevelopment scheme and the Cardiff Bay opera house; and if he will make a statement. [38764]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such consultations with the Millennium Commission. My officials have provided factual responses to any questions asked of them by commission officials, in relation to these and other applications before them.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list(a) the numbers and (b) the percentage of three-year-olds and four-year-olds that received local authority nursery education or were in local education authority infant classes in each county in Wales on each of the last five years. [38362]

  Mr. Richards
  Figures for local education authority schools only are not readily available. The following tables show the figures for both LEA and grant maintained schools.

  Three and four-year-olds in maintained nursery and primary schools, by county.
  473

  Primary schools

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1989–90

  Number

  7,651

  5,062

  7,131

  2,354

  9,437

  1,406

  5,284

  7,581

  45,906

  Per cent.

  73.4

  58.3

  59.9

  40.8

  63.9

  50.4

  46.4

  81.6

  61.2

  1990–91

  Number

  8,093

  5,210

  7,246

  2,079

  9,427

  1,457

  5,449

  7,562

  46,523

  Per cent.

  77.0

  60.3

  59.9

  35.4

  62.9

  51.3

  47.0

  81.3

  61.3

  1991–92

  Number

  8,345

  5,412

  7,637

  2,024

  9,883

  1,509

  5,692

  7,714

  48,216

  Per cent.

  77.3

  62.2

  60.1

  33.7

  63.4

  52.0

  48.6

  80.4

  61.8

  1992–93

  Number

  8,376

  5,258

  7,941

  2,680

  9,931

  1,563

  6,124

  7,668

  49,541

  Per cent.

  79.2

  61.5

  62.7

  44.5

  63.3

  54.2

  52.4

  81.3

  63.9

  1993–94

  Number

  8,475

  5,197

  7,866

  2,578

  9,875

  1,497

  6,293

  7,684

  49,465

  Per cent.

  81.1

  62.9

  63.3

  43.2

  64.5

  53.5

  54.1

  82.2

  64.9

  Figures shown are for January in each year and are for pupils estimated to be three or four years old at 31 December.

DEFENCE

  BMARC
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 4 April,Official Report, columns 1097–98 and 19 June, Official Report, column 31, if he will list the companies other than Astra/BMARC to which the documents discovered on 16 June referred; on what date he was informed by his Department's police that further documents have been found relating to BMARC have Astra plc; whether these documents included sales documentation of arms exports by BMARC and Astra; and if he will make a statement. [38364]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministers were informed on 16 June of the discovery of the further documents. On the other points, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 18 July,Official Report, column 1188.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates his Department took possession of documents taken from the company BMARC; and on what dates these documents were handed over to the Scott inquiry. [38365]

  Mr. Soames
  Documents were taken by MOD police from BMARC on 4 and 5 April 1990, 19 and 20 May 1990, 11 July 1990 and 7 August 1990. All documents taken from BMARC, belonging to that company, have been returned to the company liquidators. The provision of these documents to the Scott inquiry is therefore a matter for the liquidators.

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks have been made of Mr. David Hart to enable him to have access to classified information. [38255]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave him on 19 October,Official Report column 360.
  474
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he received from the British defence industry concerning the role of Mr. David Hart in procurement contracts. [38254]

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultancies held by Mr. David Hart relating to defence companies have been disclosed to him; and if he will list those companies involved. [38253]

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Nuclear Weapons, France
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the financial arrangements in place to support nuclear co-operation with France; [37619]

  (2) if he will list the dates, since 1979, when technical discussions have taken place with France on nuclear weapons; and in which meetings Ministers participated; [37620]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the progress made in technical discussions with France on nuclear weapons safety and stewardship. [37621]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 37.

  Metrication
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the armed forces (i) announced and (ii) implemented metrication. [37676]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1965 the Government announced their intention that metric units should become the primary system of measurement in the United Kingdom. That intention was subsequently confirmed in the 1972 White Paper on metrication—Cm 4880. A defence
  475
  standard prescribing the metric units to be used by the Ministry of Defence, including the services, was developed and published in 1976.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capability the Royal Air Force Hercules C.1K fleet has to refuel(a) Royal Air Force Sea King HAR.3 helicopters, (b) Royal Navy Sea King HAR.5 helicopters and (c) Royal Air Force Chinook helicopters; and what air-refuelling capability will be incorporated in the EH-101. [37533]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  RAF and RN Sea Kings, and current RAF Chinooks, do not have an air-to-air refuelling capability.

  All 22 EH101 HC Mk1 for the RAF will be capable of being fitted with flight-refuelling probes. Six complete sets of probes will be supplied as a role-fit equipment for the EH101 HC Mk1 fleet.

  There is no requirement for EH101 Merlin to have an air-to-air refuelling capability.

  Joint Services College
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest estimates of the cost of establishing a joint services command and staff college at Camberley. [37965]

  Mr. Soames
  I have no reason to believe that the capital costs of establishing a joint services command and staff college at Camberley will be greater than those projected in the document I placed in the Library of the House following my announcement of the Government's decision on the staff college site on 30 March 1995. We continue to refine costs, and as work develops there is every expectation that the capital costs will fall.

  It is possible that there will be an increase in running costs from those previously announced as we now plan a larger joint service command and staff college to accommodate a greater number of foreign and commonwealth students. This is independent of the choice of the site for the joint service command and staff college.

  Eurofighter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes his Department has made to the management of the Eurofighter 2000 project in the last 12 months. [38251]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  With our Eurofighter 2000 partners, we have taken the opportunity offered by the planned merger of the Eurofighter 2000 and Tornado management agencies to review the intergovernmental management arrangements for the programme. Measures have been agreed to define the merged agency's role more precisely, to improve its business processes and to clarify the responsibilities of senior committees.

  Airmobile Brigade
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he made of the operational deployment of the 24 Airmobile Brigade to the former Yugoslavia. [38252]
  476
  Mr. Soames
  Earlier this year, 24 Airmobile Brigade was deployed to the former Yugoslavia to make clear our determination to enhance the effectiveness of UNPROFOR and to provide additional protection to British troops. Those objectives have been achieved.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic importance of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom's defence interests and that of NATO. [37465]

  Mr. Soames
  Gibraltar commands the important sea lane of communication between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Notwithstanding the end of the cold war, its strategic significance has not diminished. Gibraltar has well equipped and organised command facilities which support a NATO HQ—COMGIBMED.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the letter from the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) of 7 April, what was the result of the Food and Agriculture Organisation Conference, relating to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks; and if he will make a statement. [37300]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks adopted a legally binding agreement on 4 August. I welcome this development. The agreement will require states to co-operate with each other in managing such stocks according to the best scientific advice available and to submit disputes to legally binding dispute settlement procedures. It includes a tough new scheme for international enforcement of conservation and management measures.

  The agreement opens for signature on 4 December in New York.

  The relevant provisions of the UN agreement have been incorporated into the FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries, which is currently being considered by the FAO General Council with a view to its adoption at the FAO conference in Rome from 25 October to 2 November.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost per family in the United Kingdom of the common agricultural policy in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [37927]

  Mr. Baldry
  A note entitled "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Taxpayers and Consumers", produced by the Department, was deposited in the Library of the House on 9 March. This gives estimates of the cost of the CAP to UK consumers and taxpayers of £3.88 per person per week, equivalent to £15.52 per week per family of four, in 1993, the latest year for which estimates
  477
  have been made. The equivalent figures for 1985 and 1990 are respectively £8.48 and £13.64 per week per family of four.

  These estimates have been based on calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of total transfers resulting from agricultural policies in the European Union, with adjustments in respect of the abatement to the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Union budget.

  The estimates are likely to overstate the savings which could be made by UK consumers and taxpayers if the CAP were removed; in the absence of support, world prices would be higher than at present.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the amount the common agricultural policy costs the average family(a) per week and (b) per year. [39251]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member 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.

  Departmental Work
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 1990. [38074]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  MAFF publishes information about the work which it carries out and since 1991, MAFF has, like other Departments, produced an annual departmental report, copies of which are available from the House of Commons Library. The report describes the activities, expenditure and plans of the Department. The latest report, published in March 1995 by HMSO, Cm 2803, includes expenditure details since 1989–90.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the levels of intervention stores for each EEC country for each commodity; and if he will tabulate this information against the number of days supply represented by each commodity in international stores per member state. [37907]

  Mr. Baldry
  The levels of intervention stocks for each member state are shown in the table. Information on the number of days' supply which these stocks represent is unavailable.

  Tables showing levels, including days' supply, of all produce held in intervention within the EU as a whole, are placed in the House at regular intervals, most recently on 5 October. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985.

  Agricultural produce in public intervention for each member state (figures in thousand tonnes)

  Member state

  Ô

  B

  DK

  D

  E

  Beef (bone in)

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  Beef (bone-less)

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  Wheat

  0

  54

  265

  1,400

  0

  Durum

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  478

  Agricultural produce in public intervention for each member state (figures in thousand tonnes)

  Member state

  Ô

  B

  DK

  D

  E

  Barley

  0

  40

  95

  3,500

  30

  Rye

  0

  0

  285

  2,750

  50

  Maize

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Butter2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  SMP2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Member state

  F

  GR

  IRL

  I

  L

  Beef (bone in)

  0

  0

  5

  0.5

  0

  Beef (bone-less)

  0

  0

  3

  1—

  0

  Wheat

  850

  100

  0

  0

  0

  Durum

  0

  51

  0

  100

  0

  Barley

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rye

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maize

  0

  104

  0

  0

  0

  Butter2

  0

  0

  13

  8

  0

  SMP2

  0

  0

  14.5

  0

  0

  Member state

  NL

  P

  S

  SF

  UK

  Beef (bone in)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27.5

  Beef(bone-less)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Wheat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Durum

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  863

  Rye

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maize

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Butter2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  SMP2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1 Less than 500 tonnes.

  2 Latest figure is for 19 October 1995.

  Figures rounded to the nearest 500 tonnes.

  Sources:

  Beef figures published by the European Commission 28 September 1995.

  UK beef figures published by the Intervention Board 19 October 1995.

  Cereal figures published by the European Commission 21 June 1995.

  Butter and SMP figures provided to Milk Management Committee 12 October 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current United Kingdom stocks held by the intervention board of(a) butter, (b) cheese and (c) wine; and what was the figure for 12 months ago. [38296]

  Mr. Baldry
  Tables showing levels of all produce held in intervention within the EU, with levels for the United Kingdom separately identified, are placed in the House Library at regular intervals, most recently on 5 October. The information currently held in the Library goes back to January 1985.

  Fishing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to increase the
  479
  nephrop total allowable catch for area VI; and if he will make a statement. [38425]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) during oral questions on 18 October,Official Report, column 348.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of lone parents in(a) 1994 and (b)1993 who are (i) divorced or (ii) widowed. [37009]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table:

  1984

  1993

  Single never married

  20

  37

  Divorce/ Separated

  68

  57

  Widowed

  12

  6

  Source:DSS data.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of war pensions are accepted as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder attributable to service. [37085]

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

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners currently receive war pensions based on an assessed disablement of 50 per cent. or more. [37087]

  Mr. Heald
  As at 30 June 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, 70,894 people were receiving war disablement pensions based on assessed disablement of 50 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the acceptance that post traumatic stress disorder is attributable to service has on an assessed war disablement pension which was based upon physical injury. [37086]

  Mr. Heald
  Except for certain specified injuries, the assessment of disablement for war pension purposes is a matter of medical judgment. Disablement is assessed on a percentage basis by comparing the condition of the disabled person with that of a healthy person of the same age and sex. Where there is more than one injury or disease accepted as due to service, the certified assessment takes into account the overall degree of disablement from all the accepted causes. When a new condition is accepted as attributable to service, a new assessment is made of the overall degree of disablement from all the accepted conditions. The maximum possible assessment is 100 per cent.
  480

  Social Fund
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if financial assistance will be made available to claimants of income support who need to produce medical reports for third parties or other purposes such as insurance claims but are unable to pay the hospital consultant's fee because such work is classed as category 2 work. [37157]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no plans to do so. In this type of case, the practitioner concerned has discretion to decide whether to make a charge and how payment should be made. Furthermore, where a person is granted legal aid to pursue a claim for personal injury, the legal aid fund will meet all reasonable costs of successfully proving the case. This will include the cost of obtaining a medical report. It is also open to a person receiving income support to apply to the social fund for an award to meet an occasional expense which is difficult to budget for. Decisions on social fund applications are made by social fund officers who are required to exercise discretion when making decisions and to operate within a fixed budget.

  Lost Giro Cheques
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Giro benefit cheques are lost each week. [37171]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is available only on an annual basis. In the year 1994–95 the following losses were recorded:

  Number of losses

  Department of Social Security issued girocheques reported lost

  125,973

  Department of Employment issued girocheques reported lost

  313,285

  These figures represent the number of loss reports forwarded to Girobank and not subsequently cancelled.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce a limit to the number of properties generating an income which a tenant can own before being able to receive housing benefit. [37091]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no such plans. The capital and earnings regulations in the housing benefit scheme ensure that, where a claimant has substantial capital assets or a significant income from one or more tenanted properties, entitlements to benefit will be reduced or extinguished accordingly.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average contribution to private residential and nursing homes costs through state benefits and pensions. [37246]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested for Great Britain and for Wales is in the tables:
  481

  Number of cases

  Average income support £

  Average amount of other benefits1

  Great Britain

  Preserved rights:

  Residential care

  117,000

  155.53

  69.53

  Nursing homes

  85,000

  222.49

  74.43

  Residential allowance

  81,000

  57.12

  53.58

  Total

  284,000

  147.33

  66.42

  Wales

  Preserved rights:

  Residential care

  7,000

  149.77

  73.02

  Nursing homes

  7,000

  216.22

  76.14

  Residential allowance

  5,000

  55.84

  53.52

  Total

  18,000

  148.39

  68.89

  Notes:

  1 Includes social security benefits and pensions taken into account in the assessment of income support.

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding some of the totals may not tally.

  2. Personal allowance of £13.10 (Nov 1994) is included in the average amount of income support.

  3. Preserved rights cases receive the special higher limits of income support. Cases under the community care scheme receive normal income support which includes residential allowance and the balance of their fees are met by the local authority.

  4. Information shown is for independent sector homes which includes private and voluntary homes.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Residential Care/Nursing Home Quarterly Enquiry November 1994.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a report will be laid concerning the changes in social security regulations which he proposes to make affecting asylum seekers. [37752]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on these proposals and the Department's response will be presented to Parliament at the same time as the amendment regulations are laid.

  Widow's Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to uprate the widow's payment. [38162]

  Mr. Heald
  The next uprating of benefits is due to take effect in April 1996. The proposals will be announced at the appropriate time.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency's departures system for assessing the needs of absent parents with distant children will come into force. [37678]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We anticipate that the departure system will come into force towards the end of 1996. The exact date will be decided in the light of the pilot exercise which, once parliamentary approval is secured, should run from April until July 1996.
  482
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 181, on the benefit savings achieved by the liable relatives unit in 1991–92, whether the figure provided includes an allowance for parents with care who ceased to claim income support within four weeks of being contacted by his Department or for parents with care who ceased to claim income support after maintenance had been arranged; and what would the like-for-like benefit saving figure be for the Child Support Agency in 1994–95. [37614]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The benefits savings figure for 1991–92 included amounts for cases where claims ceased within four weeks of the Department taking action to arrange, increase or enforce payment of maintenance. It included spousal maintenance recovery and related only to income support cases.

  A direct comparison with 1991–92 is not possible because the agency makes benefit savings across all the income-related benefits and does not arrange spousal maintenance.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the trend in the size of average maintenance awards paid by absent parents as a percentage of their total net income in the 10 year period before the creation of the Child Support Agency. [37585]

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

  State Pensions
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of claimants moving from incapacity benefit on to retirement pension who lose benefit for (i) one day, (ii) two days, (iii) three days, (iv) four days and (v) six days as result of their birthday falling before the Monday payday for retirement pension. [38513]

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

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people have been found capable of work under the all-work test of incapacity in each of the quarters ended June and September; and how many of these were (i) previously receiving invalidity benefit and (ii) new claimants of incapacity benefit; [38503]

  (2) how many people who have failed to return the IB50 within the time allowed and without good cause were (a) previously receiving invalidity benefit and (b) new claimants of incapacity benefit; [38504]

  (3) how many examinations have been scheduled where the claimant has failed to attend; in how many of these the claimant had good cause for non-attendance; and how many of the non-attenders were (a) previously receiving invalidity benefit and (b) new claimants of incapacity benefit; [38505]

  (4) how many of the IB50 all-work test questionnaires have been issued by his Department in each of the quarters ended June and September; how many of these

  483
  have been returned within the time allowed; and how many of these have not been returned where there was no good cause for the delay; [38506]

  (5) how many medical examinations for the all-work test of incapacity have taken place in each of the quarters ended June and September; and how many in each quarter were (a) previously receiving invalidity benefit and (b) new claimants of incapacity benefit. [38507]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information available is in the table.

  The data reflects activity during a time when the take-on of cases has been carefully controlled to match capacity as experience of the new procedures grows. It is not representative and it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the new procedures.

  Quarter to end of June

  Quarter to end of September

  All work test questionnaires issued

  314,555

  258,725

  Questionnaires returned1

  213,800

  195,310

  Examinations2

  8,212

  88,485

  Failed to return questionnaire (IB50) without good cause

  733

  1,927

  Found capable of work following all work test

  1,152

  17,743

  1 Customers have six weeks in which to return the questionnaire. Figures for questionnaires returned includes some questionnaires which may have been returned outside the time limits but no decision has been taken on whether there has been good cause for delay.

  2 A significant proportion of customers have failed to attend for medical examination. As most of these cases have yet to be adjudicated upon it is not possible to say how many have good cause for not attending.

  1. Figures include only incapacity benefit claimants and are subject to change.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been found capable of work have lodged an appeal against this decision in each of the quarters ended June and September; how many of these were(a) previously receiving invalidity benefit, and (b) new claimants of incapacity benefit; and how many appeals are outstanding. [38510]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information on how many of these appeals were made by people previously receiving invalidity benefit or how many were made by new claimants of incapacity benefit is not available.

  The figures that are available are in the table.

  Quarter ending June 1995

  Quarter ending September 1995

  Lodged

  170

  7,095

  Outstanding

  n/a

  6,520

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of changing retirement pension paydays to the day that the claimant reaches pensionable age. [38512]
  484
  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 1 May 1995,Official Report, column 109.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the costs to the Benefits Agency of the administration of the habitual residence test in relation to income support between 1 August 1994 and 31 July. [37734]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 20 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what were the costs to the Benefits Agency of the administration of the habitual residence test in relation to Income Support between 1 August 1994 and 31 July 1995.
  The current assessment of the cost to the Agency for the period in question is: £3,428,940.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been refused income support under the habitual residence test in each Benefits Agency district office in England, Wales and Scotland; and if he will update the information in his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 547–48. [37694]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 20 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question which asked how many claimants have been refused Income Support under the habitual residence test in each Benefits Agency district office in England, Wales and Scotland, and for an update on information supplied in his answer of 28 February, Official Report, column 547–48.
  Information about the number of people refused Income Support after failing the HRT has been collated for the period 1 August 1994—31 August 1995 and is shown in the attached table. A copy of this table has been placed in the library, it shows the 20 Area Directorates that make up Great Britain and lists the Districts that make up each are.
  This information is now placed in the House of Commons Library on a monthly basis.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: failed habitual residence test figures 1 August 1994 to 31 August 1995

  Total

  Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  131

  Leaside

  1,087

  Northamptonshire

  111

  North and East Hertfordshire

  60

  Norwich

  56

  Suffolk

  82

  West Hertfordshire

  134

  485

  Annex A: failed habitual residence test figures 1 August 1994 to 31 August 1995

  Total

  Chilterns

  Barnet

  515

  Bedfordshire

  265

  Buckinghamshire

  162

  Ealing

  1,280

  Euston

  4,472

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  647

  Oxfordshire

  243

  South London and West Sussex

  South Downs

  370

  West Sussex

  99

  Palace

  1,665

  London Central

  1,397

  South West Thames

  1,329

  Bankside

  422

  North Surrey

  606

  West Country

  Bristol Brunei

  111

  Bristol Severnside

  106

  Cornwall

  65

  Dorset

  219

  Devon

  67

  Gloucestershire

  81

  Somerset

  39

  South Devon

  94

  East London and Essex

  Barking and Havering

  197

  City East

  278

  Essex South East

  68

  Essex South West

  23

  Hackney and Islington

  187

  Lea Roding

  531

  Newham

  464

  North Essex

  41

  South East

  Canterbury and Thanet

  73

  Channel

  48

  North Kent

  155

  East Sussex

  62

  Thameside

  92

  Neasden

  699

  South Circular

  1,234

  West Kent

  99

  Wessex

  Wiltshire

  44

  Berkshire

  180

  Surrey Downs

  126

  Hampshire North

  35

  Solent and Forest

  87

  Hounslow and Kingston

  1,431

  South East Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  85

  East Midlands

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  15

  East Nottinghamshire

  52

  Leicestershire North

  141

  North Nottinghamshire

  11

  South Leicestershire

  73

  Wash Coast

  29

  West Lincolnshire

  39

  West Nottinghamshire

  71

  Midlands and South West

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  134

  Birmingham Heartlands

  73

  Birmingham North West

  66

  Birmingham South East

  85

  486

  Annex A: failed habitual residence test figures 1 August 1994 to 31 August 1995

  Total

  Birmingham South West

  115

  Coventry

  35

  Hereford and Worcester

  85

  Warwickshire

  40

  West Mercia

  Central Derbyshire

  39

  Central Staffordshire

  45

  North Staffordshire

  26

  North Worcestershire

  41

  Sandwell

  51

  Shropshire

  19

  South Derbyshire

  12

  Walsall

  40

  Wolverhampton

  74

  Wales

  Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  14

  Gwyneddigion

  23

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  19

  North Gwent and Brecon

  10

  North Wales Coast

  30

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  21

  South Glamorgan

  118

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  66

  Swansea

  49

  Taff Rhondda

  5

  West Wales

  16

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  10

  Liverpool Central

  10

  Liverpool North

  17

  Liverpool South

  56

  Sefton

  27

  South Cheshire

  21

  South West Lancashire

  11

  Wirral

  34

  Greater Manchester

  Manchester Central

  126

  Manchester Salford

  27

  Manchester South

  125

  Manchester Trinity

  107

  North Cheshire

  22

  Oldham

  109

  Sale and East Cheshire

  45

  Stockport

  51

  Tameside

  25

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  Blackburn and Accrington

  33

  Blackpool

  40

  Bolton

  36

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  27

  Lancaster and South Cumbria

  55

  North Cumbria

  13

  Preston

  44

  West Pennine

  109

  Wigan and Leigh

  25

  Tyne Tees

  Newcastle

  118

  North Durham

  17

  North Tees

  22

  North Tyneside

  1

  Northumberland

  13

  South Durham

  22

  South Tees

  44

  South Tyneside

  29

  Wearside

  18

  487

  Annex A: failed habitual residence test figures I August 1994 to 31 August 1995

  Total

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  19

  Doncaster

  22

  East Yorkshire

  14

  Hull

  64

  Rother and Dearne

  27

  Sheffield East

  116

  Sheffield West

  148

  South Humberside

  35

  North and West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  244

  Kirklees

  55

  Leeds Aire and Wharfe

  141

  Leeds Ridings

  49

  North Yorkshire

  44

  Wakefield

  10

  Yorkshire Pennine

  93

  Scotland and Northern

  Glasgow City

  29

  Glasgow East

  7

  Glasgow Laurieston

  32

  Glasgow South West

  11

  Glasgow West

  17

  Renfrew

  19

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  16

  North, Central and West Scotland

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  5

  Coatbridge

  105

  Forth Valley

  28

  Highlands and Islands

  61

  Irvine and Kilmarnock

  11

  Lomond and Argyll

  6

  Clyde Valley

  18

  South West Scotland

  26

  East Scotland

  East Lowlands

  79

  Fife

  42

  Grampian and Shetland

  23

  Lothian Central

  199

  Lothian West

  34

  Tayside

  17

  Total

  27,291

  These figures are provisional and are subject to amendment.

  Mr. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance has been given to his Department's staff with reference to informing

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 36 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 11994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 provisional

  change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  City

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  0

  0.0

  3.6

  0.4

  36

  3—

  Greenwich

  0

  0.0

  122

  0.7

  122

  3—

  Hackney

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  -3.6

  -100.0

  Lambeth

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  0

  0.0

  120

  0.6

  120

  $

  Southwark

  0

  0.0

  37

  0.2

  37

  $

  Tower Hamlets

  37

  0.3

  50

  0.3

  13

  35.1

  Wandsworth

  195

  1.4

  221

  1.6

  26

  13.3

  488
  claimants of their rights to interim [payments pending appeal while refused benefits under the habitual residence rules; [37141]

  (2) what information has been given to (a) his Department's staff, (b) claimants and (c) the general public about the right to interim payments pending appeals of people refused benefit under the habitual residence rules. [37142]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 20 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about guidance provided to the Department's staff and information available to the public on the subject of interim payments.
  Interim payments can be made where there is a reasonable expectation that benefit will be awarded at a future date. Whilst it is possible to make an interim payment where a person has appealed against a decision not to award benefit, the fact that a person has lodged an appeal is not in itself a reason for making a payment. The Secretary of State will, therefore, need to be satisfied that the customer may become entitled to benefit following the appeal.
  Staff in Benefit Agency offices are aware of the need to consider interim payments and guidance is provided in the Income Support Payments Guide, paragraphs 6000–6499. A copy of the Guide is in the Library. Information on interim payments is included in the leaflet IS20 "A Guide to Income Support" which is available to the general public from many outlets such as Benefit Agency offices, Citizen Advice Bureaux, doctors surgeries, public libraries and Post Offices. I enclose a copy of this leaflet for your information.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of 36 or more in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers from January 1994 in each local education authority and in total. [38727]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  489

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 36 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 11994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 provisional

  change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Westminster

  76

  1.1

  39

  0.6

  -3.7

  -48.7

  Barking

  232

  1.6

  323

  2.1

  91

  39.2

  Barnet

  115

  0.6

  112

  0.5

  -3

  -2.6

  Bexley

  72

  0.4

  73

  0.4

  1

  1.4

  Brent

  338

  1.8

  346

  1.8

  8

  2.4

  Bromley

  146

  0.7

  291

  1.3

  145

  99.3

  Croydon

  229

  1.0

  110

  0.4

  -119

  -52.0

  Ealing

  145

  0.7

  78

  0.4

  -67

  -46.2

  Enfeild

  36

  0.2

  36

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  75

  0.4

  39

  0.2

  -36

  -48.0

  Harrow

  72

  0.5

  72

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  146

  0.8

  37

  0.2

  -109

  -74.7

  Hillingdon

  474

  2.7

  513

  2.8

  39

  8.2

  Hounslow

  749

  4.7

  828

  5.0

  79

  10.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  185

  2.0

  256

  2.6

  71

  38.4

  Merton

  331

  2.7

  361

  2.9

  30

  9.1

  Newham

  116

  0.5

  76

  0.3

  -4.0

  -34.5

  Redbridge

  402

  2.5

  435

  2.7

  33

  8.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  265

  2.7

  60

  0.6

  -205

  -77.4

  Sutton

  144

  1.2

  114

  0.9

  -30

  -20.8

  Waltham Forest

  112

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  -112

  -100.0

  Birmingham

  1,434

  1.5

  1,187

  1.2

  -247

  -17.2

  Coventry

  601

  2.4

  859

  3.2

  258

  42.9

  Dudley

  973

  4.0

  1,429

  5.9

  456

  46.9

  Sandwell

  1,312

  4.8

  913

  3.3

  -399

  -30.4

  Solihull

  511

  2.8

  917

  4.9

  406

  79.5

  Walsall

  511

  2.3

  553

  2.4

  42

  8.2

  Wolverhampton

  381

  1.8

  626

  2.9

  245

  64.3

  Knowsley

  644

  3.8

  951

  5.2

  207

  47.7

  Liverpool

  960

  2.0

  1,253

  2.7

  293

  30.5

  St. Helens

  851

  5.9

  1,011

  6.9

  160

  18.8

  Sefton

  516

  2.1

  1,018

  4.1

  502

  97.3

  Wirral

  518

  1.8

  627

  2.1

  109

  21.0

  Bolton

  2,036

  9.2

  2.176

  9.6

  140

  6.9

  Bury

  1,152

  7.4

  801

  5.1

  -35.1

  -30.5

  Manchester

  1,173

  2.9

  1,185

  2.8

  12

  1.0

  Oldham

  871

  4.2

  970

  4.5

  99

  11.4

  Rochdale

  720

  3.9

  560

  2.9

  -160

  -22.2

  Salford

  1,214

  5.5

  847

  3.7

  -367

  -30.2

  Stockport

  1,366

  5.6

  896

  3.6

  -470

  -34.4

  Tameside

  1,136

  5.3

  738

  3.4

  -398

  -35.0

  Trafford

  1,422

  7.7

  1.234

  6.5

  -188

  -13.2

  Wigan

  2,424

  9.3

  2,434

  9.1

  9

  0.4

  Barnsley

  471

  2.4

  576

  2.9

  105

  22.3

  Doncaster

  1,252

  4.7

  1,646

  6.3

  394

  31.5

  Rotherham

  235

  1.1

  308

  1.4

  73

  31.1

  Sheffield

  1,460

  3.9

  1,652

  4.2

  192

  13.2

  Bradford

  567

  1.8

  1,207

  3.7

  640

  112.9

  Calderdale

  326

  1.9

  108

  0.6

  -218

  -66.9

  Kirkless

  981

  3.1

  1,824

  5.7

  843

  85.9

  Leeds

  2,719

  4.6

  2,694

  4.5

  -25

  -0.9

  Wakefield

  1,258

  4.7

  2,124

  7.6

  866

  68.8

  Gateshead

  76

  0.5

  153

  0.9

  77

  101.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  760

  3.7

  890

  4.4

  130

  17.1

  North Tyneside

  497

  3.3

  463

  3.1

  -3.4

  -6.8

  South Tyneside

  541

  3.7

  850

  5.8

  309

  57.1

  Sunderland

  22

  0,8

  191

  0.7

  -3.1

  -14.0

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  1,058

  1.4

  1,369

  1.8

  311

  29.4

  Bedfordshire

  1,750

  4.7

  2,040

  5.3

  290

  16.6

  Berkshire

  1,070

  1.9

  913

  1.6

  -157

  -14.7

  Buckinghamshire

  2,402

  4.2

  3,614

  6.1

  1,212

  50.5

  Cambridgeshire

  1,100

  2.0

  735

  1.3

  -365

  -33.2

  Cheshire

  3,006

  3.6

  3,409

  4.0

  403

  13.4

  Cleveland

  2,523

  4.4

  2,527

  4.3

  4

  0.2

  Cornwall

  1,032

  2.7

  1,126

  2.9

  94

  9.1

  Cumbria

  817

  2.1

  1,078

  2.7

  261

  31.9

  Derbyshire

  4,369

  5.8

  5,888

  7.6

  1,519

  34.8

  Devon

  1,847

  2.4

  1,815

  2.3

  -32

  -1.7

  490

  491

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 36 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 11994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 provisional

  change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Dorset

  580

  1.4

  980

  2.3

  400

  69.0

  Durham

  1,283

  2.5

  1,240

  2.4

  -43

  -3.4

  East Sussex

  435

  0.9

  470

  1.0

  35

  8.0

  Essex

  768

  0.6

  1,209

  1.0

  441

  57.4

  Gloucestershire

  479

  1.1

  551

  1.3

  72

  15.0

  Hampshire

  3,484

  2.7

  2,013

  1.6

  -1471

  -42.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  478

  1.0

  522

  1.1

  44

  9.2

  Hertfordshire

  686

  0.9

  734

  0.9

  48

  7.0

  Humberside

  4,110

  5.3

  4,838

  6.1

  728

  17.7

  Isle of Wight

  190

  2.7

  11

  1.6

  -79

  -41.6

  Kent

  697

  0.6

  1,007

  0.8

  310

  44.5

  Lancashire

  6,008

  5.1

  6,542

  5.4

  534

  8.9

  Leicestershire

  673

  0.9

  1,837

  2.5

  1,164

  173.0

  Lincolnshire

  667

  1.4

  1,037

  2.1

  370

  55.5

  Norfolk

  591

  1.0

  273

  0.5

  -318

  -53.8

  North Yorkshire

  1,049

  1.9

  1,648

  2.9

  599

  57.1

  Northamptonshire

  188

  0.4

  332

  0.7

  144

  76.6

  Northumberland

  1,600

  8.4

  1,310

  6.8

  -290

  -18.1

  Nottinghamshire

  2,822

  3.4

  3,729

  4.5

  907

  32.1

  Oxfordshire

  608

  1.6

  482

  1.2

  -126

  -20.7

  Shropshire

  555

  1.7

  668

  1.9

  113

  204.4

  Somerset

  402

  1.2

  636

  1.8

  234

  58.2

  Staffordshire

  6,500

  7.5

  5,226

  5.9

  -1,274

  -19.6

  Suffolk

  222

  0.5

  254

  0.6

  32

  14.4

  Surrey

  677

  1.0

  736

  1.1

  59

  8.7

  Warwickshire

  756

  1.8

  1,074

  2.5

  318

  42.1

  West Sussex

  475

  0.9

  660

  1.2

  185

  38.9

  Wiltshire

  401

  0.9

  696

  1.5

  295

  73.6

  England

  97,178

  2.5

  107,985

  2.8

  10,807

  11.1

  1 Pupils in single teacher classes of 36 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  2 Change in the number of pupils in classes of 36 or more pupils taught by one teacher between 1994 and 1995 expressed as a percentage of pupils in classes of 36 or more pupils taught by one teacher in 1994.

  3 no pupils in classes of 36 or more taught by one teacher in 1994.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average class size for primary schools in January in each local education authority and what was the actual and

  Average size of single teacher classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995

  Average class size

  Actual change 1994–95

  Percentage change 1994–95

  City

  27.0

  26.8

  -0.3

  -0.9

  Camden

  27.1

  27.3

  0.2

  0.9

  Greenwich

  26.1

  26.4

  0.3

  1.2

  Hackney

  25.7

  26.1

  0.5

  1.8

  Hammersmith

  25.2

  25.6

  0.5

  1.8

  Islington

  25.9

  26.6

  0.7

  2.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24.9

  25.1

  0.2

  0.8

  Lambeth

  24.2

  24.6

  0.5

  2.0

  Lewisham

  26.0

  25.4

  -0.5

  -2.0

  Southwark

  26.9

  26.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  26.4

  26.7

  0.3

  1.1

  Wandsworth

  25.0

  25.2

  0.2

  0.9

  Westminster

  24.0

  25.3

  1.4

  5.6

  Barking

  26.1

  26.7

  0.6

  2.4

  Barnet

  26.4

  26.5

  0.1

  0.4

  Bexley

  27.5

  28.6

  1.1

  4.0

  Brent

  27.0

  26.9

  0.0

  -0.1

  Bromley

  28.1

  28.4

  0.4

  1.3

  Croydon

  27.6

  28.1

  0.4

  1.5

  Ealing

  26.6

  26.6

  0.0

  0.1

  Enfield

  27.8

  28.4

  0.6

  2.0

  492
  percentage change from January 1994 in each local education authority. [38725]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  493

  Average size of single teacher classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995

  Average class size

  Actual change 1994–95

  Percentage change 1994–95

  Haringey

  26.7

  27.2

  0.5

  1.9

  Harrow

  26.8

  27.1

  0.3

  1.0

  Havering

  27.5

  27.4

  -0.1

  -0.5

  Hillingdon

  27.1

  26.8

  -0.3

  -1.2

  Hounslow

  26.2

  27.4

  1.1

  4.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  28.9

  29.5

  0.6

  2.0

  Merton

  27.2

  27.0

  -0.2

  -0.7

  Newham

  27.5

  27.5

  0.0

  0.1

  Redbridge

  29.3

  29.2

  0.0

  -0.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  25.7

  26.1

  0.4

  1.5

  Sutton

  28.3

  28.0

  -0.3

  -1.1

  Waltham Forest

  26.8

  26.5

  -0.3

  -1.0

  Birmingham

  28.2

  28.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Coventry

  27.1

  27.8

  0.7

  2.6

  Dudley

  27.1

  27.3

  0.3

  1.2

  Sandwell

  27.9

  28.2

  0.3

  1.2

  Solihull

  27.3

  27.6

  0.3

  1.1

  Walsall

  25.7

  26.0

  0.4

  1.5

  Wolverhampton

  25.9

  26.2

  0.2

  0.9

  Knowsley

  27.7

  28.0

  0.3

  1.0

  Liverpool

  26.9

  27.1

  0.2

  0.9

  St. Helens

  26.8

  27.1

  0.2

  0.7

  Sefton

  27.2

  27.6

  0.4

  1.6

  Wirral

  25.9

  26.1

  0.2

  0.8

  Bolton

  28.1

  28.7

  0.6

  2.3

  Bury

  27.5

  27.8

  0.3

  1.1

  Manchester

  26.5

  26.9

  0.3

  1.2

  Oldham

  28.6

  28.5

  0.0

  -0.2

  Rochdale

  29.5

  29.2

  -0.3

  -0.9

  Salford

  27.1

  27.3

  0.1

  0.5

  Stockport

  27.7

  27.5

  -0.2

  -0.7

  Tameside

  29.6

  29.5

  -0.1

  -0.4

  Trafford

  29

  29

  0.0

  -0.1

  Wigan

  27.9

  28.0

  0.1

  0.5

  Barnsley

  27.4

  27.5

  0.1

  0.3

  Doncaster

  27.5

  28.1

  0.6

  2.1

  Rotherham

  25.1

  25.8

  0.7

  2.8

  Sheffield

  26.3

  26.8

  0.5

  2.0

  Bradford

  27.3

  27.8

  0.5

  1.8

  Calderdale

  27.9

  27.5

  -0.4

  -1.3

  Kirklees

  27.2

  28.2

  1.0

  3.8

  Leeds

  27.9

  28.2

  0.3

  1.0

  Wakefield

  27.5

  27.9

  0.3

  1.2

  Gateshead

  25.8

  26.0

  0.1

  0.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.3

  27.6

  0.2

  0.8

  North Tyneside

  26.5

  26.9

  0.4

  1.5

  South Tyneside

  26.3

  26.3

  0.1

  0.2

  Sunderland

  25.6

  25.4

  -0.3

  -1.1

  Isles of Scilly

  18.7

  17.3

  -1.3

  -7.1

  Avon

  27.7

  27.8

  0.1

  0.4

  Bedfordshire

  26.3

  26.8

  0.4

  1.7

  Berkshire

  27.1

  27

  -0.1

  -0.5

  Buckinghamshire

  27.2

  27.3

  0.2

  0.7

  Cambridgeshire

  27.4

  27.3

  0.0

  -0.2

  Cheshire

  27.4

  27.3

  -0.1

  -0.4

  Cleveland

  26.8

  26.9

  0.1

  0.4

  Cornwall

  26.8

  27.0

  0.2

  0.6

  Cumbria

  25.7

  26.2

  0.5

  2.0

  Derbyshire

  27.3

  27.9

  0.6

  2.3

  Devon

  26.4

  26.7

  0.3

  1.3

  Dorset

  27.5

  27.6

  0.1

  0.4

  Durham

  27.5

  27.7

  0.2

  0.8

  East Sussex

  27.4

  27.5

  0.2

  0.6

  Essex

  26.9

  26.9

  0.0

  0.1

  Gloucestershire

  26.4

  26.7

  0.3

  1.1

  Hampshire

  27.4

  27.7

  0.3

  1.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.1

  25.5

  0.5

  1.8

  Hertfordshire

  26.4

  26.5

  0.0

  0.1

  494

  495

  Average size of single teacher classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995

  Average class size

  Actual change 1994–95

  Percentage change 1994–95

  Humberside

  27.5

  27.7

  0.2

  0.6

  Isle of Wight

  26.0

  26.3

  0.3

  1.1

  Kent

  27.6

  27.7

  0.1

  0.3

  Lancashire

  27.7

  27.9

  0.2

  0.6

  Leicestershire

  25.8

  26.5

  0.7

  2.7

  Lincolnshire

  26.5

  26.8

  0.4

  1.3

  Norfolk

  25.1

  25.4

  0.2

  0.8

  North Yorkshire

  25.7

  26.2

  0.5

  2.0

  Northamptonshire

  26.4

  26.7

  0.3

  1.1

  Northumberland

  27.0

  27.2

  0.1

  0.5

  Nottinghamshire

  27.0

  27.4

  0.4

  1.5

  Oxfordshire

  25.6

  25.9

  0.3

  1.3

  Shropshire

  26.4

  26.6

  0.1

  0.5

  Somerset

  26.9

  27.0

  0.1

  0.4

  Staffordshire

  27.7

  27.6

  -0.1

  -0.5

  Suffolk

  24.8

  24.9

  0.0

  0.1

  Surrey

  25.5

  25.6

  0.1

  0.5

  Warwickshire

  26.5

  26.9

  0.4

  1.5

  West Sussex

  26.2

  26.5

  0.4

  1.4

  Wiltshire

  26.6

  26.9

  0.3

  1.0

  England

  26.9

  27.1

  0.2

  0.8

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of 40 or more in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 40 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 (provisional)

  Change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  City

  0>

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  0

  0.0

  50

  0.3

  50

  3—

  Hackney

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  0

  0.0

  47

  0.3

  47

  3—

  Southwark

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0.0

  50

  0.3

  50

  3—

  Wandsworth

  45

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -45

  -100.0

  Westminster

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Barking

  40

  0.3

  52

  0.3

  12

  30.0

  Barnet

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bexley

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  40

  0.2

  308

  1.6

  268

  670.0

  Bromley

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  80

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -80

  -100.0

  Ealing

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  323

  1.8

  326

  1.8

  3

  0.9

  Hounslow

  120

  0.8

  41

  0.2

  -79

  65.8

  Kingston Upon Thames

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  63

  0.5

  178

  1.4

  115

  182.5

  Newham

  40

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -40

  -100.0

  Redbridge

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Richmond Upon Thames

  153

  1.5

  60

  0.6

  -93

  -60.8

  Sutton

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  496
  the actual and percentage change in numbers compared with January 1994 and in each local education authority and in total. [38726]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  497

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 40 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 (provisional)

  Change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Waltham Forest

  40

  0.2

  0

  0

  -40

  -100

  Birmingham

  221

  0.2

  267

  0.3

  46

  20.8

  Coventry

  120

  0.5

  115

  0.4

  -5

  -4.2

  Dudley

  644

  2.7

  1,027

  4.2

  383

  59.5

  Sandwell

  240

  0.9

  362

  1.3

  122

  50.8

  Solihull

  0

  0

  40

  0.2

  40

  3—

  Walsall

  0

  0

  42

  0.2

  42

  3—

  Wolverhampton

  120

  0.6

  80

  0.4

  -40

  -33.3

  Knowsley

  80

  0.5

  92

  0.5

  12

  15

  Liverpool

  122

  0.3

  230

  0.5

  108

  88.5

  St. Helens

  120

  0.8

  160

  1.1

  40

  33.3

  Sefton

  41

  0.2

  40

  0.2

  -1

  -2.4

  Wirral

  44

  0.2

  40

  0.1

  -4

  -9.1

  Bolton

  628

  2.8

  394

  1.7

  -234

  -37.3

  Bury

  128

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  -128

  -100.0

  Manchester

  280

  0.7

  297

  0.7

  17

  6.1

  Oldham

  252

  1.2

  308

  1.4

  56

  22.2

  Rochdale

  208

  1.1

  87

  0.4

  -121

  -58.2

  Salford

  167

  0.8

  254

  1.1

  87

  52.1

  Stockport

  221

  0.9

  47

  0.2

  -174

  -78.7

  Tameside

  80

  0.4

  40

  0.2

  -40

  -50.0

  Trafford

  162

  0.9

  81

  0.4

  -81

  -50.0

  Wigan

  85

  0.3

  87

  0.3

  2

  2.4

  Barnsley

  175

  0.9

  233

  1.2

  58

  33.1

  Doncaster

  480

  1.8

  601

  2.3

  121

  25.2

  Rotherham

  160

  0.7

  200

  0.9

  40

  25.0

  Sheffield

  80

  0.2

  244

  0.6

  164

  205.0

  Bradford

  120

  0.4

  80

  0.2

  -40

  -33.3

  Calderdale

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kirklees

  320

  1.0

  491

  1.5

  171

  53.4

  Leeds

  120

  0.2

  266

  0.4

  146

  121.7

  Wakefield

  120

  0.4

  214

  0.8

  94

  78.3

  Gateshead

  40

  0.2

  80

  0.5

  40

  100.0

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  80

  0.4

  174

  0.9

  94

  117.5

  North Tyneside

  90

  0.6

  90

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  52

  0.4

  103

  0.7

  51

  98.1

  Sunderland

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  0

  0.0

  132

  0.2

  132

  3—

  Bedfordshire

  169

  0.5

  829

  2.1

  660

  390.5

  Berkshire

  40

  0.1

  165

  0.3

  125

  312.5

  Buckinghamshire

  212

  0.4

  830

  1.4

  618

  291.5

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  324

  0.4

  293

  0.3

  -31

  -9.6

  Cleveland

  0

  0.0

  40

  0.1

  40

  3—

  Cornwall

  40

  0.1

  87

  0.2

  47

  117.5

  Cumbria

  85

  0.2

  230

  0.6

  145

  170.6

  Derbyshire

  594

  0.8

  834

  1.1

  240

  40.4

  Devon

  40

  0.1

  45

  0.1

  5

  12.5

  Dorset

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  200

  0.4

  40

  0.1

  -160

  -80.0

  East Sussex

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  0

  0.0

  230

  0.2

  230

  3—

  Gloucestershire

  40

  0.1

  80

  0.2

  40

  100.0

  Hampshire

  240

  0.2

  166

  0.1

  -74

  -30.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0.0

  41

  0.1

  41

  3—

  Hertfordshire

  166

  0.2

  82

  0.1

  -84

  -50.6

  Humberside

  377

  0.5

  605

  0.8

  228

  60.5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  80

  0.1

  285

  0.2

  205

  256.3

  Lancashire

  324

  0.3

  284

  0.2

  -40

  -12.3

  Leicestershire

  80

  0.1

  584

  0.8

  504

  630.0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0.0

  82

  0.2

  82

  3—

  Norfolk

  186

  0.3

  55

  0.1

  -131

  -70.4

  North Yorkshire

  244

  0.4

  90

  0.2

  -154

  -63.1

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  81

  0.4

  161

  0.8

  80

  98.8

  Nottinghamshire

  1,724

  2.1

  1,943

  2.3

  219

  12.7

  Oxfordshire

  85

  0.2

  98

  0.3

  13

  15.3

  498

  499

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 40 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995 (provisional)

  Change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Shropshire

  40

  0.1

  120

  0.3

  80

  200.0

  Somerset

  0

  0.0

  53

  0.1

  53

  1—

  Staffordshire

  1,540

  1.8

  1,137

  1.3

  -403

  -26.2

  Suffolk

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  162

  0.2

  249

  0.4

  87

  53.7

  Warwickshire

  240

  0.6

  375

  0.9

  135

  56.3

  West Sussex

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  England

  14,057

  0.4

  18,223

  0.5

  4,166

  29.6

  1 Pupils in single teacher classes of 40 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  2 Change in the number of pupils in classes of 40 or more pupils taught by one teacher between 1994 and 1995 expressed as a percentage of pupils in classes of 40 or more pupils taught by one teacher in 1994.

  3 No pupils in classes of 40 or more taught by one teacher in 1994.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of the 1994–95 Employment Service annual report and accounts were published; how they were distributed; and what was the cost of printing and distribution. [38496]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. David Hinchliffe dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the printing and distribution costs of the 1994–1995 Employment Service (ES) Annual Report and Accounts.
  In 1994–1995, HMSO printed off 5,500 copies of the Annual Report and Accounts. The ES had 5,000 of these copies at a cost of £16,890 and then arranged distribution of the Report by post from two central sites. The total cost of distribution was £1,390.15.
  HMSO also distribute the Report to the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office of the House of Lords and to HMSO bookshops, for sale to the public, at no cost to the ES.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets are set for training and employment for young unemployed. [38497]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government do not set numerical targets for the unemployed but offer a wide range of assistance to those in this position. The youth training guarantee exists to ensure that all 16 to 17-year-olds who are not in full-time education or a job and who are seeking training are offered a suitable YT place. Help is also available through the careers service and jobcentres. In addition, the Government have endorsed the national education and training targets, whose aim is to raise skill and education levels across all age groups in the United Kingdom.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the 1.7 million persons placed into work, identified within the 1994–95 Employment Service annual report and accounts were 500
  (a) full-time and permanent, (b) part-time and permanent, (c) full-time temporary or (d) part-time temporary. [38498]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of unemployed people who were placed into work in 1994/95.
  I am pleased to tell you that the Employment Service exceeded its target of 1.7 million and actually placed 1,876,856 unemployed people into work in 1994/95. This is made up of the following:-

  (a) Full-time and permanent jobs - 900,933

  (b) Part-time and permanent jobs - 435,069

  (c) Full-time temporary jobs - 382,849

  (d) Part-time temporary jobs - 110,223

  The above figure is 47,782 less than the overall total. This is because a small number of placings are not captured on our computerised recording system in a way which allows a distinction to be made in the form you have requested.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test of incapacity have subsequently signed on as unemployed; and how many of these were (i) previously receiving invalidity benefit and (ii) new claimants of incapacity benefit. [38511]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people found capable of work under the All Work Test of Incapacity Benefit (IB), who have subsequently signed on as unemployed; and how many of these were previously receiving invalidity benefit and how many were new

  501
  claimants of 1B. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  In the period April to September 1995, 8,974 people disallowed 1B following the All Work Test have made a claim to unemployment benefit (UB). No figures are available on how many of these were previously receiving invalidity benefit and how many were new claimants of IB.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Needs Pupils
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much is currently spent from public funds on school transport for special educational needs pupils. [38042]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  LEA expenditure in England on home-to-school transport for pupils in special schools was £120 million in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures does not include expenditure on pupils with special educational needs in primary and secondary schools.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the implications of the introduction of the proposed nursery voucher scheme for the local management of schools formula. [38159]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is considering the implications of the nursery voucher scheme for LMS scheme. However, since LMS schemes vary, the implications will be different for each scheme.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities will receive negative standard spending assessment for pre-school education services as a consequence of the clawback of funds to finance the proposed nursery voucher scheme. [38158]
  502
  Mr. Squire
  Based on current available data, we estimate that no local education authority will have a negative standard spending assessment after a deduction has been made for the purposes of the nursery voucher scheme.

  Jobcentres, Doncaster and Mexborough
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each jobcentre in the Doncaster and Mexborough area, how many restart interviews were carried out; and what evaluation she has made of their impact on(a) jobs, (b) other benefits, (c) signing off and (d) enrolment on her Department's employment programmes for each of the last two years, and the current year to date. [38303]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of spending per child in England for(a) primary and (b) secondary school children; and what were the figures in current terms in 1979. [38044]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out, at 1994–95 prices, net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained(a) pre-primary/primary schools and (b) secondary schools in England for 1978–79, 1979–80 and 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Unit costs 1994–95 prices, England

  Year

  Pre-primary and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1978–79

  1,068

  1,545

  1979–80

  1,072

  1,516

  1993–94

  1,659

  2,284

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Bosnia: British Casualties
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many members of Her Majesty's forces have been killed and how many wounded in Bosnia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, 18 British service personnel have been killed and a further 38 have sustained serious injuries in the course of military operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of these figures, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are reconsidering exposing our forces to all the risks and dangers in that unhappy country of Bosnia or whether perhaps we have expended enough by way of casualties in order to prop up generally a deplorable set-up?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend's distress at the British casualties in Bosnia. The lives lost and injuries sustained are greatly to be regretted. But we should also look at what has been achieved in Bosnia. It is perhaps appropriate to recall the words of Mr. Douglas Hurd when he told the other place in a debate on 29th April 1993 that the Government's key aims in Bosnia were threefold: first, to prevent the conflict from spreading; secondly, to relieve suffering; and, thirdly, to provide a framework for a political solution. I believe that it is fair to say that we have successfully met those objectives. We have prevented the conflict from spreading into a wider Balkans war; we have significantly reduced the killing and made a major contribution to the relief of the humanitarian situation. We have also played a major role in the peace process. I believe that there are now better prospects for peace in Bosnia than at any time since the conflict began. That has resulted from patient diplomacy and determined military action, where the United Kingdom has been at the forefront.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, when are we likely to withdraw?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have always said that we shall remain in Bosnia as long as we can usefully contribute to the aims that I have outlined. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is now in prospect the talks in New York, followed by a further conference in London. After those discussions we shall be in a position to judge whether we wish to continue our contribution in some military way.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, although we all admire very much the excellent job our forces are doing in Bosnia, these figures are very distressing indeed. Can my noble friend give figures as regards casualties and fatalities for UNPROFOR as a whole?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not have detailed, up-to-date figures, but I am led to understand that casualties among the UNPROFOR troops are approximately in proportion to each country's contribution to that force. I also understand that our own casualties are lower than those suffered by the French.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, are the Government concerned about the brittle nature of morale in some sections of the Armed Forces, particularly in the medical services, where it is epitomised by an excessively high outflow, poor recruiting and an acute shortage of senior consultants? Do the Government not recognise that an inability to provide medical care and treatment to our Armed Forces, particularly if they are injured, would not be to put Front Line First?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with respect to the noble and gallant Lord, I believe that the question he has asked falls slightly wide of that on the Order Paper. However, I can reassure him that the Government believe that the medical services available to our forces now and as a result of the re-organisation which is taking place will be sufficient to cater for their needs. In Bosnia there has been no shortage of medical attention and expertise available to our people.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I share the deep regrets expressed over the casualties, but would it not be true to say that not only have our Armed Forces behaved extremely well but, as the Minister said, they have had considerable effect, particularly at a critical moment in helping to free the Mount Igman route and raise the seige of Sarajevo?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I recall that he expressed concern about the Mount Igman route during the debate on the Defence Estimates last summer. We can be proud of what our troops have achieved to secure that route. I am sure that the House will join with me in praising the skill and professionalism of all our servicemen and women involved in operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are very many families in this country who have given of their best and have had to experience the news that their sons have been slain? Is he further aware that that is causing grave concern and a vast amount of unhappiness? Many of the relatives are not sure whether other nations in the United Nations should not be doing a bit more along these lines and following the examples set by our country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that we can ever underestimate the suffering of families who have lost relatives in Bosnia. Of course, it is extremely sad when we receive news, as we have today, that a further two serviceman have been injured, although I am pleased to say that those injuries are reported as being

887
light. I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that the future make-up of the proposed implementation force is up for discussion. We shall seek to ensure that other nations, as well as our own, play a full part in that force.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the current financial deficit that is due to us from the United Nations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, although that question does not relate specifically to the Question on the Order Paper, from memory I can tell the noble Viscount that the cost of our operations so far in Bosnia is of the order of £224 million, of which we have received reimbursement from the United Nations of approximately £70 million.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while joining the noble Earl in rightly paying tribute to the performance of our Armed Forces in Bosnia and in his expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who have suffered, to continue the questioning of the noble Viscount, may I ask the Minister again whether there is any reason why the United Nations has not reimbursed the United Kingdom Government for the total cost of the Bosnian operation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as it is a matter of topical discussion in the press, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the United Nations is suffering from severe cash flow problems at present. We are concerned by those problems. It is important that they are addressed. Indeed, that is one of the matters which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will address when he speaks to the United Nations today.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Claims for Blight
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have rejected the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration upholding the finding of maladministration by the commissioner against the Department of Transport concerning a number of claims for blight caused by the Channel Tunnel rail link, and whether they will review this decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government have not yet responded to the Select Committee's report, but we aim to do so shortly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be wholly unprecedented for a government to ignore both the ombudsman's recommendations and those of the Select Committee? Does he further agree that the Select Committee has made its position absolutely plain on this: that there is a finding of maladministration to be supported and that
888
the Government should act by granting compensation (in a very limited way) to those who have suffered the wrong? Does he also agree that Mr. Francis Maude, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave evidence in December 1991, saying:
"I am not aware of any circumstances in which [the Parliamentary Ombudsman's] recommendations have been ignored. This is the basis on which the Government has tended to work—and has, as far as I am aware, always worked—in that we do accept and implement the recommendations that are made"?
Does the Minister now agree that those people who have suffered from blight in this way are entitled to compensation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we responded fully to the Parliamentary Commissioner's initial investigation and when giving evidence to the Select Committee on this subject. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Transport and, indeed, the Permanent Secretary gave full evidence to the Committee as to why they thought that the charges of maladministration should be rejected. Beyond that, we are due to make a full and formal response to the Select Committee's report and I would not want to pre-empt that response.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the unique decision not to accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's report is quite astonishing? Does he also agree that it is urgent that the Government reconsider their findings on the matter so that those individuals who have suffered an injustice, according to the independent inquiry, should receive some form of compensation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have said that the Government gave full and specific reasons as to why they rejected the charges of maladministration concerning the issue of generalised blight. Beyond that, the question of a further response should be left to our full and formal response to the Select Committee which we hope to give shortly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the past no government who have been criticised by the Parliamentary Commissioner have ignored the Select Committee's upholding of the commissioner's recommendations? Does he accept that? Does he accept that any departure from that would be utterly wrong?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree that we are in an unusual situation, but the noble Lord invites me to pre-empt our response to the Select Committee and I fear that I cannot do so.

First Secretary of State: Responsibilities
2.48 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the First Secretary of State has the power to review the decisions of departmental Ministers.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, to none.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend most sincerely on the brevity of that Answer. What judgment has been made of the usefulness of similar appointments in the past and, in so far as they have been considered useful, why they have not been repeated more often?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that the constitutional and historical memory of my noble friend is almost without equal in your Lordships' House and I know that he will appreciate that the title of First Secretary of State appears to have reached occasional currency with the appointment to that office of his late right honourable friend R. A. Butler. However, the party opposite has also been responsible for similar appointments and no doubt both that party and Her Majesty's present Government have found the use of that office extremely to the point. On the office of Deputy Prime Minister, my noble friend will be at least as aware as I am of the precedents for that. No lesser luminaries than Sir Winston Churchill and the late lamented Lord Attlee both designated people to that important position.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that The Times last week quoted a Whitehall spokesman as saying that Mr. Heseltine saw it as a prime function of his responsibilities to answer questions on the Government's relationship with their agencies? Does that mean that we should now be looking for an answer, when it eventually comes, to the First Secretary of State rather than to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the question which has been puzzling so many of us; that is, the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service agency?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express a certain degree of surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, above all Members of your Lordships' House, should find himself in some difficulty on that question. The noble Lord will be at least as aware as I am that individual Secretaries of State are responsible and accountable to Parliament for the activities of the Next Steps agencies which have been established within their departments. I thought, if I may say so, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an extremely robust explanation of the constitutional position last week. I was delighted to be able to see that the honourable gentleman, the Opposition Shadow Home Secretary, took a salutary lesson in that regard.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain in that case the difference between the words "activity" and "operation"? He said that the Secretary of State was responsible for activities, is not that the same as operations?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Baroness tempts me rather wider than the Question asked by my noble friend. I would merely refer her to the full answers that my right honourable friend gave last week. I am sure that she will find them as satisfactory as I did.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help us. In Hansard of the other place on 16th October, the right honourable gentleman Sir David Steel asked the First Secretary of State, the President of the Board of Trade and the Deputy Prime Minister—that secular trinity: three in one and one in three—what were the department's priorities in Scotland. The answer came from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, I assume, is in some ways associated with the First Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Deputy Prime Minister. The answer was:
"As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to promote the continuing improvement of public services and the deregulation and increased competitiveness of British industry".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/95; col. 17.]
What services is he responsible for, and how does he propose to improve them?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hesitate to quarrel with the noble Lord's theology. I was under the happy impression—perhaps he could correct me—that the present President of the Board of Trade is my right honourable friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Therefore, I am somewhat at a loss to understand the connection the noble Lord has made in that respect. However, if I may gloss over that small degree of inexactitude, which I am sure had escaped his notice, the burden of the noble Lord's question was entirely pertinent. My right honourable friend the Member for Henley is responsible for a large number of matters, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, and as I have been able to make clear in a number of Written Answers in your Lordships' House. He gives general assistance to the Prime Minister; he has specific responsibility for the competitiveness agenda, the working of government and the presentation of their policies; he undertakes the chairmanship of a number of Cabinet Committees, as do a number of my right honourable friends; and he of course has ministerial responsibility for the Cabinet Office and the Office of Public Service in which he—the noble Lord is right—is assisted by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord particularly to that element of my right honourable friend's responsibilities which come under the general rubric of the competitiveness agenda. I hope that the noble Lord's interest in these matters will be directed towards the policy of his own party, which, above all, has shown in the past year at least that although it talks big on the subject of the competitiveness of British industry, virtually every policy to which it wishes to sign up will undermine that competitiveness and therefore our nation's prosperity.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the appointment of a First Secretary has usually been to assuage injured pride or unfulfilled ambition, and that it has usually failed on both counts? Does he have any more optimism for this appointment?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, infinitely better equipped than I am to talk about unfulfilled ambition in governments.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no, I fulfilled all mine.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, however I can only observe from my limited experience so far that my right honourable friend the Member for Henley has proved himself to be a team player of extraordinary effectiveness since his appointment to the office of First Secretary. I can therefore only conclude that my right honourable friend's sole objective is to serve in whatever capacity he is called.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal is of course quite right. The pack has been shuffled so often that it is sometimes difficult to keep track of where the cards have immediately fallen. I am bound to say that when the noble Viscount corrected me on the trinity there is only one two-headed monster I can think of. If he would prefer Cerberus, that is entirely a matter for that side of the House. Could he perhaps answer the question I put to him? What public services is the First Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister responsible for improving?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, those public services which are the responsibility of the OPS, with which he and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are associated. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I read a long list of the responsibilities that my right honourable friend has undertaken. In parenthesis, I am also extremely grateful to be told that Cerberus had only two heads. Perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will be able to correct me on this, but I understood that Cerberus had more than two heads.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, indeed he did.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that as an official I served two of the previous First Secretaries of State? One was Lord George-Brown, an engaging and tempestuous acquaintance, who failed to reach No. 10. The other was Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, a close and admired friend. Is the noble Viscount further aware that when the then Prime Minister appointed Lord Butler to the offices of First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister, without the backing of a great department of state, it was widely believed, rightly or wrongly, that part of the intention was to impede his further progress to No. 10, and so it proved? In the light of those precedents, and the absence of departmental authority attached to Mr. Heseltine, will he confide in us the intention and reasoning lying behind the appointment of the present distinguished incumbent?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can think of many bodies in which I would less rather confide than your Lordships' House because I regard your Lordships' House as infinitely more discreet than a number of the bodies with which I am occasionally associated. However, in spite of the temptation to speculate, which the noble Lord lays before me, I would say merely that it is perfectly clear from the short but distinguished record which my right honourable friend has already laid before the nation in his capacity as First Secretary of
892
State and Deputy Prime Minister that he has an important function to fulfill and he is doing that with great distinction.

Hong Kong Legislative Council and China
3 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications for relations with China following the recent elections to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, prospects for co-operation with China over Hong Kong and more generally are improving all the time. The Legislative Council elections were an important step in the development of representative government in Hong Kong. We welcome both developments.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I had the benefit of visiting Hong Kong a couple of weeks ago and I am fully aware that the issues relating to Hong Kong require more attention than is possible in answer to a Question today. Does the Minister agree that the results of the recent elections show that the people of Hong Kong want good relations with China and the ability to retain their democratic and free institutions and general structure? It is important that we recognise the fact that they have both those motives; and that the campaign to denigrate the Governor of Hong Kong, who I believe is doing an excellent job, should be resisted. Will the Government send a signal that they have full confidence in Chris Patten and the work that he is doing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the noble Lord was able to visit Hong Kong. I expect to hear from him in detail about his visit. Secondly, I agree about the outcome of the election results. Yes, I believe that the people of Hong Kong want good relations with China while at the same time retaining their democratic rights and freedom of action. The results of the Hong Kong election reflect a broad cross-section of community interests. The pro-China candidates won 15 of the 60 seats in total.
I further agree with the noble Lord about the campaign that is being run against the excellent Governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten. The Governor and the Hong Kong Government are continuing to play a fundamental role in the formulation of our policy towards Hong Kong. The proposals which we agreed during the visit of Mr. Qian Qichen here were drawn up in Hong Kong. There is no question of sidelining the governor, whose authority is very much enhanced as a result of the action that he has taken. I refer your Lordships to the policy address of 11th October. I hope that Members of this House will take the opportunity to meet with the governor while he is here this week to address the all-party group on Hong Kong.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can relations with China be compatible with the continuation of the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong when the proposal of the Chinese Government is to abolish the LEGCO on day one of their administration? Will the Minister comment on the Chinese Government's recent criticism of the Bill of Rights which is enacted by LEGCO and which they have said they will also repeal on day one? How can that be compatible with China's undertaking to continue with the operation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Hong Kong? Has the Minister anything further to say about the obligation that the Chinese Government should have undertaken, but which they have repudiated, to report on their performance under the international covenant? They are obliged to do that as part of that commitment.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his supplementary question goes further than I can do justice to in a Question and Answer session in your Lordships' House. We have heard some proposals from bodies such as the Preliminary Working Committee. That is an unusual body which does not necessarily express Chinese Government policy and is making proposals about which we rightly have real concern. We have expressed that concern to the senior Chinese representative of the Joint Liaison Group.
I understand the noble Lord's concern with human rights, but he must realise that it was agreed in the Joint Declaration and in Article 39 of the Basic Law that the international covenants will continue to apply to Hong Kong. We will be resolving some of those matters at the meeting which starts next week. As regards the other matters, I shall write in detail to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government agree with the proposal of the Governor of Hong Kong that an additional 3 million people should be given the right of entry to this country? If not, why not?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard has made quite clear that it would not be possible for so many people to come to this country. Most Hong Kong people would not need to come to this country. When the Governor of Hong Kong spoke he was repeating the policy of the Hong Kong Government. There was absolutely nothing new in his remarks.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in asking the Minister a question about trade with China I should declare an association with several companies which are actively doing business in China. Is the Minister aware of some concern in British industry at the continued exclusion of China from the World Trade Organisation, with particular implications for China's treatment of intellectual property rights breaches? Do the Government support the inclusion of China into the WTO and will they take action to ensure that that occurs in appropriate circumstances?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is certainly a matter with which we are dealing. We already have very large trade with China. I believe that
894
the United Kingdom is the largest European investor in China and we are building up trade relations all the time. It is surely something that must follow.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Atomic Energy Authority to make schemes for transfer of property, rights and liabilities if so directed]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("or schemes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They are straightforward because, not surprisingly, we have already covered quite a lot of the ground.
The essence of the amendments is to amend the Bill as presented to your Lordships with a view to achieving what I think everybody who has looked at this matter agrees should happen, setting aside the whole question of privatisation of this part of the Atomic Energy Authority. That is not ground that I wish to go over again because it has been dealt with fully.
The question returns to one of form. As I say, everybody who has studied this matter, whether they are doubtful or enthusiastic about privatisation, argues on every ground imaginable—on grounds of economics, efficiency and business grounds—that this section of the AEA should be transferred to a single successor company; what one would call unitary privatisation.
That is not ruled out by the Bill but I believe that the reason it is not in the Bill is that the Government are a trifle afraid that there will not be a bidder for the thing as a whole and they wish to keep their options open. I have tabled these amendments on Report not to go over

895
the ground again but simply in the hope that the Government have something more to tell us about it, either about their intentions or something along those lines. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my name is also attached to this group of amendments. I remind the Minister that during the passage of the Bill many noble Lords spoke of the value of synergy in this business. The noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, who has spent a lifetime in this industry, was particularly anxious to emphasise that point.
I remind the Minister that there are two documents in his own department which provide support for the amendment. First, there is a report on the technology foresight exercise which says that companies of this kind should remain as a single entity. The second document is about some research in his department which speaks of the advantages of concentrating shareholding in this kind of business. That research identifies the benefits of concentrated shareholding as more direct involvement, better monitoring, greater stability in decision taking, greater commitment and long-term investment.
I should like to raise one further point. At col. 15 in Committee, the Minister said that if AEA Technology could meet the ambitious targets it has set itself, then sale as a single, independent entity may well be achievable. As I understand it, the sales and profit targets have more or less been achieved but it includes some profits from disposals. Is the Minister satisfied with that performance? Is the Minister sure that a test lasting a few months can be a proper basis for that decision? If the performance is good, why sell the business? If the performance is not that good, why fragment the business because of short-term considerations? I support the amendments.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said in introducing the amendments, this issue has been one of the main subjects of debate both at Second Reading and in Committee. AEA Technology has established itself as one of the leading international engineering and scientific consultancies. As a whole, it can achieve, as it already has, a great deal. Divided, broken up and sold in bits and pieces, as one financial adviser to the Government has suggested, it might realise perhaps greater short-term gains but the long-term loss would be considerable.
Therefore, I very much hope that in answering the points raised on these amendments, the noble and learned Lord will reassure us that the Government have thought again and agree that the organisation should be sold off as a whole.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in responding to these amendments, perhaps I may take a few moments to set out the Government's position not only because this is probably the most important set of amendments with which we shall deal this afternoon but also because it may help to clear the way for our consideration of later amendments.
896
These amendments are designed to remove the Secretary of State's power to make more than one transfer scheme, and to ensure that property, rights and liabilities transferred under it go to a "successor company" as defined in the Bill. When we discussed these amendments in Committee, I explained that it was too early to make irrevocable decisions on the form and method of privatisation and that it was only prudent to keep our options open. I also suggested that the position might well be clearer in the autumn, since by then we would have a much better idea as to how AEA Technology was performing and how the various sale options might satisfy the Government's stated objectives for the sale.
I remind noble Lords that the Government first announced their intention to privatise AEA Technology in February 1994. Since then, they have consistently made it clear that decisions on the form of privatisation would be based on AEA Technology's performance in the market place, on the needs and requirements of customers and on the extent to which the various options enhance competition, help to improve UK competitiveness and maximise the overall return to the taxpayer. We have looked at the options with those considerations in mind and taken due note of the views expressed in the House and of the various representations which have been made to us.
Having done so, I can now tell the House that the Government have no intention of breaking up AEA Technology in advance of sale and will be aiming to sell the business as a single whole. I take it that in going forward on that basis, we shall enjoy the full support of the House.
That conclusion reflects the progress AEA Technology has made over the past 18 months in focusing its various activities and in improving the performance of the business as a whole. Management has rationalised the structure of the business, taken action to reduce overheads and improved its marketing and responsiveness to customer demands. As a result, AEA Technology is more competitive in its UK and international markets and more profitable.
Operating profits before interest and restructuring more than doubled in the year to March 1995. And for the six months to 30th September, both sales and profits are expected to be ahead of budget and substantially ahead of last year. Those results are a real tribute to the efforts of both management and staff. They provide a firm foundation from which, in the private sector, AEA Technology can make an even greater contribution to the economy, and to UK competitiveness.
I can also tell the House that, subject to the Bill completing its remaining stages in this House, the Secretary of State would propose to give a direction to the UKAEA under Clause 1(1) of the Bill to make a scheme providing for the early transfer of the activities of what now constitutes AEA Technology to a single successor company owned by the Secretary of State. No decisions have yet been taken about the method of sale as it is too early to say whether a flotation or a trade sale will offer better return to the taxpayer. As is normal

897
in situations of this kind, decisions will be taken in the light of market circumstances at the time and on the basis of securing best overall value for money.
With the two clear statements that I have made in responding to the amendments, I hope that noble Lords who have participated in the debate will feel reassured and that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very full reply. All noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter will be gratified both by what he said and by the fact that what he said is in response to what noble Lords argued earlier. I understand also why we have had to wait this long for that statement because quite clearly, the additional information that has been made available makes the whole matter look much more sensible. I am not sure whether I ought to raise the following matter under this heading or under a later amendment on transfer schemes.
However, the one matter that troubles me a little is that, when all this happens—that is, assuming the passage of the Bill and the subsequent transfer schemes—because of the nature of the Bill we may never get the chance to look into the matter again. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can advise us on that aspect. I cannot see anything in the Bill under the transfer schemes which would mean that they would have to be placed before your Lordships, but I may have misunderstood that part of the legislation. There will obviously be one or two orders in connection with it, but I do not believe that the transfer scheme will be included therein. Is it reasonable for me to ask the Minister whether or not he can give me a reply on the matter today?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall respond briefly. I have indicated that the scheme will be made in terms of Clause 1(1) and that that will be allowed for. However, once the scheme has been made that will be an end to the matter. It is not a matter that will come before your Lordships' House again. However, as it meets exactly the objective set out by the noble Lord, I hope that he will agree that it is an appropriate way to go forward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that it is an appropriate way to go forward. It is just that I know that noble Lords like to debate almost everything. Therefore, I should not sell the pass too quickly on such matters. My main point was to thank the Minister for his reply on behalf of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be made before a period of one year has elapsed after the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 has some logical connection with what we have just heard, but there is a little more to it. There are two difficulties that we have had in discussing the subject.
Obviously the Government will wish to get the best possible price for AEA Technology. They have a duty to the taxpayer to do so and they would certainly receive the support of your Lordships if that is the way they approach the matter. It is my view that one must get the very best price.
Assuming that the legislation is passed, although I believe that it would be in the interests of AEA Technology for the whole thing to go ahead as rapidly as possible, it would not necessarily be in the interests of the taxpayer if the whole business were hurried. There is obviously a balance to be made between the efficiency advantages of knowing where you are and the possible taxpayer advantages of taking your time about looking for the best bidder.
The reason for my concern about the latter is that, alongside what we are discussing here—but not entirely separate from it—is the whole question of the privatisation of nuclear power. It is not at all clear at what rate that will proceed. It may well be that we will simply wait for the gracious Speech to be informed. I wish to raise the point that a large part of the business in which AEA Technology will be engaged is, as I understand it, to do with the nuclear power industry. Until one knows what is happening in that respect, it is not obvious to any bidder what the value of the assets that he is bidding for will be. To put it at its mildest, there is a certain amount of market risk involved. Therefore, the point of raising the question of a possible delay, which I do not wish to push too strongly because I can see the arguments for not delaying once this goes through, would be to make the asset value as large as possible.
In raising the matter, it is my hope that the Minister will be able to place on the record what the Government's current view is on the matter. I believe that it would be too much to hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell us anything about the timetable for nuclear privatisation, but certainly any more light that he can throw on the matter would be extremely helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord yet again for his ingenuity in tabling an amendment in order to prise out of me information on a matter which, despite what he said, is not directly related to the privatisation proposal contained in the Bill; indeed, the purpose is essentially to draw from me what our plans are in relation to nuclear generators. I do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised when I tell him that I have little to add to what I said in July. Work towards a sale for nuclear generators in the course of the next year is proceeding to plan. Our proposals were fully debated last May following the publication of the nuclear review White Paper and the Government have no plans at present for a further debate.
So far as concerns AEA Technology, I have already made clear to your Lordships that the Secretary of State would propose, given the direction under Clause 1(1), making a scheme providing for the early transfer of the activities of what now constitutes AEA Technology to a single successor company owned by the Secretary of State. Both AEA Technology and the UKAEA Government Division are keen that the transfer should

899
take place as early as practicable so that they become independent legal entities able to deal with each other on a fully commercial basis. The proposed amendment would prevent that and produce renewed uncertainty for all concerned, not least the employees of both organisations. When the noble Lord said that he agreed that there were arguments which went both ways, I have no doubt that the prospect of a period of uncertainty for the employees was one of the factors that he had in mind.
I should point out that the sale of AEA Technology has no implications for the sale of the generators, except that AEA Technology may well be able to offer a wider range of competitively priced services once it is freed from the shackles of public-sector control. The generators are not dependent on AEA Technology, in the same way that AEA Technology is not beholden to them.
Last week I had the opportunity to visit Harwell and see something of the range of activities being undertaken. If the noble Lord has not done so himself, I commend it to him. I am sure that he will be hugely impressed by the real range of scientific expertise which is available. Indeed, some of that expertise has gone a long way from its early origins in supporting our nuclear industry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like, first, to follow the Minister's final remarks. The Atomic Energy Authority has been one of the great triumphs of this country. Our contribution to nuclear science is something about which we can be extremely proud. I have not visited Harwell recently, but if I can find a break and if the pressures of being an Opposition spokesman are not too great, I shall try to follow the noble and learned Lord and visit the people involved. I usually watch such things completely open mouthed when I see what those people do and how bright they are. However, that is by the way.
Of course, I did not expect a great deal more from the Minister. However, I believe that I ought to point out en passant that we never really debated the nuclear power White Paper in your Lordships' House. Indeed, that was one of the things we all moaned about because there did not seem to be any way of persuading the usual channels to organise a debate. However, as the passing of the Electricity Act allows the privatisation of nuclear generators to take place without any more ado, in theory—and, possibly, in practice—we may not get a chance to debate that ever again. That is something that I complained about some time ago.
My main point is that it must surely still be true that the nuclear generators are important customers of AEA Technology. That aspect of the matter was on my mind. However, I fully appreciate that there are limits to what the Minister can say. I certainly have no desire that anything I say today should add to uncertainty in any way. Of course, the uncertainty of employees is of great importance. But we are discussing an asset which currently belongs to the nation. Even if I do not favour its privatisation, if one is to sell it I favour getting the
900
Largest possible price for it. That was partly what I had in mind. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No.6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE TOWARDS MANAGEMENT BUY-OUT
(" .—(1) If it appears to the Authority that any persons employed by the Authority, or by any subsidiary of the Authority, are taking steps towards—

(a) the submission of such a tender as is mentioned in Schedule 2 below; or

(b) the making of an offer for any part of the Authority's undertaking or for any shares of any subsidiary of the Authority;

the Authority may provide assistance to those persons for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, any expenses incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of the submission of the tender or the making of the offer.
(2) The Secretary of State may give the Authority directions with respect to the provision of financial assistance under this section.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, any such direction may, in particular—

(a) specify a limit on the total amount of the financial assistance which may be provided under this section or on the amount, or the total amount, which may be so provided—

(i) in cases of any particular class or description in the direction; or

(ii) during any period or periods so specified; or

(b) require the provision of any such financial assistance by the Authority subject to conditions, including conditions as to repayment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. I do not intend to speak to Amendment No. 12 which goes much further. I see no point in pursuing that route. In moving the amendment I return essentially to the points that I raised on Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill. I then referred to the fact that at Section 141 of the Railways Act 1993 the Government made specific provision to assist management-employee buy-outs. I hasten to add that I questioned whether that was in conformity with the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. However, the Government said that I was wrong about that. Therefore I make the assumption that the Government are correct as a matter of law. If that is the case, it seems to me that for the sake of consistency—Ministers have frequently said how much they would welcome management-employee buy-outs in this connection—they should follow a similar route to that provided in the Railways Act. That is what I sought to do in the amendments. They may be deficient in some respect but I think that the Minister will concede that that is the effect of what we seek to provide.
When the matter was before the Committee on 17th July the Minister, after saying that he did not wish to be bound to follow a similar precedent, or to regard the Railways Act as a precedent—or indeed any other privatisation schemes for that matter—said, after I had intervened,

901
"I say to the noble Lord—and I hope that this will satisfy him—that I shall be prepared to examine the scope for offering assistance, which is somewhat in the nature of the language to which he made reference".—[Official Report, 17/7/95; col. 91.]
I do not think that that would be sufficient. If the Government found it necessary to make specific provision in relation to the privatisation of the railways for management-employee buy-outs, there seems to me no good reason why it should not be done with regard to this provision. It is not just a matter of giving a general approbation to the idea; it is a case of giving the management-employee buy-out team the wherewithal to go ahead with its submission. These matters are never easy to undertake; they involve some considerable element of cost. I suggest that the Government should have discretion. I do not say that they must act in this way, but that they may do so. They may give the authority directions with respect to the provision of financial assistance under the clause. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause enables the Government to limit the amount of money that would be available for such assistance. It is desirable that that should be so.
I should have said that I shall not speak to Amendment No. 23. I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 12 and 23. Amendment No. 25 follows on logically from Amendment No. 6. It follows a similar pattern to Section 141 of the Railways Act. I hope that the Government will respond affirmatively to this provision. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to say, as they have said on numerous occasions, "We will do our best to encourage management-employee buy-outs". There has to be some substance to that. I have invited the Government to provide that substance in the form of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in these amendments I point this out to the Minister. The assistance which my noble friend suggests should be given could be recouped by the Government many times over. That is because the value put by the City on businesses which engage in research and provide technical services is usually low. A management-employee buy-out may well be the best sale route as the sense of partnership among the employees will give financial backers more confidence that the people in this "people business" will not then depart. I suggest to the Minister that the route proposed by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis could enable the Government to obtain the most money from the sale.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his remarks. I forgot to refer to the amendment which deals with consultation. I do not ask the Government to say more about this issue as a matter of law. However, it is important that the Government give an undertaking that they will talk to the unions about employee participation in AEAT. It is important in terms of preserving the independence and integrity of AEAT. As my noble friend said, that will benefit the Government. I hope that the Minister will say something specific about consultation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am slightly baffled by the noble Lord's observations. I certainly understood that there was a set of amendments about
902
consultation, beginning with Amendment No. 8. If those were the amendments to which the noble Lord intended to refer, it may be better if I refer to them when we reach that separate group of amendments.
When we considered the matter at Committee stage, the noble Lord and I had a fairly lengthy exchange on the issue of management-employee buy-outs. At that point I hope that I satisfactorily assured the noble Lord that not only would the Government seriously consider any MEBO bid for the business, but that I should also be prepared to examine what scope the Government had to offer assistance to a MEBO. As I indicated at that time, I have considered the case of AEA Technology compared with that of the railways, to which the noble Lord has drawn my attention. While what he had to say about the railways was factually absolutely correct—I make no remark as regards any small defects that there may be in the drafting of his measure—the significant point is that the situation is rather different. I shall explain why I take that view.
Statutory provision was necessary in the case of the Railways Act because of the special circumstances of the BR sale, in particular the fact that BR itself was the vendor and the number of businesses being sold—some 80 to 90, which is in sharp contrast to what is being proposed in the measure we are discussing—meant that it was far easier for BR to offer financial assistance than for the Secretary of State to offer such assistance direct. As I have indicated, in the case of AEA Technology shares in the successor company will be held by the Secretary of State. The sale will therefore be made in the name of the Secretary of State. The relevant model is not therefore rail privatisation but the sale of British Coal's mining operations, where the relevant assistance to MEBOs wishing to bid was given by the Secretary of State. He already has powers to provide assistance to MEBOs. That is why there was no need for provisions in the Coal Industry Act along the lines of Section 141 of the Railways Act and why these amendments are similarly unnecessary. Even if the sale were ultimately undertaken by the authority, the assistance could still be made available by the Secretary of State under his existing powers.
Similarly, I can assure the House that any request for assistance from an AEAT management-employee consortium would be considered and appropriate assistance provided on the same basis as for other privatisations.
I should make it clear, however, that the assistance that is available is limited to the specific purpose of allowing staff to construct a business case before approaching financial institutions for support. It is not available for other purposes. Once bids have been made MEBOs must compete on an equal footing with other bidders.
I hope that with that brief explanation the noble Lord will accept that we are not trying to exclude assistance and that it will be available. I understand entirely the approach he has adopted in respect of the Railways Act, but I hope that he will be satisfied that a parallel with the Coal Industry Act is more apposite in the circumstances and the way in which we intend to proceed to privatisation.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he can say whether, when he was at Harwell last week, the matter of a management—employee buy-out was discussed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a wide range of matters were discussed, including what the attitude of employees and management might be. We did not sit down and have a discussion on the specific issue of a MEBO. However, I certainly took it from the discussions that I had that what I have said to your Lordships about the availability of assistance was something that should have been well known to the management, and I hope is now also well known to the employees.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that reply, which was forthcoming. It justified the position that we have taken during the course of these debates. If we had not raised the matter the issue would not have been aired. It is important from the point of view of management and employees who are interested in such a buy-out, which has been much encouraged not only by the Government but also by the Financial Times and others. It will have given them some comfort.
Perhaps the Minister would like to respond to this point. I do not know whether there is complete consistency of approach in relation to other privatisations. I do not know whether they all followed a similar pattern to that which the Minister described today in relation to the Coal Industry Act—which in substance is set out in the amendments—as well as in terms of the nature of the assistance that is to be provided. I hope that the answer will be in the affirmative, although there will obviously be some disparities in each particular instance.
The support that needs to be given relates to the preparation of a scheme of this kind: seeking professional advice, making sure that people understand the perils of engaging in a MEBO—and there are perils—and making sure that people have the right kind of professional advice to enable them to mount a serious competitive offer in relation to other tenders which might be forthcoming. Those are difficult matters. The Minister may wish to intervene on that point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I had better restrict my observations to the coal industry where, as I indicated, the parallel seems to us to be apt, whereas a comparison with the privatisation of the railways is not apt. Over the whole range of privatisations, I cannot tell the noble Lord whether there were other specific provisions. However, my understanding is that in the case of British Rail the situation was unusual, and therefore specific provisions were made. As I said, even in that case it may not have been strictly necessary for special statutory provision to be made. However, I can indicate to your Lordships' House that in this set of circumstances no specific statutory provision is necessary because the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers to offer assistance during the preparatory stages. As the noble Lord indicated, that is the appropriate stage for assistance to be offered.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there was no strict necessity to embark on the Railways Act at all, but that is another matter. I am grateful to the Minister. He has set
904
out the position to our reasonable satisfaction. I am satisfied that no specific power is required. My noble friends and I are also satisfied that the Government will give every opportunity and help to any MEBO in this particular regard. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [Powers of Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Before—

(a) giving a direction under subsection (1) above; or

(b) approving or declining to approve a transfer scheme; or

(c) modifying or making a transfer scheme;

the Secretary of State shall consult the trade unions and other bodies representing the employees of the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 13, 21 and 24. They all contain much the same general principle and they relate to some remarks made by my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Haskel with regard to the previous grouping.
It seems to me that in a matter of this kind it would be entirely reasonable for those who are concerned with changing the status of AEA Technology, and therefore changing the position in which the employees find themselves—namely, having been public servants in due course they will no longer be public servants—as a matter of good faith to consult the employees and their representatives.
It is not my view, and I do not believe that it is the view of the trade unions, that a veto power should be given to the employees. That would be most inappropriate. However, on the minimal grounds of fairness, I believe that your Lordships will agree that people who have devoted their lives to the industry—and we all agree that whatever value exists is largely attributable to them—should be asked for their views. I would go further. I believe that many will have an expert opinion on the matter which would be worth taking into account.
My noble friends and I present this matter to your Lordships in the form of an amendment to the Bill, because that is how we proceed. If you want to make a point you put down an amendment to a Bill in this way. However, the fundamental principle has nothing to do with whether or not the Bill is amended but the way in which the matter proceeds. The matter is not unrelated to the question which my noble friend Lord Haskel asked the Minister a few moments ago. I was not clear from his answer whether the Minister spoke to the employees and their representatives when he visited Harwell last week. I consider it appropriate that a member of the Government should talk to these people at some stage. It would also be appropriate for management, as distinct from employees, also to talk to the relevant people.
This is all part of the general question. The lives of a number of public servants are going to be drastically changed. As a minimum, they ought to be asked what they think and, more generally, they might be consulted on the

905
best way to proceed. The purpose of the group of amendments is to allow noble Lords to comment and the Minister to give us his views. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when we discussed almost identical amendments at Committee stage I gave an indication that this set of amendments would give trade unions and staff associations a veto. Perhaps I went too far in saying that, but it would give them an automatic right of consultation before the Secretary of State was able to exercise his powers in relation to transfer schemes and before either the Secretary of State or the authority could dispose of any of the securities in a successor company.
At the risk of repeating myself, our position remains that the final decision on the sale has to be made by the Government in the light of market circumstances at the time and in the best interests of AEA Technology as a business, its employees and the taxpayers. We could not accept a clause which might affect the ability to take that final decision. When we debated the amendments in Committee I believe the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, stressed that they were intended to ensure that best employment practices were carried out. He said that that was of particular importance in a "people" business such as AEA Technology and that the staff were carried along with the privatisation proposals. I entirely agree with both his propositions. All the privatisations that have taken place were of "people" businesses, in which that is pre-eminent.
I did not engage in the type of negotiation and discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described—and which he tried to discover—when I was at Harwell last week. However, I spoke to the chief executive and had displayed to me the wide range of consultation material that he and his chairman had undertaken in recent months. I can assure the noble Lord that it is as extensive an exercise in consultation as I have seen. My understanding is that it is by no means at an end and that the management intends to continue to consult with those whom it employs and to take them along with all that is being proposed. That seems to me to be the right way forward. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate what is being undertaken and will feel that he can withdraw the amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I reiterate that I do not believe that it would be right, and in particular not constitutionally right, for there to be a veto. I am certain that the amendments do not give the workers, the employees or their representatives a veto. My judgment is not very different from that of the Minister that, to use his words which are better than mine, it would be good sense to carry one's employees along with one. I believe that that is what he said. The way to do that is to consult them and to have a meeting of minds. The Minister says that in his judgment that has been happening and in a way my amendments are unnecessary. Since he said that, and it is on the record, I assume that the people at AEA Technology can read and will read what he said, just as they might consider reading what I have said. I know that every word spoken on this side is read by them at all times!
906
However, this is a serious matter because, to return to my point on economics and finance, the productivity of the enterprise, and therefore its value in the market place, depends overwhelmingly on the employees believing that what is happening is correct and that they are properly valued. That is the whole point of the amendments and I do not believe that the Minister disagrees with me about that.
I am a little sorry to hear that he did not have a chat with those people and not even a drink with them, but I know how busy one can be. He may well visit Harwell again, but I am sorry that he did not speak to some of the employees. I have elucidated the substance of this group of amendments, as I wished, and, therefore, I have no difficulty in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions as to the Authority's powers]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to challenge Clause 3; we say that it should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 states:
"Without prejudice to any powers of the Authority apart from this section, the Authority shall have power to do anything which in their opinion is appropriate for the purpose of facilitating … any transfer effected or proposed to be effected under section 1 of this Act, or … the disposal of securities of a successor company".
I wish to put the matter in the correct context. Since 1954, when the UK Atomic Energy Authority was established, it was specifically given a wide range of powers. That was wholly appropriate because it was a large organisation undertaking research and development in terms of producing and using atomic energy and distributing information about atomic energy. It also later encapsulated in its work scientific research on subjects which were unconnected with atomic energy: for example, the treatment and disposal of waste, and trading in intellectual property.
When the Bill takes effect, the Government Division will remain as the UKAEA. It will employ about 2,000 people. The UKAEA Government Division Forward Plan 1995 to 2005 was agreed by the DTI in March this year. Its purposes were described in that document as:
"To complete the UKAEA nuclear mission, whilst rapidly reducing the annual cost to the UK taxpayer of Government Division, by:
Caring for and, at the appropriate time, safely dismantling active facilities no longer in use.
Disposing of radioactive waste in an environmentally acceptable way.
Making use of those UKAEA assets which cannot be disposed of, including live active facilities.
Always ensuring that the programme is carried out at lowest economic cost consistent with safety and environmental requirements and acceptable financial risks".
Clearly, if the Government are to go down that path then the UKAEA will not require as many powers as are currently enjoyed by that organisation. I wish to know whether the Government have any plans to rescind any such unnecessary powers, following privatisation. The Government would accept that it is unwise—I am not sure that they will accept it but we take the view that quangos should not have greater powers or greater

907
authority than they absolutely need. The UKAEA may be tempted to duplicate some of the work of the AEAT. That would represent unfair competition for the latter, because the UKAEA will be government funded. One also has to ask whether that might represent a potential collision with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome as regards state aids.
I could cite many powers and authorities but I shall merely mention the Acts under which they have been conferred: the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, the Science and Technology Act 1965. the Radiological Protection Act 1970, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986. I should be happy to pass over to the Minister the specific references which I have just made by implication for his better understanding of the matter, although I am sure he is well briefed on the issues.
I wish to know whether the Government intend to review the powers needed by the UKAEA after privatisation. Will they put forward amendments to the provisions of the Acts to which I referred? Perhaps I may delicately pass to the Minister the specific sections to which I referred, if he needs them. I think they will enable him to see the point that I am making. I do not want to weary the House. If the Minister wants to ask me any questions about it, I am afraid that I shall have to ask him to hand back the document as I could not answer without reference to it. I have all the various enactments before me.
I raise this point by way of interrogation. It is important, so perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to deal with it. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. This provision may be widely drawn, but it is certainly not my understanding that it is intended, as it were, to extend the range of the powers of the authority, other than in relation to,
"any transfer effected or proposed to be effected under Section 1 of this Act".
Clause 3 would enable the authority to prepare a transfer scheme or dispose of securities in a successor company. In that respect it is analogous to the paving powers to be found in earlier privatisations. It merely puts beyond doubt the authority's power to take the necessary steps to organise itself in preparation for the making of a transfer scheme. Removing this clause would complicate and delay the process and lead to unnecessary administrative costs. I cannot see that anyone would consider that to be a desirable objective.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be satisfied as to the purpose of the clause. In view of his questions, however, let me go a little further. There are certainly no present plans to change the powers of the UKAEA as set out in the 1954 Act or any other statutory provisions. The clause deals with a scheme under Clause 1. As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the provisions of Clause 1(3) indicate the extent of the limitation on what can be transferred as part of the authority's responsibilities.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, the Minister has not dealt with the point that I raise as a matter of substance; namely, that in the light of the role that is to be undertaken by the UKAEA in the future it would seem to have powers greater than it needs. The Minister may wish to reflect upon that, and I should not complain about that at all. The point has perhaps not been made with sufficient clarity simply as a result of the amendment. I should like to hear from the Minister as to whether he is prepared to consider the issues that I raise before Third Reading, so that we know whether there is substance in my remarks. I feel that there is. We do, of course, have the right to move amendments. I do not say that we would wish to challenge the Government over this point; it would simply be a matter for explanation. In the light of my remarks, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to write to me so that I may consider the position afresh before that stage of the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said; and I should be grateful if he would in turn reflect on my remarks. I certainly did not wish to convey that there was any other purpose behind this clause. It is not framed to achieve anything other than to ensure that the authority has sufficient powers to take the necessary steps to organise itself in preparation for making the transfer scheme.
In relation to the words in the clause,
"Without prejudice to any powers of the Authority apart from this section",
I sought to indicate that it may he that the authority would have sufficient powers without Clause 3. The process would, however, be far more cumbersome and would almost certainly require greater administrative costs. As I indicated, I do not consider that to be a desirable way to proceed. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord about this matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He will appreciate that this is a probing amendment. It was the only convenient way in which we could tease from the Minister the information that I sought at this stage of the Bill. On the basis that he and I will spend days and nights consuming each other's words to our mutual dissatisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Successor companies]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Disposal by Authority or Secretary of State of shares in successor companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Extinguishment of certain liabilities]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("except with the consent of the Treasury") and insert ("unless a draft of an order approving such an exercise of a power has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 15. They concern Clause 10, the rubric of which is:

909
"Extinguishment of certain liabilities".
I assume—again the noble and learned Lord may educate me on this matter—that the lines that I wish to leave out (page 5, lines 35 to 37) are there for technical reasons. One would always insert such lines. The only reason that I suggest they be taken out is in order to make my points about draft orders being placed before both Houses of Parliament.
I am always concerned when liabilities are "extinguished". It is another way of saying that the assets are being sold but the taxpayer still retains the liabilities. That is what "extinguishment of liabilities" means. Liabilities do not disappear. The Government are not passing an Act of Parliament stating that the liabilities do not exist any more. I take "extinguishment" to mean that the purchaser will not be subject to those liabilities and it is therefore a rather serious matter.
This has happened with other privatisation legislation. In my view, this question has not been sufficiently considered by both Houses of Parliament. I do not comment, now or on any other occasion, about the other place; but I am convinced that we in this place have not sufficiently considered these matters. In particular, in respect of other privatisations we have probably been a little lax in allowing liabilities to be extinguished and placed with the taxpayer when they should not have been. My reason for raising the matter is to place those views on record.
En passant, I have a general point to make about financial prudence which refers not only to this Bill but to all such Bills. If a company is privatised on fundamental grounds of prudent finance it is not, and would not be, right to use the proceeds of privatisation for the purposes of changing taxation. On any grounds of serious analysis of privatisation, the proceeds ought to be used for reducing the national debt. In other words, one merely exchanges one set of assets and liabilities for another.
One of the greatest mistakes of this Government over a good many years is that they have not proceeded with prudent finance in regard to privatisation. That point ought to have been made years ago and accepted. It applies to this privatisation, too, even though it will not yield a great deal of money. The correct approach is to say that this is an asset that should be sold, that it really belongs to the taxpayer, and that what the taxpayer requires is a reduction in the national debt, which is a liability in terms of paying interest, either long term or, in the case of consols, for ever and ever. The fundamental point that we need to consider is the extinguishment of liabilities and whether, when that sort of thing happens, this House ought to have a say. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord replies to the amendment, would he indicate whether, under Clause 10(2), where a limit is set on the aggregate amount of liabilities extinguished, the effect of that could in theory be that nothing at all is realised from the disposal of those assets and that the liabilities extinguished could equal the amount realised from their sale?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as currently drafted, Clause 10 enables debts of the authority to the National Loans Fund to be extinguished up to the value of the proceeds from the sale of AEA Technology, with the consent of Treasury and subject to a negative resolution by either House of Parliament. The clause is effectively drafted in a standard way, as found in other privatisations. The authority's debt is currently serviced largely by income earned from the commercial activities carried out by AEA Technology which are to he transferred by scheme. Some debt may also he transferred to the successor company. In addition, paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 permits the Secretary of State to make loans to a successor company while it remains publicly owned. Successor company debt may also be extinguished by order, again subject to a negative resolution.
Noble Lords may recall—I confess that I was not part of the process at the time—that my noble friend Lord Ferrers stated the Government's policy on the extinguishment of debt when the Bill was read for a second time. Perhaps I may recap. Authority debt extinguished will be matched by sale proceeds and, where successor company debt is extinguished, it will be either converted into debentures, repaid or offset against proceeds.
We have discussed a number of amendments designed to subject the actions of the Secretary of State to parliamentary scrutiny. But since any order extinguishing debt under this clause is already subject to parliamentary scrutiny, I suggest that the amendments have the quality of over-egging the pudding.
The clause only permits the extinguishment of authority loans up to the value of the proceeds. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, must, at least in theory, be yes, that could be the position. The proceeds will be paid to the Exchequer. The Exchequer will not be out of pocket because debt is written off rather than repaid from proceeds.
Provided that the calculations are done in present value terms—as stated at Second Reading, that is our firm intention—the net overall effect to the Exchequer will be the same. No one would suggest that the debt should not be repaid or written off against proceeds in that way. The Government's view is that Clause 10 provides the most effective mechanism for achieving that.
The debt transferred to, or incurred by, a successor company cannot be privatised. It will therefore either be converted into securities or extinguished. To the extent that the debt is not converted, there is no statutory restriction as to the amount which may be extinguished (as applies to authority debt) but an order to extinguish can only be made with Treasury consent. That consent will only be forthcoming in so far as proceeds cover the present value of the debt to be written off.
On more than one occasion I have indicated that we have no intention of privatising AEA Technology at any cost. But in the event that there was any reason to think otherwise, the control mechanisms placed on the Secretary of State by this clause already provide Parliament with the opportunity to bring him to task.

911
The noble Lord included in his remarks a set of more general observations about how these matters have been handled in previous privatisations. All I can say to him is that what has been done here is much the same as was done in previous cases. But this is not an appropriate moment for me to re-open that broader policy approach contained in earlier privatizations.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I was being rather mischievous in discussing the general question of public finance at this stage but I have to take my chances when I spot them. I thought that the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was central. In due course we should like to know—the point he made—what actually happens. There is the theoretical point that the net sum could be zero. It turns out that it cannot be negative at least. However, one hopes that we shall not be anywhere near the zero end of the spectrum and that there will be a considerable net benefit to the Exchequer whatever else happens.
I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's reassurance that there is still room for parliamentary scrutiny on some of these matters. In particular, subject to that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Transfer schemes: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 16.
Page 7, leave out lines 9 to 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 17. The purpose is to make sure that the Minister does not undervalue the assets of AEA Technology. My noble friend Lord Peston spoke earlier about that matter.
The main asset of AEA Technology is intellectual, and valuing intellectual property is very difficult and complicated. In fact, the intellectual properties are state assets and represent a considerable state investment in R&D. Therefore, it would seem sensible that before they are sold, some effort should be made to find out how much state money has gone into creating that intellectual property.
There is a widespread belief that the nation has been sold short on some privatisations by undervaluing the businesses. This amendment is designed to stop the Minister adding to that impression by assessing the cost. The Minister may not want to divulge the valuations but I am sure that he would want to know the costs of building up that intellectual property so that he has an approximate idea of the cost of what he is selling. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister responds to the point made so effectively by my noble friend, I want to stress that we are dealing with an industry which is in a way sui generis. It has been conceded over and over again during our debates and
912
in discussions elsewhere that the essential asset of this industry lies in the skills and expertise of the employees. That being the case, whatever reservations the Government may have about the concept of worker-directors, or the whole argument in that respect, they do not bear analysis in relation to this particular industry.
That, I believe, is the essence of the case that we seek to make with this amendment. I hope that the Minister will give us not just comforting words but some substance in response to the point that was made by my noble friend when he moved the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord said a little about the first amendment and the wording of lines 9 to 12 of Schedule 1. It follows that used in previous privatisation legislation where provision for a transfer scheme has been made. It removes any possible doubt that the property, rights and liabilities which are to be transferred can be defined generically as well as, or instead of, being itemised.
However, the noble Lord's more substantial point is to be found in relation to Amendment No. 17, which would require the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and certify a valuation of the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred under the scheme and to lay a copy of that valuation before Parliament before a transfer scheme could come into force. I hope that at the time that the noble Lord tabled the amendment, he did not know that I would make my announcement in relation to the first amendment and that the transfer scheme is to a single successor company of all the shares owned by the Secretary of State. I hope he will appreciate that in some respects it will be an odd exercise for the Secretary of State to undertake that task when that is what he is doing. More broadly, I commend the noble Lord for his concern to ensure that the taxpayer is not shortchanged.
I hope that I have now made clear that as one of their main objectives in selling AEA Technology the Government have to secure value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are not yet prepared to close off any sales options. It would seem inconsistent to ask us, as was being asked at one time, to do just that while at the same time taking the approach that the noble Lord takes in this amendment.
Perhaps I can offer three points to the noble Lord which may be of assistance in understanding our approach. First, as part of its ongoing responsibility for the audit of UKAEA, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General will wish to satisfy itself that the assets owned by UKAEA at the point the scheme was made are properly accounted for, either by remaining in UKAEA or being placed with the successor company. In that way nothing will fall between the cracks: assets will go with either the authority or the successor company.
Secondly, as I have already indicated, the making of a transfer scheme will not involve any assets leaving the public sector. The successor company will be owned by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, when it comes to the sale, the value of the assets in AEA Technology's balance sheet will be only one of the elements involved in determining

913
the level of proceeds and gauging whether it represents best value for money for the business. Certainly no useful purpose will be served by a special valuation exercise carried out several months in advance of the sale. The only result of that would be to introduce a further hurdle in the scheme-making and sale process and generate needless complexity, uncertainty and delay. AEA Technology will be valued primarily by reference to its current financial performance and also its future profitability. That valuation will reflect the current value of its IPR.
I hope that explains fully the position to the noble Lord and that he will appreciate that in a sense things have moved on from the time when he tabled the amendment, given the announcement I made as regards the first group of amendments.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I welcome the undertaking he gave at the beginning of the debate that there will be a unitary privatisation. However, I felt it would be useful to raise this point because when one is selling intellectual property it is often useful to know what the cost of it is. It is a difficult item to value and the major element in the sale is intellectual property. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) A transfer scheme shall not provide for the transfer of the employer's rights or liabilities in any contract of employment to any person unless that person is a company whose articles of association require one or more of its directors to be a person appointed by the Secretary of State from amongst person appearing to the Secretary of State to have had wide experience in, and shown capacity in, the organisation of workers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. As we have said before, this is a people business. The maintenance of good morale and employee relations is vital to its success, otherwise technical staff will leave or lose their creativity.
In other privatisations that aspect of managing the business has been rather poor. Because it is a people business we are particularly anxious that that should not be repeated in the privatisation of AEA Technology. The amendment goes back to the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, which gives the right to employees to have a representative on the board, and should help to maintain morale. At the same time, it is in keeping with the European directive on consultation. By including the amendment in the Bill, the Minister can demonstrate his European Union credentials. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that real worker involvement in, and commitment to, a business is desirable for any company. Companies should be encouraged to engage in a dialogue between management and employees. Indeed, many companies currently engage voluntarily in such activities. But the operative word in that sentence is "voluntarily".
914
The Government's general view is that the right people to manage the business are the management. While we welcome and encourage genuine, voluntary worker participation, we do not try to dictate to firms how they should run their affairs. Each has to develop the form of employee involvement best suited to it. We oppose the imposition of prescriptive, rigid structures which do not reflect the needs of the business and are not in the interests of either employers or employees.
That is a general proposition, but let me reiterate. The present management of AEA Technology is committed to a full programme of consultation and explanation to all employees through a range of mechanisms. AEA Technology is a people business and its people are its greatest asset. The present management fully recognises that; and so do we.
The Government believe that privatisation represents the best way forward for the business and its staff. I want AEA Technology to succeed in the private sector and I believe it will do so only if it has the freedom and flexibility to take advantage of the enormous opportunities in the market.
The board of a privatised AEA Technology will need to reflect the mix of skills and expertise necessary to manage a dynamic and forward looking company. It will want to involve its staff more directly in the development of the business. But how it does so is something best left to the company. It is not a matter for the Government, less still for statute.
While I appreciate the sentiments behind the tabling of these amendments, I believe that they can be dealt with on a voluntary, rather than a legislative, basis. That answer may not come entirely unexpectedly to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that the present management understands the real need and desirability of consultation.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for putting on the record that support for employee involvement is complete. I accept that he is satisfied that the management is committed to employee involvement. This is perhaps not the place to discuss styles of management. The Minister did not reply to the point in relation to the European directive and that, too, may be a topic for another occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 25, at end insert—
("Redundancy
.—(1) If any employee of the Authority is transferred to a new employer by a transfer scheme or otherwise and is declared redundant—

(a) the Authority's redundancy rules and benefits applicable to that employee at the date of the transfer shall apply unless the trade unions or other bodies representing the employees transferred by the transfer scheme have agreed to their modification for such employees; and

(b) the redundancy rules shall apply as if the Authority were the employer and all employees transferred from the Authority's employment by transfer schemes were employees of the Authority.

(2) This paragraph shall have effect for employees transferred on or after 1 March 1995.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before moving Amendment No. 22 I should like to make a short statement, bearing in mind that this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. In view of a report which appeared in a Sunday newspaper I should like to assure the House that when I speak from this Dispatch Box I do so on behalf of the Labour Opposition and for nobody else. I am sure that that is well understood by the Minister and his colleagues.
Reverting to Amendment No. 22, at Committee stage I moved an amendment in rather similar terms to this. However, there is a slight extension to the wording here. I said at the time that I would look very carefully at what the Minister said and would consult with the unions of those most concerned. I welcome the assurances that the Minister then gave about the application of the TUPE regulations, but there are still some major concerns. It is for that reason that I am returning to the matter on Report.
The present amendment seeks to protect the redundancy rights of those transferred out, first, by preserving the UKAEA redundancy rules and, secondly, by dealing with redundancy across the whole current UKAEA and making the authority liable to employees for the payments. Backdating the matter to March 1995, as the new wording suggests, protects the 950 ex-Facilities Service Division employees and the seven sold to EMS Medical on 31st March. Therefore, there is an extension of the last amendment.
Many employees fear that there will be more redundancies after privatisation and that a new employer will force them to accept worse redundancy terms. Since privatisation of the authority's Facilities Service Division on 31st March, the new owners have already declared 150 redundancies of the 950 staff concerned. AEA Technology is, I am informed, making more than 400 redundant in order to meet a profit target of £21 million in 1995–96. As is now unfortunately so usual, private employers seek to make profits by cutting staff and making those who remain work harder and sometimes longer hours. A substantial proportion (25 out of 60) unresolved surplus staff at 10th August are scientists and engineers and the rest are administrators, mostly accountants. UKAEA is failing to apply its redundancy agreement by not reducing overtime, using contractors and recruiting.
The Minister may well repeat his assurance today about the application of TUPE. But the problem here is that TUPE regulations only protect at the point of transfer. The unions are worried about subsequent changes to terms. Even without changing the terms, the scope for redundancy is much greater with smaller, private firms because obviously there is less scope for redeployment. I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are deep and genuine concerns here. Even highly qualified people now often have difficulty, particularly after a certain age, in getting alternative employment. It may be quite a time before such people can be employed elsewhere. If their redundancy arises, it will do so directly from the plans of the Government and their privatisation intentions. It seems to me that
916
such staff are entitled to much greater assurances as to their future than might otherwise have been the case. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when we discussed this issue in Committee, I assured the noble Baroness that AEA Technology employees will have all the protections in respect of redundancy provided by the TUPE regulations and that modifications to contractual redundancy rights will require the consent of the employees. As I understood her remarks, she accepts that that was a correct statement of the law. I am happy to repeat those assurances anyway.
This amendment not only has a wider, but also a retrospective effect. It would apply to all authority employees transferred to a new employer from 1st March 1995. In our view that is entirely inappropriate. The Bill is intended to deal with the privatisation of AEA Technology, and not with any other divestment that the authority may carry out under its existing powers. As regards the other divestments, the authority is in the same position as any other public enterprise. While we have stressed that this is "a people's business", I have heard no argument to justify treating authority staff differently from other public servants and indeed it would be inequitable to do so.
I am a little concerned that the noble Baroness, notwithstanding the assurance I gave her that TUPE would apply, should think that that might not be sufficient protection. TUPE ensures that employees join their new employer on the same terms and conditions as they left their old employer. The new employer has just the same rights as the old one; they can change an employee's terms and conditions of service with the employee's consent. That consent can either be given by each employee or, where there is a collective agreement, by the union on their behalf.
It is true that AEA Technology has already announced that some slimming down is likely to be necessary. The means by which it achieves that is a matter for the company. I know that it, intends to redeploy staff and also to use voluntary means to reduce numbers where that is considered appropriate. To provide for exception arrangements, as the noble Baroness's amendment would do, does not seem justified, particularly against the background of the very real security which is in any event provided for employees in law.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. As I expected, he has referred again to the TUPE regulations. As I said in moving the amendment, the problem is that I understand the employees concerned and their unions still feel that those regulations, in the particular circumstances of the privatisation, do not really give them as much security as they would like. Therefore, they want the amendment that I have put before your Lordships this afternoon and the retrospective element included in subsection (2) of the amendment.
As I indicated, although it is true that the TUPE regulations apply at the point of transfer, so that the individuals concerned have at that time the full

917
protection of their existing contracts of employment, there is not that protection thereafter. Therefore, people who joined the service originally expecting a considerable degree of security of employment may very well lose it as a result of privatisation. It is for that reason that it was felt necessary to bring these amendments once more before your Lordships' House. However, I do not expect that any further assurances can be obtained from the Minister today. We have done our best to ensure that people are protected in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Successor companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 not moved].
Schedule 4 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("sub-paragraphs (2) and (4)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (2)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am returning to these amendments again, as I did with the previous amendments, in the light of the discussion we had in Committee. The group of amendments with which we are concerned here is to do with pension entitlement. The amendments provide for the rights of people to stay in a UKAEA scheme who are divested by that company other than under the transfer scheme provisions of the Bill. They make that arrangement retrospective.
We had a detailed discussion in Committee when the Minister strongly put the Government's view that in the event of privatisation people could not opt to remain in a Civil Service scheme but that TUPE required comparable—that is to say, not less favourable provisions—to be made in respect of pensions. On our side we strongly pressed the point that that did not automatically mean that pensions in payment, for example, would be index-linked. Indeed, the Minister confirmed that that might well not be so.
He stressed that a different mix of benefits might be provided. I have to say that, from the soundings we have taken, index-linking remains a very strong concern on the part of those not directly involved. I understand that it is envisaged that index-linking up to 5 per cent. per annum is likely to be offered in line with recent pension regulations. However, that does not protect pensions in times of high inflation, which we may hope we shall not see again but about which no one can be sure.
I have received details of the present arrangements from the unions concerned. As with public service schemes generally, they are good. In particular, the index-linking of pensions in payment is guaranteed. As I said at Committee, people often enter public service with the idea that such employment is likely to be steady and secure, with good pension arrangements including indexation. In return for that they will often sell their services more cheaply than they would otherwise do in the private sector. They are prepared, in a sense, to barter away immediate gain in return for added security. However, now in middle age when they may not find it so easy to secure a reasonably good alternative job, they discover that the security of their pension provision has
918
been put at risk through no fault of their own, but simply because of government policies in relation to privatisation.
I take the view that in those circumstances it is not appropriate for the Government simply to rely on the argument about what is usual in the private sector. There is an obligation to look after the long-term interests of the people who have been displaced from the public sector in which they had expected to spend their working lives. Unlike the Government, I do not despise those who seek security for themselves and their families as distinct from taking their chances in an increasingly uncertain private market. It seems to me that that is a responsible attitude to life rather than the reverse. If the Government rob people of that certainty, there is an obligation to compensate them in some way by taking appropriate steps to continue the safeguards as far as possible.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis suggested to the Minister that he should look at what was done in relation to railway pensioners at the time of the Railways Act. I was involved in discussion of that legislation to some degree and my recollection is that in the end the Government made substantial concessions to railway pensioners, including the guarantee that the Government would stand behind the pensioners' entitlement. There is a section in that Act specifically to protect employees. I do not know whether the Minister has been able to think again about what was said in Committee, but I can assure him that the unions representing the workforce still feel strongly about the situation and it is in the light of that that we have tabled this series of amendments. I speak not only to Amendment No. 26, but to the other amendments in the group. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as is often the case when dealing with groups of amendments, the most interesting amendments may well be the last to be considered, such as Amendments Nos. 37 and 39. In advance of our consideration of those amendments, perhaps I may take this opportunity to explain how matters have moved on over the summer. It might be useful if I do so now rather than at a later stage.
It must clearly be wrong to suggest that a scheme without full index-linking cannot provide benefits comparable to the benefits currently received. There have been numerous occasions on which new schemes have been adjudged to be of comparable value to the old scheme although the new scheme does not guarantee full index-linking. I recognise the strength of feeling among employees about index-linked pensions. It was bearing that in mind and in the light of the further consideration given to the issue since the Bill was last before your Lordships that I am now able to go a little further than previously. The House may recall that in Committee I said that a fully index-linked scheme was not ruled out by the terms of the Bill. I can now say that not only is it not ruled out; it is one of the options that is being actively considered by AEA Technology as forming the basis of a new scheme for existing employees.

919
I believe that the House will understand why it would not be possible for me to give a commitment now that a fully index-linked scheme will be introduced. It is not within my gift. It will be for the employer company to make proposals—whether that is AEAT or a purchaser—on the form of the new scheme. The scheme would also be the subject of discussion and negotiation with the unions, taking into account the interests of employees and the welfare of the company. What is in the interests of the company must be in the interests of its employees as it is only with a fully competitive company that their jobs will be secured.
In addition, statutory consultation will be required under the terms of the Bill. It would not be right for me to prejudge the outcome of those consultations. I have given a commitment that they will be meaningful and I shall stick by it. I appreciate that those comments are slightly out of order, but as this is an important matter on which there has been some movement, and as I think that that is an important statement which the trade unions would like to hear, I have taken this opportunity to raise the matter now.
Returning to Amendments Nos. 26 to 32, we had a full discussion in Committee. We have no desire to do anything other than to ensure that employees who are transferred under the provisions of the Bill have their pension rights protected. That is why we have written on the face of the Bill statutory protection for employees to have a pension scheme which gives the same overall level of benefits as they currently enjoy. When employees are transferred from the public service (whether in privatisations or arising from contracting out) standard practice has been to end their membership of a public service scheme. Although I recognise that Amersham was an exception many years ago, I have to say that the practice of not being allowed to remain in a public service pension scheme is now consistently followed. We all want AEA Technology to compete effectively in the private sector. Ultimately, that is the only way in which jobs can be secured and their terms and conditions maintained.
We do not believe that it would he right for private sector employees to remain as members of a pension scheme which reflects the different circumstances of the public sector. That is no different from the practice in the private sector where schemes reflect the different circumstances of individual employers. The authority, as an employer, has devised its public service scheme to provide what it considers to he appropriate pensions for its employees. It is for the private sector employer to develop arrangements which are appropriate for its employees and the operation of its business. We see no reason why there should be an exception here.
The particular circumstances about which I was previously invited to comment—the invitation has been repeated today—relates to rail. Having considered the matter, it would appear that there is no parallel with the situation of AEA Technology. The rail industry already had a pension scheme in the private sector mould. That scheme could therefore be replicated in the private sector. That whole industry is moving to the private sector and the nature of the work means that there is
920
likely to be movement between the new companies. In that case, it was not unreasonable that the protection was given so that pension rights could accrue on the same basis while employees remain in the industry. The situation with AEA Technology is very different. The authority's pension scheme cannot be replicated in the private sector because it contains features which mean that the Inland Revenue would not grant it tax-exempt status; nor, as I have revealed, is it intended that there should be a plethora of companies between which employees can switch.
I apologise for taking a moment or two longer than usual to reply to a group of amendments, but I hope that what I have said sets the scene relating to the pension provisions which are the subject of the next group of amendments. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that statement which makes a considerable difference to the amendments that we have tabled. The Minister was right to say that the employees are very concerned about index-linking, a point that we have repeatedly made from this side of the House. I am very glad to have heard that statement from the Minister this afternoon. I am sure that employees in the industry will be glad to have had a statement to the effect that index-linking will be one of the options available under the new provisions. In those circumstances, it is certainly not my intention to proceed with the amendments this afternoon. To some extent what the Minister said deals with many of the issues that we had intended to cover under the heading "Pensions".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may intervene. This is such an important matter that I cannot have any employees misunderstanding the position. Perhaps I may repeat what I said. I said in Committee that a fully index-linked scheme was not ruled out by the terms of the Bill. That was understood. What I am saying is that not only is that not ruled out now, but it is one of the options which is being actively considered by AEA Technology as forming the basis of a new scheme for existing employees. I cannot give a commitment because it is not within my gift to do so.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we understand that the Minister cannot go further this afternoon. We are very grateful for that assurance. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 35 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 30, line 16, at end insert ("except that, where any person consulted under the provisions of sub-paragraph (3) above is not satisfied with any proposals made by the Secretary of State in the course of such consultations, the Secretary of State shall not make a direction under this paragraph until that person is so satisfied unless that person has unreasonably withheld his satisfaction.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36. The amendment refers to consultations and makes provision for anyone who is not satisfied to have arrangements withheld until he is satisfied. The amendment says that the person shall not unreasonably withhold satisfaction. The other amendments in the same grouping refer to consultation with the unions. This matter was discussed in Committee. Although I am very pleased with the statement that has already been made this afternoon, there is an issue about consultation and what is meant by "relevant unions". Last time round the Minister said that there would be consultation with the relevant unions. The concern is as to precisely what that means, who decides who are the relevant unions and matters of that kind. Those issues arise under the set of amendments which deal with consultation. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to respond.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am happy to respond briefly to this important point. I hope that during Committee I gave a clear commitment that trade unions, or persons who under the provisions of the Bill represented employees, would be consulted. I am happy to repeat that commitment today. It may be helpful if I say that, in the light of the announcement on vesting that I made in relation to the first group of amendments, the department has already given some consideration to the drafting of a consultative document on the issue of a direction under paragraph 3 of the schedule. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that that draft document includes in the list of consultees all of the relevant trade unions.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in the light of that statement I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the progress of business has been highly satisfactory. I am delighted that we have been able to achieve such a measure of agreement. In the circumstances, we appear to have made greater progress than that anticipated by some who are otherwise very familiar with the workings of your Lordships' House. I fear that it has rather taken them by surprise. Unless I keep talking for an unnecessary and inelegant period of time, I believe I have no option but to beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until five o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.53 to 5 p.m.]

Maghreb Countries' Relations with European Union: ECC Report
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the European Union and the Maghreb Countries (11th Report, HL Paper 58).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should perhaps begin by apologising to your Lordships for being taken unawares by the speed at which the previous debate concluded.
In moving the Motion standing in my name I should like to remind the House that next month the European Union is holding a major conference in Barcelona with its Mediterranean non-member neighbours. The purpose is to lay the foundation of a new Euro-Mediterranean partnership which will have political, economic and social dimensions, and for a number of reasons, the European Communities Committee of the House thought it right to look at that concept of partnership with particular reference to the Maghreb countries. It is their relationship with the EU which has largely set the pattern for articulating relations between Europe and the wider Mediterranean basin. They are leading recipients of financial assistance from the EU and from the European Investment Bank. They were the first among the countries on Europe's borders to press for a special relationship, and their interests have consistently coloured the Commission's policy towards the wider Mediterranean.
New association agreements were also under discussion with Morocco and Tunisia: and we had noted that at a time when Mediterranean issues were rising up the agenda of the EU, in this country there did not seem to be much interest in them, whereas the member states with borders on the southern Mediterranean had some very specific national interests to further, arising from geographical proximity, history and climate. We had noted also that the Commission seemed to be proposing greatly increased financial aid to the southern Mediterranean states at the expense of central and eastern Europe.
Having referred to what I call the special interests of the southern member states, I should, however, like to emphasise that Sub-Committee A, which prepared the report, needed little persuasion that it was in the interests of all the member countries of the EU for there to be stability on its southern as well as its eastern borders, and not just in the interest of those who might appear more directly threatened by illegal immigration or terrorism.
The importance of such stability is further underlined when it is remembered that the population on the southern shores of the Mediterranean is increasing so fast that by the early years of the next century two-thirds of the littoral population will be on the southern shore instead of, as at present, on the northern shore. We have however reservations about the best way to ensure that stability, and hope that the Government may bear those reservations in mind at the Barcelona conference.
Members of the committee visited Morocco and Tunisia, but we were not encouraged to go to Algeria, and our report does not deal with the internal situation there. We did, however, give a good deal of thought to the question of Islamic fundamentalism and to the likelihood of instability in Algeria spreading elsewhere in the region—the so-called domino effect. We took evidence from a wide spectrum of witnesses on that issue.
The first thing I should like to emphasise is the danger of applying the word "fundamentalism" as a kind of umbrella word of concern when talking about Islamic countries. In fact, they differ greatly, with, for example, most north Africans following the Sunni rite which does not have a hierarchical clergy, unlike the Shi'ite rite in Iran. More to the point, there is nothing wrong in people having a close attachment to their faith or in a close association between that faith and the state in which they live. For example, King Hassan is on record as saying:
"In Morocco we are fundamentalists and have been for 1200 years".
Nor is there anything in the Islamic religion which is a barrier to partnership with non-Islamic market economies. The danger arises when extremism takes over, and either the tenets of strict Islam are imposed by force or religion itself is used as a cloak for violence directed at political ends.
The consensus of our witnesses on that topic was that Algeria was a special case where political factors which have nothing to do with Islam have been the main cause of unrest and terrorism. That is not to minimise the seriousness of the Algerian situation or what appears to he the growing threat of Algerian inspired terrorism in France. It is however relevant to the likelihood of a domino effect elsewhere. Our witnesses thought that that was unlikely, and indeed instanced the comparative failure of the Arab Maghreb Union to show how different are the north African states.
We did not dissent from that somewhat reassuring view that the threat of widespread Islamic extremism in north Africa had been exaggerated, subject to one important caveat which meant we could not rule it out. That is that just as political factors unconnected with Islam have been at work in Algeria, so political factors could also drive instability and extremism elsewhere if there arose mass dissatisfaction with existing regimes because of internal economic conditions, democratic shortcomings, and, in particular, unemployment among the rapidly growing populations. That is why the purpose of the Barcelona conference is very relevant.
Our report was deliberately finalised in time for the Cannes Summit at the end of June, but reports of that meeting seemed to confirm our feeling that of the proposed three themes for Barcelona (the political security theme, the economic and financial theme, and the social and human theme) the economic and financial aspect deserves particular attention.
The other aspects are of course very important, but the most Barcelona seems likely to do on them is to adopt certain principles of neighbourly relations which, it is hoped, will be the start of a process of greater collaboration. In any case, we were clear that economic growth and prosperity are the key to stability in the region.
That does not however mean that a massive or indiscriminate increase in financial assistance to the Maghreb countries (or to the southern Mediterranean states generally) is the right answer. Clearly the Community's spending as a whole should not be increased beyond the agreed financial perspective and
924
any proposal for a significant diversion of aid from central and eastern Europe to north Africa would need careful weighing. Moreover the north African states are not poor by world standards. They are middle income countries which have already achieved an impressive measure of economic development. In the past few years both Morocco and Tunisia have enjoyed substantial rates of growth. Morocco had 10 per cent. last year and Tunisia has averaged 5 per cent. per annum since 1987. Both have done much to reform their economies with particular reference to their capital markets and trade regimes, and to embark on programmes of privatisation. Both need help to continue the modernisation of their economies and to maintain their economic health despite their rapidly growing population, but it is idle to suppose that the EU can just give them money to stop their people from emigrating. In our visits to Morocco and Tunisia the emphasis of almost everyone to whom we talked was on trade rather than aid.
The agreed long-term objective is of course a full free-trade area with the EU and that assumes particular importance when it is recognised that the EU accounts for 60 per cent. of Moroccan and 75 per cent. of Tunisian trade. It will, however, take time to achieve and, for example, Morocco and Tunisia will need a lengthy transitional period as they set about removing the tariff barriers which protect some of their uncompetitive industrial products.
In the medium term, we want to emphasise two points in particular. The first is agriculture where there are very strong feelings that the EU imposes unfair restrictions over the access, for example, of Moroccan tomatoes and Tunisian olive oil to the European market. It is argued that the EU has been liberal, for example, over the access of industrial products where the Maghreb countries are less competitive, and restrictive in discussions about the products that really matter to them, such as agriculture and fishing.
That feeling is all the stronger when it is remembered that the countries of north Africa are estimated to have lost around 600 million dollars-worth of trade a year as a result of the Uruguay Round. Help over agricultural products is absolutely crucial to them. We felt strongly that movement on agricultural access is the key to a successful Euro-Mediterranean partnership rather than aid and still less educational, cultural and social links.
Having said that, we recognise of course that the question of agricultural access to the EU is not an easy one. It raises the paradox that the member countries of the EU which are most at risk from instability in north Africa are also those which find it hardest to make the concessions that the Maghreb countries want. It is also relevant that a more liberal attitude would have considerable CAP costs as the CAP currently stands. But this is just another argument for further reform of the CAP, which enlargement to the East will require anyhow.
Having stressed the importance of trade, and in particular access for agricultural products, we accepted that there is a case for some moderate increase in financial assistance to the Maghreb countries. We have noted with approval that some rather extravagant earlier Commission proposals seem to have been scaled down

925
but we felt it important to stress that financial assistance should be more carefully targeted and more qualitatively evaluated than has often been the case under the current protocols. In particular, it should go to infrastructure investment to increase the attractiveness of the region for direct, private, foreign investment; and since these are middle income countries it should normally take the form of loans rather than grants.
The committee would like to thank the many witnesses, both in this country and in north Africa, who helped us with our inquiry. My personal thanks also go to the other members of Sub-Committee A and to our clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan. A special word of appreciation also goes to our specialist adviser, Mr. Jon Marks, whose detailed knowledge of the region was quite invaluable to us. Finally, I should like to thank the Government for their warm response to our report. I was particularly glad that the Government agree with the committee's view that:
"the Maghreb is a region where Britain could, and should do more".
I have referred already to the generally favourable impression which we formed of economic progress to date in Morocco and Tunisia. These achievements have laid the foundations for economic prosperity and we have no doubt that considerable opportunities for British business exist there. The United States and other European countries recognise these opportunities. Unfortunately, we were also struck by evidence of a widespread lack of knowledge and an incorrect feeling among British business not only that there are not the opportunities which exist but that these countries are still just a French preserve. That is untrue. Indeed, one of the things that struck us most in Morocco and Tunisia was the appetite for English language teaching, which the British Council is not always able to meet. More needs to be done to raise the awareness of British business not just to the economic opportunities there but also to the existing EU financial instruments which are under-used by our firms, and thus to increase the success rate of UK companies bidding for shares of EC-funded projects. We hope that in a small way our report on an area which has not hitherto been the subject of a Select Committee investigation in either House may help to stimulate such interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the European Union and the Maghreb Countries (11th Report, HL Paper 58).—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
5.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee A, I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to the report of the Select Committee because I believe that it contributes a great deal to the knowledge of that area. The Maghreb is a most important area and is likely to become even more so. Today we are being given the opportunity to express our views on the issue as well as drawing the attention of Members of your Lordships' House to the opportunities and threats that we perceive exist in the relationship between the Maghreb and the EU.
926
At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Coincidentally, it is his birthday today and I offer my congratulations. He has guided us through a veritable quagmire of economic, statistical and political data and made sure that the members of his committee had every opportunity to obtain as much information as possible from the witnesses both here in London and in north Africa.
The Maghreb is not exactly top of everybody's mind when considering either the global international scene or the EU scene but perhaps we should recall that Yugoslavia and its constituent parts was not top of mind some very few years ago. I am not suggesting for one moment that the tragedy of the area which used to be called Yugoslavia is in any way likely to be repeated but rather, I think, reminding your Lordships that political, economic and social developments do not proceed at a uniform pace throughout the world. Today's tourist area can so easily become tomorrow's area of conflict or of great concern which impinges on us all.
Links between the United Kingdom and the Maghreb have never been as strong as, for example, links between the individual member states of the Maghreb and France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. But we need no reminding that we are fellow members of the EU along with France, Spain, Portugal and Italy and, as such, are not left unaffected if there is a movement within the EU towards increased involvement with the area.
The post-colonial development of the Maghreb countries has varied in pace but all of them have, and continue to have, raised expectations of a viable economic future. That is understandable because any examination of the structure of these countries shows that they have many and varied valuable resources which could and should be harnessed for the benefit of the indigenous population. And it is not only the raw material resources that are impressive; the emphasis on education has resulted in big advances in the level of education of the populations as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew attention to the hunger for English language teaching.
But it is the very success of the education programme which causes me concern. As we have seen time and time again in various parts of the world, an emphasis on improved education, the goal of abolishing illiteracy and the aim to open higher education to an ever-increasing proportion of the population raises job expectations which cannot be met if there is insufficient investment in business activity. Time and time again we come up against the inability of 20th century man to grow investment in education and economic activity at a uniform pace.
There is another inability that occurs time and time again; namely, the inability of nations to overcome vested interests in the interests of their less advantaged friendly nation states. This is the case with the Maghreb. If in the course of taking evidence we heard once about tomatoes and olive oil we must have heard it dozens of times. The ever-recurring evils of the CAP were quoted time and time again. Yes, the southern EU states dearly wish for Morocco and Tunisia to thrive economically—but not at the cost of their agriculture. Of course, we can understand that. Of course it is a problem. Of course

927
the livelihood of farmers within the EU must be a consideration of us all. But there seems not a little hypocrisy in the actions of southern EU states calling upon the EU to help the Maghreb, yet roundly maintaining import controls against the produce of these countries, refusing to accept that by the strict imposition of such controls they are, in effect, worsening the situation of the Maghreb.
And there is another problem. Because of the sensitivity of any issue concerning the restriction of movement of peoples—particularly of refugees from undemocratic regimes—we seem to be loath to mention the fundamental problem which is almost universal throughout the world. I refer to the reluctance of countries to countenance widespread immigration. I fear that that is at the root of the demands within the EU for greater economic aid to the Maghreb. The southern EU states do not want and fear they cannot cope with, large-scale migration of people from the Maghreb to their country.
Just a few short weeks ago I had a long and rather heated discussion with an inhabitant of Montpellier who, quite rightly, pointed out the huge changes that had had to be made to that beautiful city in the past few decades to cope with the migration of Algerians and other nationals. He was not too happy to think that similar adjustments, construction projects for housing and job creation schemes would have to be undertaken in the future to accommodate the probable inflow of young Moroccans and young Tunisians searching for means to fulfil their raised economic and social expectations. That really is the nub of it all.
And what can be done about it? The classic response of the economist is the correct one: encourage greater wealth creation by freeing the economy from barriers to trade. Of course, that involves investment in infrastructure projects; inward investment in manufacturing enterprises; investment in training to improve technical skills; and export of know-how to the area. All of this sounds like a litany for UK involvement, but that is not the only solution.
Yes, there are great opportunities for this country in the Maghreb—opportunities which too few businesses seem to wish to take. I fear that it is much more attractive for UK businesses, and much easier, to deal with countries where English is the lingua franca. Our national aptitude in foreign languages still appears to be below what we might have expected following so many years of exhortation by business, industry, government and the education sector. There are, of course, notable exceptions and recent efforts have been made in terms of trade missions but I hope that this debate this evening achieves the acknowledgment that in the Maghreb there is a very big opportunity for the UK, not only to benefit from a growing economic area, but also genuinely to help less economically advanced nations.
The subject of the Select Committee report is not, of course, relations between the Maghreb and the UK but the Maghreb and the EU. We must prevail, yet once more, upon the other EU member states to consider most carefully the damage which could be, and almost
928
certainly will be, caused to the whole Mediterranean area if the CAP continues to militate so unfairly against the logical business of the Maghreb countries.
I was struck, only yesterday, by the number of geographical areas within just a few hours flying time from Heathrow where a peace process is being undertaken. We were asked in our church to pray for: the peace process in Northern Ireland; the peace process in Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia; and the peace process in the Middle East. I hope that we do not have to add a fourth area to that list; namely, the peace process in the North African states of the Maghreb. It is not, sadly, too far-fetched to suggest that if efforts are not made to meet the natural and understandable expectations of this region, there could be political instability leading to widespread conflict.
We are constantly being told by analytical journalists that we are no longer a great power, we no longer indeed have any power; this is not the time to refute that statement. What we still have—and in great measure—(certainly way above the proportionate size of our geographical area or the size of our population) is influence. We should seriously consider using our influence to assist the peoples of the Maghreb to reach their economic, social and political expectations in three positive ways. First, we should work even harder to gain universal acceptance within the EU that the CAP must be changed to allow greater access to EU markets for the producers of the non-EU Mediterranean and North African countries. Secondly, we should encourage even greater effort by UK business to invest in the Maghreb—particularly in the area of know-how. Thirdly, we should adopt a supportive stance to the aspirations of the Maghreb as it moves to more democratic structures.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, throwing money at the region—although the noble Lord expressed the matter more eloquently when he referred to massive or indiscriminate funding‹—which always seems to be the knee-jerk reaction to any problem, provided it is not our money, is not the answer. Debates such as this are not the answer either, but they draw attention to a situation which can be perceived as a threat. But in the well-worn phrase: there are no such things as problems, there are only opportunities. I believe that we have a great opportunity to influence the development of that area; to lessen the tension; and to encourage its economic progress.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us this opportunity to learn more about the area. I hope that this increase in knowledge can be used to good effect.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too pay my tribute to the work done by Sub-Committee A on this particular subject under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The arrangement of the agenda, the selection of witnesses, the hearing and in some cases cross-examination of witnesses finally

929
elicited a good deal of factual information which has been reproduced in the earlier sections of the report which we are debating this afternoon.
I shall seek to deal with only a limited aspect of the report; namely, the financial aspects and possibly also the United Kingdom's contributions from taxpayers' money into the various projects which have been suggested.
Initially I wondered why the proposals that were made by the Commission for aid to the non-member Mediterranean states, of which the Maghreb countries are only three, were actually made and what lay behind them. Was it that the Commission had undertaken its own researches into the real needs of the countries concerned or was there some other reason?
The Commission has been extremely frank in stating the main reasons for bringing forward the proposals which involve the expenditure of some millions of ecus and therefore pounds. I invite your Lordships to turn to paragraph 87 of the report at page 31 where the Commission's role in this is discussed. It says:
"The Commission's Communication",
that is in regard to the Maghreb,
"was drafted in response to a request from the Corfu European Council in June 1994. According to Mr. Wright of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the motivation behind the paper was that 'the EU and particularly the southern Member States have been keen to pay regard to their southern neighbours in the Mediterranean to balance the recent development of relations with central and east European countries"'.
That seems to me to be the prime motive behind the Commission's original proposals. I suggest that the quotation that I have just given underlines that fact. There was no particular zeal by the Commission itself to proceed ahead with a number of stated and described projects—none at all. Indeed, our own report mentions the absence of any real detail on how the Commission proposes to spend the money.
The question is one of balance. That surprises me somewhat because I should have thought that if the proposals envisaged the expenditure of money the Commission might, quite properly, have some regard to the normal canons of cost-effectiveness and value-for-money which are so warmly supported alike by Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. But, no, nothing of the kind. That is reflected in the final conclusions of the committee at page 38 of the report which says that,
"it is no good offering money to the Maghreb States as a substitute for making the concessions, particularly over agricultural access, which [is what] they really need".
The committee goes on to say:
"Full free trade with the EU is a desirable goal for them but aside from the question of agricultural access it is clear that Morocco and Tunisia will need a lengthy transitional period in removing their tariff barriers on industrial goods".
It could not be clearer than that. The odd thing about it is that the proposals come at a time when the Government have been seriously worried on the whole question of the environmental issues in central and eastern Europe—the PHARE programme. If noble Lords refer to CM 3011 published in October of this year they will find that those extra demands for aid (for largely unspecified purposes)
930
have come at a time when the Government are seriously worried about the steps being taken in practical terms under the PHARE programme.
I should have thought that the reaction of the Government in such circumstances, rather than giving general support to what remains a fairly amorphous idea of the Commission for aid to the non-member states in the Mediterranean, would have been to concentrate their efforts in getting proper value for money and rendering real aid in the programmes to which they are already committed in the eastern states under the PHARE programme. It is far better to do something well first than to contribute or prejudice doing well in existing fields by going into other fields which are essentially of a dubious nature.
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the question of the common agricultural policy. It was made quite clear in most of the evidence received by the committee that what was necessary in the Maghreb states—indeed, in Morocco and Tunisia in particular—was the ability to sell their produce in the European market. That is the principal, and most important, way of enhancing the structural and material fortunes of the peoples in those areas. Yet what has really happened is that the Commission itself is of course conscious of that defect and of the fact that the CAP is not playing fair by those Mediterranean countries and wants to offer some form of recompense by the provision of finance. That is really what it is all about.
I suggest that that is the wrong way to go about it. There should be a proper appraisal on what is really necessary to revive the economic fortunes and to increase the prosperity of those regions. As the noble Baroness said, that must include practical measures to eliminate some of the worst effects of the CAP on some of those countries as a principal way of contributing towards their future success. Then, after that, if money is to be spent—and there are quite large sums involved—it should be possible to assess the situation and give a closer idea of what the Commission thinks the money should be spent on. However, as the report says, that has not been done.
Since the report was published the European Community has issued another proposal on financial and technical measures to support the reform of economic and social structures in Mediterranean non-member states. Of course, they include states from the Maghreb countries, but go far wider than that; indeed, other countries include Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Syria, Turkey and the occupied territories in the West Bank. So a new, overall regulation has been brought forward on which the Government issued an explanatory memorandum—No. 9112/95 (COM.95) 204 final)—in which they say that the proposal is for a regulation in support of the "budget line (B7.410)" for financing the technical and financial co-operation requirements. The memorandum goes on to say that the Regulation proposes commitments of about £3.302 billion in order to be able to do so.
As we are discussing money and the budget line, I should like to refer to a relevant item in the European Community Budget for 1996. I refer the House to page 1061 of Volume 4 Section III of the Draft General Budget which deals with the Commission's budget for 1996. I should like to quote what is said in regard to the total

931
appropriation which in 1996 will amount to £204 million. In 1997 it will be £186 million, in 1998 it will be £130 million and in subsequent years it will be £146 million. The following is what is actually proposed:
"This appropriation is intended in particular to cover the financing to:

—support economic transition (by backing up the process of modernization and economic reconstruction of the Mediterranean non-member countries …

—achieve a better socio-economic balance (inter alia by contributing to the improvement of the social services, balanced and integrated rural development, the commitment of civil society to development, support for education and cultural exchanges, the strengthening of democracy and human rights and protection of the environment)".

Moreover, it is also for,
"the promotion of regional cooperation".
In essence:
"It also covers expenditure on studies, meetings of experts, conferences, congresses, information and publications directly linked with the achievement of the objective of the measure of which they form an integral part … Also charged to this article is expenditure on operations and other measures of a horizontal nature designed to enhance the profile or increase awareness of the European Union which are directly linked with the achievement of the objectives of the European Union's action in the Mediterranean non-member countries".
Indeed, I could go on. However, what is not said is what assessment has been made as regards the projects upon which the money will be spent. I ask your Lordships—and the House is already acquainted with my somewhat sceptical views—where's the beef? What will the money be spent on? The answer is that it will be spent, to a large extent, on propaganda. I do not believe that is the right way of going about it. It is proposed to proceed under Article 235 of the treaty. In order that we may be better acquainted with that, I remind your Lordships that Article 235 of the treaty states:
"If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures".
I put this matter quite succinctly to the Government. What on earth have these proposals to do with the enhancement of the Common Market? Have they not more, as their objective, the enhancement of the powers of the European Commission itself; its ability to publicise itself; and its ever growing desire to appear, ahead of all the member states individually, as being the real power that is moving Europe? Your Lordships may think that that is rather a jaundiced view.
The House has done me the honour of listening to a number of my remarks in the past and the House may think that view is somewhat confined to me, and may be a little idiosyncratic. I think not. I think that on the basis of the evidence available to us these proposals have nothing at all to do with the purpose of the Common Market prescribed in Article 235 and that this House should look at them critically. The Government should examine these proposals in budget committee and in the Council of Foreign Ministers to see whether the expenditure that is so far proposed, of which we bear a large percentage, cannot be quite drastically reduced.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, in one respect at least I wish to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and with those of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and that is in the warm appreciation of the chairman of Sub-Committee A, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who has guided us with his customary calm, good humour and wisdom through a difficult subject. He has presented the report today in ways which require but few additional comments.
My brief comments have to do with four aspects of the relationship between the European Union and the Maghreb and Britain's interest in it. The first aspect is that we are here dealing in an important respect with European Union foreign policy; in other words, not with the Treaty of Rome but with the Treaty of Maastricht, and with the question of what exactly the interests of the European Union in foreign policy may be. My own view is that if and when it becomes fully apparent that economic and monetary union will either not happen, or will be seen not to contribute to European co-operation, foreign policy will gain in importance in the framework of European Union action. My view is also that no good case can be made for a European Union foreign policy which deals with the whole world, as it were. However, a good case can be made for an interest of the Union and its members in what one might call the "near abroad" of the European Union. This near abroad is not east central Europe. East central Europe, in my understanding, is an area of future membership, and, one would hope, membership at an early date. The near abroad is essentially two regions: the former Soviet Union and the Mediterranean. It is in these two areas that we have a massive common European interest, and it is for that reason that paragraph 94 of the report is so welcome when it states that we view what is proposed in the context of this interest.
My second comment concerns the problem itself. It is a familiar one but one cannot repeat it too often. Either we contribute to improving the conditions under which people live and work in the precarious countries around this European space or we shall suffer significantly from the pressure which is exercised by these people. I say "pressure" because we are not just, perhaps nowadays not even primarily, talking about immigration. We are talking as much—and, as we see in France, even more than we thought we would—about terrorism, crime and the pressure which small groups can exercise in the name of larger communities (although their communities have usually not been asked) on the members of the European Union. In my view, for reasons of simple interest we have to do everything we can to enable people to live and to prosper in peace in their countries. That is the motive for Europe to take an interest in its near abroad in the Mediterranean and most particularly in the Maghreb countries.
My third point is by now familiar but it is right that we should repeat it as often as we can. Supporting people in these countries is not primarily a matter of giving them money. There may be infrastructure projects which are of legitimate interest, for instance, to the European Investment Bank or to other institutions, and for which a case can be made once they have been properly

933
assessed—I entirely agree with that—but basically it is a question of enabling these countries to export what they can produce best. That means being prepared to import what they produce. As one who has never given up hope in the European Union and has therefore a much more positive view of that creature of post-war political effort than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I am nevertheless—I have to put it in strong language—fed up with having to apologise for what the European Union does when I talk to my friends and others. However, here is yet another example where those of us who are in favour of European co-operation based on interest have to apologise because what the Union and the Community have done so far is to insist that these countries open their markets to our industrial products while at the same time keeping our markets closed to their agricultural products. That simply will not do. I suspect that we will pay an enormous price if we go on acting in this way. That is another point which I see as the background to our report and the attempt to draw to your Lordships' attention an important area of European foreign policy.
I come to my fourth and final point. Let us make no mistake, the road to development is rocky. For all of these countries, as in the case of east central Europe and the former Soviet Union, development leads through a valley of tears and a very difficult phase. Let us not be simplistic about expectations of economic development. The initial phase of economic development is, for many people, one of uprooting, uncertainty and expectations which in many respects are not satisfied. It is in that period in particular that assistance and co-operation are needed.
In the committee we were pleased to see the progress made by Tunisia. We were left with the hope that Morocco, which is in a more difficult position, may find a way through that valley. We were not persuaded that there are yet convincing signs of a similar path forward for Algeria. One can hope that there will be a form of reverse positive domino effect and that successful countries will have a positively infectious effect on their less successful neighbours. However, there will be a considerable period in which intimate co-operation is one of the necessary conditions of progress. That is why Barcelona is important and why there is need for agreements which establish bodies for co-operation. We, in your Lordships' House, with the limited means at our disposal, should express support for progress in the Maghreb countries.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in the subject of the debate in that I am the only British member of the Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco, which was established by King Hassan in 1980 to study the issues and problems affecting the role of Morocco in the world. It is a body which consists in equal numbers of Moroccans—politicians, academics and scientists—and of foreigners. Some of the foreign members may be familiar to your Lordships' House. They include Dr. Kissinger from the United States, Anatoly Gromyko from Russia and Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. The body also includes members from most Islamic countries, including Iraq, Tunisia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It meets in plenary session twice a year.
934
I mention the academy by way of introduction in some detail because at our last plenary meeting held in Lisbon in May this year the subject to which His Majesty the King invited us to address ourselves was the future of the European Union and the Mediterranean countries. With the valuable and indispensable help of our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I presented a paper at that plenary meeting. In the debate which followed the concerns of the people of the Maghreb countries were articulated in a way which impressed me enormously. As a result I have been placed in a position especially to recognise the quality and importance of the report which has been so impressively introduced in your Lordships' House today by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
I should like to join in the congratulations, which I am sure will be echoed throughout the House this evening, to my noble friend and his colleagues on Sub-Committee A on producing a most thorough and valuable report. It has contributed enormously to enlightenment and understanding of the problems of an area which is too frequently far from our minds in this country as we concentrate on more important aspects of what an earlier speaker called the near abroad, in other words the countries of eastern Europe.
Perhaps the most important contribution that the report has made is in the context of its observations and reflections on Islam, and especially in its emphasis upon the inaccurate and ill-informed use which is so prevalent in public debate and especially in the press of this country, of the word "fundamentalist", as though fundamentalism were in some way synonymous with terrorism, violence and extremism. To many Moslems and followers of the Islamic faith fundamentalism is nothing more sinister than a desire to establish the society in which they live and the government which governs them on the values and moral codes of Islam. It seems to me that there is nothing more sinister in that than there might be in a desire to establish a society based on Christian or Jewish values. That is what fundamentalism means to most Moslems and followers of Islam. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth said, it has been pointed out by King Hassan of Morocco that Moroccans have been fundamentalists for 1,200 years. There is no connotation of political violence in the Islamic fundamentalism of the Moroccan monarch or his people.
I hope that what I have to say may go further than the confines of this noble House. The use of fundamentalism as a pejorative term synonymous with something undesirable causes great offence to many Moslems and many devoted and peaceful followers of the Islamic faith. There are, of course, terrorists and extremists from the world of Islam. However, as we all know, there are terrorists and extremists from the worlds of Christianity and Judaism also. We would do a service to the public debates on these issues if in future we were a little more accurate in our use of language and referred to people as terrorists and extremists if they are terrorists and extremists but did not refer to them as Islamic fundamentalists. That is patronising and offensive.
The fact that the term is used in a loose and ill-informed way is only a part of something much bigger. It is part of the dangerous gulf of suspicion and misunderstanding which is growing up between the whole world of Islam

935
and the West. Recently an American historian and analyst called Samuel Huntingdon wrote a serious and well-researched article in an American magazine in which he referred to the new clash of cultures and expressed the theory that with communism defeated and the Soviet empire in a state of disintegration the new threat to the security of the West was Islamic fundamentalism. As recently as last Thursday there was an article in The Times in which a member of the American Administration referred to the dangers of the domino effect of Moslem and Islamic fundamentalism spreading across the countries of North Africa.
The report of the Select Committee has made it clear that in the view of the committee—and it is a view with which I fundamentally agree—there is no such danger as the danger of the domino effect, or, if there is such a possibility, it is not an immediate danger. The committee considers that the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism creating conditions of instability and violence in the Maghreb countries of north Africa are remote. I agree entirely with the conclusion which the sub-committee has reached in that respect.
However, there is an important antithesis. As the report says, there is the danger of economic problems in the Maghreb countries which might provide a fertile ground for extremism if it should spread beyond the boundaries of Algeria, where at present its nucleus exists. It is there, I believe, that the critical and crucial importance of the policy of the European Union towards the Maghreb countries lies. The most important thing that the European Union can do now is to attempt to promote stability in the Maghreb countries by helping them to continue on the path of economic development which, in the case of Morocco and Tunisia, they have so successfully followed up to now.
For the last few moments of my intervention I should like to focus on Morocco which is the country that I know best. It is a constitutional monarchy. It is true that, as the report said, the king is at the centre of power; no one denies that. However, it is a constitutional monarchy with an elected national assembly. The king is a thoughtful, constructive and subtle political leader. There is in Morocco a history of religious tolerance; it has a thriving, flourishing and fully tolerated Jewish community. As the report points out, Maimonides and Pope Silvester III were entertained and welcomed at the University of Fès, the oldest university in the world. The significance of that is not to be overlooked. As I need hardly point out, Pope Silvester III was Christian, but what might not be equally well known is that Maimonides—perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for saying that in the report Maimonides has suffered from a severe case of printer's revenge because his name has been badly mangled! Maimonides was the Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, the great Jewish philosopher of the 12th century, who spent time at the university of Fès in Morocco. He was welcomed there, as was Pope Silvester.
Those are both manifestations of the religious and political tolerance which characterises the political culture of Morocco. I discovered recently at the conference in Lisbon that Morocco urgently seeks closer
936
ties with the European Union. The King of Morocco—I think with some justification—regards his country as the junction point, the crossroads between Europe, Africa and the Arab world. As the report points out, there is a profound ignorance generally in the West about Morocco, and especially in this country where it is regarded as some kind of French chasse gardée because of the relatively brief time in which Morocco was a French colonial country.
There are great opportunities for British industry and business in Morocco. However, above all Morocco is a case history underlining the danger of regarding Islam as a great monolithic entity. Morocco is as different from Libya or Iran as Turkey is from Pakistan or Brunei; they are all Islamic countries. I suggest, therefore, that the United Kingdom should continue on its present twin-track, approaching a free trade area in the Maghreb as part of a European/Mediterranean partnership, but continuing to pursue its bilateral interests in the Maghreb, especially in Morocco. I know that the Government recognise that countries such as Morocco wish to diversify away from their traditional suppliers, especially from France. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, pointed out, there is an interest in acquiring the English language for business purposes. There have already been structural reforms and privatisation programmes in Morocco and there is great opportunity for our business and industry to prosper there.
Furthermore, the important final point I wish to make is that Britain shares with its European Union partners an interest in working to reduce the potential causes of instability in the Maghreb countries to the extent that any outsiders can, because it is largely a matter for the countries themselves—and the primary instruments of any influence that we can bring to bear in the area are economic because the root causes are economic. There is no direct security risk to Britain or to Europe in any military sense (although there are concerns about terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction). But it is internal stability that counts and it is internal instability that would damage trading prospects, damage investment prospects and damage general political interests in the region. It is in that area that I believe that the European Union, with Britain at its heart, can play an important role.
I close by expressing the hope that later this evening we shall hear something about the line that Her Majesty's Government will be taking in the European Union as they prepare for the important conference in Barcelona next month.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee A, I too would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the skill and patience with which he guided us through evidence which was always useful and often most interesting. As he pointed out, the Union has been considering its relationship with the countries to the east and also those to the south—the whole Mediterranean region. As is emerging, different solutions are proposed. The eastern countries will eventually be offered full membership,

937
but the Moslem countries of the Mediterranean will, it is hoped, join some permanent economic relationship short of full membership. That is to say, apart from Cyprus and Malta.
Following our report, the European Council met at Cannes on 26th and 27th June. The presidency conclusions accept, to some extent, how important it is for the European Union to help the Mediterranean area. Perhaps I may quote those conclusions which specifically refer to,
"a Euro-Mediterranean area to be established on the basis of free trade and partnership in a maximum number of areas".
However, as often pointed out, we have to remember that the Maghreb countries have largely farming populations. Therefore, to be effective, the help that is given must be in the agricultural sector. As many people told us when we met them in Morocco and Tunisia, trade is more important than aid. It is therefore probably unfortunate that the presidency conclusions would seem to offer a quicker move to free trade in manufactured products while being hesitant about progress in the agricultural sector. I quote:
"Taking as a basis, traditional trade plans, and as far as the various agricultural policies allow"—
I emphasise that last phrase—
"trade in agricultural products would be progressively liberalised through reciprocal preferential access".
That does not suggest urgency. The Moroccans would say that they grow better tomatoes than anyone in Europe and the Tunisians maintain that their olive oil is the best in the world. But our report points out that it would be difficult for some member states of the Union to accept access of such agricultural products. Spain would resist the entry of an additional Moroccan tomato and Italy would not greet the entry of Tunisian olive oil with any pleasure at all unless, may be, it saw the opportunity of re-exporting it as Italian. In truth, as frequently pointed out this evening, the CAP is becoming more and more of an impediment to Europe's true economic progress.
Not only are the principles of the CAP at loggerheads with the free market assumptions on which the single market is based. Another of your Lordships' sub-committees has already pointed out to the House that the admission of the eastern European countries to full membership of the Union will require the most drastic amendment of the CAP. Now, a committee of this House finds that CAP considerations tend to impede the best help that the Union could give to the Maghreb countries and the kind of trade relationships those countries most desire.
The evidence of Mr. Nigel Varney of the Home Office is worth some attention. It gives further urgency to the need for imaginative assistance in the agricultural sector. He pointed out that Morocco is a large producer and exporter of cannabis. More than half of the cannabis seized in the United Kingdom originates in Morocco. In 1993, 63 per cent. of all cannabis resin seized in Europe came from Morocco. Moreover, a cannabis route having been opened, it is used for smuggling other drugs, m particular cocaine, brought into Morocco from South Africa and then smuggled into Europe.
938
In Morocco—a country of just over 26 million people—some 5 million, especially in the Rif region in the north of the country, are dependent in one way or another upon the cannabis trade. Clearly, it would be greatly to everyone's advantage to find alternative employment for those people. But converting to other crops will be a long and very expensive process: it takes time to grow other crops to the point where they become truly productive. In any case, growing drugs is much more profitable than growing more orthodox agricultural products. In short, it still has to be proved that the Union has the will to carry through the kind of agricultural development that is needed in Morocco and in the Maghreb more generally.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to a technical, though not unimportant, matter. Miss Marie-Christine Kerr, of Banque Paribas, explained to us how the successful financing of projects in Morocco and Tunisia requires regard to be paid to the policies of other governments. The viability of a contract often turns upon a government's willingness to make available mixed credits in a financing which that government are prepared to soften with aid.
Not all contracts with developing countries are eligible for mixed credits. Thus the so-called Helsinki accord, which came into force in 1992, laid down that OECD countries cannot apply mixed credits to projects that are in the themselves commercially viable, for instance, energy products, oil, gas, or indeed manufacturing projects. Mixed credits can, however, be supplied for projects that are not self-supporting. These are mostly in the important social sector, such as water and transport: roads, dams, and so on.
The problem arises because our Government have gone further than other developed countries. In pursuance of our policy of restricting aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries, we have taken a unilateral decision to withhold aid and mixed credits if the developing country concerned has a GDP per head of more than 700 dollars per annum. That rules out the possibility so far as this country is concerned of mixed credits in Morocco and Tunisia. Indeed, many other developing countries are caught in that trap. In the Mediterranean area alone, it applies to Turkey and Lebanon. And there are others throughout the world, such as Thailand and Colombia.
In Morocco and Tunisia, British contractors are often competing with those of France, Italy and Spain. Because those countries apply protocols or lines of mixed credits of considerable size, competition becomes very difficult. Sometimes the project may be supported from elsewhere, for example, the African development bank, or through EU or Arab money. But if no such multilateral aid is available, it is hard for British contractors to beat a 30 to 40 per cent. subsidy from a competitor country's government.
How much business does Britain lose because of its aid rule? Let us take the Mediterranean region alone. Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Lebanon are caught in the trap. Of course, it is always difficult to prove a negative. One responsible estimate that I have seen puts the figure for the loss at £100 million a year.

939
I hope that today the Minister may be able to help us with this problem. It seems to some of us that in Morocco and Tunisia the policy thrust of the DTI and that of the ODA do not fit well together. I suspect that many of us who have experience in developing countries are in favour of the general principle that, broadly, aid should go to the poorest people in the poorest countries. But do we need to apply the principle with such rigour that our contractors cannot compete with those of other OECD countries in respect of such projects as clean water, irrigation and health? That applies particularly in countries such as Tunisia and Morocco where broader European considerations make our participation desirable at a time when those countries wish to widen their economic and trade relationship beyond one of French predominance and forge a new Anglo-Saxon relationship.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, in making a short contribution to this debate I do so at the risk of being accused of having a one-track mind. My subject, as some noble Lords will already have guessed, is the knotty question of the Western Sahara. It is indeed a knotty question. It is highly relevant to the future of the Maghreb region, since without a satisfactory solution it will simply be impossible for there to be a united Maghreb, however desirable that may be.
The report is flawed because it dismisses the problem of the Western Sahara in one small paragraph contained on page 16 and found in paragraph 40, sub-paragraph (c). Yet this problem of 20 years' standing is central to the establishment of the Maghreb region as a going concern. It appears to present one of the claimants to the territory—the Saharawis, represented by the Polisario Front—as illegitimate guerillas operating from camps in south-western Algeria. Saharawi people everywhere want the basic human right to live unmolested in their own country of the Western Sahara—not just the Polisario Front, which is another name for the Saharawi government in exile. The word "Polisario" itself can be misleading and is easy to exploit, conjuring up, as it does, images of a tottering old communist regime; whereas the truth is that the word derives from the geographical extremities of the old Spanish Sahara, whose boundaries were drawn up and agreed by the Berlin Treaty of 1884. That treaty set many of the boundaries of colonial Africa, most of which are still as we know them today. The word "Polisario" is derived from frente (Spanish for "Front")—Popular Liberation of the Saquit el Hamra and Rio de Oro, which are the two regions comprising the Western Sahara.
It is appropriate to go back a little in history, so that instead of a single paragraph in the report, barren of any explanation or background, your Lordships at least have a scanty understanding of why this problem exists and has done ever since 1975, when Spain began to withdraw from its colony. Spain began in earnest to colonise the area after exceedingly rich deposits of phosphates were discovered late in the 19th century.
940
Along with many other European colonial powers, Spain made little effort to benefit the local indigenous population. It must be said in fairness to Spain that that was often very difficult to do, even if the desire to do it had been present, because until the 1930s most Saharawi people led nomadic lives, following in their age-old traditions. It was not until towns and villages began to expand and acquired some status and reputation as growing commercial centres that those ancient habits started to change. Their eventual, near total demise was finally hastened by the drying up of wells and feeding grounds for the herds of camels and goats which used to follow set seasonal patterns throughout the nomadic year.
The indigenous population began settling in the expanding towns in ever-increasing numbers. They established all manner of businesses and commercial establishments. Many of them became entrepreneurs and the capital city, El Ayoun, became a free trade port, which greatly encouraged further commercial expansion.
Going along with that was a growing national movement which came to be known as the Polisario Front. It sought to achieve independence—as, indeed, every other colony in Africa seemed to be doing successfully at the time, although the Algerian struggle for independence from France turned out to be an exceptionally long and bloody one, with over 1 million dead on each side. By the mid-1970s, the struggle was beginning to take its toll on Spanish resolve to hold on to her colony. In 1975 she eventually withdrew, promising—this is a very important point to remember—the Saharawi people a UN-led referendum on their own future. That referendum has not taken place. At first it was blocked by Franco, who in 1975 was still causing havoc. Instead, a secret tripartite agreement was cooked up in Madrid. It divided up the former Spanish colony between Morocco and Mauritania, with Spain retaining a healthy interest in mineral extraction.
Morocco invaded from the north and Mauritania from the south. The Moroccans called it the "green march". It presented to the world a peaceful, civilian reoccupation of the territory taken from Morocco by the Treaty of Berlin, to which I have already referred. But also marching 10 miles away, hidden from the attention of the world's cameras, was the Moroccan army, armed to the teeth with equipment obtained from the West and occupying the region which was one of several claimed by Morocco. Those claims go back long before the Berlin Treaty. Indeed, Morocco still has outstanding territorial claims, which she has never withdrawn, against Algeria.
That invasion was particularly brutal. After the Western cameras and television crews had returned home, the Moroccan air force went into action, bombing the capital city, towns and villages, causing thousands of casualties and forcing the civilian inhabitants to flee into the open desert where they established makeshift refugee camps. Those, too, were bombed. So the only remaining solution was for the people to make for the sanctuary of neighbouring Algeria, over 700 miles away across a burning, empty, waterless desert. They did so

941
and have been existing ever since in four large camps, each containing around 50,000 people. Many more Saharawis escaped to other countries: Mali; Mauritania (which gave up its military struggle for the southern half of the Western Sahara in 1978); the Canary Islands; other parts of Algeria; and as far as Niger. Of course, many decided to remain voluntarily in the Western Sahara, hoping that they would be well treated by the Moroccan authorities. Others were either too old or too sick to make the long trek across the open desert. Altogether, Saharawis account for about 1 million people.
Since then, the Polisario Front has operated from the four camps around Tindouf in Algeria; and, yes, the Algerian Government, very nobly and at great cost, have supported it. They continue to do so. They do it because they believe in the Saharawi cause; because they could not let die in the desert all those people who had struggled across it seeking help. They do not do it, as some cynics would claim, because all that they really want is access to the Atlantic coast. If they wanted that, they could have had it years ago for the taking.
The referendum was originally promised for 1992, then 1994 and then 1995. The report states that the referendum has consistently been postponed because of issues such as who is entitled to vote. That was agreed, but it was at Moroccan insistence that a further 100,000 or so names were added to the list of those eligible. That was a blatant attempt to undermine the outcome and the Saharawis rightly ask "What is the point of holding a referendum if it is not a free and fair one?" Would your Lordships feel able to vote freely with a gun in your back?
The efforts of the UN Secretary-General to hold the referendum can at best be described as half-hearted. It is well known that he favours the Moroccan position. In short, from a Saharawi point of view, he has been a total disaster. Meanwhile, the Moroccans used the four-year ceasefire period to their advantage by strengthening their defensive wall and consolidating their positions along it. They have also been guilty of violating the ceasefire on over 300 occasions. But nobody says anything; nobody does anything; and even the UN personnel out there, supposedly to oversee the setting up of the referendum process, have been corrupted.
I was last in the refugee camps in February this year and I shall shortly visit them again as I am organising our fifth humanitarian convoy to the camps in November with supporters from all over the United Kingdom. In February they were near a state of despair about the lack of progress with the referendum. In my view, unless some concrete progress is made now, the ceasefire regrettably will become a memory and the Arab Maghreb union will become only a remote possibility.
I believe we must take a much more robust stand on issues like the one in the Western Sahara, and the European Community and the European Parliament is the place to do it. As the UN celebrates is 50th anniversary we would do well to stand up there as one of the five permanent members of its Security Council and urge more resolve and determination in getting this long-standing problem sorted out in a fair and just
942
manner instead of turning a blind eye and hoping that the problem will go away. If I know the Saharawis—and I do after 10 years of trying to help them with humanitarian supplies—they will never give up their rights; be they human rights, birthrights or civil rights.
It is surely in everyone's interests to work towards, find, and then implement, a fair solution; to expose and reject corrupt practices wherever they occur, especially when it involves UN personnel. That merely serves to further undermine the UN and causes people to lose faith in it as an organisation. We must achieve the opposite; we must restore people's faith and trust in the United Nations by making sure that it fulfils its world role without favour or bias. I hope that this is an issue that the European Union, along with the United Nations, will pursue and that an end to the dispute, satisfactory to both sides, will be found.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships share my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea & Nottingham, for bringing to our greater notice this so far obscure problem of the Western Sahara. It is a terrible story and a continuing tragedy. I am one of those who hoped that a referendum would provide the framework for a final solution that would be acceptable. I gather the prospects of the Polisario accepting the results of a referendum in favour of Morocco are not good. I doubt that an international initiative by the Security Council or otherwise is likely to be brought to bear at this stage, though possibly, if the referendum does not provide a solution to the problem, others will have to think again.
I am deeply grateful to Sub-Committee A for this remarkably clear and informative guidance on a problem about which many of us are far too ignorant. My interest in the Maghreb and the problems covered by the report stem to a great extent from my residence for periods of over 10 years in countries which have either a large Moslem majority or a large Moslem minority. I look therefore with keen interest and some apprehension at the spectre held out in front of us, especially by the media at present, of a possible upsurge of immigration from north African littorals into Europe. I am reassured by the well-balanced judgment of the committee that at least for the time being we need not be too alarmed by the prospects of infection of the north African littorals from Algeria.
Coming to the focus of the report, I naturally share the view that the direct concern of this country is economic, in two respects. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, again so eloquently reminded us, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we obtain value for money out of our substantial 16 per cent. contribution to whatever direct funds are channelled by the European Community into the Maghreb. As he again reminded us, we have grounds for great misgivings in relation to the way these enormous figures for recommended five-fold increases of the aid have been, if not plucked out of a hat, drawn in rather an arbitrary way in an effort to draw the balance with what we do or seek to do in Eastern

943
Europe. That is no way to produce recommendations for expenditure. No finance minister would countenance such procedures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, told us, we have learnt from experience. I have been involved in this aspect to some extent in previous sub-committee work. We know that the Commission's processes of monitoring and evaluation simply do not stand up to critical examination. The Commission cannot reasonably expect member states to put their hands in their pockets to the enormous extent recommended when they have already shown elsewhere—for instance, in relation to the structural funds—that they do not have the means of monitoring or assessing how the various supposedly worthy projects supported have worked out.
Inevitably the Commission's recommendations have been cut down. Only yesterday the finance ministers of the European Union endorsed a previous decision that the ceiling must be maintained; that new funds for north Africa cannot be found simply by waving a wand; they can be found only at the expense of something else—probably eastern Europe. As has been said, that would require serious consideration.
The second British economic interest is in the area of trade. Exciting prospects are held out in front of us for possible rapid continued expansion in Morocco, and Tunis in particular. The population is increasing by leaps and bounds; the GDP is increasing by 10 per cent. a year in Morocco and by a very high rate in Tunisia also. We would all wish the British exporter to get in on the act. But as has been pointed out, all kinds of difficulties exist, in history and in the problem of mixed credits, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, expounded. If we are to enter this particular market, there must be a reasonably level playing field, and conditions in which our contractors can fairly tender. But we are told—and I believe it—that if everything works out well and if the Algerian cancer does not spread along the littoral, Morocco in particular could be the first African tiger and that would present great trading opportunities for us all, so I hope that we shall get in on the act.
Noble Lords have referred to the third substantial interest of this country: the general foreign policy interest of stability in the region. None of us should underrate that. Although reassured by the Select Committee's judgment on the immediate prospects of an increase in immigration, no one can deny that if things get progressively worse in Algeria, the dangers of the pressures to get out will increase, and Italy and Spain are in no position to administer controls which would be likely to withstand a flood. That is a long-term danger that we all share, and it brings us back to the root of the risk, which is the Algerian political situation.
Inevitably and rightly, the sub-committee did not seek to get involved in the Algerian political problem, but we are all increasingly alarmed. The French Government, we understand, are now doing their best to move towards some kind of bridge-building initiative. However, even if those efforts gradually succeed in the face of all the difficulties, if the FIS should be brought to participate in representative institutions, enormous
944
dangers and difficulties will still remain. It could all very easily go altogether wrong and eventually result in some kind of violent uprising which would bring the FIS into power in circumstances which would be likely to create great problems for European governments and for its own minority citizens. In those circumstances, there seems little doubt that there would be great pressure on the frontiers of the European Union. So we cannot too much discount the dangers.
There is little that we can do directly. The only role that is open to the United Kingdom is quiet diplomacy. We sympathise with the French and know of the appalling problems facing the French Government with regard to their own public opinion, with Le Pen aggravating everything as far as he can, bombs going off and the media making the most of it. So, we sympathise with the French Government and people, but profoundly hope that moderation will eventually come to the surface.
I should like most strongly to endorse the very clear comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the confusion of thought that dogs the whole issue of fundamentalism in Western perception. It is essential that a clear line should be drawn between Islamic extremism and terrorism and violence. They need have nothing to do with each other. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, quoted King Hassan. Morocco has been fundamentalist for 1,200 years, since the Koran. We know that throughout history Islam has provided a framework for a particular kind of rule of law within the Sharia, which is entirely different from our own concept of representative parliamentary democracy but which nevertheless has given, can give, and is likely to give North Africa a reasonable degree of accountable government in which governments have a high measure of responsibility to a rule of law of a different kind.
I should like to say a word about the problem of education in Morocco in particular because it has a relevance to, and a relationship with, the problem of how to educate an uneducated peasantry throughout the rest of Africa—and not only Africa. It is difficult to see how millions in uneducated communities can have their level of understanding raised, as is necessary for the labourforce of a potential tiger. I remind your Lordships that in addition to the conventional means of tackling education, agricultural education and social education, all of which are very commendable, there are new ways of accelerating education. There is an interesting example of that in South Africa where the problems in the townships have much in common with those facing North Africa.
Finally, as regards our perception of the nature of extremism and understanding of Islam, although the right reverend Prelate is no longer in his place, I should like to appeal to the churches to step up their own contribution. They make a considerable contribution and I know that they devote much research and study to this, but I think that in some ways the churches are better placed than any other body to help the general public, through their own communities, to develop a much greater understanding of the possibility of Christian

945
countries and Islamic countries living happily together side by side as they have in the past and trading together to their mutual profit.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before I address my remarks specifically to the excellent report that we are considering, perhaps I may comment on the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. I say that because I am fairly near the bottom of the list of speakers and I should not like the noble Earl to feel that no one in your Lordships' House is sympathetic to the cause which he so energetically pursues, and has done for the past five or six years.
Perhaps I may draw the noble Earl's attention to a report of the two standing committees of the North Atlantic Assembly. Your Lordships will know that that assembly is one of parliamentarians of NATO countries. It is a report on Morocco. It comments on the annexation in 1978 by Morocco of the total area of Western Sahara. The report comments further that there was pressure from the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and from regional neighbours, Tunisia and Algeria, that Morocco and Polisario agree to negotiations. That was in 1988. The United Nations mission for the organisation of a referendum in Western Sahara began to deploy in the region in late 1991.
I hope that I misheard the noble Earl if he said that he was sorry that this mission had become corrupted. I hope that he did not mean that. He will also know that there is great difficulty in trying to identify the people who may quite properly engage in the referendum. As a result, in April of this year only about 45 per cent. of the potential voters had been identified on the Polisario side and only about 28 per cent. on the Moroccan side. So there is some great difficulty about the referendum taking place. The tentative date is January 1996 and that looks a little bleak.
The noble Earl will also know that none of the alliance member countries has recognised Morocco's sovereignty over the area. Therefore, there is an association taking some considerable interest in the area. The Civilian Affairs Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly sent a delegation to Morocco in 1993. The report states that it,
"was able to witness the scale of the Moroccan development effort in the towns of La5youne and Dakhla".
So he is not totally on his own in that regard.
I turn more properly to the report before us. As other noble Lords have said, it is a comprehensive report. It is to the usual and comprehensive standard which we have come to expect of our Select Committees on the European Community. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not think it presumptuous of me if I congratulate both him and his members for this report. He said in his opening remarks that he was pleased that the report was in fact published in time for consideration at the June conference. It is perhaps timely also that this debate should take place against the background of the discussions at the United Nations on the 50th anniversary of that organisation.
946
I say that because I want to speak from the background of the North Atlantic Assembly. As some of your Lordships will recall, I am a UK delegate to that assembly and serve on the Civilian Affairs Committee. I am a member of the Sub-Committee on the Mediterranean Basin and chairman of the committee on the OSCE. As I understand from Radio 4, President Clinton said in his opening remarks to the assembly in New York that there were threats to our stability by virtue of terrorism, trafficking in drugs, armaments, migration and so on.
It is perhaps to this general threat to what we call democracy in the West that I address my remarks and read from the report before us. Paragraph 34 of the report comments on Mrs. Rimington's 1994 speech when she discussed the general security of our own country and the threat that came from some of the North African countries. I believe that that threat is equally apparent today and perhaps a little more so, because of the ability to transmit information and the proceeds of crime through modern technology, from nation to nation. I do not believe that that should be disregarded.
We in this country and in Western Europe have always recognised the importance of the central and eastern European countries to Europe. But for the Mediterranean-bordering countries of the European Union, the Mahgreb countries are equally important. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said in his remarks, they are particularly important for the United Kingdom whose foreign policy has to be directed to some extent to the stability of the area, which can affect the stability of our own country.
I turn momentarily to comment on one or two of the points contained in the opinion of the committee. Paragraph 94 discusses the European Union's external policies being dominated by central and eastern Europe. The report states further:
"Any discussion of EU external relations must now take account of the future enlargement of the Union".
There can be no disagreement with that remark if one accepts that full membership of the European Union is in fact and practice going to take place. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, hoped so, as did my noble friend Lord Butterworth. However, in the discussions in which I have taken part through the North Atlantic Assembly at least twice a year, there is some doubt as to whether that is going to be accomplished, certainly within the next 10 years or even within the next 20 years. One can observe a certain cooling of ardour for the wider enlargement of the Community expressed by some of the Eastern European countries.
I was rather taken by the remarks of Mr. George Joffe set out in paragraph 93 of the report. Your Lordships will recall that Mr. Joffe is deputy director of the School of Oriental & African Studies. He argued for a different approach to priorities. He said that he recognised the attractiveness of eastern Europe as a destination for investment and said that there were good arguments for "an equality of treatment" between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. That is one of the problems we will have to face. The countries of the

947
Mediterranean basin do not see equality as between themselves and our approach to central and eastern Europe.
Paragraph 98 of the report deals fairly extensively with the question of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. I should like to underline the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and those of my noble friend Baroness O'Cathain, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. They explained the difference in perception of Islamic fundamentalism. I agree with them and with the report that the threat is much exaggerated. If we could better understand that, we would be more able to give the kind of assistance outlined in the report to those countries which would be to our benefit as well. I refer in particular to the stability of the area.
Perhaps I may be a little pedantic. I just wonder why the committee said, in paragraph 112 on page 37:
"The Maghreb countries are worth helping".
That may be a rather infelicitous turn of phrase. I would have much preferred to see the word "necessary". It appears to me that we denigrate our responsibility and the worthwhileness of giving assistance, however it may be.
I doubt whether anybody can quarrel with the summary of conclusions in paragraph 115. The points made in (a) and (b) about stability and in the first part of (c) about the financial perspective of the Community seem to me to be of the greatest significance.
Others have spoken about the financial aspects. I do not wish to go further than to say that, against the background of I do not know how many billions shortfall in United Nations contributions—and contributions which will be asked for from western Europe and other nations—we cannot accept a bottomless pit. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made abundantly clear (as he so frequently does), we have to ensure that the money is not wasted and that it is prioritised.
I turn finally to the North Atlantic Assembly, which is, so to speak, the parliamentary arm of NATO. It is disappointing that NATO did not have a Mediterranean policy until the 1994 summit. We would be a little naive to believe that our relations with the European Union, and its relations with the Maghreb countries, are settled in one neat little envelope. They are not. We have to consider our alliance partners through the NATO organisation, which is the only one that takes into account the influence of the North American countries. I hope that the Government take greater notice of the assembly's wish to look again at finding an OSCE equivalent for the Maghreb countries. If we can do that I think that jointly, with all the other interested organisations, we may take some small steps forward. Meanwhile, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other Members of your Lordships' House, I look forward to some positive results from the conference in Barcelona to be held at the end of next month. I believe that we deserve from that conference some sensible and practical solutions that can be embarked upon.
7.5 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the committee has deal with many issues and is to be congratulated. This is a most useful report that will be often cited. The regional opportunities available to British exports were emphasised. Figures show how meagre are the inroads that we in this country have made into the Maghreb region. I accept that our many friends there would like to see a strengthening of trading links with the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have generally spared no effort in the area of export promotion. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may be tempted to inform the House of the strategy towards the Maghreb.
When I consider misunderstandings that lead to conflict in our volatile world, I regret that Islam is high on the list. This is perturbing. The committee was unable to visit Algeria. That was understandable but regrettable. Since the affairs of that nation state could impact the region, I hope that I shall be excused a few remarks. The Algerian crisis is now well into its third year and real tension exists. The round of talks in Rome last November seemed to address many of the issues necessary for a meaningful dialogue to commence, not least the Front Islamique du Salut's acceptance of political pluralism. The then French Defence Minister, M. Leotard, even expressed the view that Rome constituted a,
"veritable charter for a democratic and reconciled Algeria [and] there is no military solution to the crisis."
To what extent is this the current French Administration's mediation approach towards Algeria? What is the current position of the Algerian Army? Are there signs of a more flexible and sympathetic stance? President Zeroual must be-encouraged to come to terms with the opposition parties in the spirit of the Rome platform. As with all disputes, it is the participants themselves who must want to resolve differences by seeking sustainable solutions through dialogue. However, I envisage a key facilitation role for the European Union. Perhaps the noble Lord would undertake to encourage the Commission to this end.
I return to the report. I note with interest and concern the remarks in paragraph 65 relating to access for agricultural products and the effect of the GATT Uruguay Round in regard to export losses. Certain Ministers—I do not include any of the Maghreb states in this observation—told me that, although their countries signed up for GATT, they had not, nor have, any firm understanding of the ramifications. Time does not allow more comment on this point, but I anticipate that this will be a major factor when negotiating a successor Lome agreement, for example. I accept that the Maghreb region is not a beneficiary under that convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised the question of agricultural access to the European Union. Broadly I agree with that, with one proviso. For example, the effect on the economies of ACP countries must be carefully considered so that access is balanced.
As has already been mentioned, I endorse fully paragraph 101 on page 35, that,
"the most useful thing the European Union can do to promote stability in the Maghreb countries is to facilitate their economic development".

949
Time must be devoted to carrying this philosophy into the hearts and minds of sceptic members of the Union and even beyond to countries such as the United States.
Perhaps I might return briefly in my concluding remarks to general issues relating to Islamism. Many in your Lordships' House will be familiar with the speech of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. If not, I commend it. It is still discussed often in the Middle East. He reminded his audience that Moslems, Christians and Jews are all "peoples of the book". Yet distrust, even fear, persists. On the subject of Islam and the West he,
"believed wholeheartedly that the links between these two worlds matter more today than ever before, because the degree of misunderstanding between the Islamic and Western worlds remains dangerously high, and because the need for the two to live and work together in our increasingly interdependent world has never been greater".
His Royal Highness was and remains correct.
It is essential for all our sakes to refrain from demonising one another and to build friendship upon common heritage and interest. We must engage in dialogue in which Islam and the West listen to each other with sympathy and respect, otherwise I fear a drift towards conflict.
A key question is: what do we mean by Islam? We must differentiate between what is referred to as being fundamentalist as opposed to being extremist. My noble friends Lord Chalfont and Lord Thurlow touched upon that topic. I ask for understanding of firm believers of the Koran, but repudiate the violence, breaches of human rights and persecution associated with extremism in the name of Islam.
The Islamic faith is an ancient belief system embodying a code of conduct followed by many millions the world over. It deserves to be regarded by us with sympathetic and respectful understanding. One cannot overemphasise that this increasingly more accessible global village in which we live is all about pluralism.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. Like so many of your Lordships, he has touched upon the important distinction to be made between the fundamentalism and terrorism. I have recently returned from Saudi Arabia where that point was made to me most emphatically. One of the most significant features of the report is the stress it places on that extremely important matter.
I applaud also what the noble Viscount said when he reminded us that in the order of priorities that need to be addressed we should not forget the importance of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. That is a timely reminder because I did not see—I may be mistaken—a recognition of that in the report itself. That is a significant omission when one is dealing with the priority to be accorded to expenditure within the European Union.
Last Tuesday evening I had the pleasurable opportunity of having a long discussion with my former colleague President Jacques Delors, not, I know, a favourite of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington,
950
but interestingly enough in the course of that discussion he commented upon the quality of reports produced in this House on a variety of matters affecting the European Union. He recognised that they were often critical. He made no complaint about that, rather the reverse. He told me that as president he read those reports with interest, and, what is more, still does. So I believe that this report—we all pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on chairing these important discussions—would not have disappointed the former president with its thorough appraisal of the issues in this critical area and the importance of determining the European Union's priorities in trying to ensure stability and prosperity around its borders.
There are very real problems affecting political, social, and economic instability in the Maghreb countries. There is more in some than in others, evidenced of course by the wave of terrorist attacks in France which have been taking place in recent weeks and months, and the huge dilemma that confronts us in relation to Algeria, in particular, where human rights are, unhappily, not respected properly over a very wide field.
No one can claim that the Government of Algeria are a democratic constitutional government. They are presenting the European Union with many problems, not least of course the French. It is right to say that the Maghreb countries are not the preserve of the French above all, but while in a broader context it is right to say that the interest of the Maghreb countries are tied up with those of the European Union as a whole—I shall come to that point later—the fact is that there are grave problems affecting the relationship of France and Algeria at the present time, as is evidenced by the decision of the French president to cancel his planned meetings with the Algerian leader.
In the light of what is happening in Algeria, should we think in terms of suspending aid to that country? Should we engage in a programme of economic boycott? Should we subtract Algeria from the dialogue that is to be embarked upon in Barcelona? I think not, but, having said that, we have to go on stressing the importance the European Union places on the recognition of human rights, because that goes to the heart of what the European Union has to stand for. We have to go on stressing the case for reform; for increased opportunities for pluralism; for a detailed scrutiny of human rights; and if we were to deflect ourselves from that purpose we should be doing ourselves an immense disservice.
One of the most important themes underlined in the report and in today's speeches has been the fact—this was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—that the European Union is a dominant trading partner in all three of the Maghreb countries. So it is not just a French preserve. Opportunities exist for others, including ourselves, to promote trade. It is those three countries which have been the main beneficiaries of European Union aid, but they are just three of 11 countries (the Mediterranean non-Community countries) which are comprised of seven Arab countries—Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia—and four others—Cyprus,

951
Malta, Israel and Turkey. It follows that the European Union has immense interests in the area and itself should be able to exercise a corresponding influence.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington made one of those thoughtful, controversial contributions to which we are used. I always like to listen to him, even though I do not always agree with him, as he well knows. Unquestionably, he studies his case with great care; it is his conclusions with which I do not always agree. He asked what possible interest, other than to make propaganda, can the European Commission have in this particular area. He went on to complain that the Commission wanted to acquire enhanced powers in this regard. I do not agree with that, although I found many of his other points most forceful.
The answer to that point was given by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who held the important external affairs portfolio in the European Commission for some three years and long before I went there. The noble Lord is no apologist at the present time for activities involving the European Commission. He said that we either help or we shall be subjected to pressures from these areas. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in that reflection.
These countries border on the European Union. Stability is of primordial importance to the European Union. Terrorism, legal and illegal immigration are threats posed to a number of member states, most particularly those in the south of the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, complained that some of these countries were engaging in hypocritical attitudes because they were not prepared to make concessions, in particular in relation to agriculture, which were being demanded by the Maghreb countries. It is easy to make that charge but I am not sure that it is easy to sustain it. The charge of hypocrisy is serious, but I do not believe that it is right to overlook the fact that these countries have not been the main beneficiaries of access to manufactured products which the European Union has gained in the Maghreb countries. In the main, the industrialised areas have enjoyed that access. We must remember—and, indeed, we were recently reminded of it at the Conservative Party Conference and sometimes in not very beguiling terms—that all member states of the EU are democracies and must carry their electorates with them. If they perceive themselves to be at risk there is a penalty to be paid.
We must ask how the balance is to be achieved. How can they persuade their electorates to recognise that there is a paradox between failing to give access to the products which are so important to the Maghreb countries and their farming people and the difficulty which confronts them as regards their own electorates. I believe that we need to be a little more helpful. I very much admire the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, as she knows, but I ask her with the greatest respect to reflect on the difficulty of that matter a little more.
Indeed, in many ways it is encapsulated by the problems in relation to fishing. Fishing always poses a huge problem for virtually every member state engaged in it. Morocco is demanding that Spanish and Portuguese boats which fish off its coasts should make
952
drastic cuts in their catches. It claims, I am sure with justification, that hundreds of thousands of jobs depend upon that. On the other hand, Spain has some 40,000 jobs at risk and it is facing a general election in the near future. There is always a general election taking place somewhere in the European Union and that does not altogether promote a careful reflection and an objective assessment of the policies that must be undertaken. Are we immune from that consideration?
The European Union's priorities in terms of loans and gifts have been demonstrated by providing twice as much to central and eastern Europe as to the countries on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, despite the fact that those countries have almost twice the population of the central and eastern European countries and that their populations are growing rapidly. Moreover, our trade surplus with the Mediterranean countries is twice that with the central and eastern European countries. Those fundamental problems must be confronted too. It is hoped that we will do so in a challenging way at the forthcoming Barcelona Conference.
In the wider perspective, deals which have been agreed or are in the pipeline are of great importance to the whole area. The European Union has agreed to increase aid for the period 1995–99 by 4.6 billion ecu. An association agreement has been signed with Tunisia and soon another will be signed; all that remains is to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" with Israel. There has been an intention to undertake similar deals with Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and the Lebanon as rapidly as possible.
I am aware of the fact and I agree with the assertion that the report stresses the quality of financial aid that should be provided to help sustain the burgeoning economic development of the Maghreb countries. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was right in his comment. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also referred to the inadequacy of some of the analysis in the application of that aid. It is not always the fault of the Commission because it does not always have the necessary resources to undertake the tasks imposed upon it.
We need to ensure that that aid is properly targeted, in particular in the provision of infrastructural support. I applaud what has been said about that. That matter goes to the heart of the economic advance of these countries and it goes to the heart of what we ought to be seeking to achieve in the European Union where infrastructural development has hardly reached the pitch that we need. How much more is required in these countries if they are to be areas of great attraction for investment from overseas? I concede that a formidable criticism has been mounted of the Commission as regards development of these ideas.
The report emphasises that mutuality of access to markets is the key to further economic progress and that a long transitional period in terms of removing trade barriers in industrial areas is required. I am sure that that too is a powerful recommendation. Unquestionably, the Maghreb countries face different challenges. Morocco has made substantial progress and recorded substantial growth in 1994. However, it would not be right to overlook the salient points made by the noble Earl, Lord

953
Winchilsea and Nottingham. In this complex tapestry of different interests and approaches in the Maghreb area there is the failure to respect human rights in the Western Sahara, which is a problem. It contrasts with an enlarging respect for human rights in other areas affected by Moroccan policy. There can be no doubt that King Hassan, a constitutional monarch of increasing influence, has played a significant part in helping to ease tensions in the Middle East, not just in the past two years but over many years, and in helping to promote dialogue between Israel and her Arab neighbours and, indeed, the Palestinians.
In Tunisia, extremism does not have the same deep roots as in Algeria. A powerful president is exercising strong political control but again there is a hope for an enlargement there of human rights.
As has been said over and over again, Algeria poses the most acute problem, not simply for the European Union but also in wider terms. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Chalfont, referred to the fact that the domino effect may not be as significant as some commentators have suggested. I am not quite as willing as they are to put aside major threats of terrorism because I believe that they have enormous potential consequences for us all.
But of course, economic instability and unemployment must undermine political stability. Algeria cannot solve its problems—as its Government seem to think and to some extent they were supported by Mr. Pasqua in France—by eliminating its extreme Islamists. Cancellation of the elections three years ago tends to—I use the word in inverted commas—"legitimate" the use of violence against the government in the view of many Algerians. It is a very sad fact, but I think it is a fact nonetheless.
The fear of terrorism is mirrored by the fear of a government who have been responsible in many respects for a huge toll in terms of death and other casualties—1,000 casualties per month in that country. We cannot overlook that.
But there can be no doubt that solutions are very elusive. Can we place trust in the sincerity of the FIS in seeking to establish pluralism in Algeria? It is very easy to make the promise. Are its assertions realistic that it can influence the most radical armed Islamic group while it claims responsibility for so many barbaric terrorist acts? Can the Algerian Government be right to reject dialogue, and is terrorism sponsored on a substantial scale from outside, and from Iran in particular?
Those are some of the major problems to which I, frankly, do not know the answer. But they have been posed rightly in the report in an eloquent and elegant way. We are all involved in the interests of that area because they are our interests. To my mind, that is the most potent argument that has been used in this formidable report. Again, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues on producing it.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity for this debate, provided by the committee's
954
report on the EU's relations with the Maghreb. This is an important and timely document on a subject which is of increasing interest, given the EU's current sharper focus on the Mediterranean region. The Government have taken careful note of the committee's conclusions, which are very much in line with our own thinking. Therefore, I shall repeat a number of points already made this evening because the Government agree with them and I shall try to keep my comments directed towards the committee's report.
The Maghreb is an area in which the UK has not traditionally had strong direct interests. But its potential for instability and the impact that this could have on the whole EU make it of substantial importance. The Maghreb is a region where Britain could, and should, do more, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. We believe the best approach is to work through the EU. In turn, EU assistance and the wider prosperity it generates can offer considerable opportunities for British business.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth drew attention to the limit of 700 dollars GNP per capita which UK policy imposes on support under the ACP provisions. I should point out that that policy aims to focus limited resources on the poorest countries. Therefore, UK firms have particularly good opportunities in those countries which somewhat offset the opportunities in the richer countries. However, we believe that UK firms have excellent opportunities to win business resulting from the EU financing for the Maghreb countries agreed at Cannes in June.
Since the committee published its report in May, we have seen a number of further developments in EU-Maghreb relations. In June the Cannes Council settled the difficult issue of EU grants to the Mediterranean over the period 1995 to 1999. In July a new agreement was signed with Tunisia. I look forward to a draft agreement with Morocco being initialled soon.
The Maghreb countries are an important part of the EU's wider Mediterranean initiative. Next month in Barcelona the Foreign Secretary will join his counterparts from the 15 EU countries and 12 Mediterranean neighbours, including Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, for the Euro-Med conference. The conference should be the foundation for a new long-term relationship between the EU and the Mediterranean states, setting out future principles for political, economic and social co-operation.
I fully agree with the committee's view that stability in the region should be a priority for the EU. Indeed, stability and prosperity are in the interests of both the EU and the Mediterranean states. As regards north Africa, the threat should not be exaggerated. There is no direct security risk to Britain or to the EU in any military sense. But there are concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the real possibility of increased migration, and terrorism. That is illustrated by the despicable bomb attacks carried out recently by Algerian extremists in France. We are ever-vigilant to potential terrorist threats to Britain, and we are co-operating closely with the French authorities on these terrorist incidents.

955
As has been mentioned frequently, one aspect of political and economic instability is Islamic extremism. Much has been written and said recently in the popular and academic press about it. It is important to differentiate between Islam, which the British Government hold in the greatest respect, and Islamic extremism. We deplore any form of extremism which advocates the use of violence to achieve political ends.
The causes of extremism in the region vary from country to country. Economic problems have been a key factor. In the populous states of the northern and western Arab world, including in the Maghreb, economic distress is widespread. The combination of sluggish economic growth and rapid population growth has led to increasing pressure. An obvious sign is unemployment. Extremist groups benefit from this.
There are also social and political factors. With the spread of global information, expectations have risen and people are less tolerant of poverty and injustice. Where under-developed democratic systems exist, channels for dissent such as the role of opposition parties may be considered inadequate. Extremist groups are only too willing to fill the vacuum.
These are serious underlying problems which need to be addressed. However, circumstances vary between individual countries, and extremist groups tend to have national rather than supra-national identities. The rise of extremism in one country has implications for the stability of its neighbours. But the committee is right to conclude that talk of a "domino effect" from Algeria to its neighbours is unduly alarmist. The conflict in Algeria involving government forces and militant groups has not undermined the internal security of Tunisia or Morocco in any significant way. Both have embarked on economic restructuring programmes, which should enhance stability and pave the way for the further development of existing democratic political systems.
We share the committee's assessment that the most significant causes of instability in the region are economic problems and unemployment. That is why financial assistance and improved trade flows are a major plank of the EU's strategy.
In the medium term, improved trade will have a much greater impact than aid. That is why we welcome the new agreements with Tunisia and shortly, I hope, with Morocco. The agreements are a major step forward. They encompass not just removal of tariffs but also stronger commitments to prevent non-tariff barriers, align economic policies and improve intellectual property rights. These are gains for both sides. Companies will be able to do business in a more certain environment. That will help encourage investment in the region and transform those economies in the interests of both producers and consumers.
As the committee pointed out, it will take time for the Maghreb economies to introduce greater openness. That is why a long timetable of 10 years or so has been set out for dismantling specific tariffs. The long-term aim is a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area by the year 2010.
Of course, the Maghreb countries already enjoy a substantial degree of concessionary access to the EU's industrial markets. It is in the area of agricultural
956
products, as has been mentioned, where they have most potential for increased trade. The committee correctly identified the paradox that the southern EU member states with most to gain from improved stability also have most to lose from increased agricultural imports.
Mediterranean crops like fruit and vegetables from the Maghreb are in direct competition with the EU's southern producers. Those products currently receive less support under the CAP than products like milk, beef and cereals. So there is only limited Community assistance available to help EU growers affected by increased competition. Nevertheless, increasing Maghreb access would necessitate increased support under the common agricultural policy with obvious budgetary implications.
The UK has been at the forefront of those calling for improved market access for all goods. We share the ambitious long-term goal of a Euro-Med free trade area. We recognise that WTO rules require free trade areas to cover "substantially all trade" in order to avoid distortions. That means agriculture too. In the short term the Government will continue to argue for better agricultural market access. In the long term, we will seek to establish a free trade area which is WTO compatible.
In addition to improved trade flows, the EU is committed to a significant increase in financial support to the Mediterranean region. But the Government share the committee's view on the importance of keeping expenditure within the current financial perspective. The Cannes European Council agreed to a figure of 4.7 billion ecu for the Mediterranean region over five years, including the Maghreb. That was a substantial reduction on the Commission's unrealistic original proposal of 5.5 billion ecu.
We also share the committee's view that loans should be an important element of EU support. Under the current fourth financial protocol, around two-thirds of assistance is in loans. The amount of lending by the European Investment Bank to the Mediterranean region will depend on the EIB's future external lending capacity, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is discussing with other EU finance ministers in Brussels today. We will continue to try to improve the effectiveness of EC aid in the region by careful monitoring and, if necessary, by raising issues in the Council. It may have some conciliatory effect on the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, when he knows of the careful scrutiny that will be undertaken by the Government.
The committee is right to recommend that EU aid be sensibly targeted on infrastructure and economic co-operation to prepare the Maghreb for greater integration with the EU's economy. The integration of the Maghreb countries into the world economy is a long-standing objective of Britain's approach to the EU aid programme. British companies can and, I hope, will play a full part in that process. The DTI, through its range of export services and with other organisations such as the Committee for Middle East Trade, the Middle East Association, and the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce, is working actively. It aims to promote the commercial opportunities under EU aid including

957
use of the EC investment partners scheme to support joint ventures. The Euro-Mediterranean conference in Barcelona will provide a focus for a greater publicity effort towards UK firms.
The committee drew attention to a lack of awareness in British business of the opportunities in the Maghreb and a tendency among some companies to view the region as the natural preserve of other trading partners, notably France. These were issues that the committee explored particularly with the DTI's export promoter for the region. The DTI is working hard to identify and address some of those misconceptions. That work will continue and will be intensified in some areas, including the opportunities under aid. It is worth noting some encouraging signs. British firms have expanded their efforts considerably in the past few years. Visible exports to Tunisia were up 22 per cent. in 1994. We have seen strong growth in exports to Morocco this year which may well reach £200 million for the first time by the end of 1995.
The Government support moves towards the gradual establishment of a Euro-Med free trade area. That will enhance economic growth and prosperity and promote stability. But the two are inter-related as economic growth thrives best in a liberal political environment. The EU's Euro-Med partnership aims to promote good government and respect for human rights as well as good neighbourliness through an ongoing political dialogue. We look to the Barcelona conference to give a strong political steer to that initiative.
I express my support for the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. The UK does support the current exercise under the auspices of the United Nations which has voted through a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara territory. The identification process is complicated and has been much delayed, but it is continuing.
The EU will play a key role in promoting economic and political stability in the Maghreb. The Government will work hard to ensure that the UK both contributes to and benefits from the challenges and opportunities in this increasingly dynamic region.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the debate. I should also like to thank all those who have taken part in it and
958
contributed to what I believe was an interesting discussion. I was struck by three strands that seemed to come through almost all the speeches. First, there is the general agreement that one should not equate fundamentalism with extremism: there is a very clear distinction between the two. Secondly, there is the need for a radical reform of the common agricultural policy. Thirdly, there is the need for financial assistance to the region to be justified and properly targeted. In concentrating on limiting Community expenditure, with which I believe we all agree—and there is general agreement that the financial perspective must be maintained, and so on—I hope that, where there are EU instruments and where EU aid is available, British firms will get their fair crack of the whip. Indeed, we heard much evidence of uninterest or lack of knowledge. I was very glad to hear what the Minister said about the further steps which will now be taken.
I should like briefly to comment on two points upon which the report was criticised. I shall start first with the Western Sahara. We were not seeking to minimise the importance of this question in any way. What we were seeking to do in that paragraph was to say, "We are not dealing with it" because, having taken some evidence, particularly from Mr. George Joffe, we were convinced that we could not deal with it in two or three more paragraphs. It was rather like the matter of Algeria, where we agreed that it was an important matter but we were not dealing with it. That was the course we chose. However, we were not seeking to minimise the position.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, aright, I believe he was criticising us for not dealing with the priorities vis-à-vis the ACP countries. I accept that we did not mention that, but it was very much in our thinking and I believe it was implicit in what we said about aid to the Maghreb countries being to middle income countries and therefore taking the form of loans rather than grants. However, his point was certainly very much in our minds. I again thank noble Lords for the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Hong Kong: Entrenchment of International Covenants
  Hong Kong: Entrenchment of International Covenants
  Protection of National Minorities: Framework Convention
  Protection of National Minorities: Framework Convention
  Coarse Fishing: Close Season
  Coarse Fishing: Close Season
  Agriculture Council, 25 September
  Agriculture Council, 25 September
  Highways Agency and Planning Policy Guidance
  Highways Agency and Planning Policy Guidance
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  Foreign Nationals: Deportation without Trial
  Foreign Nationals: Deportation without Trial
  City Parochial Fund
  City Parochial Fund
  Criminal Appeals: Outcome
  Criminal Appeals: Outcome
  Burglary: Maximum Penalty
  Burglary: Maximum Penalty
  Young Persons: Detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure
  Young Persons: Detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure
  Criminal Injuries Compensation: Cases Outstanding
  Criminal Injuries Compensation: Cases Outstanding
  Suspected Illegal Entrants and Over-stayers: Privacy Safeguards
  Suspected Illegal Entrants and Over-stayers: Privacy Safeguards
  Immigration Control: Guidance to Officials
  Immigration Control: Guidance to Officials
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Criminal Appeals
  Criminal Appeals
  Wylfa Power Station: Plutonium Creation
  Wylfa Power Station: Plutonium Creation
  Youth Training Allowances: Minister Responsible
  Youth Training Allowances: Minister Responsible
  EU Equal Opportunities Policy
  EU Equal Opportunities Policy