Sitting of 30 October 1995

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

    Strikes
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many working days are currently being lost in strikes in (a) Wales and (b) South Korea. [37825]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): In 1994, an average of 14 working days per 1,000 employees were lost due to labour disputes in Wales. I understand that the corresponding figure for South Korea was 103 per 1,000.
    Mr. Arnold: Do not those figures, which draw a comparison with one of the leading tiger economies of Asia, show the progress being made by Wales? Do not they show how Wales has cast aside its labour and trade union industrial tradition and taken on the opportunities presented by Tory Britain? May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in South Korea with a team of Welsh business men? It is already bearing fruit.
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is quite right to point to our good industrial relations record in Wales over recent years. When that is added to
    2
    the fact that there is lower tax in Wales than in other countries, less regulation than in other countries and a good sense of partnership, it is no surprise that one of the headlines in the newspapers today was, "Wales heads UK confidence".
    Dr. Marek: Nevertheless, does the Secretary of State realise that the tax take in the Republic of Korea is approximately half what it is here? Does he also realise that the rate of growth in South Korea has never fallen below 5 per cent. during the past 15 years, whereas the rate of growth in this country has never been above 5 per cent? Indeed, on average, it has stayed at around 1.5 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that whether there are strikes in the Republic of Korea makes no difference in any comparison with the Welsh economy? Is not the real comment on the Welsh economy the Conservative Government's abysmal handling of it?
    Mr. Hague: It really is time that the hon. Gentleman started to reflect on and talk about the good news in our country. The recent Ford announcement in Bridgend was a huge vote of confidence in Wales, its workers and its economic circumstances. Unemployment in Wales has fallen by 27,000 since 1992; in the valleys, it has come down by 23 per cent. since the programme for the valleys began in April 1993. The hon. Gentleman should be joining me in telling the rest of the world how well we are doing and how good our prospects are.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following his visit to Korea and, indeed, because of the climate for business in Wales, major companies in Korea want to use Wales as a springboard for investment in this country and to export to other countries in the European Union, and that his visit may well prove to be a great success?
    Mr. Hague: I certainly think that there is considerable potential for investment in Wales by Korean companies. Some of them have already invested in other parts of the United Kingdom and I hope that, before too long, we shall see concrete evidence of their investing in Wales. For such companies, Wales is a very attractive place from

    3
    which to do business with the rest of Europe because we have lower tax, less regulation and good industrial relations—all of which have been brought about by the Government.
    Mr. Morgan: While I yield to no one in my admiration for the phenomenal economic growth achieved in the tiger economies of south-east Asia, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise to the House and to Wales for the disgraceful anti-Welsh behaviour of his predecessor in preventing Wales from even mounting a bid for the 3,000-job Taiwanese picture-tube project, while Scotland, Ireland and the northern region had no such inhibitions?
    Mr. Hague: In recent years, Wales has continued to gain between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of all inward investment into the United Kingdom—more than its proportionate share on the basis of population. That does not mean that we can be complacent; we have to redouble our efforts each year. All my predecessors were successful in helping to attract more inward investment into Wales and I hope to emulate that record.

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the standard spending assessment for the unitary authorities in 1995–96. [37828]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Various.
    Mr. Dafis: I thought that the Minister would say more, but I am glad to know that he has now recognised the need for a damping mechanism to mitigate the reduction that seems to be in the offing in relation to local government services in Wales. I am also glad that the Government are prepared to reconsider the formula for the standard spending assessment in future.
    May I suggest to the Minister that, as a result of, first, increased demand for services, generated in part by Government legislation, and, secondly, cuts made over several years in areas such as schools and social services, the need now is for an enhanced level of funding rather than for a reduction? If the Government go for a reduction in funding, causing a reduction in the quality of services, to fund pre-election tax cuts, the political price that the Conservatives will pay in Wales will be very heavy.
    Mr. Jones: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, our decisions about the spending arrangements for local government—and about all the other spending arrangements—will be announced in due course. I can confirm—I think that I detect a certain note of welcome for it—our decision to bring about a damping scheme to reflect the new situation in the standard spending assessments. There has been considerable constructive work by Welsh Office officials and local government officers, which has resulted in the revised indicative SSA figures, which we are publishing today. Copies have been placed in the Library and will be sent to the chief executives of local authorities. The figures are to be discussed with them on 6 November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will discuss the subject with the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 16 November.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales tend to get fed up with the whingeing of
    4
    Opposition politicians, who are for ever crying that local authorities in Wales do not get enough money? Is he aware, however, that only the other day Mid Glamorgan councillors tried to line their own pockets by voting themselves a 400 per cent. increase in allowances—no doubt at the same time as cutting essential services to the people who live in the area? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance today that capping will remain in place in Wales to protect the people who will end up having to pay the high bills that will be foisted on them by Labour councillors?
    Mr. Jones: I appreciate much of what my hon. Friend says; he has expertise in local government. He is absolutely right to point out the significance of councillors choosing to increase their pay by 600 per cent. They do so out of existing moneys, which means that they take the money away from other vital functions of local government.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Minister reflect on an article today in The Daily Telegraph which states that the Government are considering slashing the special aid package to Scotland and to Wales? Last year, we had£5 billion for Scotland and Wales through the special aid package. Will the Minister consider what effect slashing the aid package would have on local government? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether he will take the same stand as the Secretary of State for Scotland? If the Government intend to slash this amount, they will be on their death bed.
    Mr. Jones: I am fascinated that, after being sacked by his leader only a fortnight ago, the hon. Gentleman has taken to reading The Daily Telegraph. Is this the rightward lurch that we know is going on in the Labour party today? I can simply tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on record as saying that the formula arrangements for Wales have not changed and that that remains the position.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Although there has been a small increase in the budget for community care this year, what is the Welsh Office doing to address the fact that there is a deficit of about £71 million between assessed need and the grant for community care this year and the fact that there is a high risk that, when the unitary authorities take over next year, they will be even more stretched than local government is now?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the increases that we laid down for three successive years have been left in place, despite the fact that inflation was lower than forecast for that period. We will consider all these matters when we make our announcements on local government spending towards the end of next month.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales; and what were the figures for May 1979. [37830]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): In September 1995, the seasonally adjusted number of persons on the claimant

    5
    count in Wales was 68,700. The unadjusted figure for Clwyd in September 1995 was 13,065. There is no comparable figure for Clwyd for May 1979.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister and the Department take a keen interest in the long-term future of jobs at Merseyside and North-Western electricity board, as 300 compulsory redundancies were predicted during the takeover? Is he aware that some 2,000 aerospace jobs have been lost in my constituency in the past two years? We cannot afford to lose any more skilled jobs. Will he undertake to visit the headquarters of MANWEB to discuss its future?
    Mr. Richards: I am aware of press speculation of redundancies at MANWEB and, while it is a matter for the company, no one wants uncertainty for its employees or forced redundancies. There is also an awful lot of good news in and around the hon. Gentleman's constituency—particularly with regard to Broughton, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited on 26 September this year. The Raytheon Services Centre is staying open, while Sharp UK has announced an investment that will create 50 jobs. The Almedica Services Corporation has announced an investment that will lead to a further 200 jobs being created, while Warwick International is creating 60 more jobs. Kemitron in Hawarden is creating 100 jobs, while Mita UK in Abergele—in my constituency, as it happens—is proposing an investment that will create 70 jobs.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming a piece of investment that is very important to my constituency? The new Barry hospital, which cost £8 million, was opened last Thursday by her royal highness Princess Margaret, and I look forward to that hospital providing a wonderful service to my constituents in the years to come.
    Mr. Richards: I am delighted that there has been further investment in the NHS in my hon. Friend's constituency. Such investment has formed a part of the policy of the Government since 1979, and my hon. Friend may be assured that the health service is safe in our hands.
    Mr. Rogers: Further to the Secretary of State's response to Question 1 regarding the number of working days lost—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his question so that it relates to unemployment. We cannot operate in retrospect—we are now dealing with Question 3.
    Mr. Rogers: Further to any replies which have been given here today in relation to unemployment in Wales, is the Minister aware of the number of working days lost through unemployment? What is his message to the young people of the valleys whom we represent? In some communities, unemployment among young people is more than 80 per cent., while among adults the figure is well over 30 per cent. The Government's new revolution in south Wales seems to have passed the valleys by. Does the Minister have any comment on the matter?
    Mr. Richards: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should raise the issues of unemployment and days lost through strikes. Had there been a count of the number of days lost through strikes in July this year when the Labour party was on strike—one out, all out as the
    6
    Labour party slogan seems to be—there would have been an additional 28. I notice that all Labour Members took their pay for that day, even though they were not here at their place of work.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend estimate what would happen to the level of unemployment in Wales and in Clwyd if we were to introduce a national minimum wage, which in other countries has destroyed jobs, and to sign up to the social chapter, which would discourage inward investment into Wales?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes two extremely valid points. There is no question but that, if a minimum wage were introduced, unemployment in Wales, in Clwyd and in the United Kingdom as a whole would soar and that the introduction of the social chapter would have the same effect. Fortunately, between now and the general election, the Government will ensure that the electorate are informed of the dire consequences of introducing either of those two disastrous policies.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Under-Secretary of State's statement in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will be welcomed by Opposition Members. I trust that he will join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled Clwyd county council on its sterling work to attract investment and jobs to that area. Does he agree that, if we are to overcome the appalling legacy of the past 16 years—the 150,000 jobs that have been lost in Wales and the fact that, every month, we go down the regional pay league—we must have a much more positive partnership between the public and private sectors? If so, will he acknowledge the vital work being done by the Welsh Development Agency? Perhaps he could confirm that, when the present round of forced asset-stripping of the WDA comes to an end, it will be Welsh Office policy to restore the previous level of grant to the WDA.
    Mr. Richards: I certainly would have joined in with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the WDA's good work had he bothered to turn up in July. I am not sure which is worse—the new Ron, the old Ron, or no Ron. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Government's economic policy since 1979 has been a disaster. It has been an outstanding success in Wales—we transformed the clapped-out economy that we inherited from the Labour party into a high-tech, modern economy with new, meaningful, high-tech jobs. That is the consequence of 16 years of Conservative Government, to which the WDA has contributed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, although the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has refused to acknowledge it. As for the future funding of the WDA, the hon. Gentleman will find out in due course.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in debate. This is Question Time.

    Roads
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road projects are currently receiving substantial European aid in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales. [37831]
    Mr. Hague: One current project in south Wales is receiving in excess of £1 million grant aid.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State ensure that some grant aid, be it from Europe or anywhere else, will go towards forming a link between the A55 and Denbigh to replace the jobs lost as a result of the loss of the North Wales hospital there?
    Mr. Hague: The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that £1.5 million is being secured from the 1995 trans-European network fund for projects on the United Kingdom sections of the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link, which includes the A55 trunk road across north Wales. I shall always consider suggestions from around Wales for spending on other projects, but in each case we have to decide our priorities and balance the economic case for roads spending against the environmental consequences.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on unblocking the European funds that were due to Wales from Brussels, after his recent meeting with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies? Does not that suggest that the howls of anguish from Opposition Members both here and in the European Parliament about additionality were transparently much ado about nothing?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. There has never been any question about addionality because the money that the European Community paid is additional to United Kingdom public expenditure. I am glad that we have now clarified those difficulties. I hope that next time Labour Members of the European Parliament want to question addionality, they will discuss it with me instead of making complaints in Europe, which leads to the funds being held up wholly unnecessarily.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State and I seem to have missed each other on the first occasion on which he appeared at Welsh Questions, so may I put on record my congratulations on his good fortune at being appointed to the Cabinet? As he knows from his recent trip to Brussels, his predecessor tried to divert to the Welsh Development Agency funds that had been earmarked for other purposes. I am glad that the Secretary of State has put that matter right. Will he answer the question that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), signally failed to answer? When the present programme of forced asset stripping of the Welsh Development Agency comes to an end in 1997, will the WDA's grant be restored in real terms to its previous level?
    Mr. Hague: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I welcome him to Welsh Questions. We did miss him a little last time—it was like a performance of "Hamlet" without one of the grave diggers—and it is a great pleasure to see him here. I congratulate him on his re-election to the shadow Cabinet and look forward to many more exchanges.
    My predecessor did not divert funds as the hon. Gentleman described. All that we did in our recent agreement with the Commission was to change the transparency of the presentation. It is agreed that the money has always been additional. On the future funding of the Welsh Development Agency, he will know that, in the Welsh Office baseline, the grant in aid to the agency rises sharply once property sales are completed. I expect that to be the case, although it is, of course, subject to public expenditure decisions between now and then.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on further developments of nursery education in Wales. [378321
    Mr. Richards: Our proposed voucher scheme aims to expand the level of provision in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors so that every four-year-old in Wales whose parents so choose will have access to pre-school education.
    Mr. Rowlands: Why do Welsh Office Ministers have to wait upon English pilot projects and schemes for voucher systems? After all, education is a totally devolved responsibility. Why do they not exercise some imagination and use some of the vacant classrooms that already exist in many of our primary schools to deliver nursery education for our three and four-year-olds now?
    Mr. Richards: We already have some 90 per cent. coverage in Wales and the Office of Standards in Education has been surveying provision. English local education authorities have proposed running pilot schemes, which we did not feel were necessary in Wales as we already had 90 per cent. coverage. Nevertheless, we shall look carefully at the outcome of the pilot schemes in England.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real benefit of the excellent initiative on nursery education is that all four-year-olds in Wales will benefit in real terms from the new nursery education policy and that that contrasts favourably with what happened when Labour was in power, when there was no effort to make provision?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. While we are in power, parents will have a choice as to the provision of nursery education, which they would not have were Labour ever to come to power.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister ensure that, in any future scheme, strong discussions with local authorities will take place because Labour authorities are providing nursery education and many Opposition Members fear that any future scheme will top-slice that money and ensure that more children receive private nursery education, but at more cost to their parents and with fewer opportunities for all the children of Wales?
    Mr. Richards: There will be new money plus, of course, an amount of money from current local authority expenditure. As always, the Government consult.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Minister explain why we need a voucher scheme in Wales when virtually all the four-year-olds who the scheme will cover already have full or part-time education; when the voucher, which is valued at £1,100, offers less than two thirds of the current cost of providing a nursery place in Wales; and when the whole scheme is likely unnecessarily to destabilise existing provision? Given that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in England fought against the scheme right to the last minute, is this not another case of raving right wingers in the Tory party getting hold of a policy for which there is no need in Wales?
    Mr. Richards: We are having a voucher scheme because, unlike the Labour party, the Government believe

    9
    in offering choice to parents in Wales. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the voucher being worth £1,100. Yes, the voucher will be worth £1,100, but that does not mean that local authorities cannot spend more than £1,100 and, obviously, parents in the private sector will spend more than £1,100.

    Digital Terrestrial Television
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the implications of digital terrestrial television on the future of S4C and the Welsh language. [37833]
    Mr. Richards: Several.
    Mr. Wigley: May I ask the Minister to repress his natural modesty and congratulate S4C, on whose programmes he has been an all too familiar face, on its tremendous success? Does he agree that a success of the establishment of the channel was that it enabled Welsh, language programmes to be viewed at peak viewing times without denying people in the non-Welsh speaking parts of Wales access to BBC 1 and HTV, on which Welsh language programmes had previously been seen? Will he therefore ensure in any forthcoming discussions on the future of those television services that the Welsh language programmes will be at peak time and that paragraph 2.44 of the White Paper, which suggests that the programmes could be rescheduled, will not lead to that conclusion?
    Mr. Richards: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say what a great success S4C has been because it was the Conservative Government who set it up.
    On the hon. Gentleman's more serious point, I am aware that many people are concerned about peak viewing hours for the Welsh language. Those fears are entirely unfounded. The Government are determined to ensure that both S4C Welsh language programmes and Channel 4 programmes will be made available during peak times in as many parts of Wales as is technically feasible.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cardiff is a centre of excellence in the film animation industry and that some of its cartoon characters are world famous? Does he join me in regretting that so many of them end up as Labour Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Richards: One of those cartoon characters—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—is sitting on the Labour Front Bench. We have become accustomed to his antics. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Minister clarify his statement that both Channel 4 and S4C will be available? The current proposals, as I understand them, are for a shared channel, yet digitisation provides the opportunity for up to 18 channels. There seems to be no technical reason why the whole of Wales could not have both S4C and Channel 4 through digitisation. Will the Minister make sure that that happens?
    Mr. Richards: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks a question. I thought that his silence had been bought.
    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that S4C Welsh language programmes will be made available at peak viewing times in Wales and that, where it is technically feasible so to do, Channel 4 will also be available.

    Council Tax
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to council tax being levied on prescribed dwellings by local authorities. [37834]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Several, including one from the hon. Lady herself.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister recall receiving representations from my constituent, Mr. Ronald Bender, after Anglesey council levied council tax at the full rate on his chalet, which he is allowed to use, by agreement, for only six weeks a year? Will he examine the extent to which Anglesey council is not giving discounts, even where appropriate, so that I can reassure my constituent that the regulations are being applied fairly?
    Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Lady that I recall the correspondence that we exchanged about her constituent, Mr. Bender. I understand that Ynys Môn borough council has received counsel's opinion and, as a result, has refunded to the hon. Lady's constituent sums of money that go back to 1993. I trust that that is a satisfactory outcome. This is a responsibility for Ynys Môn and any other local authority in Wales, and I am sure that any further case will be considered carefully in the light of the outcome of Mr. Bender's case.

    Catalonia
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Catalonia. [37836]
    Mr. Hague: Wales has been developing economic and cultural relations with Catalonia since 1991. My visit coincided with the Wales in Catalonia festival when, in addition to leading a trade delegation, I was pleased to meet regional President Pujol, his Minister for Industry and Energy, and the Mayor of Barcelona, Mr. Maragall.
    Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State met President Pujol, did it cross his mind that President Pujol is a politician who is directly elected by the people of Catalonia, and that that is in stark contrast to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales and his party, who have no democratic mandate from the people of Wales? Does he realise that that denial of democracy and the running of Wales by quango-isation mean that support for a Parliament of Wales is now at an unprecedented level?
    Mr. Hague: I suppose that all sorts of things crossed my mind, but it certainly crossed my mind that Wales has huge advantages. We have an expanding economy, a willing work force, fantastic scenery and a wonderful culture. Wales can hold its head up high in the world and we should not ruin it with an unnecessary assembly, which would be a room full of hot air.
    Mr. Jenkin: Did my right hon. Friend have a moment to compare Catalan unemployment levels with those in Wales? Would he draw any conclusions from that?
    Mr. Hague: I do not have the Catalan figures on the tip of my tongue, but my hon. Friend will find that Spanish unemployment in general is two to three times that in the United Kingdom. Unemployment in Wales has been brought down to the UK average over the past 18 months

    11
    for the first time in 70 years, which is a considerable achievement. That compares well with almost everywhere else in Europe because of the lower tax levels, less regulation and good industrial relations that the Government have brought about.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Did the Secretary of State note the degree of regional pride in Catalonia arising from its autonomy in respect of both Spain and the external world? Did he notice that the cities in Catalonia have a degree of financial independence and responsibility that makes our cities in Wales extremely jealous?
    Mr. Hague: I certainly noticed the regional pride, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that a great deal of pride exists in Wales. People are not prevented from having that pride just because we are not changing the constitutional arrangement in the United Kingdom. I hope that the new unitary authorities will prove a successful development in local government and that, over time, more functions can be transferred to local government. My predecessor did that with several items of decision making and I hope to do the same.

    Chemical-Chase Manhattan Bank
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had with the newly merged Chemical-Chase Manhattan bank about its continued presence in Wales. [37837]
    Mr. Hague: I have made it clear that I am available to talk to representatives of the company, should the circumstances warrant it.
    Mr. Jones: That is a rather disappointing reply, as the Chemical-Chase Manhattan bank is possibly the cornerstone of the financial services initiative in south-east Wales. Were it lost to Wales, the implication would be far worse than a loss of jobs. It has been one of the companies that has helped attract many other companies into Wales and I am disappointed to hear that the Welsh Office has not yet thought fit to discuss whether the bank should stay in Wales or whether the jobs should go to south-east England.
    Mr. Hague: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's feelings—he need have no question about that. Wales needs and deserves a strong financial services sector. That bank knows that it is extremely welcome in Wales and grant has been paid to it in the past. I have intimated to it that the Welsh Office and I are fully prepared to have discussions with it. I stand ready to discuss things at any time.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of support for standard spending from central Government to local authorities in Wales. [37838]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The level of support for 1995–96 is 88.6 per cent. and provision for the next financial year will be considered shortly.
    Mr. Key: That sounds very generous to me. In fact, rumours have already reached my constituents in Salisbury that money has been spent by councillors in Wales to increase their allowances dramatically. That has
    12
    been confirmed this afternoon. Does my hon. Friend know that those who are most upset by that development are the Liberal Democrats, who control my council, who wanted that money for their own increases?
    Mr. Jones: I see—such is the way that the party of the left fights over the spoils as it lurches ever rightwards. Perhaps those councillors need the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who is in the shadow Cabinet because he acts as a messenger boy for the Leader of the Labour party, and is trying to persuade Labour local councillors to keep their increases down to 400 per cent.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    European Courts
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General what the estimated legal costs involved in each of the cases coming before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights were over the past two years; and what estimate he has made of the costs to (a) public and (b) private funds resulting from each court decision. [37855]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the two years ending 16 October 1995, the United Kingdom has participated in 95 cases decided in the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and 11 in the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The costs of counsel to date are respectively £412,447 and £299,654, in each case inclusive of VAT. The wider costs, if any, arising from a particular decision are a matter for the relevant departmental Minister.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the horrendous costs to the United Kingdom—not just legal costs but, more important, the cost of implementing the courts' decisions, for example on pregnant Army officers and free prescriptions for the over-60s—is it not time that the Government published some kind of paper explaining the cost to the taxpayer of some of those decisions, which some people in Parliament regard as lunatic? Can my right hon. and learned Friend at least give me an assurance that at next year's intergovernmental conference the Government will strongly endeavour to curb the substantial powers of those courts to interfere in almost every aspect of our way of life in Britain?
    The Attorney-General: I well recognise the strong feelings about certain of those judgments of not only my hon. Friend, who has held particular feelings for decades, but of a great many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend will understand that the question of what representations to make to the IGC is a collective decision for Ministers, but some of the points that he has raised are being focused upon as we marshall our case for the IGC.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the problems is that should the House of Lords, as the final Court of Appeal, make a decision that might involve more public expenditure, the House, as a democratic body, can overrule that decision, whereas should the European Court of Justice make a decision involving increased public expenditure, the House, as a democratic assembly, cannot overrule it? Will he make proposals at the IGC next year that national

    13
    democratic assemblies should have the ability to overrule the European Court of Justice when its decisions involve public expenditure?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman will have it in mind that all member states are involved in this process. He should cast his mind back to the Barber judgment, which looked likely to cost £50 billion of public and private moneys in this country and many billions in other member states. He will recall that, at the previous IGC at Maastricht, the member states, exercising their democratic will, put forward a protocol to remedy the decision of the court—in fact the court subsequently remedied the problem itself. The way to overcome such problems is for member states to act collectively through the IGC. There will be an opportunity to do that.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Attorney-General take pains to explain to his Euro-sceptic colleagues, including Ministers, that the European Court of Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union or the IGC? It resulted from treaty obligations that we entered into long before we joined the European Union.
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We originally ratified the European convention on human rights as long ago as 1951, and we have applied it as a treaty obligation ever since then. Many people muddle Strasbourg and Luxembourg; I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman does not.
    Sir Peter Emery: Would the Attorney-General like to point out to those people who speak about high costs the fact that, in the 106 cases that he mentioned, the legal fees were no more than about £7,000 per case, which is not the exorbitant price that many people would suppose?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The legal fees are not excessive for slightly more than 100 cases. The other fact that my right hon. Friend will have in mind is that we win a substantial proportion of the cases either in which we intervene, or to which we are parties. In recent years, there have been some significant moves by the court in directions that we would favour, as well as some that receive criticism.
    Mr. John Morris: With hon. Members on both sides of the House, we condemn terrorism, but will the Attorney-General note our surprise at the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on the recent judgment of the European Court in the Gibraltar case, including his threats to withdraw or review our adherence to the convention? Specifically, does the Attorney-General agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who has declared that the Government will ignore the ruling? Is that not sheer hypocrisy from a party that poses as a party of law and order? Would it not be better, give quicker justice and be less expensive if the convention were incorporated into our law?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has muddled a good many questions.
    The McCann judgment—the Gibraltar case—has no practical effect in our law save in relation to costs. The question of costs will be brought before Ministers in the usual way.
    14
    However, that judgment caused a great deal of proper public unease. I would have expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have commended the views of the minority in the court. He will remember that the decision was made by only 10 to nine, and that the president of the court took a fundamentally different view from the majority and set it out in concise reasoning with which, in my opinion, every sensible person should agree.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that recent decisions under the European convention on human rights are regarded by many of our constituents as an unwarranted interference in the sovereign right of this country to manage its own affairs? Is he further aware that many of our constituents take the view, not that we should ignore the decisions reached by the court or by the Commission of Human Rights, but that the United Kingdom should serve notice to withdraw from the convention?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has his own views, and any question on that is, of course, a collective one for Government, not a matter for me. However, it should not be supposed that we always lose before the European Court of Human Rights or that our record cannot stand honourably with that of other countries. We have given the right of individual petition for far longer than many other countries. Considering our size and the openness of our justice, our record is far more creditable than people realise.

    Departmental Work
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 19 July. [37856]
    The Attorney-General: Since 19 July, my Department has been engaged in carrying out its normal range of duties.
    Mr. Mackinlay: How does the Attorney-General account for the disparity of his conduct in relation to possible contempt of court cases? How is it that, with great speed, he has taken contempt of court action against Today regarding tittle-tattle that it published about the Prince of Wales's former housekeeper, but has taken no action against those newspapers that prejudiced an important criminal trial, with the result that the proceedings were aborted, at great cost?
    The Attorney-General: I can only attribute the hon. Gentleman's question to his ignorance. What even that Essex man does not seem to realise is that three contempt cases were already in the pipeline before the recent concern was brought to light by the judge at Harrow. I am looking at that carefully.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Looking at it carefully?
    The Attorney-General: Carefully and fairly, so that I can decide whether to bring proceedings.
    As I have said, three cases are to come before the divisional court—two respecting the BBC and one respecting the News of the World. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Trends
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received on trends in overseas aid during the past three months. [37863]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have received a large number of representations about the level of overseas aid, a great many of them paying tribute to the quality of our programmes.
    Mr. Pike: The Government may have given the impression that the budget faced a 12 per cent. cut so that they could introduce a smaller cut. Will the Minister recognise, however, that the public feel that overseas aid should not be reduced by a penny in real terms, but instead should be increased?
    Mr. Hanley: We cannot prejudge the outcome of the public expenditure survey, but, whatever happens after the Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme befitting the United Kingdom's status as a country with ties throughout the globe.
    Ours is the fifth largest economy in the world, and we have the fifth largest aid programme. I believe that our £2.2 billion programme—closely targeted, and concentrating on the poorest in Africa and Asia, with the magnificent support of the British non-governmental organisations—gives value for money far in excess of what some other nations may offer.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House deeply appreciate the quality of our aid programme, and its maintenance at a very satisfactory level? We are all concerned about the possibility that anyone should want to reduce it. This year's scare has been much greater than usual, and I hope that that will be taken into account.
    Mr. Hanley: As my hon. Friend knows very well, not just the volume but the quality of British aid is at issue. That quality is extremely high. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has recognised the programme's effectiveness—with its poverty focus and growing emphasis on encouraging the private sector—but, as I have said, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the PES. Let us wait and see.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, whatever the outcome of the PES, a cut in the total budget would probably mean a cut three times as great in the bilateral budget for this country's specific commitments? If there is any cut at all, the projects that will be most at risk are those to which the country is most committed.
    Mr. Hanley: I do not accept that we are "most committed" to any specific part of the aid programme; it is all extremely important to us. I accept, however, that if there is a cut in the aid budget it will have a gearing effect on our bilateral aid, because of the proportion of bilateral to multilateral aid and the changeover that is likely to occur over the next three years. I can only repeat what I said before: our £2.2 billion programme is extremely effective, and I know that many people rely on us.
    Sir John Stanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change to which he has just referred—the decline of
    16
    the share of our bilateral aid programme, and the increasing share going to the European Union following decisions at the Edinburgh summit—is a matter of considerable concern? At the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will my right hon. Friend renegotiate those arrangements, and try to claw back to our national control a greater element of our available aid expenditure?
    Mr. Hanley: Multilateral aid is currently about 50 per cent. of the total aid budget, and that reflects Britain's worldwide responsibilities. We plan to retain a substantial and effective bilateral programme, but our multilateral commitments are great because of our worldwide links and interests. We are working hard to ensure that multilateral aid, particularly that distributed through the European Community, meets the highest quality standards.
    Miss Lestor: Is the Minister aware of the dismay that has been felt throughout southern Africa at the Government's refusal at last month's round table conference in Brussels to pledge any new money to help to consolidate the peace process in Angola, in response to calls for investment in vital rehabilitation programmes? That was prejudging the cuts. Is the Minister aware that that refusal is viewed as a lack of political commitment to the peace process in Angola, the success of which is essential not only for war-torn Angola but for the stability of southern Africa as a whole? Will he reconsider the matter without waiting for the Budget announcement?
    Mr. Hanley: As the hon. Lady knows, 40 per cent. of our bilateral aid in 1993–94—that is more than £363 million—went to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We also make a substantial contribution through multilateral aid. The European Community's aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa for 1995 is equivalent to £7.6 billion, and the United Kingdom's share is £1.25 billion. As to Angola specifically, I shall pass the hon. Lady's comments on to my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister responsible.

    Ghana
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what levels of assistance are being provided to Ghana. [37865]
    Mr. Hanley: In addition to Ghana's share of our multilateral aid contributions—which are approximately £16.5 million—we have a substantial bilateral aid programme in Ghana; that will mean disbursements of some £17 million this financial year.
    Mr. Robinson: Sponsored by the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I took part in a good governance seminar at the beginning of the summer recess. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government are doing to support countries such as Ghana, which are doing so much to restore democracy and good governance to their political systems?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We contributed £1 million to the cost of the 1991 elections in Ghana and we have given £400,000 for equipment and voter registration forms in next year's

    17
    elections. Other measures to help to establish the new democracy have included the funding of links between our respective Parliaments.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that one of the multilateral organisations that is giving tremendous help to Ghana is the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation? Therefore, the Prime Minister's speech attacking UN agencies delivered at the UN general conference last month—which his media spinners said was directed at the FAO—was received with great distress. The FAO works with the grain of the market and it is operating very effectively around the world to support market-driven agricultural reform. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain continues to support the FAO?
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that all money spent by the United Nations must be spent efficiently and effectively. I agree with that entirely.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I stress to my right hon. Friend the importance of the democracy in Ghana, which is something of a flagship in west Africa? Furthermore, I urge him to recognise the important fact that the majority of Ghanaians are English speakers, and we therefore owe them particular support.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my right hon. Friend: Ghana is one of our best African friends, and therefore it is quite natural that it should be one of Africa's main recipients of United Kingdom aid. It has received more than £160 million in the past five years. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), I referred to the aid that we are giving, and have given, to Ghana. I think that that answer confirms my right hon. Friend's comments also.

    Cmmodity Prices
    33. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to increase the real prices of commodities from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. [37867]
    Mr. Hanley: Experience has shown that attempts to ignore market forces and increase commodity prices artificially are doomed to failure. Instead, Britain has been helping African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to increase their overall export earnings by advocating trade liberalisation and providing aid to encourage export diversification.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that his reply will be disappointing to those who are suffering the effects of structural adjustment programmes? They have been forced to liberalise their economies to export more goods for less profit and often lower local domestic production and consumption. Does he recognise that the way out of poverty for many people in the world is for farmers to be paid decently and properly for their products without the profits being creamed off by banks and manufacturing organisations in the west?
    Mr. Hanley: As I said, experience has shown that attempts to ignore market forces usually fail. International commodity agreements have failed to achieve real price rises over a sustained period. Some attempts have been costly failures. The International Tin Council left debts of £183 million and when the international coffee agreement collapsed, the consequent sharp decline in prices had an adverse effect on producing countries. Therefore, intervention in commodity prices has not proved effective in reducing poverty.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been any mention of a debate in the overspill period or in the next Session of Parliament on the report of the Scott inquiry, especially as today another four people from the firm Ordtech are appealing against a judgment against them, which arose only because the Government did the same as they did during the Matrix Churchill affair—threatened public immunity certificates? The net result is that four people are being hounded in the courts while the Ministers who are on the rack are answering questions very long-windedly and providing more questions for Scott to answer with a view to dragging out the matter beyond the general election.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter of Government business. The hon. Gentleman might put a question to the Leader of the House to find out about business when we come back after prorogation.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that I have a number of customs officers in my constituency. Many of them are deeply concerned about various statements that were made over the weekend. They wonder whether their jobs are secure as it has been suggested that cannabis should be legalised. Can we have a short statement on the matter as soon as possible?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that statements from Ministers are not my business, but I have had no information that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A supplementary question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) wholly and directly related to a matter in my constituency. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to inform me that she was about to refer to it. Will you please remind hon. Members that it is a courtesy in the House that hon. Members should be informed?
Madam Speaker: I noticed that the substantive question did not mention the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Constituencies are often mentioned in supplementary questions. It is extremely difficult always to give Members notice, particularly on the spur of the moment in a supplementary question and often in an exchange across the House during Question Time. As the
20
hon. Gentleman knows, I like Members to be courteous and I hope that they will carry out the proper procedures of the House and inform Members when they are able to do so.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that next Monday we shall debate whether to put into effect the recommendation of the Nolan committee concerning the disclosure of outside financial interests that arise from parliamentary activities. I raise the point of order with you because, in local government, as you probably know, councillors have to declare their interests before they vote. That is very clear and they can be taken to court if they do not do so. When hon. Members vote next Monday, how will it be possible for them to make it perfectly clear that they have a direct interest? It is extremely important because the public will want to know how we go about our business. The Nolan committee has made a firm recommendation. Will you rule it necessary for Members to declare their interests if they are likely to be affected by the ruling, if it is implemented?
Madam Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will keep it in mind at all times and particularly, as the hon. Gentleman says, next Monday, that if they are speaking in the debate, they should make their interests quite clear at its start. That is what the hon. Gentleman seeks.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

PROBATION
That the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2622) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2307) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND)
That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2369) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Knapman]
Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I shall describe the purpose of the Bill, the reason for its introduction now, the way in which its provisions would work, and the number of prisoners who would be affected.
The Bill has a simple purpose. It is to restore the practice which existed in Northern Ireland until 1989 and which had obtained since 1976, that all prisoners serving fixed terms of imprisonment, regardless of the nature of their offence, became eligible for release at the halfway point of their sentence.
The Bill will secure that in future, in Northern Ireland as in all other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, all prisoners will be required to serve a minimum period of 50 per cent. of their sentence. But there is an important further purpose. The Bill provides that those in Northern Ireland released in accordance with the Bill's provisions will, like their counterparts in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions, now be liable for recall to prison. They will be liable for recall if at any point up to the two thirds point in their sentence their continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or if they are likely to commit further offences. That is a new provision for Northern Ireland, and a desirable one.
The reason for introducing the Bill now is that the reversion to the former practice that I have described has been made possible because the ceasefires have been maintained for more than a year. The risk of further terrorist-related offences being committed by those offenders whom the Bill affects is seen to be greatly reduced.
It is necessary to remind the House of the cumulative security background to the changes that were made in 1989. Parliament then changed the rules for remission of fixed sentences. The House will, of course, remember the IRA's horrifying bombing at Enniskillen in November 1987 of the crowd assembled for the Remembrance day service. Eleven people were murdered then, and many more by far were injured. That outrage was followed by a series of very serious terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland, extending throughout the following year. Attacks upon the security forces, both on and off duty, featured especially in those.
We remember the deaths in June 1988 of six soldiers in bomb attacks after a "fun run" in Lisburn. We remember the deaths of eight soldiers in August, when their coach was bombed at Ballygawley, in County Tyrone. We remember some hideous attacks on civilians as well. Both the republicans and loyalists were responsible for a series of sickening sectarian attacks. The IRA murdered a six-year-old boy and his parents, and murdered three civilians in Londonderry with a bomb meant for the security forces. By the end of 1988, no fewer than 94 people had lost their lives by reason of campaigns of terrorist violence, and there was no sign of any let-up.
22
That was the background to a security review that was undertaken by the Government. In consequence, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, introduced in 1989, contained two provisions regarding sentences imposed upon offenders convicted of terrorist-related offences. The first provided that where a fixed sentence of five years or more had been imposed for such an offence, remission for good conduct should be restricted to a maximum of only one third of the sentence, instead of the previous one half.
The second provided that any such offender who, during a period of release through remission of sentence, committed a further terrorist-related offence, should be required to serve any unexpired portion of the remitted sentence before starting to serve the new one.
Parliament approved each proposal, and the resulting provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 were continued in force by sections 14 and 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. That Act was itself enacted at a time when the terrorist campaigns of violence were still raging. That covers the violent background to the present law, exceptional as it is to Northern Ireland.
The security situation in Northern Ireland today, while it is still horribly blemished, is nevertheless very different. The ceasefires have been maintained for more than a year. Instead of 94 deaths, in the past year two persons have lost their lives, one after being tragically injured in an attack some 22 years before. The risk of terrorist offenders committing further terrorist-related offences is seen to be greatly reduced now.
It is therefore now for decision whether the exceptional restriction introduced in 1989 on the release of such offenders needs to be continued in its effect. I would point out that the Bill leaves untouched the provision that I have just mentioned for serving out the unexpired portion of an earlier sentence.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State redouble his efforts to educate the Home Secretary, so that he understands that the release and transfer of prisoners plays a crucial part in building confidence in the peace process and should not be regarded as a reward? In that context, will he put renewed pressure on the Home Secretary to agree to the urgent transfer of Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien from Whitemoor, to prisons either in the north or in the Republic of Ireland, in view of the very compelling and compassionate circumstances surrounding their cases?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is quite outside the scope of the Bill. However, I will just say that there is a clear policy regarding the transfer of offenders to the jurisdiction nearest to their homes and families and that the Home Office has pursued that policy consistently. The two prisoners whom he mentioned are prisoners who have never had any domicile in Northern Ireland, but whose domicile is in the Republic and who have not been able to be transferred to the Republic until such time as the Republic's ratification of the European convention on the repatriation of prisoners takes effect. That will be some time next month.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that it is something to do with the Bill.
Mr. Corbyn: With regard to what the Secretary of State just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), when the Dail Eireann passes the appropriate legislation to allow the transfer of prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, will he expedite the transfer of Patrick Kelly on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason, because of Mr. Kelly's serious illness?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hoped that I had indicated that those two gentlemen, and Mr. Kelly in particular, are not in my jurisdiction but in that of the Home Secretary. I do not doubt that he will take account of all appropriate circumstances.
I was describing the security situation today. I said that it is for decision whether the exceptional restrictions introduced in 1989 need to be continued in effect. In August this year, in a speech at Queen's university, I drew attention to the transformation of life in Northern Ireland occasioned by the ceasefires. I said of the ceasefires that they had
"transformed the situation into which prisoners are released. For the first time in 25 years, our young people are growing up in a situation in which they are not tempted with the call for arms.
They should not face the temptation of involvement in such criminal activity. The need for the increased measures of 1989 has therefore dramatically reduced."
I continued:
"Provided there is not in the meantime the resumption of terrorist violence which would restore the need for stronger measures, I shall therefore seek early legislation which would enable those already serving sentences for terrorist offences to be released after they have served 50 per cent. of their sentences."
I believe that that undertaking can properly now be implemented.
It is desirable that, in the light of the changed situation brought about by the ceasefires, the Government, in this field as in others, should not seem reluctant to respond in a positive manner consistent with their previous analyses and policy statements. But in so recommending such a response to the House, I want to emphasise the importance of understanding and respecting the feelings of the terrorists' victims, whether they are victims by reason of injury or bereavement, or in some cases both.
I tried to signal such emphasis when at Queen's I said:
"Time can never remove the hurt; for many it is as fresh and painful after 25 years as after one year … We must always feel with those who will always grieve."
Yet I find that, quite often, it is those very people who have most to forgive who show inspiring hope and vision for the future.
I come to how the Bill will work. Clause 1, by its first two subsections, mitigates the effect of section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. That section limits to a maximum of one third the remission that may be granted to an offender convicted of a scheduled offence and sentenced to a fixed term of five years' or more imprisonment. I should explain that a scheduled offence is one contained in schedule 1 of the EPA, which has not been exempted from that Act's provisions by a certificate given by the Attorney-General.
The reason why the clause does not simply enlarge remission from one third to one half is that to do that would technically bring the sentence to an end at the halfway point, and thus prevent the release of the offender on licence—which we wish to provide for in subsection
24
(3). I have already described the circumstances in which subsection (3) would permit the Secretary of State to revoke a person's licence. It is a necessary safeguard to cater for a situation in which a person under licence presents a risk to the safety of the public if he continues at liberty, or in which he appears likely to commit further offences. So, that safeguard is provided.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Since this power is quite unusual, as it is entirely subjective—it depends on the Secretary of State making a judgment that a person has become liable to commit further offences, which he was not liable to commit when he was released—is it assumed that it has arisen from a change in the political situation, a breakdown of talks, so that people become inclined to commit offences that they would not have done otherwise, or is it simply intended to meet a changed personal situation in which, perhaps, an individual joins a more extreme group?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The power is expressed in the words of the Home Secretary's directions some years ago to the Parole Board, to cover matters that it should take into account when determining whether to recall to prison somebody who has been released, having been sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Of course, the circumstances in each instance would have to be particular to the individual person on licence, and I would not wish to seek to circumscribe the appropriate circumstances.
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). But this is a different case, of course. The Secretary of State referred to the Parole Board, which is an arm's length body that exists to evaluate the evidence. In the Bill, all that exists is the Secretary of State, so it seems that the Secretary of State is concentrating all powers into his hands without any objective or distanced judgment on the available evidence.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Secretary of State must do the best that he can. He is responsible for the safety of everybody in Northern Ireland. A proper safeguard is provided in subsection (4), which provides that the Secretary of State must give reasons for the recall and must, of course, notify the offender that he is entitled to make representations about that recall and about those reasons. Above all, there is the overarching safeguard that the Secretary of State's decision would be subject to judicial review and that any capricious, unreasonable or misguided recall decision would be liable to be overturned by the court.
It is a matter of regret that we have, for so many years, not been able to have something equivalent to a Parole Board system in Northern Ireland. The House will know why, for the moment, that remains the case.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention to the stringent powers given to the Secretary of State in relation to the withdrawing of licence for someone who appears likely to commit further offences. Is it not the case that those further offences, in those circumstances, would, in effect, be scheduled offences? Should not the word "scheduled" be included in the Bill before the word "offences"? Or is the Secretary of State suggesting, as the

25
Bill suggests, that someone who is released on licence can be returned on the decision of the Secretary of State because of a civil offence that has no connection with terrorism or any scheduled offence?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Naturally enough, the Secretary of State will wish to use his discretion in a sensible manner. The Bill does not provide that the offence shall be a scheduled offence. Many people would be upset if the Bill limited the offence to that. Here is somebody who, under the Bill, is being licensed at the 50 per cent.—halfway—mark, having been convicted of serious scheduled offences. That person may be committing other offences or may be likely to commit other offences of a serious nature. Many people would be extremely upset if such a person was not liable to be recalled. I believe that that is a fair reflection of how the public would respond.
Mr. Mallon: I regret the equanimity with which the Secretary of State assumes to himself the power to take away someone's freedom because that person has committed a civil offence for which he or she can be committed to prison only by a court. In this instance, the Secretary of State is granting to himself or his successor the power to remove someone's freedom and to put that person in prison for a civil offence. Surely that should be put right in the Bill. If it is not, the Secretary of State will not help the cause of justice, but will grant to his office the power to put a person in gaol on foot of a civil offence.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by a civil offence. We are talking about an offence. The Bill deals with criminal misconduct and is limited to criminal offences. I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman means. It is not a question of a debt or anything like that.
Mr. Robert McCartney: The phrase "civil offence" used by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is meaningless in law in this context. The hon. Gentleman means a criminal offence that is not a scheduled criminal offence—in other words, a terrorist offence. If someone, for example, had been charged and convicted of a scheduled offence of great personal violence, and subsequently became subject to remission at 50 per cent. of the sentence, but was subsequently involved in a crime of serious domestic violence, which was not a scheduled offence, for the protection of the public at large and to prevent the public from being exposed to any risk, the Secretary of State might well revoke that person's licence and bring him back into prison as a dangerous person per se, whether likely to commit scheduled offences or crimes of domestic violence.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has the position absolutely right. In those circumstances, I would be able to face the disapproval of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who would criticise me for not leaving at licence and at liberty such a person, notwithstanding the fact that a serious offence of violence was likely to be committed by him. I doubt that that would be in the interests of the public.
Subsection (6) provides for mandatory court orders requiring a person to serve out the unexpired portion of a previous sentence when he has been convicted and
26
sentenced for a subsequent scheduled offence. It does so in effect by applying section 15 of the emergency provisions Act to the period of release on licence.
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Bill on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint. Clause 3 permits the Secretary of State to make orders suspending or reviving the operation of clause 1. The House will readily understand that circumstances might change in such a way as to make that necessary. We trust that they will not.
Clause 4 provides for the affirmative resolution procedure for approving a draft order of suspension, with an exception to take account of circumstances in which suspension would be urgently required.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State assure me that the order will be brought into effect as soon as possible after the Act receives Royal Assent? Secondly, in the event of it being necessary to suspend the provisions of clause 1 during a period in which the House is not sitting, will steps be taken to allow the House to debate the suspension of clause 1 without our having to wait for the expiry period of 40 days, after which the House may still not be sitting?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the Act receives the approval of the House, the Government intend to bring it into force as soon as practicable and before Christmas. I cannot give an undertaking on the hon. Gentleman's second question, as that would be a matter for others. He points to a scenario in which it might be necessary as a matter of urgency to suspend the working of the Act without prior affirmative resolution approval having been given.
Lastly, the House will wish to know the number of prisoners whom the Bill would affect. If the scheme were introduced in early December, more than 90 prisoners would be released before Christmas. A further 88 prisoners would be released on licence during 1996 whose release otherwise would not have been due until 1997 or 1998.
By the end of the decade, about 340 prisoners out of the 471 to whom the Bill currently applies will have been released. The House will be reassured to know, however, that many of those who have been sentenced for the most heinous offences would under the provisions of the Bill remain in prison until at least the end of the first decade in the next century.
The Bill is not an amnesty. It makes no concession to people who falsely claim that those who are convicted of terrorist offences somehow become political prisoners. It makes no concession to terrorism at all. On the contrary, the Bill will enable the penal system in Northern Ireland to make a positive, but proportionate and prudent, response to the continuance of the ceasefires, and to the welcome reduction in risk that has been brought about over the past year. I commend it to the House.
3.57 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: The Opposition approach the Bill in the spirit of bipartisanship characterised by our support for the peace process, particularly since the ceasefires. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has asked me to apologise for her absence today, which is the result of other urgent Northern Ireland business. My hon. Friend

27
has said repeatedly that peace and the search for a constitutional settlement are far too important to be undermined by party political point scoring.
On no occasion was the importance of that more clear than during the regrettably cancelled British-Irish summit, where there was a great danger that the respective Governments would be seen as agents for one or other of the protagonists, rather than as facilitators for peace and a constitutional settlement that would meet with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Just as the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Republic must stick together, so must the Opposition do all that they can to ensure that the pressure for an agreed solution is maintained on all parties.
We have urged this measure on the Government since June. The Secretary of State promised to introduce it in his speech during the summer, after we had urged the change. It is clear that both traditions and both sets of protagonists regard the prisoner issue as key. One element in that is the beneficial role that prisoner groups played in bringing about a ceasefire. We must also pay tribute to the constructive part played by some ex-prisoners in supporting the peace process.
As the Secretary of State said, there are other important elements to be borne in mind. First, any approach must never forget the victims of the violence—those whose nearest and dearest were slaughtered and maimed although they were no part of any dispute. Unfortunately, the appalling indifference to suffering still seems to be around, as seen in the barbaric torture of a 16-year-old girl last week as part of the deplorable pattern of punishment beatings.
The crimes that were committed were heinous and the perpetrators must serve fair sentences. Even after the measure is passed, there will be large numbers of prisoners with considerable sentences to serve. Justice can be done only if the victims are not merely remembered but honoured by our passing legislation that respects their suffering.
Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend refers to honouring the victims. Is he aware—if he is not, I am sure that he will be pleased to learn—that those of us who have been campaigning for a proper memorial in Birmingham for the 21 victims of the mass murder that took place on 21 November 1974 have been told that such a memorial is now to be erected? I hope that it will be put up on the 21st anniversary of the atrocities. I am sure that that shows that we shall always remember and honour those who died—the victims of terrorism, whether on the mainland or, as so often happened, in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Worthington: I hear with great respect what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that both civic and national authorities will be listening to him.
The legislation must be fair and principled. It seems to us that the measure is so, although there are flaws, as I shall point out. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) 1991, which the Bill supersedes, were introduced under conditions of emergency. They imposed more stringent conditions of imprisonment. The Government now propose, and we agree, that under
28
conditions of peace it is appropriate to impose on those prisoners exactly the same conditions of imprisonment as if they had committed their crimes in Great Britain.
I recognise that exact equality is not possible, particularly because Northern Ireland does not have a parole system, but an imperfect peace is far superior to the alternative and it seems to us that the measure should be supported. However, the precedents for hurried legislation are not good. We can all think of examples, including contemporary examples, of legislation passed in haste and repented at leisure.
We have been able to consider the Bill only since late on Thursday. We shall make proposals for change which we hope that the Government will consider constructively. The Government have welcomed and, I hope, valued our bipartisan approach, but I remind the Government that bipartisan means joint and shared. It does not mean that the Secretary of State decides and we follow. The points that we are putting today are constructive and we put them in the knowledge that a Labour Government are likely to enact the legislation.
I shall make other proposals and comments which might not be appropriate as amendments to the Bill, but on which the response of the Secretary of State will be important. For instance, I understand that in the recent Pepper v. Hart judgment, seven Law Lords ruled that where there was doubt about the law—the Bill will result in many such doubts—the statements of Ministers about the intentions of the legislation acquire the force of law. Therefore, I hope that, on occasion, the Secretary of State will intervene to clarify his intentions.
I now arrive at one such point that is important in terms of the Government's bona fides. This is retrospective legislation, in that it alters the conditions under which prisoners were sentenced. It ameliorates the conditions of remission. If legislation can be passed to improve remission retrospectively, it follows that it can be passed to worsen it.
The legislation is going in the opposite direction to recent statements by the Home Secretary. For example, at the Tory party conference, he said that he would introduce a crime Bill before the next election which would give effect to his statements—for example, that
"five years should mean five years … No more automatic early release … And no more half time sentences for full time crimes … Persons serving 12 months … or more will be eligible for a small period of earned early release"
For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, it is important that the Secretary of State gives us the firmest of assurances that nothing that the Home Secretary is preparing will have any impact on this Bill or any of the prisoners affected by its proposals. As has been pointed out, it should be recognised that, written into the Bill, are considerable reserve powers for the Secretary of State.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some information on a closely related matter. The Bill applies only to determinate sentences, and not to life sentences. What impact do the Government envisage it having on the length of time served by lifers? The Secretary of State will be aware of the judgment of Mr. Justice Dyson that the Home Secretary's policy of delaying parole applications for five lifers, who had reached the end of the tariff part of their sentences, was "unreasonable and unlawful." The judge also described the policy as "manifestly unjust". Has a decision been made on whether

29
to appeal against that judgment? It would be strange if the Government were introducing this measure at the same time as appealing against Mr. Justice Dyson's decision.
Mr. Madden: As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is implying that the matter has nothing to do with him, I must inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Home Secretary had until one day last week to submit notice of an appeal on the matter to which he referred. No such notice has been submitted and we can only assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend to appeal against that judgment.
Mr. Worthington: I hear what my hon. Friend says but, with all due respect, it would be good for Ministers to say so. I heard the Minister of State saying that it was nothing to do with this Bill, but, as we all know, the measure is part of a jigsaw—a constellation of factors affecting prisoners—and we want to know how it fits together.
On the specifics of the Bill, some of my remarks are on matters that would normally be mentioned in Committee, but I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that, due to the exceptional circumstances of this Bill, it will help the business of the House if I make those points now so that the Government can consider them and respond in Committee—hopefully, by accepting our proposals and using their drafting skills to improve the legislation. Hope springs eternal. After all, I expect that the Government hope for the minimum of amendment in the other place so as to avoid any complication in reporting back to this House, and I hope that they will be helpful in this matter.
Clause 1(2) states:
"A person to whom this section applies shall be released on licence".
The Government's assurances on that are very important. Do the Government intend to impose any conditions on the licence beyond a general expectation that the person should be of good behaviour? For example, will there be any restrictions on freedom of movement or freedom of association?
At the moment, the Bill gives the Government the freedom to create whatever conditions they want. Given the sensitivities of the situation and the considerable powers in clause 1(3), it does not seem to be necessary to write in specific conditions of licence, but an assurance from the Government would be welcome.
Clause 1(3) is probably the most contentious in the Bill and I hope that the Government will be able to move some way to improve it. We fear that, if they cannot, it will cause problems. Especially difficult is the expression
"The Secretary of State may revoke a person's licence … if it appears to him that"
a person
"is likely to commit further offences".
The matter has already been mentioned in interventions. What sort of offences would be involved? Should there not be some sort of quality—or gravity—control? Surely the Secretary of State should not be given such carte blanche powers when he thinks that someone
"is likely to commit further offences".
Is the Secretary of State willing to consider writing in scheduled offences or some other such seriousness threshold to give reassurance on the matter?
30
However, the worst part of clause 1 is the fact that the Secretary of State is policeman, prosecuting counsel, judge, jury and Court of Appeal. Will the Government give some undertaking to improve the clause? Let me suggest three improvements.
First, logically should not clause 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b) be reversed? At present, a person
"may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State about the revocation"
and then
"shall as soon as is practicable be informed of the reasons for the revocation".
Remember, that is after the licence has been revoked. Surely the first thing to do is to tell the person why the licence is being revoked and then tell him of his right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
If we reverse clause 1(4)(a) and (b), is there not also a case for amending clause 1 to say that the person should not be informed
"as soon as is practicable"
but should be informed immediately and in writing of the reasons for the revocation? At present, there could be a dispute about what a person was told when he was informed verbally. If it is right that a person should be able to make representations in writing to the Secretary of State about the appeal, surely it is right that the Secretary of State should tell that person in writing why the licence is being revoked.
Secondly, there has to be some judicial or quasi-judicial intervention in the matter to evaluate the evidence. I should welcome a response on the matter from the Minister so that we can decide what to do in Committee. What thought have the Government given to that?
If we were in Government, we would not want to assume all the powers in clause 1 because we would in so doing bring condemnation upon ourselves. There is certainly a case for creating an intermediary body. The Secretary of State may wish to respond as to the form of an intermediary body to give assurance, in a highly dangerous political situation, that there will be fair dealing. That is especially important because of the Government's sources of information.
When a prisoner in Great Britain breaches parole, it may come to light either through the police bringing charges via the courts or through the actions of the probation service. In Northern Ireland, there is no parole and the probation service has not been involved with supervising paramilitaries. The only sources of information for the Secretary of State are the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the security services, which do not have to bring a case to court. Mistakes can be made and the Secretary of State will be aware of the hostility of sections of the nationalist community to the RUC.
I make those points not out of sympathy—quite the reverse—for terrorist activity, but out of knowledge of how damaging to community peace it would be if mistakes were made on the basis of this procedure. It is crucial that the procedure is seen as fair.
The clause makes no reference to legal assistance being made available to the person whose licence is being revoked. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

31
Clause 1(3) also says that, if the Secretary of State recalls someone released on that type of licence, that person will then be detained
"in pursuance of his sentence".
Does that mean beyond the period when the person would be released anyway under current law, and beyond the time when he benefits from one third remission? The preamble says that that is not intended and that all prisoners will still be entitled to one third remission, but the clause is not clear and I ask the Government to clarify it.
I do not understand why clause 2 exists. It says:
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
We are rightly considering the Bill as a matter of urgency and the other place will consider it on Thursday. Soon afterwards, it will go for Royal Assent and could be enacted on that date. The Secretary of State has said that he intends to have it in operation so that it affects people by Christmas. Why do the Government need a further stage—a statutory instrument at an unspecified date—before the Bill comes into force? What will be the content of the statutory instrument, apart from a date? Cannot the clause simply be deleted? The Secretary of State has all the reserve powers that he could possibly want in clauses 3 and 4. I am at a loss as to why clause 2 is needed.
Clauses 3 and 4 give the Secretary of State powers to cancel the whole Bill. The Government may feel that they need to retain that power, and I see little chance of persuading them to drop the clauses, even if one wanted to. Will the Secretary of State clarify one point and give an assurance on another? Although clause 3(2) says that the suspension of clause 1 will not apply to prisoners released on licence—they will not be brought back into the system—what about those who are sentenced after clause 1 has taken effect?
Let us suppose that someone is sentenced to 15 years for a scheduled offence, which could happen on the day after the Bill becomes law. If such a person were sentenced to 15 years, he or she would expect to be out in seven and a half years. Obviously, we hope that the Secretary of State will not suspend clause 1, but, if he did, that prisoner would be released only after 10 years. In 1989, when remission was cut to one third, the Government were careful to apply the provision only to those sentenced after 1989, so that those sentenced expecting half remission got to keep it. It would be interesting to know why the Government have taken a different approach in this case.
Clauses 3 and 4 appear to duplicate each other. I have been informed that clause 4, which proposes retrospective approval for action by the Secretary of State, has been included in case emergency action is needed during a summer recess. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) hinted, were the Government to consider revoking the legislation, the House should be recalled to discuss such an obvious crisis. Can the Secretary of State clarify the purpose of clauses 3 and 4?
The Opposition broadly support the Bill, which we want on the statute book quickly. We believe that the normalisation of the remission rates will help the development of the peace process. Surely the Government
32
accept that the Bill could be improved to make it more effective. I look forward to the Government's response to the issues that I have raised.
4.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome the Bill. I would like to think that the absence of so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends is confirmation that they share that reaction.
The substance of the Bill is justified in its own right, and the time is right for the changes that it initiates to be introduced. I believe that the argument is straightforward. In the first place, the Bill is a small but significant step in the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland. It has rightly been the Government's objective to see created the circumstances in which the fear of a terrorist outrage is relegated to the past; political differences are resolved exclusively by peaceful means within the democratic process and the emergency legislation that we deemed to be necessary is no longer considered so. The Bill is a move in that direction.
As the Secretary of State explained, in effect the Bill repeals the requirements of section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and section 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The ultimate justification for those and other emergency powers was that they were needed to deal with exceptional circumstances. It has been argued, and I accept it, that the exceptional circumstances that justified our emergency powers in respect of those two sections no longer exist.
Despite, as the Provisionals predicted, a summer in which the streets echoed with the sound of marching feet; despite Mr. Adams' more recent assurance that the IRA has not gone away; and despite the fact that the IRA is still intact, is recruiting, training, targeting and raising funds and seeks to expand its influence through intimidation and violence, the ceasefires have thankfully held and the most horrific manifestations of terrorism are on hold. It is therefore right, as the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, to begin to look again at some of the features of our emergency legislation. That is the precise purpose of the Bill.
The Bill is acceptable, first, as it represents a move towards establishing normality in the life of the Province. Secondly, by making that move, the Government are acting positively on a subject that is important and sensitive to many people in the Province. Once enacted, the Bill is therefore likely to inject momentum into the search for a permanent peace and the achievement of overall political agreement.
To say that the prisoners issue is sensitive and important is not to condone what the prisoners have done; far from it. As the Government have repeatedly emphasised, there has never been any justification for violence in Northern Ireland. As the Government have emphasised, there are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom—only criminals, and the criminals who indulge in terrorist offences are punished, deservedly, for their crimes.
It would be entirely wrong to make any concessions on those issues. Our principled stand is right.
Nevertheless, the current terms of imprisonment and remission for scheduled offenders were determined when circumstances were different. We can acknowledge that. We can change those terms without compromising our position of principle.

33
As a result of doing so, the Government may well inject a further dose of momentum into that search for permanent peace and overall agreement, not least because the effects of the Bill will be felt on both sides of the community divide in Northern Ireland.
To achieve the normalising of life in the Province, self-evidently progress must be made on a wide range of issues at the right time and in the right way, and never at the cost of diluting, compromising or betraying principle. The Bill certainly does not do the latter. It acknowledges that the ceasefires have significantly changed the position in Northern Ireland, and that some of the strict demands of the emergency legislation can be modified.
A second reason for supporting the Bill is therefore the fact that it represents movement on what is an important issue to many people, and is likely to promote further peace and practical political agreement.
Thirdly, the Bill is consistent in one important respect with other measures that the Government have taken since and in response to the ceasefire: it can be reversed if circumstances so necessitate.
Let us consider the measures so far. A broadcasting ban has been lifted but, theoretically, that could be reimposed relatively simply. Some exclusion orders have been lifted. They also could, if so required, be reimposed. Border crossings have been opened, but they can be closed again. Military support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been downgraded; that could be countermanded. Troops have been withdrawn; they can be sent back. All can be reversed if previous levels of violence return.
It is the same with the Bill—it is reversible. In the case of individual licences, clause 1(3)
"allows the Secretary of State to revoke a licence if it appears to him that the licensee's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences."
Clause 1(6) applies section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and part II of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 so that—I quote again from the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill:
"where a person commits an offence while on licence, a court may (and must, in certain circumstances where the offence was a scheduled offence) make an order requiring him to serve the outstanding period of his sentence."
In the case of the proposed system of release on licence after half the sentence has been served until two thirds have been served, under clause 3 the Secretary of State can suspend release on licence if he believes that the position has so deteriorated that section 14 of the 1991 Act and section 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 should be reintroduced.
The more limited safeguard in respect of individual licensees and the general power to suspend clause 1 are reassuring.
The Bill merits support, and I hope that the House will support it. It helps to promote a central object of Government policy—to move towards establishing normality in Northern Ireland. By making that move, the Government are acting positively on an issue that is important and sensitive to many people, and may well inject momentum into the peace process as a result.
The Bill contains its own safeguards. Its provisions can be reversed if the security situation deteriorates. I hope that it will be supported by both sides of the House.
4.28 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: I have good news for the Secretary of State: the Ulster Unionist party will not be opposing the Bill. It is obvious—as only one member of our party is present—that any such opposition would be quite weak.
We have some reservations about what is happening today. The Secretary of State will probably recall that, on Thursday 19 October, the Leader of the House confirmed that we would be debating the Disability Discrimination Bill this afternoon. Then suddenly, last Thursday, the Leader of the House announced a change in today's business.
At 3.30 pm on Thursday 26 October, I tried to obtain a copy of the Bill, but it was not available in the Vote Office and did not arrive in the post over the weekend. Like other Northern Ireland Members—only four out of 17 are present this afternoon—I did not see a copy until 2 pm today.
I do not understand why the Bill has been presented with such undue haste. There has been no proper consultation, and hon. Members have not had ample time to consider the Bill and the reaction to it. It may well be that, early last week, the Whips discovered that the Northern Ireland spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition and the leaders of the Ulster Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour and Democratic Unionist parties would not be present. They are all in Washington.
Notice of that was given well in advance. Perhaps the Whips Office decided to seize the opportunity and rush the measure through today, allowing it to complete all its stages. That is a most unparliamentary procedure, unless there is a strong reason for exercising such haste. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what the reason is.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) mentioned the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative party conference, and gave us some excellent quotations from it. Let me give some more. The Home Secretary said:
"If prison—and the threat of prison—are to work effectively, there's a strong case for greater certainty in sentencing … I will tell you now, some people won't like it. They'll say it's too tough. I've got a simple answer, If you don't want the time, don't do the crime … There is no doubt that the fear of imprisonment is an extremely effective deterrent."
The Home Secretary finished his speech by saying:
"It will put honesty back into the heart of sentencing. And it will help build a safer Britain."
The philosophy of the Home Office seems very different from that of the Northern Ireland Office, as presented this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Northern Ireland Office also arranged for the absence of the Home Secretary?
Mr. Taylor: I shall not respond to that. My point is that, at a time when the Home Secretary is adopting a more hard-line attitude to the sentencing of criminals, a more liberal regime in regard to imprisoned criminals is emerging in Northern Ireland.
The Bill has been presented as part of the on-going political process in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire that was announced 14 months ago. Since then,

35
spokesmen for the terrorists—terrorists from both communities, I might add—have demanded the early release of prisoners. It has been suggested that that could be disguised by an increase in the remission of sentences. That is what we are talking about this afternoon. When the ceasefire was announced on 31 August 1994, I said that my gut feeling was that the ceasefire was for real. Many people questioned it at the time, but I remain reasonably confident—I stress the word "reasonably"—that the ceasefire is for real. However, there must be caution and, as the Secretary of State said, there must be concern about the victims of the terrible, violent terrorism that we have suffered during the past 25 years.
The IRA is still there—the Government know it, the security forces know it and Mr. Gerry Adams has recently confirmed it—and it is targeting people for future assassinations and continuing to intimidate people. Only last week a young Catholic girl in Twinbrook was tarred and feathered and had a gun put in her mouth. A fortnight ago a young Catholic man fled to England after being expelled from the city of Londonderry by the IRA. Intimidation by the IRA continues.
The IRA also demands the right to retain its arsenal of firearms. Reports yesterday suggest that there are fairly large arsenals of IRA firearms in Cork and in Kerry. That is very interesting, as at least one elected MP in Kerry has somersaulted on the issue of the IRA handing in its firearms before all-party talks.
Mr. Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by "MP" in that context?
Mr. Taylor: In a language that the hon. Gentleman is more familiar with, "MP" means "TD". From his reaction, I suspect that he does not know the language as well as I thought.
The IRA is also reported to be questioning the ceasefire in east Tyrone, south Armagh and more recently in the city of Armagh. There are reports that the IRA is becoming restless. I must place on record the fact that the IRA still has the means and the potential to recommence violence without any advance notice to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State should not recklessly dismantle the physical security installations that it would take time to replace in the event of a new emergency.
Not only are we providing the early release of terrorist prisoners, but I am sorry to say that during the past 14 months of the ceasefire the process of prosecuting those who carried out terrorist offences but who are still not before the courts has stalled. No doubt hon. Members will be surprised to learn that, since the terrorist campaign commenced in 1969, 1,800 terrorist murders remain unsolved in Northern Ireland. Yet since the ceasefire 14 months ago only three persons have been charged with terrorist murders. Something very odd is happening. The people of Northern Ireland know that and they want answers from the Government.
The Secretary of State said that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland and the House agrees with that statement. However, we must also accept that people are in prison as a result of the political circumstances that have applied in Northern Ireland. Those on the nationalist and on the Unionist Benches know that. I have visited young loyalist prisoners in the Maze prison and, in many
36
ways, they are like young republican prisoners: they did wrong, but in a normal society many of them would not be in prison. They had a cause and I believe that their roles contributed to the ceasefire. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, prisoners played a role in bringing about the ceasefire and the approval for it by the main paramilitary organisations.
The Ulster Unionist party has several queries about the Bill. Under the Bill, release at the halfway point of a sentence for those sentenced to five years or more will now be automatic, but in England it is a matter of recommendation from the Parole Board and a decision by the Home Secretary. As a result, cases in England are considered on an individual basis. As has been pointed out, there is no parole board in Northern Ireland and we dislike the automatic nature of the release of all prisoners, irrespective of their individual circumstances.
Another reservation relates to the distinction that will continue to be drawn between terrorists—that is the scheduled cases—and other criminals. The latter will continue to be on automatic 50 per cent. remission with no licence requirement. I see no good reason why the regime should not be uniform for all prisoners in Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and England, as that would ease the potential problems of transfers of prisoners within the United Kingdom.
No mention has been made of the prison officers who have served Northern Ireland so well in the past 25 years. The number of prisoners who will now be released as a result of the measure could well mean a loss of jobs within the Prison Service. The Secretary of State owes it to the Prison Service to make a comment about the future security of employment for prison officers.
The Secretary of State mentioned the victims of violence and we must remember and honour them. As one of those who suffered from the IRA, I have noted over the years the great generosity and the admirable Christian response of those who have suffered as the peace process developed, especially during the past 14 months. Praise must be given to the victims throughout Northern Ireland who have shown such generosity of spirit and helped the present political situation to develop.
We shall not oppose the Bill. We very much regret the way in which it has been rushed through this afternoon with hardly any notice, but we hope that it will contribute to an improving political situation in Northern Ireland.
4.42 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Following the points raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I am conscious that some Ministers prefer Northern Ireland debates to take place when I am not here, let alone when a number of other people are missing. On this occasion, however, they can relax. By my standards, I plan to be moderately helpful, which is probably a first, but I am disappointed that the media have trailed today's debate as legislation being rushed through. We have known about my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal for some long time.
For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Strangford, let me explain my understanding of why we are debating the Bill. I understand that the business originally planned for today was delayed because of what is best described

37
as a little local difficulty within my own party. I may be wrong, but I have a sense that that might have something to do with it.
We are speeding up the process, as well as occupying today's business, because—at least in principle—the Opposition parties support the measure and are as happy as the great majority of Conservative Members to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that that, rather than anything more sinister, explains why we are debating the measure this afternoon.
I hope that this afternoon's debate and the legislation concerned has nothing to do with a stalled peace process and President Clinton's visit. If I may invent a word, I do not believe that we should try in this way to "unstall" a stalled peace process. Any peace process does not require and must not be given such a gesture. If such a change in the arrangements for prisoners is meant as a gesture, that implies that it is acceptable to trade prisoners for arms or for talks and I am implacably opposed to that.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but there seems to be a difference of opinion between him and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who suggested that one of the great benefits of the legislation would be that it would inject momentum into the peace process. Preventing it from stalling and injecting momentum into it are the same if they are seen from a different perspective.
Mr. Wilshire: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I note that he has not been here very long. Had he been here longer, he would note that my disagreement with my hon. Friends is not unusual, and he must take that for what it is worth. I understand his point, but he must allow me to say what I believe to be the case.
If the measure is a gesture in a stalled peace process, it assumes that the peace process needs a big gesture, and that is wrong. According to my detailed knowledge from this side of the water, I do not judge the peace process in the Province to be as fragile as some would have us believe, so I hope that it is not a gesture along those lines.
I also oppose making gestures to President Clinton. This is a domestic British matter and the sight of politicians grubbing around for domestic votes by foreign intervention is not particularly edifying.
When the Bill was first announced earlier this year, my initial reaction was to say, "No, I do not support it." My deep reservations for thinking along those lines are well catalogued and I shall not rehearse them again this afternoon.
The peace process to date has been marked by one-sided concessions. Her Majesty's Government make the concessions, and Sinn Fein and the IRA continue to arm, to recruit, to target, to kneecap and to bomb. At least two murders in the past 12 months are down to terrorists.
For those reasons, I had reservations when I first heard the proposal, but over the years I have learnt to sleep on some of my initial reactions, so I thought the Bill through and persuaded myself that it was right to support it, provided that its purpose is to create the same prison regime throughout the United Kingdom, and treat all Northern Ireland prisoners in the same way, whatever the reason for them being in prison in the first place.
38
If that is the purpose of the Bill, even though there may still be some exceptions, I am happy to support it. However, I take issue with the points made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionists.
The comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about crime are not relevant to the debate. If all prisoners in the United Kingdom are treated in the same way, his strictures apply to them all. We can have a separate debate about whether the Home Secretary's conference speech is correct, but, for today's purposes, the Bill brings Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
If I am wrong, however, and the Bill is the start of a process leading to special reductions in Northern Ireland over and above what is available for the rest of the United Kingdom or if it leads or is intending to move towards special parole or amnesty in Northern Ireland, I am unable to support it.
I seek some assurances from the Government. First, I hope that it will be possible to assure me that the Bill will not lead to concessions for terrorist prisoners. Crime is crime, and it cannot be excused by one's ideology. If I judge them correctly, the British people are not in the least bit interested in why people who are innocently drinking in a pub should be gunned down. They are not interested in the fact that it was done in the name of a united Ireland. It is just as wrong for that reason as if those people had been gunned down while someone was robbing a bank.
Motivation must not be allowed to cloud the issue: a crime is a crime. I make it crystal clear to the Government that under no circumstances will I ever support an amnesty for terrorist prisoners, be they in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
The second assurance that I hope to get is that the Bill does not mean that the Government have decided to accept that there are political prisoners in this country. As I understand the situation, all those who are convicted of crimes are prisoners in exactly the selfsame way. I have heard that said before, but I should like to hear it again.
Refusing to negotiate on the issue of prisoners is therefore a matter of principle. I do not see it as a practicality: it is just as much a principle to say that we will not negotiate about criminals who are properly convicted as it is to say that we will not allow people with guns and explosives to take part in any sort of all-party talks. Both principles must be preserved.
The third assurance touches on the matter mentioned by the right hon. Member for Strangford—the question of those who have committed crimes but who have not yet been detected. I should like to be assured that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to search out as vigorously as it did in the past all those who have committed crimes but who have not yet been detected.
It is just as important that the RUC will continue to search out and prosecute those who are still committing crimes. I have in mind what we heard last week about the brutal beating of a 16-year-old and those who, in the name of God knows what, drive 6 in nails through the kneecaps and ankles of innocent victims. Such acts must continue to be treated as crimes that are not excusable in the name of whatever the ideology might be.
I hope that I have made it clear that I do not think that the Bill is in any way about special cases. Terrorist prisoners and terrorist crimes are not special—at least in

39
the sense that by being special they are excusable; Northern Ireland prisons are not special; and, most important of all, Northern Ireland itself is not special. It is an integral part of my country and is just as important and integral as Scotland, Wales and, dare I say it, England.
The Government are absolutely right to treat Northern Ireland in the same was as they treat the rest of the United Kingdom. It is right to seek the same protection for the victims of crime in Northern Ireland as for victims elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it is right to treat criminals in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as they are treated elsewhere.
The Government are also absolutely right to campaign to protect the Union. Would that they would campaign to keep Northern Ireland in the Union as vigorously as they campaign to keep Scotland and Wales. I like to think that the Bill will help to protect and enhance the Union, and that it has nothing at all to do with appeasing murderers, terrorists and bombers. If the Bill is intended to protect and enhance the Union and to protect victims of crime throughout the Union, it has my support.
4.53 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased to hear expressions of support for it from all parts of the House. I expect that it will also be welcomed by prisoners and their families, although I suppose that it will come in for some criticism, in that it does not go far enough.
It is a modest measure, because increasing remission from one third to one half is simply reverting to the status quo that prevailed from 1976 to 1989. Undoubtedly, over those years some terrible atrocities were committed and there must be unequivocal condemnation of those acts, particularly those that led to the loss of the lives of innocent men, women and children. Nothing can be done to bring back those lives, and, of course, loved ones will suffer the loss for the rest of their lives. In that sense, they are enduring a life sentence without any remission.
There have been some positive and welcome signs. Circumstances have changed in recent times. The ceasefire has now lasted for 14 months, and many people, particularly the young, are experiencing at least a semblance of peace for the first time in their lives.
It is important to recall how the ceasefire came about. I pay tribute to people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in that respect, but I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that prisoners and former prisoners also played an important part in initiating and approving the ceasefire and ensuring its maintenance. I am talking about prisoners of both loyalist and republican persuasions.
The ceasefire makes it much less likely that such prisoners, if released, will reoffend. It is in no way to condone what they have done to say that the time has surely come for the Government to adopt a more generous attitude by increasing the remission even more substantially than is proposed in the Bill.
We must remember that those prisoners were convicted under an inferior judicial system. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke about all parts of the
40
United Kingdom being equal. Sadly, they are not. Many of these prisoners—probably all of them—were subjected to an inferior judicial system which operated standards of justice, or so-called justice, that would never be tolerated in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and, like him, I very much hope that we can return to jury trials in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. However, he must not lose sight of the fact that we found ourselves in that position because terrorists, of whatever persuasion, were adept at terrorising, threatening, murdering and otherwise preventing people from serving on juries or giving evidence. As soon as we can get away from that, we can take another step on the return to integration within the United Kingdom.
Mr. Canavan: That emphasises the uniqueness of the situation in Northern Ireland. Whether we like it or not, it is different from other parts of the United Kingdom. The law does not recognise these people as political prisoners, but in many or most instances they had political motivation for what they did. With the advent of the ceasefire and the commencement, soon we hope, of talks with all parties committed to the peace process, that motivation no longer exists.
In giving the Bill a general welcome, I urge the Secretary of State to come up with some bolder initiatives on prisoner issues with regard to increased remission. I also urge him to facilitate the transfer of prisoners, so that they can serve their sentences in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced prisoners is soon due to be ratified, and can he say something about the implications for Irish prisoners who are serving their sentences in British gaols?
I also understand from the Secretary of State's earlier remarks that the Bill does nothing for people serving a life sentence in prisons in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that is the case, or whether the status quo will continue? As I understand it, it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Life Sentence Review Board, to decide whether and when people in that category are released.
A few months ago, the Secretary of State used his discretionary powers to release Private Clegg, who served only three years of a life sentence after being convicted of murder. It is worth recalling that, since 1970, more than 350 people have been killed in Northern Ireland by the security forces, and more than half those victims were unarmed civilians. I am aware of only three convictions of members of the security forces for murder.
The release of a convicted murderer and his reinstatement in the British Army understandably raises accusations of double standards. Some of the prisoners who we are talking about under the legislation have committed less serious crimes than murder, and very few, if any, will be released after serving only three years of their sentences.
While welcoming the measures in this Bill, I urge the Secretary of State to consider increasing still further the remission available to prisoners, as a sign of good will and a positive contribution to the development of the peace process.
5.1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State made it quite clear that he does not regard the prisoners with whom the Bill is concerned as in any way political prisoners, and that the introduction of the measure is not an attempt to engage in appeasement as part of the peace process. Because the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) suggested otherwise, while allegedly speaking in support of the Government, I thought that I would emphasise the fact that I accept the Secretary of State's assurance on these points. Indeed, we would not support the Bill if we thought that it was conceived in those terms. The Bill restores to Northern Ireland the pattern of remission which is normal in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is very hard for any of us to support with any enthusiasm measures that might seem to lighten the punishment placed on those responsible for horrible crimes, as are some of the prisoners who will be affected by the Bill. The fact that they thought that they were pursuing a cause and were thereby justified is not something that we accept. It may be how they see it, but to us, murdering people, wreaking destruction, assisting in the process by which people are murdered, causing injuries and all the terrible consequences that flow from such actions, deserve severe punishment.
It is right, however, to introduce the Bill, because the kind of remission it offers fits reasonably with the system that operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. No one should underestimate the importance of some of those involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, which we wish to encourage. Loyalist and republican prisoners have been key players in securing and maintaining the ceasefires, and some of them carry significant authority in parts of their respective communities, whatever view we may take of their actions. It is therefore sensible at this stage in the process to restore that kind of remission to them.
There are, however, some worrying elements in the Bill, and some parts that I do not think are well drafted. Our exchanges over clause 1(3) will illustrate that. Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power effectively to send a person back to prison, not because he has gone on to commit a crime but because the Secretary of State thinks that he is
"likely to commit further offences"
or that his
"continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others".
Even if one thinks that the Secretary of State is very unlikely to make the wrong decision in that sort of case, the law should be drafted properly, and should not open up absurd possibilities, which it does if drafted in this way. The Bill is subjective. If the Secretary of State thought that somebody who was on licence in this way and who had opened a shop might sell goods in imperial rather than metric quantities, he, as a politician, would be permitted under the legislation to send that person back to prison. That is an absurd way to frame a law.
It is not what I could conceivably imagine the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever doing. I have great respect for him, but one should not frame the criminal law in such a way as to put politicians in a position where they have the power to send people back
42
to prison on a basis unrelated to the purpose of the legislation. Politicians might not use that power, but they might threaten to do so.
One can imagine a situation in which a politician could say to a prisoner, "You're enjoying your time out of prison, but we don't like the political direction you are now taking. Of course, there are one or two technicalities on which you might be liable to go back to prison." It is the sort of power that liberal democracies do not give to their Executives. Therefore, we should be very worried about its use in this form in this case.
There are many ways in which the power could usefully be qualified. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) suggested that it could be qualified by restricting it to scheduled offences. It could be qualified by being exercised by someone other than a politician. For example, it could be exercised by a commissioner, as there is at this stage no parole board in Northern Ireland. In any event, it is bad drafting to leave legislation so open and to place such powers in the hands of the Executive.
I can envisage another piece of legislation coming along some time in the future, and some Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, saying that the House was ready to accept it as a reasonable provision, because something similar was accepted in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995. I do not think that we should set a bad precedent in that way.
Of course, there is more that could be done to assist in the peace process. Hon. Members have mentioned issues such as release at Christmas and the transfer of prisoners, which could be made much easier when, on Wednesday, the Republic signs the European convention on the transfer of prisoners. That could be an opportunity—I hope that it is not wasted—for the Ferrers report's recommendations to be actively pursued.
One has to judge the legislation, as a number of hon. Members have done, against the background of the Home Secretary saying that, in future, there will be no more half-time sentences for full-time crimes. I think that there is a warning to Governments that they must not engage in rhetoric in such a way as to make it difficult or even impossible to introduce legislation carefully constructed in the light of circumstances and needs, because, of course, that phrase "no more half-time sentences for full-time crimes" could effectively condemn the Bill. It will not do to, as happened in the case of the Secretary of State for Defence, to say that the speech was just for the rabble, that the phrases were trotted out for Conservative conference, and we know what a difficult lot they are.
Ministers are Ministers and they must make speeches which have regard to their responsibilities to the House. I have not heard the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a speech along those lines, and I do not expect him to do so, but he has to bring in legislation which already seems to have been condemned out of the mouth of the Home Secretary. Perhaps he is fortunate that so many hon. Members have given notice this afternoon that they do not intend to oppose it. We share that view.
5.8 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I, too, welcome the Bill, as it is a remarkable change—in the 10 years that I have been here, we have debated legislation of the most punitive type. I welcome it as it is the first

43
time since peace broke out that we have in effect a slight movement in the opposite direction. I welcome it in those terms because it is crucially important. It is nonsense to say that prisoners in the north of Ireland have nothing to do with the political process. They are central to it, and we all know that. We all know that there would have been no Northern Ireland if the British Government of the day had not taken people out of Lincoln gaol in the Isle of White, and from various other places, and brought them to Pont street in London to take part in the negotiations that set up the state of Northern Ireland. We know that to be an historical fact.
We also know that, when it suits Governments, they will talk to prisoners and deal with prisoners under their right to do so if that will change the situation for the better. I know that, and I speak as a member of a party that has taken great risks in talking to people who have been involved in violence—but then, we are not alone, are we? It is not so long since the deputy leader of the Conservative and Unionist party released from prison the now president of Sinn Fein and flew him across to London in a British Air Force aeroplane to take part in discussions. Indeed, he was right to do so if it was going to improve the situation. So let us get rid of the euphemism that somehow or another the prisoner situation has nothing to do with the political life in the north of Ireland—it has everything to do with it.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) himself—I remember the day well because I was not far away—was shot in an assassination attempt on the streets of Armagh. Thankfully, he recovered. I am quite sure that he has since passed those who planned his assassination. Perhaps he has even spoken to them—I do not know.
I had a chilling experience when I recently spoke with those who issued a sentence of death on me. They were able to tell me later who was supposed to carry it out and when. That is how the prisoner situation is linked with the political life of the north of Ireland. It has been linked, and is, but—thankfully—we are reaching a stage where we can move away from such identification of prisoners with the political process. We can do that only if we are honest and truthful enough to recognise how central is the issue. It is central because there would not have been peace had there not been people in those prisons who had time to think, who were free from some of the pressures outside, and, because of the impossibility of the situation, had the moral imperative in those prisons to say, "Hold on a minute, we may not be beaten, but we cannot win."
It is because those people in the prisons had the moral authority within their own organisations to say such things that we have had 15 months of peace. We know that, the Secretary of State knows that. Everybody in the House knows that there would not have been peace without those involved in prisons.
Prisoners are also important in terms of arms and munitions—decommissioning, one can call it what one likes—because again there is a harsh truth to it. There are two ways of getting rid of illegal arms, be it in the north of Ireland or in any other part of the world: either take them out or talk them out. Twenty five years was spent with armies, with police services, with emergency provisions Acts, with prevention of terrorism Acts, with all types of legislation, with all types of abnormal law, with all types of security operations, yet the objective was not achieved.
44
Is it not right now to give the talking out of illegal arms the same priority; to say that we recognise that if they cannot be taken out, since they were not taken out despite all those security operations, we should start seriously trying to talk them out? If we are going to talk them out, another harsh reality that must be recognised is that the prisoners are central, and what happens to the people in them is crucial.
The prisoners are crucial to building the political structures and arrangements that are required if we are to have a peaceful, permanent resolution of the problem without any more guns anywhere and without any more prisoners tied into the political process. Irrespective of what happens and irrespective of all the semantics in which we involve ourselves, prisoners are central—here is another harsh reality—for this reason: everybody has a veto.
There cannot be political arrangements if, in effect, we all choose to exercise a veto. We must try to clear the way so that it is easier for the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP, Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionist party and those who speak or claim to speak on behalf of the loyalist paramilitary groupings to move down the road towards structures and arrangements. One of the ways in which to do that is to deal with the problem of the veto.
That is why the jingoism of Blackpool was so counter-productive. That is why it was so offensive. It was so selfish; it had nothing to do with solving the problems of the north of Ireland, and everything to do with party politics. That is why it went to the core of the problem and that is why the right hon. Member for Strangford was right to add another quotation to those ably presented by the deputy shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
Such politics will not solve the problem that we have had, not only since the state was formed but long before it. That type of jingoism should be disregarded totally when considering present issues. I have said that it is not a popular issue. It is not popular for me in the north of Ireland because I have to face victims of the problem every day of the week—God knows, there are enough where I live.
Also, it is not a populist issue, which is why Conservative Members who have spoken today should be congratulated on not falling into the trap and following the example of the Home Secretary and his jingoism. They did not fall into the trap of playing the populist card on such a crucial issue. I thank the Conservative Members for that and congratulate them on it because it is crucial if we are to resolve the problem.
Dealing with the problem of prisoners is a sign not of weakness but of strength. Vindictiveness in prisons is a sign of weakness because it means that the real question is not being faced up to. A strong Government and a strong person in any dealings with prisoners is the person who has enough strength of intellect and character, and an absence of vindictiveness, to grasp hold of the problem and to start to solve it.
I again thank Conservative Members for their absence of jingoism, as I do the right hon. Member for Strangford, for recognising, and saying very clearly in the House, that many of the people who are in prison for scheduled offences would not be there in any other type of arrangement or society. That point should be recognised

45
because such an approach would loosen all the emotional valves in the north of Ireland and allow us to solve all the problems—arms included. I do not exclude the question of prisoners from the solving of the arms problems.
I welcome the return to 50 per cent. remission in the Bill, but—let me put it this way—it is no big deal. It is actually less than what was operated by the Conservative and Unionist Government led by Baroness Thatcher between 1979 and 1989. One can pose this question. If a Tory Government, during the war situation between 1979 and 1989, could live with 50 per cent. remission, cannot the present Tory Government live with it during peace? I make that as a serious point because it will be suggested to people within the Conservative party that the Bill is a sign of weakness. It is not; I see it as the opposite—strength. I do not detect any element of opportunism within it; I do not believe that there is any.
The Bill should not be portrayed by the media or by anyone else as the Government's political response to peace, because it is not. It is a recognition that the political problems are centred on the prisoners—that is different from making a political response to peace. There are and should be no bonuses for the Government in introducing the Bill or for any of us for supporting it. There should be no brownie points in supporting the Bill because it will ensure that those who have, as the right hon. Member for Strangford said, got caught up in something over which they had no authorship or control, can get into a normal situation as quickly as possible.
Nor will the Bill, as some newspapers will probably tell us tomorrow, lead to a mass exodus of prisoners who have been prematurely released from gaol—it will do nothing of the sort. It is simply a movement towards effectively lessening the problem.
I have reservations about the details. I do not think that any Secretary of State, whether this one or any other, should be able, in effect, to make the arbitrary decisions that the Bill allows him to make. This Secretary of State or another can decide that a licensee can be put back in gaol if he or she suspects that the person might be thinking of committing a crime—not committing a crime, but thinking about it—which does not even have to be a scheduled offence.
I take the distinction made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) between civil and criminal offences. However, can one imagine a person being returned to prison by a Secretary of State, without any judicial input, because that person had committed an offence such as, dare I suggest, smuggling? That is what the Bill would leave us open to.
Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has picked up an important point. Smuggling might well be the smuggling of arms which would be an absolutely appropriate offence to cause the Secretary of State to revoke the licence.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he represents North Down. I represent an area of south Armagh where smuggling was never considered in those terms despite the fact that those involved in violence did carry out the crime to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I make my case—one can choose any other offence that one likes—that the Secretary of State should not have the powers of judge, jury, policeman and executioner, as hon. Members have said. There should be some independent
46
input or some judicial input in the process, as we always thought there should be for the exclusion orders, although we never got that. There should also be some right of regular application by the licensee for re-release. I can see no reference to that in the Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the points made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the Labour deputy shadow spokesperson—what a terrible title! I shall now call him my hon. Friend, which is much simpler. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those points not least because none of us really had a chance to table amendments. The right hon. Member for Strangford complained that he had not seen the Bill until very recently and neither had I. There was no time to table amendments.
This is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to show magnanimity. I should like him to show magnanimity towards the suggestions, which are sincerely made, and to do it before the evening is out so that those of us who have had to struggle with all such legislation can at least say that we have turned a corner, however slightly, and that when we started to turn the corner, the Secretary of State responded.
5.24 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I support the Bill because it is right in principle and right in the context of the politics of Northern Ireland. It is important that we do as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), our Front-Bench spokesman did, and draw attention again to the victims of paramilitary violence, whether it came from the Unionist or the republican side. We should remember not just those who died or who were physically injured, but those whose lives have been emotionally destabilised and whose lives may remain so for the rest of their lives. There is no automatic remission for them; that is an important point that we should all make and have in our minds.
Having made that point, I am aware, as the Secretary of State said, that many of the people caught up in the violence are the people who are ready to show forgiveness. We ought to recognise the strength of that forgiveness and to recognise that it is built partly on people's desperate desire, which I have sensed in Northern Ireland for some years, to put the past behind them and to make a fresh start. If those people are prepared—many cases, if not all—to forgive, we should make sure that we do everything possible to ensure that the peace process continues.
The Bill is part of that process and we all know it; that is part of the reason why it is being proceeded with rapidly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I am concerned about fast-track legislation, on which the House often makes mistakes. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and one or two other hon. Members have drawn attention to some of the unanswered questions in the Bill.
The question which I identify, which the Secretary of State needs to address, is that of recall on licence. I remember, from the time when I operated as a probation officer in Britain, that when one recommended recall to prison—contrary to the present Home Secretary's view, that took place on many occasions—one was often

47
overruled either by the Parole Board or by the Home Office. At least, however, one knew that there was a process and one could understand and convey those reasons. I am not convinced, as the Bill is presently drafted, that people would know the reasons why they were being recalled.
Although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that the licence can have certain conditions attached to it which are part of the licence rather than part of the normal judicial process. If that is right, it is important that there is some way in which an alternative body can take a view about the actions of the Secretary of State. If not, we are doing what we have done too frequently in Northern Ireland, which is to invest a legal power in the hands of a politician.
It is on that basis that I shall address the wider issue of political prisoners and political motivation, which was raised by several hon. Members. It is right to say—it has always been my view—that we do not have political prisoners in Northern Ireland. I make that bald and bold statement because, whatever the political motivation, we do not in Great Britain or in Ireland—north or south—lock up people simply because of their political views or political behaviour. We lock up people who use unlawful means to support their political views. That is the difference between political prisoner status and non-political prisoner status.
One or two hon. Members have already said that it would fly in the face of reality if we were to lurch to the other extreme and say that there was no political motivation at all. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has said that many of the Unionist prisoners sound and talk like many of the republican prisoners. In my judgment, that is true. They have been brought up in areas of Northern Ireland where they have been attracted into a particular type of crime because of the political breakdown of the Northern Ireland state. The system always had problems and never functioned successfully, which is one of the reasons why the House must now legislate directly.
There is a recognition of the underlying political problems that confront us, and we must address the needs of the prisoners in relation to the peace process. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that the measure must not be seen as a gesture to President Clinton. I feel that the hon. Gentleman would like to make a gesture to President Clinton, but not the one that we were thinking of when he spoke. The Americans should not have been drawn into the process, and I find it amazing that the Tory party has allowed that to happen. It would not have done so five or 10 years ago, but it has happened because the Tories have not handled the issue well.
The issue of the prisoners is now on the agenda, and it is important for two reasons. First, it is seen as a test of British willingness to move, but secondly, and more importantly in my judgment, it is a recognition of the fact that the prisoners are there largely because of the failure of the political system in Northern Ireland. If that is right, we shall need to bring the law into line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we are to allow the release of people who are no longer thought to be a danger to the public, we need a measure such as this on the statute book. That is entirely reasonable and proper.
48
I am a little concerned that we may try to skate around the issue of the importance of the prisoners in the peace process. While it is true to say that the process may have happened without the support of the prisoners, there can be no doubt that it would not have happened as rapidly if the prisoners had not been in support of it.
I chaired a meeting at the Labour party conference at which Unionist and republican ex-prisoners and a representative from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders spoke. It was very moving to hear them describe how they had been caught up in the violence, what they thought had gone wrong and what they thought needed to be done to put it right. There is a recognition among both Unionist and republican prisoners that violence has failed. If they above all recognise that, we must reinforce that message strongly.
We need a flexible Prison Service and an element of flexibility in sentencing, a point that the Home Secretary does not take on board in Britain. I have never believed that longer sentences prevent crime, and Northern Ireland is a glaring example of that. If that were the case, many people who have received life sentences for crimes would never have committed those crimes. Factors that are far more important than the nature of sentencing drive people to commit criminal offences.
Above all, we must recognise two things. First, an aspect of punishment is to put on record society's response to an act, and to say, "We do not accept what you have done, and you must accept some punishment." Secondly, an aspect of sentencing policy, and punishment in particular, is that we lock a person up when he is a danger to the public. A strong aspect of the legal approach in Britain and many other countries is that if a person is no longer considered to be a danger to the public, it is not necessarily in the public interest to keep him in custody. That brings us to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
My feeling—shared by the Secretary of State, I gather—is that the process is more deeply rooted than many of us first thought. If that is the case, it is hard to argue that the people presently serving sentences for their involvement in paramilitary groups are still a serious danger to society. That does not mean that we should let them all out tomorrow morning, but we should look at the issue of the prisoners in both Britain and Northern Ireland in a way that recognises that people in Northern Ireland are attempting to forgive and forget. If we take a hard line or an over-legalistic approach to the problem, we do no credit to those people in Northern Ireland who have suffered far more than we have suffered, but are still prepared to move. If they are prepared to move, we should be prepared to move with them.
I urge the Secretary of State to listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said about some aspects of the Bill. Legislating in such a rapid way leads to mistakes. The prevention of terrorism Act went through quickly and—as I pointed out on many occasions during my opposition to the Act and to certain parts of the emergency provisions Act—lent credence to the argument that there were political prisoners in Britain. There were two reasons for that. First, the emergency provisions Act contains listed or scheduled offences, for which people are treated differently by different courts. In allowing that, we eroded the rule of law. Secondly, the prevention of terrorism Act did enormous damage to the concept of the rule of law by, for the first time in 400 years, giving a politician—the Home Secretary—the

49
power to exclude a person from one part of the UK. That leant credence to the argument that there were political offences, and we must make sure that we do not make that mistake again.
I hope that the Bill goes through without any problems, and that the Government do not leave it there. They must continue to work—I know that this is the Secretary of State's intention—on the peace process. There is a movement afoot in Northern Ireland of which many people here are not fully aware. There is a grass roots feeling that the people of Northern Ireland must come to terms with what has happened in the past. Both communities have much to blame themselves for, as well as blaming the other side. But if they are prepared to move, we in the British Parliament would be very small minded if we were not prepared to move with them at a similar pace and with a similar feeling of generosity.
5.37 pm
Mr. Robert McCartney: Although it affects only convicted prisoners, I welcome and support the measure, which equalises rights between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The measure deals with integration, equality of rights and, I hope, duties and responsibilities that one can endorse. However, it seems to me—perhaps because I am new to the House—that some of the speeches are like the peace of God; they passeth all human understanding. I have heard statements about the situation in Northern Ireland which, as someone who has lived there for nearly 60 years, I find remarkable.
It should be borne in mind that, even with the benefit of the peace process, Northern Ireland is no utopia. There are members of Protestant loyalist organisations and the Provisional IRA who are still heavily involved in organised Mafia-like crime. Crime has not disappeared with the peace process; it has merely taken a different shape and form. Indeed, the nature of crime is closely associated with the political process. The peace process has tended to concentrate on the absence of the use of explosives or guns, but the most fearful injuries are being inflicted with baseball bats, clubs, hammers and nails, which some of my surgical friends in the major hospitals say are even more dreadful than the kneecappings that were inflicted with firearms.
So let us be under no illusion that suddenly with the peace process law and order has come to the Northern Ireland. It has not; it is a question not only of physical violence but of intimidation and the organisation of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) might describe as civil crime—crime of a non-scheduled variety. I speak of course of the drugs problem in Northern Ireland, which is escalating at an enormous rate and is very much associated with paramilitaries, who are diversifying in the light of changing political circumstances—one might even say in criminal terms, changing economic circumstances—the range and nature of their activities.
Far too much credit has been afforded to paramilitary former prisoners who have had some sort of Damascene or Pauline conversion. They are suddenly sporting tweed coats and Aran sweaters and sucking pipes, they are very often hirsute and they display a new attitude to their activities. At the same time, they exploit every situation for their own ends. They have from time to time been described as terrorists on sabbatical, perhaps waiting until some change of circumstance takes them in another direction.
50
The overwhelming majority of decent, honourable, law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland doubt the apparent conversion of a small number of former terrorists to the democratic process. The fringe or splinter parties, especially those on the loyalist side, have been given a status and approval that is far beyond their electoral mandate, which is little or nothing. Within the past six months, some of those groups have put up candidates in council elections in large estates in south Antrim and north Belfast. The results of those elections have shown that they have little or no popular support. Most of the claimed mandate of Sinn Fein and the IRA is obtained by the sort of criminal activity that I mentioned: the terrorising of people living in controlled estates and areas where the writ of the Royal Ulster Constabulary does not run as strongly as it might.
I was appalled at some of the statements made about the quality of justice administered in Northern Ireland under the so-called Diplock legislation. I have been personally involved in the legal process in Northern Ireland—although not so much on the criminal side—for almost 40 years. The standard of justice administered by judges dealing with Diplock cases has been extraordinarily high. If the statistics relating to Diplock trials were analysed, they would show that to be the case. Lord Justice MacDermott spoke this weekend at a conference in the Republic of Ireland. He pointed out without any great disagreement that justice in Northern Ireland was probably of a higher quality, fairer and more objective in some criminal cases with a judge sitting alone than might have been experienced in trial by jury.
The contention made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that trial by jury is in all circumstances the hallmark of a superior judicial system is far from established. Many systems of law throughout the world that are not based on the common law principles dispense justice of an extremely high standard without the benefit of a jury. Some cases in the United Kingdom, such as the Birmingham case—in which the atmosphere was highly charged as a result of the deaths—employed juries, but, as experience has taught us, did not always result in justice being done. I make those remarks on behalf of the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
If the objectives of the legislation are, as I believe them to be, to bring the remission terms of convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, I welcome it. However, if the Bill is an overt political move to recharge or supply energy to a flagging political process in Northern Ireland, that would be a retrograde step and one that ought not to be encouraged. Many people in Northern Ireland are the sons, daughters, fathers, mothers or relatives of people who have suffered the most horrendous injury or death.
For several years I have been involved in criminal injury cases involving members of the armed forces. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing the most awful and hideous injuries inflicted by terrorist activity. I have also seen the innocent victims of IRA firebombs. One has always to keep in mind the effect of making concessions, even if it be politically judicious, which the vast majority of decent people feel ignore the suffering and plight that they have endured.
While I welcome the proposed legislation and offer my support for it, I believe that it is important that the Government emphasise that it is not a political move or one designed to engender some movement among people

51
who have supported people who have resorted to terrorism. If it is seen as that, it will have a deleterious effect on the atmosphere of the peace process. It will be interpreted as just another cave-in, concession or retreat from a position taken up by the Government in their fight against terrorism.
I believe that the purpose of the Bill is not to recharge the peace process, but it will be the perception of many people in Northern Ireland that it is. It will fall to the Government to give assurances to those who have been the victims of terrorism that that is not the purpose of the Bill, but that it is purely intended to ensure parity of treatment of prisoners throughout the United Kingdom within the social context.
5.48 pm
Rev. William McCrea: The subject before the House is important to many people in the Province. It is certainly important to prisoners and also to the rest of the population.
I listened with care to the speech of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I certainly believe that the Government must take on board many of the points made. As has been acknowledged, this legislation to increase the remission rate to 50 per cent. is a return to the situation prior to 1989 and in many ways, therefore, when taken by itself it is not a remarkable event.
The hon. Member for North Down asked whether the Bill was intended to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Is that where it stops? If it is, it is something that we should all welcome and, on that basis, I acknowledge that it is legislation that the House should pass.
We must also question, however, whether that is the case. Signs and signals are being given to the community and we have heard from a number of those who are inside that this legislation is one of a number of concessions that have been offered to those serving prison sentences. At the commencement of the ceasefire, those who were inside acknowledged that, if there had not been a promise of concessions on the prison issue, there would have been no ceasefire. We must ask ourselves whether the legislation is one of a number of concessions to terrorists—a number of concessions have already been made to a specific group, that is, the IRA.
The other question concerns timing. Not three months ago, the Secretary of State alluded to this very matter at Queen's university in Belfast. It is interesting that this legislation has been announced just prior to President Clinton's visit—perhaps to ingratiate the Government with the American Administration and to show that they are keeping the "peace process" and the political development on line.
As has been said, law and order has not returned to the Province, and that is a relevant factor. Hon. Members have already mentioned the brutal beatings. People have been brought to the very verge of death with clubs and iron bars. Nails have been driven into people's bodies. That is not a society of law and order to which anyone can give credence.
I have listened carefully and I have certainly not heard Sinn Fein rebuke the Provos for their activities against a young girl in the Belfast, West constituency. They have
52
been asked to make statements about the matter, but have remained silent. Those are the people who are paraded up and down the steps of Stormont and into the Stormont buildings. They are given the credibility of some kind of respectability and of legitimate political enterprise, but these are thugs. They have always been thugs and have never renounced their thuggery. They have never condemned the butchering of the ordinary law-abiding people of the Province. I know that because I have witnessed the butchery of my own loved ones and of my constituents by those terrorists, and they continue to terrorise the community.
We must ask ourselves what is going on in the Province. What back-door deals and skulduggery are going on behind the scenes to try to placate those who have carried out and are still carrying out awful acts of butchery against a law-abiding community?
I suggest that Sinn Fein has no mandate for any political talks. The only mandate that it had was for the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other. Those people will stand before the electorate at a future election and we shall find out whether they have a political mandate for what they are doing, which is wringing concessions out of the Government.
Yet while all those developments have been going on, Ministers have acknowledged that the IRA is still recruiting and restocking. There certainly is no clear sign of a renunciation of violence.
Does the House realise the impact of parading terrorist thugs across our television screens night after night? Gerry Adams would not even be noticed or have the television cameras on him if he did not have 25 years of terrorism and murder with the IRA—a terrorist organisation—under his belt. Now, he and his colleagues strut across our television screens and are paraded as if they were democrats. Anyone who looks into their reputations will know that they are far from democracy. What of the innocent? What does that do to law-abiding people?
At some meetings in Coleraine recently, a number of families who are grieving because of terrorist activity told me that they switch off the television at newstime because they are sure to find some terrorist being paraded across the screen as if he was a democrat, yet their loved ones are in the grave.
I have been requested by a number of those who have suffered because of terrorism to tell the Secretary of State that there seems to be a listening ear for Adams and those who have used 25 years of carnage and terrorism against law-abiding people. What about the law-abiding people? I shall be writing to the Secretary of State to ask him to receive a deputation of the innocent. Let us hear the voices of those who have suffered and of those whose loved ones are not in prison for one year, two years or 10 years, but who are themselves in prison for the rest of their lives. They are imprisoned by grief—the horrendous grief caused by their loved ones being murdered and destroyed. Fathers have been taken away from the head of the home and children have been slaughtered through wanton terrorism.
I shall be officially requesting of the Secretary of State that the innocent be heard in the position of power; they have the right to make their voices heard about the concessions that have been milked from the Government and pocketed by terrorist organisations.

53
Is this measure a sop to Sinn Fein, as the leader of the Ulster Unionist party said in the newspapers last week? Many people believe that that is so. The leader of my party certainly believes that we are witnessing a further step towards bringing the terrorists along a political line for a time. Bearing in mind the fact that they have never renounced violence, it will be the terrorists who decide just how long that period will be. They will decide to switch on or off when it best suits them.
We are talking about serious matters, because we are talking about life and death for people in the United Kingdom. We are talking about the hurt and grief of people who have endured great sorrow. I would say to the people of our Province and the United Kingdom that actions will speak louder than all the words spoken at the Dispatch Box today.
Mr. Mallon: I fully agree that actions speak louder than words. Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote against the Bill?
Rev. William McCrea: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. He is just trying to put a fly in the ointment with that intervention. At the beginning of my remarks, he heard me say that, of itself, the legislation is not something that I could or would oppose. If it brings us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, I welcome it. Actions will speak louder than words, however, and we shall find out if that is so in reality. We shall wait and see.
5.58 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I join the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) in warmly endorsing the Government's proposals. Perhaps a wan-n endorsement is hotter than the Government would have liked, but nevertheless it is an endorsement and they should be grateful for it.
I should hope that hon. Members who represent constituencies on the mainland side of the Irish and Celtic seas would approach debates on Northern Ireland with some trepidation, especially on security matters, because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, they can be and are matters of life and death. I come from Scotland, although I have Northern Irish grandparents. However, I was born and brought up in Scotland, and feel an integral part of the United Kingdom.
All my gut instincts are against being seen to be soft, to use the Home Secretary's word, in such matters. A Bill such as this does not rest easily with me. I have strong reservations in principle about such measures. However, I must come up against reality.
I travel frequently in Northern Ireland, and have done for some years. I should like there to be equality throughout the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said. However, time and again we come up against the reality, which has been mentioned by hon. Members from both Great Britain and from Northern Ireland, that the situation on the mainland is different from that in Northern Ireland.
I do not like it that the situation in Northern Ireland is different; I would like it to be normal, as it were. When a section—I shall not try to quantify it—of the population would rather not be part of the United Kingdom, the situation is different. We have to recognise that reality.
54
The legal systems are different. I hesitate to cross swords on legal matters with my hon. Friend the Member for North Down, but I do not share his enthusiasm for the Diplock courts. It is a simple layman's point, but if the Diplock system is so judicially correct that it gives a better system of justice, why should we not extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom? Such a system is not acceptable or normal—I use the word with reservations—in a democratic society.
Some comments by judges in cases where, 16 or 20 years later, injustice was clearly seen to have been done, do not lead me to believe that those judges had justice and right on their side at all times.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not want to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but will he confirm that most of the cases in which there have been later pardons or successful appeals were tried on the mainland with juries rather than by Diplock courts?
Mr. McAvoy: Of course I confirm and accept that. However, some judges made comments which clearly swayed juries and guided them against people who were later found to be innocent. I do not want to go too far into that matter.
The other factor about which I feel strongly is the feelings of the victims; no one else can put themselves in their position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that, especially the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). Hon. Members have said that among the victims there is a strong feeling that enough is enough; that they are big enough, moral enough and, in many cases, Christian enough to say that, in the interests of progress on peace and putting a stop to violence, they are prepared to forgive—forgive, not forget; they can never forget. It is wrong to try to use victims as pawns in some game.
Many victims say that, in the interests of peace, it is time to consider a new system for prisoners. Despite my gut instincts about the matter, I am in favour of the Bill. There are justifications for its introduction. It has been mentioned that there are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom, but that many people are in prison because of their political motivation. We all know what that means; let us not be hypocrites about it.
The offences were committed under a certain set of circumstances, which I hope are gone for good. We all have to work to ensure that those circumstances vanish. The comments of the right hon. Member for Strangford about young loyalist prisoners can be echoed in respect of young republican prisoners. They realise what a waste there has been, and that violence has not worked and will not work. They want a new system to try to move matters forward. That is the way we should follow.
While I am reluctant to take into account in the peace process the fact that people are in prison for politically motivated crimes, I am realistic enough to learn from examples from elsewhere. Where there has been strife—if not in exactly similar circumstances to those of Northern Ireland, in circumstances that bear some resemblance to them—it has been proved that those who are in prison because of political motivations have carried out acts with the full support of people who have later become involved in the peace process.
It may not be not reasonable, but it is realistic, that the fate of prisoners and how we treat them should be part of the peace process. I know that some people do not like

55
that, but, in fairness to the Secretary of State, the legislation can genuinely be regarded as merely equalising systems in the United Kingdom. If it has other benefits as part of the peace process, that is a tribute to the ingenuity of the Secretary of State's timing in bringing the Bill forward now. To recognise the role of prisoners in the peace process is not pandering to the men and women of violence—as I certainly would not—but to accept reality.
I share the worries about rushed legislation. Mention has been made of a number of hon. Members who are not able to be here today. We have to be careful about rushing the measure.
However, there is a consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to that, and generously paid sincere tribute to Conservative Members who are joining that consensus. I have not heard it too often, but I would welcome from the Secretary of State recognition of the part played by those on the Labour Front Bench in that consensus. There is no blank cheque from the Opposition, or from the Secretary of State's hon. Friends, but there is the good will to ensure that we try to make progress.
I shall finish with one or two matters for concern that have been mentioned earlier. Clause 1(3) uses the phrase
"he is likely to commit further offences".
Some would prefer that to read "commit further scheduled offences". I accept in part the Secretary of State's explanation, but surely, with all the expertise and ability at his disposal, some alternative could have been framed that came halfway between the position that he has adopted in the Bill and that adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
I do not believe that there is not sufficient ingenuity to find a halfway house that retained the essence of Secretary of State's position but moved away from the apparently dictatorial or autocratic powers that the Bill would give him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie mentioned clause 1(4)(a) and (b). The good will that the Secretary of State would obtain from reversing the order of those sub-paragraphs would gain a more than fair wind for the Bill, and ensure that he and the Government are seen to be more receptive to concerns about some of the autocratic—even if they are justifiably autocratic—intentions of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill and shall support it for reasons that have been made clear on both sides of the House. I wish the Secretary of State well, not only in equalising laws and regulations within the United Kingdom but, whether it is his intention or not, in ensuring that the Bill is part of the peace process.
6.9 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Bill's imperfections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), on the Front Bench, referred would be less serious if we were not about to proceed to the Committee stage. I hope that the Government will respond fully to the half-dozen points raised by the my hon. Friend, and that promises will be made so that those matters are taken on board as the Bill progresses to the Lords and before it returns to
56
us. It is unfortunate that such important and necessary legislation, which needs to be pushed quickly through the House, should have drafting defects.
Second Reading debates are usually concerned not with drafting details but with general principles, and those need to be stressed. The first point of principle about the need for the Bill is that it brings Northern Ireland legislation into line with that of Great Britain. Unless there are overriding reasons for distinctions, we should generally move in that direction. However, people should not make more out of that than necessary.
It may have been just a sideswipe to the point that he was making, but the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said that this was an integrationist measure which brought Northern Ireland and Great Britain legislation into line, and that the Bill therefore began to solidify the notion of integration and the ties that must take place. But integration and Northern Ireland's future and structure are being addressed in the peace process, and will feature in eventual talks.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman may wish to argue from his integrationist platform, but we should not argue that this legislation alters the position and points us in one direction or another. Nor should it be argued that it is a sop to the IRA. Although it may not be voted against, it does not give in to terrorist pressures. Indeed, the reverse is true.
The second point of principle is that the Bill relates to the peace process. The position of prisoners who will be affected by the Bill has changed, as they are less likely to reoffend, for the reasons spelled out by some of my hon. Friends. It should not be argued that the Bill is some sort of deal to try to nudge the peace process forward. Rather, we should consider the impact that the peace process should already have had.
We must advance all those arguments in terms of the principles of the Bill, but must have no illusions about what is taking place in Northern Ireland. The mafia-type activities of paramilitary groups on both sides, and the hideous nature of punishment beatings, should be at the front of our minds.
In an effective contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he had chaired a meeting on the Labour conference fringe attended by ex-terrorists from the two sides. He explained the problems that they had had, why they had moved in that direction, and the lessons that had been learned since. That is important when we consider the argument that there is now less likelihood of terrorists offending.
I too chaired a meeting on Northern Ireland issues. We were shown a silent video about the impact on a number of people of hideous punishment beatings, which were carried out with sticks, and sticks with nails in them. The video was presented by a group called Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which has stood out bravely against such violence and intimidation.
I do not deny the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, but that is the other side of the picture. We must put into the analysis the fact that a great deal of unacceptable activity is still going on. The full processes of the law to which the Bill refers must be pursued to ensure that those responsible for punishment beatings or for banishing people so that they are too frightened to return to their homes in Northern Ireland are dealt with.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, over the years, many journalists have done a great service to people in Northern Ireland by covering events there. Does he agree that it would be a good idea if the advance guard of north American journalists were to contact Families Against Intimidation and Terror, speak to some of the families who have had members banished, and learn that the punishment beatings are still going on? Those who come with the President could then have a full picture of the improvements that have taken place, and the improvements that are still needed.
Mr. Barnes: Yes. On one occasion, Families Against Intimidation and Terror followed Gerry Adams around during his much-publicised activities in America. That group has had an impact on President Clinton's understanding of the situation. President Clinton has made statements about the nature of punishment beatings and banishments and the issue often attached to that, which is the problem of the bodies of the disappeared.
The relatives of the disappeared want to know where the bodies are so that they can give them normal Christian burials, whatever side of the community they come from. Action could be taken by paramilitary groups. If they detach themselves from punishment beatings and banishments and show where those bodies are hidden, it would help to alter the climate. It would also allow us to tell people on the Unionist side that the circumstances are beginning to shift considerably, and there is no reason why they cannot become involved in discussions with Sinn Fein.
The problem is that there are always two sides to the argument in Northern Ireland. The developing peace process and the changes that it has brought about, and the attitude among prisoners and others, need to be responded to. At the same time, however, a mixture of mafia and criminal non-political activity is still being linked with the pressure for political change.
In some areas, the writ of the RUC, for instance, does not operate, but a paramilitary group—perhaps the IRA—controls law and order and therefore decides who is guilty and carries out the punishments. As punishments are no longer allowed to be carried out with guns, they are done with hockey sticks or sticks with nails, which are often worse than some of the punishments that were carried out previously.
My solution to the problems that have been spelt out is different from that which the spokesman on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party seemed to suggest, when he argued that there were no circumstances in which one should have dealings with Sinn Fein or other similar forces.
There is a climate of change, but I accept that there are massive difficulties involved in initiating a dialogue between people who have suffered from all sorts of violence and intimidation and those who are guilty of such acts. We will not make any progress unless the men and women of violence renounce violence, and those who have suffered from it express a willingness to be reconciled to and enter into dialogue with those who inflicted that suffering. They must do that without feeling that they have conceded and surrendered to those who committed that violence.
Although the Bill may be subject to some redrafting, I believe that it is a correct and just proposal, which will help the peace process.
6.20 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: The last Bill in which I was involved in an official capacity, then as Opposition Whip, was the Environment Bill 1995. It ran to 300 clauses, 21 schedules and nine parts—and two telephone books—by the time it was finished. The contrast with the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill could hardly be more stark. Just because the Bill is made up of just five clauses, and we have had twice as many speakers as that number, does not in any way underestimate its immense importance.
I repeat the Opposition's broad welcome and support for the Bill. As has already been said, we have been pushing for such a Bill for some time. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he made it clear that such a Bill would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. We welcomed that commitment.
Although the Opposition support the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) described in some detail those parts of the Bill that require clarification or improvement. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept our suggestions in the spirit in which they were made.
We have expressed our concern about clause 1 and the review and appeal mechanism. Many hon. Members have expressed reservations about clause 1(3). The systems governing the treatment of prisoners should no longer be solely within the Secretary of State's ambit. We all understand why it was necessary for successive Secretaries of State to accrue more and more powers over the years, but if the peace process is unfolding as successfully as the introduction of the Bill seems to suggest, those powers should be shed. That should not be achieved in a random fashion, but when a suitable opportunity arises.
Clause 2 relates to the date on which the Bill will be brought into operation. Why is a statutory instrument necessary? We all hope that we do not reach a stage when clauses 3 and 4 were required, as that would presage a grave deterioration in the situation in Northern Ireland. In that event, issues such as recall on licence or the suspension of the Bill would be just two of the matters that we believe the House would need to discuss as soon as possible. I am not aware that anyone has any great reservations about clause 5, so the Opposition can live with it.
The Secretary of State should spend a few moments explaining why the Bill has been introduced hurriedly. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has always been closely involved in Northern Ireland matters, and it was extremely worrying to hear that he did not obtain his copy of the Bill until 2 o'clock this afternoon, particularly, as hon. Members have already said, since the Bill's introduction was expected some time ago. Its preparation and introduction should have been more seemly, if not more timely, than they have been. Although it was published on Thursday, I sincerely hope that the Bill was drafted well before then, but some of our comments about its deficiencies may suggest that it was not drafted much before Thursday.
We must take into account the public view of legislation that is introduced in a hurry and rushed through all its stages, as the Bill has been. People outside think that the House of Commons ignores issues for a long time, and then, in a flurry of activity, rushes through relevant legislation in a matter of hours. We must have regard not

59
only to the quality of such legislation, but to the effect that such a speedy process has on the reputation of the House among people outside.
Everyone is aware that the current situation in Northern Ireland is extremely delicate. Recent welcome progress will be sustained only by further progress on a wide range of issues. That process should involve everyone: the Government are far from the only players. Regardless of technical definitions, the reality is that hardly anything is unconnected in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made that point with eloquence and authority. The whole process must stick together as a matrix.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that the peace process was more robust than many people believed. I noticed that he began his speech by saying that he intended to be moderately helpful. I am not sure whether any hon. Members were able to identify which bits of his speech were moderate and which were helpful. They were well concealed, if naught else.
Mr. Wilshire: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. If he had been in it longer, he would have heard me being unhelpful, which is distinctly different.
Mr. Dowd: That is a pleasure, I presume, which I have yet to enjoy. I look forward to it with interest.
If the peace process is as robust as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, we need have no fear, but it is incumbent on all involved to ensure that they do all they can to move the process along. Generally, I believe that it will move along according to the convoy principle—at the pace of the slowest—or at least, we hope so. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the pace of the slowest is not so slow that the convoy comes to a grinding halt. To maintain momentum will not be easy, but given the sensitivities and delicacy of the process, it is imperative that maintaining that momentum remains an ever present discipline on us all.
We are all committed to the fastest rate of progress, but we have heard the conflicting views today on so many of the matters involved. We have heard the Bill described as a concession bordering on a sell-out, while others have argued that its aim is immensely modest. Although that is symptomatic of how many issues affecting the people and politics of Northern Ireland are viewed, between the two extremes lies the nature of the subject we are dealing with.
The Labour party does not believe that the process needs to be a zero sum gain. We are aware that progress must be achieved on a broad front; it must be maintained, and must offer reassurance to everyone. They must be reassured that their interests are not being neglected, and that their past sufferings are not being made light of. It is a great credit to the Government and many others that they are taking the opportunity to break away from the fixed attitudes of the past, and to attack the causes of conflict. Those causes of fear, confrontation, distrust and injustice cannot be wished away, but the Bill is essential if we are to remove those causes.
I am sure that no one in the House could do other than listen carefully to the right hon. Member for Strangford, who has suffered so criminally and cruelly at the hands of terrorists. He described the enormity of the task before us, and the circumstances that still prevail in large parts of Northern Ireland.
60
The enormity of the task must not paralyse us into inactivity. It is precisely because of the enormity of the task that we believe that we must approach that process carefully and thoughtfully but none the less deliberately. We should never be afraid to take risks for peace, but we must never take risks with peace. Those people who genuinely follow the difficult road of peace have our support; those who would undermine or obstruct it will find no friends in the Labour party.
Our worries are about the effectiveness of the measure. The Secretary of State knows the way in which every statement and action relating to Northern Ireland is scrutinised for perceived bias, lack of even-handedness or even lack of understanding. That is why we keenly look forward to what he has to say to us. We shall respond to what he says to us now when we return to the matter in Committee.
6.29 pm
Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have had an exceptionally thoughtful and fruitful debate. It warrants from me a longer or more detailed response to the arguments that have been made than I had intended. I nevertheless hope that my speech will be short.
There has been universal support for the Bill, and for that I am grateful. It has been shaded, in one way or another, by one or other hon. or right hon. Member during the debate, but the principle of the Bill is undoubtedly supported.
The aspect of the Bill that attracted the greatest support is the progress that it makes towards diminishing differences between Northern Ireland's jurisdiction and the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom in the context of the treatment of terrorist offences. There is no doubt, as I said at the outset of my opening speech, that that is the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is achieved by restoring a position that obtained between 1976 and 1989, whereby there was an entitlement to release at the time that the halfway mark was reached. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) mentioned the Labour party's bipartisan approach to the Government's policy on security in Northern Ireland, and I am very glad to acknowledge that with appreciation. He said that the Bill is fair and principled, and observed that exact equality between the jurisdictions is not possible, by reason of, to begin with, the absence in Northern Ireland of a parole board system.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked several questions. Specifically, he asked what impact the proposals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have on the Bill.
The Bill affects relatively few prisoners, whose position is unique. The ideas of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will need, as he has acknowledged, to be worked up into firm proposals for the jurisdiction for which he is responsible, after which they will be considered very generally, not least by Ministers with responsibilities for Northern Ireland.
There is no reason why developments in either jurisdiction are necessarily appropriate to the other, so we need to consider what may emerge during what the Home Secretary acknowledged would be a substantial period.

61
The hon. Gentleman asked what the impact of the measures would be on lifers. The impact on lifers does not follow as a matter of law from the Bill's provisions. However, the ceasefires represent, or have occasioned, a reduction in the perceived risk of further terrorist offences being committed, and that perception will have a bearing on the manner in which the life sentence review board considers questions coming before it in respect of mandatory life-sentenced prisoners because one of the criteria that it takes into account is the risk of re-offending.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the procedure that we are inviting the House to adopt for the Bill warranted the taking of what, in other circumstances, might be some Committee points, and I entirely accept that. He asked about the licence provisions in subsection (2) of clause 1 and asked if there was to be freedom to create any conditions that seemed fit to the Secretary of State.
The answer is that there is no conditional licence. No conditions will be attached to the licence. The substantive law will provide that, in the words of subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may revoke a person's licence… if it appears to him that the person's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences".
That is to be distinguished from the conditions that apply to a licence that the parole board in England and Wales habitually makes.
Mr. Soley: That is what puzzles and perhaps worries people. I understand that a person can be recalled if they are believed to be a security risk again, but if, for example, a person who is released is seen to meet someone who is known to be a security risk—it might be a one-off meeting or there might be two or three, perhaps in the context of family or friends—the power to recall would appear to be entirely a matter of judgment for the Home Secretary, depending on whether he considers that such a meeting was a breach of the licence. That is the difficulty.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is the aspect of the Bill on which most questioning has focused. In the case of the Home Secretary, there is the parole board's recommendation to consider. In the case of a mandatory life sentence, the Home Secretary also has the power to consider the impact on public confidence and other matters of public interest, and the ultimate decision whether the prisoner shall be released on licence rests with the Home Secretary.
In Northern Ireland, as has been accepted, we have no parole board. Someone must make that decision. It has been suggested that it is unsafe to give carte blanche to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. It was suggested that it should be limited to scheduled offences only. May I say, in the first instance, that we are considering here whether there needs to be reassurance for people who view with misgivings the reform that the Bill proposes, as it affects those offenders responsible for very serious terrorist-related offences.
The Government believe that reassurance is needed, and that there is a need for a licensing provision to apply during that period—from the 50 per cent. mark to the two thirds mark, at which the offender would, in ordinary circumstances, be released on remission. We are talking only of fixed, determinate sentences.
We believe that reassurance is needed. Very well. Who is to undertake the decision whether to revoke a licence? That power is necessary, in our opinion.
62
It is difficult to envisage how that can effectively be done otherwise than by the Secretary of State in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, I invite the House to consider whether there are not, in practice, substantial safeguards. It cannot be done without reasons being given to the offender. I recognise that there would be a legitimate anxiety if those reasons were not to be given in writing. That is not in terms specified in the Bill, but I am perfectly prepared to give an undertaking in the House that in practice those reasons always will be given in writing. I do so in the knowledge that the recent jurisprudence shows that it is open, on judicial review, for a court to have regard to what is said by a Minister in my present circumstances, and that that will be relevant in judicial review proceedings. That is something that I can tell Opposition Members who have raised that anxiety, and I think that it goes a significant way towards meeting their concern.
Mr. Worthington: The Secretary of State is making a helpful response, but his legal expertise is much greater than mine. He says that the matter will be subject to judicial review; but can he give us some idea of the time lapse between the revocation of a licence—and the unhappiness of the person concerned about that revocation—and the likely judgment following a judicial review? How long would that person have been "inside" during the judicial review?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a very proper question. The courts are able to hear very quickly an application to grant leave for a judicial review where questions of personal liberty are concerned. It is certainly open to a court, where it gives leave, to suspend the revocation until such time as the judicial review is heard, or to achieve that effect by granting bail. Here I speak without the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. What the Bill does is say that detention—or redetention—shall be proper once the licence has been revoked. A large document has just been handed to me.
We shall see.
Mr. Mallon rose—
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must say "We shall see", for this reason. It is never possible to set out, in precise and comprehensive terms, the circumstances in which an executive decision will be overturned on judicial review. It is possible to set out the criteria that a court will apply: in a nutshell, it will apply the test of fairness. It all boils down to the question, "Was the Executive action fair?" If it was capricious; if it was based on a wrong direction in regard to the law; if it took into account matters that were irrelevant, or failed to take into account matters that were relevant—in those instances, the courts would generally consider the action unfair. Judicial review thus represents a substantial safeguard against what Opposition Members have properly identified as a potential danger.
Mr. Mallon: Is there not a parallel between what the Secretary of State is saying now and the position relating to exclusion orders that existed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? Yes, the Secretary of State was making the decision; yes, the Secretary of State gave reasons; yes, the Secretary of State gave those reasons in writing. To my knowledge, however—I stand to be corrected—at no stage did a Secretary of State ever give the type of

63
evidence that a person would require as to why that person should be excluded, or, in the present instance, returned to gaol.
Is there not some merit in the idea of re-examining all those cases of exclusion orders to establish the existence of anything other than a bland written connection with a paramilitary organisation, rather than evidence that would stand up under other scrutiny?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I will not go into all the jurisprudence concerning exclusion orders, for the excellent reason that I am not familiar with all the details. I do not know whether an exclusion order has been overturned on judicial review; what I can say is that exactly the same principles as those that I have just described would be applied by the courts—and doubtless were applied by the courts that considered judicial review of any exclusion order.
I recognise the proper concern that has been expressed. I do not think that the public would be sufficiently reassured, however, if we limited the power to revoke and recall to a subsequent scheduled offence, and the likelihood of the commission of such an offence. That is exactly the reason that the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) gave in an intervention in my opening speech.
Again, I give an assurance—in the knowledge that it can be referred to in subsequent court proceedings—that the power is intended to operate only in the case of serious offences: if there is a likelihood of a serious offence being committed. That ought to go without saying, but I say it. When someone's liberty has been restored on licence, no one wants that person to be returned to prison for some trivial or insubstantial reason. That assurance should meet the anxieties of Opposition Members, in conjunction with the undertaking in regard to written reasons.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie made three suggestions. First, he asked whether paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 1(4) should be reversed. There is a technical reason for them to be in that order—or, at least, it is highly desirable for them to be. A change would be possible, but the provisions are set out in this way to shorten the drafting, and I do not believe that there will be any substantial consequence. [Interruption.] I think that that is the case.
Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) spoke earlier of the lengthy Bills with which he has been associated. I find it extraordinary that trade union considerations seem to have become involved in a five-clause Bill—"We are not drafting any more today; it is getting too long." Surely the logic is that the person concerned should be informed of the reasons for the revocation in writing, and that he should then have a right to make representations. It should not be the other way round.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is a matter of elegance and drafting clarity, rather than a matter of substantive effect. If that ranks high in the list of the Opposition's serious objections to the Bill, I do not think that we are doing too badly.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Let us examine this logically. Subsection (4) states:
"If a person's licence is revoked † he may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State",
64
and afterwards,
"he shall as soon as is practicable be informed of the reasons".
Will we not find that, if a licence is revoked, representations are made to the Secretary of State before the licensee has been given the reasons for its revocation in the first place?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Bill makes it clear by the use of the words
"as soon as is practicable"
that the person must be told at the time when the revocation is acted on and, as I have said, that will be done in writing. In practice, it always is done in writing: no decision of this character, whether in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, in the case of mandatory life sentences, is taken without much consideration, and such decisions are put in writing. I do not think that this matter should detain the House for long. If it were of any consequence in terms of the Bill's effect, I would wish to consider it.
Mr. Worthington: I am puzzled. Those who drafted the Bill thought it necessary to state:
"he may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State".
We are merely asking the Secretary of State to put the reasons for the revocation in writing. Why cannot that provision be contained in paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise why the representations are being made to me—although not in writing. I have already given a binding undertaking that all reasons will be given in writing by the Secretary of State. Are the Opposition really suggesting that the Bill should not proceed to another stage in the light of my undertaking? I think that, upon reflection, they will realise that I have answered their objections. I understand why they raised those objections, but there will be no practical difference in view of my undertaking.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie then asked why the Bill had proceeded with such haste. In my opening speech I explained that at the earliest opportunity—given that it is 12 months since the ceasefires—it is necessary for the Government to show that they are not reluctant to respond in a positive, prudent and practical way to the perceived reduced risk. That is why I did not want to wait to introduce the legislation in the new session when the House will be anxious to proceed with the highly desirable measures that will be set out in the Queen's Speech.
The hon. Gentleman then said that there must be some judicial input in the process—perhaps an intermediary body. He acknowledged that the probation service in Northern Ireland is not equipped to perform that task. I have dealt with the matter already and I hope that he will accept that I have given a satisfactory assurance. He next said that there was no reference to legal aid for people whose licence was revoked. Legal aid is certainly available in cases of judicial review—at least where leave has been granted. I hope that I have allayed his anxieties in that context.
The hon. Gentleman then asked whether clause 2, the commencement clause, was really needed. That rather surprised me. It is necessary in order to ensure that the release of prisoners can be managed in an orderly way. That is an important point. The hon. Gentleman then asked whether someone who was sentenced to 15 years'

65
imprisonment for a scheduled offence and who would expect to be released on licence in seven and a half years under the terms of the Bill would be "caught" if the Bill were revoked. A person's release will not be revoked automatically; it will be revoked only if circumstances special to him warrant it. I emphasise what I said at the outset: circumstances special to the offender will determine how the Bill's provisions affect him.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why clauses 3 and 4 were in the Bill and said that the House should be recalled. I do not think that that should be obligatory. Clauses 3 and 4 set out the way in which suspension or revival of section 1 can be carried out. The House must give its affirmative approval to a draft order, except in conditions of urgency and that special exception has long been incorporated in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in another context. I hope that the House will forgive me for taking some time to answer the hon. Gentleman, but it was necessary in view of the quality and the character of his inquiries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who takes a particularly careful interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, said that the Bill's provisions were justified in their own right, that the timing was correct and that the Bill represents a small but significant step in normalising life in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for his support and I agree with his remarks. He is in favour of the Bill for two reasons: it is a step towards normalising life in the Province; and it is a step forward in an area that is important to many people. That is absolutely correct. He observed that current terms were imposed when circumstances were very different. That is also true, as I endeavoured to point out in my opening speech.
The Bill does not offend any principle. The ceasefires have modified the position and the measures may help to consolidate the peace, but that is not their purpose. The purpose of the measures is to respond to the new circumstances and to make further progress towards closing the gap between what applies in Northern Ireland and what applies in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the provisions may be reversed if circumstances demand it.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that his party would not oppose the Bill, and I am grateful for his support. He asked why the Bill had been introduced so hastily and I have dealt with that question already. He also inquired about the difference between the Home Secretary's proposals and those in the Bill. I hope that I have already dealt sufficiently with that query.
The right hon. Gentleman has long experience in this area and he encouraged the House by saying that he remained confident that the ceasefires were "for real". I was very glad to hear that. We have adopted a working assumption that they will be permanent and we hope that our assumption will be verified.
The right hon. Gentleman said, however, that the IRA is still there, it is retaining its arsenals and it still has the means to recommence violence. That is undoubtedly and disgracefully true. The right hon. Gentleman also pointed to the apparent stalling in the prosecution of terrorist offences in the past 14 months. He said that there had been only three prosecutions for murder since the ceasefires. That matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, who superintends the Director of Public Prosecutions; it is not a matter for the Executive
66
arm of Government. I point out, as I did in my speech, that there have been only two deaths as a result of terrorist activity since the ceasefires. One of those involved the case of Constable Jim Seymour who was injured 22 years previously. That factor has a bearing on the right hon. Gentleman's statistical contrast.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether release would be automatic at the half-way mark and said that his party did not like that idea. It is an automatic release and one might ask: why not simply revert from a third to one-half remission? The answer is that a technical consequence of remission at 50 per cent. would be the end of the sentence at 50 per cent. That would prevent the provision of a licensing consequence, which we want the Bill to confer.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his party disliked the distinction that would be associated with terrorist offences and he said that the provision should extend to licensing for all serious offenders. The answer to that, I fear, is that we do not have the resources or the structures in Northern Ireland to extend licensing so broadly. That might be a matter for another day and for consideration in another context.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked a very proper question about consequences for the prison service. We have the highest regard for the contribution that the prison service has made during the years of the emergency. It is difficult to say what prison jobs will be required in the future because we do not know what the circumstances will be. The answer will depend on other factors, such as rates of offending and conviction, but we shall consider the matter in light of full consultation with those in the prison service who have served us so well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who takes an equally careful interest in Northern Ireland, said that he would support the Bill and I am grateful for that. I warmly agree with him that it is never proper to trade prisoners for talks or for any political advantage and we act upon that principle. He gave his support on the assumption that all the Bill does is treat all the prisoners in the United Kingdom in the same way even if there are some exceptions, as undoubtedly there have to be, given the structural differences and I am grateful to confirm that. He asked whether it was paving the way to further relaxations. It is not. He correctly asserted that it was not an amnesty and that the motivation was not to allow further concessions. It is not. I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is no acceptance of the political prisoner status. I can also reassure him that there will be no relaxation in the diligence of the RUC in seeking out crimes of this character and that the Bill is not about prisoners of a special character.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) speak in slighting terms of the character and quality of justice administered by the Diplock courts. I agree with the point that was made in rebuttal of that by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I have never heard the quality of justice in the Diplock courts seriously questioned. I think that it was Lord Justice MacDermott who said in the Republic last weekend that it had proved possible to administer a higher quality of justice given the absence of a jury in certain types of case by reason of the circumstances particular to Northern Ireland at the moment. We would all like to see the day when jury trial can be fully restored, but it has not yet been fully restored in the Republic of Ireland.

67
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has kindly explained why he cannot be here. I agree with him that the Bill is a step towards restoring parity of treatment with other Great Britain jurisdictions and I am grateful for his support.
The right hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) welcomed the Bill. Together with the right hon. Member for Strangford, he has suffered much by way of actual attack or by threat and the House listens to him with particular respect in consequence. He made an eloquent appeal for imaginative responses to the change that has occurred by reason of the ceasefires. I agree with him that the proposals were not a sign of weakness or a signal of the Government's political response to peace. He spoke of there being two arbitrary discretions for the Secretary of State. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently and sensibly with that.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley)— again a close student of Irish affairs over many years—spoke of the criterion for recall on licence. I shall not repeat myself. I have taken seriously the points that have been made and I believe that the answers and assurances that I have given ought to be sufficient to allay the concerns that have been expressed.
I have already referred to the interesting speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down. He rightly observed that terrorist crime is continuing. He spoke of the disgraceful intimidation and the terrible injuries inflicted in bullying beatings and he paid tribute to standards of justice administered by the courts. He asked us to remember the feelings of the victims and I am glad that I included in my speech a passage with that purpose, which I meant most sincerely. I am glad that he does not believe that we are bringing forward the Bill for some political purpose. He is right in that regard.
That brings me to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). To my regret, I detected a rather sour note in his understanding of the motivation of the Bill. He asked whether it was right for the feelings of those who are victims to be taken into account. Had he found it possible to be present when I made my speech, he would have heard me say that those very proper feelings should always be present in our minds. I am anxious to bear in mind all the concerns of victims of terrorism by whatever means.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) spoke with much knowledge and conviction about the Bill's provisions. He expressed misgivings about its character in some respects—which I entirely understand—but came down in favour of it because of the necessity imposed by the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. He too expressed anxiety about the Secretary of State's discretion to revoke and I hope that I have sufficiently satisfied him there.
Lastly, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke of drafting defects. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with those. He also adverted to the wicked punishment beatings and other manifestations of intimidation which still disfigure the scene in Northern Ireland at the hands of terrorist organisations that act in that way for political purposes.
68
I do not think that I need apologise for having dealt with the points raised, given the circumstances in which we are inviting the House to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill. I dealt with the scope and content of the Bill in opening and I do not need to repeat that now. It is emphatically not a concession to terrorism. It is not a reward to terrorism nor an inadequate begrudging response to the changes that have been brought about by the ceasefires. Instead it is a positive but proportionate and prudent response to the continuance of the ceasefires and the reductions in the risk of terrorist reoffending. Those factors permit a closing of the gap with the position obtaining in the other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
I attach the utmost importance to the responsibility resting upon the Government to protect the public from risk and the possibility of further reoffending, but I believe that the measures proposed in the Bill will have a positive and beneficial impact on the future of Northern Ireland and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Willetts.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

  RELEASE ON LICENCE OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTED REMISSION
  7.8 pm
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Worthington: I welcome the Secretary of State to the salt mines of the Committee stage. It must be a long time since he was down here with us in Committee. I am grateful to him for his response to the points that I raised on clause 1. I should like to take some of them a little further.
  I was pleased to hear that there were to be no conditions to the licence. In a sense, that is not true because the condition is that prisoners will lose their licence if they are involved in behaviour that presents a risk to the safety of others or if they are likely to commit further offences, but it would be contentious, difficult and unacceptable if people on licence had to turn up at RUC stations or had restrictions on their liberty.
  I welcome what the Secretary of State said about serious offences, which would be extremely important if there were any challenge. He said that revocation of the licence would apply only for serious offences. I assume that that would be especially important in terms of serious scheduled offences, although to some extent I recognise the difficulty of including scheduled offences.
  On Second Reading drugs and the involvement of paramilitaries were mentioned. If a layman knew that someone was involved in drugs but could not prove it to the satisfaction of the court it would be tempting to use the route of revoking the licence rather than assembling evidence. We shall have to watch that and think about the matter. I hope that it is possible to amend the Bill in some way either here or in the Lords to convey what the Secretary of State said about serious offences. However,

  69
  from a reading of clause 1(4)(a) and (b) I appreciate the difficulties. It seems that as the Bill has been printed it will not be changed. The points that we made about that clause were sensible and the subparagraphs should be in a different order.
  We welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about judicial review. He recognises that he is not simply operating on his own, that the judiciary is watching over his shoulder and that he has to justify his behaviour. But, with respect, it is bad law and bad politics for a Secretary of State to take all these powers to himself and, inevitably, to rely upon restricted sources of information on which he would then make a judgment and say to people, "You can appeal to me." In political terms it is difficult for a judgment, once made, to be reversed.
  The Secretary of State should think again about looking for an intermediate body. Perhaps at this moment he cannot think what the intermediary would be, but he is about to announce the setting up of a review body to look at the emergency legislation in general. A sensible part of the remit of that body could be to examine the necessity of distancing the Secretary of State from some parts of the process. I do not think that a Secretary of State of whatever political party should be in at every stage in the process. As a matter of routine, the people affected by the law should recognise that they will be able to appeal to a body that has not already made a judgment upon them. I hope the Secretary of State can assure me that the review body will be asked to look at this matter.
  In the context of clause 1, I asked about legal assistance and the Secretary of State said he thought that he had answered me by saying that if there was a judicial review, legal aid would undoubtedly be available. But I am thinking about the stage before a judicial review when a person has had his licence revoked and wants to make representations to the Secretary of State. What legal assistance would that person receive to enable him to make such representations? If legal assistance is available only for a judicial review one would immediately be tempted to go for that. At the moment a person may have his licence revoked and lose his liberty—hardly anything could be more serious—and he has no guaranteed access to a lawyer. That seems inadequate and I await the Secretary of State's response.
  Mr. Soley: I should like to build on the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I suspect that it is too late for significant changes to the Bill. That is one of the dangers of fast-track legislation and my hon. Friend's recommendation that a relevant body should look at the issue is a good idea.
  I certainly support the notion of legal aid being available. If a person who is to be tried for an offence that is likely to lead to five years or more in prison is allowed legal aid it is odd that he should be denied it for a matter that could return him to prison for the full period of his sentence. In some circumstances the term could be life and it is hard to argue that such a person should not be granted legal aid.
  7.15 pm
  The substantive point is the difficulty surrounding the withdrawal of a licence. If someone who is subject to a licence wanders the streets with a loaded Armalite he will be recalled and there will be no doubt about it. But there
  70
  are many reasons for thinking that the matter will rarely be as clear cut as that. The security forces may say to the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, that Mr. A is regularly associating with another person. In the context of Northern Ireland the other person may even be a relative. They may say, "We know that this person is involved in punishment beatings or perhaps the planning of another campaign of violence by a splinter group." Although that person may be a relative or a friend, will the Secretary of State recall the person on licence?
  If the security forces recommend recall and if the Secretary of State has to give reasons in writing—to which he is committed, which is right—the second stage of the operation will be when the Secretary of State says, "I am recalling you because you are associating with people who we have reason to believe are connected with the planning of paramilitary offences or some other serious offence." I make it clear that I am not too worried about the offences being scheduled or wider because I understand that they may sometimes be wider.
  If a person is recalled because he is associating with another over a period of time and because there is reasonable suspicion, the Secretary of State can be challenged. I am not a lawyer and the Secretary of State will know more about these matters than I do, but I suspect that he could be challenged by judicial review, and that the issue could go all the way to the European court. I doubt whether the Government would win, although I may be wrong. Recall under licence—even in the traditional setting here, where there is a parole board and probation officers and intermediaries—is difficult and leads to all sorts of dubious interpretations that are difficult to work out. Without a body, other than that of the security forces, between the Secretary of State and the person who is being recalled, the Secretary of State may well lose.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for his welcome for the absence of conditions attaching to a licence. He welcomed my assurance that we intend to use revocation where there is an expectation or likelihood of serious offences being committed. He asked whether some way could be found for the Bill to be amended here or in the Lords to make that clear. I am afraid that I cannot give any commitment about that in another place. In any event, it is not necessary to do so. The assurance that I have given is binding and can be relied on in any judicial review proceedings to which it is relevant. I am therefore afraid that I cannot be helpful in that regard.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie welcomed my assurances about the availability of judicial review, but he made the point, which I understand very well, that it is difficult, or perceived to be difficult, for those working in an Executive capacity to reverse their own judgments. He asked me to think again about an intermediary body. He made the interesting suggestion that the review of the emergency provisions legislation might provide the means by which the matter could receive fuller consideration. I think that it might very well receive fuller consideration from the reviewer. It is a helpful suggestion that should be drawn to his attention. We should be very happy to give that undertaking, but, at the moment, I cannot take the undertaking any further along the lines that the hon. Gentleman wishes.

  71
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned legal aid. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was talking about legal aid in drawing up the representations against the revocation of the offenders' licence. I wonder whether we are not getting into a slightly artificial position. The Bill states that the licence can be revoked only if the Secretary of State is prepared to give particulars in writing to the effect that it
  "appears to him that the person's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or that he is likely to commit further offences".
  I have now undertaken to restrict that to "serious" offences as a matter of practice.
  The offender—the recalled person, or licensee—is going to be presented with those reasons in writing. It is for him to know whether there is a justifiable, factual basis for those reasons and it is for him above all others to say whether there is substance in them. It is not a matter on which, it seems to me, he will be assisted by legal advice. It is a matter that he and he alone is best able to deal with and can do so without the benefit of legal advice.
  Where legal advice becomes important is when the licensee is conducting an application for judicial review. In that instance, as I have said, the legal aid scheme will provide it. I think that that is a satisfactory explanation of the Government's attitude to the proposal. I am afraid that I can give no further undertaking.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  COMMENCEMENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Dowd: I shall not detain the Committee too long. The Secretary of State said earlier that clause 2 had been included to permit the orderly release of prisoners. I am sure that the House regards that as a desirable end, but I do not understand how that is connected with the contents of clause 2. Surely, it would be simple if the Act came into force on the day of Royal Assent and would have the virtue of clarity. I am not sure quite what else the statutory instrument envisaged in clause 2 would contain.
  Given that the Secretary of State said that he envisaged the Act having effect by Christmas, and therefore being passed by early December, I should appreciate a little expansion on the reference to permitting orderly release.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have outlined the substantial numbers of prisoners who will benefit immediately from the provisions. We hope that Royal Assent will be granted quickly, but a substantial number of practical administrative arrangements must be undertaken before the prisoners in question can be released. It is our intention that they should be released before Christmas and as soon as is practicable, but I have to provide, as I do in clause 2, for an orderly and timely undertaking of the arrangements that have to be made. There is nothing more to it than that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OF SECTION I
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Dowd: As the Secretary of State said earlier, the power granted in clause 3 will come into effect only in very serious circumstances, or at least we imagine that to be the case and hope that such circumstances will not arise. However, clause 3 seems rather a blunt instrument. We understand why it is included, but it is all or nothing. We can envisage circumstances, for example, in which one particular group could so upset the current progress in Northern Ireland that its prisoners could not be released. Would that then mean that the Secretary of State was forced to take such blanket action against everyone, even prisoners associated with other groups that were not necessarily involved in jeopardising the progress?
  Clause 3 seems entirely unselective, but clause 1(2) states:
  "A person to whom this section applies shall be released".
  There is no discretion in clause 1(2); does clause 3 not provide any either?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interesting contribution. I understand what lies behind it, but the problem lies in part in the difficulty of precisely identifying an affiliation with one particular group or paramilitary organisation. Sometimes that affiliation is abundantly clear and admits of no shading; in other instances, there is shading.
  The right way to proceed is to provide what the hon. Gentleman rightly describes as the blanket power to suspend, or later revive, the operation of clause 1 but to bear in mind always that the effect of the revocation will not be retrospective on someone who has already been licensed and that the revocation of the licence of someone who has already been licensed will depend on the circumstances pertaining particularly to that person. Those two factors, I think, avoid the risk of taking too broad an approach. I think that that is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's submission.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

  TOURISM
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6871/95 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of National Heritage on 5th July 1995 relating to tourism, and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that proposals take fully into account the impact on tourism without recourse to additional competence or resources.— [Mr. Willetts.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  ADVERTISING
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6591/94, relating to comparative advertising, and supports the Government's view that harmonisation of the rules on comparative advertising is to be welcomed, that the draft Directive should contain only those restrictions which are essential, and that the current draft test will require amendment before it can be considered acceptable.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  Question agreed to.

  CATERING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Anthony Steen be discharged from the Catering Committee and Sir Donald Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Aircraft Noise (Windsor)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: The House will know that parliamentary private secretaries are restricted in what they may speak about in the Chamber in relation to matters covered by their Departments. Until recently, I had the honour of being PPS to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted that he has gone on to become our party chairman and was astonished, but very grateful, when he asked me to go with him to become the party's deputy chairman.
  That move meant of course that my right hon. Friend and I were sadly deprived of the good company and sense of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. My hon. Friend will know, however, that I frequently brought up the concerns of my constituents in Windsor about aircraft noise when we met at the Department. Now that I am released from the obligations of being a PPS, I shall raise those concerns in the Chamber. Indeed, if my hon. Friend thought that I was something of a pest during our private conversations, I trust that he will find me an even greater nuisance in our public debates.
  In raising this matter on behalf of Windsor, I should like to associate myself with the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), whose constituents in Datchet and Horton are similarly affected by the noise pollution created by planes landing at Heathrow from the west. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend, who is of course a member of the silent service, in his place on the Treasury Bench.
  It is a rather complex argument, and it would perhaps be easier if I gave compasses to all the hon. Members who are present. Indeed, I need to establish a few opening points if the House is to follow my main argument, which is that it is high time that greater priority was given to alleviating aircraft noise over Windsor.
  First, there are two runways at Heathrow—the north and the south, which both run east-west. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, planes take off from one, while landing takes place on the other. Both take-offs and landings take place in the same direction against the wind. So if the wind is in the west, planes will take off westwards from one runway, while those landing will come into the other runway from the east. Since the wind is more frequently in the west, that indeed is the pattern for the great majority of days of the year. But when the wind moves to the east, planes take off towards London and therefore land over Windsor. It is that pattern on which I wish to concentrate.
  It is a historical misfortune that Windsor and the other places that I mentioned lie directly under the approach to one of Heathrow's runways, the north runway. When planes land, they use a complex very high-frequency instrument landing system known as the ILS, which guides them very precisely along a straight line down on to the runway. It is a measure of technological advance that planes now pick up that direct line many miles away from the airport. That is known as establishing the ILS.

  75
  I can tell the House from great personal experience that that straight line is established well before most planes reach Windsor when they are landing from the west. Indeed, only yesterday, when conditions meant that planes were landing from the west, I stood in my garden in central Windsor and verified once again the monotonous regularity and precision of planes coming in to land at Heathrow.
  The din created by the planes right overhead is appalling, and that is especially true when the weather is good, when people wish to open their windows and sit out of doors. Much of the best weather in the south of England during all seasons is brought about by the very conditions that dictate planes landing from the west: when the wind is in the east or stable.
  The House will understand the serious problem that afflicts Windsor when planes are landing over the town. The planes are very low in the sky; it is simple task for people of averagely good sight to read off the identifying numbers. Moreover, many planes come over with their undercarriages lowered and their engines straining in that especially annoying, whining way that characterises high-powered machines working hard.
  I hope that I have established to the House's satisfaction that there is a serious problem for my constituents. Before I go on to suggest how things might be improved, I need to raise two other wider matters.
  First, there is still a general perception that take-offs, rather than landings, cause the greater offence in noise terms. There was a time when take-offs were the more serious and immediate problem, but I believe that that has changed. Great efforts were made to reduce the noise impact of take-offs, and they have been very successful. Now, however, the noise of planes landing should be seen as a much greater problem and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage the British Airports Authority, Heathrow and the carriers that use the airport to give much higher priority to alleviating the problems of landing noise.
  At the moment, landing noise from the west seems a low priority to the airport authorities. While I accept that Heathrow has a greatly improved system of monitoring the noise impact of individual planes using the airport, it is clear from the location of the monitoring points on the ground around the airport that the problems associated with landings from the west are not taken sufficiently seriously.
  My second point concerns the relief from the regular switching of runway use when the airport's movements become set for a while in one particular direction. Such switching is known as the runway alternation pattern. It happens only when the movements are in one direction and means that take-offs and landings are switched between the runways as planes are coming in and going out east to west.
  In such conditions, planes taking off and landing switch runways at 3 o'clock every afternoon. That brings considerable and instant relief to those living in west London under the previously used flight path for landings, who are battered by the noise during the time preceding 3 o'clock. It is of prime importance to understand that that does not occur when the planes are landing from the other side—from over Windsor. When planes land from the west, they come down on only one runway, the north runway. There is therefore no switch; no relief for my constituents.
  76
  I said before that planes landing over Windsor do so with monotonous regularity and precision. To that I would add that they are relentless as well. Why is that? It is because when the wind is in the east, planes are permitted to take off only from the south runway, so all incoming planes have to land on the north runway, which, as I explained to the House, is the one in direct line with Windsor.
  I have often asked why that cannot be changed, and the answer that I am given is that it is impossible because of a so-called Cranford agreement. The name refers to the settlement immediately to the east of the north runway. At an uncertain moment lost in the mists of time, it was decided that planes could take off only on the south runway when the airport's direction was west to east, and should not take off over Cranford.
  But I have told the House already that circumstances have changed greatly in recent years. The so-called agreement may have seemed reasonable in the days when take-offs were regarded as a much more serious problem than landings, and before the advances that mean that planes now use much less of the runway to get airborne and rise much more quickly into the air. But it is no longer fair to hold to that so-called agreement against the interests of my constituents in Windsor.
  As I said, the inflexible effect of the ILS means that we are subjected to the noise of all the planes coming in from the west without respite, which, certainly, was not the case in earlier times when landing practice was not nearly as precise as it is now.
  Before I leave that particular topic, I should like to tell the House why I keep referring to the agreement as "so-called". I do so because I suspect that the agreement is in fact a convenient fiction. I have frequently asked to see a copy of the agreement. Unless my hon. Friend happens to have a copy tucked away in his pocket tonight, I must reach the conclusion that it simply does not exist. Can my hon. Friend please shed some light on the matter?
  I would like my hon. Friend, therefore, to investigate the possibility of allowing planes to land on the south as well as the north runway when the airport's direction is west to east. I am asking only for the conditions that exist when planes are moving in the opposite direction. This is one thing that could be done to improve matters, but there are others.
  I spoke earlier about the VHF technology that lays down that planes fly low and in a straight line over Windsor. I believe that an even more modern technology may, however, offer a new hope to my hard-pressed constituents. I understand that the system currently used at Heathrow may be replaced in the not-too-distant future by a new microwave system. It is my understanding that such a system would mean that planes would be able to lock on to a navigational path that was not necessarily laid down in a straight line. That is to say, a microwave ILS could bring planes in at different angles.
  I am not advocating the dramatic change of course that those fortunate enough—if "fortunate" is the right word—to have landed at Hong Kong airport will have experienced. A microwave system could produce gentle curves that would be acceptable to passengers and much better for those who live below the present flight path. My hon. Friend will know that there are many areas around Windsor, where there are no large settlements, where that system might usefully be deployed. I ask

  77
  my hon. Friend whether that is his understanding of the possibilities of a microwave instrument landing system. If so, are those developing the system looking closely into environmental concerns as well as the convenience of the carriers?
  I know that my hon. Friend would be surprised if I did not mention one more matter—the vexed question of night flights, although I understand that in his present position, he will not be able to give me any assurances. He knows that I am utterly opposed to any night flights and that I energetically contested the decision to allow some to continue. Surely it is not unreasonable for my constituents and me to expect a good night's sleep. Other than for safety reasons, I would like all night flights to be stopped and I would like a wider definition, in terms of hours, of the word "night" in this context.
  In bringing the matter of aircraft noise over Windsor before the House, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that what I have been doing is a simple exercise in airport-bashing—what one might call nombyism, or not over my back yard. I willingly recognise that Heathrow is one of our greatest national assets and that it is very important to its surrounding area, both as an employer and as a magnet for a vast number of firms that are deliberately located nearby.
  One often hears people bewail the loss of our once-great ports and of our former maritime strength. When I hear this, I reply, "If you want to see evidence of how the great trading spirit of our enterprising people continues to thrive, just visit Heathrow." Moreover, I regard both BAA and British Airways as tremendous success stories, both in terms of Government policy and in terms of how their work force and management have transformed their companies. In this party, we recognise what is of real value for the future of the country and we hate to see our success stories knocked.
  I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will understand that local anger over night flights and anxieties over the proposed fifth terminal must be seen in the context of current conditions. I am sure that if the people of Windsor could feel that progress was being made to alleviate their present problems, good relations with Heathrow could be maintained. We want nothing other than a happy and flourishing relationship with the airport, but unless the matter of landing noise over Windsor is addressed, the relationship can only be difficult.
  I remind my hon. Friend of the specific matters and questions that I have raised tonight. I would like much greater priority given to alleviating noise created by planes landing at Heathrow going over Windsor. I would like to know once and for all whether there is such a thing as the Cranford agreement. I would like to know why, in the changed circumstances that I have described, the present use of only one runway for landing from the west should not be varied. That should be looked into as a matter of urgent priority. I would like to be assured that the alleviation of noise nuisance over Windsor is at the front of the minds of those looking into a microwave landing system for Heathrow. I would like an assurance from the Minister that pilots bringing planes in from the west to land are under appropriate instructions to ensure that present noise levels are kept to an absolute minimum. I promised my hon. Friend at the start that I would be a nuisance. I trust, in a kindly meant way, that I have not disappointed him.
  7.44 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is entirely right; he has been a nuisance, but only in the charming way for which he is renowned. It would be remiss of me if I did not first congratulate him on his recent appointment. I, too, was astonished, but not a little pleased at the great honour bestowed on him. In all seriousness, I know that he will discharge his duties admirably. Indeed, he has done so tonight in raising the important issue of aircraft noise, especially in relation to his constituency of Windsor and Maidenhead.
  I shall start, in a sense, where my hon. Friend finished, by acknowledging the importance of Heathrow airport as a major national asset. We ought not to forget that it continues to be the largest international airport in the world. This year, Heathrow airport will cater for more than 51 million passengers and 962,000 tonnes of freight. It is a workplace for 52,000 people directly and 26,000 people indirectly, including, I have no doubt, many of my hon. Friend's constituents. Heathrow contributes greatly to the prosperity of the area immediately surrounding the airport and to the wider national economy. I accept entirely that, whenever we consider these issues, that consideration has to be uppermost in our minds.
  Equally, however, there is a downside to those activities. As my hon. Friend said, aircraft noise is probably one of the most obvious and unneighbourly attributes of any airport on a constituency doorstep. The noise, of course, is not constant, but it is, when it arises, extremely irritating. I live in Camberwell, south London, and although my home is not classically assumed to be among those affected by Heathrow, it none the less experiences considerable aircraft noise when wind and weather produce the particular conditions that bring the noise in my direction.
  My hon. Friend said that the noise of landing aircraft is worse than the noise of aircraft taking off, and explained why in an interesting way. One would have assumed that the noise of an aircraft taking off at full thrust and gaining altitude would be greater than that of an aircraft on a steady rate of descent, simply coming in to land and losing height as it did so. My hon. Friend is right to say that, in recent years, there have been tremendous developments in the technology associated with maximum thrust and take-offs, which has substantially reduced the differential between the two aspects of airport movement.
  My hon. Friend will accept that, frankly, people's perceptions of which is the worse activity depend on where they happen to be in relation to the runway. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that his is not a unique perception; there are other points of view that contradict his. I shall recap some of the technical data that my hon. Friend introduced into the debate. He is correct to say that, for technical and safety reasons, aircraft operate into the wind and that at Heathrow, the prevailing winds are south-westerly. That means that the airport operates in a westerly direction for approximately 75 per cent. of the time. In other words, aircraft depart to the west and approach to land from the east over the city of London.
  Aircraft leaving Heathrow are required to follow noise preferential routes—the so-called NPRs—which are designed as far as possible to avoid the most populated

  79
  areas. Pilots are required to follow NPRs—unless otherwise specifically instructed by air traffic control—until they have attained an altitude of 4,000 ft. Only two of the NPRs in use during westerly operations might affect my hon. Friend's constituents, although they are designed to avoid Windsor and Maidenhead; the first lies roughly between Windsor and Slough and the other lies between Windsor and Old Windsor. The two NPRs are designed to minimise whatever noise may be in that area.
  Since the noise track-keeping system at Heathrow became operational in 1993, it has been possible to monitor how well aircraft conform to routes and the system has shown that track-keeping on both of the routes is of a high standard.
  Mr. Trend: Does that include take-offs?
  Mr. Norris: The point is that landing aircraft require different characteristics. I shall refer to the microwave landing system—to which my hon. Friend referred—later, but my comments on NPRs are concerned with take-offs. To summarise, a pilot is obliged to follow one of two exit paths if he is travelling in a westerly direction until he reaches 4,000 ft. My hon. Friend knows his constituency intimately, and he will recognise that one route is designed to pass between Windsor and Maidenhead, while the other passes between Windsor and Old Windsor. I hope that that is clear to him.
  It is difficult to apply the same principle to landings. Windsor is between five and eight miles due west of Heathrow—in the sense that the town is about three miles in diameter—and lies directly under an extended centre line of the approach to the northern runway. During easterly operations, a measure of overflight by landing aircraft is, I am afraid, unavoidable.
  During daytime operations, aircraft must join the final approach at a minimum altitude of 2,500 ft approximately eight miles from the runway threshold. That is a minimum joining point and aircraft—particularly during busy periods—will in practice join the final approach further from the airport. For some time, it has been standard practice during night-time easterly operations to move the minimum joining point some two miles further from the airport, so that aircraft join the final approach at a minimum altitude of 3,000 ft, with a consequent reduction in disturbance. A trial use of that procedure during westerly operations was initiated in early September to try to bring similar relief to parts of west and central London.
  Once an aircraft is established on its final approach, it is in a stabilised descent which requires less engine power. Pilots are also required wherever possible to adopt what is called a low-power, low-drag procedure as a further means of reducing noise disturbance.
  Since 1972, during westerly operations, a system known as runway alternation has been operated. Essentially—as my hon. Friend outlined—under that system, one of the two main runways is assigned for landing aircraft and the other to departing aircraft. If the alternation lasts between 7am and 11pm, the switch is normally made at 3pm. The purpose of that is to give areas to the east of the airport predictable periods of relief from the noise of landing aircraft. Alternation is not operated during easterly operations due to the existence of the Cranford agreement, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  80
  I hope that I can clarify the status of that agreement. There is no secret about it. It is a long-standing arrangement to avoid—as far as possible—take-offs to the east over Cranford from the northern runway. My hon. Friend, with his natural sense of fairness, will accept that the community of Cranford is far closer to the runway than any part of my hon. Friend's constituency. That is a matter of fact. In the many years that the Cranford agreement has existed, neither Cranford nor Windsor—as far as I know—has changed its geographic location. My hon. Friend may be aware that surviving records of the agreement are far from complete, and no formal written agreement—if such a thing ever existed—can now be found.
  In 1952, a senior official, with ministerial approval, gave the Cranford Residents and District Amenities Association a verbal undertaking that overflight of the area immediately to the east of the northern runway would be avoided as far as practicable, except during peak periods. Initially, that applied to both take-offs and landings, but subsequently the undertaking was confined to aircraft taking off over Cranford. It has not been possible to establish exactly when that change occurred.
  Since the agreement was made, both runways have been extended at the western end. That has brought the communities of Foyle, Stanwell and Stanwell Moor to within similar distances of the end of the runway as Cranford was in the 1950s. The consequence of the Cranford agreement is that during normal daytime easterly operations, the northern runway is used for landing aircraft and the southern runway for departures.
  Mr. Trend: I said that much had changed since 1952 when the understanding was reached, and I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend confirm that there was no proper agreement. If it is now possible to land aircraft over Cranford, why—with the change in technology associated with take-offs—can take-offs not also be considered for the area?
  Mr. Norris: I shall reflect on the points that my hon. Friend has made, and I have listened with care to his arguments for the practical abandonment of the Cranford agreement. Abandoning the agreement would constitute a change to airspace arrangements, which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, and would thus require the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport, whom I see in his place. I will reflect on my hon. Friend's observations.
  Despite the absence of a formal written agreement, the undertakings were given in an entirely different climate when the airport and airlines were under nationalised control, but the commitments are honoured in the spirit in which they were made and on the understanding that they represent significant relief to the communities hardest pressed by their immediate proximity to the airport. Despite the need to operate into the wind, Heathrow operates a westerly preference. In other words, aircraft continue to operate to the west even when there is a small easterly wind component. That practice has been in place for at least 30 years, and was introduced for operational and noise-mitigation purposes. From an operational standpoint, it reduces the need to switch between westerly and easterly operations, which is a disruptive procedure from an environmental point of view, and which reduces the number of departures in an easterly direction over densely populated areas of west london and—as a consequence—reduces the number of landing aircraft overflying Windsor.

  81
  The air traffic control procedures operated at Heathrow, which my hon. Friend also raised, are, of course, those which are possible with current equipment. My hon. Friend suggested that the proposed microwave landing system might permit revisions to be made to landing procedures. That may be the case. As my hon. Friend said, the technology allows at least the potential for different approach paths, although it is doubtful whether that would be of any use closer to the airport. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will consider all possible measures proposed by the national air traffic services in examining the potential of the system. However, as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, those are matters for the future and not ones on which I can give him any immediate comfort.
  As my hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has joined again with the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and four other local authorities in seeking leave to apply for further judicial review of the night flying restrictions. Obviously, as my hon. Friend generously assumed, that precludes me from commenting on the detailed points that he has made tonight or those made in another context. I shall say just two things on the subject.
  First, I regret very much that the local authorities involved feel the need to pursue the matter further in the courts. I regret it very much if anyone was misled by the wording of the consultation paper that we published in January 1993, but we have attempted to set matters right, as it was proper for us to do. My hon. Friend will be aware from his association with the Department and its work that all the consultation papers were issued in good faith and without any intention to mislead the recipients. Indeed, the whole point of a consultation paper is to set out options and listen to what people say, whether they agree or disagree with the premise inherent in the original consultation.
  I repeat what I said about a complete ban on night flights when I announced the restrictions on 16 August. A complete ban, as requested in some of the responses to the consultation, would not be justified. It would upset the balance that we aim to maintain between the interests of local people and those of the airline industry, including its customers. A ban was given serious consideration in 1976, but after consultation it was decided to allow night
  82
  flights to continue, while seeking to ensure that eventually they would be carried out by quieter types of aircraft. That policy was confirmed in the November 1987 consultation papers for Heathrow and Gatwick and again in the January 1993 consultation paper. I decided against a departure from that policy and it is continued by the arrangements that I confirmed on 16 August. Similarly, as my hon. Friend will know, I rejected the abolition of all restrictions on night flying because I was clear that that would be entirely unreasonable.
  I have answered the specific questions that my hon. Friend addressed to me in his peroration. I assure him that we take aircraft noise by night or by day extremely seriously. Almost all current generation aircraft are typically half as noisy on departure, weight for weight, as their predecessors. They have greatly improved climb performance to limit their noise footprint. While natural retirement has removed older, noisier chapter 2 jet aircraft, tough action has been taken to hasten that process. Legislation is now in place to enforce the phasing out of those aircraft between now and 2002.
  We can take credit for the part that we played in the many negotiations needed to secure international agreement to that. It will be the single most important contribution to improved future noise levels around airports. I assure my hon. Friend that our concern does not end with chapter 2. We are playing a full part in current discussions about further and tougher standards for noise and emissions. We intend to proceed with that policy vigorously.
  I conclude by acknowledging the strength of feeling expressed by my hon. Friend and demonstrated by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about noise levels, particularly in the environs of Heathrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we attempt to deal with such matters in as full and proper a way as possible, while acknowledging that the issue of noise is never likely to be one on which it is possible to satisfy all parties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eight o ' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Dementia Relief Trust
  Ms Short
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Dementia Relief Trust to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [40713]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 6 November to Friday 10 November 1995.

TREASURY

  Direct and Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 19 December to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith),Official Report, columns 944–50, providing a table giving estimates for the burden of direct and indirect taxes in 1996–97 based on the 1995–96 indexed tax and national insurance regime. [39098]

  Mr. Jack
  The burden of direct and indirect taxes in 1996–97 will depend on the level of income and on spending patterns. Figures showing the impact of tax on specimen households will be available after the Budget in the usual way, based on revenue forecasts and economic assumptions published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". It would be misleading to provide figures on the basis of speculative assumptions.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax revenue arising from the sale of national lottery tickets for each of the last 12 months. [39743]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The sale of national lottery tickets began in November 1994. The receipts of lottery duty for each month since are:

  £ 000's

  December 1994

  11,629

  January 1995

  32,755

  February 1995

  29,979

  March 1995

  29,542

  April 1995

  32,860

  May 1995

  64,191

  June 1995

  52,756

  July 1995

  50,962

  August 1995

  60,433

  September 1995

  45,611

  Steam Rollers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to remove vehicle excise duty from steam rollers, preserved working models; and if he will make a statement. [38116]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It would not be appropriate to comment on detailed tax issues in the run-up to the Budget.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total estimate revenue which will be raised by the imposition of vehicle excise duty on steam rollers, preserved working models, and the proportion of this sum expressed as a percentage of the overall revenue raised by vehicle excise duty. [38117]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These vehicles will pay less than £30,000 in total in vehicle excise duty, representing around 0.01 per cent. of total VED receipts. Steam rollers pay the lowest rate of duty of any of the HGV tax classes, which represents a substantial saving over full rates of duty.

  Personal Pension Schemes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the reduction in employer contributions to public sector superannuation schemes as a result of members opting out to join personal pension schemes. [38266]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: No separate assessment has been made of employer contributions as a result of members opting out. Actuaries perform regular valuations on public service schemes. If they advise that employers' contribution rates needs adjusting to take account of the number of opted-out members, and any other factors, appropriate action to adjust the rate would be taken.

  Departments with superannuation votes bid for the sum of money that they estimate they need to cover the cost of pensions. This takes into account the level of employer contributions which are appropriated in aid against expenditure. If there are significant numbers opting out then, other things being equal, there will be an increase in the vote.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names and salaries of the inspectors of magistrates courts, and give their place of residence; and if he will make a statement. [39231]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Inspectors are currently paid on a civil service grade 7 salary range of £26,535 to £41,092 in London and £25,392 to £39,324 outside London. Progression through the range is subject to satisfactory performance.

  Senior inspectors' salaries range between £35,113 and £38,211. They are also eligible for performance-related non-pensionable cash bonuses of up to a maximum of

  3
  15 per cent. of annual salary, subject to an overall maximum of 50 per cent. for the four-year period covered by their contracts.

  All senior inspectors and inspectors are on four-year fixed-term appointments with the possibility of extension.

  The names and places of residence are as follows:

  Northern Team

  Mr. Colin Monson (Senior Inspector)—North Yorkshire

  Mrs. Sally Radford—North Yorkshire

  Mr. Steve Jacobs—North Humberside

  Mrs. Rachael Jenkinson—Derbyshire

  Western Team

  Miss Julia Eeles (Senior Inspector)—Gloucester

  Mr. Malcolm Dodds—Avon

  Mrs. Janet Macpherson—Avon

  Mrs. Margaret Sleight—Avon

  Eastern Team

  Ms Sue Steel (Senior Inspector)—London

  Mr. Michael Hughes—Hampshire

  Mrs. Margaret Scorer—London

  Ms Louise Goodfellow—London

  Central and Southern Team

  Mr. Duncan Gear (Senior Inspector)—Bedfordshire

  Mr. Robert Spencer—North Humberside

  Ms Susan Mew—Somerset

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which petty sessional divisions in Wales, within magistrates courts committees, have benches of(a) under 10 and (b) under 20 and if he will make a statement. [39228]

  Mr. Taylor
  The number of petty sessional divisions in Wales with a bench strength of(a) under 10 and under 20, on the latest information available, is as follows:

  Magistrates courts committees may at any time submit to the Lord Chancellor, under section 23 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, proposals for reorganising the petty sessional divisions within their area or the Lord Chancellor may call for a review.

  (a) Benches with under 10 justices

  Number

  Gogledd Preseli

  9

  Machynlleth

  7

  North Meirionnydd

  9

  Ystradgynlais

  9

  (b) Benches with under 20 justices

  Number

  Berwyn

  15

  Brecon

  18

  Carmarthen North

  10

  Ceredigion Ganol

  14

  De Ceredigion

  12

  Gogledd Ceredigion

  19

  Upper Rhymney Valley

  13

  Pwlheli/Porthmadog

  17

  Radnor and Brecknock

  18

  South Anglesey

  18

  South Meirionydd

  19

  4
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which magistrates courts areas in Wales have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [39226]

  Mr. Taylor
  The magistrates courts committee areas in Dyfed and Powys have already been inspected, in the 1995–96 inspection programme. The inspection reports will be published by the end of December 1995 and March 1996 respectively, with versions in Welsh.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what extra resources he will provide to make magistrates court premises more welcoming, including the installation of vending machines; and if he will make a statement. [39230]

  Mr. Taylor
  The provision of refreshments and other facilities for court users is a matter to be determined locally by the magistrates courts committee. Each committee decides, in conjunction with the local authority, how its revenue budget is to be used in any year. Approval for capital projects is subject to the availability of funding and other priorities.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many inspectors of magistrates courts are resident in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39232]

  Mr. Taylor
  There are no inspectors of magistrates courts resident in Wales at present.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many inspectors will inspect in Wales, in which HM inspectorate team they will inspect; and if he will make a statement. [39227]

  Mr. Taylor
  Each inspection of a Welsh magistrates courts committee will be carried out by the Western inspectorate team—consisting of a senior inspector and three inspectors. They will be joined on each inspection by an associate inspector, a staff member from a magistrates courts committee outside the Western team inspection area.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning his policy on smoking in magistrates courts. [39229]

  Mr. Taylor
  Where, if anywhere, smoking is permitted in a magistrates court is a matter of local policy to be determined by the magistrates courts committee.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current breakdown by party political affiliation of members of the Doncaster bench. [38998]

  Mr. Taylor
  The current breakdown by party political affiliation of members of the Doncaster bench on the latest information available is as follows:

  Conservative: 92

  Labour: 50

  Lib/Dem: 25

  Independent/Not Known: 11

  5
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many additional inspectors of magistrates courts he plans to employ, and if he will make a statement. [39233]

  Mr. Taylor
  There are no plans at present to increase the number of inspectors beyond the current complement of one chief inspector, four senior inspectors and 12 inspectors.

  Maxwell Brothers Trial
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the pay telephone available at the Maxwell brothers trial is now available for normal calls in addition to calls to the emergency services; and if he will make a statement. [39079]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about the availability of the pay-telephone at the Maxwell brothers' trial.

  A pay-telephone from which all outgoing calls can be made has been available for public use outside the courtroom since the trial began on 31 May 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates of the equipment failure in respect of the Maxwell brothers trial to date; which of the problems have now been solved; and if he will make a statement. [39105]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about equipment failure at the Maxwell brothers' trial.

  On the first day of the trial, 31 May 1995, there was a problem of interference between the lapel microphones worn by counsel and the instantaneous transcription equipment used by the court reporters. This was resolved within 45 minutes by using fixed desk microphones for counsel. There have been no equipment failures since then.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Information Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action has been taken to progress MINIS arising from the report of spring 1995; and if he will make a statement. [39613]

  Mr. Horam
  The multi-departmental scrutiny of Government's management information and planning systems produced its report in May 1995. The report noted many examples of good practice in both the public 6
  and private sectors. Its recommendations provided a checklist of best practice for Departments and agencies to use in developing integrated systems to suit their particular needs.

  The report has been widely welcomed. Departments and agencies have now produced action plans in response to the scrutiny. These plans are being considered by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency. Departments and agencies are already taking steps to ensure that their information and planning systems are up to the level of the best, so aiding the Government's continuing quest for greater efficiency.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to install an electronic/computer diary giving details of media events organised by other Government Departments; what estimate he has made of the cost of obtaining, installing and operating such a diary; and if he will make a statement. [39648]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  A dedicated IT-based network linking the offices of Cabinet Ministers will start to become operational next month. Work began on the network in early 1995. By cutting down on paper-based management systems and bringing up-to-date information to all Ministers' offices more quickly, it will improve efficiency and effectiveness both in individual Departments and in the dispatch of collective ministerial business. The forward diary of policy announcements will be only one of the uses to which the new infrastructure is put. The total start-up cost, including hardware and software development, is likely to be in the order of £150,000. Annual running costs are likely to be about £10,000.

  Engagements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 October 1995,Official Report, column 279, (1) on which days he was in the office in August; [38757]

  (2) if he will list the others referred to; [38743]

  (3) if he will list those occasions on which his attendance was required outside London. [38758]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 18 October.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the cost to date of refurbishing his Department's offices. [39016]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  In the current financial year expenditure on refurbishment of the Cabinet Office building at 70 Whitehall is estimated at £1,445,000 excluding VAT. Most of this expenditure results from a major programme to replace old wiring in part of the building, which was becoming dangerous. Recent changes in ministerial accommodation did not result in additional expenditure on refurbishment.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary; [39432]

  (2) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his office makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39462]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 26 October 1995,Official Report, column 749.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39124]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  There were no known frauds committed by employees of the Cabinet Office during this period. The information in respect of those agencies and non-departmental bodies for which the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Total misappropriated £

  Total recovered £

  Agencies

  1993–94

  1

  200

  200

  1994–95

  1

  558

  558

  Non departmental public bodies

  1991–92

  1

  100

  100

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of central Government has been in the hands of executive agencies in each year since 1979. [39840]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Executive agencies are set up under the next steps programme which began in 1988. Prior to that, no such agencies existed. The figures show the percentage of home civil servants working in next steps agencies or on next steps lines at 1 April of each year. The first next steps agency in Northern Ireland was launched in 1990, and figures for the Northern Ireland civil service are shown separately.
  8

  Proportion of home civil servants working on next steps lines at 1 April each year

  Percentage

  1989

  1

  1990

  11

  1991

  40

  1992

  51

  1993

  60

  1994

  63

  1995

  67

  Proportion of civil servants in Northern Ireland working on next steps lines at 1 April each year.

  Percentage

  1989

  none

  1990

  6

  1991

  7

  1992

  26

  1993

  30

  1994

  31

  1995

  41

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those agencies which do not have(a) a Fraser figure and (b) a ministerial advisory board. [39833]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The following agencies do not have a Fraser figure—so-called by reference to the report by Sir Angus Fraser to the Prime Minister in 1991, "Making the Most of Next Steps: The Management of Ministers' Departments and their Executive Agencies":

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  Army Technical Support Agency

  Central Office of Information

  Central Statistical Office

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Civil Service College

  Defence Accounts Agency

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Defence Animal Centre

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  Disposal Sales Agency

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  Employment Service

  Government Property Lawyers

  HM Land Registry

  HM Prison Service

  HMSO

  Hydrographic Office

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  Meteorological Office

  Military Survey

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  Ordnance Survey

  Paymaster

  Queen Victoria School

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  Recruitment and Assessment Agency

  Royal Mint

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  9

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  There is no ministerial advisory board in respect of the following agencies:

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  Army Technical and Support Agency

  Building Research Establishment

  Central Office of Information

  Central Statistical Office

  Civil Service College

  Compensation Agency

  Court Service

  Defence Accounts Agency

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Defence Animal Centre

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  Disposals Sales Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Duke of York's Military School

  Employment Service

  Government Property Lawyers

  Historic Scotland

  HM Land Registry

  HM Prison Service

  HMSO

  Hydrographic Office

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  Military Survey

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Paymaster

  Planning Inspectorate

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland

  Public Trust Office

  Queen Victoria School

  Radiocommunications Agency

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  Rate Collection Agency

  Recruitment and Assessment Agency

  Registers of Scotland

  Royal Mint

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Court Service

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Record Office

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  The Buying Agency

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  10

  Valuation Office

  Wilton Park

  Former Ministers (Appointments)
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Her Majesty's Government have reached a conclusion on the text of the guidelines on business appointments of former Ministers. [40210]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses guidelines on the acceptance of appointments outside Government by former Ministers of the Crown. The guidelines will come into effect from the start of the next Session of Parliament.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Her Majesty's Government have reached a conclusion on the text of the proposed civil service code. [40209]

  Mr. Freeman
  The period of further consultation on the draft civil service code, published in "The Government's Response to the First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life", Cm 2931, has ended. Subject to the required Order in Council the Government now propose to bring the new code into operation from the start of 1996, and will finalise the necessary amendments to the civil service management code and arrangements for implementation in consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions. The intended final text of the code is as follows:

  1. The constitutional and practical role of the Civil Service is, with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, to assist the duly constituted Government, of whatever political complexion, in formulating policies of the Government, carrying out decisions of the Government and in administering public services for which the Government is responsible.

  2. Civil servants are servants of the Crown. Constitutionally, the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers and, subject to the provisions of this Code, civil servants owe their loyalty to the duly constituted Government.

  3. This Code should be seen in the context of the duties and responsibilities of Ministers set out in Questions of Procedure for Ministers which include:

  —accountability to Parliament;

  —the duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of the Government, and not to deceive or knowingly mislead Parliament and the public;

  —the duty not to use public resources for party political purposes, to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code;

  —the duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants, as well as to other considerations and advice, in reaching decisions; and

  —the duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, and to uphold the administration of justice;

  together with the duty to familiarise themselves with the contents of this Code.

  4. Civil servants should serve the duly constituted Government in accordance with the principles set out in this Code and recognising:

  11

  —the accountability of civil servants to the Minister or, as the case may be, the office holder in charge of their department;

  the duty of all public officers to discharge public functions reasonably and according to the law;

  the duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, and to uphold the administration of justice; and

  ethical standards governing particular professions.

  5. Civil servants should conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality and honesty. They should give honest and impartial advice to Ministers, without fear or favour, and make all information relevant to a decision available to Ministers. They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament or the public.

  6. Civil servants should endeavour to deal with the affairs of the public sympathetically, efficiently, promptly and without bias or maladministration.

  7. Civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of public money.

  8. Civil servants should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others. They should not receive benefits of any kind from a third party which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  9. Civil servants should conduct themselves in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Ministers and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future Administration. They should comply with restrictions on their political activities. The conduct of civil servants should be such that Ministers and potential future Ministers can be sure that confidence can be freely given, and that the Civil Service will conscientiously fulfil its duties and obligations to, and impartially assist, advise and carry out the policies of the duly constituted Government.

  10. Civil servants should not without authority disclose official information which has been communicated in confidence within Government, or received in confidence from others. Nothing in the Code should be taken as overriding existing statutory or common law obligations to keep confidential, or to disclose, certain information. They should not seek to frustrate or influence the policies, decisions or actions of Government by the unauthorised, improper or premature disclosure outside the Government of any information to which they have had access as civil servants.

  11. Where a civil servant believes he or she is being required to act in a way which:

  is illegal, improper, or unethical;

  is in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code;

  may involve possible maladministration; or

  is otherwise inconsistent with this Code;

  he or she should report the matter in accordance with procedures laid down in departmental guidance or rules of conduct. A civil servant should also report to the appropriate authorities evidence of criminal or unlawful activity by others and may also report in accordance with departmental procedures if he or she becomes aware of other breaches of this Code or is required to act in a way which, for him or her, raises a fundamental issue of conscience.

  12. Where a civil servant has reported a matter covered in paragraph 11 in accordance with procedures laid down in departmental guidance or rules of conduct and believes that the response does not represent a reasonable response to the grounds of his or her concern, he or she may report the matter in writing to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  12

  13. Civil servants should not seek to frustrate the policies, decisions or actions of Government by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from ministerial decisions. Where a matter cannot be resolved by the procedures set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, on a basis which the civil servant concerned is able to accept, he or she should either carry out his or her instructions, or resign from the Civil Service. Civil servants should continue to observe their duties of confidentiality after they have left Crown employment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in Scotland have benefited from the child care disregard of up to £40 a week since October 1994; and what is the average financial gain per family. [39928]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  From 1 October 1994 to 30 June 1995, 5,000 families in Scotland claimed for help with their child care charges. Of these, 2,000 claims were disallowed, 1,000 families had their child care charges allowed but received no extra benefit because they were already in receipt of their maximum family credit and 2,000 families received higher family credit awards as a result of the help with child care charges with an average gain of £12.67 family credit per week.

  Source:

  One in 20 sample of family credit awards made between I October 1994 and June 1995.

  Information Technology
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research has been carried out by the Social Security Information Technology Services Agency into computer systems for the Child Support Agency; and what is the estimated cost of this research. [39931]

  Mr. Burt
  ITSA has supported the Child Support Agency for some years in the provision of its IT services. This has required a considerable amount of detailed analysis into the CSA's requirements and the most appropriate technical solutions. In addition, there have been a number of short reviews carried out including a recent examination of child support systems within the USA. The cost of these activities cannot be separated from overall support costs, but the amount spent on the review has been very small.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department has taken to monitor the operational effectiveness of the computer system supplied by the company EDS to the state of Florida Child Support Agency before awarding EDS the computer system contract for the UK Child Support Agency. [39932]

  Mr. Burt
  As part of the normal tender evaluation process and prior to completion of contract negotiations, officials from DSS visited Florida in early 1992 to discuss with them the EDS system. At that time the system was not fully implemented, but it was demonstrated and no operational problems came to light.

  aintenance Payments
  s Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with dependent children claiming income support were receiving maintenance in each year since 1989; and in the case of Child Support Agency assessments, how many of these were minimum assessments of £2.30 or less. [37589]

  Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The numbers of income support recipients with dependants receiving maintenance were:

  Year

  Cases

  1989

  174,000

  1990

  171,000

  1991

  194,000

  1992

  210,000

  1993

  196,000

  1994

  114,000

  The figure for 1994 covers only cases in which maintenance is paid directly between the two parties. Figures are not yet available for maintenance collected by the Department.

  Number of cases with maintenance of £2.30 or less

  Year

  Cases

  1989

  7,000

  1990

  5,000

  1991

  8,000

  1992

  7,000

  1993

  4,000

  1994

  4,000

  It is not possible to break this down to show amounts due solely to Child Support Agency assessments. Again, the figure for 1994 covers only cases where maintenance is paid directly between the parties.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39440]

  Mr. Lang
  The DTI is not responsible for any non-departmental public bodies in the county of South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary. [39472]

  Mr. Lang
  Information on lay appointments to the industrial tribunals is not available for South Yorkshire as appointments are made on a regional rather than a county basis. Appointments are made triennially from 25 October for an initial period of three years and are renewable up to age 70. Lay members are not paid a salary but receive a fee of £119 for a whole day's sitting plus travelling and subsistence allowances, where applicable.
  14
  The DTI makes no other public appointments in the county of South Yorkshire.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39557]

  Mr. Lang
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for civil service manpower and pay bill are set out in my Department's annual report, Cm 2804, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times in the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39863]

  Mr. Lang
  The heads of agencies have meetings with their responsible Ministers to discuss the work of their agencies as appropriate. I would expect to meet them when particular issues arise and in any event to discuss their corporate plans as part of the DTI MINIS management process. I have not met any heads of agencies since my arrival in July.

  Regional Assistance, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the present strategy of regional assistance as it affects the Doncaster area. [39449]

  Mr. Page
  None. When the DTI's assisted areas map was announced in 1993 Ministers made it clear that it would last for at least three years. There are currently no plans to revise the map.

  Liquidation Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to strengthen consumer protection legislation as it relates to liquidation sales and similar sales. [38894]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have no plans to change consumer protection law as it relates to liquidation and similar sales.

  Oil and Gas Division
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are employed with the Department of Trade and Industry's oil and gas division in Scotland on(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time basis. [39666]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: My Department's oil and gas division employs 41 full-time staff and one part-time in Scotland.

  My Department's offshore supplies office also employs 67 full-time and two part-time staff in Glasgow and eight full-time staff in Aberdeen.

PRIME MINISTER

  President of Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates in the last two years he received letters from the President of Iran; and on what dates he replied to them. [40277]

  The Prime Minister
  I received a letter dated 30 May 1995 from President Rafsanjani. The letter did not require a reply.

  Policy Unit (Costs
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost of the No. 10 policy unit for each year since 1980–81 in(a) cash prices and (b) 1994–95 prices. [38824]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of the policy unit was not accounted for separately before 1987–88. Expenditure from 1987–88 is listed in cash prices and 1994–95 prices.

  £000's

  Year

  Expenditure Cash

  1994–95 prices

  1987–88

  476

  680

  1988–89

  535

  716

  1989–90

  521

  652

  1990–91

  537

  622

  1991–92

  577

  629

  1992–93

  622

  652

  1993–94

  659

  671

  1994–95

  644

  644

  Departmental Staff
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of staff in his office at the beginning of each financial year from 1990 to 1995, expressed as(a) full-time equivalents, (b) head count of numbers of staff employed and (c) identify separately the number of staff in office service support grades either as full-time equivalents or as head count for the same years. [38822]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:

  Total1 (full-time equivalents)

  Total (head count)

  Office service support grades (head count)

  1 April 1990

  95

  102

  26

  1 April 1991

  97

  102

  26

  1 April 1992

  95

  102

  26

  1 April 1993

  100

  107

  26

  1 April 1994

  100

  107

  26

  1 April 1995

  100

  107

  26

  1The figures for full-time equivalent staff in post have been rounded to the nearest whole number. The figures for 1990 and 1991 include office services support grades working in No. 10 who were formally transferred to the No. 10 complement on 1 April 1992.

  Breast Cancer Campaign
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to report the precise number of postcards he has received in support of then national postcard campaign for breast cancer. [40389]
  16
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 16 October,Official Report, column 23.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Statistics
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total of overseas aid, excluding EU aid, to be made by his Department in the current financial year; and what were the comparable totals five and 10 years ago. [37869]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1995–96 the total planned ODA aid budget excluding EC aid is £1,502 million. In 1990–91 it stood at £1,378 million and in 1987–88 at £1,094 million.

  China
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of multilateral aid projects to China to which Britain contributes; and what is that cost to Britain of such multilateral aid. [37870]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994, the World bank, Asian development bank, and the United Nations aid agencies committed the equivalent of around £2.9 billion to China. An overall estimate of the cost to the UK cannot readily be calculated. In addition, the EC committed the equivalent of some £27 million in 1994, of which the expected British share will be £4.5 million.

  Aid Budget (Discussions)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with aid agencies regarding the 1996–97 overseas aid budget. [37871]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent formal discussions with aid agencies, but my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker has regular meetings with non-governmental organisations, to which she attaches high priority and at which all aspects of ODA policies are discussed.

  Hurricane Damage, Caribbean
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding recent hurricane damage in the Caribbean; what has been Her Majesty's Government's response. [37899]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received requests for relief assistance from the Governments of Anguilla, Antigua, Barbuda and the Commonwealth of Dominica.

  The following commitments have been made:

  Country

  Purpose

  Amount committed £

  Regional

  Mobilisation of Caribbean disaster relief unit asseaament mission

  16,155

  Anguilla

  Purchase of relief supplies

  143,000

  17

  Country

  Purpose

  Amount committed £

  Anguilla

  Subsistence costs of royal Marines

  10,000

  Antigua

  Anguilla disaster relief fund

  100,000

  Antigua

  Restoration of power supplies (Northern Ireland Electricity)

  381,200

  Baebuda

  Roofing repairs to hospital

  5,000

  Dominica

  Purchase/delivery of basic foodstuffs

  250,000

  In addition, soon after Hurricane Luis passed directly over Anguilla, the West Indies guardship, HMS Southampton, arrived to co-ordinate damage assessment and repairs. She was accompanied by her support ship RFA Oakleaf. Within 24 hours of HMS Southampton's arrival, the assessment was completed and repairs were under way. Work parties from the two ships were bolstered by the arrival of a party of Royal Marines, whose duties included support to the Royal Anguilla police force.

  British forces were also able to make a major contribution in Antigua, where a party of Royal Marines was instrumental in reopening the airport and repairing Halberton hospital as well as undertaking a host of other tasks.

  Regarding longer-term rehabilitation, we have invited Anguilla to submit proposals and are currently considering the needs of the affected independent states.

  Angola
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is currently being granted to(a) Angola and (b) children in Angola; and if he will make a statement. [38645]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are currently providing bilateral emergency aid through non-governmental organisations and UN agencies for seeds and tools, primary health, humanitarian de-mining, food supply and distribution, demobilisation and logistic support—in addition to our share of EC assistance for similar activities. Children are among the most vulnerable groups in Angola who benefit under many of these interventions. Our longer-term development aid is focused on English language training and a fund to support NGO long-term rehabilitation projects.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards exist within the G7 pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest to protect the interests of indigenous people in Amazonia. [38544]

  Mr. Hanley
  The programme includes a project to regularise indigenous lands in Amazonia and to protect indigenous populations and areas. The interests of indigenous people are further safeguarded by a separate requirement within the programme that they participate in the zoning of the region.

  Illegal Drug Production
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress he has to report on programmes to eradicate the production of illegal drugs. [37864]

  Mr. Hanley
  ODA' s current largest involvement in such programmes is in Pakistan where there has recently been encouraging progress. ODA approved a further £3.6 million in January this year for phase 2 of the United Nations drugs control programme alternative development project in the Dir district to cover the period 1995 to 1998. Opportunities to identify similar activities in other developing countries remain under constant review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures will be put in place prior to the general election to ensure that those entitled to postal and proxy votes are made aware of their rights as soon as possible by means of public advertising; and if he will make a statement. [39159]

  Mr. Ancram
  The nature and extent of advertising or publicity specifically in Northern Ireland has yet to be decided.

  Housing Executive Grants Offices
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the budgetary allocation to Housing Executive grants offices; and if he will make a statement on the measures he will take to deal with the financial deficit faced by such offices and delays in processing applications for home improvement grants. [38810]

  Mr. Moss
  None. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is responsible for the allocation of its financial resources among its regional and district offices. I have, however, increased the overall resources available to the Housing Executive by £18 million during the 1995–96 financial year, bringing the total to £544 million. The chief executive of the Housing Executive has informed me that, in response to the very high demand for grant aid, an additional £8 million has been directed to support the grants budget, bringing the total to £42 million. Due to this continued demand the Housing Executive has prioritised the issue of grant approvals with precedence being given to applications relating to disabled facilities grants, repairs grants, minor works assistance for the elderly and replacement grants which have an element of adaption for the disabled.

  Sheep and Suckler Cow Quota
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the application forms for sheep and suckler cow quota in respect of the 1995 national reserve will be made available; and what is the reason for delay. [38808]

  Mr. Ancram
  Application forms for sheep and suckler cow quota in respect of the 1995 reserves are expected to be available before the end of 1995.
  19
  The opening of these reserves has been delayed because, together with the UK Agriculture Departments, we have been putting into place arrangements to deal with the outcome of a judicial review which found that the administration of part of the 1993 reserve process in the UK has been unlawful. This judgment had repercussions on the supply of quota for subsequent reserve years and it was essential to consider these implications in advance of opening the 1995 reserves.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to bring legislation to the House restoring 50 per cent. remission to prison sentences served in Northern Ireland prisons; and if he will make a statement. [40448]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The legislation was introduced to the House on 26 October.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which prisons there are prisoners restricted to closed visits; and what are the numbers of prisoners involved. [39417]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question relating to closed visits in Northern Ireland prisons and the number of prisoners involved.

  Within the Northern Ireland Prison Service there is provision to restrict a prisoner to closed visits where there is no contact between the visitor and the prisoner, usually in order to prevent the passage of contraband. Such restrictions are applied from time to time on the authority of the Governor. As of 25 October 1995 no prisoner is subject to such a restriction.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many category A prisoners are currently in the prison system in Northern Ireland; and how many are in each sub-category; [38845]

  (2) what arrangements are made for prisoners who are restricted to closed visits to have (a) visits from their legal advisers and (b) consular visits. [38842]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to two Parliamentary Questions which you have tabled, one relating to visiting arrangements for legal advisers for prisoners restricted to closed visits, and the other in relation to numbers of Category A prisoners in NI prisons.
  20
  Visiting Arrangements

  In Northern Ireland prisoners who are restricted to closed visits with ordinary visitors or relatives are allowed to receive visits from their legal advisers and consular officials in rooms designated for that purpose. Such rooms do not incorporate glass partitions or other restrictions between prisoners and families.

  Number of Prisons in Category A

  In the Northern Ireland Prison Service the terms used in determining the security category of a prisoner differ from the terms used in the Prison Service in England and Wales. I have set out below the broad equivalent categories in each service.

  Northern Ireland

  England

  Top Risk

  Exceptionally High Risk Category A

  High Risk

  High Risk Category A/Standard Category A

  Medium Risk

  Category B

  Low Risk

  Category C

  Using Northern Ireland terms the answer to your second question is that on 23 October 1995 one Top Risk and 356 High Risk Prisoners were held in Northern Ireland Prisons.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the criteria laid down by the Youth Council of Northern Ireland for grant assistance to (i) uniformed youth organisations; and (ii) other youth organisations. [38846]

  Mr. Ancram
  Youth organisations are considered for funding if they

  (a) have a governing body responsible for all assets and liabilities;

  (b) are registered as a charity or corporated;

  (c) have a published memorandum/articles of association which reflect the objectives of the Northern Ireland Youth Service;

  (d) are voluntary, ie not operating for commercial gain; and

  (e) publish audited accounts.

  There is no differentiation in criteria for assistance to uniformed and non-uniformed organisations.

  The Youth Council is currently reviewing its criteria for funding with the aim of applying new arrangements from April 1997.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account is taken of the multiple membership of some uniformed youth organisations, by some individuals, when calculating the level of grant aid available from the Youth Council for Northern Ireland; and what impact this has had on organisations that do not include members of other uniformed organisations. [38839]

  Mr. Ancram
  Membership is not a criterion for deciding the levels of funding allocated to youth organisations. The Youth Council for Northern Ireland allocates core funding for HQ administrative costs rather than programme activities.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans has he to increase the funding available to youth organisations in Northern Ireland. [38838]

  Mr. Ancram
  About 5 million ecu will be made available to the youth sector under the European Union special initiative for peace and reconciliation.
  21
  The Government will provide additional funds to meet up to 25 per cent. of the total cost of projects funded under this initiative.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of funding provided to uniformed youth organisations by the Youth Council for Northern Ireland is awarded to organisations perceived to be (i) Catholic, (ii) Protestant, and (iii) non-denominational. [38837]

  Mr. Ancram
  All uniformed organisations are open to membership by young people from all sections of the community. However, a number of organisations are based in particular churches. In these cases, the organisations may be perceived as being associated with a specific denomination.

  Percentage

  Catholic

  23.5

  Protestant

  37.5

  Non-denominational

  39.0

  Cable Television
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what environmental protection measures have specifically been included in contracts awarded to CableTel for cabling in Northern Ireland as a result of experience in England. [38809]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cable franchisees require licensing under both broadcasting and telecommunications legislation. Although CableTel was awarded the Northern Ireland franchise earlier this year, and on 2 October was licensed under the Broadcasting Act 1990, it has yet to be granted a Telecommunications Act licence to enable it to install and run its systems in the street and on private land within the franchise area. During statutory public consultation on the granting of CableTel's licence there will be an opportunity for representations to be made about the inclusion of licence conditions relating to environmental protection.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area, in hectares and percentage terms, of environmentally sensitive areas in England is made up of productive, or potentially productive, agricultural land. [37131]

  Mr. Boswell
  Current estimates of productive or potentially productive agricultural land within environmentally sensitive areas in England are:

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Productive or potentially productive area (hectares)

  Percentage of total area designated

  Stage 1 ESAs (launched in 1987)

  Broads

  24,000

  67

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  25,800

  93

  22

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Productive or potentially productive area (hectares)

  Percentage of total area designated

  Pennine Dales

  39,900

  86

  West Penwith

  6,700

  93

  South Downs

  51,700

  75

  Stage II ESAs (launched in 1988)

  Breckland

  51,600

  55

  North Peak

  50,500

  92

  Clun

  17,600

  82

  Suffolk River Valleys

  32,800

  75

  Test Valley

  3,300

  69

  Stage III ESAs (launched in 1993)

  Avon Valley

  3,800

  73

  Exmoor

  67,700

  84

  Lake District

  202,600

  83

  North Kent Marshes

  12,200

  83

  South Wessex Downs

  38,300

  83

  South West Peak

  29,500

  87

  Stage IV ESAs (launched in 1994)

  Cotswold Hills

  66,100

  78

  Dartmoor

  84,500

  84

  Blackdown Hills

  32,000

  81

  Essex Coast

  21,300

  79

  Shropshire Hills

  34,900

  91

  Upper Thames Tributaries

  23,200

  84

  Total

  920,000

  80

  The area given in the first column exclude woodland, urban areas—(e.g., built-up land, recreational/amenity land), mineral workings, roads, water (e.g. rivers and lakes), non-farmed land (e.g reedbed, swamp/marginal vegetation and saltmarsh) and unvegetated land (cliff/foreshore, mudflats and bare rock).

  Intervention Beef
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of stock in beef, in tonnes, held in intervention in the United Kingdom; and if he will give details of the age profile of the stock. [38983]

  Mr. Baldry
  The level of intervention beef stocks in the United Kingdom on 23 October 1995 was 8,858 tonnes. This figure includes stocks of beef committed under the current processing sale EEC regulation 1181/95.

  The age profile of these stocks is:

  1990: 378.0 tonnes

  1991: 2230.5 tonnes

  1992: 3677.5 tonnes

  1993: 2572.0 tonnes

  Premium Schemes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1994, in Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire of payments under(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium, (c) the beef special premium and (d) the hill livestock compensatory allowances: and what is his estimate of the cost in 1995. [38990]

  Mr. Baldry
  The cost in 1994 and an estimate of the cost in 1995 for Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire of the sheep annual premium scheme, the
  23
  suckler cow premium scheme, the beef special premium scheme and the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme are as follows:

  1984 Scheme payments

  £million

  County

  SAPS

  SCPS

  BSPS

  HLCAs

  Total

  Humberside

  1.031

  1.074

  1.476

  0.000

  3.581

  North Yorkshire

  17.172

  4.737

  6.061

  4.107

  32.077

  South Yorkshire

  0.663

  0.610

  0.687

  0.213

  2.173

  West Yorkshire

  1.967

  1.215

  0.938

  0.719

  4.839

  1995 Scheme estimated payments

  £ million

  County

  SAPS1

  SOPS2

  BSPS3

  HLCAs4

  Total

  Humberside

  1.165

  1.407

  1.951

  0.000

  4.523

  North Yorkshire

  19.405

  6.206

  8.012

  4.107

  37.730

  South Yorkshire

  0.750

  0.799

  0.909

  0.213

  2.671

  West Yorkshire

  2.222

  1.592

  1.240

  0.720

  5.774

  Notes:

  1Based on an estimated 13 per cent. increase in premium rate

  2 Based on an estimated 31 per cent. increase in premium rate

  3Based on an estimated 28 per cent. increase in premium rate where extensification is payable and 35 per cent. where it is not payable

  4Based on an estimate of a nil increase in allowance rate

  EC Grant Schemes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1994, in Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire, of payments under(a) the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, (b) the nitrate sensitive areas scheme, (c) the farm and conservation grant scheme, (d) the pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes, (e) the woodland grant scheme, (f) the farm woodland premium scheme, (g) the orchard grubbing scheme, (h) the optional five-year set-aside scheme, (j) the habitat scheme, (j) the habitat scheme, (k) the moorland scheme, (l) the countryside access scheme and (n) the organic aid scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1995. [38991]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is available on a financial year basis as follows:

  Level of expenditure

  £000's

  Scheme

  1994–95 (actual)

  1995–96 (estimate)

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  1,375

  1,479

  Nitrate sensitive areas

  15

  650

  Farm and conservation grant scheme

  2,106

  660

  Pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes

  114

  114

  Woodland grant scheme

  1,064

  1,280

  Farm woodland premium scheme

  1n/a

  1n/a

  Orchard grubbing scheme

  0

  0

  Five year set-aside scheme

  1n/a

  1n/a

  Habitat scheme

  0

  55

  Moorland scheme

  0

  0

  Countryside access scheme

  0

  2

  Organic aid scheme

  0

  2.5

  1n/a = Not Available

  The information requested is not readily available for these schemes and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme of grants for work to and equipment for fishing vessels under 12 m in length which is required by the new safety standards. [39815]

  Mr. Baldry
  The safety code for under 12 m fishing vessels is still being developed by the Department of Transport's Marine Safety Agency in consultation with the fishing industry. The aim is to publish the code in 1996 and for it to come into force in 1997 with requirements for existing vessels being phased in over a two-year period. Once the code is finalised the Government will carefully consider the implications for the current vessel safety grants scheme which applies to vessels of 12 m and over.

  Coriander
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land during 1995 have been used to grow coriander as an alternative to oilseed rape; what was the figure for 1994; and if he will make a statement. [39537]

  Mr. Baldry
  This Ministry does not routinely collect data on this crop. Coriander was not grown on set-aside in 1994 or 1995. The crop can be used as a green vegetable or for flavouring and the seeds contain 18 per cent. oil predominantly of oleic and petroselenic fatty acids but germination of the crop can be erratic in the UK.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total tonnage of disposable stocks of each commodity held in intervention stock in the United Kingdom on 30 June; and what was the figure for that date in(a) 1994, (b) 1993 and (c) 1992. [39535]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 480.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land during 1995 have been used to grow oilseed rape; and what were the figures for(a) 1985, (b) 1975 and (c) 1965. [39536]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  11968

  1975

  1985

  21995

  Area (hectares)

  6,486

  38,987

  295,620

  441,620

  1 No census data are available for 1965.

  2 Provisional.

  Sources:

  Provisional June census results 1995 (United Kingdom) and estimate of oilseeds on set-aside land.

  Agricultural Statistics United Kingdom 1985.

  Agricultural Statistics England and Wales 1975 and 1968. Figures converted from acres to hectares using 1 hectare = 2.47 acres. No figures collected for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the 20 highest sums paid in set-aside payments in each of the past three years for which payments have been made. [39824]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 July,Official Report, column 631. Set-aside payments for 1995 are still being made and details will not be available until after the close of the payment window on 31 December.
  26

  Turtles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement' on his guidelines for fishermen on how to deal with(a) reptiles and (b) endangered species of turtles in the waters around the United Kingdom. [39426]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides protection for marine turtles within UK territorial waters. If any fisherman finds a reptile or a marine turtle in his nets, it should be returned to the sea.

TRANSPORT

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve the efficiency of MOT tests on cars and lorries. [39820]

  Mr. Norris
  We are continually looking for ways to improve the efficiency of tests. For example, we believe the introduction of computerisation into the MOT scheme would increase compliance and improve testing standards, so we have recently appointed consultants to advise on the options for doing so. We are also allowing vehicle inspectorate examiners to test HGVs at vehicle operators' premises, provided they are suitably equipped.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his calculation of the additional accident rates of company cars; and what measure he plans to introduce to reduce the accident totals. [39818]

  Mr. Norris
  The annual involvement in injury accidents per 10,000 vehicles is given in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1995", HMSO; for vehicles registered in 1991 to 1993 the accident involvement in 1993 was 128 per 10,000 privately owned cars and 192 per 10,000 company cars.

  My Department works with, and grant aids, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is a key provider of driver training courses to companies. These have reduced accidents among company car drivers and have proved cost-effective for employers. The Department is conducting research on the effectiveness of driver training and other fleet management safety policies. Many road safety measures, aimed at all drivers, will also cut accidents among company car drivers.

  US-UK Air Talks
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current status of the US-UK air talks; and if he will make a statement. [40309]

  Mr. Norris
  Despite concessions offered by the United Kingdom Government, the US Government formally broke off talks on UK-US air services on 20 October. The talks covered a package of new measures designed to increase opportunities for air travellers, shippers and airlines. We stand ready to resume talks as soon as the US Government are ready to do so.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received to date by the Office of Fair Trading on anti-competitive behaviour by bus companies; and how many were made by his Department. [40488]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that 610 such complaints have been received by the Office of Fair Trading—none initiated by my Department.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of cars are fitted with catalytic converters. [39890]

  Mr. Norris
  The last assessment of the percentage of cars fitted with three-way catalytic converters was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 17 July,Official Report, column 877. The number estimated at that time was equivalent to 21.85 per cent. of the total passenger car fleet which numbered 22.2 million at the end of 1994.

  Since all new petrol-engined passenger cars must now be fitted with three-way catalytic converters the percentage will continue to rise.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on the ozone level of the use of catalytic converters in vehicles. [39891]

  Mr. Norris
  The third report of the United Kingdom photochemical review oxidants group, which advises the Secretary of State for the Environment, states that the"3—way automotive catalyst is the best currently available technology for control of emissions of CO, VOCs and NOx from petrol engine vehicles".

  The report discusses in detail the likely effect of this control on levels of ozone in the air. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Benzene
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the use of super-unleaded petrol has had on emissions of benzene. [39893]

  Mr. Norris
  Current data indicate that, on average, petrol—both leaded and unleaded—in the United Kingdom contains between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. benzene with no significant trends between the grades.

  Low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to encourage the use of low sulphur fuel by bus operators. [39905]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations are already in place—SI 1994 No. 2295—which require low sulphur diesel fuel from 1 October 1996. This new fuel, which will be widely available and not restricted to certain market sectors, will bring benefits, in terms of particulate reduction, across the whole of the diesel fleet.

  Devolved Expenditure
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what items of his Department's expenditure have been devolved to local authorities since 1979. [39978]

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

  Tachographs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 October,Official Report,

  29
  column 688, if he will list the inspection rates for tachographs for each of the European Countries referred to. [40009]

  Mr. Norris
  The European Commission has to report every two years to the Council on implementation of the EU regulation on drivers' hours, based upon information supplied by member states. The last report, covering the years 1986 to 1990, provided insufficient detail to compare individual countries accurately. I am sending the hon. Member an extract from it. However, checks carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the United Kingdom exceed the regulation's requirement for member states to check at least 1 per cent. of days worked by drivers and our police forces carry out additional checks.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage tamper-proof tachographs. [39981]

  Mr. Norris
  EU regulations set out the technical specifications for recording equipment in road transport. From 1 January 1996, new vehicles must be fitted with a tachograph which automatically records on the chart any interruption of the power supply and each opening of the tachograph case. In addition, the connecting cable from the transmitter must have improved protection. We have also supported Commission proposals for the introduction of digital recording equipment, and regret that at its meeting in June the Transport Council was unable to agree how best to take these proposals forward.

  Car Alarms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on the use of car alarms and the impact on noise pollution during the night. [39896]

  Mr. Norris
  Car alarms are a positive deterrent to car crime. I am aware, however, of the concern felt about their potential for noise nuisance and will shortly be consulting on regulations which will reduce the maximum period of audible alarm signal permitted to 30 seconds for new alarms and prohibit the use of audible signals to confirm setting or unsetting of the alarm system. These changes, while not compromising the security value of alarms, should considerably reduce any noise nuisance.

  Noise nuisance can also now be tackled in the street by environmental health officers. Powers under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, permit EHOs to forcibly enter cars, in certain circumstances, to disable illegally sounding devices which are causing a noise nuisance.

  Windscreen Washers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy towards persons cleaning car windscreens at traffic lights; and if he will make a statement. [39897]

  Mr. Norris
  Road traffic law provides that if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway, he or she is guilty of an 30
  offence. We have no evidence that persons cleaning car windscreens at traffic lights represent a road safety problem.

  Vehicle Pollution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has to show whether a minority of cars emit a majority of pollution; and what proposals he has to resolve the problem. [39901]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 18 July at column 1016 and 16 October at column 89.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact vehicle pollution has on drivers inside their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [39906]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no evidence to suggest that the health of drivers is subject to any greater degree of risk as a result of pollution inside their vehicles than that to which the public at large are exposed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department offers to motorists buying a new car on the relative health benefits and disbenefits of diesel and petrol cars. [39888]

  Mr. Norris
  At the moment the Government neither recommend nor discourage the purchase and use of diesel or petrol cars on environmental or health grounds. This policy will be reviewed and updated, as necessary, in the light of medical evidence as to the health effects of these fuels.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is currently undertaking into the effects of fatigue in heavy goods vehicle drivers. [39982]

  Mr. Norris
  We are continuing with our research programme into the relative effectiveness of possible countermeasures to tiredness, to ensure that the best advice is available to all drivers on how to minimise the risk of having a sleep-related accident.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on penalties for employers who bring pressure on heavy goods vehicle drivers to work illegally long hours; and if he will make a statement. [39992]

  Mr. Norris
  Enforcement authorities can, and do, prosecute employers where it can be proved that they caused or permitted a driver to break the drivers' hours or tachograph rules. These offences carry maximum fines of £2,500—level 4—and £5,000—level 5—respectively. Deliberate falsification of a tachograph chart can result in up to two years' imprisonment.

  Such offences are also taken into account by the licensing authorities when reviewing an operator's compliance with the conditions of his licence. Offenders can be called to a public inquiry, and their licences can be curtailed, suspended or revoked.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the balance of spending on transport between local authorities and central Government. [39979]

  Mr. Norris
  Figures for central and local Government expenditure on transport are contained in table 1.17 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1995," copies of which are in the Library.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to conduct a general review of the trunk roads programme. [39848]

  Mr. Watts
  The current programme was set out in "Trunk Roads in England—1994 Review". We keep the programme under review and adjust it as circumstances change.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the high-speed link from the channel tunnel to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [39762]

  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. The Government will place contractual obligations on the private sector promoter as to the timetable for construction of the main works, but as negotiations with the shortlisted bidders are still under way it is too early to say what the timetable might be. Union Railways planned a construction programme of about five and a half years.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy proposals Her Majesty's Government have put to the recent conference held in Vienna to decide on the standards to be adopted for casks used to transport by air consignments of plutonium in mixed oxide form and what response was made by the British delegation to the United States proposals. [39253]

  Mr. Norris
  The Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials—ACTRAM—concluded that the air transport of certain physical forms of mixed plutonium—uranium oxide constitutes no significant inhalation hazard. At the meeting in Vienna in September the United Kingdom delegation therefore supported the proposal that such material could continue to be transported by air in packages currently approved to International Atomic Energy Agency standards, provided that the material itself meets stringent test requirements which minimise the potential inhalation hazard.

  The UK, in common with a large majority of other member state delegations, could not accept the United States proposals.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when legislation will be introduced to enable 32
  powers to be given to him to reduce the debt on the Humber bridge; and if he will make a statement. [39886]

  Mr. Watts
  We remain committed to introducing, at the earliest opportunity, a Bill to deal with the debt.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to ensure that sufficient space to allow bicycles to be carried is available on Eurostar. [40058]

  Mr. Watts
  There is no requirement in the current train operator's licence for European Passenger Services and the Secretary of State has no plans to vary this. Eurostar does, however, intend to begin carrying bicycles in a few months' time.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spends annually on(a) road building, (b) light rapid transits and (c) cycleways. [39771]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1994–95, the Department provided capital resources of £1.9 billion for constructing trunk roads and supporting the construction of local authority roads, and £60.2 million for light rapid transit schemes.

  The majority of the Department's expenditure on cycleways is included in the overall capital settlement for local transport. With the exception of the specific grant the Department is providing this year for the London cycle network, provision for cycleways forms part of local authorities' wider allocation for highways and traffic management schemes. The exact sum spent is at the discretion of the local authorities, and the Department does not collect figures centrally. In addition, many of the Highways Agency's trunk road schemes include measures to improve the safety of cyclists, and the agency is committed to helping provide safe and convenient crossings of trunk roads by the national cycle network.

  Open Skies Pact
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest effort of the European Union to replace separate national air traffic accords with an open skies pact between the US and Europe. [39760]

  Mr. Norris
  The European Commission's proposal for a draft negotiating mandate for EU-US negotiations, aimed at liberalising the EC-US market, was put to the Council of Ministers for consideration at its meeting in June 1995.

  The Council agreed to postpone discussion of the Commission's proposal and instead requested the Commission to carry out a thorough analysis to show whether a better result for all member states could realistically be produced by negotiations at Community level and to define the common interest. The study is due

  33
  to be presented at the December Transport Council meeting.

  A34
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the European Commission's plan to drop legal action on the A34 Newbury bypass and the M77. [39761]

  Mr. Watts
  We welcome the Commission's announcement. It confirms the view that the British Government have taken all along.

  Toll Roads
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has for the introduction of toll roads; and if he will make a statement. [39766]

  Mr. Watts
  Trials of electronic motorway tolling systems will start next year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South ( Mr. MacGregor) announced on 2 December 1993,Official Report, columns 646–49, this assessment of technology will provide the basis on which to decide when to bring forward the legislation necessary for electronic motorway charging. I have no other proposals for the introduction on toll roads.

  "Life on the Edge"
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the videotape, "Life on the Edge" on guidance to emergency repair operators on motorways. [39623]

  Mr. Watts
  The video and the associated code of practice provide advice on good practice in vehicle recovery operations. They are a welcome initiative from the industry and a valuable contribution towards improving safety standards.

  Rail Privatisation
  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

  1995–961

  DOT

  1.0

  6.7

  3.52

  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

  Notes:

  1Estimated costs to 30 September 1995.

  2Includes £1.5 million contribution by DOT to the costs of setting up Opraf and ORR prior to formal appointments of the franchising director and Rail Regulator.
  34
  In addition, British Rail and Railtrack have incurred costs linked to privatisation. These are shown in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  BR/Railtrack

  1991–92

  —

  1992–93

  —

  1993–94

  92.2

  1994–95

  131.0

  1995–961

  57.0

  Note:

  1 Estimated costs to 30 September 1995.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy considerations underlie his policy on whether medication for glaucoma sufferers should be dispensed free of charge in the same manner as for diabetes sufferers. [37652]

  Mr. Malone
  Exemption from prescription charges on medical grounds was first introduced in 1968. The list was agreed with representatives of general medical practitioners who made it clear that they could agree to exemption only for certain readily identifiable conditions which called automatically for life-long medication.

  The arrangements were reviewed in 1993 as part of the Government's review for health service spending. We concluded that the present arrangements should stand.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total capital expenditure in(a) trusts by region and (b) health authorities and other bodies in each of the last three years. [37926]

  Mr. Sackville
  The total capital expenditure for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 will placed in the Library.

  The audited figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  The definition of capital has changed during this period, therefore comparisons between years cannot readily be made. For 1993–94 the threshold value for the definition of capital expenditure was increased from £1,000 to £5,000. This technical change to accounting policy reduced capital expenditure as money spent on tangible assets which was formerly classed as capital was in 1993–94 recorded as revenue. In 1993–94 over £100 million was transferred from capital to revenue to take account of the increase to the capital threshold.

  Accident and Emergency Department
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients presenting themselves to accident and emergency departments within(a) the London area and (b) England in 1994 were assessed by a nurse within five minutes of arriving. [38623]
  35
  Mr. Malone
  In the quarter ended 31 December 1994, 91 per cent. of patients in England were assessed immediately on arrival in accident and emergency departments. The latest information, for the quarter ended 30 June 1995, shows that national performance has risen to 93 per cent. These figures are based on samples.

  Information on the performance of individual London trusts in the quarter ended 31 March 1995 is contained in the 1994–95 NHS performance tables, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into(a) cystic fibrosis and (b) colonic strictures; and if he will make a statement; [39317]

  (2) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into gastrointestinal transit in the elderly; and if he will make a statement; [39315]

  (3) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into (a) heart rate variability in mountaineers and (b) autonomic function and altitude; and if he will make a statement; [39311]

  (4) what research his Department carried out into the long term safety and efficacy of TCV-116, 4; 8; 12; 16 mg. once daily, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension; and if he will make a statement; [39303]

  (5) what research his Department has carried out into the evaluation of palliative care services to people with chronic obstructive airways disease; and if he will make a statement; [39056]

  (6) what research his Department has carried out into Valaciclovir international Zoster assessment—VIZA; and if he will make a statement; [39307]

  (7) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into the long-term consequences of gastrointestinal infections; and if he will make a statement; [39299]

  (8) what proposals his Department has carried out for a multi-centre pilot study to investigate the physical performance of the Allevyn adhesive dressing; and if he will make a statement; [38967]

  (9) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out to assess the efficacy of semipermanent acupuncture needles in the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting; and if he will make a statement; [39313]

  (10) what research his Department carried out into avoidable, acute admissions; and if he will make a statement; [39305]

  (11) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into diagnostic reasoning in occupational therapy; and if he will make a statement; [39297]

  (12) what research his Department has carried out into the maintenance of activity and acceptability of Tianeptine administered in its prolonged release form—1 x 50 mg/day—in the treatment of (a) major depressive
  36
  disorders and (b) dysthymia; and if he will make a statement; [39309.]

  (13) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out to investigate the effects of clinical use on the durability of Versaflex linear compression bandages; and if he will make a statement; [39301]

  (14) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into the prevention hypoxia after hip fractures; and if he will make a statement; [39316]

  (15) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into the personality in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; and if he will make a statement; [39312]

  (16) what research his Department carried out into current local awareness and trends in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome; and if he will make a statement; [39304]

  (17) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into the BASO breast study; and if he will make a statement; [39296]

  (18) what research his Department has carried out into a randomised, double-blinded, paralleled group, placebo controlled study of topical lithium succinate cream applied either twice or four times daily in the treatment of herpes labalis U2E-93–02–001; and if he will make a statement; [39308]

  (19) what research and evaluation his Department has recently carried out into the needs of adolescent offenders with psychological problems and others with similar difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [39300]

  (20) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out to see if early changes in (a) insulin sensitivity and (b) insulin secretion in early diagnosed type II diabetes predict an ultimate treatment outcome; and if he will make a statement; [39314]

  (21) what research his Department has carried out into the prevention of relapse/recurrence in depression with Isapirone treatment—Esprit—and if he will make a statement; [39306]

  (22) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into a randomised controlled trial to compare non-pharmacological methods of relieving perineal discomfort following childbirth; and if he will make a statement; [39298]

  (23) what research his Department has carried out into BU9209UK/GP97 comparative effects of Bumetanide plus Captoril, and Frusemide plus Captopril in patients with congestive cardiac failure with long-term follow-up for up to two years; and if he will make a statement; [39310]

  (24) what research and findings his Department carried out into an open multicentre study with response dependent dose titration and with a final double-blind comparison with placebo, run-out period; and if he will make a statement; [39302]

  (25) what research and evaluation his Department has carried out into the use of an analgesic protocol as a means of rationalising the prescribing of analgesics for pain relief; and if he will make a statement. [39318]
  37
  Mr. Malone
  None. Research commissioned within the Department's policy research programme is set out in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994/95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body receiving its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Osteoporosis
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to help post-menopausal women suffering from osteoporosis. [39606]

  Mr. Sackville
  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 available in the Library. The Department is presently working to implement its recommendations. This year, the Department has increased its support for the National Osteoporosis Society.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department last made a study of the methods used by Doncaster royal infirmary and Mexborough Montagu hospital of the incineration of clinical waste; and if he will make a statement. [39569]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department does not carry out studies of individual trust clinical waste incineration operations. It does take an overview of clinical waste disposal throughout the national health service and has provided comprehensive guidance.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial years 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39502]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the tables in the form readily available from the agencies concerned. The costs include all casual staff and employers' superannuation and national insurance contributions.

  NHS Estate Agency

  Grade

  1994–95 Number

  1995–96 Number

  UG3

  1

  1

  UG5

  4

  4

  UG6

  16

  10

  UG7

  33

  29

  SPTO

  12

  11

  SEO

  3

  5

  HEO

  13

  11

  HPTO

  7

  8

  38

  NHS Estate Agency

  Grade

  1994–95 Number

  199–-96 Number

  EO

  14

  10

  IO

  2

  2

  PTO

  1

  1

  Cost in 1994–95:

  £3,616,043

  Estimated cost in 1995–96:

  £3,360,337

  Notes:

  1. The forecast for 1995–96 is that the numbers of staff will not significantly differ from the position at 30 September. The estimated overall cost for the year is based on that assumption.

  2. The figures include both civil servants as well as staff on three-year contracts. However, they exclude agency secretarial and clerical staff whose numbers were: 34 (1994–95 at a total additional cost of £431,607) and, 33 (forecast for 1995–96 at a forecast total additional cost of £445,296).

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Grade

  1994–95 Whole-time equivalent

  1995–96 Whole-time equivalent

  UG5

  1

  1

  UG6

  2.8

  2.8

  UG7

  2.8

  2.8

  SEO

  9.7

  9.7

  HEO

  22.4

  22.4

  EO

  84.0

  84.0

  Secretaries

  2.8

  2.8

  AO

  249.8

  249.8

  AA

  80.9

  80.9

  Typing Manager

  1.0

  1.0

  Typists

  11.5

  11.5

  Support Manager

  1.0

  1.0

  Support Grade 1

  4.7

  4.7

  Support Grade 2

  38.5

  38.5

  Cost in 1994–95

  £7,482,00.

  Estimated cost in 1995–96

  It is estimated that costs will not vary significantly over 1994–95.

  Note:

  1. For 1994–95, the figures given represent the average whole-time equivalent of staff in 1994–95.

  Medical Devices Agency

  Grade

  1994–1995 Whole-time equivalent

  1995–1996 Whole-time equivalent

  UG4

  1.0

  1.0

  UG5

  3.8

  3.0

  UG6

  6.8

  6.5

  UG7

  23.6

  20.6

  SPTO

  39.8

  34.8

  HPTO

  23.7

  18.4

  HEO

  5.8

  6.0

  PTO

  2.3

  6.0

  EO/AT

  16.0

  11.0

  AO/TEC11

  18.3

  21.7

  AA

  5.7

  5.6

  PES/SPES/TYPIST

  8.7

  7.7

  Cost in 1994–95

  £4,959,000

  Estimated cost in 1995–96

  £4,845,000

  Note:

  1. The 1994–95 figures given represent the average whole-time equivalent of staff in 1994–95.
  39

  Medicines Control Agency

  Grade

  1994–95 Number

  1995–96 Number

  UG3

  1

  1

  UG4

  5

  3

  UG5

  27

  30

  UG6

  15

  14

  UG7

  64

  61

  SEO

  12

  12

  PHOl

  9

  11

  SSO

  4

  4

  HEO

  20

  18

  HPTO

  1

  1

  HSO

  16

  19

  LIB

  1

  1

  PHO2

  4

  3

  EO

  45

  47

  SO

  13

  19

  SPES

  6

  5

  AO

  43

  43

  ASO

  6

  6

  AA

  22

  20

  TYPIST

  2

  5

  TM

  1

  1

  Cost in 1994–95

  £11,594,000

  Estimated cost in 1995–96

  £13,116,000

  Note:

  1. The 1994–95 figure represent the staff in post at 31 March 1995.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collate centrally by national health trust the expenses paid annually to chairmen; and if he will make a statement. [39544]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Free Treatment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the methods used for identifying those not entitled to free treatment from the NHS; and what are the means used to ensure that payment is made.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national service hospitals are required to have procedures in place to identify and charge patients who are not eligible for free NHS treatment.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the names of the chairman, general manager or chief executive of the Doncaster health authority and its successor bodies and the Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust in each of the years since 1988–89 and the amounts paid to each person in fees, salaries, other remuneration and expenses for each year; [39540]

  (2) if he will list the names of members serving on the Doncaster health authority, its successor bodies and the Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust in each of the financial years since 1988–89 and the amounts paid to each person in fees, salaries, other remuneration and expenses for each year. [39539]
  40
  Mr. Malone
  Those who have served on the board of Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust since it was established on 1 November 1991—operational on 1 April 1992—and on the board of Doncaster health authority since 1988–89, are as follows:

  DONCASTER HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  1 November 1991 until 30 November 1993: Peter Horsburgh

  6 December 1993 to date: David Bertram

  Non-executive directors:

  M. Spencer (from 1 November 1991 until December 1993), C. Fleming, J. Liversedge, J. Lucas, J. Millar, S. Bryant (from 15.08.94).

  Chief Executive:

  1 November 1991 until January 1995: Michael Bone 16 January 1995 to date: Peter Oldridge (acting chief executive)

  DONCASTER HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Members:

  1988–89: Mr. P. Adey, Dr. A. Berry, Mrs. R. Cottrell, Mr. E. Dickinson, Mr. R. Fawcett, Dr. J. Finbow, Mrs. J. Fish, Mrs. E Harris, Dr. R. Leggett, Mr. J. McHale, Mrs. B. Meeke, Mrs. M. Robinson, Cllr. F. Milnes, Cllr. N. Swan, Cllr. E. Tattersall, Cllr. P. Welsh.

  1989–90: Mr. P Adey, Dr. A. Berry, Mrs. R. Cottrell, Mr. E. Dickinson, Mr. R. Fawcett, Dr. J Finbow, Mrs. J Fish, Mrs. E Harris, Dr. R. Leggett, Mr. J. McHale, Mrs. B. Meeke, Mrs. M. Robinson, Cllr. J. Hawley, Cllr. A. Mitchinson, Cllr. E. Tattersall, Cllr. P. Welsh.

  October 1989 to September 1990: Mr. P. Adey, Mr. G. Bardhan, Dr. A. Berry, Mrs. R. Cottrell, Mr. E. Dickinson, Mrs. J. Fish, Mrs. E. Harris, Mr. R. Fawcett, Dr. R. Leggett, Mr. D. McFadden, Mrs. B. Meeke, Mrs. M. Robinson, Cllr. J. Hawley, Cllr. A. Mitchinson, Cllr. E. Tattersall, Cllr. P. Welsh.

  September 1990 to March 1991: Mr. E. Dickinson, Mrs. E. Harris, Mr. J. Lusby (resigned November 1990), Mr. M Mitchell, (replaced by Mr. T. Sly, November 1990), Mr. J. Staniland.

  April 1991 to date: Mr. E. Dickinson (resigned May 1992), Ms V. Ferres, Mrs. E. Harris, Mr. T. Sly, Mr. J. Staniland, Mr. M. Glover (from April 1993, to replace Mr. Dickinson).

  Chairman:

  1988–89: Malcolm C. Foy replaced by Graham Smith in June 1989.

  1 June 1989 until 31 March 1994: Graham Smith.

  1 April 1994 to date: Keith Jones.

  Chief Executives:

  1989–90: John Lusby until November 1990.

  July 1991 to date: John Newton.

  Chairmen of district health authorities have been entitled to remuneration annually at the following rates:

  Date

  Renumeration

  Prior to 1 April 1989

  £11,868

  Between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990

  £12,462

  Between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1990

  Within the range£13,674 to £17,437

  Between 1 January 1991 and 30 November 1991

  Within the range £13,812 to £17,610

  From 1 December 1991 to date

  Within the range of£15,125 to £19,285

  41
  Non-executive members of health authorities are remunerated at a flat rate of £5,000 per annum—before 1990 they received no remuneration.

  Since December 1991, chairmen of NHS trusts have been remunerated within the range £15,125 to £19,285 per annum. Non-executive directors of trusts are remunerated at a flat rate of £5,000 per annum. Details of expenses paid to NHS board members are not held centrally.

  The total remuneration of the chief executives of Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust and Doncaster health authority during the periods in question is as follows:

  Health authority

  1988–89: £44,105

  1989–90: £47,700

  1990–91: £53,353

  1991–92: £56,438

  1992–93: £70,8321

  1993–94: £73,270

  1994–95: £78,244

  Trust

  1992–93: £47,000

  1993–94: £48,000

  1994–95: £50,000

  1A joint chief executive, for Doncaster DHA and Doncaster FHSA, was appointed on 1 July 1991. Prior to that date there was a DHA general manager and an FHSA general manager.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39849]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. friend the Secretary of State meets the chief executives of my Department's agencies as and when a specific need to do so arises. Since July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held one such meeting.

  Trent Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the location of the new headquarters of Trent health authority, indicating the cost of relocation and the cost of using existing premises. [39500]

  Mr. Malone
  Trent regional health authority will be abolished on 31 March 1996. A number of the functions of the RHA will be carried out by the Trent regional office of the NHS executive. The regional office will occupy the headquarters of the former RHA at Fulwood house, Sheffield. Because the space requirements for the regional office's 135 staff will be smaller than for the RHA, negotiations are under way for Sheffield health authority to take over the freehold for the site and to lease part of the site to the regional office.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to hold centrally records on 42
  the numbers of pharmacists who have been dismissed by his Department as a result of engaging in the practice of fraudulently collecting a prescription fee from a customer and ticking the exempt box on the prescription form; and if he will make a statement. [39509]

  Mr. Malone
  Pharmacists are not employed by the Department of Health but are under contract to individual family health services authorities. FHSAs are responsible for taking action against any pharmacist found to be engaging in fraudulent activities. Details of such cases are not available centrally.

  Since 1 April 1995 all patients presenting prescriptions for dispensing have been asked to sign the declaration on the back of the prescription form indicating the category of exemption claimed or the amount of the charge they have paid.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which this Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39570]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward measures to make all patients aware of the cost of their individual treatment under the NHS. [39741]

  Mr. Malone
  The "Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS", issued in April 1995, sets out the information that NHS trusts are required to make available to members of the public. In most cases, this information will enable estimates of treatment costs to be made. There are no plans to advise patients of the cost of their individual treatment. Copies of the code are available in the Library.

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for changes to the law on children's employment. [40690]

  Mr. Bowls
  We have today issued a consultation document proposing some changes to the law on children's employment in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is undertaking a separate but similar exercise in Scotland. Copies of both consultation documents have been placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) trust, (b) health authority and (c) region, the amounts allocated for the administration of the private finance initiative. [40693]
  43
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 2 May, columns 175–76, for the available information.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, columns 683–84, when the necessary regulations to establish the special health authority to administer the clinical negligence scheme for trusts will be laid before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [40791]

  Mr. Malone
  We have today laid before Parliament an order and regulations to set up the special health authority to deal with the establishment and administration of a clinical negligence scheme for trusts under section 21 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. The authority will be known as the national health service litigation authority.

  It is my intention to appoint Sir Bruce Martin QC as the chairman of the authority, and Dr. Oscar Craig and Mr. Ronald Bradshaw as non-executive members.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the currently available methods for the detection of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in living humans. [38559]

  Mr. Sackville
  While there are currently no reliable methods for ante-mortem detection of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, in a small proportion of cases, it may be possible to confirm the diagnosis by a brain biopsy while the patient is still living.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to pathologists and postmortem technicians when handling cases involving or potentially involving transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. [38548]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health issued guidance to national health service post-mortem staff on handling of bodies suspected to have had, or to have been at risk of developing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome in April 1994. Further guidance from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens on precautions for work with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was issued in September 1994. Copies of each of these sets of guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations where homogenisation and centrifugation of potential transmissible spongiform encephalopathies takes place. [38851]

  Mr. Sackville
  Homogenisation and centrifugation of potential transmissible spongiform encephalopathies should take place in laboratories with containment level 2 facilities, with additional precautions as specified by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens in its guidance on precautions for work with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Information 44
  about the locations of these laboratories is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance is issued to NHS personnel in maternity units in respect of patients who have received human growth hormone; and what procedures are operated for the handling of placenta and membranes; [38852]

  (2) what is the procedures for the disposal of human tissue obtained for the purpose of identifying a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy where tests confirm infection; [38553]

  (3) how personnel involved in neurosurgical procedures are advised of potential health risks associated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. [38554]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of health issued the NHS with guidance on precautions for work with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies produced by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens in September 1994. Copies of this guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Department has made of the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite as a sterilising agent for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; how widespread is its use; and if he will make a statement. [38555]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous pathogens guidance on precautions for work with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies assesses sodium hypochlorite to be the disinfectant of choice when autoclaving—the method of choice for decontamination—is not practicable. Information on its use is not available centrally but it is believed to be used widely.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Department's assessment of the nature of the causative agent for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in humans. [38556]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently three main hypotheses which identify a prion, virino or virus respectively as the causal agents for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in humans. Details of these hypotheses are contained in the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's publication "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of occurrence for(a) suspected and (b) confirmed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, within the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [38557]

  Mr. Sackville
  115 suspected cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease were reported to the national CJD surveillance unit in 1994. After further investigation, 59 of these were classified as definite or probable cases, of which 53 were sporadic CJD.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of increases in prostate cancer after vasectomy; and if he will make a statement. [38549]

  Mr. Sackville
  Several studies have been undertaken both in this country and internationally into the possible causal links between vasectomy and prostate cancer. The findings of these studies have been inconclusive.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his current predictions for the incidence of Alzheimer's disease, within England, for the next 10 years. [38558]

  Mr. Bowis
  The prevalence of dementia is 5 per cent. for people aged 65 years and over and 20 per cent. for people aged 80 years and over. The increase in the elderly population is likely to result in a rise in the numbers suffering from dementia.

  Migration
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have emigrated from the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will provide a breakdown by age and nationality. [38207]

  (2) how many immigrants have entered the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will provide a breakdown by age and nationality. [38208]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for the years 1983 to 1992 is published in tables 2.1 and 2.9 of "International Migration, 1992". Information for 1993 is published in tables 17 and 19 of "Population Trends", volume 81. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  These tables do not include people migrating to or from the Irish Republic and it is also highly likely they exclude people admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer, for example as students, on the basis of marriage, or because they applied for asylum. Estimates of net international migration from 1986 to 1993, including such people, are given on page 5 of "Population Trends", volume 81.

  Boneloc Cement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is his calculation of the total number of patients on whom Boneloc cement was used; and where in the United Kingdom it was used. [39819]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 118 of the Medicines Act precludes the disclosure of information which is provided about products in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proposals he has to reduce the percentage of revision of total hip replacement operations. [39821]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health plans to support research and evaluation programmes aimed at improving the safety, performance and life of total hip 46
  replacements. These include assessment of the clinical performance of implants by explant studies; the development of techniques to predict long-term clinical outcomes from short-term clinical data; and the development and assessment of new materials and technologies. The Department of Health is also supporting an analysis of the data from a five-year outcome study of total hip replacements in the Trent region.

  Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the Office of Fair Trading to investigate misleading advertising of unlicensed herbal medicines. [38663]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency regulates the advertising of medicinal products, both licensed and unlicensed. The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994 prohibit the advertising of a relevant medicinal product in respect of which no product licence is in force. The Department has sufficient powers in existing legislation to monitor the advertising of medicinal products, whether licensed or not.

  The Office of Fair Trading is empowered to undertake investigations into complaints against specific advertisements rather than particular sectors of advertising activity.

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest available figures for(a) the district health authorities' spend per capita and (b) the family health services authorities' spend per capita for (i) London, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Manchester, (iv) Liverpool, (v) Leeds and (vi) Newcastle. [40194]

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita spending figure for each(a) district health authority, (b) family health services authority and (c) commissioning agency for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [40282]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 12 December 1994 at column 465.
  Figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Information is not available centrally for commissioning agencies, as they exist only as a managerial arrangement for some district health authorities and family health services authorities, and are not statutory bodies.

  Management Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will itemise by health authority spending per head of weighted population on management costs. [40280]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Members for York (Mr. Bayley) and for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 27 October,Official Report, column 848.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will itemise spending on(a) M1 management costs and (b) M2 management costs by (i) health authority

  47
  and (ii) trust for each year for which figures are available, by both amount and percentage of income; [40281]

  (2) what measures of management and administrative costs in (a) trusts and (b) health authorities his Department maintains. [40283]

  Mr. Malone
  We shall be publishing information shortly on management costs in national health service trusts and on the costs of running health authorities for 1994–95. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 19 October at columns 363–64, for the details of what information will be provided about trusts' management costs for 1994–95 and what other measures of management costs have been provided previously. The 1994–95 information on the costs of running health authorities will cover all staff and non-staff costs with the exception of costs incurred in direct service provision—for example, health promotion, AIDS co-ordination; inherited costs—for example, premature retirement payments and costs of medical negligence claims—and capital charges on health centres and on surplus property in the process of disposal.

  Cancer
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of mouth cancer in the United Kingdom for each of the past 10 years. [38099]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The information for the United Kingdom is shown in the table.

  Registration in the United Kingdom on oral cancers ICD91 codes140 (lip), 141 (tongue), 142 (salivary glands), 143 (gum), 144(floor of mouth), 145 (other and unspecified parts of the mouth) from 1980 to 1989.

  Year

  Persons

  1981

  2,344

  1982

  2,345

  1983

  2,273

  1984

  2,277

  1985

  2,201

  1986

  2,239

  1987

  2,380

  1988

  2,618

  1989

  2,481

  19902

  2,567

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there were from mouth cancer for each of the past 10 years in the United Kingdom. [38100]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The information for the United Kingdom is shown in the table.

  Deaths cause by oral cancers ICD91 codes 140 (lip), 141 (tongue),142 (salivary glands), gum (143), floor of mouth (144), other andunspecified parts of the mouth (145), in the United Kingdom in the years 1983 to 1994

  Year

  Persons

  1984

  1,152

  1985

  1,142

  1986

  1,064

  1987

  1,130

  1988

  1,150

  48

  Deaths cause by oral cancers ICD91 codes 140 (lip), 141 (tongue),142 (salivary glands), gum (143), floor of mouth (144), other andunspecified parts of the mouth (145), in the United Kingdom in the years 1983 to 1994

  Year

  Persons

  1989

  1,157

  1990

  1,121

  1991

  1,092

  1992

  1,209

  1993

  1,100

  19942

  1,235

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision

  2 provisional.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current incidence of(a) mouth cancer and (b) testicular cancer. [38101]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The number of registrations in England and Wales in 1990 (provisional) of mouth cancer (ICD91 codes 140 (lip), 141 (tongue), 142 (salivary glands), 143, (gum), 144 (floor of mouth), 145 (other and unspecified parts of the mouth) is 2,154.

  The number of registrations in England and Wales in 1990 (provisional) for testicular cancer (ICD91 code 186) is 1,322.
  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery Funding, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is, to the latest convenient date, the total sum allocated under the national lottery and total sum allocated to applications in(a) Northamptonshire, (b) the Corby borough and (c) the East Northamptonshire district. [38336]

  Mr. Sproat
  The total sum allocated under the national lottery, as at 20 October, is £546 million—£546,146,920.04. There have been no awards, to date, for projects based in the Corby borough. A split between projects in the East Northamptonshire district and Northamptonshire are not available. There have been 12 awards to projects based in Northamptonshire with a total grant of £2,375,755.

  National Lottery Administration Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what have been the administration costs to date of the (i) Arts Council Lottery Board, (ii) Sports Council Lottery Board, (iii) National Heritage Memorial Fund, (iv) National Lottery Charities Board and (v) Millennium Commission. [38748]

  Mr. Sproat
  As at 30 September, total administration costs for each of the lottery distributors were as follows:
  49

  Distribution body

  £

  The Arts Council of England

  2,539,411

  The Scottish Arts Council

  368,953

  The Arts Council of Wales

  302,947

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  110,015

  The Sports Council (of England)

  2,543,000

  The Scottish Sports Council

  391,493

  The Sports Council of Wales

  327,451

  The Sports Council of Northern Ireland

  304,255

  The National Heritage Memorial Fund

  2,641,402

  The National Lottery Charities Board

  4,706,848

  The Millennium Commission

  3,101,839

  Total

  17,337,614

  The sums include start-up costs.

  George III Coronation Bible
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what attempts her Department has made to find a purchaser who will keep in the United Kingdom the bible on which King George III swore his coronation oath in 1761; and if she will make a statement. [39023]

  Mr. Sproat
  A licence to export the George III coronation bible was applied for in March this year. The granting of the licence was objected to by my Department's expert adviser and the case was referred in the normal way to the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art.

  My Department accepted the committee's recommendation that a decision on the export licence application should be deferred for three months to give an opportunity for a purchaser to come forward to offer to buy the bible at or above the fair market price of £350,000. A news release announcing this decision was widely circulated on 19 June 1995.

  At the end of the three-month period no offer to purchase had been made, nor were my officials aware of any other interest in purchasing the bible. The export licence was therefore issued and the bible exported in September of this year.

  A report on this case is contained in the 1994–95 report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art which was presented to Parliament on Tuesday 24 October, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Ernest Bevin School, Winsford
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration her Department is giving to listing the school where Ernest Bevin was educated at Winsford, Somerset; and if she will make a statement. [39080]

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no proposal for the listing of any school in Winsford under consideration within my Department at the present time. However, if the hon. Member could provide photographs and location plan of the school where Ernest Bevin was educated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ask her advisers at English Heritage for an assessment of whether it is of special architectural or historic interest. As the hon. Member may be aware, Bevins house, Winsford, the birthplace of Ernest Bevin, is already listed in grade II.

  Drugs in Sport
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many persons tested positive in the Sports Council drug testing programme in 1994–95. [39787]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council publishes a report on its doping control programme annually containing, among other information, statistics on the number of tests taken and the number of positive reports. In 1994–95, the Sports Council reported that 60 persons tested positive for banned substances and there were seven refusals out of a total of 4,374 tests.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those sportspeople who were tested for illegal substances during 1995, indicating those who were drug free and those found to be drug positive. [39797]

  Mr. Sproat
  This information is not available centrally. The names of those tested, and who subsequently test positive, are reported by the Sports Council's doping control unit to the governing body of the sport under whose authority testing has taken place. It is the responsibility of the individual governing body to decide when and how to release that information. Not all substances prohibited in sport are controlled substances. Sports organisations themselves decide on the parameter for controlling drug misuse in sport.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much of the Sports Council funds are allocated to anti-drug information. [39786]

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1994–95, the Sports Council's doping control unit spent £86,099 on education and information, supplemented by expenditure by the Sports Councils in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  National Stadium
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the role of her Department in awarding lottery funds to the proposed national stadium. [39789]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. It has always been an important point of the national lottery that the distribution of proceeds should be handled at arm's length from the Government. The award of lottery funding for the new national stadium will be a matter for the Sports Council lottery awards panel when the successful bidder has submitted a formal application.

  Sports NVQs
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on national vocational qualifications for sport; which are the awarding bodies; and what is the role of the Minister of Sport. [39784]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are currently 16 NVQs available in sport. The Sports Council is working closely with sports governing bodies on an on-going programme to implement NVQs in sports where they do not already exist. The awarding bodies for NVQs in coaching are: City and Guilds, Royal Society of Arts and the Business and Technology Education Council. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications, along with the Department
  51
  for Education and Employment, has responsibility for the administration of NVQs, but as Minister for Sport I take a keen interest in the development of NVQs in sport.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the NVQs now available for sports; and when she expects NVQs to be available for all sports organisations. [39783]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are currently 16 NVQs available in the coaching of sport. These are: canoeing, karate, cricket, skiing, badminton, squash, basketball, swimming, exercise and fitness, target shooting, football, table tennis, gymnastics, tennis, hockey and windsurfing. NVQs are also available in sports administration and management. The Sports Council is working closely with sports governing bodies on an on-going programme to implement NVQs in sports where they do not already exist.

  Football Dishonesty Inquiry
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the inquiry into football financial dishonesty held by the football authorities; what is the role of the Department of National Heritage; and when she expects the report to be passed to her. [39798]

  Mr. Sproat
  The football governing bodies are independent of Government and the Department of National Heritage therefore has no role in the FA Premier league's commission of inquiry into player transfers. I am satisfied that the commission's first interim report, concerning Mr. George Graham, and the subsequent rule changes and codes of conduct adopted by the Premier league indicate that the football authorities are serious in their commitment to ensure the highest possible standards within the game. I look forward to the commission's subsequent reports when they are ready.

  Sports Coaches (Training)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual expenditure of the training and promotion of sports coaches by Her Majesty's Government. [39788]

  Mr. Sproat
  The majority of Government support for sport and active recreation is channelled through the GB Sports Council. The Sports Council's grant to the National Coaching Foundation, which provides services for 70,000 coaches throughout the UK, is £1,550,000 for 1995–96. Additional support for coaches is provided through the council's grants to national governing bodies of sport and through other Sports Council funded sports development projects nationwide. The Government's sportsmatch scheme helps fund a small number of schemes which involve the training and promotion of sports coaches. The sports policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game" also identified a number of ways in which coaching would be extended and improved in schools, through clubs, further and higher education and elite athletes.

  Yorkshire Air Museum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action her Department is taking to preserve the Yorkshire air museum based at Elvington, North Yorkshire, after the closure of Royal Air Force 52
  Elvington, with particular reference to (a) the air shows carried out there and (b) the allocation recently awarded to the museum from national lottery funds; and if she will make a statement. [39518]

  Mr. Sproat
  The decision to close RAF Elvington is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Yorkshire air museum would be free to make an offer for the site, should it be placed on the open market, and the Yorkshire and Humberside Museum Council would be able to advise the museum on this and other matters. I understand from the national heritage memorial fund that the closure of RAF Elvington would not affect the grant awarded to the museum from the heritage lottery fund.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list the public appointments for which her Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary; [39458]

  (2) if she will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which her Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39437]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not have responsibility for any public appointments or appointments to non-departmental public bodies in the county of South Yorkshire.

  Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on local and regional access to future digital terrestrial broadcasting. [38540]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Digital terrestrial broadcasting will provide opportunities for national, regional and local television and radio services. The Government's proposals for digital broadcasting are set out in "Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting", Cm 2946. Those proposals are designed to let viewers and listeners have access as soon as possible to digital terrestrial broadcasting; ensure that there is a wide range of services appealing to a variety of tastes and interests, including regional and local interests; and give broadcasters the opportunity to provide services in a fair and effective competitive market.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her current estimate of the total allocation of national lottery proceeds for the Millennium Commission; and if she will give a regional breakdown of the allocations made so far from the Millennium Commission. [38762]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The Millennium Commission receives a fifth of the allocation for the good causes. As at Friday 20 October, the Millennium Commission's allocation stood at £223.9 million.
  53
  The regional breakdown for the 81 Millennium Commission awards to date is as follows:

  Region

  Amount £

  Number of Awards

  London

  2,200,000.00

  1

  North West

  3,882,000.00

  6

  North East

  —

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  52,112,000.00

  5

  Eastern

  279,890.00

  2

  East Midlands

  2,286,000.00

  4

  West Midlands

  1,980,000.00

  3

  South West

  500,000.00

  1

  South East

  40,466,000.00

  2

  Merseyside

  1,500,000.00

  1

  Scotland

  6,607,980.00

  47

  Wales

  11,941,000.00

  7

  Northern Ireland

  —

  0

  UK Wide

  51,780,000.00

  2

  Totals

  175,534,870.00

  81

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants in receipt of income support have been able to purchase their homes under the right to buy in each of the past five years. [39265]

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants have completed the purchase of their council homes under the rent-to-mortgage scheme in each month since the introduction of the scheme. [39266]

  Mr. Curry
  Information on completed sales under rent-to-mortgage since the scheme was introduced in October 1993 is given is the table. The figures are taken from the quarterly housing returns received from local authorities in England.

  Year

  Number of sales

  1993

  Q4

  —

  1994

  Q1

  —

  Q2

  —

  Q3

  2

  Q4

  4

  1995

  Q1

  5

  Q2

  2

  Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about future funding of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service. [39873]
  54
  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 24 January 1995,Official Report, column 111.

  Nuclear Waste Repository, Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's assessment of the long-term safety of the proposed Nirex repository in Cumbria.

  Mr. Gummer
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received no proposal from Nirex under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 for a repository in Cumbria and consequently cannot comment on the long-term safety of any such facility.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his assessment of the likelihood of ground water contamination from any future nuclear waste repository in Cumbria; [39737]

  (2) what is his assessment of the likelihood of any radioactive substances from any nuclear waste repository in Cumbria reaching the surface by a colloidal transport process. [39738]

  Mr. Gummer
  It will be for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or, after 1 April 1996 the Environment Agency, to assess the case supporting any future application, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, for a nuclear waste repository in Cumbria. It would be for the developer to address in such a case any potential groundwater contamination and whether colloids or any other transport processes significantly influenced the risk of radioactive substances reaching the surface.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the cost of his Department of any investigations that have either been carried out by or commissioned by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution into the proposed Nirex repository site in Cumbria. [39736]

  Mr. Gummer
  No costs were incurred by the Department for the studies that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution commissioned relating to Nirex's programme. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution recovered from Nirex the costs of the work undertaken.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received no proposal from Nirex under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, for a repository in Cumbria and consequently has not commissioned or carried out investigations relating to such a proposal.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the investigations that have been(a) commissioned and (b) carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution into the proposed Nirex repository site in Cumbria. [39735]

  Mr. Gummer
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution let two contracts for studies relating to Nirex's programme; a contract with W. S. Atkins for a "Scientific review and assessment of Nirex submissions" and a contract with Intera Information Technologies/R. M. Consultants for a "Post closure radiological safety assessment of Nirex proposals". Reports arising from the
  55
  latter contract will be placed in the House Library. Reports from the W. S. Atkins contract are still in preparation and a set will be placed in the Library when they are completed.

  These studies by HMIP were undertaken to test and develop the Inspectorate's assessment capabilities. The studies were not designed to inform HMIP on the suitability of the site in Cumbria for possible future development of a repository.

  HMIP has received no proposal from Nirex, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, for a repository in Cumbria and consequently has not commissioned or carried out investigations relating to such a proposal.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county if South Yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years; [39421]

  (2) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary. [39450]

  Table 3: Composition of SDC board as at October 1995

  Name

  Salary £

  Current appointment

  First appointment

  Chairman: Hugh Sykes

  20,525

  From 30 June 1993 to 31 March 1997

  30 June 1988

  Deputy Chairman: Norman Adsetts OBE

  9,285

  From 30 June 1995 to 31 March 1997

  30 June 1988

  David Heslop OBE

  5,430

  From 1 September 1994 to 31 March 1997

  30 June 1988

  Derek Nice

  5,430

  From 30 June 1994 to 31 March 1997

  30 June 1990

  Peter Newman

  5,430

  From 30 June 1994 to 31 March 1997

  30 June 1988

  Prof. Gareth Roberts

  5,430

  From 22 July 1995 to 31 March 1997

  22 July 1991

  Jenny Bacon

  5,430

  From 1 December 1994 to 31 March 1997

  19 November 1992

  Frank Eul

  5,430

  From 1 December 1994 to 31 March 1997

  6 November 1992

  Mike Bower

  5,430

  From 1 December 1994 to 31 March 1997

  12 November 1992

  Janet Cohen

  5,430

  From 1 September 1995 to 31 March 1997

  1 September 1993

  Jan Wilson

  5,430

  From 20 December 1994 to 31 March 1997

  20 December 1994

  Leasehold Reform Act Codes of Practice
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the code of management practice provided for under the provisions of part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. [39871]

  Mr. Curry
  We plan to lay before the House very shortly an order which approves the Association of Retirement Housing Managers code of practice for leasehold sheltered housing. It will be published by and be available from the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, 50 City Way, Rochester, Kent ME1 2AB.

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has submitted two codes for approval and negotiations on the text are nearing completion.

  Land Management Agreements, Suffolk
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  56
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The only body, based in South Yorkshire, to which the Secretary of State makes public appointments is the Sheffield development corporation. For this body, I have provided three tables, giving the information requested. Table 1 shows the total annual budget broken down into total expenditure and total grant in aid for the four financial years between 1992 and 1996, 1995–96 being an estimate. Table 2 shows the number of appointments and reappointments for the calendar years 1992 to 1995 and table 3 shows the current composition of the SDC board.

  Sheffield development corporation Table 1: Total annual budget

  Year

  Total expenditure £

  Total grant in aid £

  1992–93

  14,056,000

  13,185,000

  1993–94

  16,003,000

  12,000,000

  1994–95

  16,122,000

  9,700,000

  1995–96

  117,153,000

  18,600,000

  1 Estimated.

  Table 2: Number of appointments and reappointments

  Year

  Number of new appointments

  Number of re-appointments

  1992

  3

  4

  1993

  1

  4

  1994

  1

  6

  1995

  0

  3

  Environment if he will provide a breakdown, by type, of the land management agreements in existence between land owners and English Nature for the current financial year in the county of Suffolk, giving the amount of funding in each category. [40148]

  Mr. Gummer
  In the current financial year, the following management agreements under sections 15 and 16 of the Countryside Act 1968 are in existence in the county of Suffolk:

  Section

  Number

  Cost

  S15

  29

  104,030

  S16

  5

  94,818

  Social Housing
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify and categorise the 70,000 social lettings referred to in the seventh paragraph of the
  57
  letter of 23 October from his Department to hon. Members on the subject of homelessness legislation. [40279]

  Mr. Curry
  Details of the 70,000 social lettings expected to be provided through public investment in 199–96 were given on page 60 of the Government's Housing White Paper "Our Future Homes", published in June. The figures are as follows:

  Providing homes for rent

  England output

  The Housing Corporation helps housing associations to build new homes to rent.

  27,100

  The Housing Corporation also helps associations to buy and rehabilitate existing homes.

  8,900

  Local authorities fund housing associations to build new homes and buy and rehabilitate existing homes, helped by Government grant.

  11,000

  A small number of new homes are provided from local authorities' own resources

  1,000

  Making better use of existing homes

  We release additional existing social lettings through the Cash Incentive Scheme, giving local authority tenants grants to help them to buy their own homes in the private sector.

  5,500

  We run a similar scheme for housing association tenants, the tenants incentive scheme.

  7,200

  Supporting low cost home ownership

  We help people on low incomes, who need a home, to buy at low cost, by building homes for shared ownership

  4,600

  Through the do it yourself shared ownership scheme, we help people on low incomes, who are often living in social housing, buy on the open market.

  4,700

  Total

  70,000

  Local Government Finance, East Midlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the amount of extra grant each county council in the east midlands would receive in 1995–96 if there were no area cost adjustment in the standard spending assessment system. [38919]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The contribution of the area cost adjustment to authorities' standard spending assessments is some £1.5 billion. It is widely believed, incorrectly, that the abolition of the area cost adjustment would release this amount for addition to the SSAs of authorities throughout England.

  If the area cost adjustment were abolished, it would be necessary to revise the analyses on which the SSA formulae are based. Most of the formulae are based on analyses of expenditure from which the element related to higher costs in London and the south-east has been deducted. If there was no area cost adjustment, the analyses would have to be carried out afresh, based on expenditure without any such deduction.

  We would wish to discuss with the local authority associations what would then be the most appropriate formulae. But if the formulae were recalculated retaining the existing indicators, those indicators would have different weights from those which applied in 1995–96. The resulting standard spending assessments, for all
  58
  authorities in England, would then be as shown in the table which I have placed in the Library. The table also shows the differences between the actual SSA and the alternative SSA. These differences are virtually the same as the differences in each authority's revenue support grant.

  The Department has prepared a technical note about these calculations for the local authority associations. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Canal Freight
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to increase the volume of cargo transport by canals. [39661]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The Government continue to encourage the maximum use of inland waterways for freight transport where this is a practical and economic option. However, freight hauliers must have the freedom to choose the mode of transport that best suits their needs. We draw attention, where appropriate, to the potential of water for the carriage of freight, and to the Government grants that are available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. [37857]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working closely together on a number of initiatives including reducing the volume of paper in prosecution files, greater use of information technology and co-ordinated training.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the working of the Crown Prosecution Service. [37859]

  The Solicitor-General
  The primary function of the Crown Prosecution Service is to prosecute firmly but fairly the 1.5 million cases submitted to it each year by the police. The service is working actively with the other agencies in the criminal justice system both to achieve this objective and to improve the way the system treats witnesses and victims.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve efficiency in the Crown Prosecution Service. [37853]

  The Attorney-General
  Efficiency in the Crown Prosecution Service continues to improve. My key priorities currently are to improve still further the close liaison between the CPS, the police and the courts.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent requests he has received from Lord Justice Scott. [37860]
  59
  The Attorney-General
  It is the intention of the inquiry that any exchanges with individual witnesses should be confidential. That is to be respected.

  Lenient Sentences
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the impact to date of his ability to appeal against unduly lenient sentences. [37862]

  The Solicitor-General
  The power is now accepted as an important and necessary addition to the criminal justice system because very occasionally a sentence will be imposed in the Crown court which is unduly lenient, and causes disproportionate damage to public confidence in the judiciary.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent use he has made of his powers to initiate appeals against lenient sentences.

  The Attorney-General
  Since January 1995, 60 offenders have had their sentence referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. One case has since been withdrawn. To date, 20 cases have been determined by the Court of Appeal, all of which have resulted in increased sentences.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Court
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom's EU partners about a common approach to revising procedures following the European Court of Human Rights verdict on the killing of IRA terrorists in Gibraltar; what plans he has to propose an amendment to article 2.2 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in relation to the phrase"the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary"
  to take account of the verdict; and if he will make a statement. [38019]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government are deeply concerned by the conclusion reached by the European Court of Human Rights in the Gibraltar case and are considering the implications of the court's judgment. When we have come to conclusions, we shall make our views known within the Council of Europe as the European Court of Human Rights is an institution of the Council of Europe and not of the European Union. Consultation with others is an option that we may wish to pursue.

  As regards article 2 of the European convention on human rights, the court did not find a violation in relation to compatibility of the national law on the use of lethal force with article 2 standards.

  The court unanimously rejected most the applicants' claims. It refused to award compensation—on the grounds that those killed were terrorists planning to plant a bomb. The sole point on which the court found against the United Kingdom was over the control and organisation of the operation. The majority of 10 judges thereby overturned the opinion of the European Commission of
  60
  Human Rights which, after conducting its own fact-finding exercise, found in September last year that the Government had not violated the European convention on human rights. The judges also contradicted the conclusion on the lengthy 1988 inquest which, after interviewing 79 witnesses, decided that what had happened was lawful.

  The judgment of the majority, based on no new evidence and defying common sense, has done nothing for the standing of the court in the United Kingdom.

  The dissenting minority of nine, which included some of the most senior judges on the court including its President, disagreed entirely with the majority's findings on the one contentious issue. These they demolished point by point in a lengthy and well-argued joint dissenting opinion.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which cases at(a) the European Commission and (b) the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg costs have been awarded against the United Kingdom Government and how much was paid in each instance; if he will indicate the cases where costs have not been awarded despite a finding against the United Kingdom; and if he will specify the subject matter of each case. [39915]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In the past two years the Government have been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay costs to successful applicants in the following cases:

  £

  Darnell

  3,207

  Boner and Maxwell

  5,560

  Welch

  15,010

  Tolstoy

  91,516

  McCann, Farrell and Savage

  33,804

  The amounts awarded have been paid, save for the recent case of McCann. In one case, McMichael, the successful applicants were not awarded costs because they claimed none.

  I shall write to the hon. and learned Member detailing the costs awarded by the court in judgments given between 1975 and 1993.

  I shall also write separately detailing costs awarded by the Committee of Ministers over the last two years in United Kingdom cases not referred to the court by the commission. To go back further would involve disproportionate costs.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government intend to pay the costs awarded against them by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the deaths of Farrell, Savage and McCann in Gibraltar. [39916]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The matter of the payment of costs will be considered in the normal way.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the numbers of cases at the European Court of Human Rights, by signatory state, which those states have lost; and if he
  61
  will indicate for each such state the date from which its citizens were enabled to bring cases individually. [39917]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The following is the information requested, correct as at 6 October 1995.

  ECHR: comparative table of violations

  State party

  Cases where at least one violation found (At 6 October1995)

  Date of acceptance of article 25

  Austria

  28

  3 September 1958

  Belgium

  20

  5 July 1955

  Bulgaria

  0

  7 September 1992

  Cyprus

  1

  1 January 1989

  Czech Republic

  0

  —

  Denmark

  2

  13 April 1953

  Finland

  2

  10 May 1990

  France

  33

  2 October 1981

  Germany

  12

  5 July 1955

  Greece

  7

  20 November 1985

  Hungary

  0

  5 November 1992

  Iceland

  2

  29 March 1955

  Ireland

  6

  25 February 1953

  Italy

  84

  1 August 1973

  Liechtenstein

  0

  8 September 1982

  Luxembourg

  1

  28 April 1958

  Malta

  1

  1 May 1987

  Netherlands

  23

  28 June 1960

  Norway

  1

  10 December 1955

  Poland

  0

  1 May 1993

  Portugal

  6

  9 November 1978

  Romania

  0

  20 June 1994

  San Marino

  0

  22 March 1989

  Slovakia

  0

  —

  Slovenia

  0

  20 June 1994

  Spain

  7

  1 July 1981

  Sweden

  21

  4 February 1952

  Switzerland

  14

  28 November 1974

  Turkey

  2

  28 January 1987

  United Kingdom

  37

  14 January 1966

  No case for the member states parties has yet reached the court.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps her Majesty's Government have taken to secure full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 752 and withdrawal of regular Croation forces from Bosnian territory. [40015]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Since that resolution in 1991, the United Kingdom has deployed up to 9,000 troops in Bosnia, contributed more than £275.5 million in humanitarian aid and played a leading role in trying to reach a comprehensive settlement to the conflict there.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refugees have been driven out of Krajina by the Croatian army; and what assistance Her Majesty's Government and the international community are giving to them. [40017]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that approximately 11,000 refugees moved from sector west into northern Bosnia following the Croation military offensive in May. In August, approximately 200,000 Croation Serbs fled from sectors north and south and some 25,000 Bosnian Muslims left the Bihac pocket for Croatia. We have contributed more than £2 million in grants through 62
  non-governmental organisations—Oxfam, Save the Children and the British Red Cross—to meet emergency needs of these refugees, as part of comprehensive assistance programme co-ordinated by UNHCR.

  NATO (Expansion)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards expansion of NATO to the Visegrad countries. [39996]

  Mr. David Davis
  The NATO summit in January 1994 confirmed that the alliance expected and would welcome expansion of its membership to include democratic states to its east, as part of an evolutionary process, and taking into account political and security developments in the whole of Europe. In December 1994, NATO Foreign Ministers set in hand work on a study into the practicalities and principles of enlargement. This study has now been completed and was presented to all partners in Brussels on 28 September. Copies of the study have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The alliance is agreed that it would be premature to discuss at this stage which countries might be invited to join.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Pakistan. [40000]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have good and active relations with Pakistan. We look forward to deepening and extending our political, commercial and cultural links.

  Nuclear-free Zones
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards nuclear-free zones in(a) the Pacific and (b) central and eastern Europe. [39998]

  Mr. David Davis
  On 20 October we announced jointly with the US and France that we would sign the protocols to the south Pacific nuclear-free zone treaty in the first half of 1996. We believe that internationally recognised nuclear weapon free zones, based on arrangements freely arrived at by all the states in a given region, can help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, proposals for such zones have to take into account prevailing circumstances in the area concerned.

  Stranded Holidaymakers, Turkey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was offered by the British embassy in Ankara to the passengers on the Airtours flight from Belfast to Dalaman on 9 September, following the collapse of Villmar Holidays; and if he will make a statement. [39923]

  Mr. Hanley
  Consular staff in London, Ankara and Marmaris worked closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and Villmar Travel's agents in Turkey, Gentur, to help the stranded passengers. Whilst Gentur assumed
  63
  primary responsibility, consular staff intervened to persuade local hotels to accept the CAA's guarantee of payment.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to renew British membership of UNESCO. [39967]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are keeping this issue under review.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relationship to UNESCO. [39966]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We operate an observer section to UNESCO based in the Embassy in Paris which monitors developments within the organisation. This includes coverage, with the assistance of officials in London, of the twice yearly executive board sessions and the biennial general conference.

  We retain membership of certain UNESCO programmes—World Heritage Committee; Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; and the Intergovernmental Council of the International Hydrological Programme.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much it would cost for the United Kingdom to rejoin UNESCO this year; and what percentage of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration budget that represents. [39968]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Annual assessed contribution would be approximately £11 million. This represents 0.31 per cent. of the total FCO-ODA 1995–96 budget.

  In addition, there would be staffing costs which have yet to be quantified.

  Croatia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government support Croatian membership of the EU. [40013]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Croatia has not applied for accession to the EU. Any application would need to be considered against the background at that time of Croatia's democratic stability and respect for human and civil rights, as well as her relations with other countries in the region.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the current level of human rights abuse in Croatia. [40016]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continue to receive reports of human rights abuses in Croatia, including killing of civilians. We condemn these atrocities. With our EU

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Albania

  —

  —

  —

  0.030

  0.361

  0.723

  Armenia

  —

  —

  —

  0.014

  0.025

  0.079

  64
  partners, we will ensure that such reports are made available to the international tribunal on former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Croatia in respect of human rights abuse and ethnic cleansing in Krajina. [40012]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have condemned the human rights abuses in Krajina and called for the Serb refugees to be allowed to return to their homes if they so wish. Along with our EU partners we have repeatedly warned Croatia that its future relations with the EU are dependent on its respect for human rights and minorities.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Croatia. [40014]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom has a resident ambassador in Zagreb. We established diplomatic relations with Croatia in January 1992.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Bangladesh. [40001]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have good and active relations with Bangladesh. We look forward to expanding our political, commercial and cultural links.

  India
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with India. [39999]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have good and active relations with India. We look forward to expanding our political, commercial and cultural links.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the amounts spent annually since 1989 on the British know-how fund; and if he will list the countries where it has been spent indicating the amount spent per country. [40086]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The amounts spent annually since 1989 on the British know-how fund are, in million pounds sterling:

  1989–90: 63.8881

  1990–91: 13.676

  1991–92: 33.395

  1992–93: 44.866

  1993–94: 57.750

  1994–95: 77.286

  1Including 62 million from the Polish zloty stabilisation fund.

  Expenditure breakdown by country is as follows, in million pounds sterling:
  65

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Azerbaijan

  —

  —

  —

  0.081

  0.122

  0.441

  Belarus

  —

  —

  —

  0.026

  0.086

  0.616

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  1.034

  1.954

  1.857

  2.179

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.768

  2.544

  Former Czechoslovakia

  —

  1.954

  6.594

  7.238

  —

  —

  Estonia

  —

  —

  0.008

  0.359

  0.310

  0.691

  Georgia

  —

  —

  —

  0.026

  0.071

  0.496

  Hungary

  0.004

  1.487

  6.198

  5.794

  6.281

  4.599

  Kazakhstan

  —

  —

  0.005

  0.093

  1.012

  1.909

  Kyrgyzstan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.093

  0.436

  Latvia

  —

  —

  —

  0.326

  0.259

  0.915

  Lithuania

  —

  —

  0.006

  0.404

  1.058

  0.900

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.174

  2.2512

  Moldova

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.040

  0.124

  Pan Baltic

  —

  —

  0.036

  0.360

  0.627

  0.603

  Poland

  63.8841

  10.067

  10.154

  10.586

  11.878

  10.973

  Romania

  —

  —

  0.926

  3.090

  3.741

  4.829

  Russia

  —

  —

  6.453

  9.024

  18.051

  30.088

  Slovak Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.569

  2.405

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  —

  0.045

  0.492

  0.935

  Tajikistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.081

  Turkmenistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.001

  0.038

  Ukraine

  —

  —

  0.001

  2.879

  3.265

  5.330

  Uzbekistan

  —

  —

  —

  0.190

  0.266

  0.302

  Regional projects

  —

  0.168

  1.998

  2.346

  2.343

  2.799

  1Including 62 million Polish zloty stabilisation fund

  2including 2.0 million economic support

  On January 1 1993 the former Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech and Slovak Republics. From then on assistance to these two countries is shown separately. Those joint programmes which began before this date are still recorded under former Czechoslovakia.

  Irish Territorial Claims
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have raised the matter of the claim on the territory of the United Kingdom by the Irish Republic with international or regional bodies of which both countries are members. [39918]

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom is not disputed in any international organisation of which the UK and the Republic of Ireland are both members. No purpose would therefore be served in raising the matter in any of these bodies.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards relations between India and Pakistan in respect of their dispute over Kashmir. [40011]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have consistently encouraged the Indian and Pakistani Governments to resolve their dispute over Kashmir through bilateral negotiation.

  Brazil (Makuxi Indians)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Brazilian Government concerning the treatment of the Makuxi people by the Roraima state authorities. [38542]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government of Brazil are aware of our concern that the rights of the Makuxi and the other indigenous people of Brazil should be observed and protected. Our embassy in Brasilia keeps in regular touch with the Brazilian authorities and monitors the situation closely.
  66
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to meet representatives of the Makuxi Indians of Brazil when they visit London later this month. [38543]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Representatives of the Makuxi Indians will meet officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 1 November.

  Former Communist Countries (Elections)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about assistance provided by his Department to ensure free and fair elections in former communist countries. [37866]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have provided a wide range of assistance to former communist countries, including advice on the drafting of constitutions and electoral laws, advice to a range of political parties on campaigning and party management, assisting the development of free and fair media as well as supporting the preparations for elections and election monitoring.

  Visas
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out for each of the last five calendar years(a) the number of cases in which Ministers have reversed the decision of an entry clearance officer and (b) the country in which the entry clearance application was lodged. [40193]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available for the years 1991 to 1993 as files are kept for only two years when a visa has been granted. For the years 1994 to 1995 the information is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and BMARC between 1980 and 1992. [40103]

  Mr. David Davis
  Research undertaken in the context of the Trade and Industry Select Committee inquiry has revealed no evidence of any contact between BMARC and my Department between 1985–91. However, during the latter period my Department routinely saw export licence applications covering defence sales submitted by BMARC to the Department of Trade and Industry. Information is not readily available for the period prior to 1985. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 23 and 24 October meeting of the study group preparing for the intergovernmental conference. [40395]

  Mr. David Davis
  I attended the 10th meeting of the study group, which took place in Brussels on 23 and 24 October, as the Foreign Secretary's representative. The meeting revisited a number of subjects which had come up in earlier discussions.

  With regard to the European Court of Justice, I presented some British ideas for improving the operation of the court, and for helping to overcome problems which arise, especially where judgments may have disproportionate financial implications. Other members of the group had not yet examined our ideas in detail, but undertook to do so on the basis of a short paper which I had circulated to the group, and which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The meeting considered a paper by the Council legal service on options for simplifying the treaties. I applauded the intention to increase transparency and public comprehension, but doubted whether it would be possible to simplify the structure or wording of the treaties very much without changing their effect. I agreed, nevertheless, that it should be possible to eliminate obsolete articles.

  There was a brief discussion on the role of national parliaments. I again commended ideas in the European Legislation Committee's 24th report on the IGC, which had been circulated in the group. In particular, I supported the recommendation to introduce a formal treaty obligation that national Parliaments should have adequate time to scrutinise draft proposals before these are considered by the Council.

  In a discussion of other Community institutions, I said that all of them needed to be reviewed in the light of experience of Maastricht, and in the expectation of further enlargements. In particular, I raise the question as to whether the Economic and Social Committee was still fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended now that the Commission was systematically engaging in direct consultation with interested parties through Green and White Papers, and following the creation of the Committee of the Regions.
  68
  There was a brief discussion of ways in which fundamental rights are protected in the different member states, on the basis of a council legal service paper which has been placed in the Library of the House, together with other Council legal service papers on national parliaments, Council working methods and treaty simplification.

  Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to improve relations with Iran following the public statements by the President and other members of the Iranian Government that they would play no part in any attempts on the life of Salman Rushdie. [40278]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government of Iran have not yet given satisfactory assurances of Mr. Rushdie's safety. I urge them to do so.

  Diplomatic Wing Cash Limits
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits for 1995–96. [40634]

  Mr. Hanley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the following changes will be made:The cash limit for class II, vote 2—other external relations—will be increased by £80,001,000 from £211,632,000 to £291,633,000. The increase is in respect of contributions by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for international peacekeeping. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the agenda of the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting includes(a) reform of UN institutions, (b) good governance and (c) steps to reduce international debt. [40026]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General, after consulting Heads of Commonwealth Governments earlier in the year, has proposed that each of these subjects be discussed at the Heads of Government meeting in New Zealand in November.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons there are prisoners restricted to closed visits; and how many prisoners are involved. [38840]

  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.
  69
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisons in which there are prisoners restricted to closed visits; and how many prisoners are involved.

  On 26 October this year, there were fifteen prisoners in England and Wales subject to closed visits. Eight were at Belmarsh prison and seven were at Whitemoor.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made for prisoners who are restricted to closed visits to have(a) visits from their legal advisers and (b) consular visits. [38843]

  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. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the arrangements made for persons who are restricted to closed visits to have (a) visits from their legal advisors and (b) consular visits.

  A policy of closed visits was introduced for category A exceptional risk prisoners on 20 June this year. The aim of the policy was to ensure the most secure conditions possible for the highest risk prisoners. Only the elimination of all contact between prisoner and visitor was regarded as ensuring this security. The position of legal advisors and consular officials was carefully considered before deciding that the policy should also be applied to them to avoid the possibility that they might become potential targets for intimidation, threats or taken hostage in order to coerce them into assisting escape attempts.

  Visits for legal advisors and consular officials take place out of hearing, but in sight of, prison staff. Where it is necessary to pass documents from the visitor to the prisoner the documents can be placed in an envelope which is then passed through an X-ray machine. In the most exceptional circumstances, for example when there is a need to discuss matters with a large number of prisoners at the same time, an Operational Director may authorise an open visit.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A prisoners are currently in the prison system in(a) England and (b) Wales; and how many are in each sub-category. [38847]

  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. Seamus Mallon dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of category A prisoners currently held in prison establishments in (a) England and (b) Wales, and the number in each sub-category.

  There are no prison establishments in Wales which hold category A prisoners on a permanent basis. For establishments in England, the information requested is given in the table below:

  Number of category A prisoners held in prison establishments in England and the number in each escape risk classification at 23 October 1995

  Number

  Exceptional escape risk

  15

  High escape risk

  150

  Standard escape risk

  1645

  Total number of category A prisoners

  810

  1 Figure includes 19 young offenders.

  70

  Probation Services
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which ombudsman has jurisdiction to review the administration of probation and after care committees and their related probation services; and if he will make a statement. [39419]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. The operation of probation services is subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation and to review by the Audit Commission.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentages of the current probation service work force are(a) over 30 years, (b) male (c) from an ethnic minority background and (d) from a military, police or Prison Service background. [39624]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The latest available information is as follows.

  At 31 March 1995, 35 per cent. of probation service staff—48 per cent. at probation officer grades—were male.

  At 31 March 1994, 6.9 per cent. of probation service staff' and the same proportion for probation officer grades were recorded as belonging to ethnic minority groups.

  Statistics on the age and employment background of probation service staff are not collected centrally.
  1Excludes non-probation officer hostels staff and sessional supervisors.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when circulars on changes to probation training were issued to chief probation officers and to relevant universities. [39596]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Copies of the decision document published on 2 October were sent the same day to each chief probation officer and university providing courses attracting Home Office sponsorship.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for future financial arrangements of probation officer qualification training. [39595]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As the decision document published on 2 October makes clear, the money now spent on supporting the sponsorship scheme will be devolved to area probation services to fund new training arrangements when the necessary plans and preparations have been satisfactorily made.

  General Election Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce limits to control the national spending by political parties in general elections. [39825]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no such plans.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken and what plans he has for the future to press for the introduction of daylight saving time to reduce road casualties. [39822]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Our policy on future summer time arrangements remain under review, including whether or not it would be right to move to central European time. The effect of any change on road traffic casualties is one of the many issues for consideration.

  Religious Cults
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to allowing into the United Kingdom foreign nationals who are leaders of religious cults responsible for brainwashing and the breaking up of families. [40417]

  Mr. Howard
  All applications for entry are considered in accordance with the immigration rules, including the provisions relating to the refusal of entry on the ground that exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about Mr. Moon's application for entry into the United Kingdom. [40400]

  Mr. Howard
  I have directed that Mr. Moon should not be allowed entry to the United Kingdom, on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good.

  EU Common Visa List
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which date he expects visa requirements for entry into the United Kingdom to be determined by an EU common visa list in accordance with the regulation adopted at the Home Affairs Council meeting on 25 September. [39914]

  Mr. Howard
  From 3 April 1996. The common visa list is a list of countries to which a visa regime will be applied by all member states. Visas will remain national documents issued according to nationally determined criteria.

  South Yorkshire Fire Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amendment is necessary to the Fire Services Act 1947 to enable South Yorkshire fire service to receive funding for a dedicated rescue vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [40002]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 a fire authority has a duty to make provision for fire fighting purposes and, in particular, to secure the services of a fire brigade and equipment in order to meet efficiently all normal requirements. Section 3(1)(e) of the Act gives the fire authority discretionary 72
  powers to employ its brigade and use its equipment for purposes other than fire fighting. Fire authorities have been able to provide such services from within their existing resources.

  Bail Hostels, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostel places currently exist in South Yorkshire for(a) men and (b) women; and what was the figure for 12 months ago. [39564]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are currently 106 approved hostel places available in South Yorkshire for either men or women, and seven places designated for female residents only. In September 1994, there were 112 places available for either men or women, and five places designated for female residents only.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by location the number of places available in bail hostels in the county of South Yorkshire, at the latest available date and what were the figures 12 months ago. [39459]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In September 1994 and September 1995, the number of places available in each of the South Yorkshire hostels was as follows:

  September 1994

  September 1995

  Norfolk Park (Sheffield)

  39

  39

  Rookwood (Rotherham)

  39

  39

  Town Moor (Doncaster)

  39

  35

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by location the occupancy rate for the hostels in the county of South Yorkshire at the latest available date; and what the figures were 12 months ago. [39460]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In September 1994 and September 1995, the occupancy rate at each of the South Yorkshire hostels, as a percentage of funded beds, was as follows:

  Percentage

  September 1994

  September 1995

  Norfolk Park (Sheffield)

  89

  87

  Rookwood (Rotherham)

  88

  91

  Town Moor (Doncaster)

  80

  86

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1 September checks have been made on alarm systems and security cameras at Doncaster prison; what are his Department's guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [39546]

  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.
  73
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking on how many occasions since 1 September checks have been made on alarm systems and security cameras at Doncaster prison; what are his Department's guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Premier Prison Services, the contractor which operates Doncaster prison, is required by the terms of its contract to ensure that alarm systems and security cameras are regularly checked for effectiveness. Repairs, when required, have to be completed within twelve hours. The on site Prison Service Controller monitors these systems continually to ensure proper operation.

  For security reasons it is not usual practice to make public the details of the guidelines.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Doncaster prison are currently on rule 43. [39550]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners at Doncaster prison are currently on Rule 43.

  On 23 October the following number of prisoners were on Rule 43.

  Adult

  Young Offender

  Segregated under Rule 43/own protection

  5

  4

  Segregated under Rule 43/good order and discipline

  18

  16

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates, of what grade and on what dates have(a) escaped or (b) attempted to escape from Doncaster prison since it was opened. [39513]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many inmates, of what grade and on what dates have escaped or attempted to escape from Doncaster prison since it was opened.

  On 10 August 1994 one remand prisoner changed places with his visitor and left the prison through the visitors' entrance. He was recaptured the same evening. There have been no other escapes or attempted escapes from Doncaster since it opened on 20 June 1994.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the latest figure of the number of assaults on prisoners at Doncaster prison; [39552]

  (2) what is the latest figure of the number of assaults on custody officers at Doncaster prison. [39553]
  74
  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 Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking for the latest figures of the number of assaults on prisoners and on custody officers at Doncaster prison.

  Figures for 1994 were published in Table 13 of "Statistics or offences against prison discipline and punishments, England and Wales" (Cm.2934) a copy of which is available in the Library of, the House.

  The latest available provisional information is for assaults proved at adjudication during January to September 1995 when there were 113 assaults on prisoners and 61 on staff and others.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incidents at(a) Doncaster and (b) Ford prisons notified to his Department in the last year, indicating the date, type and outcome of each incident. [39498]

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

  Letter from Mr. Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking about incidents at (a) Doncaster and (b) Ford prisons notified in the last year, indicating the date, type and outcome of each incident.

  Incidents reported to Prison Service headquarters from 1 January to 30 September 1995 are given in the attached table. These incidents are reported for data collection purposes. There is no central record of the outcome of all the incidents.

  Type of incident

  HMP Doncaster

  HMP Ford

  Absconds

  0

  11

  Assaults

  174

  1

  Attempted escapes

  1

  0

  Concerted indiscipline

  4

  0

  Death of inmate

  1

  1

  Drug finds

  197

  35

  Escapes

  0

  1

  Fires

  5

  0

  Food refusal

  4

  0

  Miscellaneous

  10

  1

  Recapture/surrender

  5

  15

  Self-harm

  36

  0

  Temporary release failure

  0

  7

  Tool loss

  3

  0

  Total

  440

  72

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those prisoners requiring immediate transfer from Doncaster prison during the last 12 months(a) had self-inflicted injuries and (b) had injuries received as a result of assault from other prisoners. [39549]

  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.
  75
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many of those prisoners requiring immediate transfer from Doncaster prison during the last 12 months, had self-inflicted injuries, and had injuries received as a result of assault from other prisoners.

  Two prisoners have required immediate transfer from Doncaster to outside hospital, between 1 October 1994 and 25 October 1995. One was for reasons of self-harm and one as a result of an assault by another prisoner.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by grade, the number of

  Remand/trials

  Convicted/unconvieted

  Sentenced

  Date

  Pop

  Adult

  YOI

  Adult

  YOI

  Adult

  YOI

  Civils

  November 1994

  733

  188

  176

  59

  95

  132

  81

  2

  December 1994

  765

  177

  208

  69

  76

  145

  89

  1

  January 1995

  723

  165

  209

  62

  71

  132

  84

  0

  February 1995

  753

  197

  195

  58

  97

  148

  58

  0

  March 1995

  770

  205

  195

  73

  78

  134

  85

  0

  April 1995

  765

  201

  188

  63

  79

  152

  82

  0

  May 1995

  750

  173

  174

  56

  74

  165

  108

  0

  June 1995

  765

  173

  174

  41

  75

  186

  111

  0

  July 1995

  734

  160

  146

  59

  106

  166

  94

  3

  August 1995

  764

  157

  178

  53

  78

  196

  101

  1

  September 1995

  738

  179

  184

  60

  85

  157

  73

  0

  October 95

  758

  178

  173

  60

  104

  176

  67

  0

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contact(a) the Health and Safety Executive, (b) the Environmental Health Office and (c) the fire service has had with Doncaster prison since it was opened; how many inspections of the prison have been made by each of these bodies; and what the findings were in each case. [38964]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about contacts between the Health and Safety Executive, the Environmental Health Office, the Fire Service and Doncaster prison.

  The Health and Safety Executive examined the alarm systems at Doncaster twice. They considered that the systems were adequate.

  The local Environmental Health Officer visited on 3 August His report is still awaited.

  Doncaster has been inspected by the Home Office Fire and Safety Section on several occasions.

  The local fire brigade has visited Doncaster prison on 13 occasions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases staff shortages at Doncaster prison have been the reason for the non-production of prisoners in court in the past 12 months. [39053]

  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.
  76
  inmates being held in Doncaster prison on the first day of each month for the last 12 months. [39003]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list, by grade, the number of inmates being held in Doncaster on the first day of each month for the last 12 months.

  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about cases in which staff shortages at Doncaster prison have been the reasons for the non-production of prisoners in court in the past 12 months.

  There have been no cases of non-production in court as a result of staff shortages at Doncaster.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff at Doncaster prison have(a) resigned or (b) been dismissed since the prison opened. [39002]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many staff at Doncaster prison have resigned or have been dismissed since the prison opened.

  Doncaster prison opened on 20 June 1994. 629 staff have been recruited in all grades at Doncaster. 127 have since resigned and 12 members of staff have been dismissed. 14 of the staff resigned to take up posts in establishments in the public sector.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been paid by his Department for loss, destruction, or damage to Doncaster prison since it was opened; and if he will indicate the circumstances and amount of each separate payment. [38962]
  77
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arranged for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how much money has been paid by his Department for loss, destruction or damage to Doncaster prison since the prison opened and if he will indicate the circumstances and amount of each separate payment.

  No payments have been made in respect of loss, destruction or damage to Doncaster since it opened.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff and (b) people applying to become staff at Doncaster prison since it was opened have been refused Home Office certification as fit to perform such duties, and of these, how many have later reapplied and received such certification. [39021]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about unsuccessful applications for certification to work at Doncaster prison.

  Twenty one people have been refused certification as prisoner custody officers to perform custodial duties at Doncaster prison. None of them was employed at the prison following its opening in June 1994 or subsequently reapplied for certification.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria have been used in the past to assess the size of the Director General of the Prison Service's performance-related bonus. [39602]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The former Director General was eligible for payment of a performance bonus of up to 35 per cent. of his basic salary. The amount payable was assessed on the basis of both qualitative and quantative measures reflecting performance against the Prison Service's key targets as set out in the agency's corporate and business plans.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of the financial settlement for the ex-Director General of the Prison Service. [39604]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The former Director General has issued a writ claiming compensation. The matter is being dealt with by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Home Office.

  Fire Services, Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the fire services in Wales. [39584]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The long-standing proposal to establish three brigades in Wales following local government reorganisation from next April is based on clear and unequivocal professional advice from Her Majesty's78
  Chief Inspector of Fire Services and from the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association. After careful consideration of the comments made during the recently completed consultation process, the Government intend to proceed with a three-brigade structure from next April.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from local authorities in Wales and other bodies, concerning the future structure of local government and consequent implementation in the organisation of the fire service; and if he will make a statement. [38984]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from local authority interests and others about the brigade structure in Wales, including comments on draft combination schemes from the constituent authorities of each proposed combined fire authority and the existing county fire authorities. The proposal to establish three brigades was based on clear and unequivocal professional advice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services and from the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association. After careful consideration of the position in the light of the above representations and comments, the Government intend to proceed with a three brigade structure for the fire service in Wales from next April. The draft combination scheme orders were laid in Parliament on 24 October.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently serving sentences in British prisons for non-payment of the television licence fee. [39739]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people are currently serving sentences in British prisons for non-payment of the television licence fee.

  The latest available information is for 30 September 1995. On that date there were four people in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine imposed for using a television without a licence.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were serving a prison sentence for the non-payment of a television licence fee as at 10 October. [39754]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were serving a prison sentence for the non-payment of a television licence fee as at 10 October.

  The latest available information is for 30 September 1995. On that date there were four people in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine imposed for using a television without a licence.

  Drugs Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the detailed arrangements for drugs rehabilitation services which have been put in place in the mandatory drugs testing prisons in England and Wales; and what measurements of efficiency are being made. [39811]

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

  Letter from Mr. Richard Tilt to Mr. Tim Rathbone, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the arrangements for drugs rehabilitation services which have been put in place in the mandatory drugs testing prisons in England and Wales; and what measurements of efficiency are being made.

  By the end of the year all prisons will have developed a local drugs strategy which will include arrangements to identify individuals with drug problems and the provision of treatment, counselling and support. The strategy will include a timed implementation plan with performance measures and monitoring arrangements. The local strategy will form part of a prison governor's contract with his/her area manager and will be subject to audit.

  In addition, the Prison Service is substantially expanding the number and type of drug treatment programmes and services. The first phase of expansion involves 13 pilot projects spread over 22 establishments. The projects include therapeutic communities, dedicated treatment units, detoxification, education, counselling and throughcare. We aim to have let the contracts for all these projects by the end of the year. They will be subject to independent evaluation over an 18 month period and the results will inform the future provision of drug treatment programmes throughout the Service. Proposals for 29 establishments to be included in the second phase of the pilot drug treatment programmes have been received and will be implemented during 1996.

  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) is being introduced to all establishments in a rolling programme which will be completed by the end of March 1996. All prisons introducing MDT are required first to send staff to attend a Prison Service drugs strategy course and to develop supportive responses to those prisoners who test positive. An evaluation programme to examine the longer-term impact of MDT has already been established.

  Mock Air Attacks on Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions or guidance have been issued to prison governors since 27 September 1994 concerning the employment of mock attacks by low flying military jets in an attempt to resolve prison incidents. [38122]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what instructions have been issued to prison governors since 27 September 1994 concerning the employment of mock attacks by low flying military jets to resolve prison incidents.

  No instructions have been issued with regard to incidents in prisons.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to ensure that the company running Blakenhurst prison in Birmingham recognises trade unions. [38083]

  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. John McAllion, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about trade union recognition at Blakenhurst prison.

  Whether or not a trade union is recognised at a contracted out prison is a matter for the contractor. The contractor at Blakenhurst prison, United Kingdom Detention Services, has decided not to recognise a trade union to represent staff.

  There is a staff consultative committee at Blakenhurst which enables staff representatives to meet with senior managers on a regular and formal basis.

DEFENCE

  Procurement Fraud
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the level of reported fraud in his Department in each year since 1990, including all forms of procurement fraud, including those perpetrated by contractors involving corruption of officials by contracts and collusion between officials and contractors; how many officials have been disciplined or dismissed for involvement in these cases; how many officials involved in these cases remain employed by the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments and agencies; and if he will make a statement. [39158]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The level of reported non-procurement fraud and theft since 1990 is as follows:

  1990–91: 53 cases

  1991–92: 45 cases

  1992–93: 54 cases

  1993–94: 108 cases

  1994–95: 207 cases

  The figures for officials, including service personnel, disciplined or dismissed for non-procurement fraud and theft are as follows:

  1990–91: 104 disciplined and/or dismissed

  1991–92: 51 disciplined and/or dismissed

  1992–93: 55 disciplined and/or dismissed

  1993–94: 85 disciplined and/or dismissed

  1994–95: 124 disciplined and/or dismissed

  The level of reported procurement fraud including corruption and collusion is as follows:

  1990–91: 23 cases

  1991–92: 18 cases

  1992–93: 27 cases

  1993–94: 7 cases

  1994–95: 10 cases

  81
  Three officials were convicted in this period for procurement crimes involving corruption and collusion. Each of them retired at the time or before investigations and prosecution commenced. None of the three is presently employed by another Government Department or agency.

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost savings that could be made over the next 25 years from the immediate cancellation of the Trident nuclear programme. [39245]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government remain committed to the Trident programme. It follows that no detailed assessment has been made of the financial consequences of its cancellation. At this stage of procurement, the chief saving that would accrue from cancellation would be the operating costs, currently estimated to be some £6 billion over the life of the programme.

  Trident remains the most effective means of providing a credible deterrent into the next century. No other use of the resources to be spent on Trident, such as an increase in our conventional forces, could contribute so significantly to deterrence.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the purpose, and the cost, of upgrading RAF Machrihanish in each year since 1990. [39044]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the cost of upgrading is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 1990, however, about £56 million has been spent on capital projects at RAF Machrihanish to provide and maintain the level of infrastructure necessary at a NATO forward operating base. The majority of this expenditure was funded by NATO.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions or advice his Department has given to the National Radiological Protection Board regarding the storage and safekeeping of records, including computerised data, which arose from or related to its study into the effects of radiation on the veterans of British nuclear tests; what instructions he has issued to have parts of this information destroyed; and if he will make a statement. [39212]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The NRPB is, however, proposing to cease to maintain its database on the incidence of death and cancer among veterans of the British nuclear test programme. The existing data will continue to be stored but may be retained in a paper-based or equivalent format.

  Uranium Stocks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the amounts of uranium stocked at(a) Chapelcross, (b) Dounreay and (c) Sellafield. [39013]
  82
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It would not be in the national interest to make public details of fissile materials, such as uranium, associated with the defence programme.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by date and location for the last 12 months the low flying monitoring that has been carried out by the RAF Skyguard radars; and what were the results on each occasion. [39529]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 344. No breaches of military low flying regulations were detected during the deployments conducted between 1 November 1994 and 20 October 1995, although the results of the Huntingdon deployment between 17 and 20 October 1995 are provisional until the radar and video tapes have been analysed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the operational range of the RAF Skyguard radars; and if he will make a statement. [39527]

  Mr. Soames
  The maximum range of the Skyguard radar in the search mode is approximately 20 km and in the tracking mode, 15 km. However, effective ranges will vary according to the nature of the terrain in which the radar is operating.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by date and location for the last 12 months the low flying monitoring that has been carried out by the RAF Skyguard radar in the electronic warfare training at Royal Air Force, Spadeadam; and what were the results on each occasion. [39528]

  Mr. Soames
  The Skyguard radar has not been used to monitor military flying at low level within the electronic warfare tactics range at RAF Spadeadam during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the designation of each unit that currently operates the Royal Air Force Skyguard radar. [39526]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF Skyguard radars are operated by RAF Spadeadam personnel when operating in the electronic warfare threat role and by RAF Spadeadam and RAF police flying complaints flight personnel when monitoring military low flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Skyguard radars are in operational service with the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [39530]

  Mr. Soames
  There are two Skyguard radars in operational service with the Royal Air Force and one in-use reserve.

  Military Corrective Training Centre (Colchester)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he last visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester; [39491]

  (2) at what dates during the past 12 months his Ministers have visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester. [39488]

  Mr. Soames
  I visited the centre on 21 June 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current types of offences committed for which prisoners at the military corrective training centre at Colchester are convicted; and if he will make a statement. [39505]

  Mr. Soames
  The following list gives details of offences for the current detainees being held at MCTC: Absent without leave and desertion; drug offences; violence; indecency with children; dishonesty; criminal damage and other military offences.

  Lockheed U-2R Missions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by date, for the last 48 months, and by airfield the number of Lockheed U-2R aircraft missions that have been made from Royal Air Force stations; if the aircraft missions were(a) arriving or (b) departing from the station; and if he will make a statement. [39533]

  Mr. Soames
  United States air force U-2R reconnaissance aircraft have conducted a number of missions in support of NATO and UN peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations from RAF stations. With the closure of RAF Alconbury's runway on 31 March 1995, the U-2Rs were temporarily transferred to RAF Fairford to continue this mission. However, it is not our policy to comment in further detail on operational matters.

  Yorkshire Air Museum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to preserve the Yorkshire air museum based at Elvington, North Yorkshire after the closure of Royal Air Force, Elvington, with particular reference to the air shows carried out there; and if he will make a statement. [39531]

  Mr. Soames
  The Yorkshire air museum is a commercial enterprise situated on its own land adjacent to RAF Elvington. The museum is one of a number of civil organisations to whom my Department has licensed casual use of RAF Elvington both before and since its closure in 1992 as a relief landing ground. Subject to former owner obligations, it is therefore planned to dispose of it in the best interests of the taxpayer by offering it for sale on the open market, at which time the Yorkshire air museum and others will have an opportunity to bid for it. It is, however, our intention to continue to make the airfield available for casual use for as long as practicable before sale.

  Battle of Britain Memorial Flight
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has come to in respect of the future of the battle of Britain memorial flight with particular reference to(a) its composition, (b) its activities and (c) its cost; and if he will make a statement. [39503]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to change the composition or activities of the battle of Britain memorial flight, which will continue to be one of the most celebrated display assets of the Royal Air Force. A review of the current charges for air display assets generally is about to be undertaken, together with a study into the possibility of sponsorship for the BBMF.

  Captain Chris Kelly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the circumstances of the death of Captain Chris Kelly. [39504]

  Mr. Soames
  As the board of inquiry into the death of Captain Kelly is on-going it would be inappropriate to make a statement at this time.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by grade the number of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39487]

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

  Information on staff numbers and costs for defence agencies is given in the annual report and accounts of each agency, which are laid before the House or placed in the Library of the House, as appropriate.

  Former Yugoslavia (Reconnaissance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by date for the last 48 months the number of Royal Air Force Canberra photo-reconnaissance missions that have been made over former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [39532]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on operational matters of this nature.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement in respect of the United Kingdom resuming its nuclear test programme should the United States Government cease their moratorium on nuclear testing. [39574]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Her Majesty's Government have no plans to carry out further nuclear weapon test explosions and we hope to see the negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty successfully completed in the first half of 1996. We have no reason to believe that the United States will abandon its moratorium before then.

  Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 36, if he will make a statement outlining the procedure enabling students at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, to train for the management and operation of diesel powered submarines. [39959]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, NRTA, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 30 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to reply to your Parliamentary Question, pursuant to the Answer given on 6 October, about the procedures that enable students at the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth to train for the management and operation of diesel powered submarines. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive who is away.

  You will wish to be aware that the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, which is part of the NRTA, provides initial training to newly entered Royal Naval Officers (as part of the Naval General Training syllabus) and to International students from Foreign and Commonwealth navies. The NRTA does not, however, provide training in support of the management and operation of diesel powered submarines, since such submarines are no longer in operational use by the Royal Navy.

  Operation Deliberate Force
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many targets were hit by RAF missions during Operation Deliberate Force. [40019]

  Mr. Soames
  Twenty-two were hit by RAF aircraft during Operation Deliberate Force.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many munitions and bombs were dropped by the RAF during Operation Deliberate Force. [40021]

  Mr. Soames
  Forty-eight laser-guided bombs and 30 1,000 lb freefall bombs were dropped by RAF aircraft during Operation Deliberate Force.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost so far to the United Kingdom of Operation Deliberate Force. [40020]

  Mr. Soames
  The additional costs to the United Kingdom of Operation Deliberate Force are not separately identifiable from the costs arising from Operation Deny Flight, which are estimated to be some £31 million in 1995–96.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missions were flown by RAF aircraft during Operation Deliberate Force. [40018]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF aircraft flew 268 missions during Operation Deliberate Force.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimates of collateral damage and the number of Bosnian Serb casualties during Operation Deliberate Force as a result of(a) NATO and (b) British action. [40022]
  86
  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available though there is no evidence that Operation Deliberate Force caused significant civilian casualties or other collateral damage. In selecting targets, UN and NATO commanders paid careful attention to minimising such risks.

  Mount Igman
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 24 October, and to his letter of 17 August, what considerations led him to suggest that a non-governmental organisation's aid convoy over Mount Igman could jeopardise an agreement between the UN and the Bosnian Serb army. [40174]

  Mr. Soames
  The hon. Member was strongly urged to seek the advice of UNPROFOR and the UNHCR on the choice of aid routes to Sarajevo. At the time in question, their advice was firmly against the use of the Mount Igman route in the light of the agreement which the UN had secured with the Bosnian Serbs on the use of the Kiseljak road as the main aid route.

  Married Quarters (Discounts)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discounts are offered on the sale of surplus married quarters; what is the basis of such discounts; and if such discounts can be offered in respect of properties other than the properties in which the claimer of the discount resides. [40491]

  Mr. Soames
  A discount of 30 per cent. is given under the discounted married quarters sales scheme. The 30 per cent discount has a five-year property retention condition, as stipulated by the Inland Revenue, which was based on local authority "right to buy", at the time of the scheme's inception. The married quarters offered for sale in the scheme are surplus, and, as such, would not normally be occupied by the applicant, and are regularly advertised to the three services.

  Gulf War Fatalities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent estimation of the total number of fatalities suffered in the Gulf war by(a) coalition forces and (b) the Iraqis. [39826]

  Mr. Soames
  Coalition forces suffered the loss of 223 personnel killed in action in the Gulf war.

  No reliable figures are available for Iraqi casualties.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Orford Ness)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the responsibility for, and the cost of, removing transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls buried in his Department's land at Orford Ness in Suffolk. [40192]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department no longer owns any land at Orford Ness; the site was sold to the National Trust in March 1993. The National Trust is in the process of
  87
  removing the contamination, and discussions are taking place between the trust, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is an adjacent landowner, and the Ministry of Defence to determine how the work should be funded.

  Bosnia (Rents)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts of rent paid for each of the military facilities used by British troops in Bosnia and in total. [40398]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not available as the United Nations pays the rent for the military facilities used by British troops in Bosnia.

  Regimental Museums
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name and location of each regimental museum in the United Kingdom. [40399]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in the tables:

  Regimental and corps museums directly funded by the Ministry of Defence

  Corps or regiment

  Location

  Household Cavalry

  Windsor

  Queen's Dragoon Guards

  Cardiff

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  Edinburgh

  York (4/7th DG)

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  Chester (5 Innis DG)

  Eastbourne (QRIH)

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  Warwick (QOH)

  9/12th Lancers

  Derby

  Preston (14/20th H)

  Kings Royal Hussars

  Winchester (RH)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  (15/19th H)

  Light Dragoons

  Barnsley (13th/18th H)

  Belvoir Castle

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  (16/5th and 17th/21st L)

  Royal Tank Regiment

  Bovington

  Royal Artillery

  Woolwich

  Royal Engineers

  Chatham

  Royal Signals

  Blandford

  The Foot Guards

  London

  Royal Scots

  Edinburgh

  Dover

  Winchester (R Hamps)

  Prince of Wales Royal Regiment

  Guildford

  Kings Own Royal Border Regiment

  Carlisle

  London/Alnwick

  Bury (Lanes Fus)

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Bury (R Warwicks)

  Bury St Edmunds

  Chelmsford (Essex)

  The Royal Anglian Regiment

  Northampton/Norwich

  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  Dorchester

  Winchester

  Bodmin (DCLI)

  The Light Infantry

  Shrewsbury (KSLI)

  Prince of Wales Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  York

  The Green Howards

  Richmond

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Glasgow

  The Cheshire Regiment

  Chester

  Royal Welch Fusiliers

  Caernarvon

  Cardiff

  Royal Regiment of Wales

  Brecon

  King's Own Scottish Borderers

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Ballymena

  The Royal Irish Regiment

  Armagh (RRF)

  88

  Regimental and corps museums directly funded by the Ministry of Defence

  Corps or regiment

  Location

  Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  Worcester/Nottingham

  The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  Preston

  The Staffordshire Regiment

  Lichfield

  Black Watch

  Perth

  Aberdeen

  Highlanders

  Ford George

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  Stirling

  The Parachute Regiment

  Aldershot

  Brigade of Gurkhas

  Winchester

  The Royal Green Jackets

  Winchester

  Yorkshire and Lancashire

  Rotherham

  Army Air Corps

  Middle Wallop

  Royal Chaplains Department

  Bagshot

  Royal Logistic Corps

  Deepcut/Mychett

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  Deepcut/Mychett

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Aborfield

  Adjutant General Corps—Royal Military Police

  Chichester

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  Aldershot

  Army Physical Training Corps

  Aldershot

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  Deepcut/Mychett

  Military museums that are not funded by MOD

  Title

  Location

  Scottish United Services Museum

  Edinburgh

  Cheshire Yeomanry

  Chester

  4th Battalion East Yorkshire Regiment

  Hull

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment Museum

  Luton

  Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) Museums

  Hamilton

  Carmarthen Museum

  Carmarthen

  Duke of Lancaster's Own Yeomanry Museum

  Preston

  Duke of Wellington's Regiment Museum

  Halifax

  Durham Light Infantry Museum

  Durham City

  Guernsey Militia Museum

  Guernsey

  Kings Liverpool Regiment Museum

  Liverpool

  Kings Own Royal Lancaster Regiment Museum

  Lancaster

  Kings Own Yorkshire. Light Infantry Museum

  Doncaster

  Leicestershire and Derbyshire Yeomanry Museum

  Derby

  Leicestershire and Rutland Yeomanry

  Oakham

  Leicestershire Yeomanry Collection

  Loughborough

  Lincolnshire Regiment Collection

  Lincoln

  Lincolnshire Yeomanry Museum

  Lincoln

  Museum of the Manchesters (Kings Regiment)

  Ashton under Lyne

  Northamptonshire Yeomanry Museum

  Northampton

  Northumberland Hussars Yeomanry Museum

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Pembroke Yeomanry Museum

  Haverfordwest

  Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment Museum

  Maidstone

  Royal Devon Yeomanry Museum

  Barnstaple

  Royal Leicestershire Regimental Museum

  Leicestershire

  Royal Sussex Regiment Museum

  Eastbourne

  Sherwood Foresters

  Derby

  Somerset Military Museum

  Taunton

  Staffordshire Yeomanry Museum

  Stafford

  The Buffs Regimental Museum

  Canterbury

  Worcestershire Yeomanry Museum

  Worcester

  101 Northumbrian Field Regiment RA(V)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  89

  Military museums that are not funded by MOD

  Title

  Location

  39 Engineer Regiment Museum

  Waterbeach

  Army Museums Ogilby Trust

  Winchester

  Artists and Rifles Museum

  Chelsea

  Ayrshire Yeomanry Museum

  Alloway by Ayr

  Buckinghamshire Military Museum

  Aylesbury

  Fife and Forfar Yeomanry Museum

  Fife

  Fusiliers London Volunteer Museum

  Newport

  Glamorgan Artillery Volunteers Museum

  Newport

  Hereford Light Infantry Museum

  Hereford

  Hertfordshire Regiment Museum

  Hertford

  Hertfordshire Yeomanry and Artillery Museum

  Hitchin

  Inns of Court and City Yeomanry Museum

  Holborn

  Kohima (2 Div) Museum

  York

  Leeds Rifles Museum

  Leeds

  Liverpool Scottish Regimental Museum

  Liverpool

  London Irish Rifles Museum

  Chelsea

  Loyal North Lancashire Regiment Museum

  Preston

  Montgomeryshire Yeomanry Museum

  Welshpool

  Museum of Princess Louise's Kensington Regiment

  Hammersmith

  Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry Museum

  Oxford

  Queen's Own Mercian Yeomanry Museum

  Telford

  Royal Army Education Corps Museum

  Beaconsfield

  Royal Army Pay Corps Museum

  Winchester

  Royal Berkshire Yeomanry Museum

  Windsor

  Royal Hospital Museum

  Chelsea

  Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Collection

  Camberley

  Royal Military School of Music Museum

  Twickenham

  Royal Monmouthshires RE Militia Museum

  Monmouth

  Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Museum

  Carlton

  South Lancashire Regiment Museum

  Warrington

  South Notts Hussars Yeomanry Museum

  Nottingham

  Staff College Museum

  Camberley

  Sussex Yeomanry Museum

  Brighton

  Warwickshire Yeomanry Museum

  Warwick

  Westminster Dragoons Museum

  Chelsea

  Yorkshire Yeomanry Museum

  York

  Essex Yeomanry Museum Collection

  Margaretting

  Military and Aero Museums (Aldershot) Trust

  Aldershot

  Combined Operations Museum

  Inveraray

  East Riding of Yorks Yeomanry Collection

  Beverley

  Honourable Artillery Company Museum

  City

  Kent and Sharpshooters Yeomanry Museum

  Tonbridge

  London Scottish Regimental Museum

  Westminster

  Museum of Army Transport

  Beverley

  Museum of the Scottish Horse

  Dunkeld

  Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry Museum

  Sheringham

  Westmoreland and Cumberland Yeomanry Museum

  Penrith

  Exercise Co-operative Nugget 95
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel were involved in Co-operative Nugget 95 in Louisiana, USA; and if he will make a statement. [37797]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: A total of 97 British personnel—five officers and 92 soldiers—were involved in Exercise Co-operative Nugget 95, a NATO sponsored partnership for peace exercise.

  Queen's University Air Squadron, Belfast
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the annual cost of the university air squadron at Queen's university, Belfast; and what percentage it represents of the total annual cost of all the university air squadrons in the United Kingdom. [39351]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 October 1995]: The estimated annual cost of Queen's university air squadron for the financial year 1995–96 is £957,000, which represents 9.3 per cent. of the total estimated annual cost of the 16 university air squadrons.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39139]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The number of reported non-procurement frauds and thefts committed by Ministry of Defence employees, including defence agencies, during each of the years 1991–92 to 1994–95 is as follows:

  1991–92: 45 cases

  1992–93: 54 cases

  1993–94: 108 cases

  1994–95: 207 cases

  There were no reported frauds and thefts committed by staff working in non-departmental public bodies during the period in question.

  The estimated sums misappropriated and the sums recovered in each of the years 1991–92 to 1994–95 are as follows:

  Misappropriated £

  Recovered £

  1991–92

  63,000

  22,492

  1992–93

  205,000

  37,816

  1993–94

  571,000

  74,725

  1994–95

  1,095,584

  128,722

  With regard to procurement fraud, including corruption and collusion, the numbers of cases recorded over the years in question were as follows:

  1991–92: 18 cases

  1992–93: 27 cases

  1993–94: 7 cases

  1994–95: 10 cases

  Only three of these involved the conviction of Ministry of Defence employees for corruption and collusion.

  The estimated amounts misappropriated against procurement fraud for the years in question were as follows:

  1991–92: £150,000 fraud by a subcontractor—no eventual loss to MOD.

  1992–93: £20,000 advance payment fraud involving no ultimate loss to MOD.

  91

  1993–94: £1,511,500 mainly corruption. Recovery action in hand.

  1994–95: Actual values of loss to MOD to be identified when cases come to fruition.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received or he expects to receive from the French Government on the current nuclear tests at Muroroa atoll; and to what use he expects to put such information. [39823]

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

  BMARC
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of his Department's police in the BMARC case. [40100]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton on 4 July 1995,Official Report, column 178.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds the documents and diaries of Mr. Gerald James were taken by the Ministry of Defence police; if he will make a statement on he relevance of their contents to his Department's investigations; and when they will all be returned to Mr. James. [40101]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of a wide-ranging MOD police corruption investigation involving the Astra group of companies, a number of documents were seized. All documents seized during those inquiries were considered company documents and were relevant to the inquiry. All documents taken from the Astra group of companies, belonging to those companies, have now been returned to the company liquidators.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has had with BMARC since 1979. [40102]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Records covering the period since the financial year 1989–90 show that the Ministry of Defence placed the following contracts with BMARC:

  1989–90: approximately 30 contracts valued £6.2 million.

  1990–91: approximately 30 contracts valued £5.5 million.

  1991–92 approximately 15 contracts valued £4.5 million.

  1992–93 fewer than five contracts valued £1.7 million.

  Information for the period before 1989–90 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Manufacturer and Research Co. Ltd. went into administrative receivership in April 1992, and since 1992–93 no contracts have been placed with it.

  RB44 Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's RB44 light vehicles are roadworthy; and when they became so. [40396]
  92
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A modification programme to render the Reynolds Boughton RB44 heavy utility truck roadworthy was initiated on 2 October 1995, with approximately 50 vehicles being modified each week. To date, 136 vehicles have been modified and are thus considered roadworthy.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on servicing the RB44 light vehicles since purchasing them; and by whom the servicing of his Department's RB44 light vehicles is conducted. [40397]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Servicing of the RB44 heavy utility truck is conducted by military or civilian maintenance personnel or under contract by commercial companies.

  Information on the cost of servicing the vehicles is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the circulation list of organisations notified by his Department in respect of the notice of the closure of Greenham Common air base. [39119]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the announcement on 30 January 1992 by the US Government of their intention to withdraw from Greenham Common air base, and subsequent correspondence and discussions with the then Member for Newbury, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) notified the House on 9 February 1993, that the majority of the site was surpluse to requirments and would be disposed of. In accordance with normal practice, letters to this effect were concrurrently sent to the chief executives of Berkshire county and Newbury district councils.

  Defence-related Jobs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) defence and (b) defence-related jobs in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [41973]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have been asked to reply.

  For Scotland as a whole, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 October 1995, Official Report, columns 32–33. For Strathclyde, my Department currently has some 5,100 service and 6,200 civilan personnel based there. A breakdown by Scottish region of jobs in the defence industry is not available.

WALES

  Primary Schools
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices. [37839]
  93
  Mr. Richards
  The latest figures available are for 1992–93: the amount spent per pupil in primary and nursery schools in that year was £1,657, at 1993–94 prices. This compares to £1,086 in 1979–80, the earliest period for which figures are available. This is an increase of 52.5 per cent. in real terms—a fact that the Labour party seems incapable of recognising.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held regarding incorporation of the Department of the Environment's PPG13 into Welsh planning law and practice; and if he will make a statement. [37840]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is incorporated in the new draft planning policy guidance for Wales which was issued for public consultation in July.

  Polluted Land
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to update the 1988 register of polluted land in Wales. [37841]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None—the Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities to survey their areas for contaminated land.

  Job Prospects
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to improve job prospects in(a) Blaenau Gwent and (b) Wales. [37843]

  Mr. Richards
  The Government have created the right conditions for the economy to grow. Output is up and unemployment continues to fall. This shows the success of our policies throughout Wales. In addition, we do not propose to establish an Assembly in Cardiff which would interfere with and damage the Welsh economy. I trust that the hon. Gentleman supports our policy-which is in the best interests of his constituents.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom. [37844]

  Mr. Hague
  In September 1995, the seasonally adjusted number of persons on the claimant count in Wales was 106,300 or 8.2 per cent. of the work force. Corresponding figures for the United Kingdom were 2,265,100 and 8.1 per cent.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current rolls of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools, including special schools; how many teachers there are in each sector; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [37845]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available in respect of May 1979. The following table shows data for January in 1979 and 1995.
  94

  At January 1979

  1995 (provisional)

  Primary schools

  Full and part-time pupils on roll

  303,396

  289,206

  Full-time equivalent teachers

  13,581

  12,404

  Secondary schools

  Full and part-time pupils on roll

  241,661

  197,897

  Full-time equivalent teachers

  14,413

  12,288

  Special schools

  Full and part-time pupils on roll

  4,7391

  3,6071

  Full-time equivalent teachers

  634

  546

  1 Full-time pupils and teachers only.

  Source:

  Schools Census.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with representatives of the health authorities in Wales concerning funding for 1996–97. [37846]

  Mr. Richards
  NHS funding, including the prospects for 1996–97, were discussed at a meeting held by my right hon. Friend with health authority chairmen on 18 October.

  Town and City Centres
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to strengthen development control requirements in order to protect the viability of town and city centres in Wales. [37847]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This issue is covered in the draft of the new comprehensive planning policy guidance for Wales, comments on which are now being considered.

  European Funding
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the transparent additionality of funds sought from the EC; and if he will make a statement. [37848]

  Mr. Hague
  Following my recent meeting with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, the Commission has accepted that European structural funds are properly spent in Wales. As a result, £11.4 million of European regional aid to Wales has been released. The measures taken to improve the transparency of the presentation of grants to public bodies will make it very clear that European funds reach and will continue to reach those communities for which they are intended.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on establishing industrial villages as part of the valleys initiative programme. [37849]

  Mr. Hague
  On 14 September 1994, my predecessor announced that he was making available £410,000 via Neath borough council, to the Tonmawr 2000 project implementation group to develop the industrial village concept. The money has been used to provide 190 sq m of business units in Tonmawr to meet a growing demand
  95
  for space from local employers. An extension to the community sports centre is also creating a further five part-time jobs. Progress is being monitored closely.

  Wages
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to raise wage levels in Wales. [37850]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have achieved low interest rates, sound public finances and an enterprise culture. These are the foundations of a vigorous and long-lasting recovery and are conducive to higher quality, and therefore better paid, jobs.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is his calculation of the median wage levels paid in each Welsh parliamentary constituency. [39827]

  Mr Jones
  The available information is based on sample surveys and cannot provide reliable estimates at this geographical level.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has formed as to the extent to which inward investment in Wales is related to its current constitutional position in the United Kingdom. [37851]

  Mr. Hague
  A wide range of factors are considered when inward investors make their investment decisions. Political and economic stability with low interest and inflation rates are major considerations, as are, labour availability and quality, good industrial relations, good communications and a good industrial infrastructure.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he intends to initiate with local authorities in Wales prior to any enlargement of the assisted places scheme. [37852]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will be giving details in due course on proposals to expand the assisted places scheme in Wales.

  Village Shops
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that the proposed business rate relief scheme for village shops will be available for shops in Wales in the near future. [38477]

  Mr. Hague
  I am considering the case for a business rate relief scheme for village shops in Wales. I will announce my conclusion in my forthcoming rural White Paper.

  Medieval Boat, Severn Estuary
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department has given to the archaeologists' attempts to raise a medieval boat hull from the Bedwin sands in the Severn estuary; and if he will make a statement. [39435]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office helped to fund the archaeological excavation of the Magor medieval boat as a joint venture with the National Museums and 96
  Galleries of Wales and Laing—GTM, the contractors for the second Severn crossing. The boat was raised from the mud of the Severn estuary in the early morning of Sunday 27 August this year. The Welsh Office contributed £19,428 towards the cost of excavation, with a further £20,239 being spent on recording and dismantling the boat ready for its conservation. A report of the work will also be funded by the Welsh Office.

  Llantarnam Bypass
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Llantarnam bypass to be completed. [39586]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The contract completion date for the A4042 Llantarnam bypass in 9 January 1996.

  Fire Service Reorganisation
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the reorganisation of the fire service in Wales. [39578]

  Mr. Jones
  In the past six months, 12 written representations have been received about the reorganisation of the fire brigades in Wales.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to safeguard the financing of voluntary organisations in Wales after 1 April 1996. [39582]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The White Paper "A Charter for the Future", Cm 2155, emphasised the important role of the voluntary sector. Transition committees were advised to consult voluntary organisations. In preparing their service delivery plans, shadow authorities have been asked to build on existing arrangements and to set out their proposed strategies for working with the voluntary sector. Sections 51 and 54 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 contain safeguards for contracts or agreements which extend beyond 31 March 1996.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39866]

  Mr. Hague
  My predecessor met the chief executive of Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments twice this year, once in January and once in May. Neither I nor my predecessor has met the chief executives of the Planning Inspectorate and ADAS executive agencies this year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their costs for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39496]

  Mr. Hague
  For Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency, responsibility for the subject of the
  97
  question has been delegated to the chief executive, Mr. T. J. Cassidy. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  I also have shared responsibility for the Planning Inspectorate and ADAS agencies. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are arranging for replies to be given separately for these agencies.

  1994–95 Actual

  1995–96 Estimate

  Grade

  Number

  Cost£

  Number

  Cost £

  Chief Executive

  1

  64,247

  1

  70,441

  Grade 6

  4

  171,298

  3

  155,274

  Grade 7

  8

  298,081

  8

  318,750

  Senior Executive

  15

  433,647

  15

  446,847

  Higher Executive

  17

  359,551

  16

  320,473

  Executive

  25

  481,466

  25

  485,289

  Administrative

  44

  518,289

  39

  467,033

  Custodial

  39

  755,685

  46

  882,328

  Industrial

  91

  1,056,493

  85

  1,003,694

  Total

  244

  4,138,757

  238

  4,150,129

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the second Severn crossing to be completed. [39585]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The administration of the second Severn crossing is a matter for the Department of Transport, which advises that the bridge is expected to be open to traffic in mid-1996.

  Bridge Repairs
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what estimate he has made of the cost of the repair of bridges in Wales in the current financial year. [39575]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimate in respect of trunk roads is £6.8 million. Local authorities are responsible for bridges on non-trunk roads.

  Gwent County Hall
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations the residuary body for Wales has received regarding the future use of the headquarters of Gwent county council. [39583]

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Three-year-olds in nursery schools1

  1989–90

  Number

  195

  91

  700

  —

  692

  —

  420

  131

  2,229

  Per cent.

  3.7

  2.1

  11.6

  —

  9.2

  —

  7.4

  2.8

  5.9

  1990–91

  Number

  97

  97

  705

  —

  707

  —

  407

  131

  2,144

  Per cent.

  1.8

  2.3

  11.4

  —

  9.2

  —

  7.0

  2.8

  5.6

  1991–92

  Number

  113

  96

  628

  —

  727

  —

  426

  136

  2,126

  Per cent.

  2.1

  2.2

  9.8

  —

  9.2

  —

  7.1

  2.8

  5.4

  1992–93

  Number

  113

  103

  605

  —

  706

  —

  453

  130

  2,110

  Per cent.

  2.2

  2.5

  9.8

  —

  9.1

  —

  7.8

  2.8

  5.6

  98
  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1995:

  As Cadw is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to write to you direct with respect to Cadw in response to your recent Parliamentary Question about staffing grades, numbers and costs.

  The information is provided in the table below in which specialists grades have been assimilated into the equivalent administrative grade:

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To date, the residuary body for Wales has received written representations from Monmouthshire county council, Torfaen county borough council and Blaenau Gwent county borough council regarding the future use of Gwent county hall.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales are currently applying for grant-maintained status. [39593]

  Mr. Richards
  I am currently considering an application from St. Brigid's school, Denbigh.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number and (b) percentage of (i) three-year-olds and (ii) four-year-olds attending nursery and primary schools in each of the local education authorities in Wales in each of the last five years. [40104]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following tables. Figures in the last two tables are revised estimates and not therefore entirely consistent with those given to the hon. Member in my reply of 23 October,Official Report, columns 473–74.
  99

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1993–94

  Number

  130

  87

  609

  —

  711

  —

  486

  129

  2,152

  Per cent.

  2.5

  2.1

  9.8

  —

  9.4

  —

  8.4

  2.7

  5.6

  Four-year-olds in nursery schools1

  1989–90

  Number

  97

  75

  352

  —

  415

  —

  305

  53

  1,297

  Per cent.

  1.9

  1.7

  5.9

  —

  5.5

  —

  5.4

  1.1

  3.4

  1990–91

  Number

  49

  93

  351

  —

  413

  —

  331

  53

  1,290

  Per cent.

  0.9

  2.2

  5.8

  —

  5.4

  —

  5.8

  1.1

  3.4

  1991–92

  Number

  56

  98

  317

  —

  423

  —

  311

  55

  1,260

  Per cent.

  1.1

  2.3

  5.0

  —

  5.4

  —

  5.3

  1.2

  3.3

  1992–93

  Number

  58

  93

  308

  —

  393

  —

  260

  52

  1,164

  Per cent.

  1.1

  2.1

  4.8

  —

  5.0

  —

  4.4

  1.1

  2.9

  1993–94

  Number

  65

  94

  305

  —

  373

  —

  239

  52

  1,128

  Per cent.

  1.3

  2.3

  4.9

  —

  4.8

  —

  4.1

  1.1

  3.0

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Three-year-olds in primary schools1

  1989–90

  Number

  2,786

  1,583

  2,098

  446

  3,076

  323

  1,348

  3,007

  14,667

  Per cent.

  53.3

  36.6

  34.8

  15.6

  40.9

  23.1

  23.8

  63.7

  38.9

  1990–91

  Number

  3,103

  1,705

  2,217

  185

  3,193

  362

  1,408

  3,028

  15,201

  Per cent.

  58.7

  39.8

  35.9

  6.3

  41.6

  25.4

  24.4

  64.1

  39.7

  1991–92

  Number

  3,268

  1,746

  2,349

  128

  3,277

  368

  1,461

  3,156

  15,753

  Per cent.

  60.2

  40.4

  36.5

  4.2

  41.3

  25.2

  24.5

  65.1

  40.0

  1992–93

  Number

  3,231

  1,628

  2,468

  467

  3,210

  353

  1,616

  3,066

  16,039

  Per cent.

  63.0

  39.7

  39.8

  15.7

  41.2

  25.5

  27.9

  66.6

  42.2

  1993–94

  Number

  3,239

  1,728

  2,525

  434

  3,348

  346

  1,702

  3,231

  16,553

  Per cent.

  61.2

  41.7

  40.6

  14.6

  44.5

  24.7

  29.4

  68.1

  43.5

  Four-year-olds in primary schools1

  1989–90

  Number

  4,865

  3,479

  5,033

  1,908

  6,361

  1,083

  3,936

  4,574

  31,239

  Per cent.

  93.3

  80.8

  83.7

  66.8

  84.9

  77.7

  69.7

  97.2

  83.0

  1990–91

  Number

  4,990

  3,505

  5,029

  1,900

  6,234

  1,095

  4,041

  4,534

  31,328

  Per cent.

  95.6

  82.8

  82.4

  65.5

  82.2

  77.9

  70.8

  97.2

  82.8

  1991–92

  Number

  5,077

  3,666

  5,288

  1,898

  6,606

  1,141

  4,231

  4,558

  32,465

  Per cent.

  95.5

  86.6

  83.8

  63.6

  85.0

  79.7

  72.4

  95.9

  84.0

  1992–93

  Number

  5,146

  3,630

  5,473

  2,213

  6,721

  1,210

  4,508

  4,602

  33,503

  Per cent.

  94.4

  81.5

  84.7

  72.9

  85.1

  80.8

  76.3

  95.4

  84.8

  1993–94

  Number

  5,236

  3,469

  5,341

  2,144

  6,527

  1,151

  4,591

  4,453

  32,912

  Per cent.

  101.6

  84.2

  86.0

  71.6

  83.8

  82.2

  78.7

  96.6

  86.4

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Three and four-year-olds in nursery schools1

  1989–90

  Number

  292

  166

  1,052

  —

  1,107

  —

  725

  184

  3,526

  Per cent.

  2.8

  1.9

  8.7

  —

  7.4

  —

  6.4

  2.0

  4.7

  1990–91

  Number

  146

  190

  1,056

  —

  1,120

  —

  738

  184

  3,434

  Per cent.

  1.4

  2.2

  8.6

  —

  7.3

  —

  6.4

  2.0

  4.5

  100

  101

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1991–92

  Number

  169

  194

  945

  —

  1,150

  —

  737

  191

  3,386

  Per cent.

  1.6

  2.3

  7.4

  —

  7.3

  —

  6.2

  2.0

  4.3

  1992–93

  Number

  171

  196

  913

  —

  1,099

  —

  713

  182

  3,274

  Per cent.

  1.6

  2.3

  7.2

  —

  7.0

  —

  6.1

  1.9

  4.2

  1993–94

  Number

  195

  181

  914

  —

  1,084

  —

  725

  181

  3,280

  Per cent.

  1.9

  2.2

  7.4

  —

  7.1

  —

  6.2

  1.9

  4.3

  Three and four-year-olds in primary schools1

  1980–90

  Number

  7,651

  5,062

  7,131

  2,354

  9,437

  1,406

  5,284

  7,581

  45,906

  Per cent.

  73.3

  58.7

  59.2

  41.2

  62.9

  50.4

  46.7

  80.5

  60.9

  1990–91

  Number

  8,093

  5,210

  7,246

  2,085

  9,427

  1,457

  5,449

  7,562

  46,529

  Per cent.

  77.0

  61.2

  59.0

  35.7

  61.8

  51.5

  47.4

  80.5

  61.1

  1997–92

  Number

  8,345

  5,412

  7,637

  2,026

  9,883

  1,509

  5,692

  7,714

  48,218

  Per cent.

  77.7

  63.3

  59.9

  33.6

  62.9

  52.2

  48.2

  80.3

  61.8

  1992–93

  Number

  8,377

  5,258

  7,941

  2,680

  9,931

  1,563

  6,124

  7,668

  49,542

  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

  1 Figures shown are for January each year. Includes grant-maintained primary schools.

  Calculations based on mid-year population estimates and estimates of pupil ages at December, percentages can therefore exceed 100 per cent, on occasion.

  Symbols: Means nil or less than 0.1 per cent.

  Cardiff Bay
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created by the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and how much private sector money has been involved. [37827]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £420 million of private sector investment has been attracted to Cardiff bay. This has generated around 10,500 jobs, of which nearly 5,500 are permanent.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the winding up date of the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and what consultations he has had with the relevant local authorities concerning the transfer of its assets and liabilities. [40551]

  Mr. Hague
  My predecessor informed the House on 7 July 1994,Official Report, column 465, expected to be possible to wind up the Cardiff Bay development corporation by the end of 1999. This remains the position. Consultations with the appropriate unitary local authorities will open after the reorganisation of local government.

  Tourism Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his letter of 25 October, if he will list the projects offered grants by the Wales tourist board and the national lottery which could be expected to benefit financially from the terms of his letter. [40550]

  Mr. Hague
  I have asked the chief executive of the Wales tourist board to write to the hon. Member and I will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list which areas in Wales have trusts which administer(a) ambulance services only, (b) acute services only, (c) community services only, (d) all three services, (e) ambulance and acute, (f) ambulance and community, (g) community and acute, (h) community and for part of the same area acute as well, (i) acute and for part of the same area community services and (j) other combinations; if he will set up an evaluation of the success or otherwise of those models; and if he will make a statement. [40549]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS trusts in Wales generally offer services in the following categories:

  Ambulance

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Acute

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  Swansea NHS Trust

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust

  Velindre NHS Trust

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  Acute, community and ambulance

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  103

  Acute/community

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  Acute, community and mental health

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  Glan-y-Môr NHS Trust

  Community/mental health

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  Mental health/illness

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Dental

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  Experience of the existing configurations endorses the value of local priorities and consensus determining the development of services.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average class size for primary schools in Wales in January in each local education authority; and what was the actual and percentage change from January 1994 in each Welsh local education authority. [40222]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Average size of ordinary, special and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  Average class size

  LEA area

  1994

  1995

  Actual change 1994–95

  Percentage change 1994–95

  Clwyd

  26.2

  26.6

  0.4

  1.6

  Dyfed

  21.7

  22.6

  0.9

  4.3

  Gwent

  27.4

  27.7

  0.3

  1.3

  Gwynedd

  22.8

  22.9

  0.1

  0.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  27.0

  27.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Powys

  22.1

  22.4

  0.3

  1.4

  South Glamorgan

  27.5

  27.1

  -0.4

  -1.4

  West Glamorgan

  25.7

  25.9

  0.2

  0.8

  Wales

  25.6

  25.8

  0.2

  1.0

  Sorce:

  Schools Census.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many contracts were issued in each financial year since the inception of 104
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC and this year to date, to provide training for people with special needs; [39032]

  (2) how many contracts were issued by Barnsely and Doncaster TEC in each of the financial years since its inception to provide training for people with special needs. [39045]

  Mr Paice
  The information requested is operational information on the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council and the question would be best addressed to the TEC to answer.

  Under the terms of the annual funding agreement between the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, the TEC is required to ensure that suitable training will be made available to trainees who have a disability or special training need.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, how much the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has received from the European social fund in each year since its inception. [39047]

  Mr. Paice
  This is a matter for individual training and enterprise councils.

  Carers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies she will pursue to enable carers to undertake employment. [38545]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government recognise that many carers wish to continue in employment, and we encourage this in a number of ways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has published a booklet, "Employers and Carers", which has been distributed widely to employers. The booklet sets out a number of practical measures which employers may take to assist carers to remain in work. In addition, we promote generally an efficient and flexible labour market in which a wide range of working patterns are available. Flexibility and variety in working patterns help carers to find work that best suits their domestic responsibilities.

  We are making specific provision in the conditions for jobseeker's allowance to enable carers to restrict their availability for employment in line with their caring responsibilities and remain entitled to an allowance. Caring responsibilities will also be taken into account in any consideration of whether a jobseeker has been seeking work actively. Carers who wish to return to the labour market are in most circumstances eligible to join the wide range of programmes available to help unemployment people back to work, from the first day of unemployment.

  Hospital Education
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how teaching hours per pupil and teaching standards in hospitals are monitored. [38547]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local education authorities have a duty to make suitable educational provision for pupils who are out of school because of illness or injury. The initial responsibility for monitoring such provision is,
  105
  therefore, that of the maintaining authority. The inspection of provision made in a hospital school is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked HMCI to write to the hon. Member about the specific points that he has raised.

  School Borrowing Approvals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate has been made of the total borrowing approvals if all schools were permitted to borrow against their assets. [40152]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such estimate had been made. Capital expenditure financed by borrowing in respect of local authority property, including LEA-maintained schools, is subject to the provisions of part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and regulations made under that Act.

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the cost of providing 100 per cent. capital cost to voluntary-aided schools. [40151]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The central Government grant for approved governors' expenditure at voluntary-aided schools is at present paid at a rate of up to 85 per cent. If all work supported by grant in 1995–96 were to be funded at a rate of 100 per cent. the additional cost would be in excess of £17 million.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to safeguard the role of local education authorities. [40149]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  With the introduction of local management of schools and the growth of the grant-maintained sector, the role of LEAs has evolved significantly. I look forward to their continuing to adapt to changing circumstances.

  Pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained schools in England 1993–95 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and secondary

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  1993

  916,068

  22

  466,446

  16

  1,382,514

  20

  1994

  949,787

  22

  517,113

  18

  1,466,900

  20

  1995 (provisional)

  956,495

  22

  539,438

  18

  1,495,933

  20

  1 Day pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal expressed as a percentage of day pupils on roll.

SCOTLAND

  Water Sampling
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the results to date of the water samples that have been taken off the Ayrshire coast and analysed for contamination; and if he will make a statement. [38294]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  As part of its routine
  106

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) representations and (b) complaints she has received concerning the provisions contained in the conditions of employment 15.3.2(a) for fire service personnel. [39258]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not received any such representations or complaints. However, the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Fire Brigades, which represents fire service employers' and employees' organisations, is the body responsible for matters concerning the conditions of service of members of fire brigades.

  National Funding Formula
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to introduce a national funding formula. [40150]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is exploring the general implications of funding schools by means of a national formula. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the introduction of such a formula is not an option for the near future.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the entitlement to free school meals in the United Kingdom from 1975 to the latest available date expressed(a) numerically and (b) in percentage terms, indicating the figures for (1) primary school pupils, (2) secondary school pupils and (3) total pupils. [40218]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals was collected from maintained schools in England for the first time in January 1993. Information for years since then is shown in the table.

  Information on pupils elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and, for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  monitoring activities the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertook water sampling at a number of locations in the North channel earlier this year. The analysis of these samples show that water quality is not impaired.

  Controlled Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers the police currently have to enter
  107
  commercial premises and private dwellings without permission to further their investigations of drug dealing, including the suspected trading of Temazepam; and if he will make a statement. [39192]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In addition to the power to search premises by virtue of a common law warrant where an offence is suspected, constables have specific powers under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Section 23(1) confers on constables certain powers to enter premises of persons carrying on business as a producer or supplier of any controlled drug. Section 23(3) enables constables to obtain warrants to enter any premises where it is suspected that certain offences under the Act are being committed.

  Gas Bills
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Scottish Gas to discuss the abolition of standing charges on fuel bills; and if he will make a statement. [39202]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right. hon. Friend has no present plans to meet representatives of Scottish Gas. Standing gas charges are a matter for British Gas and the industry regulator, the Office of Gas Supply.

  Capital Charges
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid from the national health service revenue budget in Scotland to meet capital charges in each of the most recent five year. [38800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Each year the revenue budget is increased by the total estimated capital charges for NHS bodies in Scotland.

  The capital charges allocation for each of the most recent five years is as follows:

  Year

  Capital Charges Allocation (£000)

  1991–92

  355,535

  1992–93

  290,425

  1993–94

  321,068

  1994–95

  361,210

  1995–96

  357,446

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which capital projects in the national health service in Scotland are currently being considered under the private finance initiative; and what is the cost of each individual project. [38801]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All capital schemes are required to explore private finance options. The value of new schemes in progress totals approximately £700 million over the total project lives of these schemes. Major schemes—that is, those with a value of over £5 million—for which private finance options are currently being explored or are in the early stages of business case preparation are:108

  £

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS Trust (new District General Hospital)

  70 million

  Law Hospital NHS Trust (new Law Hospital)

  120 million

  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh (new RIE)

  140 million

  Western General Hospital (major upgrade)

  60 million

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust (new A and E/Outpatients)

  9 million

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity NHS Trust (Maternity/Day Care Unit)

  7 million

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary (Maternity Unit)

  24 million

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals (Children's Hospital)

  6 million

  Tayside Health Board (Forfar Community Hospital)

  8 million

  Renfrewshire Healthcare (Elderly/Disabled Unit)

  8 million

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (Mental Health facility)

  7 million

  Yorkhill NHS Trust (Theatres development)

  7 million

  Southern General Hospitals (Care of the Elderly Unit)

  8 million

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare (East Ayrshire Community Hospital)

  9 million

  In addition, there are several hundred other schemes with a value below £5 million which are being considered under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it costs a national health service trust in Scotland to prepare a bid for a capital project under the private finance initiative. [38802]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The costs to each trust in preparing a bid for a capital project varies depending on the size and complexity of the scheme. Estimates indicate that the cost to a trust of bringing a scheme to fruition in terms of preparation and fees varies between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the total capital cost. The majority of these costs would be incurred whether the scheme is publicly funded or funded under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements for reviewing levels of services included in long-term contracts for hospital services which form part of a private finance initiative contract. [38803]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All contracts include proper provision for ensuring that appropriate information and access are available for regular monitoring of the quality and quantity of services delivered under the contract.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the definition of the clinical services which will be exempted from contracts under the private finance initiative in the national health service in Scotland; and if he will list all of the hospital services which may be included in such contracts. [38804]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no centrally defined list of services which should be included in contracts under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for final approval of capital projects currently being considered under the private
  109
  finance initiative in the national health service in Scotland. [38805]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Each scheme has its own timetable for completion. Final approval for each scheme will be given only after a full business case has been submitted to and approved by the management executive and, in certain cases, Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the State for Scotland which hospital services are included in each of the contracts for capital projects in the national health service in Scotland currently being considered under the private finance initiative; and how long is the duration of the contract in each case. [38806]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for NHS trusts to determine which hospital support services should be included in contracts. Contracts between trusts and the private sector will typically be for a duration of 20 to 25 years, with specified breaks and review periods built in.

  Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the State for Scotland how many people have been convicted of crimes related to their involvement in drug dealing at(a) Paisley sheriff court and (b) Renfrew district court in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [39194]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table. Information for 1994 will become available in November 1995.

  Persons with a main charge proved for drugs trafficking offences in Paisley sheriff court and Renfrew district court, 1989–93

  Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Paisley sheriff court

  6

  8

  10

  13

  32

  Renfrew district court

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carpet Manufacturing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to develop the opportunities for the Scottish carpet manufacturing industry on the international market; and if he will make a statement. [39206]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office recently launched an export development strategy for Scotland, designed to assist companies based in Scotland achieve greater success in international markets. Within the strategy, textiles is included as one of eight priority sectors for which initiatives and projects are being developed.

  School Buses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to review the legislation which governs the operation of school bus services, with particular reference to seat belts, supervision and bus capacity, and if he will make a statement. [39168]
  110
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Transport safety matters are primarily the responsibility of the Department of Transport. Following a public consultation earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport intends to lay this autumn the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations and the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations. These regulations, which will extend to Scotland, will require lap belts to be fitted to all minibuses and coaches when they are being used specifically to transport children under the age of 16 and end the "three for two" concession to public service vehicles whereby three children under the age of 14 may share a double seat when seat belts are fitted. There are no plans to introduce legislation governing the supervision of school children. Arrangements for the supervision of children on school transport is entirely a matter for each education authority to determine.

  National Library
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what procedures students have to undertake after 1 October to gain access to the collections in the National library for Scotland; [38889]

  (2) what categories of students are to have restricted access to the National library of Scotland after 1 October; and if he will make a statement; [38883]

  (3) what procedures students before 1 October had to undertake to gain access to the collections in the National library for Scotland; [38888]

  (4) what categories of students were allowed access to the National library for Scotland before 1 October. [38884]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The arrangements for allowing access to the collections of the National library of Scotland are the responsibility of the board of trustees. However, my right hon. Friend is aware that the arrangements for access by students have been modified with effect from 1 October 1995 to take account of the increasing pressures on the accommodation for readers and on the condition of the collections. The reading services provided by the NLS are intended for those engaged in research or reference work using the collections. School pupils, college students and undergraduates at ordinary degree level are not normally admitted, but honours students in their third or later year of studies may apply for admission. These restrictions have been in place for a number of years and remain unchanged.

  Before 1 October 1995, eligible honours students could apply for a one-year admission ticket to consult material relevant to a course of studies which was not available elsewhere. Applications had to be countersigned by a professor or lecturer in the appropriate university department. Since 1 October, eligible honours students have been able to apply for short-term admission tickets for access to specific items for a particular research project which are not available elsewhere. Applications have to be countersigned by a nominated senior librarian in the appropriate university library.

  These revised arrangements were discussed with and endorsed by the Scottish Confederation of University and
  111
  Research Libraries which represents all the Scottish university libraries.

  Elections (Disabled Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it costs to provide and install temporary ramps for disabled access at polling stations during the most recent(a) general, (b) European, (c) regional council, (d) district council and (e) unitary authority elections in Scotland; what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits over a period of five, 10, 15 and 20 years of providing such ramps on a permanent basis; and if he will make a statement. [39176]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grants for election equipment are provided as and when required. Equipment is then used at all subsequent elections. The total grants paid for temporary ramps since my right hon. Friend assumed responsibility for returning officers' fees and expenses in August 1991 is £15,316. Details of the installation costs cannot be identified separately from the overall cost of adapting and fitting up buildings at an election. We are awaiting the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill prior to considering the funding of permanent ramps.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend cost centre accounting in the operation of the new unitary authorities, and if he will make a statement. [39198]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As originally announced in 1992, authorities will be required to set up an internal accounting framework for the professional support services that are to be subject to compulsory competitive tendering: construction and property services, information technology, personnel, legal and finance. The framework will show the full cost of providing these services and will also require authorities to allocate these support costs to front-line services, such as housing, planning, education etcetera, to enable front-line managers to monitor their expenditure in these areas.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the(a) committee and (b) management structure of each new unitary authority and the existing island councils. [39162]

  Mr. Kynoch
  An interim report, as of September 1995, has been prepared by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  PACE Youth Theatre Group
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he, or his representative, will visit the PACE youth theatre group based at Paisley arts centre to discuss funding of community arts in Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement. [39160]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the PACE youth theatre group. National funding for performing arts projects is the responsibility of the Scottish Arts Council and applications for funding should be addressed to that body.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each NHS hospital in Scotland which does not have trust status. [39204]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table lists NHS hospitals in Scotland which do not form part of an NHS trust and the health board areas in which they are situated.

  MrOrkney Health Board:

  Balfour Hospital, Kirkwall

  Eastbank Hospital, Kirkwall

  Shetland Health Board:

  Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick

  Montfield Hospital, Lerwick

  Western Isles Health Board:

  Daliburgh Hospital, South Uist

  Lochmaddy Hospital, North Uist

  St. Brendan's Hospital, Barra

  Western Isles Hospital, Stornoway

  State Hospitals and Special Health Board:

  State Hospital Carstairs

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of each member and former member of the House of Lords who, since 1979, has been appointed to any quango or other public body for which he has nomination or appointment rights, giving in each case the title of the post, the salary or honorarium payable and the duration of the appointment. [39166]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information covers those bodies sponsored by the Scottish Office and listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". It covers appointments currently held by present members of the House of Lords, excluding appointment as a justice of the peace or member of a children's panel. The following members of the House of Lords hold appointments on Scottish Office bodies:The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres is chairman of the board of trustees National library of Scotland; he was appointed to the board on 1 January 1986 and his appointment is for life. Lord Cameron of Lochbroom is chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland, with an appointment running from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 2000, and a member of the Scottish Records Advisory Council, with an appointment running from 1 August 1993 to 31 July 1996. Lord Goold is a member of the Scottish Hospital Endowment Research trust; his appointment runs from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1996. Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden is a member of the board of trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland; his appointment runs from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1997.

  None of the appointments is salaried or fee paid. Lord Ewing of Kirkford is a non-executive director of the Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS trust; his appointment runs from 7 January 1994 to 30 November 1997 and his salary is £5,000.

  Information for earlier years is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of all former right hon. and hon. Members who since 1979 have been appointed to any non-departmental public body or other public body for which he has nomination or appointment rights, giving
  113
  in each case the title of the post, the salary or honorarium payable and the duration of the appointment. [39201]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of those former Members of Parliament who ceased to be Members of the House in 1987 and 1992, one currently holds appointment on a body for which my Department has responsibility. This is Lord Ewing of Kirkford who was appointed as a non-executive director of the Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS trust on 7 January 1994. He is appointed until 30 November 1997 and his salary is £5,000 per annum. I have also announced the appointment of Mr. Dick Douglas, as chairman designate of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. His salary will be £15,000 per annum. The information held centrally by my Department does not show whether appointees were Members of this House during earlier Parliaments nor does it show appointments for earlier years; this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Heart-lung Transplants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to allowing heart-lung transplants to be carried out in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [39074]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A needs assessment is currently being carried out. This, along with other factors, will help inform our consideration of the case for such a service.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to a letter dated 17 June from the hon. Member for East Lothian concerning Mrs. J. Mitchell's claim for hill livestock compensatory allowances. [38854]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I regret that the hon. Member has not yet received a substantive reply to his letter, but my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland intends to write to the hon. Member very soon.

  Road Signs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has for the replacement of existing road signs to include metric distances; [38887]

  (2) what plans he has for the introduction of metric distances for all new road signs. [38886]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Fox Hunts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police hours were spent attending fox hunts in each of the past three years; what was the total cost to public funds within the area of each police authority; and if he will make a statement. [39219]

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

  Students
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the Scottish Association of Citizen's Advice Bureau report entitled "Poverty by Degrees: Students—The Evidence of Citizens Advice Bureau clients in Scotland"; and what he intends to do to rectify the deficiencies identified in it. [39237]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I received a copy of the report shortly after its publication in September. I am always pleased to have information on the operation of the student support system, although the sample in this case was not necessarily typical.

  As part of our commitment to monitor student finance we have recently commissioned a new, United Kingdom-wide student income and expenditure survey. It will provide up-to-date, comprehensive, and authoritative evidence on the picture throughout the UK. The survey will be carried out in spring 1966 and the results published later in the year.

  Burns Bicentenary
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of preparations for the commemoration of the Burns bicentenary in 1996, with particular reference to the scale and scope of projects and involvement of the communities and schools in events. [39157]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The programme for the Burns international festival, including details of a number of community and schools events, is expected to be published by the organisers, Burns Festival Ltd., in November. The Scottish Office has no information about any plans which local authorities or other local organisations may have for commemorating the anniversary.

  Absent Voting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures will be put in place prior to the general election to ensure that those entitled to postal and proxy votes are made aware of their rights as soon as possible by means of public advertising; and if he will make a statement. [39169]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements have yet to be finalised for absent voting publicity, but it is proposed, following past practice, to advertise in all the Scottish national daily and Sunday newspapers, and to provide leaflets for the general public through various suitable outlets.

  Scotland Europa
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of Scotland Europa Ltd; and what criteria he applies to measure the success of this body. [39223]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I met recently with the chief executive of Scotland Europa to hear of its work and plans for the future. The subscribers to Scotland Europa's services come from a wide range of interests, including business, educational bodies and local authorities, and the
  115
  numbers are increasing every year. Thus, the body is successful by satisfying its paying customers and increasing their numbers.

  Scottish Enterprise recently decided to continue to provide support to Scotland Europa in order to continue the service to Scottish business and organisations. The criteria against which it will judge the body include its success in providing for its customers information and advice on developments in the European Union, assistance in lobbying, help in seeking out other regional partners and participating in appropriate European programmes.

  Women's conference
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to implement the commitments made in Beijing at the United Nations fourth world conference on women; and what resources have been allocated to action the platform agreed. [38882]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all Government Departments take full account of the platform for action. Non-governmental organisations have been asked for their views by 1 January 1996. De-briefing meetings, including one in Scotland, will be held with key NGOs shortly and a further meeting to review progress early in 1996. Resources will be allocated from within departmental budgets as appropriate.

  Caravan Storage Facilities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the(a) need and (b) supply of caravan storage facilities in each Scottish district; and if he will make a statement. [39199]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. There is no statutory requirement upon either the Secretary of State or local authorities to ensure provision of caravan storage facilities.

  Telephone Bills
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of British Telecom (Scotland) to discuss the abolition of standing charges on telephone bills; and if he will make a statement. [39205]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Control of British Telecom's prices is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications.

  MrLocal Councillors
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the(a) daily attendance allowance and (b) subsistence allowance for (i) more than four, but less than eight hours, (ii) more than eight, but less than 24 hours, (iii) 24 hours within the United Kingdom, but outside London, (iv) 24 hours in London and (v) approved overseas travel for elected members of Scottish local authorities would be had these kept pace with inflation since 1974 and expressed in real terms at current prices: what would be the annual attendance allowance, excluding subsistence, of an elected member of a Scottish local authority who was eligible to claim a daily
  116
  attendance allowance for an average of (I) one, (II) two, (III) three, (IV) four, (V) five, (VI) six and (VII) seven official duties per week on different days assuming that the system of payment had remained unchanged since 1974 and based on current prices in real terms. [39167]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As the information requested is particularly lengthy and complex, I shall write to the hon. Member and arrange for a signed copy of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Floods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds are available from European Community sources to undertake projects aimed at reducing the risk of floods to homes, businesses, including farms and public buildings; which organisations may apply for such funding; and if he will make a statement. [39175]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I am not aware of any European Community sources of funds specifically for flood prevention. Under the European structural funds support may be available where there is a clear and demonstrable economic benefit to be derived from the project.

  Regional and islands councils have powers, under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, to take flood prevention measures to protect non-agricultural land. Works, other than those of maintenance or repair, have to be widely advertised and submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Grants are available from the Scottish Office at a rate of 50 per cent. for confirmed schemes.

  Planning Policy Guideline
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he
  will introduce statutory requirements for smaller unitary authorities to be able to employ appropriate archaeological officers in respect of NPPG5; and if he will make a statement. [39059]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No. My right hon. Friend published national planning policy guideline—NPPG5 "Archaeology and Planning" in January 1994. This, along with the associated planning advice note 42 "Archaeology—The Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures", sets out the planning policy context and guidelines in respect of archaeological remains and discoveries for Scottish local authorities. It is for the authorities themselves to decide how best to meet their responsibilities within the resources available to them.

  Further Education College Principals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current salaries of principals of further education colleges and the amount of any increments that have been awarded in each case, with the reasons for such increments(a) in the previous and (b) the current year. [38872]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  It is for individual boards of management to determine the remuneration of principals. Information on their current salaries will not be available centrally until the 1995–96 annual accounts
  117
  are submitted next year. The remuneration of principals for 1994–95, as shown in the colleges' 1994–95 annual accounts, is as follows:

  Salary excluding pension contribution1994–95

  College

  £'000

  Barony

  44

  Oatridge

  44

  Lews Castle

  45

  Elmwood

  49

  Clackmannan

  47

  Thurso

  45

  Cumbernauld

  44

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  50

  John Wheatley

  42

  Angus

  47

  Banff and Buchan

  50

  Borders

  54

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  51

  Cambuslang

  46

  Coatbridge

  50

  Stow

  59

  Glenrothes

  52

  Moray

  51

  Lauder

  53

  Anniesland

  46

  Dumfries

  55

  Bell

  85

  Kilmarnock

  47

  Ayr

  54

  Perth

  48

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  54

  West Lothian

  44

  Cardonald

  52

  North Glasgow

  52

  Central

  53

  Motherwell

  49

  Langside

  51

  Inverness

  51

  Jewel and Esk

  55

  Clydebank

  58

  Reid Kerr

  53

  Falkirk

  54

  Fife

  55

  James Watt

  60

  Dundee

  61

  Stevenson

  54

  Telford

  62

  Aberdeen

  58

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the financial cost of implementing in Scotland the European Court of Justice ruling on prescription charge exemption for men aged 60 years and over(a) in a full financial year and (b) in respect of reimbursement for the three months prior to the judgment; and if he will ensure that this cost is not met from existing NHS budgets. [38970]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The overall cost of equalising the qualifying age for exemption from prescription charges for men and women at 60 is estimated to be around £4.5 million in a full financial year.
  118
  Refunds of prescription charges paid in the three months prior to the judgment are unlikely to amount to more than £1.5 million.

  Decisions on funding are being taken within the context of the public expenditure survey.

  Royal Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the floor space of the Royal Alexandra hospital, Paisley is not currently in use; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for this. [39163]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All floor space in the Royal Alexandra hospital is fully utilised at the present time.

  Operation Eagle
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of Strathclyde police's Operation Eagle. [39193]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I welcome Operation Eagle, which has successfully targeted all tiers of the drug dealing and user network throughout Strathclyde. To date, the police have made over 4,000 arrests; seized significant quantities of illicit drugs with an estimated street value of around £4.2 million together with almost £400,000 in cash; and recovered 35 firearms and 169 rounds of ammunition during drug searches. The operation is continuing. I look forward to opening Strathclyde police's seminar on 8 December which will be reviewing the final outcome.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved, since revision, in the Machair of the Uists, Barra and Vatersay environmentally sensitive area. [39838]

  Mr Robertson
  As at 24 October 1995, 42 crofters have accepted agreements offered under the revised Machair of the Usists, Barra and Vatersay environmentally sensitive area scheme.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved in the Stewartry environmentally sensitive area, since its revision, involving payments in year one of the plan of(a) £0-£1,000, (b) £1,001-£2,000, (c) £2,001-£3,000,(d) £3,001-£4,000, (e) £4,001-£5,000 and (f) £5,001-£6,000. [39836]

  Mr Raymond S. Robertson
  As at 24 October 1995, there were 90 approved plans in the revised Stewarty environmentally sensitive area scheme, all of which involve payment in year one. The number of agreements involving tier two payments in year one of the plan is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Up to £1,000

  4

  (b) £1,00-£2,000

  5

  (c) £2,001-£3,000

  4

  (d) £3,001-£4,000

  0

  (e) £4,001–5,000

  73

  (f) £5,001-£6,000

  0

  119
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved in the Machair of the Uists, Barra and Vatersay environmentally sensitive area, since its revision involving payments under tier two in year one of the plan of(a) £0-£500, (b) £500-£1,000, (c) £1,001-£1,500, and (d) £1,501-£2,000. [39839]

  Mr. Robertson
  The number of agreements in the revised Machair of the Uists, Barra and Vatersay environmentally sensitive area scheme involving tier two payments in year one of the plan is as follows:

  Number

  (a) 0-£500

  16

  (b) £501-£1,000

  10

  (c) £1,001-£1,500

  4

  (d) £1,501-£2,000

  16

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring and review arrangements he has established to ensure that the agri-environment programme in Scotland contributes to meeting the objectives of "Biodiversity: the United Kingdom Action Plan", Cm 2418. [39835]

  Mr. Robertson
  A 10-year contract has been let for monitoring the impact of the environmentally sensitive area scheme. This will cover ecological, archaeological and landscape effects. We intend to extend these arrangements, in due course, to cover the more recently launched elements of the agri-environment programme.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 697, what was the final expenditure on environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland in 1994–95; and on what the remainder of the allocated budget we spent. [39844]

  Mr. Robertson
  Provisional outturn expenditure on environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland in 1994–95 was £1.044 million. It is not possible to say precisely how the remainder of the provision was used, but the first priority for the use of any savings of this nature would be to meet inescapable demands for additional unplanned agricultural expenditure or any of the other programme areas for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the expected expenditure for(a) environmentally sensitive areas and (b) other agri-environment schemes in 1995–96. [39752]

  Mr. Robertson
  Financial provision for(a) environmentally sensitive areas and (b) other agri-environment schemes in 1995–96 is set out in the table.

  Financial provision 1995–96 (£ million)

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  5.5

  Other Agri-Environment Schemes

  1.697

  It is too early to anticipate what expenditure will be incurred.
  120
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved, since designation, in the Cairngorms Straths environmentally sensitive area involving payments under tier two in year one of the plan of(a) up to £1,000, (b) £1,000-£2,000, (c) £2,001-£3,000 and (d) £3,001-£4,000. [39749]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The number of agreements in Cairngorms Straths environmentally sensitive area scheme involving tier two payments in year one of the plan is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Up to £1,000

  1

  (b) £1,001-£2,000

  1

  (c) £2,001-£3,000

  2

  (d) £3,001-£4,000

  35

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved, since designation, the Cairngorms Straths environmentally sensitive areas. [39748]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: As at 24 October 1995, 37 farmers and crofters have accepted agreements offered under the Cairngorms Straths environmentally sensitive areas scheme.

  Prisoners (Closed Visits)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what arrangements are made for prisoners who are restricted to closed visits to have(a) visits from their legal advisers, and (b) consular visits; [38844]

  (2) in which prisons there are prisoners restricted to closed visits and what are the numbers of prisoners involved. [39416]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 October 1995:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Questions about closed visits for prisoners in Scotland. These concerned (a) the arrangements for prisoners on closed visits to have visits from their legal advisers and consular officials, and (b) in which prisons there are prisoners restricted to closed visits and what are the numbers of prisoners involved.

  As for as (a) is concerned, regardless of whether a prisoner is on closed visits, visits from prisoners' legal advisers are held in rooms specifically designated for that purpose. Consular visits are also held in these rooms. Both types of visits, in accordance with Prison Rules, take place within sight, but outwith the hearing, of prison staff.

  On the (b) the information as at 25 October is as follows:

  Aberdeen

  3

  Barlinnie

  50

  Corton Vale

  11

  Dumfries

  13

  Edinburgh

  9

  Glenochil

  33

  Greenock

  6

  Inverness

  3

  Longriggend

  9

  121

  Low Moss

  6

  Perth

  11

  Peterhead

  1

  Polmont

  5

  Shotts

  7

  Total

  167

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent employment of Alan Clark Associates by Greater Glasgow health board, and the procedure adopted by the health board in awarding this contract and the involvement of the board itself and the then chairman in the award of this contract. [39406]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Such information is not held centrally; this is a matter for Greater Glasgow health board.

  School Transport
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent by his Department for each education authority in Scotland for each financial year since 1987–88 in supporting educational transport; and what were the number of pupils covered by this provision for each local authority, the total number of pupils within each education authority during this period, and the percentage covered by free school transport provision. [39408]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The detailed information requested cannot be provided in the time scale allowed. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as that information has been collated.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes his Department is considering to the guidance currently in force relating to the criteria for school pupils in Scotland to qualify for free transport and the manner in which he funds this transport provision. [39409]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Under current legislation, decisions regarding the provision of school transport are entirely a matter for each education authority. Under sections 50 and 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, education authorities have a duty to make such transport arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of free transport, of transport facilities as may be arranged, and for paying all or part of reasonable travel expenses for school pupils belonging to their area. The Government have no plans to amend this legislation, or to change the manner in which this transport provision is funded.

  On 24 May 1995, guidance was issued to the chief executives of the new unitary authorities about the current legislation relating to the provision of school transport as part of detailed guidance on their future education responsibilities from 1 April 1996. There are no plans to add to that guidance.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements made by Ayrshire and Arran health board to administer its public 122
  relations and communications since 1987, the names of agencies employed by the health board to undertake these duties during this period, the tendering process involved in awarding these contracts and the monetary value of contracts awarded to these agencies. [39410]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Such information is not held centrally; this is a matter for Ayrshire and Arran health board.

  Nursing Home Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people pay the cost of their nursing home care(a) in full and (b) in part; and how many have their costs entirely met through (i) income support or (ii) their local authority. [40185]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The total number of nursing home residents with preserved rights to the higher levels of income support was 7,940 at November 1994.

  The number of persons admitted on a permanent basis to nursing homes between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995 supported in full or in part by local authorities was 4,256.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of(a) doubling and (b) trebling the present £8,000 capital disregard for nursing home fees. [40189]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on Friday 27 October 1995, Official Report, column 853.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people who have had to sell their homes to fund the cost of their long-term stay in(a) residential and (b) nursing homes in each of the last five years. [40177]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1995]: The necessary information on which to base an estimate is not available centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time a person spends in full-time nursing care. [40181]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: The information requested is not available. However, the average lengths of stay of inpatients in hospitals in Scotland in 1994–95 are shown in the following table:

  Days

  Acute specialties

  5.5

  Obsstetrics

  3.3

  Long stay specialties

  63.8

  Psychiatric specialties

  104.8

  Mental handicap

  242.8

  During their stay in hospital inpatients will receive full-time nursing care.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to advise the Western Isles health board of a settlement on nurses' pay. [39875]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: I expect to be able to advise all health boards in Scotland of a settlement on nurses pay in early November.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the status of the Scottish health boards' general managers' group in relation to the Scottish Office. [39397]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The Scottish health boards' general managers' group advises the Scottish Office Department of Health on matters affecting health boards. It provides a forum for two way communication between the Scottish Office and health boards on health service policy and the performance of the NHS in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he applied in deciding to allocate additional funding to Grampian health board and to Highland health board from moneys available through an underspend in the previous year's NHS budget in Scotland. [38501]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The additional funding to Grampian health board and Highland health board is part of a £16.3 million allocation to be distributed to all health

  School Session

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Below full fee remission threshold

  1,219

  1,292

  1,385

  1,388

  1,423

  Threshold-£10,000

  270

  148

  89

  70

  43

  £10,000-£15,000

  815

  719

  671

  644

  612

  £15,000-£20,000

  485

  552

  583

  591

  584

  Over £20,000

  72

  200

  310

  352

  388

  Total

  2,861

  2,911

  3,038

  3,045

  3,050

  Notes:

  1 Figures from 1992–93 are provisional pending receipt of final audited claims. The numbers of schools with outstanding claims for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 are one, seven and 48 respectively.

  2 Annual adjustments are made to the income scales on which parental contributions are calculated, including the threshold level at which full fee remission is applicable. The threshold was £8,200 in 1990–91, £8,987 in 1991–92, £9,384 in 1992–93, £9,522 in 1993–94 and £9,616 in 1994–95.

  3 Figures are not collected centrally on the number of pupils whose parents' relevant incomes are between £20,000 and £24,000.

  Public Relations and Press Officers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to NHS trusts and health boards relating to the employment of public relations and press officers by these bodies. [39405]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: No specific guidance has been issued to NHS trusts and health boards relating to the employment of public relations and press officers.
  124
  boards in Scotland on a weighted capitation basis. The boards were notified about the funds in August and formal allocations are expected to issue in November.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work his Department has so far undertaken to implement the expansion of the assisted places scheme in Scotland; which bodies have been consulted about this, and when he expects to announce further movements on this issue. [39399]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Officials are currently considering possible options for expanding the assisted places scheme in Scotland, in line with our plans to double to around 6,000 the numbers of children whose parents would otherwise be unable to send them to a Scottish independent school.

  We are consulting the Scottish Council of Independent Schools about how best to expand the scheme, taking account of the geographic spread. We will, however, seek to ensure that particular priority is given to extending choice and opportunity for the poorest families. We are aiming for the first additional places to be provided in the 1996–97 school session.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children on the assisted places scheme had parents whose relevant family income was(a) below £9,450, (b) between £10,000 and £15,000, (c) between £15,000 and £20,000 and (d) between £20,000 and £24,000 as defined by notes and definitions, section 1.3 of "The Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin, Education series", Ref. No. Edn/C5/1995/9, entitled "The Assisted Places Scheme 1983–84 to 1993–94", in the latest five years for which figures are available. [38878]

  Mr. Robertson
  The available information is as follows:

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area in Scotland for each financial year since 1990–91 the numbers of patients registered with a dentist and the total number of patients registered with a dentist in Scotland for each year during this period. [39395]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers

  125
  which I gave him on 23 March 1995, Official Report, columns 956–57, and 23 May 1995, column 739.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area in Scotland for each financial year since 1990–91 the number of patients removed by dentists from their

  October 1990-March 1991

  April 1991-March 1992

  April 1992-March 1993

  April 1993-March 1994

  April 1994-March 1995

  Health board

  No. of patients dentists de-registered

  No of dentists involved1

  No. of patients dentists de-registered

  No of dentists involved1

  No. of patients dentists de-registered

  No of dentists involved1

  No. of patients dentists de-registered

  No of dentists involved1

  No. of patients dentists de-registered

  No of dentists involved1

  Argyll and Clyde

  3

  1

  25

  2

  2,241

  14

  42

  7

  —

  5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  14

  10

  1,309

  11

  400

  13

  91

  17

  Borders

  1

  1

  11

  4

  1,432

  4

  683

  4

  41

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  11

  2

  4,518

  10

  1,388

  10

  901

  17

  Fife

  1

  1

  —

  —

  295

  32

  417

  21

  510

  24

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  42

  12

  201

  23

  63

  18

  210

  35

  Grampian

  —

  —

  9

  5

  257

  21

  179

  18

  361

  44

  Greater Glasgow

  7

  5

  41

  36

  579

  45

  339

  49

  1,070

  87

  Highland

  4

  3

  19

  12

  210

  24

  73

  24

  78

  33

  Lanarkshire

  4

  4

  70

  10

  252

  29

  145

  25

  83

  65

  Lothian

  18

  2

  101

  21

  483

  23

  1,625

  17

  1,319

  23

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2063

  293

  57

  11

  641

  48

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  4

  16

  4

  —

  4

  n/a—not available.

  1 Number of dentists involved in de-registration in a particular year.

  2 For 1994–95 the figures show the running total of dentists involved in de-registration from July 1992 to March 1995.

  3 From July 1992.

  126
  treatment and the number of dentists involved in this de-registration. [39396]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: Formal arrangements for patients to be registered with a dentist were introduced in October 1990. Information supplied by health boards about de-registrations since that date is contained in the table.

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

Barclays Bank: Employment of School Students
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the plan by Barclays Bank to employ school students on cashiering and book-keeping work in its high street branches for six hours per week covering three evenings; and if so, whether they are concerned that this plan will be damaging to job prospects in the financial sector if expanded and will impinge on study time available to 16 to 18 year-old A-level students.
The Minister for State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have been following this development closely. There is no difference in principle between this and many other forms of work which students do outside school hours. Indeed, that initiative offers valuable work experience which will benefit both students and Barclays Bank and therefore have a positive effect on job prospects.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. What safeguards exist to prevent Barclays from utilising those young people as cheap labour in preference to adult employees? Is he not aware that the chairman of Barclays has said that the young people concerned will be doing actual jobs and that that can result in casualisation of employment within that sector? Is he aware also that it has been estimated that some 50,000 employees in clearing banks are currently doing cashiering and book-keeping work? If that spreads, such work will be severely endangered. That must be of interest to the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the allegations that Barclays are recruiting those young people merely as cheap child labour, it may be best to quote the chairman of Barclays who said:
"This is amazing rubbish. It is a work experience scheme which we have had for many years and anyone who believes that teenagers are exploited by working four or six hours a week must be barmy".
I agree with the chairman of Barclays. It strikes me as an extremely imaginative scheme which will provide positive benefits for all those involved. It will improve their job prospects in the long term.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is better for students to do that work for a couple of hours, three nights per week rather than squandering their pocket money in amusement arcades?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no idea where the youngsters might or might not go if they were not working
1268
at Barclays. However, my noble friend is right to say that the work can act as a very great motivator and, as I made clear earlier, provide useful work experience.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, are the Government issuing any guidelines regarding the hourly rate paid to those youngsters by such organisations as Barclays Bank, bearing in mind that we now have a reputation for being a low-wage economy as a result of the Government's present policies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not issuing guidelines. We do not believe that it is proper or appropriate to issue guidelines. It is entirely a matter for Barclays. The allegation that we are a low-wage economy is simply not true. We are a low-cost economy where the non-wage labour costs are kept well below those of our European compatriots whereas the workers very often take home exactly the same amount of money.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, will my noble friend help the House and define what are not "actual" jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that question. All I know is that Barclays Bank provides a great number of jobs and a vast amount of training for its employees. It spends some £300 million per year and intends to invest something in the order of £3 billion on technology over the next few years. Its profits are considerable and from those profits comes a considerable sum in corporation tax.
Baroness David: My Lords, can I ask the Minister if there has been any consultation with head teachers or principals of sixth form colleges to find out whether they thoroughly approve of this scheme for students who are taking A-levels?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not a question of consulting head teachers. There is no evidence that children suffer when they do part-time work. That is something that children have been able to do for many years. On this occasion, Barclays wrote to a number of schools in the Reading and Slough area to ask whether they were interested in taking part in the scheme. I believe that Barclays should be commended for such an imaginative idea.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as many of today's teenagers are more competent than their elders at operating computers and electronic screens, might it not be wise for the Bank of England to make use of such help since it seems to need all the help it can get in at least two of its functions: first, in regulating the activities of British banks; and, secondly, in formulating advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on interest rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, fortunately I do not answer for the Bank of England from the Dispatch Box but I am sure that note will be taken of the points made so well by my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, further to the supplementary question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will the Minister assure the House that, following those developments, there will be a great

1269
improvement in the service provided by the banks and we shall not see occurring those juvenile errors which apparently have occurred among their elders and betters?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord any further. However, I note the point that he has made.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may just return to what the Minister said. Is the noble Lord aware that at the time Mr. Buxton, the chairman of Barclays Bank, said that anyone who believed that it was cheap labour must be "barmy"; he also said that the individuals concerned would do an actual job rather than just stand around watching someone else working? However, there was no indication in that statement that the bank had any plans in mind for training those people; they were going to do an actual job—a job, moreover, that, in normal circumstances, would be done by an adult member of staff. Is not the Minister concerned about the possible effect of this development on adult employment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the best form of work experience would be an actual job. To say that school students will destroy jobs for other people merely by doing six hours a week on rare occasions is, I think, economics of the Stone Age. The noble Baroness simply ought to realise that it is a highly imaginative scheme which can only be of benefit both to Barclays Bank and the children involved. It is a scheme which will positively improve their job prospects in the long term.

GPs: Dispensing Payments
2.44 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refund to dispensing doctors the difference between the scale rates of the Discount Abatement Scheme introduced on 1st April 1995 and the Revised Discount Abatement Scheme introduced on 1st October 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that rural dispensing practices are now very hard pressed? Doctors in the larger practices have lost something like £10,000 in six months. Moreover, they are having to pay extra money for staff funding because FHSAs are not reimbursing them; they cannot increase their capitation fees because they have a mainly statis population: and they cannot do clinical duties because they are so far away from hospitals. Will the noble Baroness please look again at the problem? That £10,000 could have gone to patient care, especially when one compares it with the £68 million which is being held by fund holders at present in excess.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should make the point that GPs who take on the responsibility do so
1270
voluntarily. When the BMA recently had a survey, only one in four GPs actually wanted to carry out dispensing. We recognise some of the problems that the noble Countess has mentioned. In fact, as she will know, we reviewed the scheme which was agreed by the BMA because we appreciated the points that it made. We have altered the scheme, and we now understand that the BMA is satisfied with it.

EU Nationals Remanded in British Prisons
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nationals of other European Union member states are currently on remand in the United Kingdom awaiting trial on charges brought against them here.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, on 30th June 1995 there were 235 nationals of other European Union member states held on remand in prisons in England and Wales. Separate figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are not available.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can she say whether this country has taken the initiative in establishing agreed guidelines within the European Community for the refusal of bail? The Minister will be aware of the great and understandable concern caused in this country recently by the knowledge that a British lorry driver had spent 20 months in custody in Spain before being brought to trial for, I believe, a motoring charge on which he was acquitted. Obviously, if that causes concern in this country, similar concern must be felt in other European countries. Is it not now necessary to establish guidelines for the refusal of bail which will be acceptable in each of the European countries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the concept of some degree of harmonisation underpins the noble Lord's comments. We do not wish to go down that road. However, we wish to have the highest possible co-operation among member states. Indeed, if one takes the situation of Roy Clarke, who was alluded to in the noble Lord's question, it is not right to assume that for such a serious alleged crime, with millions of pounds being involved in drug peddling, this country would not have granted bail or not have imposed custody. It would be a matter for the courts to decide. That is how it should be.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the length of time that such people are on remand in British prisons before trial, although they are nationals of European Union countries, is approximately the same as if they were British subjects?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is absolutely no distinction whatever made between a foreign national, a European national or a British subject. As I said, it is a

1271
matter for the court to determine whether someone should be detained on remand or whether bail should be granted. The time factor for anyone, a foreign national or a subject of this country, is a matter of concern. I know that the Government are doing what they can to ensure that such time is minimised.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there not a particular problem in the case of persons held in custody awaiting extradition hearings? Does the Minister recall a certain case where someone who was to be extradited to Hong Kong remained in custody in this country for eight years but, on his return, was finally acquitted of the charges? Is not such custody an enormous burden on taxpayers? Further, should not some mechanism be found for releasing persons who are held beyond a certain time, which I believe is done in Scotland?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether someone should be released is a matter for the court; it is not a matter for me to comment upon from the Dispatch Box. As regards this country's record on extradition, in the United Kingdom we believe in the principle that people should face court proceedings in the country in which they are alleged to have committed the offence. Our record for extraditing people so that matters can be expedited is a very good one. For someone who commits an offence in another country, we still believe it is important that that should be where he or she faces court proceedings.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend explain why precise figures are available for England and Wales but not for Scotland or Northern Ireland?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I cannot say why, but I shall find out why they are not readily available.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, why are the Government against harmonisation of approach in this matter within what is a relatively small community, the European Union? Why is it undesirable to have an agreed approach and harmonisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we believe that harmonisation has implications for the judicial system and for jurisdiction in this country. We do not believe in harmonising that aspect of the legal system in this country. Nor do we believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this is a problem which needs to be tackled in this way. I have already given the figure of 235 people who are held on remand. I do not believe that that is sufficient justification for changing the legal system in the United Kingdom.

Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to alert the international community to the continued suffering of Kuwaiti prisoners in Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we take every opportunity at the UN to raise the subject of Kuwaiti missing persons. In June we were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Iraq must produce substantive information on the fate of all missing persons and prisoners of war. We shall keep up the pressure on Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I am sure she is aware that the people and the Government of Kuwait are grateful to our country and government and the United States who did so much to enable them to have their country back. The problem they are now facing is that those who were taken back to Iraq by the Iraqi forces—men, women and children—are now suffering abominably. Information is being leaked out describing the terrible things that are happening to them. Would it not be possible, please, for the United Nations to press further so that the people of Kuwait will know that mankind is on their side, and Iraq should receive a proper warning that if it does not return these men, women and children and prisoners of war but continues to punish them, it will pay a heavy penalty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right. I think he understands that the ICRC is the key organisation for dealing with the prisoners of war and the 600 or so missing persons. One of the matters which concerns us is a tendency on the part of the Iraqi authorities not to work with the technical sub-committee which has been set up by the tripartite commission to speed up the review of the ICRC case files. It is making slow progress and part of that is undoubtedly down to the Iraqis. The message to Iraq is simple. We expect full compliance with all the United Nations Security Council resolutions and that means getting on with this job. The situation as regards prisoners of war and detained missing persons is a matter to which the whole world gives much attention and it is one that it wishes to resolve. I would simply add that the only way that this matter will be resolved is by the Iraqis producing the evidence which will allow the ICRC to resolve the matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister know whether any inquiries have been made of the defectors from the Iraqi regime—I refer in particular to Hussein Kamil—about the fate of the 600 missing persons? If that is not the case, can inquiries be made of him via the Jordanian authorities not only as regards those persons but also those who were held hostage at the beginning of the Gulf War when about 1 million people were expelled to Iran by Saddam, some of their relatives being detained to prevent them making a fuss?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises an interesting point. Certainly the defection of Hussein Kamil was a serious blow to Saddam Hussein. I do not know the details of the information he has given but we have found that the Iraqis are still not giving us the information that they must give under Security Council resolutions. Therefore I am certain that the discussion with Hussein Kamil

1273
will continue. We know that following his defection the Iraqis provided much more information. Let us see whether we can obtain more information of the kind that the noble Lord described.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although I support the thrust of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on Iraq, is it not the case also that the people of Kuwait are trying to obtain the privileges that accompany living in a democratic country, such as the right to vote? Has there been any more progress as regards that matter despite the fact that the family which is ruling that country is running it as a private company?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean, but I shall read his question and if I have not understood it correctly I shall write to him. I should add that much progress is being made in Kuwait. As regards the franchised vote, about which the noble Lord is concerned, there have been recent moves to extend the franchise further in Kuwait and we fully support any measures designed to broaden consultation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend asked about Kuwaiti prisoners held in Iraq. Is the Minister aware that according to Amnesty International there are substantial numbers of prisoners in Iraq from other nations? Will the Minister indicate how many there are and what representations have been made on their behalf, particularly on behalf of the many Palestinians who are apparently being held?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness will know that there has been continuing discussion with the Iraqis as regards the position of all types of prisoner of war who are being held. As regards Iranians and some Palestinians, I believe this is now the subject of active discussion with the Government of Iraq. However, unless Security Council Resolution 598—the resolution which called for an exchange of PoWs after the Iran/Iraq war—is complied with in full, there will not be much progress. The same is true as regards Palestinians who were caught up at the time of the invasion of Kuwait and as regards some other nationals. However, we shall continue to press this matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are people in Iraq who welcome all the pressures that are being put on Saddam Hussein because they want to see progress being made towards a free society and towards the holding of free elections in Iraq? The pressure enables us to help the people of one country who have suffered and also the people in the country which has imposed its evil will on another country who believe in freedom and the political right to elect their own government.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the rights of ordinary Iraqis are disregarded. We know full well that the Iraqi National Council is making a big effort to form a united opposition to the regime of Saddam. However, the people of Iraq must be allowed to have a proper say in their future. The farcical attempt by Saddam Hussein in
1274
the referendum on 15th October—in which he claimed a democratic legitimacy—will not work. The Iraqi people must one day, and soon, be able freely to decide their own future.

Business of the House
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be of some assistance to your Lordships if I emphasise that the purpose of this Motion is to enable the House to take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill on Thursday next. The Bill provides for the release on licence of prisoners in Northern Ireland to whom Section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 applies, and fulfils an intention announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a speech on 25th August. I understand that the purpose of the Bill has the support of all parties and that the intention to take the Second Reading and remaining stages on one day has the support of the usual channels.
Your Lordships may feel that the Bill is not in need of amendment. However, if your Lordships wish to take amendments this Motion does not preclude having a separate Committee stage after the Second Reading debate, and the Public Bill Office will exceptionally accept amendments in advance of Second Reading.
Moved, That, if the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday, 2nd November.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1995
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this draft order provides for the annual uprating of salaries of Ministers and other office holders. The new salaries under this order are, as they were last year, the result of applying procedures described by my noble friend Lord Wakeham in 1993.
Ministers and officer holders in another place should normally receive the same percentage increase in their salaries as do Members of Parliament. I should explain to your Lordships that the increase for Members of Parliament is, in turn, linked to the settlement for middle ranking civil servants, which this year was 2.7 per cent.
The arrangement for Ministers and office holders in this House—because we do not receive a parliamentary salary—is that we should normally receive the same cash increase as our counterparts in another place, taking account of their combined ministerial and reduced parliamentary salaries. That principle will apply to all Ministers and office holders in this House who are covered by the order, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip.
I should also reassure your Lordships that the increases are entirely in keeping with the Government's approach to public sector pay. The linkage with Civil Service pay, which is settled in full accordance with the guidelines, ensures that we apply to ourselves the restraint that we ask of others. That approach has helped to deliver realistic settlements throughout the public sector, and it is reflected in the increases effected in the order before your Lordships. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I realise that, as my noble friend explained, the order follows the pattern of previous changes. However, I want to express my personal view that ministerial salaries, and indeed the remuneration of Opposition leaders, is out of line in comparison with the much higher levels now prevailing in the private sector. I suggest that consideration ought to be given to revising the formula, which my noble friend explained, under which the salaries are determined. It is a pity that those who have to undergo the stress and strain of office or of Opposition leadership should find that their remuneration is becoming very much out of line with that of people in responsible positions outside.
I realise that this is a difficult and delicate question for Ministers to handle. If the matter is to be considered further, as I hope it will be, they may feel that they should obtain the advice of Members of your Lordships' House and of another place who do not hold ministerial office.
The difference that now exists between the remuneration of chairmen and senior directors of a large number of companies and of Her Majesty's Ministers and Opposition leaders is now considerable. I believe that it is in the interests of good government in this country that the position should be reviewed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does this not indicate not so much that Ministers and those in Opposition who receive salaries are under-rewarded but that those in the private sector with whom the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew a comparison are grossly over-rewarded? Is this not a perfect example of the evil that results from the unrestricted greed of top people in the private sector, against which the Prime Minister himself has inveighed on more than one occasion, attempting, without success, to persuade them to exercise restraint? The Institute of Directors and others in responsible positions have tried to persuade those such as the chairmen of public utilities not to accept
1276
enormous increases or to take in addition to their salaries huge pay-offs in the form of share options and so on.
If comparisons are to be made between those directors and heads of large companies and Ministers sitting on the Front Bench, how would one create an equivalent for Ministers of the share options which are enjoyed by the fat cats in the public utilities? I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made an extraordinarily dangerous suggestion and one which should be vigorously resisted by your Lordships.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I believe that it would be appropriate to draw attention to evidence which was given to the Nolan Committee by a Member of the other place, Sir Terence Higgins. This has nothing to do with fat cats, directors' salaries and share options. Sir Terence said that since he joined the other place in 1964 average earnings in the economy as a whole have increased in real terms by 80 per cent., MPs' salaries have stayed the same in real terms, and Ministers' salaries have reduced by between 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. in real terms. Those salaries have become completely out of kilter.
The problem is that the media have homed in on what even the noble Lord opposite referred to as fat cats. We are talking about average earnings. We want to ensure that the right people can afford to come to Parliament and accept ministerial positions. There are a great many people who cannot at the moment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I admire the restraint of Her Majesty's Government and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in these matters, I depart slightly from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Is the noble Lord aware that the restraint that has been shown by the Government in regard to their own salaries ought to be followed by action in the European Community, where commissioners and other civil servants in Brussels get roughly twice the remuneration of the British Prime Minister?
Lord Renton: My Lords, it might be helpful if a comparison were also made with others receiving salaries in the public service, such as members of the higher judiciary and the few remaining quangos which have not been privatised.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can help the House. As a member of a party dedicated to market forces, can he give some indication of the amount of difficulty which the Government currently face in filling ministerial vacancies?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, to a certain extent I support what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. However, I believe that he made the wrong comparison, as has been pointed out. Ministerial salaries are absurdly low compared with salaries paid in other public sector jobs, even to officials of this House. When one bears in mind that the chief executive of a relatively small local authority will

1277
receive more, excluding the parliamentary salary, than a Secretary of State, we have reached a ridiculous position.
Whatever party is in power, the jobs of the Prime Minister of this country and his government are very important. Many people try to play down the importance of government, but Ministers run the country. They deserve a decent salary and should be seen to be paid a decent salary. Therefore, I hope that, as has been suggested, the situation will be reviewed with a view to ensuring that the Prime Minister and all his Ministers are properly remunerated for the job that they do. The same applies to Members of the House of Commons.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I agree with much that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I have even greater anxiety for the public sector generally. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum. There the funding has been frozen for some three years. That is causing enormous anxiety and will almost certainly result in the redundancy of some crucial staff. That factor applies equally in organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, for which the grant has been much reduced. I have an interest to declare there. My daughter is a senior executive.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will recognise that the issue involves more than Ministers. I believe that he referred to realism as regards what is happening in the public sector generally. The issue involves more than realism. In many parts of the public sector there is literally no choice: bodies have to accept the government grant. In that context, the net result is that it involves major consequences for the public sector staff. I hope that the noble Viscount will deal with that issue.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, having listened with great interest to your Lordships' exchange of remarks, I am pulled emotionally in more than one direction. On the one hand, there is what I hope is a Gladstonian respect for economy in public finances; and on the other a perhaps unworthy desire to enlist my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in particular, as my personal shop stewards. However, with your Lordships' permission, I shall resist the temptation to go down that path.
I recognise—it is a remark that I have made before in your Lordships' House—that taking a long perspective, let alone the somewhat shorter viewpoint that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter took, ministerial salaries have fallen way out of line with other salaries, and not only in the private sector. We are all aware that Lord Palmerston was able to live in what I believe is now the In and Out Club purely because of his ministerial salary as Foreign Secretary of £5,000 a year—in the days when £5,000 a year was £5,000 a year. I suspect that on a rather larger ministerial salary in nominal terms, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would be hard pressed to live in the same state in Piccadilly today.
1278
Nevertheless, no matter how admirable the concern for adequate rewards may be—it is an anxiety which has been articulated today in all sections of your Lordships' House—the formula, whether or not it has shortcomings, has one enormous benefit: at least for the moment it takes the difficult and sensitive question of ministerial pay out of the immediate cockpit of adversarial politics. I believe that that is a prize well worth striving for and achieving. Perhaps the good natured character of the remarks in your Lordships' House today are evidence to that.
I could be tempted down many paths as a result of the coats that your Lordships trailed before me. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I resist that temptation. I merely remark to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the public sector generally can pay more if it makes sure that the gains made in productivity and efficiency justify that. We are all aware that museums find that a somewhat more difficult factor than other areas. I am the first to accept that. I also congratulate the noble Lord on the splendid hereditary principle which clearly obtains in the Barnett family: not only is the noble Lord an ornament to the public service, his daughter clearly is too.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that noble Lords on these Front Benches in particular, and indeed noble Lords in receipt of public salaries on the Front Benches opposite, provide remarkably good value for money—except in my case, where I note that the press has made some unhelpful remarks about the size of my pay increase. I merely point out that despite that, a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords is still a great deal better value, in money terms if not in terms of actual performance, than a Cabinet Minister in another place. Perhaps we can take pride in that.
Setting aside party political controversy, it is worth noting—I hope that I spare the blushes of my noble friends on the Front Bench—that your Lordships have a dedicated Front Bench team who are worth more than every penny of their ministerial salaries.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Leader of the House sits down, perhaps I may point out that other sums of money are drawn by Ministers and those on the payroll in the form of expenses. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House may recall—perhaps it arose just before he took office—that in your Lordships' House I raised the matter of the ridiculous overnight allowance paid to Members of your Lordships' House. It is not a salary. I believe that I received the general support of Members of your Lordships' House. While I do not think that a firm undertaking was given, there was an understanding that the matter would be kept under review. Nothing has occurred since then apart from what I class as a pitiful allowances increase. If one travels to London on government allowances in any capacity other than as a Member of your Lordships' House, one receives a much larger overnight allowance. When will the Government consider some of the problems regarding Back-Benchers? Why are they restricting the increase

1279
only to those on the Front Bench? In any political party, not only those on the Front Bench but many Back-Benchers do a great deal of work.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I do not believe that noble Lords will disagree in any way with the latter part of the noble Lord's sentiments. Everyone knows the dedication with which regular attenders of your Lordships' House contribute to the work of Parliament.
However, I refer the noble Lord to a recent discussion which took place, as I am sure he knows, in the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee—the noble Lord shakes his head; the proceedings of that Committee are available to your Lordships—in which the issue was thoroughly investigated.
I believe that the matter goes a little wider than the terms of the order. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss the matter further on the Floor of the House, channels are available to him to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Construction of bequests, etc. and powers of trustees.]
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 7, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising the matter I shall repeat one or two remarks that I made in July last when the Bill was read a second time.
First, I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the wider question of the closure of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. We are not talking about that but about a much narrower matter.
As noble Lords will remember, I spoke on the matter last July at the request of my old friend and colleague, Ron Brown, the former Member of Parliament for Shoreditch and Finsbury. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will remember him well. Mr. Brown's concern was with the St. Bartholomew hospital trust, with which we are dealing in the amendments.
I wish to speak to both amendments together as one is consequential upon the other. I am merely interested in the effect of Clause 7 of the Bill and am not opposed to the merger with which the Bill deals as a whole. I wish to make absolutely certain, beyond peradventure or doubt, that the intentions of the hospital trust are continued after the merger in the same way as they were and in the manner in which the trust was originally intended to function.
The problem is that as a result of the provisions of Clause 7(1), the objectives of the charitable trust are likely to be prejudiced. At present the trustees are authorised to seek the promotion and advancement of all aspects of education at the medical college and hold the trust's assets for those purposes. Under the terms of
1280
the Bill, however, the assets of the trust will be held on different terms, as Queen Mary and Westfield College will replace the medical college as the holder of the assets. That would mean that the assets held by the trustees after the amalgamation would be applied towards the promotion and advancement of education at the amalgamated body, which will clearly not be confined to medicine and surgery, as they are at present. The crux of the matter is to ensure that the assets of the trust are devoted to medical education and not to education in general.
The Bill as it stands will permit the new body to spend its funds over a much wider range of educational functions and that would be quite wrong. The medical college building at Charterhouse Square was purchased in 1932 for the benefit of medical research with funds raised by public subscription. I believe that it is important to maintain the property for the purpose of the medical college, thereby respecting the wishes of those whose generosity originally funded the purpose.
We had a considerable debate on the matter last July and considered whether the new trustees would carry on in the same manner as at present or whether they would be tempted to change their attitude. In the course of the debate there was an interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which is to be found in Hansard for 19th July 1995 at col. 351. He drew attention to the fact that the university authorities cannot always be trusted to do what they are asked. He put it in the following words:
"I have seen a number of dubious transactions in universities. I have seen chairs in accounting converted to the study of the more esoteric crevices of economics. I have seen bequests to teach drama used to fund lectureships in English literature. And who can forget the dismay of Lord Nuffield at seeing a college which he hoped would teach practical engineering and train industrialists converted into a temple for the social studies by that wily operator Lord Lindsay of Birker?"
That was amusingly put, but it points to the fears which some people have that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said at Second Reading, although a form of words might be agreed between the merging groups which would protect the purposes of the trust, nevertheless the changes to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so amusingly drew our attention last July indicate how the best laid schemes of mice and men "gang afta-gley".
Although a form of words was hoped for and promised, I do not believe that any such form has been agreed. If I am mistaken, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will tell me. It had been suggested that the Charity Commissioners might permit changes in the trust deed in order to deal with the matter and to protect the original purpose of the trust. However, the other day I was told that the Charity Commissioners have not agreed to that course of action. Thus we are left with a situation where the form of words has not been agreed and the Charity Commissioners have not undertaken to permit the trust deed to be changed, as was hoped. That leaves us with the only possible course of action to protect the objectives of the trust: to amend the Bill in

1281
the manner which I suggest. I do not wish to meddle with the Bill, but that is the only way to ring-fence the intentions and purposes of the trustees. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it was perhaps a little disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, not to quote the next passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I too remember it with the utmost pleasure. Having made the points particularly about Lord Nuffield and Lord Lindsay of Birker, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, went on to say at the end of his speech (again at col. 351 of Hansard for 19th July 1995):
"With great respect, although it is perfectly true that bogeys do exist, this bogey is a pumpkin, and fit only to frighten tiny tots".
Therefore, I must confess that it was with some disappointment that I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, had tabled the amendments. Those who were present at the Second Reading will remember that we had a splendid debate. Several former vice- chancellors of the University of London and other universities spoke eloquently in support of the Bill. I received a message today from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that he too assures me of his fullest support.
However, since then the Bill has been painstakingly examined by a Select Committee of this House. I am pleased to see all the members of that Select Committee present here today. They reported the Bill without amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, is perfectly right. At Second Reading he and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, drew attention to the point on Clause 7 about the trust. They were concerned about what the effect of the Bill would be. The matter was examined painstakingly by the Select Committee and counsel for the objectors to the Bill produced a witness specifically to deal with the point. He was examined and cross-examined by counsel for the promoters, who also addressed the committee, and the committee reported this Bill to this House without amendment.
But it does not stop there. Only last week, the council of St. Bartholomew's Hospital medical college debated the issue again. It came to the conclusion that the Bill should not be amended. This amendment is not wanted; it is not required. As I said, it is not thought to be necessary by the council of St. Bart's medical college or by the chairman, Sir Anthony Dawson, and the trustees of the St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College Trust, or by the Charity Commission, which the noble Lord mentioned, or as I said by our own Select Committee.
Perhaps in view of the noble Lord's remarks, I might be permitted a sentence or two to say why the amendment is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the trustees, who renew themselves, retain complete discretion to continue to use their assets for the support of medicine and research within Queen Mary and Westfield College. Nothing in Clause 7 of the Bill constrains the trustees in any way whatever. It would, of course, be another matter if the Bill were to require them to give support to non-medical matters; or if the power to appoint new trustees passed away from the
1282
trustees either to the college or to some other body. But that is not the case. Indeed, the promoters of the Bill obtained counsel's opinion to the effect that the trust's powers are not widened in the way that was supposed or assumed. I believe that that is what lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. Queen Mary and Westfield College agreed with the trust that it will use its best endeavours to ensure that the trust continues to support matters relating to medicine, surgery and dentistry. A number of courses are open to it, including approaches first to the Charity Commissioners and to the courts.
I am also advised—although I entirely take the point that when laymen come to draft amendments it is not always very easy—that the amendment on the Marshalled List is defective. The noble Lord was offered discussions with the principal of the college, who wrote to him last July. He did not take up that offer. So far as I am aware, he has not discussed the matter with any of those who represent the promoters of the Bill. The fact is that the amendment moved by the noble Lord would have the effect of narrowing the powers of the trust, and the provisions would then conflict with and override to some extent the wishes of the donors who originally endowed the trust. I hope therefore that, having reflected on my remarks, on the very wide support that the Bill received at Second Reading, and on the fact that the committee examined this very point and reported the Bill without amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will not press his amendment to a Division.
Lord Annan: My Lords, since my name was invoked by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I apologise for not having observed the very wise dictum, first stated, I believe, by St. Thomas Aquinas, about being economical with the truth. I did, as it were, give hostages to fortune by indicating that there were occasions in universities when the wishes of donors were not observed. However, the wish of a donor in giving a gift is a very different matter from the solemn obligations that trustees take upon themselves. That is why I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his very detailed reply to my remarks. I must make it clear that my intention was not to oppose the Bill, as he perhaps hinted, but merely to amend it. I also sought, as I believed, to strengthen it. The noble Lord suggested that my amendment was defective in a technical sense. The noble Lord may very well be right. That happens in this House from time to time, even when parliamentary draftsmen, and not laymen, draw up amendments.
However, in view of the fact that the debates as reported in Hansard are widely read and have greater legal strength now than once they had, and in view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed.

Charities (Amendment) Bill
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down for this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Rawlings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions as to the Authority's powers]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not have the power to dispose of any undertaking unless provided for by a transfer scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to speak very briefly to this amendment. On reflection, I should probably have raised it at the Bill's previous stage in this House, but did not feel that I wanted to do so at that time. It looks rather odd to raise the point now, but as this is my only opportunity to deal with the matter, I shall do so.
My concern is that, almost separately from this Bill, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority also seems to be selling off other parts of itself. I find that in any case rather odd, but I gather that all kinds of bits of it are available for sale within what is called the government division. Typically, the sections being sold are small. The numbers of people involved range from one in something called the book drying group (I have not yet discovered what it is) through to the Dounreay engineering squad, which involves 90 people.
It seems to me that there is a serious point of principle here. First, it is not clear on what basis UKAEA is able to divest itself of these bits of its own business without a transfer scheme and in a sense without any further consideration by its ultimate owners. Secondly, there are certainly safety reasons behind my concern about parts of the business being sold off. If possible, will the Minister comment on that?
I am also worried about a matter that arose when we first debated this whole subject; namely, fragmenting the business and selling off bits and pieces. Assuming that the business as a whole is worth more than the simple sum of its parts, selling it in this fragmented way will not achieve the maximum gain for the taxpayer. I should certainly therefore like the Minister, if possible, to say a word or two on the taxpayers' interest in the commercial side of the selling off.
Finally—again I reveal my normal ignorance of these matters—I am not very clear what the process of selling off is or will be. Will it be a matter for competitive
1284
tender, therefore guaranteeing that the very best price is achieved; or will it be by negotiation, in which case the best price is not necessarily achieved? I apologise again for delaying your Lordships by raising these matters, but I believe they are worth some ministerial comment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised an important issue. One of the main points raised during earlier stages of the Bill was that AEA Technology, with which the Bill is mainly concerned, should be sold off as a whole. It now appears that some parts of AEA Technology as well as the government division may be disposed of otherwise. It would be most helpful to have some elucidation of this issue.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, when a comparable amendment was moved in Committee I hoped that I had provided a sufficiently full and satisfactory response. But perhaps I may take a moment now to go over some of the ground and clarify matters further.
A transfer scheme is the most effective and economical way of dealing with the many varied and complex issues involved in separating out AEA Technology from the authority. Most disposals by the authority, however, involve the sale of small operational units with few assets and a handful of staff. In those cases, sale by normal commercial contract is all that is required. As I advised the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in Committee, using a transfer scheme to give effect to such sales as this amendment would require would be to make something of a mountain out of a molehill. It would not prevent such disposals being made but would unnecessarily increase the administrative cost of making them. I can confirm that all sales in these matters will be on a competitive basis.
So far as AEA Technology is concerned, the divestments which have taken place or which are envisaged contain only a handful of employees. The areas involved are clearly outside the core activities of AEA Technology. It is not true that their sale would in a sense damage the synergy of the sale value of AEA Technology. I do not depart from anything that I said at an earlier stage of the Bill.
I suspect that what lies behind this concern is that, while AEA Technology is being sold off in the way that I described earlier, there are other small parts that are being disposed of that are not part of the core. But if the noble Lord is concerned to ensure that the Secretary of State should retain control over other disposals by the authority, perhaps he will be satisfied when I tell him that the Secretary of State already has extensive powers of control over the authority, including the power, under Section 3(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, to issue directions. Disposals by the authority are already subject to control under such a direction which restricts disposal without approval of the Secretary of State.

1285
We do not seek to operate a completely different system but those early disposals—maybe future disposals—which were made fall rather differently out of the core of the AEA Technology business which, as I indicated last time, we intend to sell off in a single sale.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer, which was particularly enlightening. I assumed that the statement that he made during Report stage still held. He reassured your Lordships that the Government's preferred option was to sell AEA Technology as a whole. I had not thought that the Government were back-tracking on that.
What I find most helpful—I pause to look at the Minister when I say this to make sure that he nods in agreement—is that in all these cases the Secretary of State has an involvement. Let us take the simplest possible case: selling off the book drying section employing one person. If we were to say that it is fundamental to this Government's policies that book drying in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority remains in the public sector, the Secretary of State would at least have a locus to do that. I take it that that is what the Minister has said. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Transfer schemes: supplementary provisions]:
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
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, the Minister may feel that we have been over this ground before. Certainly we attempted to persuade him earlier in the Bill that further steps were necessary to provide protection for employees in the event of redundancy as a result of privatisation. The present amendment, as will be seen, includes an element of backdating in that it attempts to protect the rights of those involved in the sales of FSD (as I think it is called) and the sale of seven people to EMS Medical.
The Minister has always argued that this is an unnecessary amendment because the employees will have the protection of the TUPE regulations. That is absolutely true. The Minister has also said that before
1286
changes could be made to contractual redundancy terms the agreement of the members or that of their unions would be required. There is wording to that effect included in the amendment before the House this afternoon.
However, as we have always pointed out, TUPE protects only at the point of transfer. Afterwards, changes can be made, and often are, frequently to the detriment of the employees. I received some further information since the last time that this issue was discussed. It shows exactly why employees are so concerned and why they feel that simply relying on TUPE will not give them sufficient protection.
I understand that 950 employees were involved in the sale by UKAEA to Procord Limited, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls Incorporated of Wisconsin, on 31st March 1995. The managing director of Procord wrote to the prospective new employees on 7th March saying:
"Procord will take over and honour all your employment rights, including redundancy entitlements—and has no redundancy plans".
The managing director of UKAEA Services Division on 31st March said:
"We are … confident that the sale offers excellent prospects to our colleagues who are now joining Procord".
Procord's human resources director repeated on 27th July that there were no redundancy plans.
However, Procord announced 150 redundances to its ex-UKAEA workforce on 10th August, citing as the reason misleading assurances as to non-guaranteed work given by UKAEA during the sale. Despite the earlier assurances, Procord now say that it plans to worsen terms and conditions of employment, including the redundancy terms, when the current redundancy programme is complete.
The Procord employees, therefore, need the protection of their redundancy terms offered by this amendment. Making any redundancy exercise cover both Procord and UKAEA will ease the process, as there will be greater possibilities for redeployment; and, as we have said on past occasions, the redundancy agreement existing for UKAEA employees lays great emphasis on the need for redeployment.
For those reasons, I again put these amendments before the House, even though, as I indicated, we have already been over this course substantially before. But I must emphasise that feedback from employees through their unions shows that there is great concern about the prospects of redundancy following privatisation and a belief that once privatisation has taken place, the employees will cease to have the protection that they had under their former redundancy terms. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this is an issue which, although important, we have discussed both in Committee and at Report stage. I had hoped that on previous occasions I had succeeded in reassuring the noble Baroness that AEA Technology employees would have all the protections in respect of redundancy provided for by the TUPE regulations and that any modifications to contractual redundancy rights will require the consent of employees.

1287
As I explained at Report stage, the width and retrospective effect of this amendment seemed to us entirely inappropriate. I repeat that our concern in the Bill is with the privatisation of AEA Technology and not with any other divestment that the authority has carried out or may carry out in the future under its existing powers. So far as concerns other divestments, the authority is in the same position as any other public enterprise. Notwithstanding what the noble Baroness said, I do not consider that there is an argument which justifies treating authority staff differently from other public servants. Indeed it would be inequitable to do so.
TUPE ensures that employees join their new employer on the same terms and conditions as they left their old one. As the noble Baroness previously suggested, it is the case that the new employer can change those terms and conditions with the employee's consent, but the same, of course, is also true of the old employer.
I cannot agree that the exceptional arrangements in this amendment are justified in the circumstances. It would be beyond the terms of the Bill to go over what Procord did or did not say. If it is intending to bring about redundancies or seek voluntary early retirement from employees, that is a matter for the company and not for me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not entirely surprised at the Minister's response, though I find it slightly disappointing. He says that there is no reason to treat these employees differently from any other employee. We made it clear in previous discussions on the Bill that we are talking of groups of people who went to work for a public authority—UKAEA—believing that it held the prospect of security for the future both in regard to pension provision and employment. Those hopes have been frustrated as a result of the Government's privatisation plans and therefore, through no fault of their own, those employees cease to have the element of security that they once had. That has been made even more clear by what is happening to Procord.
It was for those reasons that we felt that there was an obligation on the Government to make exceptional arrangements in regard to a group of employees whose security had been put at risk in their eyes as a result of government legislation and policy. However, we have failed yet again to convince the Minister that it is right and proper to accept the amendment. I regret that; but, at this late stage of the Bill, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner Baroness Turner moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("(4A) No person who, in consequence of a transfer of an undertaking ceases to be an employee of the Authority (in this paragraph referred to as a "divested employee") and who immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Authority is a participant in an Authority pension scheme, shall cease to be a participant in that scheme by reason only that he has ceased to be employed by the Authority.
1288
(4B) No divested employee who, immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Authority, is not a participant in such a pension scheme, but—

(a) is eligible to become such a participant; or

(b) would have become eligible to become such a participant on attaining an age or fulfilling a condition specified in the scheme;

shall be precluded from being or, as the case requires, becoming eligible for participation in that scheme by reason only that he has ceased to be employed by the Authority.
(4C) Sub-paragraphs (4A) and (4B) above shall have effect for transfers of undertakings occurring on or after 1 March 1995.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are revisiting this matter finally at Third Reading, mainly because the feedback we had from the organisations representing the staff is to the effect that they remain extremely concerned about the position of those who cease to be employed by the authority as a result of privatisation. The Minister will know that much of that anxiety centred upon what will happen in regard to pension rights.
It is true that, on Report, the Minister made some substantial concessions, particularly in regard to index linking. We are grateful for those and I emphasise that this afternoon. However, anxieties remain about those divested of employment rights other than under the transfer scheme provisions of the Bill.
The amendment would make entitlement retrospective to 1st March 1995. I am advised that two groups of employees were involved in sales on 31st March 1995. They are the facilities services division with 950 people involved in the sale to Procord and Harwell Dosimeters and seven people involved in the sale to EMS Medical Group. In each case a different non-index linked pension scheme was imposed.
The Government will no doubt claim, as they have done on previous occasions, that the pension packages are broadly comparable, which I understand to be the view of the Government Actuary. However, an independent actuary consulted by the unions disagreed, mainly because the GAD assumed an average rate of inflation of 5.5 per cent., whereas the experience of the 30 years from 1964 to 1994 was an average of 8.2 per cent.
The unions therefore believe that the people concerned have suffered a worsening of terms and conditions. While we all hope that inflation will not escalate, nobody can be sure. We therefore return to this issue in a final attempt to persuade the Government that it would be in everyone's interest—including taxpayers—for those people to remain in the UKAEA pension scheme. The Government argue that changing the terms of the sales would be a breach of faith with the purchasers. My information is to the effect that the purchasers were well aware of the unresolved pension issues at the time the sales were completed. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging what I said during the Report stage of the Bill. However, it will not surprise her to hear that what she now proposes in Amendment No. 3 is unacceptable as it would bring

1289
within the scope of the Bill all transfers of undertakings by the authority and make retrospective provision back to 31st March 1995.
The Bill deals with the privatisation of AEA Technology. It has been specifically designed to deal with that privatisation. I made it clear that it is unacceptable to the Government to allow employees who have moved to the private sector to continue to participate in the authority's pension schemes. It is for the private sector employer to devise arrangements which are appropriate for its employees and the operation of its business.
But let me say that the employees of other parts of the authority which may be divested need not be concerned about their future pension arrangements. It is the authority's clear policy, irrespective of employment law, that employees who move to the private sector should be able to join a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the authority pension scheme. Indeed, to do otherwise might mean that employees had a claim for constructive dismissal.
We also discussed in Committee the question of employees who have already left the authority's employment being allowed back into the authority's schemes. I explained then and repeat that it would be wholly unacceptable as it would re-open the basis on which the businesses were sold earlier this year, subsequent to the date I mentioned.
To change the basis on which parts of the authority have already been sold would create substantial uncertainty for the employees involved and potentially put their jobs at risk. Such uncertainty was in the forefront of our minds at Report stage. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I agree that we should not add to the uncertainty of employees. That would be one of the effects of this amendment and one reason why it is unacceptable.
With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Baroness understands why, for reasons of retrospective features if nothing else, the amendment is unacceptable.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. As I said earlier, we have been over this ground several times before and my reason for revisiting it was because my information was that people are still concerned about their future prospects, particularly in the area of pensions. However, I note what he says about the general principles being unacceptable to the Government. I am sorry about that. As I said earlier in connection with Amendment No. 2, people's expectations have been damaged or frustrated and uncertainties imported into their employment situation as a result of government legislation. There is therefore an obligation on the Government to do the best they can to ensure that those uncertainties are put at rest.
As we have said repeatedly, people join this kind of organisation, this type of public service, believing that they have the prospect of security of employment and of pension entitlement. During the passage of the Bill we have done our best on this side of the House to try to ensure that those fears are put at rest, at least to the
1290
best of our ability. Unfortunately, we have not always been able to persuade the Government that something needs to be done, though we are grateful to the Minister for the assurances that we received at various stages of the Bill, and in particular when we discussed pension entitlement at Report stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At earlier stages of the Bill there were full discussions both of its content and of some of the wider issues surrounding it. I was not a participant in the earliest stage but I am grateful to those on the Front Bench opposite for the way in which the Bill has been taken forward and the care with which the various issues have been debated. I also extend my gratitude to other noble Lords who participated in our discussions.
Our debates have been notable for the fact that there has been agreement on all sides of the House that AEA Technology is an important national asset with the potential to make a significantly greater contribution to United Kingdom competitiveness. Where there has been disagreement, it has been over how best to realise that potential and take forward the development of the business in a way which best serves the interests of its staff and the taxpayer. The disagreements have, in turn, provided a basis for a constructive examination of the Bill, through which the House has gained—and I have certainly gained—a better understanding of what it and the sale of AEA Technology entail.
Our main objective in bringing the Bill before Parliament has been to promote the commercial development of the business and set it on a path from which it can take full advantage of the many opportunities open to it. That is in all our interests. The more successful AEA Technology is, the more it will be able to contribute to the United Kingdom economy. Privatisation will offer AEA Technology the opportunity to build on its already impressive track record by stimulating the drive for new business, enforcing market disciplines and offering genuine commercial freedom unencumbered by the demands of government. It is not only the best way forward for the business; it is the best way forward for its customers and the staff. With those brief thanks, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his kind remarks. I had the opportunity to congratulate him only a few days on how admirably he guided us through the Gas Bill. I repeat with great sincerity those same remarks in congratulating him on how admirably he has guided us through the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
The Bill has not been to everyone's taste in the sense that to my recollection it has been largely dealt with by the Front Benches. It does not seem to have attracted the interest of many other noble Lords. One or two have

1291
joined us occasionally. However, that does not make the Bill any less important or any less interesting. The Minister has done an excellent job. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on his part. As always, I thank my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Haskel and Lady Turner, and repeat the point that, as compared with the Minister, whenever the going got tough, I turned to them and let them take over.
I was opposed to the Bill. I felt that its basis was ideological, and my view has not changed. But I have to say that as the Bill will become an Act and AEA Technology will be sold into the private sector, I would not then be curmudgeonly. My hope is then—it will be the Minister's hope as well—that the new business will succeed. Setting ideology on one side, the country depends on our businesses succeeding, and this is certainly one where the prospects are excellent. Although I would not have done it in the first place, so to speak, if we are going to do it, then I want it to work.
I have one final remark to make. We have scrutinised the Bill in detail and with our usual precision. It has been an excellent example of how noble Lords do their job. But if I could harp back to some remarks made an hour or so ago on ministerial and other salaries, when I think of the effort we have all put into the Bill, I wish occasionally that we received something more by way of material reward. I am told that I may be thanked in heaven, but occasionally there are bills to be paid as well. Leaving that frivolous note on one side, I repeat my thanks to the Minister and look forward to whatever we do in the next Session.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to join in the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This is an important measure. I believe that it has been dealt with extremely constructively and sympathetically from the Government Front Bench. Right from the start there seemed to my mind to be one overriding issue. AEA Technology, about which the Bill is mainly concerned, has been established as a very successful and highly developed consultancy body. The fear, which was expressed from all sides of the House at Second Reading and was taken up at the Committee stage, was the risk that, according to the wording of the Bill, the Government had reserved the right to dispose of it either in whole or in part. There was grave anxiety that to dispose of this admirable body in part would seriously weaken its future activities and set at nought what it has achieved so far. The Minister agreed at the Committee stage that he would come back on that point and he gave us very firm assurances on Report that it was now the Government's intention to dispose of AEA Technology as a whole. For that we are very pleased. All I can say in conclusion is that I wish it very well in its new phase of life.
On Question, Bill passed.

Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill
Report received.

Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Northesk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMIITBES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence]:
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("but not to any gutter or ditch of, or in or adjacent to, any road or path").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 2. It deals with the same point—where a ditch or a gutter is not available. The object of the first amendment is to ensure that it is not an offence for a dog to spend tuppence in a ditch or a gutter beside a path or a road in an area which has been designated by a local authority as an area in which your dog should not spend tuppence. The second amendment seeks to ensure that where a ditch or a gutter is not available, the local authority should provide within the area of land that has been designated a suitable receptacle into which the offending dog mess can be put. That is the point of both the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has moved his amendment. This is a very far-ranging—in some ways extraordinary—Bill. It creates an offence of strict liability. In other words, the owner of a dog may be liable to a swingeing fine even though he knows nothing of the offence and is in no present position to prevent it.
The fouling of sidewalks by dogs is extremely unpleasant and unhygienic. If we had any doubt about that we would have been persuaded by the clear and attractive arguments which the noble Earl put forward in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. However, as I said, the Bill goes very far indeed. It centralises the offence in place of it being the subject of by-laws. Not only that, it creates a very wide offence, leaving it to the Minister, with exiguous parliamentary control, to make exceptions. That is the old dispensing power of the Crown which was found so objectionable in Stuart times and was finally disposed of in the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights.
As I say, the Bill makes the fouling by dog faeces of any land open to the public an offence. The Committee may believe that we have much too much legislation in

1293
any event and that we have been creating new criminal offences every Session that we have had in recent times. That is sufficient to make the Committee at any rate wish to scrutinise very carefully these kinds of provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has moved this amendment at a very late stage in the Session—the Bill comes before the Committee at a very late stage—and that may weigh with him in deciding whether to ask your Lordships to divide on the matter. But that does not excuse us from passing the measure through on the nod without any question.
This is in fact a government Bill although it was moved by a Private Member in the other place and by the noble Earl himself in your Lordships' House. It bears all the marks of a Whitehall Bill, which is handed to a Back-Bencher who has been lucky in the ballot. As I say, it goes extraordinarily far in creating a very wide offence subject only to a dispensing power.
There is one other initial matter which I should mention before we come to the specific proposal in this amendment. It was raised at Second Reading by, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, its effect on foxhunting. It is the local authority which is given power under this Bill. We have had examples of local authorities inimical to foxhunting who have used powers in order to hamper that country sport. That has been done in the West Country. The decision was challenged in the High Court. The local authority appealed and failed in the Court of Appeal.
As I have said, this measure could be used—I do not doubt that it would be used—by a local authority unfriendly to foxhunting in order to allow the hampering of that country sport. The recent White Paper on rural England, which we are to debate next week and which has been very favourably received, expressly welcomes country sports. If we are to see foxhunting abolished or suppressed, it should be done openly by Act of Parliament and not by the back door through the misuse of powers under Bills such as this.
There is one other preliminary matter that I wish to mention. As the noble Earl explained at Second Reading, this Bill centralises powers that at the moment are exercised in some cases by by-laws, so that the whole matter is governed by a Whitehall Act of Parliament. Is it altogether right to assume that central direction by Act of Parliament is superior to a by-law? A by-law is a local law of the locality. It is a local authority which makes the by-law and which knows local conditions. This Bill takes account of and enforces a criminal offence, notwithstanding the wide variety of local conditions. Having given a Second Reading to this Bill, albeit in circumstances to which the Salisbury convention does not apply, we are bound to accept that by-laws shall be abrogated in place of this measure. That is an additional reason why we should regard this Bill with close scrutiny.
The recent White Paper on rural England drew attention to the desirability of local authorities, not least parish councils, having powers in the locality. After all, a by-law is a legislative subsidiarity. One of the most notable achievements of the Prime Minister at
1294
Maastricht was getting the principle of subsidiarity written into that treaty. Subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. We should apply it domestically.
Having said that, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. That excepts defecation in a gutter or a ditch. Many well-trained dogs are trained to defecate in gutters and ditches. They are channels for collecting rainwater and sweeping away waste products with it. Surely, that is a very reasonable exception. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment but, as I say, if he does not, he will need to give some cogent reasons why defecation in a gutter or ditch should be a criminal offence committed by the owner of a dog who may know nothing about the committal of the act of defecation and be in no position to prevent it. He will then be liable to a fine of £1,000 under this Bill. Under those circumstances I welcome and support this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Somehow or other, we seem to have got on to foxhunting, the abrogation of by-laws and some serious constitutional problems. I do not believe that any of those are relevant to this discussion. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this amendment. It relates to one aspect of this Bill brought from the Commons. That aspect has to be seen in the general context of the problems arising, some of which are comprised in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 of the Bill.
In many respects, the common law has for a long time recognised the absolute liability of owners for certain antics of their animals. Although a dog may have one bite—unless it is one of the dangerous dogs (as defined by statute) of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—it may not have one defecation within the meaning of Clause 1(1) without exposing
"the person who is in charge",
who is, in fact, not in charge, to prosecution by reason of the presumptions in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 1(6) of what I call "the dirty dogs Bill".
My noble friend Lord Kimball has asked me to have a look at the Bill and the amendments. I assure the Committee that no question of payment arises—although a dram or two might not be unacceptable, but if it were a bottle or a hogshead, that would have to appear on the proposed register. Will not that become a total nonsense for your Lordships' House?
Reverting to the amendment, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has ever lived in Kensington in the vicinity of Kensington Palace and whether he has ever owned a Chow dog. If he has, he will know that there is a secret meeting of Chow dogs every morning—or there was about 10 years ago. The Chow dogs leave their homes and cross the roads, having learned to do so, and then meet together in a circle (more or less) in Kensington Gardens. It is not so easy to identify individual Chow dogs because they do not take kindly to anyone handling their collars or to whatever else their identification is fixed, and they all look alike. If my noble friend were to say, "Why not keep the wretched dog at home?" I should say, "Just try keeping a Chow

1295
dog at home". It seems to me that this is a somewhat unrealistic Bill in practice and that imposing a level 3 maximum fine is assuredly making a mountain out of a molehill.
Lord Lucas: I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 which, if I understand my noble friend correctly, we are to discuss. We are not sympathetic to either of the amendments. Amendment No. 1 would exclude any gutter or ditch from land to which the offence of failing to clear up after one's dog applies. In the past it was considered acceptable for dogs to foul the gutter. Indeed, going further back it was acceptable for humans to foul the gutter. We believe that that is no longer the way in which people think. Those of us who have lived in central London for any length of time will have experienced much discomfort from finding that dogs have been in the gutter before us.
Furthermore, we do not think that it should be forbidden by the Bill for a local authority to outlaw defecation in a ditch. Dog faeces which are deposited on dry land are disposed of quickly and efficiently by invertebrates. If disposed of in a ditch, they will dissolve, cause eutrophication and destroy the wildlife in the immediate vicinity. It is generally a much less ecologically acceptable means of disposal. We do not believe that the Bill should require local authorities to exempt defecation in ditches if they feel that that would be undesirable in the particular circumstances.
Amendment No. 2 places a requirement on local authorities to provide bins for the disposal of dog faeces on designated land. We are not sympathetic to that amendment. Under the dog fouling by-laws, there has never been a requirement to provide bins. The dog faeces are the owner's responsibility, not the council's. My noble friend would presumably not seek to argue that it is alright to drop litter if there is no convenient litter bin. We think that the same argument applies to dog faeces. The adoption of the amendment would force local authorities to bespatter town and country with dog-mess bins. We do not find that prospect financially, visually or nasally acceptable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, rises to reply on the amendment, may I ask the Minister about the second amendment? Does not the Bill impose a duty on the dog owner? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, called it "absolute liability"; I call it "strict liability". They mean the same thing—that the dog owner is responsible whether or not he knows that the act has been committed and whether or not he can prevent it. I ask the Minister to answer that question with a yes or a no because I think that it can be so answered.
It is a defence if the person in charge of the dog removes the faeces into a receptacle, but there is no provision that any receptacle for that purpose shall be provided. I see that the Minister nods in acquiescence. That is how I read it. Moreover, it is no defence that there is no utensil available to the person in charge. Surely if it is a requirement to remove the faeces into a receptacle, we cannot really expect dog owners to go around carrying receptacles for that purpose. Does the dog owner also have to carry a shovel and a dust pan
1296
and brush? Does he have to provide every member of his family who might walk the dog with rubber gloves or surgical gloves? I trust that the Minister will tell us the answer to those questions given that he is proposing to brush off most of the amendments.
Finally, I note some element of schizophrenia between whichever departments or branches of departments have prepared the Bill and the White Paper which has recently been presented.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As this is Committee stage, perhaps I may say briefly that in view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, I think that my noble friend the Minister ought to be in a position to give some constructive and satisfactory reply.
Lord Lucas: I do not quarrel with most of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. Perhaps I may amplify it, however, by saying that an owner has a defence of reasonable excuse and that no offence is committed if he removes the faeces. All that I can offer the noble and learned Lord is my personal advice and suggest that he does what I do—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the noble Lord say what he regards as a reasonable excuse?
Lord Lucas: That must be for the courts to decide. I can only offer the noble and learned Lord the advice to do what I do. I carry a plastic bag in my pocket and use that to pick up the dog faeces. All that he needs to do is to be careful that it is not one of the plastic bags which supermarkets provide for packing vegetables in because they have small holes in the bottom.
Lord Mancroft: Before the noble Lord sits down, I had not meant to intervene but I cannot now resist it having heard the debate. For clarification, is the noble Lord really suggesting that a gutter or ditch is no longer the right place for a dog to empty because it has been the right place for many hundreds of years past? If it is suddenly not to be the right place, where else in London or other cities when one is not close to a park, and where it cannot be done anyway, would the dog do it?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: It does not matter where the dog does it so long as the owner clears it up.
Baroness Hamwee: We seem to be straying back to the fundamentals of the Bill rather than the amendments. While I understand that many Members of the Committee may view these things differently, as the Minister said, life moves on. There are different views as to what is now appropriate and hygienic. There are many parents of young children, as well as older people, who find it offensive to have to cope as pedestrians with dog fouling in the streets.
I am an urban person. I cannot talk about the countryside, but it is a major problem in our cities not just in the streets but in playgrounds. There are serious diseases related to dog fouling. I applaud the Minister for having taken such a firm and blunt stand with those

1297
Members of the Committee who, if I may say so without intending to be offensive, may be a little more old fashioned about these things than are some of the public.
The Earl of Northesk: Like my noble friend the Minister, I shall attempt to confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As I explained on Second Reading, one of the primary purposes of the Bill is to rationalise and simplify the existing procedure for making by-laws with respect to dog fouling. In that context, an overarching principle which has guided its drafting has been a conscious attempt to carry forward the model by-laws, for all intents and purposes unchanged, onto the face of the Bill.
Thus, there is little enough in the Bill that cannot already be achieved by a local authority under the by-law-making procedure. That is an important point for the Committee to understand. Furthermore, the Bill's provisions will be exercised locally under the direction of any regulations made by the Secretary of State, which I hope will go some way towards resolving the difficulties expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
With that in mind, the first point I should like to make with respect to Amendment No. 1 is that local authorities can already create no-fouling areas in gutters. Accordingly, far from rationalising the existing procedure, which is the Bill's desired effect, the amendments would considerably diminish the Bill's effectiveness. There is a consensus, certainly in urban areas, that dog-fouling is a serious problem that requires a more efficient and enforceable means of redress. Therefore I find myself unable to sympathise with my noble friend's amendment which, notwithstanding its good intentions, would clearly serve to undermine the procedure already in place.
As my noble friend has explained, the intent of Amendment No. 1 is to prevent local authorities being able to designate gutters and ditches as areas where the offence of dog fouling would apply while maintaining their ability to designate the carriageway, the highway, the verges and any adjacent footpath. That would create an anomalous and wholly confusing situation not merely for those upon whom responsibility for enforcement will fall but for the dog-owning public. For example, would an offence be committed if a dog's stools straddled the gutter and the kerb? Would dog owners, secure in the knowledge that they could not be prosecuted for failing to clear up their dog's mess in a gutter, seek to sweep such mess into such a location or even consciously train their dogs to do their business in gutters?
Despite some of the comments made by Members of the Committee today, faeces deposited in the gutter are not necessarily swept away. This summer's drought is evidence of that fact. I would hope that with those points in mind my noble friend might feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
In common with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2 also represents a departure from current practice with dog-fouling by-laws which, as I have already said today, the Bill is intended to replace. As my noble friend the Minister said, under current practice there is not, and
1298
has never been, a requirement to provide bins for the reception of faeces removed from the land. As my noble friend has so rightly identified, it begs the question as to whether the provision of such bins should be a requirement placed upon local authorities. Such a statutory requirement may result in dog faeces bins attracting the same level of opprobrium and ridicule that roadwork cones may have engendered in the public in the past. We would have ubiquitous bins sprouting up, with no apparent purpose or methodology underlying their location.
Accordingly, what should lie at the heart of our thinking with respect to this issue is a recognition that local authorities themselves are best placed to identify where in their areas bins may be most usefully and effectively sited. After all, they have such flexibility with regard to the provision of litter bins, and so it is entirely appropriate and reasonable that the same flexibility should persist with regard to the provision of dog waste bins.
Good legislation has about it the character of pragmatism and practicality. If the price that a local authority has to pay to enforce its dog-fouling powers under the Bill is the blanket provision of dog faeces bins, it is a price which many, if not all, authorities would be reluctant to pay. Financial considerations would represent one aspect of their thinking, but what is more important, the cost in terms of time of fulfilling such an obligation would be so high as to render the Bill unworkable. In the light of those comments, I hope that my noble friend may not feel the need to press the amendment.
Lord Kimball: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon for his support for these two amendments. We can summarise his feelings. He objects to what I would call the urbanisation of the countryside. I believe that all Members of the Committee were sympathetic when he stressed the importance of local people and the parish councils being consulted about any of these designations. I share his disappointment when he said that he found no cogent reason given as to why the amendment should not be accepted.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell for pointing out the unrealistic nature and the difficult practice required by the Bill. I hate to have to say so, but many of us on this side of the Committee found the reply of my noble friend the Minister on behalf of the Government a little disappointing. As he said, he gave us the brush-off. We shall have to return on Report to the whole problem, as the promoter has said, of there being a little flexibility on the whole question of the provision of bins.
I should hate anyone to think that we on this side of the Committee were not sympathetic to the important and realistic point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are some pretty nasty diseases, including blindness in children, associated with this problem. That is why we must proceed with care. I am most grateful to my noble friend, the Bill's promoter. Throughout our discussions he has been nothing but helpful and flexible. He has tried to meet our objections. It is because of that spirit and what he has already said

1299
about preparing to be flexible about the provision of dog shit bins, as against litter bins, that with the Committee's permission I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment and come back to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("3") and insert ("1").
The noble Viscount said: I was not able to speak on Second Reading, but I accept the need to rationalise the law on dog fouling and, above all, to promote responsible dog ownership. The Bill makes it an offence to fail to pick up dog excrement in a designated area. The purpose of the amendment is to lower the proposed maximum fine set at level 3 (currently £1,000) to level 1 (currently £250).
The amendment has been tabled because it is felt strongly on both sides of the Committee that the fine is absurdly high for the gravity of the offence and in relation to other offences which it effectively devalues. For example, it is the same maximum fine as that for kerb crawling, causing harassment, alarm, or distress, cock fighting, failure to keep a dangerous dog under control, throwing missiles or chanting racist abuse at a football match, placing a wire or rope across a highway, throwing stones or missiles at a train or killing an animal with a crossbow or automatic weapon. It is a higher fine than that for vagrancy, breaking up a public meeting or animal offences such as failing to inspect traps or selling a pet to a child. We consider that the maximum fine should be at level 1 on a standard scale, with a maximum fine of £200.
It has been suggested that doubling the £500 maximum fine allowed under the by-law system is justified because it brings dog fouling into line with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act for litter offences. While we may be dealing with an aspect of our environment, we are not dealing with litter but a natural function of our dogs. Littering is a flagrant and intentional abuse of the environment, while it is not so clear that the same is true of dog defecation. As W. S. Gilbert said in "The Mikado":
"Let the punishment fit the crime".
I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I briefly support the amendment, largely for the reasons that I have already given. There must be a proportionality about punishment. Here we are dealing with an absolute liability or a strict offence. That is why I bored the Committee with the Chow dog secret society in Kensington Gardens. The owners are simply not there; they are not in charge. That presumption works harshly. I hope that the Minister is able to accept the amendment which in a situation of strict liability for a first offence must surely be sufficient.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: This is a very sound amendment. There are two or three points which the Committee may wish to consider. First, anybody whose dog may have committed the offence could report
1300
someone else to avoid paying the fine. Secondly, £200 is possibly more acceptable to a lot of people's pockets than £500. Finally, there is something called a "threat". Someone may see another person's dog defecating and say, "I am going to report you". The person whose dog has defecated could turn around and say, "Right, I am going to smash up your car. I am going to break your windows". There are many aspects to be considered. This whole legislation is being rushed through far too quickly. I think this is a very good amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Minister will treat the last contribution of the noble Lord as wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: We do not feel that level 1 is a suitable level for the fine in this case. Indeed, we do not feel that level 1 is suitable for any new offence. It is not being proposed or thought of currently for any new offence of any description. That is because in practice it produces actual fines of a derisory level. We are talking about the maximum level, not the fine which will be levied by the courts. In those circumstances, we cannot support the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: As the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, explained, the effect of the amendment would be to reduce the maximum penalty for the offence of dog fouling from level 3 to level 1. I indicated on Second Reading my belief that the maximum fine at level 3 is appropriate for the offence in Clause 1. Notwithstanding the eloquent arguments of Members of the Committee, I retain that belief.
It is no doubt to my discredit that I did not put this matter into proper perspective on Second Reading. But I hope now to redress that error on my part.
First and foremost, the current maximum fine under existing by-laws is set at level 2. To my mind it would be foolish to seek any diminution from that established precedent, if only because it would act as a disincentive to local authorities availing themselves of the powers which the Bill would grant them. In effect, a maximum level 1 penalty could mean that local authorities would continue to use by-laws which would negate one of the Bill's primary purposes; that of rationalising and simplifying existing procedure.
Of course I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord with regard to the consistency of levels of fines. It is important that like should be accorded the same treatment as like. However, comparisons are odious. In this context, there is a very real sense in which those who have the misfortune inadvertently to encounter a dog's mess are quite literally subjected to harassment, alarm or distress.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that there is a currency of opinion which believes that failure to clear up after a dog is worse than dropping litter, despite the arguments of the noble Viscount. However, the latter offence carries a maximum penalty at level 4 rather than level 3. Perhaps more telling is the fact that failure to have a collar or identification on one's dog when in a public place carries a maximum penalty at level 5.

1301
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that the Bill seeks to establish also a system of fixed penalty notices, currently set at £10 for the offence of fouling. In such circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that only the most persistent and recalcitrant offenders will find themselves prosecuted in court and thereby expose themselves to the maximum penalty at level 5. Of course it will be for the courts to determine the actual level of fine, which in all likelihood will be rather less than the maximum in the vast majority of cases, due heed being paid to the particular circumstances of the case.
With those points in mind, I do not perceive that the proposed regime is anything other than utterly fair. I suggest respectfully to the noble Viscount that level 3 is the appropriate level for the maximum fine. On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Viscount will concur with me and withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: I thank all Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment, and in particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his comment.
I thank also my noble friend for his comments. I agree with him that the legislation has been brought forward too quickly, without proper consideration. However, having said that, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for his very full reply to my amendment. I shall study his reply carefully but I believe that it makes sense. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("not") in line 5.
The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 1(6)(c) a person may not use the excuse that he was unaware that his dog had defecated in a designated area. That seems unacceptably draconian. While it is true that dog owners should reasonably be expected to be responsible for all the activities of their dogs, there can be few criminal offences committed completely unwittingly by a person. Such a person would commit such an offence even if he had known that his dog had defecated in a designated area and had taken steps to remove the faeces.
We have all known of occasions when our beautifully trained dogs have run off after a rabbit, or even in an urban area after a dog of the opposite sex. Having failed in its quest, it then defecates out of one's sight. Should the owner whose dog commits such an act really be liable to prosecution?
The justification for removing that excuse was made by the noble Earl on Second Reading when he attempted to define what is meant by responsible dog ownership. He said:
"The rationale is quite simple. Responsible dog owning is about having control of one's pet at all times. By implication, if one is unaware of its actions one does not have adequate control of it".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 848.]
I am not certain whether that definition is applicable to dog owning in all circumstances. Many owners in rural areas lose sight of their dogs and thus, under this definition,
"would be deemed to lose adequate control of it".
Sadly, I fear that we have another instance here of the towns preaching to the countryside. The Pet Advisory Committee has suggested that the being unaware of defecation excuse would become a common defence and that prosecutions would become difficult and costly.
When we are considering legislation our purpose is not simply to ensure that the offence will result in many prosecutions, but to protect the rights of individuals. One could envisage existing Acts of Parliament which would make legislation more effective; but, thankfully, we do not legislate for that purpose alone and consequently live our lives according to rules and not terror. The amendment would remove that dangerous element from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I was going to ask a question on subsection (5) of the clause when we came to discuss clause stand part, but I think that it arises squarely on the amendment moved so ably by the noble Viscount. As I read the Bill, it creates an offence of strict liability. As your Lordships know, most criminal offences require some mental element. But, occasionally, there are offences of strict liability where someone is held to be liable notwithstanding the fact that he knows nothing about the offence and can do nothing presently to prevent it. A typical example is selling alcoholic drinks to someone who is under age. The owner of the public house is responsible for his servants observing that rule, notwithstanding that he knows nothing of the offence and cannot really, except by general ukase, prevent it.
However, that is something very different from the Bill. Are we really justified? Is the offence such an enormity that one has to create another offence of absolute or strict liability? That is the question that I had intended to ask the noble Earl, but I suspect that he might prefer it to be answered by the Minister.
Lord Lucas: As the noble Viscount indicated, we are concerned that, if the amendment were accepted, all a dog owner would have to do is ensure that he was not around when his dog defecated. We believe that that would probably defeat the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the Minister say whether or not the Bill covers the following situation? Let us suppose that a dog owner allows his wife son or daughter to walk the dog and defecation takes place on land—albeit, we now know, in a gutter or a ditch—is he to be liable? Would he be liable to a level 3 fine of £1,000? Even though the owner knows nothing about it and merely allows a member of his family to walk the dog, is he to be held liable?
Lord Lucas: My understanding of the Bill—and I am open to correction by my noble friend—is that the person who is liable for the fine is the person in charge of the dog at the time. If a defecation happened in a situation where the person in charge of the dog could

1303
not possibly have been aware of it, that person would have access to the defence of reasonable excuse, though I cannot prejudge how that would go in the courts.
Lord Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may deal first with the query from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. In the scenario that he painted, the actual owner of the dog—that is, the man who is permitting a member of his family to walk the dog—would not actually be liable. The situation is covered under Clause 1(6)(a) which states:
"For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person who habitually has a dog in his possession shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog".

I hope that that satisfactorily answers the question posed by the noble and learned Lord.
Notwithstanding the lucid comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, when moving the amendment, I am unconvinced that this underlying principle of dog ownership should be in any way compromised or subordinated by the amendment. Viewed pragmatically, Clause 1(1)(a) provides the very wide defence of "reasonable excuse for failing" to clear up after one's dog on designated land. The purpose of Clause 1(6)(c) is simply to clarify that the person in charge of the dog in question at the time could not plead ignorance as to its whereabouts, whether or not as part of a reasonable excuse defence. That strikes me as being eminently sensible and appropriate as a mechanism for promoting responsible dog ownership.
If accepted, the amendment would undermine another of the Bill's primary purposes—that of making the rather untidy and cumbersome corpus of dog fouling by-laws very much easier to operate. An owner could simply turn his back and say that he did not know about the defecation, thereby diminishing the enforceability and effectiveness of the legislation.
I am conscious, too, that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Soulsby and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and others, referred to strays on Second Reading. While the issue of dog registration is of course beyond the remit of the Bill, as drafted it provides local authorities with the ability to take action against owners of so-called "latch-key dogs"—that is, those who let their dogs roam the streets and foul at will. Acceptance of the amendment would render local authorities powerless against such irresponsible strands of dog ownership.
I am also conscious that part of the problem here concerns the distinction regarding the urban environment, the built environment and the countryside. That is a particularly difficult question to answer in this context. I hope that the noble Viscount will actively seek to bear with me on the matter and perhaps we may return to it on Report. I understand the noble Viscount's concerns, but I believe that it would be quite an easy span for us to bridge if we could sit down and have a chat about it.
Responsible dog owners do know what their dogs are doing, certainly in urban situations. Therefore, that aspect of the Bill will not affect them. It is aimed at irresponsible dog owners who do not care that their dogs
1304
foul public places which then have to be cleaned at public expense. Why should not such irresponsible owners be called to account for the fouling by their dogs and the offence it causes?
In conclusion, to press the amendment would be akin to suggesting that motorists who have committed the offence of speeding should have the defence of pleading that they did not see or were ignorant of the signs indicating the speed limit. Clearly such a state of affairs would be undesirable, as indeed would be the case with the Bill before us today. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw the amendment, especially in the light of my stated intention to discuss the matter further with him prior to the Report stage.
The Earl of Harrowby: Before my noble friend sits down, would he kindly explain to me what would happen if, under Clause 1 (6)(a), the person in charge of the dog were below the age of criminal responsibility?
The Earl of Northesk: My noble friend has rather caught me on the hop. Perhaps I may consult on the issue and get back to him.
Viscount Allenby of Mediggo: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, if I may put it in a slightly succinct way, has opened a can of worms. Basically we have two situations before us: the first is the urban environment where I quite understand the concern about people who allow their dogs to drop faeces all over the place thus rendering it very unhygienic.
My mind then turns to a farm which is owned by a local council, which could be a designated area, where there are chickens, cows and rabbits running around yet the poor old dog has to be locked up because it is not allowed to perform its natural function. But having said that, the promoter of the Bill has made a sound defence of it, and with his offer of discussing it further—we should do that—I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I indicated that I had one question to ask on subsection (6). I raised this matter when we were discussing the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. If some of us were less than enthusiastic about the reply that we received from the Minister and from the noble Earl who is the promoter of this Bill, that is neither here nor there: we were answered. However, I wanted to raise another question as regards subsection (5) and that is the dispensing power given to the Minister. Presumably the department which is so enthusiastic about this Bill has some idea of what exceptions the Minister will make by ministerial order. I believe that on Second Reading the question of sheepdogs was raised. Presumably they would constitute

1305
an exception. One would hope that was the case at any rate. Will the noble Earl—even if he passes this matter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—indicate what other exceptions the department has in mind? Your Lordships are entitled to know that when the Minister is asking for a wide dispensing power from an Act of Parliament which itself goes very far and very wide.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I realise that the previous amendment was not moved but I wish to refer to a couple of points. I repeat that there are 7.5 million dogs in the country and there are 5 million dog owners. I understand that education in primary schools is leading young people to want to have even more dogs and that will promote a greater demand for puppy farms. Puppy farms have an appalling reputation, certainly as regards what happens over the Christmas and Easter periods. When stock has not been sold it is put on a slag heap. Will the Minister confirm whether or not it is intended to promote such education in primary schools?
I was positively shocked at the Minister's earlier response as regards picking up faeces in a plastic bag. I wish to know whether the Minister will also carry gloves in his pocket so that he can put his gloves on before he puts the faeces in a plastic bag. We need to understand that the faeces constitute only one part of the chain of disease. I believe another noble Lord referred to this matter. Faeces carry worms and eggs, and the eggs last a long time and are sticky. I referred to my next point on Second Reading. The eggs I am discussing stick to children's hands. We know that children touch their bicycles which may have come into contact with dog faeces. Children also touch their shoes which may have been in contact with dog faeces. In that way children may contract the disease ocular larva which causes impaired vision. I of all people know about impaired vision because I suffer from severe visual impairment. I beg all Members of the Committee to consider this matter of dog faeces with greater care. The Canine Crisis Council has proved that dog faeces affect young children to a far greater extent than adults because young children cuddle dogs far more than do adults. I referred to this matter earlier. The cuddling of dogs is being promoted in primary schools. However, we need to be more aware of the problems this may cause.
I have already spoken about the materialistic approach of puppy breeding. We need to consider the materialistic aspect as regards sponsoring bins in which dog faeces can be put. The Government cannot shake their heads and say they do not want to force councils to adopt that measure. The Committee will be aware that not only dog owners but also cat owners and goldfish owners pay council tax. However, it is the dog owners who are being addressed by this Bill. There are 5 million dog owners in this country. To deal fairly with this matter we must consider it as part of a much larger Bill. As I have said before, this matter needs to be covered in a dog registration Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, we need to cut down on the amount of legislation we produce.
Certain European countries have regulations on the use of "poop scoops". We rely on encouraging inadequately funded local councils to clean up dog
1306
faeces. We never stop hearing about the inadequate finances of the National Health Service but why increase the burden on that service through dog transmitted diseases? Human toxocariasis may result in blindness. However, dog faeces may also transmit a disease which affects the liver. It is not just sheep whose livers are affected by certain eggs; human beings may also suffer this fate.
Tomorrow this Chamber will consider the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. Surely we cannot believe that disease carried by domestic dogs will not be transmitted to wild mammals and vice versa. The Government have studied the live transportation of calves and sheep—let us not forget horses, donkeys and various other animals—but surely we as a nation should clean up our own mess at home before bragging about our environmental commitment and our concern for the fair treatment of animals. Dog registration has been pooh-poohed—if I may coin a pun—by those in another place as well as in this place. However, that would have been a vital plank of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act if it had been implemented at that time. With such registration being urged by the RSPCA, the Canine Crisis Council and the Pet Advisory Committee, and with the Government boasting of their willingness to listen and to act on advice, let us see dog registration in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Lucas: I shall deal first with the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He will be aware that we are extremely sceptical on the subject of dog registration. That is likely to remain the case.
I am concerned about what the noble Lord said about practice in primary schools. I am not aware of anything of the kind happening. I will ask my colleagues and I will write to the noble Lord if I find any evidence of that.
So far as concerns picking up faeces in a plastic bag, if the noble Lord will provide an acceptable substitute—say a pile of crumpled up £10 notes—I shall demonstrate how it is done without it touching your hand.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I am afraid that I cannot give the comfort that he asks. We are committed to consulting widely on how the power might be used.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Surely the department must have some idea of how it proposes to use the power. It cannot be asking for a wide power just for the hell of it in the hope that it will come in useful at some later stage.
Lord Lucas: No. The Government's objective is to create regulations which will solve any problems that there might be in practice as regards working dogs. That would cover sheepdogs, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. It would also cover hunting dogs.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Designation orders]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Allenby I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 7 in my name.
While welcoming the broad principle of this Bill, I am sure your Lordships will agree—and many have mentioned tonight the speed with which this Bill is going through—that we must be very wary of being pressured into reneging our responsibility as the revising Chamber simply because the legislative timetable is tight, however many pressure groups clamour for our inaction. This is especially the case with Bills which involve animals (a similar situation will no doubt arise tomorrow with the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill) when arguments are often emotive and passions run high. Surely the time available for the consideration of a Bill should have no effect on whether we scrutinise it properly. We should not pass Bills which we consider flawed simply because a flawed Bill is worth, to some, more than no Bill at all.
Although this Bill does not deal with dangerous dogs but rather nuisance dogs, we should be aware that the Dangerous Dogs Act passed through this House in a hurry and many people have suffered injustice as a result. I fear that this Bill, as it stands in its present form, also grants unacceptably draconian powers and will give rise to cases of injustice.
The purpose of the amendments is to place a firm duty on local authorities to consult with local people when designating land by description for the purposes of this Bill as well as ensuring that the Secretary of State shall, by regulations, prescribe the form of orders made under Clause 3(1).
At present Clause 3(2) gives local authorities wide new powers to designate land by description as well as by special reference. Under Clause 1, any land can be designated which is
"open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access".
That is a substantial increase in remit, as opposed to the existing by-law regime, as well as making designation far easier. It is not only anomalous but potentially dangerous that these increased powers given to local authorities should be coupled with the removal of the statutory duty for these authorities to consult those who may be affected.
The honourable Member from another place who introduced this Private Member's Bill has himself said:
"there will be a need to advertise these proposals locally to enable representations to be made".
But he continued:
"However, experience with by-laws has shown that poop scoop proposals are very rarely controversial and do not normally attract objections".
That may well be the case in urban areas where there are extensive footpaths to be fouled and where residents vote with their feet. Scooping poops might prove more controversial within rural communities where pooping without scooping is not yet regarded as a heinous practice which might be stamped out. I dare to say that many people in these areas are not prepared to walk around with a pooper scooper to avoid being prosecuted.
Whether that is the case or not, local consultations will be vital and it is surely no argument to drop the duty to consult simply because consultations have not met with objections in the past. Powers have been increased here and consultations are all the more vital. They must be a duty.
Such an important defect in the Bill should not be left to the Secretary of State to correct. That is certainly the case with this Bill, as there is not even a statutory requirement that he should prescribe by regulations what procedures the local authority is to use in designating land. The first of the amendments addresses this issue directly: it makes such prescriptions by the Secretary of State a duty.
At Committee stage in the other place the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough argued that this point was:
"running with the hare—because most of these areas are unlikely to be designated".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee C, 14/6/95; col. 26.]
But, unlikely though it may seem, we could envisage cases where essentially urban-minded councillors could unleash essentially urban views of dog defecation on rural areas.
For farmers and country people generally, the concept of responsible dog ownership, as applied in the Bill, is simply not applicable. That was defined by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, at Second Reading when he said:
"Responsible dog owning is about having control of one's pet at all times. By implication, if one is unaware of its actions one does not have adequate control of it".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 848.]
Quite often, the owners of dogs who exercise them in rural areas lose sight of them, and this by definition would have been deemed to lose "adequate control" of their pet. The same goes for the exercising of more than one dog at a time.
It may be argued that the question of "shall" or "may" which the amendment addresses is a matter of semantics. The Pet Advisory Committee has suggested that it is already clear that the Secretary of State must lay out detailed regulations by which designation orders will be made and the means by which they will be publicised and consulted upon. However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill as it stands which makes it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with procedural advice in making designations either specifically or by description. Neither is there any statutory duty on the Secretary of State to include within regulations provision requiring local authorities to publicise the making and effect of any proposed designation. Without that statutory duty there is no assurance that local consultations will take place, and these will be of vital importance.
These amendments would go some way in offering people the opportunity to voice such concerns should designation be planned. Although they are simple amendments they are necessary amendments given the sweeping new powers that the Bill gives authorities to designate far wider areas with far greater ease as "no poop without scoop" areas.
I have received support from all of your Lordships on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We have no position one way or the other on these two amendments. I can confirm that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers referred to in Amendment No. 6 to make regulations if the Bill is enacted. The Government consider it important to set out the form of designation order and procedure to give some consistency across the country.
On Amendment No. 7, I can confirm that if the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State intends to include provision in the regulations for the local authority to publicise the making and effect of the orders referred to in the amendment. He intends that that shall be the case whether the land is to be designated specifically or by description.
The Earl of Northesk: As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, correctly identified, the Bill, as drafted, does not include any requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the form of designation orders and the procedure to be followed by local authorities in the making of such orders. Nor is there any provision that the local authority must follow the form and procedures set out in any regulations. I accept therefore that if the Secretary of State did not use that power, local authorities could establish their own forms and procedures. That would be wholly undesirable not only because it would raise inconsistencies but also because many local authorities might feel that it creates uncertainty as to what is appropriate. Therefore, they might be reluctant to use the new powers. Clearly that is antipathetic to one of the Bill's primary purposes: to simplify and rationalise the existing by-law procedure.
The Minister explained, and it is my understanding, that the Secretary of State intends to make regulations should the Bill be enacted. Nevertheless, I can see upon reflection that it may well be better to amend the Bill to ensure that such regulations are made as a matter of course. Therefore I do not seek to oppose Amendment No. 6.
Equally, the noble Lord is quite right in his insistence that there should be publicity in the case of designations of land by description. I would go further. Local people should be forewarned that the local authority intended to produce any legislation which would require people to clear up after their dogs. As the Minister again explained, and as I am sure in my own mind, should the Bill be enacted, the Government would include requirement for publicity in the regulations. Unfortunately, as drafted the amendment seeks to ensure that the regulations cover this matter but only in as much as they relate to designations of land by description. I believe that the provision should apply to all categories of land that the local authority may seek to designate. Furthermore, I am uncertain whether the amended clause would be technically deficient because of the retention of the words "in particular" after the added words. Thus I regret that I cannot support the wording
1310
of Amendment No. 7 although I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted by my indication of approval for the principle of ensuring local publicity.
Lord Palmer: I am sure that many noble Lords are delighted that the noble Earl has been able to accept Amendment No. 6. I am most grateful to him, as I am sure are many Members of the Committee. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Municipal Crematoria: Privatisation
5.24 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington rose to move To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order in question is contained in the regulations which were laid before Parliament on 2nd August of this year during the holiday period. Those regulations offered an inducement to local authorities to sell their crematoria into private ownership.
This is the first occasion where there has been a public debate on what I consider to be an important matter of public concern. In opening the debate, perhaps I may say that a measure of support has been given to the position that I take by the Consumers' Association, the National Consumer Council, the Society for Independent Funeral Directors and the National Funeral College, of which I was the founder chairman. They have all issued press releases or have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Why does this issue matter? In order to answer that question, I have to go a little into the history of the industry. In this context, it can appropriately be called that, especially during the past year. The most radical reorganisation of the funeral industry has already taken place and, unless a stop is put to that process, it looks as though it will gather pace in the years to come.
What used to be (apart from the Co-op) a series of local funeral businesses, has been invaded by big business and big money. Since August 1994 a large American company called Service Corporation International has suddenly burst on the British scene. It is big business as is shown by the fact (if one needed more evidence) that the banker for the SCI is

1311
J. P. Morgan, the legendary Wall Street banking giant. The kind of money involved was demonstrated recently when the same company, which is large in Australia, too, bought up the largest funeral undertaking in France for a reputed 422 million dollars. In Britain, amalgamations were proceeding apace before SCI arrived. The Great Southern Group and Plantsbrook were themselves two amalgamations which covered a large number of local funeral directors. The listing of local funeral directors owned already by SCI, but all keeping their own family name, fills 14 pages of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report published a few months ago on the mergers of Plantsbrook and SCI. The listing covered about 700 outlets of a large number of funeral directors, mainly in London and southern England, but represented also in other parts of the country. Altogether, the funeral directors which are owned by the SCI company already control some 15 per cent. of the funeral market in the country. SCI, in addition to that, already owns 15 crematoria in the country.
The danger, as I see it, is that SCI will take advantage of the new government regulations—about which I shall say more in a moment—in order to create a further series of local monopolies and raise prices against consumers. The poorest consumers are the ones who will suffer the most if that happens. They are the ones who find the burden of the expenditure on funerals hardest to bear at the moment. It all matters a great deal because bereaved people at the time of the death are peculiarly vulnerable to exploitation and to being guided by funeral directors and others to a course of action which may well not be in their best interest.
I can say that, fortunately, the danger was recognised by the Government in the shape of the Department of Trade and Industry, when it asked the Monopolies Commission to report on the local monopolies in the hands of SCI. The report was published in May this year. The Monopolies Commission amply confirmed the Government's view that there is a very present danger in localities where SCI's share of the market ranges from 29 per cent., as it does in Eastbourne, to 51 per cent., as it does in Battersea. The Monopolies Commission stated in its summary that:
"SCI may be expected generally to raise prices excessively, i.e. by more than would be possible in a competitive market, in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities … SCI's failure to disclose to consumers the ownership of its branches will add significantly to the inability of consumers in the determined area to make informed decisions … Choice of funeral director will be materially reduced in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities".
The Monopolies Commission pointed out that, since the ownership of many funeral directors by SCI is hidden by the retention of the old family names, it can quite often be the case that people who are seeking an alternative quote for a funeral go to another firm thinking it really is a competitor, without knowing that it is in fact in the ownership of the same funeral director as they went to in the first place.
In the Monopolies Commission report particular disquiet was expressed about the power the SCI would have to take advantage of vertical monopolies—it already has in some places—and would have on a larger
1312
scale when it owns both more funeral director businesses and local crematoria and can channel very many funerals carried out by its own funeral directors to its own crematoria.
The DTI accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, and on 25th May Jonathan Evans, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the DTI, said of the acquisition by SCI of Great Southern and Plantsbrook:
"I accept the MMC's findings that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest in respect of the supply of both funeral directors and cremation services".
The DTI therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from the SCI that it would reduce its market share by divesting itself of some of its funeral directors and also that it would not operate a two-tier pricing system for its crematoria which favoured its own funeral directors. SCI was asked to give those undertakings by 25th August or be forced to comply with the DTI requirements. But the SCI, far from submitting to the DTI, has brought a judicial review case against the Secretary of State and the Monopolies Commission and is seeking to be relieved of the requirements of the DTI. In this, the SCI has shown its powerful muscle and that it will not lie down quietly.
However, at the same time as the SCI is in dispute with one government department, it is being given a mighty fillip by another government department. The Department of the Environment has made this handsome offer to every local authority with crematoria. It has said that from 1st January next year until 30th June in the following year local authorities that sell their crematoria will be able to keep 90 per cent. of the proceeds instead of the usual 50 per cent., the rest going to redemption of debt. The Department of the Environment has, from one point of view, chosen a good moment because it is also requiring local authorities to update their crematoria in order to comply with new environmental standards but has not offered even a hint of financial support from itself to local authorities.
So the paradoxical situation that the Government have got themselves into is that the DoE is persuading local authorities to sell—and that means largely selling to the SCI, which is the only large bidder likely to be in the market. But the more it succeeds with the Department of the Environment behind it, the more worried the DTI, the Monopolies Commission and the Office of Fair Trading will presumably become. Surely, at least until the outcome of the judicial review is known and it is clear that the SCI is going in future to avoid creating local monopolies, the Government should get their act together and withdraw the order in so far as it affects crematoria. The Government would not then speak with two voices. I hope that the Minister will today be able to reassure us that they will not continue to do so.
I have been speaking about local monopolies as they could affect consumers, but losing the crematoria could be bad for local authorities too. Crematoria are ordinarily profitable and the proceeds from them can be used to subsidise or cover some of the costs of cemeteries which are not profitable. But, as a result, the option can be kept open for the 30 per cent. or so of

1313
people who prefer burial to cremation. Give up crematoria to the profit-making sector and more cemeteries could become wastelands instead of useful public spaces. The Department of the Environment has been very keen on preserving and creating good, useful public spaces; in some cases grants are forthcoming for the purpose. But in this case it is waging a battle against itself.
But there is a more important issue than that. The SCI is a commercial company with a vast pre-paid funeral business in the United States and Australia and a very large and growing one in the United Kingdom as well. It is a very profitable company. As it gains more control, commercialisation will extend and all the money it makes out of funeral merchandise, as the company calls it, and the add-ons of memorial books, ashes, caskets and other forms of memorialisation all over Britain will go to augment the profits of the American shareholders.
Even more important than that is that the fundamental religious significance of funerals could be further dimmed by a sickening array of money-making devices and more and more use made of chapels on funeral directors' premises in order to speed up the through-put of crematoria.
I hope, in conclusion, that the Minister will realise that what appears a simple matter is not simple at all and that he will at least give some time for further consideration and debate before the order comes into force as it affects crematoria. I beg to move.
Moved, To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.—(Lord Young of Dartington.)
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again, I rise to my feet in this Chamber as a total novice in a subject. I suppose that it will stop happening, but it does not seem to have stopped happening yet. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, told us, we received a large number of briefing papers, and I have been able to talk to one or two people who were very helpful. The noble Lord has done us a service in drawing this matter to our attention. In one way or another, it affects all of us.
There are three salient points to make. First, the regulations to which the noble Lord referred provided a financial incentive in the form of a set-aside holiday for the sale of various sorts of locally owned property, including crematoria. The press release issued by the Government when those orders were published made it perfectly clear that the purpose was to enable local authorities to transfer their assets in this field into the private sector. The second fact affecting local authority attitudes is the cost of bringing the conditions in crematoria up to a standard that enables them to meet new EC regulations. The anticipated cost is
1314
approximately, on average, £400,000. Thirdly, although most crematoria are currently in municipal hands there is severe reason to fear that their sale could, as the noble Lord told us, result in a most undesirable monopoly in what might be called the death business.
That monopoly would be of a peculiarly dangerous sort. It would affect not merely the ownership of crematoria but the ownership of the businesses that advise bereaved people at their most vulnerable moment regarding what sort of service they should choose, where that service can best be achieved and so on. Those of us who know anything about the American way of death know that there are reasons to fear the import of the American approach into what has been a service run purely as a service to people. It has had certain values in terms of access, reasonable prices and so on.
The only body that wrote to me expressing a view that we should not do as the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests and reconsider the regulations was the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have a certain sympathy with the point of view expressed. The association does not wish the regulations to be revoked: understandably enough in the current financial circumstances in which the whole of local government operates, it welcomes the flexibility that the set-aside holiday gives. Obviously, the authorities also fear the need to spend £400,000 of capital per crematorium on improvement. It would be very difficult for them to manage such an expenditure during a period when not only revenue expenditure but capital expenditure is under very severe control.
However, I feel that the approach of the metropolitan authorities to this matter is not quite the best one. As I say, I understand their point of view very well given my own background, but the flexibility that they seek could be far better granted to local authorities by allowing them in general terms to spend more of their capital gains for the benefit of their local populations rather than putting it aside against, in some cases, almost an imaginary amount for debt. Therefore, although I have a certain sympathy with my fellow members of local authorities, it seems to me that public policy is another matter altogether. There are very good reasons to suppose that traditionally managed municipal crematoria may well serve bereaved people, who are very vulnerable, better than would a very competitive private sector anxious to sell them so-called add-ons in addition to the basic service.
I therefore have a number of questions for the Government. Do the Government still recognise, as they did in response to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young (I shall not repeat all the points made by the noble Lord; the House does not want to hear them twice) that there is a serious danger of a growing monopoly in the funeral business? That is not just because a large number of crematoria could be owned by single, or very few, companies, but also because those companies may—and in one case certainly will—be owners of funeral directors' companies. That question was given additional point by a fact that I did

1315
not know; namely, that the American company involved is going to judicial review in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decision.
If the Government feel that such a danger exists, how do they propose that it is to be avoided? Do the Government further recognise that there is a legitimate fear that vulnerable people will be over-burdened with expense for funerals? That is already a major worry for large numbers of people as their own lifetime nears its end or the lifetime of their parents comes to an end. Do the Government recognise a possible danger that people may be, as it were, bludgeoned, persuaded, into spending far more than they need do for what is already an extremely expensive event?
In the press release to which I referred, the Department of the Environment stated:
"Before deciding on any sale, authorities can be expected to satisfy themselves of continuing quality of service for local residents and competitive pricing. Authorities can also be expected to require that, prior to any transfer, the private owner agrees to operate within the standards set down by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities".
How does the Minister anticipate that local authorities can ensure that those things happen once they have transferred their municipal crematoria to a private owner?
My last question refers again to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The noble Lord suggested not so much that the order be revoked but that the Government might be able to reconsider that part of the order that refers specifically to crematoria. Is that a feasible possibility, and would the Government be willing to do that?
5.49 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, first, I must declare a financial interest. I am chairman of a crematoria company. For information, it is not SCI. I am also honorary president of the Cremation Society of Great Britain.
The views that I hold are not necessarily those of my party. In view of what I just said, it will be of no surprise to the House that I have no objections to crematoria being owned or operated either on behalf of a municipal authority or by the private sector. In fact, the first crematorium in this country was operated by a private company. Over the years, in the vast majority of cases the private sector has set a high standard which has been an example to local authorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the main concerns would be if there were monopoly ownership of crematoria in any given area; and—which is just as important—if the crematoria were owned by the same company that had a monopoly of funeral directors in the vicinity. It is a problem that could arise in the private sector. It has been widely reported and is of great interest to those in the industry.
The effect that SCI has had in this country is a source of great concern to all involved in the industry. It is not only of concern to local authorities. Certainly, there has been an effect on private companies throughout the country. Not only my company but the majority of private, individual companies, have been watching the
1316
progress of SCI extremely carefully and closely. I recognise the danger that freedom of choice and quality could be affected. It is a situation that must be monitored and I favour that course. I welcome the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission mentioned by the noble lord, Lord Young, and in principle I and my professional society agree with much of what he has just said.
However, it must be borne in mind that a number of local authorities welcome private companies and are quite happy for them to be involved in their activities, not only taking over and acquiring local authority crematoria but also managing them on their behalf. That could be a way forward also.
I do not agree that what is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is the right way to go about the problem. Surely it must be the decision of the local authorities themselves. I believe that the private and public sectors can and do work together well for the benefit of the public.
Finally, the Cremation Society of Great Britain is very sensitive to the problem and is very concerned over any likely monopoly situation. That certainly is not what members of the society want. In fact it is a situation that we strongly oppose.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington for raising this issue. It is a problem which may seem unimportant in the general context of legislation, but it has great consequence for many people at an important part of their lives.
We have no objection to those parts of the regulations which deal with matters other than crematoria. If a local authority wishes to sell off car parks or land of which the whole, in terms of the regulation, consists of car parks and 90 per cent. of those proceeds go to the local authority, that is welcome. We have no particular objection to the idea that sales of land of any kind should be applied for local authority general purposes rather than reduction of debt. The problem arises only—this is a general problem—because the Government have been so absurd in their treatment of local authority capital expenditure and receipts that one has to resort to such rather ridiculous formulations in order to help local authorities. The correct solution would be to allow local authorities much more leniency in their financial considerations.
I can honestly agree with what my noble friend Lord Young said with regard to crematoria. There are some general principles lying behind what is happening at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will know—perhaps I may have his attention for a moment—the provision of crematoria was not sought by local authority associations. So far as I can see, it was done by the Government at a rather late stage. According to my information, in the United Kingdom as a whole there are 229 crematoria run by local authorities and 36 which are privately owned. As my noble friend in another forum has pointed out, there is no effective regulation of the service. The service has a self-regulatory code—

1317
we all know what self-regulatory codes mean—run by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities. The United States firm which my noble friend and other noble Lords mentioned is a member of that federation. In the event of the failure of self-regulation, the only recourse is for the Government to appoint inspectors to see what has happened. There is no authority for the Government to step in and say, "We will run this particular crematorium, because things have not happened in the way in which the code would have authorised."
The questions that arise have been put very succinctly and indeed eloquently by my noble friend Lord Young. Will there be a monopoly? Will there be a derogation from the general principle that there should not be monopolies in public or private services? What is the protection? If there is to be a monopoly, will there be some form of government regulation—not a self-regulatory code but some form of government regulation—to ensure that the company which may enjoy that monopoly observes proper principles? I ask that question not only because of the argument that has been advanced so far by noble Lords about the DTI, the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the judicial review and so on, but because the company in question, as I understand it, wishes to use the crematoria that they wish to buy—some have already been bought—as a sales point for what are called add-on services.
Perhaps I may quote what is reported in the Funeral Service Journal as coming from one of the gentlemen who heads the UK operations of SCI:
"We will be promoting 'add-ons' and 'service plus' features and offering a wider choice, particularly of memorial books, cards and other forms of memorialisation. Ashes caskets is one item we feel are not as well promoted as they could be".
If that is the motivation of the company which is trying to take over a number of crematoria, and possibly all the crematoria in the light of what the government regulations put forward, I believe it to be fundamentally undesirable.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, people in such a situation are at their most vulnerable. They have lost someone whom they have loved. Perhaps I may speak for the Christian point of view for a moment, since I am a practising Christian. I believe that it is a moment when people should be allowed to rest comfortable in their grief and not be pursued by people who want to sell them all kinds of cards, ashes caskets, and so on. I am sad in a way that none of the right reverend Prelates has come forward to support my noble friend Lord Young's Motion. It is important for those of us who profess a belief in Christianity.
In summary, I believe that my noble friend Lord Young has made a very forceful point. Special regulations must be necessary if there is to be any kind of monopoly on this business. If we are to preserve a civilised society, the regulations must prohibit the types of add-ons that my quotation indicated. I believe profoundly that these services should be publicly owned; that they should be part of the Christian burial service; that they should be part of the bereavement
1318
process through which families go. I do not see how that is met by what is proposed by the Government this evening.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we share most of the anxieties expressed by noble Lords this evening, particularly those in relation to the cost of dying. The noble Lord, Lord Young, will remember that the municipal crematoria came into existence because private graveyards were charging so much and the poor wanted somewhere they could be buried with dignity. Nonetheless, your Lordships will not be surprised that we oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Young. Despite his moving speech, I am surprised that he too is not opposed to it.
The private sector has an excellent and longstanding record in the funeral business. Undertakers, florists, coffin makers and car hire organisations are all private and all, in my experience, provide a sensitive and efficient service. The Churches also do an excellent job. In relation to local authorities, I really appreciated the last two cremations I attended. They seemed to be much more responsive to the needs of the bereaved than was the case 20 years ago.
These days both public and private sectors, generally speaking, do a good job. I include in that comment the 27 crematoria that, so far as I am informed, are privately run. Modern local authorities are not obsessed by who owns the crematorium; they are interested in the service that it provides and in how well it meets the local needs and circumstances. The watchword these days is "partnership"; that is, partnership between local authorities and private enterprise to provide efficiently and inventively what local people want and need. That was very much what the noble Earl, Lord Grey, suggested may lie ahead of us.
The regulations opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, involve the enabling of partnership. They give the local authority, as the current owner of the crematorium, much more room for manoeuvre. Each local authority may choose its partner or choose none. The local authority sets the terms of the deal; it weighs the financial consequences and the consequences for its electors. Whether to spend on updating the crematorium or on something else is a matter for the local authority. Sale, partnership, or, as I suspect many will choose, retention is for them to decide. It is clear from what has been said that both parties opposite would give local authorities that same freedom.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned SCI. He said that the only people actively interested in purchasing crematoria are SCI. I can give him some comfort that there are other people out there who have approached us on the subject. He said various other things too about SCI. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigated SCI and published a report in May this year. We supported that report and published our proposals to take action on it. However, we have been stayed by a legal challenge from SCI.

1319
We understand that the current position is that SCI has agreed in principle to sign an interim undertaking pending the outcome of judicial review. Any further acquisitions of crematoria or funeral directors by SCI will be subject to review by the Office of Fair Trading and referred to the MMC where necessary. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, to alert them to any cases which cause him anxiety in the future.
I cannot say much more on the subject of SCI, given the pending proceedings, except that it is clear that we take our role of safeguarding the public interest seriously and responsibly. Perhaps I can give some further comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as to the circumstances in which crematoria and their customers find themselves.
On average, cremation accounts for around 15 per cent. of the cost of a funeral and it appears that on average private crematoria charge around 16 per cent. more than municipal ones. That is in part explained by higher levels of investment in the private crematoria. We are concerned that local monopolies should not emerge and will support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in that endeavour. The regulators are fully alert to the potential dangers of vertical ownership links between funeral directors and crematoria and that is one of the principal reasons for the investigation of SCI.
Before transferring any crematorium to the private sector, we hope that a local authority will satisfy itself of the continuing quality of the service and value for money. In particular, we expect them to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient competition from other crematoria and burial grounds nearby. In England 25 per cent. of crematoria have an alternative within five miles and 75 per cent. have an alternative within 15 miles. It is understood that the last transfer by a council to the private sector, in 1993, included safeguards including a bar on discriminatory charging in favour of specific funeral directors. Local authorities should exercise their judgment carefully and not sell when in doubt.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report brings me, in a roundabout way, back to where I started; back to my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Young, should wish to pursue his Motion. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report goes into great detail about the market, or lack of it, in funeral services. It explains that the main defect is not a lack of choice, which is considerable, but a lack of information to enable customers to choose; a lack of advice available to customers at a time when few people feel like shopping around. That surely is a case for the Consumers Association, and when I think of the Consumers Association, I think of the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I am surprised that someone so intimately associated with such a great movement for individual empowerment and choice, should wish to restrict choice in a way in which the Motion seeks to do. I am even more surprised when I think of the noble Lord's advocacy of the Natural Death Centre and of his championship of "choice to the last". I hope that he will not surprise me again by pressing the Motion to a vote.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I apologise for my voice, which is threatening to give out. That may not be due so much to the cold, as to the distress caused by the subject we are discussing and possibly the further distress caused by the Minister's reply to this debate.
Before I strain my voice further on that last count, I thank all those who have taken part in the discussion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, because she reminded us that we are faced with something that the Minister did not face up to; that is, what has become known as the, "American way of death". If in 10 or 15 years' time the American way of death has taken a hold in this country, as I fear it will from the way things are going, then those who go into the detail of the history of what is happening in this area may well be as distressed as I am by the Minister's speech.
Because the Department of the Environment is behaving in this way and is offering a bribe to local authorities to transfer their crematoria to private ownership, the SCI, as shown by its various newsletters and by the pronouncements from its directors, is cockahoop. It means to take full advantage of the window of opportunity that the Government have provided between next January and the time 18 months after that when the concession they have offered will be withdrawn. We hope that other things will also have happened, at least towards the end of that 18 month period, which might lead to a change of direction on the part of government policy.
I was not quite sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Grey, whose intervention I welcomed, was for what I was saying or against it. It seemed that he was both. I am happy that he should be prepared, at least in part, to support what I was saying and support the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I said that I agreed with many of the noble Lord's points but that I would not support him if he went through the Division Lobby. I think that what he has suggested is not the correct way of tackling this problem.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I shall certainly be very sorry if the noble Earl is not able, after I have spoken, to follow me into the Division Lobby.
I particularly welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Many of the points he made struck me most favourably; above all, what he said about the bereaved and how they are in a state and should not be pestered by salesmen of the kind SCI employs, and has employed, to such good effect in this country and in the United States, Australia and France.
I turn to the Minister's speech. I could not follow the connection between his opening remarks, which gave me some cause for rejoicing, and what he said after that. He pointed out that the municipal crematoria came into existence partly because poor people and others were being so done down by private industry, but he did not seem to complete the circle and accept that if the changes the Department of the Environment is promoting take effect on a large scale poor people and others could again be subject to the mercies of private

1321
enterprise and without any control being attached to what it does. The Minister said that the SCI has given interim undertakings before the outcome of the judicial review is known. I understand that the interim undertakings are only to assure the Government and perhaps the court that there will be no change in ownership of the funeral directors that have been listed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the period before the outcome of the judicial review is known. If those are all the undertakings that have been given, then those are slight things indeed. We shall have to await the outcome of the judicial review.
The Minister said that he hoped that local authorities would satisfy themselves that they were doing right when they sold their crematoria to private companies—the SCI or perhaps others. We all hope that. Fortunately, there is more to it than that. It was not quite stated by the Minister, as it might have been, that the Office of Fair Trading is under a duty to keep a very close eye on the sales of crematoria by local authorities. If it feels that a monopoly situation is being created, it has the good cause and even a duty to intervene. That means that the Office of Fair Trading should look at every acquisition of a local authority crematorium that occurs, if only it can get good information in advance about it. This means that any local authority that goes so far as to consider selling to SCI will know that its decision may be called into question by the Office of Fair Trading and that it may have to retreat. The more that is known by local authorities, perhaps the fewer of them will be prepared to sell. Therefore, we do have some protection in the Office of Fair Trading and the powers that have been given to it.
In conclusion, we are at a very important point in the history of cremation and burial and, wider than that, in the way in which we treat the dead. If the message does not go directly out of this House to local authorities to be very wary and cautious about selling an important public asset to a private business, I only hope that that will happen in other ways and that perhaps one day the Minister might join those who I think have a better sense of what is at stake here and be prepared also to warn local authorities of the dire step they may be taking. They should not sell out, under the influence of a bribe from the Government, on an important public asset which touches people at the most difficult time of their lives. This subject should be treated with the greatest respect and dignity.
Unfortunately, I do not think that there is a case, despite the possibility that I may have persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Grey, to follow me, for pressing this Motion to a vote. I am only glad that there has been such support for the Motion. I shall certainly not cease my labours to see right done, as I think it should be. I hope that there will be others here who might join me, if not in this House then outside it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Naval College, Greenwich
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis they have decided to sell the Royal Naval College at Greenwich on the open market, and whether they will reconsider their decision.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, "We are instructed to seek offers and expressions of interest". That is familiar estate agents' language. We are accustomed to agents' hyperbole—references to "unique opportunities" are too often devalued. But in the case of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich the description is entirely accurate.
If there were a designation of buildings as Grade I triple star, these buildings would qualify, both on historical and on architectural grounds. This is where King Henry VIII was born; and Queen Elizabeth I. This is where Drake was knighted. This is where Charles II began his great palace, never completed "for lack of funding". These are the great buildings masterplanned by Sir Christopher Wren; colonnaded, domed, symmetrical, magnificent; the subject of a famous painting by Canaletto, a painting which is being used in a brochure to help market—or in plainer language, flog off—the college. For once the agents do not overplay their product:
"An outstanding group of baroque buildings adjoining the River Thames…offering potential for a range of appropriate uses…extending in all to about 18.75 acres".
The Royal Naval College, advertised in Country Life?
That is how the public sees the sale of the Royal Naval College. I am well aware that the "sale" is a 150-year lease and that, of course, its listed status affords protection; indeed, that the Secretary of State for Defence has said that Tesco need not apply. But the expressions of public outrage have been because the public sees this as a privatisation too far.
I have sought this debate in the hope that the Government will use the opportunity to give some explicit assurances and reassurances. I was glad to receive on Friday a letter from the Secretary of State for Defence who wrote that,
"the Government's policy is to stimulate a wide ranging debate".
That is welcome—but through estate agents whose marketing material talks of determining the extent of market interest?
That these are defence buildings is almost an accident of history. They are primarily part of our national heritage, and I am glad that there is a Minister from that department listening to the debate, even though he may not be replying tonight. I hope that his presence is to give him the opportunity of coming in later and may be redirecting matters. Protecting our heritage should be the first consideration, and not merely protecting but enhancing.
The Royal Parks Review Group, under the chairmanship of Dame Jennifer Jenkins, recommended in March:

1323
"The Government should announce its commitment to the public opening of the direct route through the Royal Naval College and the National Maritime Museum into the park as a Millennium project and provide the necessary funds for architectural and planning studies and associated works".
The Secretary of State has written that he would love to see Greenwich more open to the public and the reopening of the Great Axis from the approach on the Thames, through the college and across the park. According to the agents' brochure, access to the Painted Hall and the chapel is to be maintained (they are open for two hours a day) and "it is hoped" that the Grand Axis will be opened up. To quote again:
"Any enhanced public access should be at nil cost to the public purse".
That is a long way from requiring enhanced access.
Can the Minister assure your Lordships that decisions as to the future of Greenwich will be heritage-led? Can he assure us that, whatever offers are made, decisions will be based on a strategy for the widest public access to and enjoyment of the college as part of the whole complex and park, after full public debate? Indeed, can he tell your Lordships the process of how decisions will be made? Can he assure the nation that the Government see Greenwich, not as a cost to be cut, but as a national asset to be enjoyed?
More specifically, will he explain whether the Secretary of State has to accept the best financial offer? understand that he holds it as a trustee for a charity, the ultimate beneficiary of which is a school. How does that accord with what must be conflicting interests as the custodian of a major piece of public heritage? The brochure indicates primary legislation—an Armed Forces Bill to be introduced next month. Can the Minister tell us what that Bill is to do? One might hope that it might be to provide for tunnelling the major road, the A.206, which divides the college from the park, so that indeed the two areas could be enjoyed as one, but somehow I doubt it. Can the Minister say whether the Bill is to enable a charitable asset to be sold and to provide for the proceeds?
What is needed to deal with the nuclear reactor on the site? The reference in the brochure to "addressing its removal" seems almost disingenuous. Can the Minister say how difficult an operation that is, and is it in fact feasible? I believe that most tenants would not view with complete equanimity the prospect of a nuclear reactor in the cellar, however small.
Will the Government rule out the possibility of the college being occupied by a foreign company or institution? I hope that this will not be taken as xenophobia. It is not, but the recent unhappy experience of the need to negotiate access for VJ Day to the war memorials at County Hall, which is now in foreign hands, gives particular pause for thought, when the college is in a sense a memorial to our naval history.
Will the Government look at the future of the site in its context, not just as on the meridian, which of course it is, but as part of the Thames Gateway, the gateway to the capital? The Navy is not moving out until 1997. Though I accept there is much to be planned and the buildings are costly to maintain, will the Government accept that the public will not tolerate a hasty decision?
1324
Of course, the public understands that buildings change their use from time to time. But what they abhor is the prospect of a private use. What they want is vision and courage.
Above all, will the Government accept that the suspicion that their actions have created is not mere hysteria? From this building we look across the river to County Hall—to be used as what: an hotel or an aquarium? Upstream from here is Battersea power station, festering, stripped of its roof and of its dignity. Downstream is Greenwich.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for introducing this Question today, and perhaps I may say with how much charm and eloquence she has presented the problem now confronting the Government. There is nothing new about this: most ministries of defence or ministries of war are in general run by Army men who often lack sensitivity. Perhaps I may recall again a favourite quotation of that great admiral, Jackie Fisher, that the role of the British Army should be that of a projectile to be fired by the British Navy.
I cannot believe that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have sanctioned such behaviour. My first question to my noble friend is this: does this initiative by the MoD have the approval of the First Lord; and, if not, why not? Does it have the approval of the President of the Board of Trade, based upon the original statutes of the Council of Trade? Who made this decision?
The second question is this: who handled it? If I may use an old naval word, it is something of a "cock-up". That is a naval word and there is nothing derogatory about it at all. For me, returning from abroad, to have someone ring me up as though they had read that old-fashioned naval book Make a Signal!, to be told, "Admiralty to flog off Greenwich to the highest bidder by Knight Frank & Rutley (or whatever they are called) who are hereby appointed" I thought was a joke. I thought that maybe there was a 1st April which had appeared in the twilight of our year. But, no; it was serious.
The criticism that is being launched at the Government is very serious indeed. It has the potential of being a major banana skin for my noble friends. First, there is Greenwich; and, secondly, today I read in the press that with great glee the idea is to sell off the Treasury and maybe rehouse it. Thirdly, we shall probably have the sale and lease-back of your Lordships' House, because I am sure that we shall be much more reliable and trustworthy tenants than those of another place!
I do not believe that the Government intended to make such a disastrous presentational mistake. I believe that they wanted to open up the debate on the lines of, "What do we do about Greenwich if the MoD does not want it any more?". Three cheers! The MoD does not want it any more! The Government themselves should have led this debate and discussion. Perhaps they should have asked themselves, "What can we do for history?" rather than ask, "What can history do for us?"

1325
Greenwich is a place of great note. Those of us who have travelled up and down the Thames, who have walked through Brunel's foot tunnel and lived and re-lived today and ancient days, realise that it has a potential to do something or for something to be done with it. I suggest that, as it is, it has a negative value and no value at all. The Government have recognised that. They do not want the cost around their neck, and they want to off-load it onto somebody who will meet the cost.
That is the wrong attitude because the value that Greenwich has is not a tangible, monetary value that may go up or down today or tomorrow like the value of buildings when interest rates go up or down and property markets collapse. It has a form of celestial value which one cannot value. Any respectable agent would say, "We can place no value on this building". It is its value to the nation; not the particular piece that it is intended should be sold and which, if converted into offices, would produce 530,000 square feet of office space, which is exactly the same size, I am told, as the main tower at Canary Wharf, and sufficient to house 3,000 people and cause another collapse of the property market in offices.
It is not the alternative use which should be considered, but perhaps the re-establishment of the college's historical use. After all, we are a great maritime nation—but perhaps I should say that we were a great maritime nation. As your Lordships will recall, 100 years ago 80 per cent. of the world's ships were built in the United Kingdom. At the start of the First World War the figure was 60 per cent., and at the start of the Second World War it was 40 per cent. Just to show that it is not only this side of the House that has a monopoly on buying and selling things very badly, I remind your Lordships that as soon as the party opposite decided to nationalise the shipbuilding industry, the percentage of the world's ships constructed by the United Kingdom fell to 0.7 per cent. Over time we have seen our merchant fleet disappear.
We have very little to remind our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of our maritime past other than word of mouth. Much of it took place before the invention of the camera, and is not recorded on film. It is recorded only in old vessels and charts and in some amazing artefacts that are not properly displayed. We have no national centre where shipbuilding can be looked at, reviewed and considered. We do not have any maritime heritage centres. However, Greenwich is, and should always be, a maritime centre, recording our maritime past and earning money from it in whatever way the government of the day may decide. There is no doubt at all of the considerable interest that exists in our maritime past.
Like me, some of your Lordships were privileged the other day to visit the hydrographer at West India Docks, where he has his ships. He is probably the greatest map maker in the world and is now based down in Taunton with a large number of ancient charts of great value which he is beginning to replicate and to market. It is reasonable to suggest that we should look at all our maritime activities and decide how many of them can
1326
be concentrated at Greenwich and the amount of income that they could generate from those who would visit them. I am not suggesting that the hydrographer should be moved from the pleasant environment of Taunton; but perhaps instead of building a grand new building in Bristol at considerable expense, the MoD should have considered relocating some of its people in London or moving many of its support services from Bath.
It is the Government who should be leading this debate. They should be leading the inquiry and not passing the matter back to estate agents or various other private sector "animals". Governments should remember that anybody in public or political life is useless at buying anything and equally useless at selling anything, getting both the price and timing wrong, usually with cataclysmic results.
I intervene not only to promote Greenwich or to say how much I love the place. I have had many discussions there in the past about the number of items that the college would like to display. We have discussed linking the college with the Royal Docks and with the docks in Docklands so that coastal vessels can be displayed. At the same time, being a Scot I realise that there is some conflict of interest because we might like to have a world maritime museum in Glasgow. After all, while the British claim to have built all the ships, it was really the Scots who did it. At the start of the First World War 50 per cent. of all the ships afloat were Scottish. We Scots were good engineers. We were good at making things. However, I do not think that we were particularly good at telling ships in which direction to go. That was often left to those such as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. I look forward greatly to his speech, and hope that we shall have some fire and brimstone.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in tabling this Unstarred Question. I regret that the Government have taken an initiative which was good in principle but have mucked it up. My noble friend the Minister now has a chance to say, "I am sorry if our communication was so bad. It was our intention to open up the debate. We do not want Greenwich to pass into foreign hands in any way. It is up to the British to decide what they should do with their heritage and to present it in the best way that they can".
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I echo the two previous speakers in being astonished at what might apparently happen to Greenwich. It seems extraordinary that the party which prides itself on its patriotism—that is true not least of the Secretary of State for Defence—should suggest selling off such a symbol of our national pride. Sometimes it has appeared that to the party opposite "patriotism" means attacking foreigners rather than doing something more positive to develop pride in our own traditions and history.
We live in a time when there is a widespread sense of insecurity and lack of purpose in this country. As we know, we are said to have lost an empire and not found anything to replace it. It seems to me that one of the things that any government should be doing is trying to develop a sense of national identity and purpose and

1327
restoring some sense of pride to the people of this country. Greenwich is essentially a symbol of our past pride and history. It is a symbol of the things that we have achieved in the past and could achieve in the future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said so eloquently, Greenwich was for 500 years the site of a royal palace. We should be justly proud of the Observatory. The whole world bases its time on the Greenwich Meridian and Greenwich Mean Time. The naval college is a proud example of our great naval history. The park and surroundings could be splendid.
Greenwich is an area of economic disadvantage. It is suffering from traffic blight. The opening up of the naval college presents us with an opportunity to develop the site in a most imaginative way. Unlike the French, we have not gone in for grands projets. It is perhaps time that we had something to mark the millennium and be a grand projet for this country. We could have a vista to rival that at Versailles. We should be thinking in imaginative terms about somewhere like Greenwich which could present us with enormous opportunities.
As I understand it, the nuclear reactor gives us an opportunity to pause and to have a serious discussion about the site. I gather that it will take at least two years to remove the nuclear reactor—that is, if it can be done in so short a time. Surely that is a time during which a public debate about the site should be launched. We have truly become a nation of shopkeepers if we are not just selling off the family silver, but also offering to lease Britannia's shield and spear.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing this subject to our attention and for providing us with this opportunity for a debate. I say that not least because it gives me the opportunity to put forward a constructive proposal. I regret that there will not be any fire and brimstone. I have enormously enjoyed the three speeches that we have heard so far. They have warmed the cockles of my maritime heart.
First, I must declare an interest. I did my first course at the Royal Naval College more than 50 years ago. I returned a number of times to improve my naval education. For the last four years of my active career as First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff, I lived in a house which was built originally for the Lieutenant Governor of the Pensioners Hospital. Nelson visited it often—not when I was there—and sat for one of his many portraits there. After that, I became a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, which I have been for 14 years, eight as chairman. It was a post that I relinquished with some regret four weeks ago. There is no more fascinating hobby for a superannuated admiral than that. Incidentally, I am Lord Lewin of Greenwich. Therefore, your Lordships will understand that I have a passionate concern for the future of those magnificent buildings which, to me, breathe maritime history.
I should like to bring your Lordships up to date with the present situation. I apologise to those who already know this. The Secretary of State for Defence, wearing
1328
his mantle as First Lord of the Admiralty, is the sole trustee and holds the buildings in trust for the Crown and for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. Greenwich Hospital's interest is in maintaining its status quo—a fair rent from a good tenant and with no responsibility for the buildings. That leaves the hospital to concentrate on its charitable responsibilities, which relate to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook and some sheltered housing for naval patients.
The Department of National Heritage has responsibility for the external maintenance and the historic interiors. For 300 years the buildings have been the responsibility of a government department. For the past 70 years it has been a charge on the department with responsibility for historic buildings. In 1924, it was the Ancient Monuments Department of the Office of Works, then the Ministry of Works, the Department of the Environment, and then, when it was formed three or four years ago, the Department of National Heritage.
Currently the MoD's responsibility is for the rent payable to Greenwich Hospital (£400,000 a year), internal maintenance, and the day-to-day management of the site. I must confess to sadness that 300 years of naval association with Greenwich is coming to an end. I support entirely the co-location of the staff training of all three services. That should have happened 20 or 30 years ago.
There has been much speculation and national unease over the future use of these most important buildings—the finest assembly of architecture we possess, as John Betjeman said. One thing is certain. They must in the future continue to be seen as an inspiration and a source of our national pride. It should be a place that local people can feel is theirs and which they are proud to share with the nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the excellent report of Dame Jennifer Jenkins, which proposed transforming that part of Greenwich into a magnificent vista from the Thames to Blackheath, incorporating the fine gathering of buildings—not just the Royal Naval College but the buildings of the National Maritime Museum which incorporate the Queen's house and the old Royal Observatory. Both of those buildings are older than any part of the Royal Naval College. It is obviously most important that in considering a future for the Royal Naval College it is treated as one part of a coherent whole—a whole for which the Department of National Heritage is currently processing an application for world heritage status. The future of the Royal Naval College cannot be considered in isolation.
Let me now come to a concept for the future. Following the great national debate, and the MoD's proposals, a concept has emerged from discussions among all those authorities which have responsibility for our heritage. I would mention particularly the support of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Maritime Museum. It is a concept that, while ensuring the long-term preservation of the buildings, would permit, and indeed encourage, the development of appropriate and sympathetic uses.

1329
The proposal is that a preservation trust should be formed which would assume a 150-year lease from Greenwich Hospital, taking over from the MoD. The trust, which might perhaps be called the Royal Greenwich Trust, would be constituted as a charity—possibly an exempt charity—with an obligation to present its accounts to Parliament. The trust would be administered by a board of, say, seven commissioners appointed by the Queen. They would be people with an established reputation in the care of our heritage. Having heard his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, should consider himself on the short list. The idea of commissioners would follow the precedent set by King William who, on the death of Queen Mary in 1694—it was William and Mary who granted the charter for the foundation of the hospital—appointed commissioners to supervise the building and commissioning of the Naval Pensioners' Hospital. He appointed 200 commissioners. That was a fund-raising ploy. The quorum was seven. Among the seven were Christopher Wren, John Evelyn, Vanburgh, and Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal of the time.
The preservation trust's responsibilities would be managed, and its commercial activities conducted, by a subsidiary company whose board, in addition to some commissioners, would include people, bringing experience of business, property, finance, tourism and public relations. The commissioners would of course look out for the heritage.
The trust's objectives would be five-fold: conservation of the buildings and sympathetic management of the grounds; encouragement of full public access and the interpretation to visitors of the historic significance of this important site; co-operation with other authorities, particularly the local authority, in the promotion of Greenwich as a world heritage site of international status; re-establishment of the ceremonial use of Greenwich as a centre for the reception and entertainment of visiting heads of state, and use by the Government and the European Community for important meetings and entertainment.
For centuries, Greenwich was the point of entry for visiting Royalty. When Princess Caroline of Brunswick arrived at Greenwich to marry the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales did not bother to go to meet her. The naval pensioners turned out in their hundreds to give her a warm welcome and she was heard to remark to her companion:
"Are all Englishmen lacking an arm or a leg?"
Finally, and the most important objective, the trust would be responsible for generating a satisfactory level of income from the letting of the buildings and other activities consistent with sympathetic use and within planning constraints.
The buildings have, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, great potential for many and varied uses. The 500,000 square feet of space ranges from the magnificent Painted Hall to 300 rather substandard cabins—bedrooms to your Lordships. There are a number of lecture theatres, three fully equipped
1330
libraries, four splendid residences—one was built for Charles II—two other houses and seven flats. They could provide a significant rental income.
Greenwich University has expressed a firm interest in making use of all the buildings. It could make good use of a large part of the academic accommodation, but I would suggest that, with education as its prime purpose, Greenwich University would not be the right authority to take full responsibility for this important heritage site with its historic buildings and their maritime association, nor to promote them as a tourist attraction and part of the world heritage site.
The National Maritime Museum would of course be prepared to take responsibility for the Painted Hall which for over 100 years was the nearest the nation had to a National Maritime Museum—that was before the National Maritime Museum was formed. The museum would welcome the opportunity to expand its galleries and display more of its immense and wealthy collection. It could store its extensive archive in the basements and establish a maritime research centre. Other museums and galleries could find space to display collections that are currently in store.
The Maritime Trust, which looks after the Cutty Sark, has expressed an interest in one of the buildings in the corner of the grounds as a visitor centre for its tourist attraction. There are 40 City livery companies which do not have halls of their own. The buildings could provide them with office space and the use of the Painted Hall for their ceremonial occasions. The extensive cellars at Greenwich would provide them with ample storage space for their wines.
The possibilities are manifold. They tempt the imagination, as they obviously tempted the imagination of the noble Lord. I have touched on only a few. He thought of many more. How would all that be financed? The trust—a charity—would be in a position to apply to the National Heritage Lottery Fund for a grant to cover the initial establishment costs. I suggest that there could be few heritage projects more deserving of lottery funds than the preservation of those historic buildings and their presentation as a vibrant cultural centre, a place to remind the nation of our great maritime heritage.
Once established, there is confident expectation that the trust could generate sufficient income from sub-letting space and from its commercial activities to cover running costs at the very least.
Since lottery funds cannot be used to substitute for an existing government commitment, the key to this is that the Department of National Heritage should continue its present responsibility for external maintenance. Currently that is running at about £2 million per year while a major refurbishment programme is in progress. But once that is completed—and it should be completed in about 1997—the year-by-year running costs are likely to fall to about £500,000. However, since the Ministry of Defence would be relieved ultimately of all its responsibilities for rent, internal maintenance and management, the burden on the Exchequer would be significantly reduced.
I end with another quotation from the historian Arthur Bryant who said of Greenwich:

1331
"There is no place in England so rich in History and Architecture".
We must ensure that it is preserved properly as part of our national treasure. I commend this proposal for the support of your Lordships and I commend it to the Minister and his colleagues for their sympathetic consideration.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I followed the noble and gallant Lord's exposition of his plan with the greatest attention. Clearly what he has said is of considerable importance for the future of Greenwich. I shall return to it in a few moments with some possible refinements.
When the Government flogged off County Hall I thought to myself, "My God, they'll be flogging off Greenwich next", but I did not really believe it. We have come to that. It is a natural progression. If the Government are prepared to take this step, it is necessary to look ahead further to see what it is to be next.
A great saving could be made by converting the buildings in which we sit to more spectacular and tourist, floodlit use. We do not need quite as much space as we have and smaller accommodation would be possible. The Monarchy is expensive; Buckingham Palace is a fine property. I say those things partly out of gloom and partly flippantly but, above all, to ask the Government to consider how they have got themselves into the position of dreaming of leasing the Royal Navy College at Greenwich for 150 years. Even practically, they must have noticed that the Dreadnought Hospital and the Nurses' Home which form part of the campus there have been on the market for some years and no progress has been made.
This proposal is a prime example of the sale-room state. It is a new kind of state not known hitherto to Europe. It sets as its first priority, long before looking after its people and especially its more unfortunate people, the realisation of all physical property that it has, to turn it into money.
Versailles has been mentioned. Can we imagine the French selling Versailles or selling a 150 year lease on it? Obviously not. That is not merely a fancy-that fact. It teaches us something about the difference between the two countries, and I hope the Government will give themselves time to meditate on that, given the extraordinary closeness of our origins as democracies in the world.
Many noble Lords will have visited the splendid palace which houses the French Senate. If noble Lords have looked out of the windows to the south, they will have seen the dome and the monumental appearance of the National Observatory of France at the end of a grand avenue. They will have been aware also that the French meridian is only a few miles away from the British meridian. The fact that the world now uses the meridian of Greenwich, and calculates all its measurements from that, is due to the fact that we happened to beat France in a war. I submit that even that fact in itself should make us pay a bit more attention to maintaining the
1332
historical integrity and the public-ownership integrity of Greenwich, because we are at risk of selling off the world's meridian as well as everything else.
I believe—and no doubt the Minister will comment on this—that the proposed sale is illegal. The Act of 1869 which lays down the regime for the ownership of the Royal Hospital of Greenwich, as it then was, states quite explicitly that the Royal Hospital may not be sold or leased to any party except the Royal Navy, institutions of the merchant marine or other institutions having a clear connection with our interests as a maritime nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she wondered what would be in the Queen's Speech and that there may be something about this matter in that Speech. Is my surmise correct that the Queen's Speech will seek to correct the illegality of the Government's present action in putting Greenwich on the market? Will it be an act of retrospective legalisation of government action? If so, I believe that both Houses will have plenty to say about that.
The little reactor called Jason has been mentioned. It has been explained in the other place that Jason is not just a mechanical object standing alone, but is the centre of quite a large network of training activities which belong to a large system throughout the country for training. I wonder what thought the Government have given to this matter. I have seen mention of the figure of £20 million for the de-commissioning of that reactor. On the other hand, should we read all this as an element of hope; that the Government cannot be serious in their leasing plan if they expect anybody to sit on top of Jason while it decays without being removed, or even to sit on top of it while it is removed, because such an activity would obviously put a stop to anything else in that block for a year or two?
What should have happened is this. When it was found that the Staff College did not need the whole of Greenwich, it would have been better to bring what was at Camberley to Greenwich and sell Camberley. Camberley is very nice, well thought out, neat, and works, but it is not a great national site. The Government made a mistake in their decision to take matters that way round. It would have been better and probably not too difficult to bring Camberley to Greenwich rather than to take Greenwich to Camberley.
Lastly, I listened with the greatest interest to the noble and gallant Lord about the National Maritime Museum plan. By now, it is very much wider than that. It has become elaborated. I think that that makes it of greater interest than it was before. The buildings at Greenwich are not especially suitable for any sort of museum. They consist of two vast and wonderful spaces—the chapel and the hall—in neither of which could one possibly put exhibits without ruining them. As well as that, it consists of a very large number of small rooms with one door each. That is typical of the kind of accommodation in which you cannot have a museum, because people would be going in and out of the same door all the time.
I should like to add to the list of deserving institutions mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord as being possible co-tenants with the National Museum under the

1333
umbrella of his committee of trustees. I have in mind the World Maritime University, which is now at Malmö in Sweden for no very good reason. Its teaching is in English. Its students, who come principally from the third world, have to come to London all the time to obtain instruction in English on the world-wide realities of the maritime world. The university is under the umbrella of the World Maritime Organisation, which has been situated in London since its birth.
It seems to me that Greenwich is well suited for this university; indeed, it has been functioning as a military university for many years. If we could, over time, gradually bring that institution from Sweden into Britain, I believe that there would be a great deal to be said for it. I do not know whether there will be room for that, a museum presence, the hydrographer and all the others that have been mentioned, but one thing stands out very clearly. With all those possible institutions to fit in to that majestic and marvellous campus, the role of private enterprise seems pretty small. I hope that the Government will heave a sigh of relief on 15th November (I believe that they were right to give a very short period for bids) and be able to say: "Well, we didn't get anything worth considering, so let us resume our proper duty as a government and settle its use ourselves".
7.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the Question. I should like to express my thanks to her. I had the privilege of speaking to a Mess Dinner not so very long ago in the Painted Hall. Therefore, I have a particular interest in ensuring the future of what many noble Lords have quite rightly said is one of our great national—and, indeed, international—treasures.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin—and I do so without impertinence—that I found his speech to be most impressive. If I may say so, I very much hope that he will put his proposal in writing to myself and to my honourable and right honourable friends because, if the Government do not take it seriously, we shall certainly take it very seriously indeed.
I also agree with the noble and gallant Lord that there should be a Joint Service Command and Staff College. After all, there are five institutions which do not necessarily do the same thing but different things in different locations, and which could all be combined into one.
I understand the Government's problem that the Royal Naval College has to be subsumed into a larger entity. Nevertheless, I find it odd that the Government in correspondence—and I hope that I may refer to correspondence between Ministers and my honourable friend Mr. Raynsford, who is the constituency Member of Parliament for Greenwich—seem to waver a little about what the consequences of the move might be. For example, in the noble Earl's letter to my honourable friend, he says that there will be the "Expression of Interest" campaign, the object of which is,
1334
"to seek out imaginative, sympathetic and appropriate uses for Greenwich"
The noble Earl goes on to say:
"When assessing any bids received for the college buildings we will ensure that the potential bidders produce a financially sound business plan, a viable maintenance and management strategy for the historic buildings".
Let us take those two points. First, a "viable business plan". I am not sure what sort of viable business plan there could be for the buildings at Greenwich. Moreover, to be absolutely honest, I am not sure that the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence could recognise a viable business plan if they saw it walking down the street in Piccadilly in the middle of the day. Equally, I am not sure that a,
"viable maintenance and management strategy for the historic buildings",
would last more than 30 seconds. We are talking about centuries; we are not talking about 30 seconds, or two minutes.
No doubt the noble Earl will excuse me for quoting from the letter, but it is on the record. In it he continues:
"If no suitable non Government schemes for Greenwich emerge from the present marketing campaign, other potential defence uses, such as the Defence School of Languages, may be appropriate".
There has been a long-standing argument ever since the defence cost studies about whether Camberley is a suitable location for the Joint Service Command and Staff College or whether it should properly be in Greenwich. All the costings that the Government have produced to date say that Camberley comes out a mile ahead of Greenwich. However, there was an article in the Independent on the 16th October this year, which stated that detailed studies into the cost of refurbishing the existing Army Staff College had disclosed that tens of millions of pounds will be needed to carry out the work and that the cost is substantially more than predicted in the initial studies, raising fears that savings might well not be achieved until into the next century. The article then quoted an official from the MoD, who said that there was a lot of teeth sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley. The conclusion would be that if everything else is equal, as my noble friend Lord Kennet said, and if costs are equal, then surely the JSCSC should be located in Greenwich rather than Camberley.
In the letter to my honourable friend the noble Earl went on to refer to legislation. A number of speakers have raised the matter during the course of tonight's debate. He said that,
"if the occupation of the site by non government bodies is constrained by Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospitals Act of 1869"—
the 1869 Act provides that Greenwich Hospital should be devoted to charitable purposes for service use—
"legislation can be used to clarify this and the Armed Forces Bill might be an appropriate vehicle."
I believe that that answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Kennet. The noble Earl goes on to stress the question of,
"protecting the charitable interests of Greenwich Hospital and the integrity of the site itself".
I believe that the noble Earl was quite right to lay stress on that point.

1335
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I believe that many speakers have put most of the points that I wished to make to the noble Earl. I shall simply ask the Minister two questions: first, will the Government give us an assurance that, if it turns out that the cost of siting the JSCSC in Camberley is equivalent—not more, not less—to the cost of siting it in Greenwich, Greenwich would be the preferred option and that the latter would be used by the defence establishment for the kind of purposes for which Greenwich has served over the centuries?
Secondly, will the Minister give the House an undertaking and the assurance that when the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, produces a plan (which I understand has been discussed with many and various people and which has a great deal of merit) it will be considered in front of any private application for the leasing of Greenwich, whatever buildings may be there? After all, all speakers this evening have said that we regard this as a part of the national heritage. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, sitting on the Front Bench and, I hope, nodding his head. Well, if he is not nodding his head, he is trying to do so. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us an assurance that this is the fundamental principle behind what the Government intend; otherwise, when the Armed Forces Bill comes before us in the next Session, I am afraid that there will be much opposition to it.
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a most stimulating debate on an issue which arouses deep feelings. It has been no surprise to me that noble Lords who have spoken have done so with considerable passion, as well as an obvious desire to ensure that these wonderful buildings at Greenwich are respected and cared for. Her Majesty's Government share that passion, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue tonight.
It is right and proper that proposals which affect the future of substantial national institutions should be the subject of widespread and informed debate before decisions are taken. That is the strength of the democratic traditions we enjoy. The buildings which comprise the Royal Naval College at Greenwich are very much a case in point. Indeed, there are few sites and few buildings in this country which match the architectural and heritage importance of Greenwich. It is a glorious national treasure. It is, therefore, essential that we seek the widest possible spectrum of views. The Government are committed to this. We shall not take a decision quickly or without the most careful reflection.
The contribution which your Lordships have made tonight is therefore both welcome and timely. It has also provided, if I may say so, some interesting and constructive ideas. The same, I am afraid, cannot be said of some of the recent media commentary and it is a matter of considerable regret that there has been misinterpretation and misinformation about the Government's intentions over Greenwich. I therefore welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's
1336
plans. These are straightforward: to find a suitable, sympathetic and enduring use for this magnificent group of buildings which will protect them, enhance them and offer greater access to them for members of the public. The prospect is an exciting one.
Let me set the scene. The Royal Palace at Greenwich was constructed around 1500 on the site of the present Royal Naval College. King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were born there, and it was one of the most frequently visited royal palaces of the time. An undercroft from the Tudor Palace still exists and is incorporated within the cellars of the current buildings. Its maritime traditions were established with the knighting there of Sir Francis Drake in 1581, and the Seamen's Hospital was constructed after the grant of a Royal Charter by King William and Queen Mary in 1694. It was in the subsequent years that the four main buildings were erected, to Sir Christopher Wren's overall master plan, with the whole complex substantially completed by 1750. The Seamen's Hospital, which in many respects served the same function as the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, eventually closed through lack of demand in 1869. Four years later the Royal Naval College moved from Portsmouth and has occupied the buildings continuously since then, paying rent under a lease from the Greenwich Hospital Crown charity. Since 1873, the historic buildings have served a variety of occupants, not least the Joint Services Defence College.
I mention this impressive history to show not just the grand lineage of the site but to demonstrate that change is nothing new for what has become known as the Royal Naval College. What we are witnessing now is the drawing to a close of a chapter in the history of the buildings, and, I very much hope, the dawn of another, equally glorious, chapter in their life. This offers a challenge, and a tremendous opportunity.
The question has been asked why the Navy's use of the Royal Naval College is to cease. As noble Lords will know, the period since the end of the cold war has seen us having to adjust our training and command systems to fit the changing spectrum of military operations. One consequence of this is a growing need to adopt a more joint approach to defence activities, with the services and their command structures operating interdependently and in many cases in a fully integrated way.
As part of our commitment to this, the Government decided last year on a new Joint Services Command and Staff College as the best means of training our future military officers. This joint training regime, which we intend will start in 1997, will replace the three single service staff colleges and the Joint Services Defence College which, like the RNSC, is located at Greenwich. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the expression of support which they gave to that policy. As noble Lords will recall, we carried out an exhaustive review of possible locations for the college. Greenwich was considered fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that Greenwich should have been chosen in preference to Camberley. We do not believe that Greenwich offers a cost-effective

1337
site for the college. Indeed, it is precisely the architectural glories of Greenwich, with its four Grade I listed buildings and its status as a scheduled ancient monument, which make the site at once so special but so bound with restrictions. The construction of new buildings and any significant conversions necessary would be ruled out on planning, aesthetic and cultural grounds.
The new college will have over 600 students, whereas the Royal Naval Staff College and the Joint Services Defence College—the current Greenwich occupants—total only 172 students. Fitting the much larger college into the Greenwich buildings would involve a costly works programme. Our appraisal of the staff college options, on which we consulted publicly, demonstrated conclusively that Greenwich was considerably more expensive than Camberley. But more importantly, the extensive building works would have involved ripping out much of the current internal fabric of these magnificent buildings, and that is something that the Government were not prepared to contemplate. The continued presence of the military would have precluded greater access to the public.
The Royal Naval College buildings will therefore fall vacant during the next few years. It is therefore necessary to consider their future. The Government are committed to finding the best possible use for the site, a use worthy of its heritage status, and a use which will allow greater public access. In the background the possibility exists of another defence use should an alternative scheme not be found. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in his capacity as sole trustee of the Greenwich Hospital Crown charity, thought it right that the Government should also explore other potential uses for the college.
Both the University of Greenwich and the National Maritime Museum had already shown themselves keen to occupy buildings on the site. However, if we are to find the best uses for Greenwich, we ought to cast the net wide. The Government do not have a monopoly of good ideas. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, has mentioned, it has, for instance, been suggested that those City Livery Companies who have no halls to dine in might use the Painted Hall for the purpose. I very much hope that other proposals from prestigious and historical associations will come forward.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving way. However, in listening to the limitations it has occurred to me to ask whether the Government have thought of approaching the International Maritime Organisation which is, after all, the only United Nations agency that we have in this country and is situated just over Lambeth Bridge on the Thames. It would be a prestigious body to occupy the building as it carries out good work and to some extent would fit in with the past traditions of the area.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. That is certainly a suggestion that I shall take away with me and pursue. To achieve the overall aim which I have outlined the Defence Secretary and the Heritage Secretary jointly
1338
invited "expressions of interest" to give possible occupants the chance to suggest an appropriate use for these superb buildings. In doing so, my right honourable friend is working closely with the Department of National Heritage and has consulted widely with English Heritage, the Government Office for London, Greenwich Hospital and the London Borough of Greenwich.
As I have intimated, a key element in the Government's plans for Greenwich is to see the buildings and estate more open to the public. If the new use is not defence related the restrictions arising from considerations of national security will ease, and that would offer an obvious advantage. We therefore intend to look favourably on proposals from bodies which are able to use the buildings in a sympathetic way and allow the British people to enjoy their history and appreciate the splendour of the site. This exercise is not about seeking the highest bidder. It is about finding the right occupant.
I turn now to some wider and equally important aspects of the issue. There has been considerable discussion of the prospect of nominating Maritime Greenwich as a world heritage site. We shall shortly be seeking views on the proposal and, subject to the outcome, we hope to make a formal submission to UNESCO by July next year. I can say, however, that we would very much like to see the achievement of Dame Jennifer Jenkins' vision of re-opening the Great Axis from the approach on the Thames, right through the college and across Greenwich Park to Wolfe's statue and Blackheath beyond. If those ideas develop the prospect is an exciting one—one which will return us nearer to the glorious architecture and symmetry created by Wren, Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor and so famously depicted by Canaletto.
If that is to be possible we shall, of course, need to safeguard the future of the site. This will be achieved in two ways: first, through the planning system controlling the use and alterations that can be allowed to a Grade I listed building and scheduled ancient monument; secondly, we can supplement the strict planning controls by special convenants in any lease agreement which the Defence Secretary can enforce as sole trustee.
Having touched on the question of the Defence Secretary's trusteeship, perhaps I should say a little more about his dual responsibilities. He is sole trustee, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, of Greenwich Hospital, which is a Crown charity. He is required to see that the rental income to Greenwich Hospital is protected for the continuity of its charitable works. He is technically also the tenant of the site for as long as the Navy remains, but it is his role as trustee which requires him to ensure that a suitable use and occupant for the buildings is found.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether the Secretary of State has the authority to grant a lease to a non-government body in view of the terms of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869. The noble Lord will wish to know that the legal position is currently being clarified. However, to avoid any doubt we hope to use

1339
the 1996 Armed Forces Bill to introduce an amending clause. Needless to say, the Secretary of State will not grant a lease until the legal position is clear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would it not have been better if the Government had refrained from putting the buildings on the market until they knew whether or not they were proposing an illegal course of action?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. In fact, it would have been irresponsible of the Government not to proceed as they have, because we are running out of time in view of the programme relating to Camberley. It is essential that, if it can be achieved, there should be a seamless transition at Greenwich between one tenant and another. That is why the Government thought it right to proceed as they did. There is no question of the Government having acted illegally in what they have done to date.
I turn now to the handling of the decision on the future of Greenwich. My noble friend Lord Selsdon asked who made the decision. I hope that he will gather from what I have said that no decision on the future of Greenwich has been made. The period for submitting expressions of interest ends on 15th November. We shall then consider any proposals received against rigorous criteria. We shall be taking account of the views expressed as to appropriate future use, including those of your Lordships. We shall not be rushed into a decision, and I do not expect a final choice to be made before next year. Then, if a suitable non-defence use is judged most appropriate, we would be prepared to grant a lease, with all the appropriate safeguards, to those whose proposals merit it. I emphasise—and this is a point that has been often misrepresented so far—that the freehold is not for sale. The buildings will remain in Crown ownership and rent from them will continue to accrue exclusively to the Greenwich Hospital charity just as it has under the occupancy of the Royal Naval College.
Perhaps I may touch specifically on the suggestions made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. He suggested that an umbrella preservation trust should be established to oversee the future management of the buildings. He was kind enough to mention that to me before this evening's debate. As I understand it, that might involve the appointment of commissioners of substantial public standing to administer the trust, with suitable experience of heritage and of the traditions of Greenwich. The trust would then ensure that the unique character and characteristics of the buildings are protected and developed in the sympathetic and imaginative way that many noble Lords have commended tonight. There would, of course, be many
1340
details to address, not least with the Greenwich Hospital charity, for whose exclusive benefit the site is held. I am happy to assure your Lordships that I shall take that idea away for careful study along with all other interesting and viable proposals that emerge after 15th November.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the Navy's training reactor known as JASON, which is located in the King William building. Let me briefly explain the position. There have been several ill-judged articles in the press which have given a false picture of the reactor's size, power and safety record. The reactor, of very low power, was established at Greenwich over 30 years ago to educate personnel in the theory and operation of nuclear propulsion systems. The routine output of the reactor is capable of running one small light bulb. It has an exemplary safety record. If the MoD vacates Greenwich, JASON will be removed in concert with all of the statutory and regulatory authorities. No non-defence occupier would use the building before the work is finished.
As I said at the outset, this debate has been welcome and timely. I have been immensely heartened to listen to the ideas of noble Lords. I take as a key objective the need, expressed with eloquence and passion by noble Lords this evening, to sustain the conservation of the site for public enjoyment well into the next millennium. The stature and heritage of the buildings demand that the ideas for their future match their grand design. The exciting proposals being developed in the wider context of Greenwich call for a bold and sympathetic solution. It is clear to me that the country expects the Government to honour their obligation to find the most appropriate, viable and enduring use for the site. I take this opportunity of saying that that is precisely what the Government intend to do.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Congressman Chris Smith's Statement
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Congressman Chris Smith's Statement
  UNFPA Population Award to Dr. Qian Xinzhong
  UNFPA Population Award to Dr. Qian Xinzhong
  Rangoon: Suggested Trade Fair
  Rangoon: Suggested Trade Fair
  Human Rights: Duty of Compliance
  Human Rights: Duty of Compliance
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol No. 9
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol No. 9
  Organophosphates in Sheep Dipping: Study
  Organophosphates in Sheep Dipping: Study
  Stonehenge: Conference on A.303 Improvement Proposals
  Stonehenge: Conference on A.303 Improvement Proposals
  Expenses: Taxation Policy
  Expenses: Taxation Policy
  Expenses of Inland Revenue Employees: Taxation
  Expenses of Inland Revenue Employees: Taxation
  The £2 Coin
  The £2 Coin
  Prison Libraries: Texts on Criminal Law and Procedure
  Prison Libraries: Texts on Criminal Law and Procedure
  UN Human Rights Committee: Recommendations
  UN Human Rights Committee: Recommendations
  UN Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination
  UN Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Business Appointments of Former Ministers: Guidelines
  Business Appointments of Former Ministers: Guidelines
  Civil Service Code
  Civil Service Code
  Ford Motor Company: Proposed Subsidy
  Ford Motor Company: Proposed Subsidy
  Fighter Aircraft: Choice
  Fighter Aircraft: Choice
  Organophosphates: Use in Gulf War
  Organophosphates: Use in Gulf War
  Open Skies Policy
  Open Skies Policy
  University Air Squadrons Operating Costs
  University Air Squadrons Operating Costs
  Armed Forces Honorary Medical Consultants
  Armed Forces Honorary Medical Consultants
  Armed Forces Medical Officers
  Armed Forces Medical Officers