Sitting of 3 April 1996

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

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chain]
9.35 am
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a matter of courtesy to the House, I should like to explain that, because there is a Cabinet meeting this morning, I shall not be able to be present for the whole of the debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will be present when I am not able to be here and I hope to come back later this morning. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will understand and will not think me discourteous on this traditional House of Commons occasion.
Madam Speaker: The House understands and appreciates the comments made by the Leader of the House.

Adjournment (Easter)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
9.36 am
Mr. Tom Cox: In the Christmas Adjournment debate I spoke about the problems which, sadly, existed then at St. George's hospital, Tooting, which is in my constituency. It is one of the largest hospitals in London and it serves the health needs of people living in a very wide area of south London. It is an excellent hospital. No one would question the skills or the care of its staff, whatever role they may play in the day-to-day running of that hospital.
When I spoke in December, I highlighted the concerns and problems of senior consultants, doctors and nursing staff at the hospital and the continuous pressure that they faced in providing the health care that they wanted to provide and that the general public expected. I spoke about the visits that I had made to the hospital and the meetings that I had had with members of staff. I return to that issue today.
More than three months have passed since I last spoke about St. George's hospital and, sadly, the problems still exist. Following my speech in December, I received a letter dated 11 January 1996 from the Minister for Health. He commented, as I did, on the dedication of the staff at St. George's hospital. He talked of increased funding and of the pressures on hospitals; and of seeking to improve arrangements for the discharge of patients. He said that, last year, the hospital had received 25 five-star awards in the national health service performance tables.
306
I sent the Minister's letter to Dr. Millard, a senior consultant physician at St. George's hospital. That gentleman was the doctor who wrote to me last year pointing out the problems and who showed me round when I made my visits to the hospital. Dr. Millard was not impressed by the Minister's letter. He sent me a reply dated 22 January 1996, in which he questioned the Minister's claim that finances had been increased and pointed out, as I did in the Christmas Adjournment debate, that Wandsworth health authority had seen a cut in its budget of 24 per cent. since 1993.
We in Wandsworth have lost a great deal of funding and the real question that was not answered by the Minister is about the extent to which the increases that he referred to relate to the sizeable sums of money that we have lost in recent years. That is what Dr. Millard, staff at St. George's and I, as the local Member of Parliament, believe to be the question.
Dr. Millard says:
"There has been no increase in the number of beds at St. George's. There is a plan to increase the number of beds by eight which is obviously inadequate in the present circumstances. There has been no improvement in the arrangements for discharging patients and we still have patients in acute beds who could be looked after in the community.
The reference to the NHS tables is something which staff of the hospital find particularly unreasonable. Twenty-five star awards do not reflect what is going on and seems to us nothing more than Government propaganda."
That is the response of a senior doctor at the hospital to the Minister's letter. The Minister told me and local people, "Don't worry, things are not that bad," but a senior doctor working at the hospital says that the problems that they face in the hospital's day-to-day running are not being tackled by the Government.
I also received a letter dated 24 January 1996 from Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, the chairlady of St. George's Healthcare NHS trust. She said:
"Thank you for taking the trouble to let me see Gerry Malone's letter to you.
I am glad he is so fulsome in his praise of St. George's. Our problems, of course, remain but we are doing our level best to deal with them within our resources."
I also received a letter that refers to St. George's from the British Medical Association, dated 11 January. It states that there is
"a lack of slack in the hospital system due to the run down in the number of beds … wards are being closed for financial reasons such as reducing staff numbers".
There is a total lack of preparation for the discharge of patients, which means that
"beds are blocked by elderly patients who are unable to be discharged into the community and therefore remain in hospital."
None of the responses that I have received since my December Adjournment debate speech has agreed with what the Minister told me in his letter.
In February, I was approached by the "World in Action" television programme about St. George's hospital and told it what I knew. It approached doctors, staff and patients at the hospital and in March, it produced a programme devoted solely to the problems of St. George's hospital, Tooting. I doubt whether any major television company would spend time and money producing a programme if there was not a serious issue involved. After that programme, I received a vast number of letters from

307
people all over the country saying that they had the same problems—the staff and the hospital are great, but the services and resources that they get are not enough to provide the sort of care that they want to give. I and the people working in St. George's hospital make that charge again today.
Ministers do not want to face the facts. London and St. George's have lost millions of pounds in recent years. That money has gone out of London to other areas well outside it. I have some facts that show why we in Wandsworth regard the issue as crucial. Hospital admissions in Wandsworth are 18 per cent. above the national average. It is in the highest 10 per cent. in the country for hospital admissions of the elderly. It has one of the lowest—15 per cent.—day centre elderly attendances because of insufficient day centre provision in the borough. Out of 366 national districts, Wandsworth is the 21st most deprived area. That is our position, and the hospital, its staff, local people and the British Medical Association all know it.
I again highlight that we urgently need extra funding for the hospital, so that it can provide the sort of care that it wishes to provide and that the community needs and seeks. I close by begging Ministers to start listening and doing something to tackle my concerns, because they will not go away. The position has sadly worsened because of the lack of action between December and early April. It will continue to worsen unless, at long last, we get Ministers who listen to the people running the system and start to give us in Wandsworth the adequate funding that is so urgently needed.
9.45 am
Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is an opportune time to discuss violence on television and in the electronic media generally because on the day that we return after the Easter recess, we shall have the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, following completion of its Lords stages. There will be an opportunity to discuss whether we should include a V-chip—V for violence—in new television sets to be manufactured in the United Kingdom.
I can report already that an all-party group of hon. Members has supported such an amendment, which has been lodged for discussion before it can be tabled. On video violence, I draw attention to the early-day motion that stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is supported by Members on both sides of the House and has more than 200 signatures objecting to the release for home viewing by the British Board of Film Classification of the video of the film "Natural Born Killers".
I shall discuss those two specific questions and then deal with the general issues that they raise. First, the European Parliament has considered the V-chip and said that it wants Europe-wide action on its inclusion in television sets. It is not some faraway technology for the distant future. It was invented in Canada three years ago and on 14 March, Keith Spicer, the chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, said:
308
"The Canadian public, and in particular parents, have told us they want further action to protect their children against gratuitous and glamorized TV violence. Nearly two million Canadians have signed petitions saying this, and scores of parent, teacher, medical and public interest groups have spoken up for a sensible balance between protecting children and protecting creative freedom."
The Canadian Parliament has already decided that the V-chip will be made available from later this year in all new television sets. It recognises, as I do, and as Lady Howe has recently said in this context, that that is a tool in the armoury of parents and not the solution. Broadcasters must continue to be responsible about what is broadcast, but it can be a useful weapon for parents who wish to sift what their children watch. The American Congress has taken the same decision. Instead of waiting, or pushing the matter to a Select Committee for discussion, we should consider carefully the legislation in Canada and the United States and take seriously our obligation to do something similar.
I am grateful that the Home Office has already indicated its strong support for the proposal. When I raised the matter with the BBC, it too had no objection in principle to the V-chip being included in new television sets. The only question mark so far has been raised by the Department of National Heritage. I understand that the Secretary of State for National Heritage was misquoted in the Financial Times last week, when it was implied that she did not support such a proposal. I hope that there is an open mind and that we shall have a chance to consider the issue in the context of the Broadcasting Bill.
Similarly, I hope that we shall reconsider gratuitous video violence. Two years ago, in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which received widespread support throughout the House, we decided to take action against material that was likely to contain gratuitous violence and might have a psychologically damaging effect on the children who saw it.
That amendment was passed, so I found it amazing that, a few weeks ago, James Ferman of the British Board of Film Classification passed for home viewing—as distinct from what is already available for viewing in cinemas, where there are much tighter controls on the age of people seeing the material—"Natural Born Killers". The House should bear it in mind that that film contains 50 random killings and involves an orgy of bloodshed. The perpetrators of the crimes simply ride off into the sunset with no action taken against them. Is that the sort of thing we want our children to see; more to the point, is it in accordance with the new law that Parliament enacted?
If James Ferman and the BBFC are incapable of telling the difference between a film such as "Schindler's List", in which the violence is set in a moral framework, and "Natural Born Killers", it is time that we appointed a new board. The issue needs to be taken much more seriously.
Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that guns have been available in this country for many years, yet only recently have there been the terrible tragedies of Hungerford and Dunblane. Will he speculate on what might have changed to cause guns to be used so violently? Could it possibly be the continual diet of violence that we and our children are getting?
Mr. Alton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. That has been one of the significant changes in this country, and I shall return to that subject. I agree with him.

309
Before to my election to the House 17 years ago, I worked with children with special needs, many of whom were excluded from school because of disturbance or maladjustment. Those children were not exposed to the high level of gratuitous violence that seems to pour into our homes now, particularly through the video, but also through computer games, in which they are given choices that involve garrotting or raping their victims. Clearly, the scale and nature of what our youngsters are exposed to today is very different from that of two decades ago, and we must take that issue seriously.
The context of my amendment two years ago was the killing of a young boy, James Bulger, in the city of Liverpool, by two nine-year-olds. In the aftermath of the verdicts, the trial judge remarked on "the striking similarities" between scenes in the video "Child's Play 3" and the attack on James Bulger. Whether people accept the definite link, it has to be said that that film and 440 other videos had been hired during the previous few years by the father of one of the boys. The videos included soft pornography, violent horror and necrophilia. In Manchester at almost the same time, a chant from the same film was used by the torturers of the teenager Susan Capper. She was taunted with that chant while she was subjected to the most brutal and horrifying assault. Eventually, she died.
Meanwhile, in Norway, the film "Power Rangers", which was shown in the United Kingdom on Saturday mornings, was withdrawn and a link was suggested between the killing of a five-year-old girl by her six-year-old friends and an episode of the programme. During the very same week, the Lincoln coroner, Roger Atkinson, said that an episode in the ITV series "Cracker", in which two characters were stabbed to death, could have led to the murder of a midwife 12 hours later. Granada Television dismissed the coroner's remarks as only his "opinion".
It is a fact that about 400 killings, 119 woundings and 27 sex attacks on women are screened every week in this country. We are told that that is only a reflection of real life, but that is an absurdity because there are only 14 killings in an average week in real-life Britain, not 400.
Violence in Britain and America—where it is considerably worse—has become gratuitous and random. Gruesome, violent death, mutilation and serial killing have all become an art form that can be turned on or off with the flick of a switch. The climate of violence—real and imagined—has led to ordinary citizens living in fear. People no longer feel safe in their homes, let alone in the parks or streets, or at night time on public transport. Security companies and the alarm systems that they sell for personal use, for cars, homes, offices and workplaces, are a booming industry.
Meanwhile, the entertainment industry seems to be in the throes of a passionate love affair with violence, embracing it at every opportunity. We are becoming emotionally deadened by the horrors that we witness and have come to accept violence as normal.
When Lord Rees-Mogg was chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, he said:
"Television is an extremely important reinforcement agency in most of the areas in which it operates."
British academics continue to agonise about the links between behaviour and what people see. The American Psychiatric Association linked television to 50 per cent.
310
of crime in the United States. By adolescence, a young American will have seen 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders on television.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) implied in his intervention, real crime has risen inexorably in this country. One in three of those of us who were born here in the 1950s now has a criminal conviction, and in a third of cases it involves violence. Professor Elizabeth Newsome and nearly 30 child psychologists, child psychiatrists and paediatricians published a paper, which I asked them to write, courageously stating that they had previously been "naive" in underestimating the links between how people behave and what they see.
Our own Royal College of Psychiatrists has also pointed to media violence as one area in which tighter controls could help protect vulnerable children. The Professional Association of Teachers spoke to 1,000 teachers in different parts of the United Kingdom, and more than 90 per cent. of respondents believed that children's emotional, social and moral development was being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, by what they saw.
For years, national paranoia has led us to tilt at imaginary Spanish windmills and French farmers, while we remain indifferent to the Americanisation of British values and our way of life. British culture has been increasingly dictated to by American tastes in everything, from what we eat to what we watch. Some of the least attractive aspects of life in modern Britain, such as drug dependency, street crime and mugging, screen violence and the disintegration of family and community life, were all manifesting themselves in the States many years before they were washed up on our shores. It is a fact that, when America sneezes, we tend to catch cold.
If we are not convinced by what the psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and parents say, let us put on record what David Puttnam—probably one of the most admired people in the field of creating good film and video material—has to say on the subject:
"What proof are we looking for, I wonder? Are we going to wait a decade or two to see if there is a fresh outbreak of gruesome murders before deciding perhaps 'Driller Killer' wasn't the thing to show the kids after all? Does the railway company wait for someone to be killed by a train before fencing off the railway line?"
He added:
"Does common sense not tell us that it is foolish to debate whether watching sadistic pornographic films makes children into dangerous psychopaths? Leaving aside the impact this influence may or may not have in future for the rest of us, what is abundantly clear is that, for them, as immature human beings, watching sadistic pornographic films has to be a very bad idea".
If the advertisers in this country thought that there was no link between what people watch and how they behave, they would not have spent some £4,000 million over the past 12 months advertising their wares on television and trying to sell them. The chairman of Unilever once said that he knows that half of what is broadcast on television has no impact on those who see it, but the only problem is that he does not know which half. Clearly, there are more than just casual links in this regard. There is now increasing empirical evidence— worldwide—of the links between how people behave and what they see. Time and again, the evidence points to a correlation.
When we debate the Broadcasting Bill immediately after the House returns, we shall have a chance to put real power into the hands of television viewers, by giving them the V-chip. We shall also have a chance to amend

311
the legislation to allow for a national audit to be conducted each year, so that the programme makers have to report to Parliament on the level of violence that they transmit. We shall also have the chance to bring to task bodies such as the British Board of Film Classification and Warner Brothers UK, which creates films such as "Natural Born Killers".
On the day after the Dunblane massacre, the managing director of Warner Brothers UK telephoned me from California to say that, in the light of what had happened, it had withdrawn, for the time being, "Natural Born Killers" from the home viewing market—it was to have been released on Mothering Sunday. However, he said that he would review the decision in a few weeks from now. I leave hon. Members with the following question: if it was not right to screen that film on the day after the terrible massacre, what will make it right and proper to screen it in the weeks to come?
10.1 am
Mr. Jon Trickett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech this early in the debate. When hon. Members make a maiden speech, they suffer from nerves, and it is helpful to make it early in the debate. I am conscious of the traditions of the House, and that when one makes a maiden speech, one refers to one's predecessor. On this occasion, it is easy and a pleasure to refer to Derek Enright—and it is something that I would have wanted to do.
Derek Enright was an extremely hard-working and diligent Member of the House. I know that to be the case, because of comments that hon. Members from both sides of the House have made to me since my arrival. He was well loved, as Madam Speaker commented when I first entered the House. In a short space of time, he established a presence in the Chamber and throughout the Palace. It is a tragedy that he was perhaps unable to fulfil all his ambitions.
Hon. Members may not know that Derek Enright made a major impact in the constituency. During the by-election, I met hundreds of local constituents, residents and voters, almost all of whom told me—unprompted—of their deep affection for their Member of Parliament. He was loved in the constituency. The degree of unanimity in what I heard about my predecessor wherever I went during the by-election was remarkable.
Obviously, it is difficult to single out any one or two aspects of work that a Member of Parliament will have undertaken. My predecessor did a great deal of work in many areas. I know that he worked closely with his neighbouring Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), on health-related issues. In particular, they were working on issues related to emphysema and other health problems suffered by coal miners in the area.
I know that my predecessor would be horrified, as I am, at the proposals to change the character of the health service in the locality. There appear to have been secret discussions at a higher level—in the Wakefield area, in Pontefract, in Quarry house in Leeds, and in London—about plans to change the character of the health service
312
and eventually to remove some services from local hospitals. Those matters are extremely worrying to me—and I am sure that they would have been worrying to my predecessor. Later today, if I get the opportunity, I shall speak in the debate about the health services in the Wakefield metropolitan district. I shall make some firm points and express my views, in particular, about the poor quality of paediatric services in the area.
I shall do my best to emulate my predecessor's achievements, hard work and diligence—in every respect, bar one. That one thing relates to something that hon. Members will understand—that is, his ability to convert modern-day, idiomatic English in pop songs into the classical language of Latin. I am afraid that I could never aspire to—and I am not sure that I would want to—such an amazing and precocious talent. With those few reflections, I am sure that all hon. Members will remember very warmly my predecessor's contribution to this place.
Hon. Members will know that I was elected in a by-election, but they may not know that there have been 12 Members of Parliament for Hemsworth this century—which is a remarkably high number. It is tragic to note that seven of those hon. Members died while holding office. There have been six by-elections—so the people in the area have become rather familiar with them. In fact, after I had been selected as a Labour candidate, one of the old stagers came up to me and said, "Normally in the Labour party, we tend to look at a person's politics and what his ideological position is on various issues. However, because there have been so many tragic deaths of sitting Members in Hemsworth, we are concerned about whether you have a health certificate. We want you to represent us for a long time."
Traditionally, Hemsworth has been associated with the Labour party—indeed, since the foundation of the Labour party, it has represented Hemsworth. Hemsworth has been so safe that I am told that The Guardian Weekly in Manchester coined the phrase, "They don't count the votes out there, they weigh them," for the constituency. That has been said about many other constituencies, but we believe that it was coined in relation to Hemsworth.
I have looked back at the maiden speeches and the records of my 11 predecessors this century. I discovered that the seat has been so safe for the Labour party that on two occasions the Labour nominee arrived with his nomination papers—I am referring to George Griffiths and Horace Holmes—for the returning officer, only to be told that he had been elected because no other candidate was prepared to stand for the seat. That illustrates the fortress nature of the support that the Labour party has had in Hemsworth this century.
Bearing that history in mind, I happily went with my agent to the returning officer at Wakefield town hall, imagining that that exceptionally sensible precedent would be followed in my case—I imagined that the returning officer might be able to declare me elected as there were no other candidates and because of the nature of the opinion polls and the state of the Hemsworth constituency. One could imagine my chagrin to discover that there was not one but 10 candidates fighting for the seat. It was a daunting prospect for me to face.
However, apparently, it was not as daunting as the prospect facing the Conservative party candidate. After the count had finished, I noted that he had retained his

313
deposit and that he was going around in a very gleeful manner. When I asked him why he was so happy, he said that he was delighted because it was the first time in a parliamentary election that he had managed to get into second place. That was interesting; obviously he was more daunted than I had been.
Hemsworth has always been associated with the coal mining industry, which, as we know, has created wonderful communities throughout this country and elsewhere, with a powerful community spirit—the sense of caring and sharing and all the similar values that we associate with such communities.
From Featherstone in the north—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford was born there, represented it for a time and played for the famous rugby league team—through Hemsworth down to South Kirkby and South Elmsall in the south, and from Upton across to Ackworth, Crofton and all the other communities, including Rye Hill and Fitzwilliam, which make up Hemsworth, the spirit of community and the strong community values that the miners contributed wherever they built up communities are evident.
The miners were interested in many things other than mining; sport was one of the great talents that emerged from those villages and small towns. Rugby league was played throughout the area. Frickley Athletic, in the south of the constituency, was supported by the miners with a subscription from Frickley pit for many years, and it is sad that that has now finished because of the closure of the mining industry in the area.
Mr. Geoffrey Boycott came from the constituency. We cannot help his politics—although we shall do our best, even now, to work on his repentance in relation to those matters—but he was a sturdy player for Yorkshire county cricket. I sometimes think that, if representatives of Yorkshire came down to Hemsworth and looked at the youngsters there, we might be able to rebuild our team for the future.
The mining industry was profoundly important in the formation of the communities that I now have the privilege to represent. The maiden speeches of my 11 predecessors read like a social and economic history of the area. Together, they form a remarkable document.
The first Member of Parliament for Hemsworth at the turn of the century was elected as a Liberal and came across to the Labour party as soon as it was founded, so we can claim that we had one of the first Labour Members of Parliament. He was a miner and described in his maiden speech the 400-odd pits that existed in the Yorkshire area—he had visited the coalfaces of almost all of them. Another Member of Parliament for the area described 12 separate working pits within walking distance of his house.
The experience of the constituency reflects the tragic history of the decline of an industry. My predecessor, Derek Enright, mentioned the last working pit. I now have to report in my maiden speech that no working pits are left in the Hemsworth area. That is a tragedy for the community. Although to an extent we understand that the industry has been in long-term secular decline, it is hard to forgive the motives of some people in high office who adopted a particular political position regarding the mining industry.
In the area profoundly strong communities remain, which were originally concentrated around the coal mines. Now that the coal mines no longer exist, their reason for coming into being has disappeared and there is a gradual process of economic and social decline.
314
I have with me a list of every benefits office in the country, showing the amount of family credit allocated to families in each office area and the number of families in each area who receive family credit. It is a very interesting document. We know that family credit is the Government's way of subsidising poor employers. When a household earns income below the mean poverty thresholds, the Government allocate family credit to the household.
In the two years for which those figures have been published—from 1993 to 1995—we have witnessed, throughout the country, a remarkably even increase of about 35 per cent. in the number of families receiving family credit in each benefit office. The figures for the Hemsworth benefit office, however, reveal a tragic position. We have there not a 35 per cent. increase, not even a 70 per cent. increase, but almost double that—in two years, there has been a 117 per cent. increase in the number of families receiving family credit.
That is tragic. It must be connected with the fact that the mines have closed and the redundancy money is gone. It reflects the way in which the labour market in the United Kingdom has been casualised. It reflects low pay in the area. It reflects the increase of agency work and unfortunate practices. It also reflects the need for us to change macro-economic policies. It shows the need for a minimum wage. Why should the state subsidise poor employers through this mechanism? It demonstrates as well, in my view and in the view of many hundreds of people I have met, the need for the social chapter, to ensure that workers' rights are adequately protected.
I represent an area which I have found to be wonderful, and which I am still finding out about. The communities that make up the constituency are lovely communities, which find themselves in a difficult position. I pledge myself to try to do my best to follow in the footsteps of all my predecessors and to work hard for the economic and social regeneration of the communities that make up Hemsworth. I thank the House for giving me such a good hearing.
10.16 am
Mr. David Amess: It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) on the occasion of his maiden speech. The last time I followed a maiden speech I followed three; it is easier dealing with one. The hon. Gentleman spoke fluently, without any sign of nerves. He showed great humour and, early on, great command of his subject. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Derek Enright, was a much-loved constituency Member of Parliament, whose views on several pro-life issues I shared. His untimely death is a great loss to the House.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth comes to the House with a reputation as leader of Leeds city council.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the late and lamented former Member for Hemsworth, will he place on record the work that that hon. Member did for relations with Portugal as secretary of the British-Portuguese parliamentary group, of which I am chairman? He will be sadly missed for his knowledge of that country and the contribution that he made to parliamentary relations between this Parliament and the ancient Parliament of Portugal.
Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for prompting me. I have no expertise on that subject, but I am sure that that was a worthy tribute.
Finally, I would say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth that my wife supports the Leeds football team but that is as far as the affinity goes with his former council. I share his admiration for Geoffrey Boycott, an outstanding cricketer whose politics I much applaud. We look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman in the months ahead.
That is the end of the bipartisan approach. I wish to draw three matters to the attention of the House before we adjourn for the Easter recess. I may best describe them as analysing what the Labour and Liberal parties do once they are given power. The first matter concerns the behaviour of Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council, the second concerns the behaviour of Labour and Liberal-controlled Havering council and the third concerns the purported policy of the Liberal party on religious education in schools.
My colleagues on this side of the House are fully prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of Her Majesty's Government. However, we are a little tired for being blamed for everything when the socialists control Europe. In my part of Essex, we are looking very closely at how the local Labour Member of the European Parliament has performed since his election: he is very good at being photographed, but he has not delivered on any of his election promises. The Labour and the Liberal parties, and not the Conservatives, control Essex county council. We are in crisis in Essex because of that council's wicked budget decisions.
Dr. Spink: I wish to draw together the two points that my hon. Friend has made regarding the Member of the European Parliament and the Essex county council. The Member of the European Parliament denounced in my local press the cut in expenditure on the flood warning system on Canvey island in my constituency. I was surprised that he found his way to Canvey island sea wall, as I do not think that he had been there before. He seemed to be entirely unaware that the Labour councillors on Essex county council—which was given a 3.5 per cent. increase in expenditure this year—cut that vital system. How about that for inconsistency?
Mr. Amess: Never mind about not having visited Canvey island I understand that the Member of the European Parliament had not been to Europe before his election. There is no point in running for office unless one can achieve something. What is the point in candidates for county or district councils and for the European Parliament running for office if, when elected, they simply blame the Government? Upon election, such representatives should accept some responsibility.
Essex county council's budget proposal is a disgrace. It is sitting on huge reserves, but it has cut the fire service budget by more than £1 million. As a result, there will be no new recruitment this year and no training provided for fire officers. However, in the literature being pushed through letter boxes during the local election campaign, one councillor claims that he has saved one of the local fire stations. That is absolute hypocrisy. The council has also cut the budget for libraries by £1 million and, as a result, no new books will be bought this year.
316
I thought that new Labour was supposed to be caring—that is what the Liberal party is supposed to be about also. However, that is not the case with Essex county council. Care in the community is a shambles: its delivery is so poor that there is an inquiry into the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) recently led a delegation to the Home Office in order to discuss the fire service. It appears that Essex county council, in spite of the fact that it is sitting on huge reserves, did not apply for funding under section 19 before pushing through a budget that will cut expenditure on the fire service. That is the fault not of the Government, but of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council. If those councillors do not want to accept responsibility for their actions, they should resign and the Conservatives will take control.
My second point concerns Havering council. I have given notice to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about my intention to raise the issue. I am meddling, if you like, in Havering council matters because it wickedly interfered in the education of my children. I have five children, all of whom attend a state school in my constituency of Basildon. I never speak publicly about my religious views—that is a personal matter—but, privately, my wife and I, as Catholics, believe in single-sex education.
There are no single-sex Catholic schools in my constituency, so we applied to send our son to the nearest single-sex school, which is located in Havering. The wickedness that resulted from our application defies belief. However, the chickens have come home to roost for the Labour and Liberal councillors concerned.
I was in America on the evening that the school's governing body met to discuss my son's application. It decided to accept that application on the strength of our belief in the Catholic religion. The school is non-grant-maintained and non-selective. My wife and I did not know that our son had been offered a place at the school until we read it in our local newspapers. A Labour councillor, Miss or Mrs. Feeney—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Ms.
Mr. Amess: That night, Ms Feeney went to the town hall to consult a former Member of Parliament, Arthur Latham, and the chief executive, who used to be the Labour leader of Basildon council. They decided to get to work on the issue. When I returned from America, I found my wife and children extremely upset. As a result of those wicked actions, party invitations had been withdrawn from small children who did not understand the reason why. You can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, my disgust when I learned what Labour Members have been up to. They say that what they do as individuals does not affect the party: that is a load of rubbish and their hypocrisy should be aired publicly.
Sir Michael Neubert: Was the Ms Feeney to whom my hon. Friend referred the same woman who came originally from Dagenham and somehow qualified for a council property in Havering, which she then bought? She was then elected to the council and became a close confidant and ally of Arthur "Lothario" Latham, and apparently she is now purchasing a house across the border in Essex. Should we not be told more of that intriguing story?
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend will be aware that, when the story broke, the newspapers carried the headline, "Basildon schools not good enough for local Member of Parliament". My office was immediately inundated by telephone calls making allegations of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has described to the House. I have never abused my parliamentary privilege, and I kept to myself all the accusations that were made to my office.
The Labour councillor in Basildon who has been instrumental in spreading the story is currently in prison awaiting trial for a serious crime. I understand that his partner, who was also a councillor for one year, disappeared suddenly. The councillor resigned from Basildon council last week, but I cannot say any more about the matter as the trial is pending. However, I can comment about Havering council.
If one were to read the weekend newspapers carefully, one would see the corruption within that council and the nonsense that has gone on. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is in his place. He is an old boy of Campion school, which I attended also. The leader of the Liberal group on the council accused the hon. Gentleman of interfering in the allocation of my son's school place. We have now discovered that the relationship between the leaders of the Labour and the Liberal groups—who are power-sharing—goes way beyond any original understanding.
I have many letters about the matter which illustrate a catalogue of abuse. Labour councillors have rebelled. I have in my hand a letter signed by four Labour councillors which states:
"Dear Comrades, It is with deep regret that we have resigned from membership of the Labour group. In spite of the 'anti socialist' nonsense you may be hearing you should be in no doubt that we will continue to support the administration in the implementation of the 1994 Labour Party manifesto. The causes of our resignations are complex and cumulative."
If we go further into the reasons, they are appalling. The letter continues:
"A couple of weeks ago all members of the Council, Labour and Conservative alike, received a letter announcing Arthur's full return to health and his willingness to take on all of his enemies 'within and without'. We don't know if this has frightened the Tories but it frightens us."
The letter goes on and on.
I am delighted that the Lib-Lab power-sharing arrangement in Havering has collapsed. The chickens have well and truly come home to roost. I hope that the same happens to Essex county council.
I shall end my speech by mentioning the report in the newspaper about the Liberal party policy on religious education. I just could not believe it when I read in the newspaper last week—I have given notice to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that I would mention his name—that the spokesman for education policy in the Liberal party had said that in an ideal world there would be no religious education in our schools.
Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.
Mr. Amess: Some hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," so there is some support for that view. But I found it deeply offensive and I believe that many of our fellow citizens found that statement deeply offensive.
If I were asked what is wrong with society at the moment, I would say that it was the deep arrogance that
318
humanity is everything and that there is no powerful force that we should consider. I am not bothered what religion anyone is. Christianity is what I care about and I wish to see all our churches supported. I certainly want to see religious instruction given in our schools.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the debate continues, I have noticed what one might call a running commentary from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I taken due note of those who have, so to speak, informally spoken already.
Mr. Amess: The source of the running commentary is surprising. I hate to harm the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he promised me recently that he would be nice to me. He has broken his promise before Lent has duly finished.
Mr. David Rendel: I have had an opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is our education spokesman, since that report appeared in the paper, because I was myself concerned about it. It is true that everybody in the Liberal Democrat party believes that religious education should continue in schools, and it is clear from my discussion with my hon. Friend that he did not say that in an ideal situation there should be no religious education. Indeed, he believes that religious education is an important part of the education of all our children.
Mr. Amess: I entirely accept that.
Mr. Alton: For the sake of the record, it is right for me to point out precisely what was said. It was reported in The Independent newspaper some weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that, in an ideal world there would be no more religious schools, which theoretically would close all Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and nonconformist schools. He also said that daily acts of worship would be ended in that ideal world. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that that would be a deplorable development if that so-called ideal world, which I would regard as a nightmare world, were ever to occur.
Mr. Amess: This has been an interesting opportunity to explore what the policy is on religious education. I support religious education in all our schools. As this is the Easter Adjournment debate and no doubt the whole of United Kingdom will be rejoicing and eating their Easter eggs, I would have thought that religious education was especially important at this time.
10.34 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) very far, but I do join him in offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). His maiden speech was refreshing and we all enjoyed it. It showed good humour and it had all the ingredients. First, he paid a warm tribute—with which I know the whole House will agree—to his predecessor, Derek Enright. Secondly, he gave us an interesting reminder of the changes in his constituency and, finally—and crucially for a maiden speech—he made an important political point about the poverty wages that are paid in his area. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to him speaking many more times and giving us the same enjoyment.

319
I wish to raise two issues, which can both be summed up with initials—VOCs and SK5. The first is a national issue—I have given notice to the Leader of the House that I will raise it—and the other is a local constituency issue. The question of VOCs, or volatile organic compounds, is extremely important to all of us. Very few people understand VOCs, yet they affect all of us and the air we breathe. They are important not just when we are out in the street, but in the workplace and in homes. VOCs can be highly toxic and some of them are known to cause cancers. They are part of very complicated photochemical reactions which produce a photochemical smog that can aggravate conditions such as asthma and also cause headaches and nausea in some people.
The Environment Select Committee, of which I am the Chairman, produced a report 12 months ago. I wish to find out today what progress the Government are making in controlling air quality, because that is extremely important. As long ago as 1988, we signed up to the United Nations environment programme convention on long-range, trans-boundary air pollution. Under that convention, we were supposed to produce a 30 per cent. reduction in emissions by 1999, compared with 1988. It is important that the Government tell us exactly what they intend to do about meeting those targets.
In their response to the Environment Select Committee, the Government suggested that they would make good progress. We certainly got the impression that in several areas they would try to reach that 30 per cent. reduction target before the actual treaty requirement occurred. But the need for a reduction is here, now. Last summer, we had a series of incidents in which air quality was extremely bad in our cities. It is no good delaying reaching the target until the last minute. We should aim to reach it quickly.
The Government have done a little bit to produce a tax differential on premium unleaded petrol, but they could do much more. They are not doing enough about the emissions from industrial processes. I hope that the Minister will give us an update on how far and how soon the Government will achieve those targets.
I suggest that installing the proper equipment in industrial premises to recover VOCs, which would otherwise escape to the air, is not just good for our health but good for our industry. On several occasions recently, the Secretary of State for the Environment has talked about opportunities for environmental protection industries. It has been pointed out that others, especially the Germans, have scooped up the environmental industrial market because they have been at the forefront of attempts to achieve targets for environmental improvements. As a result, their industries develop the skills and take the opportunities to produce the equipment. If we are not careful in Britain, we will fall behind.
I want to put pressure on the Government for a clear update on meeting target emissions of volatile organic compounds in the short term, to ensure that we do not suffer too many bad-quality air episodes this summer—and in the long term, to meet agreed requirements.
When will the Government's air strategy policy be published? That was due to be appear last year, but I understand that it will be June at the earliest before it is produced. We await also the Government's response to
320
the royal commission on transport, and particularly to its recommendation to reduce the number of cars on our roads and emissions, if VOCs are to be significantly reduced. Also, what is the position on VOC emissions in buildings?
My second subject concerns the way that postcodes affect my constituents. The Government may argue that postcodes are a matter for the Post Office, not Parliament—but I suggest that they have wide implications. I am particularly concerned about a new housing estate, Fairways, in north Reddish, but the problem also exists on the Droylesden-Audenshaw border and between those parts of my constituency that are in Denton and Reddish.
The Post Office claims that postcodes exist only to facilitate postal deliveries. If that were so, I would not mind. I have sympathised in the past when the Post Office complained that insurance companies and others have misused postcodes, in determining premiums. The situation is changing rapidly, because the Post Office is busily selling postcodes to all sorts of people.
The Post Office claims that it is selling postcodes so that companies can get delivery addresses right, but the Post Office knows that many purchasers of postcodes use them for other purposes. Under the Data Protection Act 1988, one has the right to correct a computerised entry with which one disagrees. Provided that the Post Offices uses its record of an address for the sole purpose of postal deliveries, it does not have to do anything—but as soon as the Post Office sells that information for any other purpose, an individual should have the right to record that he disagrees with that information.
The problem is particularly acute when an address is used by not just the Post Office but others, which can be particularly well demonstrated in north Reddish, where residents may live in Stockport but have a Manchester M19 postcode. In addition, the Post Office is insisting that their address should include the words, "Levershulme, Manchester". Those residents do not live in Levershulme, Manchester, but that requirement affects their insurance premiums. Also, anyone driving from Stockport to a house in Levershulme will come to the Manchester boundary, then start looking for the street name in question.
If the Post Office continues to insist on a Manchester postcode, it should at least accept that residents of the Fairways estate, for example. are entitled to show their address as "North Reddish, Stockport, Manchester M19"—and the rest of the postcode. As long as the Post Office denies those residents the right to identify their addresses as being in Reddish or Stockport, the Post Office is insisting on the use of a misleading address, causing confusion for people trying to find houses or provide services.
The Post Office is causing unnecessary hardship to such residents by selling their postcodes to all sorts of organisations, which then insist that they know the correct address and that the individual resident does not know where he or she lives.
I have pursued that issue with the firm of conveyancing solicitors that dealt with the Fairways estates, because some buyers were misled into thinking that the properties were in Stockport—they are, but they do not have a Stockport postcode. I have taken the matter up also with the Association of British Insurers. I want the Minister to pursue the problem with the Post Office, so that, if it

321
wants to sell postcodes for any purpose, the residents of Fairways estate should have the right to correct their address. I hope that he will go further and tell the Post Office that instead of that complicated solution, the residents in question should be allocated an SK5 postcode, which will show that they live in Reddish or Stockport. That would avoid the nonsense of them being identified for postal purposes as living in Manchester or Levershulme.
10.45 am
Dr. Robert Spink: It is a pleasure to speak soon after the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I spent election day in Hemsworth and noted a range of quality among the parliamentary candidates. Right at the top, along with the hon. Gentleman who won the election, was the Conservative candidate. He is a good, sound, local man and he did a wonderful job. I am sure that we will see him enter the House eventually. At the bottom of the range was Mr. Mark Thomas—a mischievous, misleading, nasty little person.
Beneath him, if hon. Members can believe that, was the candidate for Arthur Scargill's party. That candidate misled the country into believing that there is such a thing as old Labour and new Labour, but that is not so. There is just the Labour party. In his Adjournment debate two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) spoke of the poor lady who lay dying of cancer on the pavement outside Kingston general hospital in 1978 because of the Labour party. My hon. Friend explained that there is no such thing as old Labour or new Labour, but just Labour. That is what you get—and I am sure that the country will reject it. However, I do not want to be partisan this morning.
I want to raise not a political problem but the issue of unfair business rates imposed on riding schools and equestrian centres. Real despair has arisen because massive rates increases have caused the closure of many livery yards, schools and equestrian centres throughout Britain, as a consequence of last year's revaluation following the rates set in 1990. That revaluation hit the equestrian industry particularly hard.
One riding school in East Anglia closed following an increase in rates from £780 a year to £9,780 a year. The owner had to knock down his stables to ensure that his rates were reduced. There are similar examples in Castle Point of extortionate and entirely unreasonable increased rates for small equestrian centres. There are simple, do-it-yourself livery yards in my area where the monthly rates bill has increased to an amount higher than the yards' audited profit before rates. That situation is not tenable.
The reason for high rateable values is that all stables in Essex at least are rated on the same basis, even though there are many different types. There are racing stables, dressage stables, equestrian centres, competition yards and full livery yards. At the bottom of the scale are the yards that are the particular subject of my remarks—do-it-yourself yards, which are suffering the most.
These stables are perhaps best described as small cottage industries; they are part of the rural fabric of Britain and its traditions, yet they are expected to pay rates as high as those levied on professional Newmarket training stables, according to the valuation officer in my area. So these DIY yards have been put under intolerable pressure by unreasonable rateable values.
322
Assessing rateable values is the responsibility of the Valuation Office agency. It is therefore not right that Ministers should interfere directly, but I believe that we need some political steer on this important issue. It is such an obvious injustice, and if we cannot fight for right and against wrong in this place, where can we do so?
As Henry Smith, the owner of a small livery yard in Benfleet pointed out in a letter to Horse and Hound, the closure of livery yards will result in a loss of Government revenue, a loss of jobs, and derelict premises or premises which have to be knocked down. I am talking about the loss of facilities that support this quintessentially British traditional activity. Riding is not an elitist sport; it is something that disabled people and young people, especially girls, enjoy very much. Everyone will lose unless some help is offered—most of all, the people trying to scrape together a living from DIY livery yards.
I must acknowledge the steps taken by the Government to help small businesses, among which livery yards may be counted. The Government have introduced a transitional system of phasing to reduce the impact of the 1995 revaluation. The caps on rating increases are more generous for small properties: 5 per cent. in real terms in 1996–97 and only 2.5 per cent. for small domestic or non-domestic properties. Nearly 800,000 small businesses in England and Wales benefit from these lower bills which have resulted from action taken by the Government, but the Government must take further action to protect small DIY livery yards.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has suggested that it may be possible to find a way of helping these yards under the terms of the White Paper on rural England which was published last year. I do not know whether that is possible, but I hope it is. I take succour from the fact that I am supported in my concern by no less distinguished people than the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Education and Employment and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, all of whom have written to various bodies on this subject. A number of other hon. Members share our anxiety too.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what I say this morning and will take action to resolve what is for many people a desperate problem.
10.52 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) on his maiden speech. He seemed to be worried about the number of candidates in his by-election. If he thinks that 10 is a worrying number, it is probably a good thing that he did not take part in the Newbury by-election, where we had a record number of 19 candidates. Had he paid attention to that, however, he would have realised that it is not actually very worrying, since in that by-election only two candidates got more than 2 per cent. of the vote—the Labour party candidate being one of those who failed to reach the 2 per cent. mark.
I am sorry to say that I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his speech, as it became clear in the course of it that he did not understand the important difference between worship in schools, which is one thing, and religious education in schools, which is quite another.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise, as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did, a subject which I do not think has any party political significance but which

323
is still of importance to all hon. Members and to our electorates. I refer to the pyramid selling of business club membership, an issue which has come to my attention over the past week or two as a result of a letter that I have received. It is right to raise the subject before we adjourn for Easter, because of the recent Third Reading of the Trading Schemes Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). That Bill has now gone to the Lords. I hope that the Government will ensure that it reaches the statute book and that it is put to good use as soon as possible.
On Third Reading of that Bill last Friday, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) briefly mentioned a business known to him as Titan Marketing, which he said had been operating in some areas of the north. It has also been operating in my constituency, and I am glad to be in a position to give the House further details of this secretive company and to draw it to the attention of the wider public so that people may be warned of the dangers of getting involved in the company.
The letter that I received from a constituent reads in part as follows:
"Sirs
Please excuse the fact that this is an anonymous letter, but the reasons for this will become apparent.
Last Sunday I went with a friend to see a business opportunity that he was very excited about. He told me that he had been involved for about two to three weeks but could not give me any details because of a secrecy agreement. He told that there were very large sums of cash changing hands every week and that if I wanted to find out about this I had to go to"—
here he named a school in the constituency—
"on any Saturday or Sunday. My curiosity was really aroused and I agreed to go last Sunday despite the £20 fee whether I joined or not.
The organisation is called the TITAN business club and is based in Hamburg, Germany. They have been operating in this country since October 29th of last year. The meeting starts at about 4 pm and lasts till about 8 pm. It consists of three presentations …The meeting is not open to the public and you can only go if you are invited by one of the existing members. At the start we were obliged to sign a secrecy agreement saying that we would not disclose anything about the organisation and agreed to pay 10,000 deutschmarks if we did (this is one of the reasons why I have chosen to remain anonymous). The meeting itself is conducted in a rather unusual style with much clapping, standing ovations and ritual chanting.
It was not until the final presentation that they finally told us what they were about. They ask you to pay £2,500 to join the 'private members club' as they insisted on calling it. You are then required to recruit others to do the same. For the first two recruits you are paid £450and are called a Junior partner. For each subsequent recruit you are paid £1,220 and are called a Senior partner. After your fourth recruit you are in profit. You can only introduce a maximum of two members at any one time and only by bringing them to one of the weekend meetings…It is expressly forbidden to try to publicise the club. The payouts are in cash every Wednesday evening.
One of the unusual features of the club is that all transactions are in cash. They claim that they have no UK bank accounts and that all club records are kept in Germany. There are no information leaflets and they do not want people to take away the membership form from the meeting. I spoke to two club officials, Rob Glas who is the UK regional manager and Alan Simpson who is the regional marketing manager. At first they were both very courteous and polite, but when it became obvious that I was not going to join they declined to discuss things further with me and insisted that I returned the membership form. They both refused to give me any contact phone numbers in this country and told me if I had any further comments I should contact their office in Germany."
324
I hope that it has become plain from what I have read what an iniquitous scam this company is running and how dangerous it would be to get involved in it.
The letter ends with a few choice comments about how iniquitous the writer feels the scheme to be, and I quite agree with him. Anyone who has any sense will avoid like the plague joining a so-called "business club" of that sort.
I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to alert their constituents to the Titan business club and that Ministers will find ways in which to expose the perpetrators of that scam in the sure knowledge that exposure to the public will ensure that such a scam withers away. There is nothing like the cover of secrecy to allow such a business to thrive.
I am sure that we all agree that it is important for the Titan business club to disappear as quickly as possible. But I must warn hon. Members that, while it has apparently left my constituency—it is very keen to get out while the going is good and to take the subscriptions of the original participants with it—the club has already moved into other constituencies in the south. People should be warned, before it is too late, to take no part in it.
11.11 am
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I do not believe that the House should rise before it has addressed the important problem of the shambles in which the Kent highways programme now finds itself. The Government announced £81 million of funding for the Kent highways programme, which was by far the largest amount to be granted to a roads programme in the country, yet the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition controlling Kent county council have that programme totally out of balance.
The reason for the shambles is that, year after year, the council has asked permission to build the Medway relief roads but, year after year, after receiving such permission, it has not gone ahead because it has never been ready to do so. The council has taken the allocated money in those years and put it into other schemes, which have now started. Consequently, the Kent county council highways programme is choked with commitments.
We should remember that the £81 million for this year's highway programme is an absolute record, but that commitments already undertaken by the council have absorbed all but £7 million of that figure. The council has already approved five schemes, amounting to £43 million which it must somehow accommodate within the £7 million. Recently, the council decided to spread the money among three of the schemes.
What worries me is that the council is now trying a sleight-of-hand by spending money this year that may or may not be allocated to it in future years. It has put together a proposal to borrow £20 million to £25 million from Rochester city council, English Partnerships and any other company that is foolish enough to lend to it so that it can proceed with the Medway relief roads. That proposal would choke the Kent highways programme even further.
The council now proposes to ask the Minister with responsibility for local transport and road safety—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—to agree to that ludicrous proposal. I suggest, in the interests of that area and of sound finances, that the ministerial answer should be a categorical no, not least because we do not need the Wainscott bypass.

325
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Opposition spokesman on roads, recently visited the area. He told the press that the Medway tunnel was a "white elephant", and he blamed the Government because he claimed that they had not funded the connecting roads. Quite frankly, that statement shows appalling ignorance. As I have already explained, the Government have given authorisation for it year after year. The trouble is that Kent county council has spent the money elsewhere.
The roads have been delayed because of incompetence, subterfuge and a failure properly to assess alternative routes—for example, the historic Strood gyratory, which was the original proposal, or the Medway riverside route from Rochester to the junction with the M2, where it crosses the River Medway. The latter route, incidentally, has the virtue of demolishing the city of Rochester civic centre, which could be moved to a magnificent building on the Chatham maritime to serve the Medway towns' new unitary authority.
Not only did the Opposition spokesman on roads express his ignorance in those statements but his approach would sanction the county council's riding roughshod over my constituents by curtailing public consultations and public inquiry before pressing ahead with the proposal.
My constituents in the parishes of Higham, Shorne and Cobham bitterly resent the way in which Kent county council has ridden roughshod over their opinions, because the Wainscott bypass would pass through some of the most beautiful green belt in the London area. That land is very agriculturally productive and is, in fact, the last piece of green belt between the greater London conurbation and the Medway towns. The plan for the bypass should be returned to the drawing board, even at this late stage, so that alternatives can be considered. The case for doing so has been made very clearly on financial and environmental grounds.
If the council were to go ahead with the proposals, the Kent highways programme in 1997–98 would be totally clogged. The council would be spending £30 million to £40 million on the Medway relief roads alone, and it would spend even more on previous commitments. The result of pressing ahead would be that no progress will be made on the Ramsgate harbour road or on the south Thamesside development route, phases 2 and 3, which consists of the roads from Ebbsfleet to Greenhithe in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
Failure to proceed with those phases would jeopardise the development of the Thames gateway, which is close to the heart of the Government, and the Ebbsfleet developments, which are close to my constituents' hearts. All in all, the Kent county council highways programme is a sheer and utter shambles.
The development of the Thames gateway has not been helped by the delay in the vital south Thamesside development route, phase 4, which is effectively the Northfleet town bypass. Imagine having the channel tunnel rail link Thames tunnel excavations on one side of a town and the massive construction of the Ebbsfleet international station on the other side—with the monumental numbers of heavy goods vehicles and earth-moving vehicles passing between the two—when the only route between the two sides is through one's town. That horrible prospect is why
326
the south Thamesside development route, phase 4, must be built before either of those projects is started. They are due to be started imminently.
We are desperate for progress on this project because of the shambolic way in which the Kent county council highways department has been handling it. In February last year, the residents of Northfleet saw the plans for the road. More than a year later, what progress has the Lib-Lab council made on it? It has taken a whole year for the KCC highways department to ask the council planning department for planning permission to build the bypass, and that permission has still not been granted. In fact, it has taken the Conservative Government to nudge the council forward by granting for this financial year a specifically allocated credit approval in order to push the project through along with another one. I can tell the House that my constituents and I will push Kent county council to get that project through because it is vital.
It is ironic that, while Kent county council's highways programme is in a shambles, the financial spokesmen for the Labour and Liberal parties on that council are now talking about a mini-budget for 1996–97, to be announced in June. Do you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the last Labour Government of all those years ago, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, came to the House with a succession of mini-budgets every year? We are asked by the Opposition to look forward to the prospect of a Labour Government; well, if one wants to see Labour government in action, one should go along to Kent county council, where mini-budgets and shambles are the order of the day.
Dr. Spink: Can my hon. Friend remind me whether that was the Labour Government who had inflation running at 27 per cent., about 10 times the current rate?
Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind us about what it means to have Labour in office.
We are told that there may be a Labour Government after the next general election. I will leave it to the electorate to decide, but I have my doubts, because if the electorate want any ideas about a Labour Government, they should just look at the antics of the Leader of the Opposition in the past week alone.
Just last Wednesday, I read in that excellent daily newspaper, Kent Today, a snippet entitled "Blair set to meet the shoppers". It informed its readers:
"Labour Leader Tony Blair will meet shoppers in Gravesend when he comes to town on Friday.
The MP is planning a walkabout in the St. George's and Anglesea centres during his visit".
I was rather surprised to read that, because I thought that it was parliamentary courtesy to inform a colleague if one intended to visit his or her constituency. That lack of courtesy is nothing new, however, because the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency about a year ago and did not advise me in advance. On that occasion, I received an apology from a deputy spin doctor in the right hon. Gentleman's office, who referred to that omission as an "oversight". Well, well, well.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition immediately I got the wonderful news that he was showing some interest in Gravesham. I told him that, had he advised me in advance, I could have organised a visit for him. I wrote:

327
"For instance, we might have visited the Enterprise Parks at Springhead and on the Imperial Business Estate where thousands of jobs have been created in recent years under the Enterprise Zone legislation of the Conservative Government (legislation against which the Labour Party voted). We could have visited our highly successful grammar schools and grant maintained schools, all of which are under threat from the Labour Party. Indeed, slightly more time permitting, we could have visited the site of the future Darenth Park Hospital where a brand new General Hospital costing £100 million is to be built, financed by the Private Finance Initiative, or alternatively visited the many farms in Gravesham. Both the hospital and the livelihood of many farm workers have been put at risk recently by the irresponsible scaremongering in the House of Commons by Harriet Harman."
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that the names of Members are not mentioned. I know that in the first instance the name was given in a quotation, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful.
Mr. Arnold: I was quoting from a letter; I am fully aware of the conventions of the House.
More important than those invitations, I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to a debate in the very shopping centre that he proposed to visit. I believe that it is far more important for shoppers to be informed of the answers to real questions rather than just given a photo-opportunity handshake.
In the event, the Leader of the Opposition was half an hour late. He did shake hands, but only with the Labour grandees of the local council. He rushed through one of the shopping centres in less than 10 minutes, looking somewhat harassed.
It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not accept my challenge, because such a debate would have been most interesting. Just yesterday in the Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition had great fun during Prime Minister's questions by proposing a debate on television with the Prime Minister. Why did he not respond to my invitation to a debate in the shopping centre at Gravesend? Indeed, I have still not had a reply to my letter, six days later.
I would have called on the Leader of the Opposition to answer a burning question for the people of Gravesend: quite simply, would he support the PFI for Darenth Park hospital, a major £100 million hospital project? I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he supported the PFI scheme for that hospital—yes or no. If he had answered yes, he would then have had to give the Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), some pretty firm instructions, because she has tried to undermine that project.
In the House recently, the hon. Lady mentioned the existence of a PFI priority list, which she claimed had been leaked from the Treasury, and which categorised projects into an A and B list. She had great fun jeering at me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford when she said that Darenth Park hospital was on the B list, and that therefore it was hardly likely to be developed. I have news for the hon. Lady: that project has attracted four major consortia, which have put in bids. Those applications are so good that two have been selected and invited to tender, and one of those tenders will be accepted. In other words, if the project is on the B list, as the hon. Lady claimed, it is certainly a golden list.
328
The hon. Lady has made other attacks on the concept of using the PFI for hospital construction. On 13 January she told a health conference at Birmingham:
"I don't call it a Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative."
The hostility behind that quotation is clear. If that was not enough to undermine the confidence of bidders to build our hospital under the PFI, she told the House:
"Any banker would be unwise to enter into a contract valued at hundreds of millions of pounds with a public sector partner that can be abolished by the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 825.]
That hardly instils confidence in the companies that are bidding, but then they are far more intelligent than the hon. Lady, and they have maintained their bids.
I would have liked to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports the use of the PFI for Darenth Park hospital. If he were to answer yes, the hon. Member for Peckham should stop undermining our hospital. If he were to answer no, the people of Gravesham and Dartford deserve nothing less than a beautifully framed signed letter from the Opposition Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), giving his firm commitment to invest £100 million of Government funds in year one to build that hospital. We would expect nothing less and we would expect a yes or no in support of our hospital.
I can assure the House that the Dartford and Gravesham national health service trust, local people and the local Members of Parliament back the project and are pressing ahead because we want our new district general hospital. It is the best prospect that we have had for many a long year, and it will be delivered under a Conservative Government through the PFI. The construction of that hospital would have a spin-off and release the Gravesend and North Kent hospital for the creation of the community hospital, to which my constituents have looked forward for a long time. That hospital site would be transferred to the Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust, which is already working on an £8 million PFI project to bring that about.
What I have tried to make clear this morning is that Conservative policies are working in north-west Kent. They are working despite the sabotage, incompetence and hostility of Labour—in office on Kent county council; and in opposition in the House, where I hope and expect Labour to remain for a very long time.
11.19 am
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I was minded to comment on the unfortunate speech of the hon. Member who, for the time being, represents Basildon, but I am happy now to regard that as a distant memory. I am, however, delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) is resuming his seat alongside me because I now have the opportunity to congratulate him personally on an excellent, elegant and well-judged maiden speech with which I associate myself in general terms and in the particular—his gracious remarks about his predecessor.
I have my own fond memories of my hon. Friend's predecessor's charm, humour, bonhomie and presence and I have my particular reasons for remembering him with much fondness and regret. We were the two classicists on the Labour Benches. It is a little known fact that we

329
shared a secret—as young teachers we both translated the songs of the Beatles into Latin in separate songbooks. Mine ranged from "Amat te mehercle", which non-latinists might just about recognise as "She loves you, yeah yeah yeah" and "Veni domum Bill Bailey", which needs no translation.
I did not know of my late hon. Friend's service to relations with Portugal, but I knew from close quarters the excellent work that he did for relations with Greece and Cyprus, and it is to a matter of great importance to the people of Cyprus that I wish draw the House's attention today—the people who are still listed as missing since the invasions of 1974. We know the statistics. There are 1,619 names on the list and, if the House will allow me, I shall give a few personal details about several of them because they are not just statistics but individuals.
The following is the evidence of one Lambis Elia from the village of Hartsia:
"On 13.9.1974",
after the invasions,
"the Turks arrested my two sons, Michael aged 17, and Elia aged 19, and took them to their camp near our village. On the same day I met the Turkish Cypriot, Nazim Ahmet, aged 60, who is a friend of mine"—
that also should be noted—
"and I asked him to take me to the Turkish Army Officer. He did take me and the following day on the 14.9.1974, the Turkish Officer allowed me to see my sons for ten minutes. The next day …the Officer allowed me to see them again and this time I was with my wife. We saw them for some time in the Turkish camp where they were being held.
On 16.9.74 around two o'clock in the afternoon a party of the International Red Cross came to our village. I told them about the arrest of my sons and I led them to the area of the Turkish camp. Unfortunately, however, the Turkish Army Officer denied that he was holding any prisoners and did not allow the Red Cross to carry out an investigation.
Since then, nothing has become known about the fate of my two sons".
Andreas Nicodemos, of the village of Trimithi in the occupied Kyrenia district, was a reservist during the invasion. He was taken prisoner and transferred, with others, to Adana prison in Turkey. On 20 or 21 August 1974, he was taken out into the yard, where he heard someone call his name. The person who called him was someone he knew—his co-villager Kyriakos Frixou—who is now missing. They shook hands and spoke but, since then, nothing has been heard of him.
I have here a famous photograph that was developed from film taken by a Turkish journalist who was covering the invasion and was wounded and captured by the Greek national guard. The picture shows some Greek Cypriot prisoners kneeling under armed guard. Five have been identified. I shall read out their names because they are individuals. They are Korellis Antonakis tou Michaeli from Kythrea, Nicolaou Paniccos tou Chrysostomou from Achna, Skordis Christoforos tou Georghiou from Dhali, Papayiannis Ioannis tou Charalambous from Anglandjia and Hadjikyriakos Philippos tou Stephani from Famagusta.
I also have copies of photographs of other missing people, but I shall not read out any more names as that would burden the House. However, I have a photograph that was published in a Turkish publication and shows a visit by the Turkish Red Crescent to a prisoner of war camp. It shows four identifiable individuals alive in prison in Turkey—but they are now missing. I also have two pictures
330
from a BBC documentary, again taken at Adana prison. They show four individuals who have been identified and who were alive and well but who are now missing.
There are 1,619 missing people, of whom 992 were reservists—prisoners of war caught fighting—but 627 of them were civilians. Of the total, 1,503 were men and 116 women. The sad thing is that, although among the older age groups 315 were over 60 and 241 were between 40 and 60, 1,036 were between 16 and 39—the active miliary age group—and 27, including two girls, were under 16.
There has been much public condemnation of the fact that people who were known to be alive in custody are still posted as missing and their fate is unknown. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considered the matter in September 1984, as did many other international bodies. It discussed the Verde report, which was endorsed. Mr. Verde wrote:
"Enforced disappearance is one of the most serious violations of the human rights safeguarded by international instruments: it infringes virtually all the victims' personal rights and many of the rights of their families. The violations are also contrary to the 1949 Geneva conventions and cannot be justified by special circumstances, whether armed conflict, state of emergency or internal unrest or tension"—
any of which terms accurately describes the situation in Cyprus at that time.
The House will note that the Verde report refers to the rights of the families of missing people. It is on the agony of the families that I want to dwell for a few moments. To understand their agony, we must have a little insight into their southern European, Greek orthodox culture. In that culture, family ties extend widely and deeply. It is often jokingly said that, in Cyprus, everyone is everyone else's cousin—that is the latitudinal family tie.
Longitudinally, it is interesting to note the extent of the use of the patronymic. The endings "-idis", as in Christophides, "-akis" and "-opoulos" are all patronymic endings. It will be noted that the simple genitive case is often used as a surname, as in Georgiou, which means son of George or "George son". This feature is, perhaps, common in other cultures, but people in Cyprus have another interesting custom, which is to pass on Christian names from grandfather to grandson. The son of Charalambous Kotziamanis is a dear friend of a number of us in the House—Nikos Charalambous Kotziamanis—whose eldest son is Charalambous Kotziamanis, and so it will continue.
That family tradition is echoed in the formalised remembrance of the dead. There are services after three days, after 40 days—the Sarandaimeron, which is very important—after three months, after six months, after 12 months and annually thereafter. Connected with that is the importance of the family grave in the ancestral village. Indeed, the very word "cemetery", or koimeterion, means the place where the dead rest or sleep.
The distress felt by the 180,000 refugees is caused not just by the loss of their property, but by the loss of their ancestral villages. One need only observe the multitude of village associations that exist in the London Greek Cypriot community to appreciate that. In such a culture, uncertainty about the fate of loved ones and the denial of the experience of bereavement is particularly painful. Those loved ones are not at rest; people hope against hope for their return, setting places for them at family celebrations such as weddings. Anyone who has observed

331
a public meeting of refugees cannot have failed to be moved by the sight of old women holding up photographs of those whose fate is still unknown—agnooumeni, or missing people.
That is why the recent pronouncement of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, was so particularly brutal. He said that the "unknown" were all dead—that the Turkish army had handed them over to Turkish paramilitaries in the aftermath of the invasion of 1974, and that the paramilitaries had put them to death. I am not certain how that can have been done to people who were in prison in Turkey.
It is not clear what Rauf Denktash intended. Did he intend to clear Turkey of responsibility for those people's fate, or simply to close the issue? Whatever his purpose, the attempt failed. If Turkey handed over prisoners of war to paramilitaries, that was wrong, and a violation of international conventions. If Turkey wants to be absolved, it must provide the necessary information. The problem for Turkey is the evidence that I gave in my opening remarks—evidence of the known existence of many of the people involved after the cessation of hostilities.
Rauf Denktash's remarks did not close the issue. They make no difference to the requirement that the fate of the missing people—the fate of as many individuals as is humanly possible—must be revealed to their families, to whom they continue to be dearly loved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and sons, or just missing friends.
I shall read a poem by another dear friend of some hon. Members, Michaelis Xenophontos Joannou—son of Xenophon. The poem is entitled "To A Missing Friend".

"Where were you lost my friend

Where do you roam at this hour?

In which dungeon are you kept prisoner

Or have you been buried

In an unknown grave

Without a cross?

'Missing' they said

And they took down all details

Whilst life continued its road.

I always see you, though,

On the football terrace

Standing and smiling at me…

In vain I try to explain

That bitter smile on your face."

The United Kingdom has many interests in the matter—as a guarantor of power, as a member of the Commonwealth and as a country in which many relatives of the missing people have settled, joining the Greek Cypriot community here. Some of the missing people had dual nationality: I am aware of at least one. Earlier this week, I presented my Cyprus (Commission of Enquiry into Missing Persons) Bill, the aim of which is to
"establish a Commission of Enquiry to take evidence concerning the whereabouts of certain missing persons and to authorise the provision of assistance in the conduct of any investigations into those matters carried out by the authorities on the island of Cyprus; and for connected purposes."
The Bill's Second Reading is to take place on 12 July, but I have an opportunity today to rehearse briefly the case for the establishment of the commission.
Mine is a modest proposal. I ask for an investigation of the fate of certain missing persons, at the invitation of the Cypriot Government. The Bill offers a framework,
332
procedures and funds by means of which, after 22 long years, the hopes of the families of the agnooumeni may be vindicated—although, sadly, that is now unlikely—and their fears laid to rest by knowledge of the fate of their loved ones. Painful though that may be, it does not compare with the pain of the present uncertainty.
11.33 am
Mr. Eric Clarke: I, too, want to talk about Cyprus and the role of the United Kingdom Government, the United States and European Governments.
The island has been occupied for more than 21 years. It has been annexed, and United Nations troops are on the green line. When I go there, I try to imagine what it would be like if the same happened in Scotland—if my homeland, my people and my property were taken from me. What would it be like if foreign troops occupied the part of the country to which I belong, and my property was filled with immigrants from Turkey or another foreign power?
The Scots are a proud race—no less proud than the Greeks and even the Turks. We are a warlike nation, just as they are. The British have used us on many occasions to force their policies on other people. The Cypriots, however, have genuinely tried to exercise a peaceful policy, through the United Nations and in other ways, in an attempt to reunify their country. There is a democracy in Cyprus; the Cypriots have even put their political future at stake, repeatedly trying to establish formulas through the United Nations, and holding meetings in New York and elsewhere to suggest to Mr. Denktash ways of returning the annexed territory to a united Cyprus in which people can live in freedom and democracy.
All that has been to no avail, however. There is clearly a connection between Mr. Denktash and Ankara. Much hangs on the attitude of not just the UK Government but the United States, which has considerable influence on the Turkish Government and the proposal that Turkey and Cyprus should become part of the European common market. I hope that the good will and efforts of others will make it clear to Ankara that we cannot stand aside after 21 years and see a divided nation in which UN troops are on guard at all times and people are made refugees in their own country. Many of them have come to the United Kingdom, but they would be delighted to return to their ancestral homes.
The Government are denying their responsibilities. It is all very well to say that the Cypriots must come together, but have our Government seriously analysed the proposals of the democratic Government who are in place in the largest part of the island for the protection of minority groups? I do not believe that the Foreign Office has made any serious efforts. There seems to be a pro-Turkish lobby in the House. I am not pro-Greek; I am pro-democracy, decency and freedom. I want the people of Cyprus to be united once more, as they should be. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and others on bringing the Government's attention to the problem. I do not know how much publicity it will get, but it is certainly an outstanding international problem.
There have been peace negotations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and similar negotiations brought democracy to South Africa after years of apartheid. What is stopping us from negotiating to bring

333
about the unification and freedom of Cyprus? Turkey and Greece are two great nations with ethnic connections. They have different religious and, perhaps, political views, but if Israelis can get together with Palestinians and if South Africa's people can negotiate to do away with apartheid, anything can happen in this world.
I hope that the UK, which has a vested interest in Cyprus and a responsibility as a partner in efforts to secure peace and unity, will take this matter seriously and that, in the years before the millennium, its priority will be to ensure that Cyprus again becomes a united nation and island under a democratic process. Achievement of that would be a credit to us and to the people who are aiming to secure it.
11.39 am
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I want to pursue a matter that was referred to in the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who spoke with depth, feeling and understanding of the problems that face coalfield communities in his constituency. It is important that we work towards creating new jobs, new opportunities and a new future for coalfield communities.
In the past few weeks, British Coal Enterprise has been privatised. That process is now almost complete. When the House resumes after the Easter recess, the enterprise will be in private hands, so it is important that we discuss the matter—perhaps for the last time—today.
The House will remember that British Coal Enterprise was set up as a regeneration agency to attract new jobs to coalfield areas and to retrain former miners. In the financial year just ended, it spent £20 million in coalfield communities. It operates a loan fund that is matched against others to create funding for small business and other companies. It operates workshops in coalfield communities throughout the country and it has been involved in the training and retraining of former miners.
I want to record my thanks and those of many hon. Members on, I think, both sides of the House to British Coal Enterprise, and in particular to its chief executive, Phillip Andrew, and all his staff. I opposed British Coal Enterprise's privatisation, but the job is now done. The agency is being fragmented. The loan fund has been subject to a management buy-out by Coalfield Investments Ltd., which is headed by Bill Furness, British Coal Enterprise's former finance director. The workshops have been sold to a firm called Birkby, which is based in Huddersfield. The training side—the Grosvenor side of the business—has also been the subject of a successful management buy-out.
British Coal Enterprise has been discussed many times in the House. On a number of occasions, Ministers have made commitments that, as part of the sale, the new private sector owners will continue the agency's work in coalfield communities. According to Ministers, under new ownership, British Coal Enterprise will continue to focus on creating jobs, to maintain the loan fund and to offer coalfield communities a new future.
Coalfield communities were therefore extremely surprised and disappointed to learn only yesterday that, out of the 120 staff who work for British Coal Enterprise, 30 are to be made redundant—a 25 per cent. cut in jobs. I understand that further redundancies may be announced
334
shortly. There is a strange irony in the fact that an agency set up to create new jobs in coalfield areas is now putting people out of work.
My real concern is that commitments—they are on the record—had been given that, under private owners, resources would continue and that, in its new form, British Coal Enterprise would continue to do the job. The bottom line is that, with staff cuts of 25 per cent., it may not be able to do so. Faith has been broken with coalfield communities.
Coalfield communities have a right to know how much the Treasury has gained from the sale of British Coal Enterprise, which was 100 per cent. owned by the public. The proceeds are to go to the Treasury. The sale has been completed. How much money has been gained? Figures of about £20 million to £30 million have been bandied about. Let us have it on the record; let it be acknowledged how much money has gone to the Treasury.
Let the Minister face the argument. The agency was set up to create new jobs in coalfield areas. Why should not the receipts from the sale be put back into coalfield communities, perhaps matching RECHAR funding, to bring new jobs into the area?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke movingly of the problems that face coalfield communities. Hon. Members will remember that, in October 1992, the then President of the Board of Trade announced measures that, in effect, wound up large parts of the coal industry in the United Kingdom. Since then, unemployment nationally has fallen by 17 per cent.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is here this morning, because he knows better than anyone that, since October 1992, although unemployment nationally has fallen by 17 per cent., in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, which covers his constituency and part of mine, unemployment has fallen by just 7 per cent. and that, in the neighbouring Worksop travel-to-work area, it has hardly fallen at all. The gap between affluent areas and disadvantaged areas such as coalfield communities is widening, which is a recipe for social disaster.
The nation owes a debt to the coal industry, to the people who worked in it and to coalfield communities. Coalfield communities know that they need a new future and that they must find that future through their own efforts. They want investment in infrastructure, in workshops and in companies, but especially investment that will create a new future.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issues that surround British Coal Enterprise. I hope that he will reiterate the commitment that Ministers have given many times in the House that, under private ownership, British Coal Enterprise's successor companies will continue to meet coalfield communities' needs. I hope that he will consider how much money has been raised from the sale of British Coal Enterprise, whether it is £20 million or £30 million, and give a commitment today that the money will be spent on creating the new jobs and the new future that is so badly needed in many of our neighbourhoods and towns.
11.48 am
Mr. Alan Meale: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) for his kind remarks. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for

335
Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) and wish him well in his career. I certainly think that he will do an excellent job. Those who have listened to his speech—or who will read it in Hansard—will have learnt much about the man and about what he will, I hope, do in his time in Parliament. If he can do half as well as his two immediate predecessors, he will do a magnificent job.
I also remember Derek Enright, who was a marvellous politician and a marvellous friend. I also remember his predecessor, George Buckley, who was a dear friend to many of us in the Chamber and a sterling worker on behalf of the coalfield communities that he represented. Sadly, both men died serving their community and the state. I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours. I hope to God that the same fate does not befall him while he is a Member of the House. I hope that he has a long and arduous time in this place, but that he enjoys good health in his old age in retirement.
Like my hon. Friends the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), I, too, want to raise the question of Cyprus today. It is a scandal that we, as a guarantor power and as signatory to a number of conventions in relation to Cyprus, have not fulfilled our responsibilities to that great allied nation. Here we are, yet again, 21 years after an illegal invasion that resulted in the illegal occupation which continues today, with tens of thousands of troops illegally occupying one third of the sovereign island of Cyprus. That is a disgrace.
I want to consider other disgraceful areas where we have failed to exert sufficient pressure to try to help this ally. Since 1974, 1,619 people are still missing, many of whom can now be presumed dead because of the age at which they were taken prisoner—nearly all in uniform, I may add, under the terms of the Geneva convention. But young women and girls and one four-year-old child also disappeared during that time. I know of that child, having considered the history of his case. President Klerides of Cyprus knew all about that case because, at the time of the illegal invasion, he was acting President of the island. Mr. Dentkash, who remains the leader of the Turkish Cypriot illegal regime in the north, was the acting President of that illegal regime. On many occasions, that young child was about to be handed over, but it never actually happened. His case typifies nearly all the cases of the missing 1,619.
Not just one or two cases of joint citizenship are involved. There are hundreds of cases of people who had British citizenship, and nearly all those involved have relatives who are British citizens. It is a scandal that we have not tackled the issue head on, in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of those missing people, or at least to notify relatives of exactly what happened. If there are any remains, they should be returned to the relatives.
One reason why we should tackle this international issue head on is Britain's historical relationship with Cyprus. At no time within its recent history has Cyprus let Britain down. I am amazed that it has not, when one considers some of the events in which we have been involved with that nation and the ways in which it has been treated by us.
336
During world war one, tens of thousands of Cypriots stepped forward to fight with the allies. On day one of world war two, 42,000 of the 48,000 eligible adults in Cyprus volunteered to fight fascism in Europe, and thousands of them died in the process.
I am not ashamed to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian that I am pro-Greek. I am pro-Greek because Greece, like Britain, is a member of the European Community. I do not step away from that, because I also recall what Greece gave during the second world war. For the first two years, it was not officially in it, but on day one it gave the whole of its merchant fleet to the allies. In the process, during those first two years, thousands of lives and ships were lost. It is an historic fact that, if Greece had not entered the war and had not taken on the fascist forces of Germany at that time, the war could have been lost.
Mr. O'Hara: Will my hon. Friend also remark on the fact that for six months, between 28 October 1940 and the occupation of Athens in April 1941, Greece alone was fighting with the United Kingdom against the fascists?
Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend. We should remind ourselves of those facts and of what side Turkey was on during that period. It certainly was not the British side.
When I think about the illegal occupation of Cyprus, I also remember Turkey's human rights record, which is the most abominable in Europe. I wonder why we have stepped back from Cyprus and have not given it the support that it has given us. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence will realise that it is because we are being led by United States foreign policy. That is the reality.
Many of us will wonder why the United States should be involved in all this. Among the 1,619 missing people are a number of American citizens. Yet the United States has failed to fight in a realistic and honourable way to discover the whereabouts of those people, to obtain their release or to have their remains returned. I just wish that the United States would treat its missing people in Cyprus as seriously as it treated its missing people in a more recent confrontation in Vietnam.
But this is about United States foreign policy and about Britain being led by the nose by the United States. Many reasons have been given for that. One is that America has a number of missile bases in Turkey which, in the old days, pointed towards the old Soviet bloc. That wall has now come down and instead, as I understand it, the Americans have switched their missiles round slightly, aiming them towards the middle east in order to try to provide stability there. We all know how, during the Kuwait war, Turkey was used by American forces in order to send aircraft and troops against Iraq.
But the truth is that this is not really about missile bases. If it was, the Americans could have them in Cyprus or on aircraft carriers or submarines in the Mediterranean. This is about trade, and a particular kind of trade-oil and gas. We all know that 72 per cent. of the world's known resources of oil and gas are situated in that part of the world, particularly in Turkey. It is about that, and about American trade and foreign policy, which seeks to get through the door of the old Soviet states and to trade there, to capitalise on the gas and oil reserves and to use that as a base to enter Europe and to trade with the third world—Africa, India and all the rest.

337
Any economist with any sense who has read Lipsey will know that the only way in which the world will be able to get out of the recession in which it now finds itself is to trade out of it, and the most open market for that resides in the third world and, in particular, in Africa.
We need to start to live up to our responsibilities. Sadly, we have let down the people of Cyprus. This is a matter of common sense and it is in Britain's interests. Cyprus represents, as a full partner in Europe and as an ally of Britain, many advantages. The first is its role in trade with the third world, to which I referred earlier. Cyprus has an excellent record, particularly with African nations, and certainly with the old eastern bloc. It now has its own stock exchange, which is magnificently run, and an offshore banking system that is second to none. Its geographical location offers Europe the opportunity of a telecommunications bank for Europe that would be the envy of the world. Last but not least, it has the second largest shipping fleet in the world, which, if joined with that of Greece, would give us a monopoly on world shipping. If we are to trade, we need that base.
Madam Speaker, it has been kind of you to allow me to address the House today on Cyprus. I say that Britain should live up to its responsibility. It should demand of Turkey and of the illegal regime that they get round the negotiating table and, as a precondition to any movement, notify the United Nations missing persons committee of the whereabouts of the missing persons. Then we could go on to free the island, make it a full partner in Europe and be an ally to it, as it has been to us.
12 noon
Mr. Tony Banks: I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I also describe myself as pro-Greek. Indeed, I was made an honorary citizen of the island of Simi, which is just a few kilometres from the shores of Turkey. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-Greek have a responsibility to ensure that the Greeks and Turks talk to each other. Political solutions need to be found, and we must do all that we can to encourage the search for them. At one stage I thought that I would have to pack my tin hat along with my suntan cream and sunglasses when I went to Simi, given the increasing tension between Greece and Turkey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) will make an excellent Member of Parliament, although he has a lot to live up to. I know that he knows that as well as anyone. Derek Enright was a most cultured, civilised and decent human being, and we all miss him enormously.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is not in his place, but I know that he will read Hansard, if only to read his own speech. I am sorry that he felt that I was being nasty to him. I should like to say that he played a great part in assisting the London borough of Newham and the private and public sectors on the location of the second international station at Stratford. It was just a little bit of uncustomary bile on my part that led me to say those unkind, ruthless and altogether accurate things that I said about him.
I regret that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) criticised my good friend Mark Thomas, who does the excellent programme on Channel 4, "The Comedy Product". Anyone who revealed, as Mark did, the
338
underwear secrets of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) deserves a great tribute from the nation. When he revealed to a horrified nation the state of the hon. Gentleman's underpants, he did something that we all should be pleased he did. The underpants from hell is the only way I can describe them. No doubt he will live to regret the interview that he gave to Mr. Thomas.
I should like to say a few words before the Easter recess about bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease. Perhaps later this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement about the failure of the European Union to lift the ban on British beef, even though thousands of cattle are to be slaughtered and more will be following on a selective basis.
The thing that I deeply regret is that the taxpayer will pick up the bill for all this. There is no such thing as a free lunch, particularly within the European Union. Although 70 per cent. of the cost of the slaughter policy will come from Europe, we contribute to the EU budget. So the money might come indirectly, but it will still come from the taxpayer. There is something wrong here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) talked about the destruction of the coalfield communities. When the arguments on that were raised in the House, we were told that it was a matter of market forces. Market forces dictated that there was no longer a demand for coal and the miners would just have to pack up from the pits, leave their helmets and lamps behind, and go somewhere else.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: No. I cannot give way; I do not have time.
A completely different solution is advanced whenever the farmers unions are involved. I know that they play a vital role in the economy, but farmers in this country always get special treatment. The miners are told that it is the market, but we have to make special provisions for the farmers. Some farmers and those who work on farms or in the beef industry are entitled to special provision, but I do not see why the taxpayers should pick up the tab for farmers who knowingly fed their cattle, which are ruminants and herbivores, animal protein foodstuffs. One does not need to be a scientist or wear a white coat—a few Members in the House ought to be wearing white coats, but not because they are scientists—to realise that it is obvious that, if we start grotesquely interfering with nature, there will be a price to pay. The taxpayer is expected to pay that price.
If we are going to shoot hormones into cattle to tenderise meat, genetically engineer animals to produce food for us, and interfere with the natural growth of fruit and vegetables, we shall do things to ourselves as well as to nature. We are poisoning ourselves. One does not need to be an expert to work out that there will be consequences.
I want to know whom we are going to sue. Someone ought to be arraigned in a public dock and accused. We can accuse the Government, but we could certainly also accuse the cattle cake manufacturers. After all, those who produce pharmaceutical products, tobacco companies and the manufacturers of asbestos can be sued for endangering the health of the nation. So why

339
should not those who have endangered the health of the nation through BSE now be sued? Everyone is walking away. No one is guilty. No one is at fault. No one is to blame. But the taxpayer has to pick up the bill in the end.
I have been a vegetarian for some years now, but unfortunately not long enough to have escaped the incubation period of mad cow disease in humans. So I am probably as potentially mad as anyone else in the Chamber.
Mr. Trickett: No sympathy.
Mr. Banks: I am not looking for sympathy. Some people feel that I contracted mad cow disease an awful long time ago, but that is neither here nor there.
What I want to know now is how I and other vegetarians can avoid beef products. It is not easy. All right, I do not go out and buy beef. That is the easy part. It is where beef products go into the food chain elsewhere—where they are hidden—that gives me room for concern. For example, skin, bones, ligaments and tendons are boiled up to make gelatine, which is used as a gelling or thickening agent in many products, including some, if not all, yoghurts, ice creams, cakes, biscuits, sweets, mints, liquorice allsorts, jelly beans, wine gums, jelly, sausages, aspic in pork pies and coating for vitamin pills.
In order to make sure that I stay healthy long enough to see the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) go to his inevitable political doom, I take vitamin tablets. I now find that I am taking vitamin tablets that contain beef products. So I am thinking, "Ha ha, I am not going to go mad like the rest of them. I am okay. I am taking vitamin tablets." The fact is that I am still doing exactly what other people are doing. I am taking potentially infected products into my system without knowing it. If I want to commit suicide, I want to do it knowingly. I do not want to do it by accident. We need far more information and labelling to tell us what goes into food products.
When I have called in the House for various boycotts of nasty products because of the treatment of animals, the ministerial response has always been that it is up to the consumers to decide. Consumer choice is what it is all about. I do not disagree with consumer choice, but to exercise choice, we need information. We do not get enough information about what goes on.
At the base of the problem lies the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for food protection as well as for food production. That raises irreconcilable conflicts, as is shown by BSE. We must split the two functions. I want to think that someone is looking after my interests as a consumer rather than sacrificing them in the interests of the producer.
We must all learn from what has happened. My lesson is that I am far from being safe in following a vegetarian diet because I do not know enough about what goes into the foods, pills, tablets and potions that I take to be able to make speeches here. I shall end because I have been told to do so.
12.9 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I would not dream of telling my hon. Friend to end, but I am glad that he sat down when he did because it gives me the chance to reply to the debate.
I have just received a message from the Leader of the House saying that he has been delayed in Cabinet in respect of the Agriculture Council. I am sure that that will be of especial interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because the issues he raised are significant and are causing much concern. I agree that there must be limits on how far we interfere with nature. On his points about what happened in Brussels overnight, I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that there will be a statement to the House on that today.
It would also be appropriate to have a statement about the Cabinet's decision on a referendum on a single currency. I understand from my hon. Friends that they can read the outcome of the Cabinet meeting on Teletext—which is the normal way of finding out things—although I suppose that for the most part, we read it in this morning's papers, where such things are reported in advance.
I am sure that the Leader of the House regrets his absence from the Chamber; we understand why it is necessary. He will especially regret missing the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I am pleased, as a fellow Yorkshire Member, to be able to congratulate him from the Front Bench on his contribution. Those of us who knew him before he came into the House, and knew the impact that he made on Leeds city council, had high expectations of him, which he has met today. I am sure that his reputation for directness, good humour and taking a practical approach to problems will stand him in good stead.
He will appreciate both the compliments that have been paid to him and the heartfelt compliments that were paid to his predecessor, Derek Enright. All hon. Members had a great deal of respect and fondness for Derek. He would appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) intends to maintain his tradition as a classicist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said that Derek Enright had a real presence in the Chamber. On occasion, that caused the Chair some concern. I noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend was careful to compliment—rightly—your colleague the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. He is already working out how this place works, and I am sure that he has put in some good preparation for trying to catch the Chair's eye to speak again later today. We congratulate him on his performance and good humour. The House welcomes his contribution and his concerns about the coalfield community that he represents and the disasters that have happened to it, the health service and the other local constituency matters that he will, I am sure, raise from time to time.
It is always difficult to reply when hon. Members have spoken on a wide range of subjects. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has a reputation of using these debates to good effect, reminded us, as he did at Christmas, of the difficulties that his constituents face because of the pressures on St. George's hospital. Many of us will know from our constituency experience that our constituents often say that a hospital and its staff

341
are great, but that the pressures on them are too great for them to be able to cope in the way that they would like. It is useful to have these debates where such issues can be raised, so that Ministers are left in no doubt about the concerns of our constituents.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to violence on television and video. As a parent of two young children, I share his concerns. He spoke at some length about the V-chip. I do not reject the idea that it could be a useful tool, but we should not oversell the idea as the solution to the problem. The difficulties are more complex than that. As parents, we have significant responsibilities for what our children watch.
The current hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was at times amusing, although not always intentionally so. His tirade against his local authority was to some extent matched by that of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). He is in some difficulty when he criticises Basildon and mentions a headline that said that Basildon schools were not good enough for the local Member of Parliament. He has already decided that Basildon is not a good enough constituency for him, so he should be careful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised serious and frightening issues, although he raised them responsibly, about volatile organic compounds. He said that he had given the Leader of the House warning that he would raise the matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say what the Government intend to do to make up the backlog, given that they are not on target to meet the requirements for air quality. I know that last year was difficult, but people with asthma and other respiratory diseases are anxious. This would be a good time to update the House on the Government's air quality strategy. I understand what my hon. Friend said about postcodes and the way in which they are used, and sometimes misused, for insurance ratings. Perhaps the Minister will answer those points.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) raised a small but significant problem that affects constituents. He made good use of his time, as did the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who talked about the pyramid selling of business club membership. I have not heard of that device for getting money out of people, although I am aware of previous concerns about pyramid selling in general. I hope that his warnings will be heeded.
The hon. Member for Gravesham adopted an approach that is common among Conservative Members—"Don't blame us, we're only the Government." In recent weeks, local authorities have been blamed for half the country's problems and the European Community for the other half. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has been blamed for the Scott report and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) for BSE. The public must sometimes wonder why we want to be in power. Why do we want to sit on the Government Benches, if we have so much power and influence when we are in opposition? Passing the buck has to stop somewhere, and the public have rumbled what the Government are all about.
Three of my hon. Friends used this morning to raise the serious issue of Cyprus, and did so in a way that silenced the House and made everyone present listen with great attention to the tragic stories. They were right to give us
342
salutary reminders of the personal hardship caused by the situation there. I hope that attention is drawn to the problems that they raised so responsibly. I am sure that their comments will be taken on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised an important constituency matter, which also affects other people within his region and in Yorkshire—British Coal Enterprise. His arguments in favour of such activities, which can help bring investment, help small businesses and help in the retraining of people who have lost their livelihoods, ought to be heeded by the Government, because there is so much insecurity that, if such enterprises can bring some hope, they deserve support.
We have had a useful morning, and I hope that the Minister will take on board many of the constructive suggestions made by my hon. Friends.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): I must begin by passing on the apologies of the Leader of the House, who had hoped to be here to respond. Indeed, that was the basis on which he invited me to sit on the Front Bench for an hour while he was away in Cabinet. Sadly, things have not worked out like that, and I have to stand in for him. He is sorry that he has not been able to return to the House, and I shall, of course, draw to his attention all the points made in the debate. If I am not able to deal with them in the few minutes remaining, I shall ensure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of them.
The highlight of this morning's debate was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I congratulate him on that speech. He is very welcome in the House. We remember his predecessor fondly—particularly his knowledge of the classics. It was interesting to discover that Geoffrey Boycott—a man whom we admire for his political loyalties as much as for his cricketing skills—was brought up in Hemsworth. We look forward to more contributions from the hon. Gentleman in the months and years to come.
We also heard a conspicuously interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is widely respected on both sides of the House because of his concern for a series of moral issues that affect the quality of life in our country today. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to V-chips. The Government are considering the implications of the V-chip carefully and are in consultation with broadcasters, regulatory bodies, viewers and other interested parties. It is undoubtedly an interesting and promising new development, but some technological and practical issues surround it, which still need to be tackled. It was useful that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue today, however.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the video of "Natural Born Killers". I am sure that many hon. Members view with enormous distaste and dismay some of the videos and films that are now available, but the British Board of Film Classification is an independent body—the Government have no powers to intervene in its decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made some telling points about Essex county council and Havering council in his speech. The third subject that he

343
raised was the importance of religious education in schools. Early-day motion 715 is before the House at the moment and deals with that subject.
I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House were shocked by the remarks of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who apparently has said that in an ideal world there would be no religious state schools and that his party would put a stop to the daily act of worship, in an attempt to encourage all children to be educated together. That is not a remark that many hon. Members would agree with and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right to draw it to the attention of the House.
The most extraordinary scene then followed. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) tried to tell the House that that remark did not mean what it appeared to mean and, as soon as he sat down, his hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill stood up to confirm that it indeed meant what we thought it had meant all along. That interesting internal debate among the Liberal Democrats was clearly won by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
We heard a variety of other important contributions today. Sadly, I missed the opening speech of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who mentioned the position at St. George's hospital. The hospital is taking action in collaboration with its purchasers and other trusts to manage the increased demand that we recognise is occurring in emergency admissions. By good fortune, I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), sitting on the Front Bench. I shall ensure that that Department is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned postcodes and volatile organic compounds in his speech—two subjects that do not, perhaps, sit naturally together in one speech—and the shadow Leader of the House pressed me to deal with air pollution and volatile organic compounds. I can assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that, despite the postponement of deadlines for certain sectors as regards such compounds, which was announced last
344
June, the Government are steadfast in sticking to their commitment to reduce by 1999 volatile organic compound emissions by 30 per cent. compared with the level in 1988.
Sadly, I have only a few minutes left and there is not time to go through all the subjects raised by other hon. Members. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in his place. He made some pertinent remarks about the private finance initiative, giving a good example of how it can benefit patients locally and raise standards in the health service—points that were well taken. I shall ensure that his remarks about the Kent county council highway programme are drawn to the attention of the Minister responsible for local roads at the Department of Transport.
Cyprus was mentioned in a series of speeches—particularly the people who have been missing since the Turkish invasion, and human rights concerns. Here, everyone accepts that, because of Britain's special historic role in that unhappy country, we must do everything we can to move towards a solution of the difficult problems on the island. I was impressed by the knowledge displayed by the Labour Members who spoke on the subject. When I did some research, it was clear to me why they had such expertise. I found that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) visited Cyprus on several occasions in 1995—in August, in September, and again in October—as did the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), doubtless to research in greater detail the points that they made today.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised the question of the future of British Coal Enterprise, and I shall draw his points to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. The difficulties of British Coal Field Investments Ltd. should not obscure the fact that, generally, the industry is doing well and that the privatisation of coal has been a success. I am told that British Coal Enterprise is continuing discussions with English Partnerships on the transfer of a package of some 80 sites for major regeneration projects.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you a happy break over Easter—I know that we are not finished yet, but the three-hour debate is almost over. I wish all hon. Members a refreshing Easter break. I look forward to returning to this place reinvigorated the week after next.

Health Services (Wakefield)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, once again, concerns about the provision of health care in the Wakefield metropolitan district. I have calculated that, within the past five months, this is the seventh occasion on which I have felt it necessary to raise these concerns in the Chamber. I know that my anxieties are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who made his maiden speech this morning. I apologised to him earlier for not being present during his speech. I know that he will make his mark in the Chamber in the years to come. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is unable to be here today—within the past fortnight he has spoken about his worries about the redevelopment of Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, and he shares many of the concerns that I shall raise now.
I have asked for this debate because my constituents—and, I suspect, the people of the Wakefield district as a whole—are bewildered about and increasingly angry at the uncertainties and crises that seem to underpin health provision in our area. The record of the internal market, since its introduction in Wakefield following the 1990 legislation, has been one of unfulfilled promises, contradictions and U-turns. I am not making a political point. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be aware, it is impossible to find any trace of a clear strategic policy direction in local health care because those responsible have found the task of making the market work in Wakefield completely impossible.
I make it absolutely clear that I do not blame the local management for this problem—it has been landed with a situation that is totally beyond its control. As the Minister knows, there has been a series of events over the past two years, in particular, that have given local people and their elected representatives real cause for concern about the future of vital health services in our area. The transfer of the regional neurosurgery specialism from Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, to Leeds marked the start of a wholesale series of threats to key provisions which have been available in Wakefield over a long period.
I have previously said that what constituted a raid by a larger trust on a smaller trust suggested further developments to come, with my constituents and those of my colleagues increasingly being expected to travel to Leeds and elsewhere for care that was previously on their doorsteps. The neurosurgery episode was particularly worrying. While we have become accustomed to the opinions of local people being disregarded time after time in what are called public consultation processes concerning closures or changes of use, the experience on this occasion was worse than usual.
Before the consultation period had ended, Wakefield health authority conceded the transfer of the service, despite there being not one voice in support of the proposal in the Wakefield area. I believe that some sort of deal was done whereby Pinderfields was assured of the provision of a centre of excellence in rehabilitation and a chair in rehabilitation in return—this is recorded in minute 71 of the Yorkshire regional health authority minutes of 8 March 1994. More than two years on, there is no sign of
346
this centre or of the chair. Is it any wonder that Wakefield community health council stated in a letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 March:
"The public of Wakefield and members of the Community Health Council have lost faith in the honesty and integrity of senior regional managers, and would question most strongly the validity of holding public consultation exercises"?
Those are strong words from a body of people who have learnt the bitter lesson that they have been far too trusting in the past about assurances given during consultations on closures or change of use. I felt that the CHC was wrong to accept the closure of the Manygates maternity hospital in my constituency following a consultation procedure in 1991. However, it did so on the basis of clear assurances on the provision of a purpose-built maternity unit on the Pinderfields site. Not only has that never materialised but, as I shall mention in a few moments, serious consideration has been given to the complete closure of the maternity unit at Pinderfields.
The Minister will be aware that, for some time, the health authority has been concerned about the viability of having two acute trusts in the Wakefield metropolitan district. Nearly three years ago, the authority launched a discussion paper proposing moves towards one trust. That proposal was quietly dropped after strong local opposition, obviously based on fears that it would result in a rationalisation of services at the current district hospital at Pinderfields in Wakefield and at the Pontefract general infirmary.
Just over a year ago, the then chair of Wakefield health authority, Mr. Brian Hayward, told me that the authority was seriously considering closing both Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirmary, and moving the entire district's services to a new site somewhere geographically between the two. That came as something of a surprise to the chair and to the then chief executive of the Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust who, at that time, were well on the way with a detailed proposal for a major redevelopment of the Pinderfields site through a private finance initiative bid. The left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing on that occasion, but this has been par for the course in recent years in our area.
Subsequently, the proposal was quietly buried and we were advised that services would continue to be provided from the two separate sites by the two acute trusts. However, the latest proposal to emerge is, once again, the idea of one combined acute trust. Last month, the Pinderfields and the Pontefract trusts produced what was termed a formal expression of interest in making an application for approval for a trust merger. Although the proposal has yet to be put out for so-called public consultation, I understand that the Northern and Yorkshire region has given approval and that the chair and the chief executive of the new body are already known. By the time the public are supposed to have a say on the proposal. it will be more or less up and running.
The merger proposal document is the clearest admission yet that the encouragement of competition between health providers is wasteful and counter-productive. It speaks of the merger proposal reinforcing
"The commitment to partnership rather than competition on the part of both Trusts."
It flags up the possibility of potential partnerships with other acute providers in West Yorkshire, where that achieves a greater critical mass of population.

347
Such possibilities and what the document terms the "reconfiguration" of acute services across the district have raised serious worries about the continued availability of a range of services at both Pinderfields and Pontefract.
I want to make absolutely clear my wish to see existing services retained at Pontefract general infirmary as well as at Pinderfields. I have no desire to see services in Wakefield retained at the expense of those in Pontefract. It would be totally unreasonable to expect constituents in either the east or the west of the Wakefield metropolitan district to travel to the other end for basic services currently available in their own localities—but that is what is likely to happen as a direct consequence of the proposed merger.
The proposal to transfer maternity provision from Pinderfields hospital to Pontefract general infirmary is already being seriously considered. It flies in the face of clear assurances given to the public when Manygates maternity hospital closed. I have the consultation documents here for the Minister to see if he wishes to check that point.
With the debate concentrating on the critical mass issue, we are being told that maternity units with fewer than 2,000 deliveries per annum are no longer viable. As I reminded the health authority chair-elect—if that is the term for someone unelected—and the health authority chief executive last week, such a measure of viability would be contrary to the findings of the Health Select Committee maternity inquiry, the so-called Winterton report. I served on the Select Committee during that inquiry and I understood that the Government subscribed almost totally to its central tenets in relation to the size of units and clinical intervention.
I am not closing my mind to a reshaping of maternity, gynaecological and obstetric provision in my area, but I am saying that it is not on for women and their families to have to travel to either end of the district to a single maternity unit. Such a proposal would be fought in every way possible, as will other suggestions leading to the loss of long-standing services at either Pinderfields hospital or Pontefract general infirmary.
The district health authority's problems in trying to make sense of the internal market, have been made much worse by two other factors—the change in the national funding formula and the joker in the pack, GP fundholding. I previously pointed out that Wakefield health authority has been deemed the most overfunded authority in the new Northern and Yorkshire region since the new criteria were introduced. In the 1996…97 financial year—the current financial year—it is deemed to be more than £4.5 million overfunded because the new formula uses some questionable and dubious criteria.
For example, the market forces factor, under which we lose substantially, assumes lower pay rates in the Wakefield area when national pay rates for nursing staff are rightly still the norm. The population formula relating to age takes no account of the fact that people who die younger, as happens to be the case in the Wakefield area, require similar types of health care in their later years. It takes no account of the fact that hospitalisation rates per thousand in acute specialties, at 198 and 192 for Pontefract and Wakefield respectively, are considerably higher than the 160 average
348
for England. The Minister must address the fact that the new formula markedly worsens an already critical position in the health services in Wakefield. I hope that he will consider that point in detail.
I hope that the Minister will also consider the impact of GP fundholding on Wakefield's problems. He will appreciate that the surpluses recorded by fundholders in the previous financial year were in marked contrast to the serious difficulties facing non-fundholding GPs trying to obtain hospital treatment for their patients.
I have said before, and I think we have proved conclusively in Wakefield, that a two-tier system is operating whereby patients of non-fundholders are disadvantaged. It is more than a little galling for non-fundholding GPs to have to struggle desperately to gain access to such treatment because of resourcing problems when local fundholders are so flush with money that they are building swimming pools with their surpluses. It does not go down well with the thousands of people who have campaigned to retain Snapethorpe hospital in Wakefield and were told that its recuperative facilities were no longer needed to find the new GP fundholding total purchasing project proposing to use private nursing homes instead of the NHS for the same purpose. Yet another so-called consultation process is proved to have been a charade.
Such episodes leave my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends who represent the Wakefield metropolitan district, angry and resentful about the treatment of their NHS by the Government. Bearing in mind the fact that they fund the NHS, are they not entitled to know why the chief executive of the Pinderfields trust literally disappeared slightly more than three weeks ago? Are they not entitled to know whether, as I suspect, Mr. Peter Ward, the gentleman concerned, was a scapegoat for some of these wider problems, most of which I believe were way beyond his personal control?
I conclude by reminding the Minister what the Secretary of State for Health said in his speech to the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on 4 March 1996. He made it clear that the Government's policy was to ensure that health services were available to patients in their local communities. The logical outcome of merger proposals in Wakefield, forced on health managers by the serious problems that I have outlined, is the opposite of the objective set out less than a month ago by the Secretary of State.
If local health services in local communities is Government policy, I hope that the Minister will today undertake to intervene in Wakefield to prevent proposals of the type I have outlined, which will undoubtedly arise from the trust merger process.
12.44 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about a number of matters. In a recent meeting between the Members of Parliament for the Wakefield area and executives of several organisations associated with health service provision in the Wakefield area, it became clear to us that there had been a series of secret meetings of various types in Wakefield, at Quarry house in Leeds and probably in London about the future of health care

349
provision in the Wakefield area. It is also clear that decisions were well advanced in terms of an apparently urgent desire to bring about a fusion of the two trusts in the area.
It was also apparent that decisions had been taken about the personalities—names were known—of the putative chair and chief executive of the new trust. We were told that there would be a public consultation exercise, but it is not due to start until about July and will run through the summer. That is often a convenient time for such public consultation exercises, as many people are preoccupied taking annual leave and vacations, and so on.
We felt that we had been presented with a fait accompli and that we, as elected representatives for the area, had been excluded from the decision-making process. Not many days later, we received through the post documents indicating the early proposals to unify the trust. The documents we received—I have a copy in my hand—a formal expression of interest, are only part of a series of documents that have not yet seen the light of day, proposing the change in the health service arrangements in the Wakefield area.
We were told that it is intended to reduce what is called "duplication of services" and bring about a "centralisation of services" on one site or the other. My hon. Friends and I representing the Wakefield area feel that services will be lost to communities and removed elsewhere in the district or perhaps further afield, and that proper decisions have already been taken about that. I am worried about that and about the way in which the facts have emerged. I am also worried that health service managers in the area appear preoccupied with institutional change, perhaps at the expense of clinical concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned maternity care. I have in my possession a worrying document, a review of the case of a constituent, which I do not wish to go through in detail now; the Minister may be aware of it. It makes it clear that there are clinical, technical and managerial problems with paediatric care at Pontefract hospital yet, as I understand it, it has been proposed that there be an amalgamation and possibly a concentration of those services at Pontefract.
Consultant paediatricians considering the service in Pontefract have said that they have
"concerns about the overall staffing structure and establishment in the paediatric department".
They note that there are only three hospital-based consultant paediatricians and only one recently appointed community paediatrician. They say that
"there is no continuous safety net cover of an experienced resident paediatrician in Pontefract."
They say:
"At the present time, the safety net cover is provided by a Registrar and staff-grade doctor and"—
this is the important part of the sentence—
"for over 50 per cent. of the time there is no safety net provision available."
They continue:
"The overall staffing levels are inadequate to provide a fully comprehensive children's service to a population of this size, with 200,000 people, 2,300 births and 1,900 acute paediatric admissions per year…The absence of a continuous safety net cover does not allow high dependency or intensive care work to be undertaken, and yet we understand that this still takes place on occasion."
350
The events to which the document refers—I hope to take up the matter with the Minister privately in due course—took place more than two years ago. According to the report that was published only last week, little seems to have been done to improve the situation. However, the local health service has employed highly paid and highly skilled professional managers to organise the planned merger, whose objectives have to do with private capital. The document refers to
"the need to convince the private sector to reinforce to potential private sector partners the commitment to partnership rather than to clinical care".
We are seeking an early assurance that those discussions will cease and that an appropriate public consultation exercise will commence. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will assure me that the eight recommendations of the consultant paediatricians in the report will be implemented immediately.
12.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate him on, once again, securing time to debate the important subject of health services in the Wakefield metropolitan district. This is the seventh time in five months that he has raised the subject, which reveals his assiduity.
I have noted also the concerns, which the hon. Member mentioned, of the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I welcome the second speech of the day from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who I gather made a very good maiden speech. I noted his comments about Pontefract and paediatric care.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised a number of points, and claimed that general practitioner fundholding in Wakefield had resulted in a two-tier system. He referred to increased resources for the national health service in Wakefield, and he and the hon. Member for Hemsworth expressed concern about the possible merger of the two acute trusts in the Wakefield area—the Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust and the Pontefract Hospitals NHS trust. They questioned whether such a merger would be truly in the interests of patients and of improved health services.
The hon. Member for Wakefield also mentioned maternity services. I acknowledge his local concerns and those of Wakefield metropolitan district council. As he knows, I can claim a little local knowledge: although I am a Lancastrian, I had the good sense to be educated in Yorkshire, at Silcoates school, Wakefield. I therefore know a little about both Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about the resignation of the chief executive of Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust, Mr. Peter Ward. I stress that that is a matter for the chairman and the board of Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust, but I shall say more about Pinderfields later.
I shall deal first with resources. In May last year, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern in the House to my predecessor, the present Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)—about the fact that

351
health resources for Wakefield health authority and Wakefield metropolitan district were being cut. For the 1996–97 financial year, which has just commenced, the allocation for Wakefield health authority is just more than £140 million—a cash increase of £4.3 million, or 3.2 per cent. It is also an increase in real terms.
The resources that Wakefield health authority will receive this year include, as in the previous financial year, an increase in both cash and real terms. It is wrong to suggest that, because Wakefield is a certain percentage above its weighted capitation target, there may be a cut next year or in any succeeding year. Real growth in health resources will probably continue in the years to come. If so, Wakefield will continue to receive more resources in real terms. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about market forces, and I assure him that those elements of the capitation formula are kept under review.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to so-called two-tier services and expressed concern about the way in which the undoubted success of GP fundholding is impacting on patients in Wakefield. I assure him, once again, that there is no question of a two-tier service. We stand by our agreement with the medical profession: all emergencies are seen immediately and all urgent cases that cannot be seen immediately are placed on common waiting lists.
There will always be some variation in waiting times for non-urgent treatment between health authorities, as well as between health authorities and fundholders, because different purchasers set different priorities according to their assessment of local need within the national patients charter guarantees and informed by patients' wishes. It is open to health care purchasers to negotiate the best contracts possible on their patients' behalf. Many fundholders use efficiency savings to fund more hospital services for the benefit of patients of all local GPs. Having a range of purchasers stimulates innovation and the delivery of care for the benefit of all patients.
The NHS executive has followed up cases of suggested two-tierism, which have invariably proved to be cases of fundholders making use of spare capacity, purchasing more services and making more resources available. That benefits all patients. Fundholding is achieving not a two-tier system, but an improved health system. We want our services to be based on the standards achieved by the best, not the worst.
As recently as last Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited the new Wakefield health authority to learn about Wakefield's pioneering plans to develop a primary-led NHS. He praised the work of the health authority and of local GPs on total purchasing, which builds on the success of fundholding. In Wakefield, 85 per cent. of GP practices are now fundholders. Fundholding has improved patient care in Wakefield through the provision of new services, including rheumatology, cardiology, a cataract centre and increased day case surgery. It has also had a marked effect on waiting times at the two acute hospitals. At Pinderfields, waiting times have been cut by 50 per cent. for general surgery, and by about 25 per cent. for ophthalmology; at Pontefract, orthopaedic waiting times are down by 42 per cent. That is real success.
352
I shall now deal with the question of a merger. With three of his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust and Pontefract Hospitals NHS trust in a press release issued last week following a meeting with the chairman and chief executives of Wakefield health authority and the two trusts. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in early February, both the trusts and the health authority decided that it would be sensible to look at services across the two trusts and to work more closely together for the benefit of everyone. They expressed a wish to consider a possible merger of the two acute trusts. It is worth stressing the fact that Wakefield health authority believes that there is a need for two acute hospitals: one in Wakefield and one in Pontefract. I understand also that there is strong clinical support for a merger.
An examination of the options will, therefore, surely benefit patients in the Wakefield area. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the proposal is at a very early and tentative stage. The next step is that the proposed merger will come to me, as the responsible Minister and, if I agree to it and the two trust want to go ahead, public consultation will follow later in the year. That will involve local people, including the two local community health councils that cover Wakefield and Pontefract. I am sure that hon. Members will be involved fully in that consultation exercise: they will have every opportunity to express their views and I am sure that they will not be slow in doing so.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am concerned that consultation exercises do not mean a great deal, as assurances are not followed through. Does the Secretary of State or the Minister study assurances that were given in past consultation exercises of the kind that I have described to check whether they were carried through?
Mr. Horam: Such assurances are not given lightly, and they are taken seriously. I shall study past assurances that were given in this case when it comes before me.
The hon. Gentleman knows that Pinderfields is developing a business case for a major new development under the private finance initiative. Any proposals for merger will take that project into account, so there are two reasons for consultation. One is the possibility of a PFI initiative by Pinderfields, which I welcome, and the second is the possibility of merger.
Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust is progressing PFI testing for redevelopment of the site to replace a fragmented configuration of buildings, many of which—as the hon. Member for Wakefield knows—are of poor quality. I have heard the hon. Gentleman—I agree with him—complain at great length about the age of some of those buildings. We want new facilities, if that is possible, not only for patients but for staff. I have seen for myself the huge improvement in morale that can result from new facilities, provided by whatever means. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to welcome that possibility.
The trust is making good progress and it should not be long before it selects the consortiums that will be invited to submit detailed proposals. There are some financial problems, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust has made major progress in reducing waiting times and the length of waiting lists. In my view—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Sea Defences
1 pm
Mr. David Porter: Approximately 8,000 sq km of land in England and Wales lie within 5 m of present sea levels. Britain already relies to a great extent on sea defence and land drainage. Some of the low-lying areas that are especially susceptible to rises in sea levels are the coasts of East Anglia, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Essex mudflats, Sussex coastal towns, the Thames estuary, parts of the north Wales coast and the Clyde and Forth estuaries. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of sea defence and coastal protection before the Easter recess.
I have been applying for an Adjournment debate for some weeks now and I started at the time of the bad weather in February, which illustrated just how vulnerable is our coastline. I have just drawn a place in the ballot and it is a matter of luck getting a debate, just as to a large extent it is a matter of luck whether we escape major flood damage in any winter. This is a national problem, as I have said, but I have the greatest concerns for the coast of East Anglia. The worst of the winter and the unpredictable early spring weather should be over for now and our crossed fingers and hoping for the best got us through, but the wind is constant and the sea never sleeps—certainly not the North sea.
Erosion goes on all year round, sometimes unnoticed and sometimes dramatically. For many weeks of the year, a potent mixture of high spring tides and northerly winds can prove fatal. When the weather is severe enough—as it was most recently on the nights of 19 and 20 February—to describe the coastline as being at the mercy of the sea is no exaggeration. Sometimes aging sea defences are turned to rubble in minutes. Yards of sand cliff, battered and weakened by the wind, are literally blown out to be scoured away in the boiling surf of an angry North sea. Anyone who doubts the existence of God should stand and watch it.
Despite loss of land and some properties in Norfolk, in my constituency of North Suffolk and further south in Suffolk, most of the defences held, just, but it was close. Some of the Norfolk marshes were under salt water, some shingle banks disappeared and land at Kessingland and elsewhere in Waveney was lost.
Such problems are not new, by any means. The one-time city of Dunwich, which returned two Members to the House, is now merely a village. When the Lowestoft sea defences were built earlier this century, that accelerated the loss of half of Pakefield. When the 1953 flood defences failed, that claimed more than 300 lives and cost more than £900 million at 1989 prices to rebuild and strengthen. I remember walking as a boy with my father on the sea wall to the north of Lowestoft and looking out at the ruins of the sea wall on which he had walked with his father, in his turn, looking further out at the sea wall that was once there, and so on.
Very early after I was elected to the House in 1987, I raised sea defence issues in general and the case of homes at Easton Bavents in my constituency in particular. Houses were demolished moments before they fell into the sea and people lost everything, without benefit of insurance or compensation. So we know that the problem is not new. The east coast has suffered erosion and been in retreat for centuries. We might be
354
tempted to ask why we have not sorted the problem out by now, but anyone who has seen the sea and wind at work will know that it cannot be sorted out for long.
After the 1953 floods, when there were no cash limits for Government Departments and no direct controls on local authority capital expenditure, money did not run out. The then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, accepted the report by the departmental committee on coastal flooding and major sea defences were installed. Many have been upgraded and replaced since, but most of those that survive are coming to the end of their useful life.
Ideas change and technologies change. When I spoke in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I complained about the plethora of bodies around the coast responsible for sea defence and coastal protection. There were more than 200, ranging from major councils to small harbour undertakings. I argued that there should be a national plan on what to save, where, and how to defend it. I said that the plan should be funded centrally, and not disproportionately by coastal dwellers and taxpayers. After all, the Royal Navy defends all our people and not just those who live on the coast. Since then, we have moved on. Larger shares of the funding for schemes are forthcoming from central funds, rather than local. We have had the National Rivers Authority and now we have the Environment Agency as a one-stop national body with a strategic overview of coastal protection.
We have seen several local authorities with common interests working informally together, pooling resources and ideas and recognising the two universal truths—that the sea knows no authority boundaries and that one man's erosion is another man's beach enhancements. I must pay tribute to Terry Oakes, a senior officer of Waveney district council, who has been a driving force in this work and is an acknowledged expert. Why, he even knows more than I do.
So we have moved a long way. We have documents such as the shoreline management plan from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a guide for coastal authorities and pulls together the disparate strands. We have a guide to good practice by MAFF called "Coastal Defence and the Environment". The flood defence committees of the old National Rivers Authority are working well and the internal drainage boards are working on all the rivers that drain farmland into the sea. The NRA worked on river management ideas and the Environment Select Committee three years ago wrote a report on "Coastal Zone Protection and Planning". The National Audit Office is also watching coastal defence. With all that happening, we should feel confident that the events of 1953 cannot happen again, but even so we know that they can. Statistically, they probably will in our lifetimes.
What are the options for any given stretch of coast? One option is, of course, to do nothing, but in Norfolk, the motto is "du different". In parts of Suffolk and Norfolk, managed retreat—as it is fashionably called—is being considered as shoreline management plans are put together. Crumbling sand cliffs feed beaches further round or down the coast—beach nourishment. That is a more environmentally natural process, and it appeals because it is nature taking its course. It works with the natural process instead of trying to fight against it. Retreat, however, was not the Dutch approach. They pushed out into the North sea. I accept that in Britain it is acceptable

355
for some stretches of our coast to have managed retreat, but which stretches? Where do we draw the line and how do we defend that line? Those are the crucial questions.
The second option is to continue rebuilding hard engineering structures, such as groynes and sea walls. Those are vital in many parts to protect housing and life, but no one has ever advocated encasing Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex in a concrete defence fortress. The third option is to break the power of the waves offshore—for example, with rocks from Norway or elsewhere. That is happening and is certainly useful, but rocks have no impact on the wind's destructive power. I suggest that more work needs to be done on artificial reefs—for instance, those made with compacted household or industrial waste—to lessen wave power. I say that at the same time as I acknowledge the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Flood and Coastal Research and Development, which long ago argued for improved methods of design and operation and the need for collaboration between scientific disciplines, funding agencies and overseas research teams.
In so far as there is an answer, it is in working towards a national strategy put together locally and incorporating a mixture of defences and managed retreat. The local consultations are a vital part of that. People place, not surprisingly, the highest priority on saving their lives and homes. Urban areas need high protection and good, well-understood and practised early-warning systems. Stopping new building near the sea helps, of course. But I come back to the crucial questions: where do we draw the line and how do we defend it? In parts of Waveney, eventually, the A 12 trunk road—our economic lifeline—will become the line. How do we defend a trunk road against the sea?
Two years ago, in describing the state of our coastal defences following a coast protection survey of England, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in a written answer, stated:
"The survey also identified some 135 km of unprotected coast which is at present significantly eroding and where the provision of works may need to be considered within the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 770.]
Times move on, and with sea defence, time is not on our side.
Three other aspects must be borne in mind, especially in respect of the North sea. Last week, together with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Environment—in his capacity as the Member of Parliament for Suffolk, Coastal—I attended the official opening of Sizewell B. That superb occasion crowned a civil engineering project greater even than the channel tunnel, putting in its place, as part of the nation's economic engine, a triumph of British engineering, design and build—a nuclear power station.
As a correspondent of the liaison committee and the neighbouring Member of Parliament—many of whose constituents work at Sizewell A and B, while others helped to build them—for a constituency that takes the safety of those stations seriously, I have a copy of the Suffolk local authorities' emergency plan. That excellent document inspires real confidence, and I do not condemn it when I say that its coverage of disaster caused by sea flooding is almost
356
nil. There are emergency plans for contamination, radioactivity and evacuation—not for overrunning by an angry North sea. That is understandable, but it means that the integrity of those power stations and of Sizewell C—which I hope will be built one day—must be guaranteed for ever. That provision must be built into the management shoreline plans for the future. If the protective sandbank of Sizewell were ever to be dredged, the credibility of those stations would be in question.
There are currently eight different licensed companies operating 2,000 to 8,000 tonne dredgers on our offshore sandbanks. I do not knock that industry. On the contrary, it is a valuable part of our local and national economy, and it makes a useful contribution to the Exchequer. The demand for aggregates for roads and buildings of 5.5 tonnes per person per year is insatiable, and those aggregates must come from somewhere. Thirty per cent. of that tonnage comes from the East Anglian coastline. I know about licensing, safeguards and agreements to cause minimum disruption to fishing, but many people feel that the rapid increase in erosion of the North sea coastline over the last 15 years is far greater than can be ascribed to natural factors or even global warming. Dredging must have an impact, even in an lively, undercurrent-strong, relatively shallow sea such as the North sea.
That impact must be felt on sea defences, fishing, and the beach and holiday industries. That impact may be accelerating, and further studies are needed—particularly as a large amount of our offshore sand is sold to Holland, which has stricter restrictions on offshore dredging because of that country's sensitivity to flood prevention.
In addition to the risks created by erosion and subsequent flooding that I touched on, whatever the mixture of causes, we have a lot of high-grade agricultural land. Given the uncertainties of the global food supply, it would be a madman who said that we have too much land in Britain and will have for ever, from here on in.
Other industries put pressure on the sea, such as gas and oil extraction—although I am not saying that they cause erosion, because clearly they do not. However, management plans must take account of all the uses to which the North sea is put, the pressures that it is under naturally and from man, and take a view—which should be built in to defence protection—of proposed future industrial uses.
I say that with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) in his place. I cite the example of the much-trailed outer-harbour scheme for Great Yarmouth, which must be properly assessed for its coastal erosion potential for my constituency, to reassure my constituents, who are concerned about the coastline between Corton and Hopton, not to mention the economic impact on Waveney, before any more false hopes are raised on that great white hope—or great white elephant, which might be an more appropriate description.
I argue for a national strategy that is devised locally with agreed defence lines, and for fair compensation for everybody who is on the wrong side of the defence lines; proper debate of the appropriate mix of defences in each area; and national funding of all sea defence works, coastal protection and river flood works.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has given an excellent exposition of all the issues, to which the Minister is about to reply. Does he agree that many of the issues relating to the North sea apply to many

357
other coastal areas, including my own? My hon. Friend the Minister has been most helpful in dealing with the urgent problems of south Blackpool shore—many of which have commonality with the problems of my hon. Friend's own constituency.
Mr. Porter: My hon. Friend is right to remind me of the national impact of coastal defence. I mentioned that at the beginning of my speech, but have concentrated on my own area of East Anglia. I am asking for a national sea defence plan that is devised locally. Blackpool's different concerns should be incorporated in such a plan.
Any confusion about the new Environment Agency reporting partly to the Department of the Environment and partly to MAFF should not be allowed to take hold and be a permanent problem—or be a scapegoat for inaction.
Coastal defences should be at the forefront of MAFF's action files during the summer, to build public confidence for next winter. If the sea had got into the Broads in February, or had taken lives and more homes in Suffolk and Norfolk, it would have been an environmental, economic and human tragedy that would have made the Sea Empress disaster look like a teddy bears' picnic.
1.15 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) has set out his concerns and those of his constituents with his customary force and feeling. I am delighted that he was supported in doing so by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has taken a keen interest in coastal defence issues over the years and holds strong views on how they might be organised. I am responding as the Minister with responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy.
I was growing up in Essex at the time of the 1953 floods, and I appreciate that the damage and distress that flooding causes, and the direct loss of land and property caused by coastal erosion, are, understandably, highly emotive subjects. My hon. Friend is right to bring them to the attention of the House. Even in cases where life and limb are mercifully not lost, the damage and distress that is sustained by those affected is often severe—and not just in economic terms. Apprehension of potential effects is also serious.
Although natural events such as flooding and erosion can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that the public authorities that are empowered to take measures to reduce the risk take action where it is reasonable to do so. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has overall responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy in England.
Rather than respond in detail to each of my hon. Friend's constructive points today, I give him the assurance that I shall reflect carefully on them and reply in due course. My hon. Friend will be aware that some measure are already in place—for example, with marine dredging, through the Government review procedure, and the potential for compensation for certain kinds of coastal defence measures. However, MAFF has the overview, and is pleased to discharge that responsibility.
The planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures is undertaken by a number of operating authorities. The new Environment Agency,
358
which came into being this week and assumed all the functions of the National Rivers Authority, supervises all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales. Through its regional and local flood defence committees, the agency can take action to reduce the risks of flooding from designated rivers, which are called main rivers, and the sea.
Internal drainage boards, of which there are 235 in England, have powers to implement measures to alleviate flooding in districts with special drainage needs, such as the Fens, other than on main rivers. Local authorities may carry out works on water courses other than main rivers and on those in internal drainage board areas, to alleviate flooding from rivers or the sea. Maritime district councils have powers to protect the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.
The financing and administration of that work was considered in a consultation document issued in 1985, which raised the question of whether the powers of local authorities should be transferred to the then water authorities. In the light of the responses received, the Government decided that, although such an arrangement would have the benefit of administrative tidiness, on balance it was better to retain the existing arrangements. That decision has been reviewed twice. On each occasion, we concluded that no changes of substance should be made, and that conclusion was endorsed by Parliament when enacting the Water Act 1989 and establishing the Environment Agency in the Environment Act 1995.
Flood defence work is essentially long-term, and it was important that there was continuity when the Environment Agency took over from the National Rivers Authority. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks about continuity in that respect.
As I have said, we believe that the present system is effective. Maritime councils, like Waveney, and the National Rivers Authority have a proven record of achievement on coastal defence issues. Also, it is important that local authorities, which are accountable to local people and have detailed knowledge of local issues, should be involved in key decisions about coastal defence works for their areas.
However, although the pattern of differing operating authorities has remained largely unchanged, thanks to the perceptions that my hon. Friend and others have brought to the matter, a more integrated and strategic approach to sea defence and coast protection has been developed over the past decade. In 1985, responsibility for coast protection was transferred to MAFF, and, since then, both sea defence and coast protection draw on the same administrative arrangements and engineering expertise, and have benefited from a common policy lead. In 1993, the Ministry and the Welsh Office published a strategy for flood and coastal defence—I know that my hon. Friend is aware of it—which sets out a comprehensive framework within which Government and operating authorities can work.
We positively encourage operating authorities to take a strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems and to consider a wide range of possible options for their circumstances. Naturally, individual authorities must consider the possible impact that defence measures may have on neighbouring areas, and that is particularly important on the coast. We therefore encouraged the setting up and operation of coastal groups, now numbering 18. These groups provide a forum for discussion and

359
co-operation and help to ensure that coastal processes and activities taking place within particular stretches of coast are taken into account when reaching decisions.
To assist the operating authorities in the coastal groups in strategic management of each stretch of the coast, MAFF has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans and has issued guidance on their preparation. The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the shoreline—much along the lines that my hon. Friend is advocating.
The completion of a plan should, inter alia, allow assessment of strategic coastal defence options, and inform the statutory planning process. Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline. As my hon. Friend will know, Suffolk Coastal district council and Waveney district council are continuing to attach a high priority to the development of a plan for the stretch of coast between Lowestoft and Harwich.
The groups also play an important role in integrating these shoreline management plans with the work of local planning authorities. It is important to avoid creating problems in the future by discouraging inappropriate development in flood risk areas or on unstable coasts. Planning aspects play a key role in coastal defence and this will be even more important in the future as sea levels are expected to rise.
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government recognise the interdependence of competing pressures within the coastal zone and attach great importance to maintaining a national perspective.
Mr. Hawkins: When looking at competing pressures in coastal areas, will my hon. Friend and his officials take account of the difficulties that people who live on, or have businesses near, a coastline with a record of flooding face when obtaining insurance? That problem affects the constituents of many hon. Members.
Mr. Boswell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. That is exactly the kind of consideration that can be fed into the economic appraisal which we carry out when evaluating schemes.
It is clear that policies on coastal defence should reflect and support wider coastal policies set out in statutory development plans and coastal zone management plans. The Environment Select Committee, in its 1992 report, expressed concern about the possibility of a sectoral approach to coastal policy. That is why the Ministry makes it clear that the management plans should take due account of other coastal initiatives. Equally, those plans will be an important source of information to other local plans such as development plans.
It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. Instead, authorities must look at a range of options and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.
360
The Government's commitment to effective coastal defences remains unchanged, but the techniques for putting that commitment into practice are constantly evolving and improving. We now have a much better understanding of natural coastal processes and other conditions on which to base our policy. Whereas past defences often consisted of concrete sea walls, experience and recent research, much of it funded by the Ministry, has shown that techniques which simulate natural features, such as beaches or salt marshes, can be more effective in absorbing wave energy. Such methods are often better technically, as well as more cost-effective and environmentally acceptable, than traditional hard defences.
There has been some interest in the use of managed retreat in relation to coastal defence. That may be, as my hon. Friend said, the fashionable phrase, but I would prefer to call it managed setback. By that, we mean a deliberate decision to realign the existing line of defences in order to achieve environmental and engineering benefits. As such, we see it as one of the range of options for consideration in rural coastal areas. It may or may not prove to be the preferred option, depending on local circumstances. Its advantages can include the creation of a foreshore which, by absorbing the energy of the sea, will form part of the new line of defence. It may also enable the creation or recreation of intertidal habitats. I emphasise that there is no central Government policy to impose managed set back. It depends very much on local circumstances and the planning to deal with them.
I have spoken so far about the policy guidance that MAFF provides, but our assistance also has a tangible form in terms of the significant contribution that we make to the funding of defence measures promoted by operating authorities. We have two functions: the overall planning function, and the financing function. The Ministry provides grant aid to flood and coastal defence authorities for capital works which are technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. Last year—1995–96—the Ministry grant for inland and coastal works was some £78 million. As my hon. Friend knows, the coastal problems in his constituency are primarily of erosion rather than flooding. The relevant coast protection authority, Waveney district council, has promoted a number of schemes, to which the Ministry has contributed some £3 million of grant in the last five years.
I believe that my hon. Friend has performed a service to the House by deploying his expertise in the debate on these issues today. I have done my best to set out the arrangements whereby the Ministry provides the policy lead and the framework for a strategic approach to coastal defence. Then the Environment Agency, and the other operating authorities in their defined spheres of operation, can carry forward that strategy through their local operational responsibilities, with a strong local component in their planning, execution and democratic accountability.
I contend that, despite the seeming complexity of these matters to those not directly involved or to those who are not practitioners in the field, the arrangements work effectively towards an important purpose: reducing the risk of flooding and erosion to the constituents of my hon. Friend and of many others. At the same time, they are designed to avoid clashing with, or damaging, the developed, the built or the natural environment.
It has been a pleasure and a privilege to debate these important matters today.

Uniform Business Rate (Wales)
1.29 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am very glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to the pressing need for action to help the many small businesses currently being driven to the brink of bankruptcy and beyond by the business rate system.
Launching its campaign against the uniform business rate in October last year, the Federation of Small Businesses described this tax as a "killer rating system", and it is right: the UBR is killing many small businesses—shops, garages and other smaller enterprises—which, given a fair chance, could grow into the viable and valuable firms that Wales and other places need.
Business failure in the small firms sector remains a significant problem. The federation estimated that, in the first six months of 1995, no fewer than 194,000 small businesses in the United Kingdom closed their doors, and many of them were helped on their way by the UBR. Although there has been a decrease in the number of business failures in the United Kingdom, I am afraid that the trend in Wales has gone the other way, with Touche Ross recording a 20 per cent. increase in the number of receiverships in Wales between 1994 and 1995.
Those facts are the background to this call for urgent action right now to relieve businesses in Wales and elsewhere from the crushing burden of an unfair and damaging system. The evidence of the damage done by the system is all too clear in all parts of Wales—north and south, rural and industrial—and in the other nations of the British Isles. The casualty rate among vital economic enterprises is especially severe in rural Wales, which already suffers from higher rates of unemployment, lower than average wages and outward migration. Moreover, rural Wales is now also threatened by an immense potential economic crisis as a result of the BSE situation.
A few examples may help to translate general principles into concrete instances. A business in Ynys Môn has found its trade greatly reduced because of changed traffic flows through the port of Holyhead; yet that reduction in trade has not resulted in an adjustment in its business rate bill, which stands at £6,768. The result has been the loss of four jobs in an area which is an unemployment black spot.
The first objection to the business rate is that it is a job killer. It kills small businesses and reduces employment in the few that survive. So why did the Government introduce it? I wonder whether the House recalls who it was who said on 11 March:
"Small businesses are not some minority interest—they are the backbone of our economy and the main source of future jobs".
It was the Prime Minister, of course, and he went on to promise the removal of unnecessary shackles from business. Words are one thing, however, and removing unnecessary shackles is another—but replacing the UBR really would really make a difference.
Our second objection to the UBR is that it is unfair. It hits the high street shops of our towns while favouring out-of-town hypermarkets, which are becoming more and more evident and influential in the economy of rural Wales. The UBR has increased the difficulties of smaller shops and added to the pressure for increased use of private cars. There is therefore also
362
an environmental dimension, and there is considerable concern as a result of reports yesterday that the Secretary of State is unwilling to try to control the growth of out-of-town or edge-of-town supermarkets in Wales.
I will give an example of the effect of the UBR in the market town of Cardigan in my own constituency. A warehouse there found its rateable value increased from £1,400 to £1,800 in the recent revaluation. Another business, a local carpet shop, found its rateable value increased from £6,480 to £8,200, causing its UBR bill to rise from £2,640 to £3,321—an increase, before transitional relief, of more than 25 per cent., which is vastly in excess of inflation. That business already had difficulty meeting its bills, but it now has arrears of £6,000 to add to this year's bill. Unfortunately, that example is typical of a situation which is becoming cumulatively more difficult.
A business management consultant acting for that business appealed on its behalf to the valuation office in Carmarthen for a reduction in rateable value, but to no avail. The consultant—Mr. Gonzalez of Pwllhai, Cardigan—made eight such appeals two years ago, but none was allowed. As a result, five of the eight enterprises closed. He has made 14 appeals this year; one wonders how many of those businesses will still be open 12 months from today.
The alleged basis of the business rate, according to schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, is that it should
"be an amount equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year".
But how can the current rate be justified when it is now many times the rent which could be obtained? Currently, the rent of a small office in Cardigan could be as little as £5 per week.
In Denbigh, Clwyd, 22 local traders attended a meeting in July, organised by Councillor Gwyneth Kensler, to discuss the rate increases. One of the traders, who runs a shoe shop, was quoted in the Denbigh Vale Advertiser as saying:
"These rates are crippling. Based on their assessment I'm meant to be able to attract a rent of around £300 a week on my property—the truth is I'd be struggling to make £100."
Traditional shopping centres are also suffering, and not only in the rural west and in the valleys. In the village of Dinas Powys, for example, just five miles from the centre of Cardiff, local shopkeepers have recently written to the Vale of Glamorgan council calling for a reduction in this year's bills. The signatories include a hairdresser, a travel agent, a pet shop owner, a greengrocer, a newsagent, and the operators of a grocer's store, a souvenir shop, a linen shop and a post office; such are the many types of business under pressure.
It is clear that the 1995 revaluation has made the situation much worse. The average increase in rateable values in Wales was 25 per cent., with particularly large increases for offices and warehouses. But the rateable values bear no relationship to today's real economic circumstances, where falling rents are not a statistical theory but a market nightmare and a reality. Although the multiplier used to work out the actual bills from the

363
rateable value was reduced for last year's bills, and will stand at 40.5p in the pound for Wales next year, the net result has been to drive bills upwards.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: My hon. Friend may know that I made representations last year to the Development Board for Rural Wales, asking it to lower commercial rents in mid-Wales. It agreed because the market reflected such a move, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. I agree with him entirely.
Mr. Dafis: That demonstrates the reality of the commercial circumstances in rural Wales.
The net result of the multiplier has been to drive bills upwards to such an extent that the Government have been obliged to introduce transitional relief for the second time since 1990. The fact that transitional relief is necessary is an admission that the whole system is defective—and ultimately transitional relief means just that, because traders face the prospect of their rate bills being driven up to the target level in the next five years.
What justification is there for increasing bills by as much as 10 per cent. when the inflation rate is 2.5 per cent.? Last year, overall receipts from the business rate went up from £478 million in 1994–95 to £516 million in 1995–96—an increase of 7.8 per cent., which is more than twice the rate of inflation.
On 4 March, members of Pwllheli town council resolved to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to express their great concern at the number of empty shops in the town. It is worth reading some of the letter, written by the council clerk, Mrs. Mair Williams, and translated into English. She said that business rates are much too high and that
"the rates of small shops in the High Street are higher than those of large shops and those on the outskirts of the Town. We fear that reorganisation will lead to a still greater increase in the rate. We understand that it is Government policy not to build more out of town hypermarkets but they are still going up.
The Council asks is it possible to get rid of the business rate which is as unfair as the 'Poll Tax' some years ago, in order to see High Streets of our Towns prospering once more."
I remember that, at the time of the poll tax campaign, many people felt that too much attention was diverted from the problems caused by the UBR, which was introduced at the same time.
The smaller shops have the strongest complaint, because the present system is loaded against them. High street shops are valued according to a zoning method which assumes that the front part of the shop, which includes the entrance and shop window, is the most valuable. Small shopkeepers find that method unfair as their rates are proportionately higher than larger shops, including hypermarkets, which have a smaller proportion of their total retail space in those higher-value zones because most of their space is behind the frontage.
Our third objection to the UBR is that it is a flat rate burden placed on business properties, without any sensitivity to the ability of the business to pay. That has always caused a problem, but it acts in a particularly negative way in two specific cases.
364
The first set of circumstances is where a business may go through a bad patch, sometimes for reasons outside its control—for instance, a major road scheme may prevent passing trade from calling at the premises. I recognise that in those circumstances there are powers under existing legislation for local authorities to give assistance towards the cost of the business rate, provided that it is not a long-term subsidy. That assistance helps the business to bridge a limited time of difficulty and is offered where the business has every prospect of being run in a viable manner thereafter.
Unfortunately, many of the old district councils in Wales are either unaware of those powers or reluctant to use them. I am glad to say that the borough of Taff Ely, during the five years when it was run by the coalition led by Plaid Cymru, used those powers and enabled at least half a dozen small businesses to survive which otherwise might not have done so. I therefore wish to press the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister to bring to the attention of the new unitary authorities the fact that those powers exist and to encourage them to use them where appropriate. I assure the Minister that that help really is necessary. Mr. Gonzalez, to whom I referred earlier, also presented appeals to three district councils for hardship reductions under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, but without any success.
The recent rural White Paper for Wales refers to the need for fresh guidance on that scheme and for a new rate relief scheme for general stores and post offices in villages. We welcome that relief because those shops are in a special category, but the towns are in the front line as well and a more wide-ranging review should be conducted.
Another set of circumstances reveals the need for a similar flexibility, but local authorities appear not to have the necessary powers. I refer to the position of small businesses starting up for the first time. Usually, the first year or two of any business venture proves expensive, with income building up only gradually. There is therefore considerable pressure on cash flow. If it were possible for a business taking over a property liable to pay UBR for the first time to be allowed a UBR holiday for the first 12 months or even two years, one of those disincentives would be removed. That must surely be good for everyone, not least those towns which currently have increasing numbers of empty shops and where local morale as well as local business would be boosted by new enterprises taking over those premises.
I understand that there are different opinions as to whether a local authority is empowered to operate such a scheme, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether such schemes may be set up by the new unitary authorities in Wales. If the new local government legislation is unclear on this matter, may I press the Minister to introduce the necessary amendments to that legislation to enable unitary authorities so to act? If such a power does exist already, may I press the Welsh Office to distribute a circular to the new authorities, drawing their attention to it and urging them to use it?
The Minister may reply that the unitary authorities can act on one or other—or possibly both—of the two suggestions that I have put forward, but that they have to pay for those initiatives out of their own discretionary resources so that the total UBR fund collected by the Welsh Office is not reduced. That would be unacceptable. After all, if the provision of a business rate holiday

365
scheme succeeds, shops that were previously standing empty will be filled, and the UBR fund in future years will be that much better off. At the very least, the Welsh Office should therefore agree to fund 50 per cent. of any such reduction or business rate holiday. Alternatively, it should allow the local authority to retain the entirety of the business rate paid in future years by a business which has been helped in that way.
I put forward those ideas in the context of the existing UBR and make no apology for focusing on the real needs of small businesses this year. There is an urgent need for action, but help is also needed now for businesses that are confronted with large arrears. It is the Government who have landed them with those bills in the first place and have limited the freedom of local authorities to raise money. The Government therefore have the duty to provide local councils with the necessary cash to enable them to use their discretion to write off many of those debts.
Plaid Cymru's basic position is that the UBR system should be scrapped and replaced by a system geared to local income tax. We have advocated that system consistently for many years. We propose the abolition of the council tax and the UBR. Under our system, limited liability companies would pay an incorporation tax based on company profits. Small business owners or partners would be exempt as they, along with other people, would pay a local income tax set by the local council but administered through the Inland Revenue system. Plaid Cymru also supports a property tax for second homes and the transfer to local authorities of part of the VAT take in their areas.
I emphasise the importance of the small business sector. Profits from small businesses circulate in the local economy. They often source locally and they certainly use local services such as solicitors, accountants and banks. In that way they increase the linkages within local economies which contribute so greatly to the vitality of those economies. Their behaviour is in stark contrast to that of the supermarkets and other multiples which siphon wealth out of the local economies on a huge scale.
Plaid Cymru sees the need for radical, urgent action in the short term. I hope that the Minister can offer us some comfort.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given me the opportunity to discuss the important matter of business rates.
I should perhaps begin by recalling why six years ago we abolished locally set rates. In the 1980s, rates in England and Wales rose on average by 37 per cent. above inflation when many local authorities chose to load the costs of high spending decisions on to businesses because they knew all too well that businesses had no vote. We can see that happening again as Wales is being caned by increases in council tax of up to 25 per cent. The difference between the much lower increases of last year and those of this year is that this year there are no elections in Wales to hold those councils accountable.
By 1990, under the old business rates, the poundage in Wales ranged from 241p to 334p. Businesses were unable to operate on an equal basis—a position exacerbated by the fact that values were outdated, going back to 1973.
366
Unpredictable annual increases in rates made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead. The business community was vociferous in its complaints about the local rating system and pressed for change to national arrangements.
The uniform poundage for Wales means that businesses throughout the Principality are now treated on an equal basis. Five-yearly revaluations provide that rateable values are reviewed and updated regularly. Year on year, between revaluations, the poundage cannot rise ahead of inflation. In a revaluation year, the poundage is set to raise the same amount in real terms as in the last year of the old list. Those arrangements give the business community certainty and it does not want to return to the old rates system.
The starting point for rating is any actual rent paid on the property itself. For the 1995 revaluation, occupiers were asked for details of the rents they were paying. The evidence was used to assess the open market rent, which takes account of any incentives given to occupiers such as a lump sum payment or a period when no rent is payable, and any other special considerations. It is therefore possible that a business's rates could be higher than its rents in special circumstances. Nonetheless, it is important that values are assessed fairly. Before setting the rateable value, the valuation officer examines the rental evidence for similar properties in the area and ensures that rateable values are consistent. Data collected by the Valuation Office Agency show that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, shop rents rose between 1988—the valuation date for the 1990 non-domestic rating list-and 1993. contributing to a rise of some 25 per cent. in rateable values for shops in Ceredigion.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the differences between town centres and out-of-town areas. I assure him that the system of assessment is carried out on the same rentals basis for both types of area. The hon. Gentleman strayed into planning issues, and I have to remind him that planning is a matter for the local planning authority. We have set out clearly in our new guidance the sequential approach—when considering shopping developments, local planning authorities should look first at town centres, only then at edge-of-town centres and only then at out-of-town centres. At the same time, they should have regard to the effect that out-of-town developments have on existing developments.
I acknowledge that rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses. The rental value of property does not reflect the profitability of a particular business, but rates do reflect the rentals that occupiers are able to pay. The hon. Gentleman's party argues for a different basis for local taxation of businesses. As the hon. Gentleman said, his party proposes a local income tax and an additional contribution of corporation tax by limited companies. However, he would have to consider whether that would mean that local businesses were making a contribution to the cost of local councils. I believe that they should, but it would depend on the location of their head offices.
Another difficulty is that of, in effect, relating local tax to profits, which would be very burdensome. Profits vary from year to year. The tax would be complex, it would provide no certainty for businesses, and it would remove links between local authorities and the business community. Nor do I believe that such a change would find favour with the business community. The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the recent report by Dun

367
and Bradstreet, which states that firms in Dyfed are the most profitable in the United Kingdom—so a tax on profits could have serious consequences for his constituents.
The overall effect of the 1995 rating revaluation was a 20 per cent. increase in rateable values in Wales. Given the requirement that between revaluations the rates yield should be broadly the same in real terms, the poundage for Wales fell from 44.8p to 39p. Some 59,000 ratepayers were expected to face rateable value increases while some 21,000 were expected to have decreases. We therefore, very naturally, introduced a transitional scheme—I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's opposition to it—along the same lines as the one applied in 1990, so as to spread the increases over the five-year life of the rating list. As a result of the transitional arrangements, no business faced an increase in its rates bill of more than 10 per cent. plus inflation.
We were especially concerned to help small businesses. For properties with a rateable value of less than £10,000, increases were limited to 7.5 per cent. in real terms. For small composite properties consisting of business and private accommodation, increases were limited to 5 per cent. in real terms. From 1996–97, the Government have made that help to small businesses even greater: small composite properties will be limited to real terms increases of 2.5 per cent., other small properties to increases of 5 per cent,. and larger properties to increases of 7.5 per cent.
The total cost of that extra help in Wales is around £8 million for each of the next three years. The arrangements particularly favour small retail businesses, including sub-post offices and village shops. For the 1995 list, the transitional arrangements continue to apply even when premises have a change of occupier. The transitional arrangements are also of particular benefit to businesses in Ceredigion, where just under two thirds were in transition to higher bills in 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation. On average, shops in Ceredigion have seen a real-terms increase in rates bills of 5 per cent. in 1995–96.
Mr. Dafis: I should make it clear to the Minister that I was in no way expressing opposition to the idea of transitional relief. I was merely saying that the fact that there is a need for such a mechanism shows that the system is seriously flawed.
Mr. Jones: I do not accept that. It relates to rental values, and it moves as the rental values move—not independently or arbitrarily. That is why, so long as we maintain a rating system of a tax based on property, we need to have the greatest consideration for small businesses and to establish transitional arrangements at the time of changes in valuation. The five-year period means that there are greater changes, but in itself it gives
368
greater certainty to businesses because they can plan ahead rather than having to face changes perhaps every year, or as often as the hon. Gentleman's party suggests.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the opportunities for local authorities to give discretionary relief on hardship grounds. They are able to do so—there is no difficulty about that—but I know what he means about the limited use of hardship relief in Wales. More than £1 million was offset centrally from the rates pool in 1994–95 to cover all discretionary reliefs, including relief for charities and other non-profit-making bodies. Of this, however, only about £10,000 was for hardship relief, with only 15 out of 37 authorities granting such relief.
The Government, too, are concerned and are reviewing the situation, asking billing authorities about their policies and asking ratepayers for their views on how the relief provisions are being used. We will consider what action is needed in the light of that assessment, but it is likely to include identifying examples of good practice and issuing new guidance.
I believe that businesses are far better off under the system of uniform business rates than under either the old rating system or the system of local taxation that Plaid Cymru favours. Businesses have the assurance that there will be no real terms increases in their rates burden to finance extra expenditure. Indeed, in the previous five Budgets, the Government have committed a considerable amount of additional transitional relief to ratepayers, which means that, overall, in real terms ratepayers pay less in rates than they did in 1989–90.
The transitional relief arrangements and the review of the hardship arrangements show that the Government take careful account of the needs of small businesses. Our concerns for such businesses are also clear from the proposals set out in the White Paper, "A Working Countryside for Wales", in which we propose to provide additional relief for village shops and post offices. I was glad to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome for that. We shall shortly be issuing a consultation document, seeking views on the conditions which should attach to the relief in terms of the location, size, purpose and importance to the community of the shops concerned. I expect large parts of Wales to benefit.
As I have been at pains to stress, the Government take the concerns of small business about the business rate very seriously. We have listened to what small firms have said on this issue in the recent "Your Business Matters" series of conferences, one of which was held in Cardiff last November. At the national conference for small business on 11 March, the Prime Minister said that we are prepared to consider whether sensible changes could be made to make the business rating system fairer and more transparent. All the concerns of small businesses are under active consideration. I invite the hon. Gentleman to watch for developments in the coming months.
It being four minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended. pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the People's Republic of China over the handover of Hong Kong. [22610]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I visited Peking in January, and had useful discussions with the Chinese President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister about Hong Kong.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend lose no opportunity in stressing to the People's Republic the benefits to both the people of Hong Kong and the People's Republic itself of a smooth transition in the handover *if power, and the benefits of inheriting an honest, reliable and efficient Administration? In particular, will he try to discourage the People's Republic from making statements that might create divided loyalties among public servants?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The Hong Kong civil service has an unparalleled reputation not just for its competence and professionalism, but for its political impartiality and integrity. I believe that any attempts from any quarter to seek loyalty commitments would be not only inappropriate, but highly damaging to confidence in Hong Kong among some of the colony's most loyal servants.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the preparatory committee has now said that only 15 of the present members of the Legislative Council are likely to remain members after the handover? Is he aware that that falls dramatically short of the hope that China might make only minor changes to LegCo, and that it has dismayed supporters of democracy in Hong Kong? What assurances did the Foreign Secretary seek in Beijing about the future of LegCo? Given that the current council was elected under arrangements chosen by Governor Patten, with the support of our Government, what steps do the Government propose to ensure the continuity of LegCo beyond the handover date?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Chinese Government's position is not even as the hon. Gentleman has described it. The Chinese Government do not intend LegCo to have a future after June next year, and they have consequently announced their intention of creating a provisional legislature. We consider that reprehensible and unjustifiable. Moreover, any problems will be compounded if none of the representatives of the majority of the electorate in Hong Kong are invited to serve in the provisional legislature.
    It would appear from what has been said so far about the composition of the preparatory committee that none of the representatives of, for example, the Democratic party are being invited to participate. That is to be
    370
    condemned, and I hope that the Chinese Government will give further thought to what will be necessary to ensure the continuation of confidence.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Chinese Government and the people of Hong Kong that, although we shall no longer have administrative responsibility for the territory after the handover, the British Government and the House will continue to take a close interest in Hong Kong's affairs?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course we shall do so, both because of our ethical obligation to the people of Hong Kong and because of our continuing massive commercial and financial interests in Hong Kong's prosperity. We believe that not just the United Kingdom but the international community will look closely at the way in which China discharges its responsibilities once Hong Kong has been transferred. I very much hope that the Chinese Government will reflect on the fact that what happens in Hong Kong will be of intense interest not only to the people who live there, but to the whole world.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [22611]
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the middle east to discuss the peace process. [22612]
    Mr. Rifkind: I received the Israeli ambassador last month. Representations have also been made by the Palestinians.
    I have no plans for an early visit to the middle east.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, but are not both Syria and Lebanon continuing to furnish safe havens for militant groups not only opposed to the state of Israel, but committed to the destruction of the entire middle east peace process? What are the Government doing to bring such influence as they possess to end that action and to urge Syria back to the peace table?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is correct. It was the Syrian Government's failure to condemn the bomb outrages in Israel that led to the end of the Israeli-Syrian talks, which was a serious setback. With others, we have impressed on the Syrian Government the crucial requirement to desist from giving direct or indirect support to people who advocate violence. The peace process must include Syria as well as other countries in the region. It is important, therefore, that circumstances permit a resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria. That would in due course lead to a peace treaty with Lebanon, so all these matters are closely interconnected. As the hon. Lady implies, the first step is the cessation of direct or indirect support for the people who are trying to destroy the peace process.
    Mr. Pike: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that, in the long-term peace process, it is essential that the international community takes strong action to condemn terrorism in the middle east. Does he further

    371
    agree that there should be no faltering of the economic progress made in the Gaza strip since the peace process was started, which could be to the advantage of any minority that advocates terrorism in the region?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. If one goes to Gaza, one sees the benefits of the peace process: the huge economic construction that is taking place. Since the bombing incidents, the Israelis have had to take steps to close access to Gaza and to the occupied territories. That is unfortunate. We hope that it will be possible for the Israelis to relax those constraints, because anything that damages economic progress and development in either the west bank or Gaza is unlikely to help the peace process.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Israel has prevented Egyptian flour from being brought into Gaza, where there is a desperate shortage? Does he know that Israel has been stopping Palestinian farm produce from entering both Jordan and Egypt? Does he agree that such punishment, which is totally unrelated to security, will in the long run rebound on Israel and do nothing to help the peace process?
    Mr. Rifkind: We realise that the Israelis have a natural desire to prevent access to the west bank or to Gaza of any material that might assist terrorists or terrorism, but that cannot, of course, be said to apply to foodstuffs or other humanitarian requirements. I understand that supplies are now flowing more naturally into Gaza and other territories—I hope that that is the case. We will encourage the Israelis to allow the basic requirements of people who live in those territories to be met by proper deliveries.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware first hand of the concern in Britain that, over many years, the IRA has been able to raise funds in the United States, so he will understand Israel's concern that Hamas may be raising funds for terrorism in Britain. Will he give clear and categorical assurances to the Israeli Government that such fundraising will not be allowed in Britain?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is clear that any evidence that we might obtain that suggests that funds are being raised for terrorism would have to be dealt with in a specific and unambiguous way. Of course, there is always a practical difficulty in being certain where funds raised in Britain are being directed. Of course the people responsible for raising those funds always provide what sounds on the surface a reassuring explanation. We need to know, therefore, whether any evidence suggests that there are other destinations for such funds. If the evidence is available, there are powers to deal with such activities.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Has the Foreign Secretary had time to study the proposal for reconciliation based on a comprehensive and institutionalised dialogue signed recently between leading members of the Palestinian community on the west bank among whom were Faysal Husanyi; Marwan al Barghuthi, a representative of FIDA; Ghassan al Khatib; Samia Khuri, a women's activist, and members of Hamas? That proposal recognised the right of the Palestine National Authority to carry out its work within the framework of political pluralism. Is not that the
    372
    way forward for the Palestinian community on the west bank and in Gaza if we are to see a real comprehensive peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Rifkind: We, of course, welcome any initiative that encourages democratic principles and political pluralism in the west bank and in Gaza. The recent elections for the Palestinians were an important step in the right direction. They allowed a free expression of opinion. The Palestinian people showed tremendous enthusiasm for that process and that also is very much to be endorsed.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the new Palestinian Government are to succeed and gain acceptance for the democratic principle, the authority of President Arafat must be upheld and supported? Will he condemn any country or individual that tries to undermine that authority, because otherwise President Arafat is in danger of losing the support of his own people?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. As my hon. Friend implies, as a result of the recent elections, President Arafat now is not simply the leader of the Palestinians but the elected leader of the Palestinians. That gives him a democratic legitimacy which he may not have been able to claim in the past but which he is entitled to claim now. We very much hope, therefore, that that will be recognised by all who have the ability to influence events in that part of the middle east.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the real danger to peace in the middle east is that the peace process itself should go cold and that that is seen as a victory for terrorism and for those who are trying to derail the peace process? Will the Foreign Secretary also acknowledge that the danger of the peace process going cold is that it puts unmanageable strains upon the new Palestinian democracy and does little in the medium and longer term to add to the security of the people of Israel? What steps are the Government taking in terms of new initiatives to help the peace process, to ensure that the parties get round the negotiating table and that we get back to the optimism that was with us earlier in the year?
    Mr. Rifkind: It was very much concerns of the kind expressed by the hon. Gentleman that led to the calling of the international conference at Sharm-el-Sheikh. That was an important opportunity for the international community, including the United Kingdom, to demonstrate our support for the peace process and our determination to ensure that it did not just get lost in the sand, and to give political support to the Israeli Government, to President Arafat and to other Arab leaders who are working for the success of the peace process. They need to know of the support, both political and economic, of the international community, and that, I believe, has given a considerable boost to the prospect of resurrecting the process in a credible and substantive way.
    The next most important development will be the elections in Israel and we hope that those who are working for the peace process will get the endorsement of the Israeli electorate.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Israeli closure of the occupied territories

    373
    is causing great suffering to the Palestinian people and that that is having just one effect which is to encourage support for the terrorists among the Palestinians. If the Israelis want to keep the peace process on track, they must ensure that they open the borders to the occupied territories quickly, because that is the only way of recreating support for President Arafat and for the peace process.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to make those points. The Israeli Government will have to come to a judgment about whether the benefits that they perceive from the closure of the territories could be outweighed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests by a growing disillusion for the peace process among those who live there. The Israelis fortunately have the same interests as do we in the success of the peace process. Therefore, I hope that it will be only a short time before proper access is permitted again.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of the progress of the transition to democracy programme in Nigeria. [22613]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We remain concerned at the continued lack of substantial progress by the regime, even in meeting its own timetable. Human rights abuses continue and political freedoms are denied.
    Mr. Martlew: Is it not the case that in the past we have hidden behind United States policy with regard to taking a sterner line against the military regime in Nigeria? Now that the United States National Security Council has called for a freezing of the military regime's assets, will we stop dragging our feet and take the lead in placing tighter sanctions on this despicable junta?
    Mr. Hanley: It is unfair, indeed untrue, to say that we are hiding behind anyone else's policy. We are at the forefront of not only the united policy of the Commonwealth but the united policy of the European Union. As members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, we are taking urgent steps. The next meeting will be on 23 April. We are considering a wide range of issues while waiting to see whether Nigeria takes the opportunity of going down the path that it has already declared that it will follow towards civilian rule.
    The European Union has set up a series of sanctions against Nigeria and we are considering any other sanctions that might be considered by the United States that are effective and do not hurt the ordinary people of Nigeria. Therefore, it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are dragging our feet. Quite the reverse: we are at the forefront in trying to make Nigeria see sense and come into the real world.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to think long and hard before imposing further economic sanctions? Does he agree that economic sanctions often hurt the people of the country without hurting the decision-makers? Does he remember the late Lord Wilson
    374
    saying that economic sanctions would break down Ian Smith in a matter of weeks rather than months, and that they took 15 years to do so?
    Mr. Hanley: What my hon. Friend says is worth seriously considering. There are no economic sanctions on Nigeria at present, but the Department of Trade and Industry continues to keep the level of activity under review in the light of the prevailing political and economic circumstances. We shall continue to support British exporters, but we must consider whether sanctions are an effective remedy.
    If it is suggested that sanctions need to be imposed and the main sanction is, let us say, oil, those sanctions will have to be properly policed. That may require a naval blockade and a considerable cost not only to us but to the broader community within the United Nations. My hon. Friend is right that the interests of the ordinary people of Nigeria must always be kept in mind.

    Croatia
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of the United Kingdom's relations with Croatia. [22615]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The United Kingdom established diplomatic relations with Croatia in January 1992, and has a resident ambassador in Zagreb. We will continue to develop our bilateral relations.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware of the latest report from Elizabeth Renn, the United Nations special reporter on human rights in Yugoslavia, in which she expresses considerable concern about the conditions of the Serbian people who remain in that country? She particularly refers to harassment, discrimination, robberies and violence and she has expressed concern at the impossibility in the present conditions of refugees returning to Krajina following the military actions of the Croatian authorities. Is it not time that we exerted real pressure on what has become a neo-fascist regime in Zagreb to ensure that human rights are restored in that part of the world?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The restoration of human rights is a matter of great concern in Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers does cause us concern. However, we can draw encouragement from the fact that the Croatian authorities are co-operating well with the international court which has been set up to try war criminals. They have told me that they have 1,000 people on their list for potential indictment. So we are making progress, albeit more slowly than the hon. Gentleman and I would like.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members accept that progress is being made? Despite the fact that Croatia is far from being a perfect democracy, does he concede that it has done a tremendous amount to harbour refugees within its borders? At one stage last year, some 10 per cent. of its population were refugees. Does not that humanitarian gesture deserve encouragement and support?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that we should do all we can to encourage both Croatia and the Federal

    375
    Republic of Yugoslavia to treat their refugees well. Both countries deserve credit for the number of refugees that they have taken as a result of the tragedy in Bosnia. None the less, there is still much work to be done on that front. The international community must continue to work to ensure that still greater efforts are made.

    European Union
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the prospects for enlargement of the European Union. [22616]
    Mr. Rifkind: Extending eastwards the security and prosperity we enjoy in the west is the fundamental task for Europe over the next decade. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in taking that process forward.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not democracy very precious, especially for the new democracies of eastern Europe? Why should they have to give up much of their hard-won democracy in joining the European Union, which is centralised and bureaucratic? Why do we not turn it into a democratic system, so that, when democracies move into the European Union, they only transfer democracy? Should not that always be done by referendum, so that the people can agree to that transfer of democracy?
    Mr. Rifkind: It will, of course, be for each applicant country to decide its internal arrangements for confirming any desire to join the European Union. I have no doubt that countries that have been deprived of democratic institutions for 50 years and which have won them back in the past few years will be loth to give them up, for reasons that we all appreciate. We seek a European Union that is fully consistent with the democratic principles to which we all attach importance. The European Union exists on the basis of a belief in democratic values, so there should be no inconsistency between the two objectives.
    Mr. Forman: While I welcome the general prospect of further enlargement of the European Union, is there any effective influence that Her Majesty's Government can exert to get a more rational order of enlargement? It does not seem sensible to some of us that the next states in line to join an enlarged European Union should be the micro-states of Cyprus and Malta. Does it not make more sense to give priority to the Visegrad countries?
    Mr. Rifkind: Cyprus and Malta have already been promised that enlargement negotiations will begin within six months of the end of the intergovernmental conference. The applications of the Visegrad countries and other countries are subject to an opinion by the Commission on whether they are ready to start negotiations. It is quite possible that the Commission will record in favour of the commencement of negotiations. Therefore it is possible that those negotiations could begin at the same time as those with Cyprus and Malta. There are certainly some attractions in such an approach but we must await the judgment of the Commission, which has been asked by the European Council to report on their readiness to start the detailed accession stage.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the Prime Minister telling Parliament that he was not in
    376
    favour of referendums and did not intend to propose one for the British people? When did the Prime Minister change his mind?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government and the Conservative party believe strongly that it is important that, in circumstances where a general election might not be able to resolve a matter of this importance, the electorate should be able to do so through a referendum. The way in which the Conservative party is uniting on its European policy compares favourably with recent developments in the Labour party. After the hon. Gentleman proudly claimed that he spoke for a party that was unanimous on European policy, a week or so ago 50 Labour Members announced an organisation to campaign against the policy of their Front-Bench spokesman. I should have thought that he would show a little more caution in his remarks, especially today.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that a referendum is incompatible with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Does he agree that, if members of a Cabinet were to campaign for a single currency in a referendum—putting forward all the arguments—and lose, it would be fatuous for them to say that they had changed their mind? They would have no option but to resign.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that in any referendum it is crucial that the judgment of the electorate is fully respected. I have no doubt that that will apply in any future referendum.
    Mr. Corbett: Can the Foreign Secretary reconfirm the strong support of the United Kingdom Government for the admission of both Cyprus and Malta to the European Union? Will he make it clear that, while we hope that the negotiating process will contribute towards a solution to the differences between the two Cypriot communities, those will not be allowed to block admission and, therefore, in effect give Turkey a veto?
    Mr. Rifkind: No third party could have a veto on whether Cyprus might join the European Union. That must be a matter for the EU and the applicant country. If it is possible to achieve political progress that helps towards the reunification of the island, that will make negotiations infinitely easier than they would otherwise be. There can be no hiding the fact that a divided island is going to be a difficult issue for the European Union to deal with if it is contemplating the accession of a new member. To say that it is difficult, however, does not make it impossible—something that has to be borne in mind by all concerned.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if Parliament agreed to go for a single currency, any referendum following that would probably need a 60 per cent. majority, as we have accepted that there would be constitutional change?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that. If there were a referendum on a single currency, a simple majority would be the proper way of addressing the judgment of the electorate.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Bosnia. [22617]
    Mr. Rifkind: Compliance with commitments made at Dayton is generally good, but the situation remains fragile. We urge all parties to throw their weight behind the process of reconciliation.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Foreign Secretary condemn—as I am sure he would want to—the horrific tampering with graves at a number of sites in Bosnia, including most notably the Sahinici One site, apparently with the intention of hiding evidence to allow mass murderers to escape? Is it not wrong and totally unacceptable that the implementation force should be refusing to secure such suspected sites? Will he use his good offices to press IFOR, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to ensure that the sites are guarded so that the international criminal tribunal can go there, collect the necessary evidence and bring brutal mass murderers to trial?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one condemns any interference with such sites. We are working closely with the tribunal on the sort of locations within Bosnia that might be of particular sensitivity and any request of the tribunal. I am sure that every effort will be made both by IFOR, and the police authorities within Bosnia-Herzegovina, to ensure that the sites are not tampered with in a way that damages evidence that would otherwise be available.

    Argentina
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Argentina. [22618]
    Mr. Rifkind: Apart from our disagreement over the Falklands and South Georgia, relations are good and continuing to improve.
    Mr. Arnold: While I welcome the strong guarantees that this country is giving the Falkland islands and South Georgia, will my right hon. and learned Friend highlight the rapidly improving links between Argentina—one of the major economies of Latin America—and our country? In particular, could he highlight the considerable British investment that is taking place there and the great prospects not only for British investors but for British traders into that great country?
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly can. In recent times, some major British utilities—British Gas, Anglian Water and the National Grid Company—have made substantial investments under Argentina's privatisation programme. The total value of that work in 1994 was £225 million.

    Helms-Burton Act
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for
    378
    Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently to the United States Government about the Helms-Burton Act. [22619]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have made clear our concerns to the United States Government on a number of occasions recently.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend continue the Government's actions to persuade the United States to withdraw this ludicrous legislation—legislation that it has introduced in contravention of the rules of the North American Free Trade Area and the World Trade Organisation, which it helped to set up? That level of severity is no way to respond, even to the thoughtless and tragic shooting down of two civilian planes by the Cuban Government. Will he bring pressure to bear from the Government, and through the European Union and the Commonwealth, on the United States to reverse this piece of legislation, which is bad for everyone but which is worse for Cuba in its transition to democracy?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take this very seriously. The Helms-Burton Act has two particularly objectionable clauses: title III, which gives United States citizens the right to sue in the American courts British and other foreign companies that traffic, as they put it, with Cuba and in Cuba; and title IV, which claims the right to exclude from the United States anyone connected with any company that may be trafficking in that way, and that appears to include shareholders and their families. The Government view that as unacceptable legislation, with very high extra-territorial content.
    Therefore, we are making bilateral complaints to the United States Government, the most recent of which was a diplomatic note that we sent today—it will be put in the Library shortly, if it is not already there. We are also joining with our European Union colleagues to see what steps can be taken collectively to persuade the United States to think better of this unfortunate move. The permanent representatives will be meeting later this week to discuss this and the Foreign Affairs Council will be meeting towards the end of the month. The British delegation to both meetings will make strong representations that we should exert pressure on the United States to change its mind.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister's words, and I offer the Labour party's full support for the actions that the Government have taken. However, will he accept that the briefings given by the Department of Trade and Industry have made it clear that the United States will take action on an exemplary basis against British companies to warn other companies about trading with Cuba? Will he make it clear that that would be grossly unacceptable to this country? Will he also make sure that the American President is under no illusions that it is the position of the British Government that he should use his power to delay this legislation indefinitely so that it cannot be used in this unacceptable manner against our national interests?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Certainly it would be wholly unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government if British companies were used as exemplars to discourage others from trading with Cuba, and we would make the strongest

    379
    representations to the United States Government were that to be the case. I believe that the President's right to defer the legislation refers specifically to title III, which does not come into effect until 1 August, so we have a little time. Her Majesty's Government will try as hard as they can to get the President to exercise that right. I am afraid that during an election year he may find it difficult, but we will do our best to make sure that he does.
    Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding Her Majesty's Government's view towards the Helms-Burton Act, will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that the United States Government are the single largest contributor of aid to the Cuban people?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not sure whether that will continue to be the case—but, if it does, I will be the first to welcome it.

    China
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the promotion of human rights in China. [22620]
    Mr. Hanley: We raise our concerns on human rights with the Chinese authorities at every suitable opportunity, both bilaterally and through the European Union.
    Mr. Timms: What pressure are the British Government bringing to bear on the Chinese Government to secure the release of Wei Jingsheng, the human rights activist who was imprisoned last autumn? What steps are being taken to secure the adoption of the European Union-sponsored resolution on human rights in China by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We and our EU partners have expressed to the Chinese authorities our deep concern about the detention, trial and imprisonment of Wei Jingsheng. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to Mr. Wei's case during his meetings in Peking in January; the case was raised during the second series of meetings under the formalised EU-China human rights dialogue in Peking from 22 to 24 January; and we have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to show clemency in this case and allow Mr. Wei's early release.
    As for the resolution, we are taking action in conjunction with our European Union partners and co-sponsored, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the resolution on human rights in China, including Tibet, at the 51st United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 1995, which was defeated by only one vote. We and our partners have agreed to present a similar resolution on China at the 52nd commission, which is being held in Geneva until 26 April 1996.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that China will accept current standards and attitudes in relation to human rights in Hong Kong after it takes over the colony, rather than seeking to impose its own, currently very low and unacceptable, standards on that colony?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we devote a great amount of work, concentration and
    380
    determination to that matter. We are continuing to press China to ratify a range of international human rights instruments, including the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights. What we require for Hong Kong, what Hong Kong requires for itself and what I believe the Chinese also require of Hong Kong, is the greatest continuity in Hong Kong, as that is the way in which Hong Kong will manage to achieve the greatest confidence for the future, and that is in all our interests.
    Sir David Steel: Is it accepted by the Foreign Office that we have a particular responsibility for human rights in the part of China that Hong Kong will become? If so, does the Minister recognise the disappointment that many of us felt when the Foreign Secretary reacted to the appointment of the preparatory committee, which excluded any member of the Democratic party in Hong Kong, by describing it as a "pity"? Surely we should be more robust than that. It was an outrage; it was stupid; it was short-sighted. Will the Foreign Secretary be more robust in future?
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity, when in Peking, to mention several issues that he believed would increase people's confidence in Hong Kong's future and to mention actions that he felt the Chinese Government might introduce to increase confidence—to take heed of what the right hon. Gentleman said is one such issue.
    Recognising democratically elected individuals in Hong Kong is a very important part of maintaining the world's confidence in Hong Kong's ability to continue in the way that it has in the past. I therefore feel that our continued interest in the region, which is without question, will include our continued interest in Hong Kong, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. That is not only because of our trade interests and because of our regional security interests; it should be remembered that we continue to exercise a joint declaration until at least the year 2047. Therefore, we have responsibility for people in Hong Kong long after the transition.
    Dr. Spink: My right hon. Friend may recall the controversy that surrounded the programme "The Dying Rooms" about the care of abandoned children in China. The film was shown in the House, and I know that several hon. Members who saw it were moved to tears. Will he take all possible steps to pursue the matter with the authorities in China and to ensure that all children in China receive proper care?
    Mr. Hanley: I know that my hon. Friend speaks for everyone in the House on that issue. Because it emphasises the importance of bilateral dialogue, I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity, when in Peking, to raise that issue with the People's Republic. All who read the Human Rights Watch Asia report on the ill treatment of children in Chinese orphanages or watched the Channel 4 documentary would have been shocked by those pictures and the reports.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that deep concern was felt in Government, by the British public and in the House at

    381
    that sensitive issue, and he emphasised to the Chinese Government that the best way for the Chinese authorities to respond to the allegations was to have a policy of complete openness. That policy includes free access to the orphanages by Chinese and foreigners alike. A group of European Union diplomats in Shanghai visited one of the institutions mentioned in the report and found no evidence of ill treatment. That is not conclusive proof, but greater openness on China's part will help to reveal the truth about the issue and will ensure that the abuses are reduced and eliminated.

    Nigeria
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 19 Ogonis currently awaiting trial on the same charges as those faced by Ken Saro Wiwa. [22621]
    Mr. Hanley: Our high commissioner in Lagos has repeatedly made it clear to senior Nigerian Ministers that we expect any further trials to come before properly constituted courts that respect the basic legal rights of the defendant.
    Mr. O'Hara: The Minister will be aware of the shock and abhorrence felt in the House and throughout the world at the travesty of a trial and the consequent executions of Ken Saro Wiwa and his eight fellow activists last November. The House and the world know that Her Majesty's Government's response to that outrage was verbal, feeble and ineffective—indeed, the order of the day seems to be business as usual. Will the Minister assure the House and the rest of the world that the Government will take stronger and more effective action to dissuade the Nigerian military regime from a similar perversion of the legal process in the case of the Ogoni Nineteen? Will he assure us that that policy will be implemented if there is a repetition of the show trials and executions of Ken Saro Wiwa and his eight compatriots?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right: we are very concerned about reports that a further 19 Ogonis may face the same tribunal that tried Ken Saro Wiwa. The regime must be in no doubt that that would certainly provoke further strong international reaction. As I said earlier, we have made it clear to the Nigerian regime that we expect any further trials to come before properly constituted courts that respect the basic legal rights of the defendant.
    For their part, the Nigerian authorities have said that they will make changes to their court procedures. Those changes will not be introduced until some time next year, and that is not good enough. It is essential that there be properly constituted legal procedures in Nigeria. Until that occurs and there is further and more rapid progress towards civilian rule, we shall continue to impose the European Union sanctions and to take the action initiated by the Commonwealth in our determination to persuade Nigeria to reduce its human rights abuses.

    European Court of Justice
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the reform of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement. [22622]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We have set out proposals for changes to the European Court of Justice in "A Partnership of Nations". We will shortly publish a detailed memorandum.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals as far as they go. While recognising that we need laws to govern the operation of the single market, does he accept that the European Court of Justice is a political body pursuing a federalist agenda? Will he consider introducing legislation such as that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) which is designed specifically to address that problem?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend puts his case very well and precisely. The problem relates not just to the European Court but to other European institutions that misuse or abuse treaty articles. The misuse of article 118A on the working time directive was supported recently by the Advocate General of the European Court. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue at Turin with the leaders of the other European countries. My hon. Friend may be sure that issues around that nexus will form a central part of our negotiating objective. Alain Juppé, the French Prime Minister, raised the same issue a few weeks ago in a speech in France—so we are not the only ones taking an interest in it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm that he is seeking to curb the powers not only of the European Court of Justice but of the European Court of Human Rights, where the United Kingdom has been found guilty of 39 violations of human rights?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to the European Court of Justice. Unless the hon. Lady can relate her question to that topic, I cannot allow her to pursue it. The hon. Lady might like to try again.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not simple embarrassment on the part of the British Government that drives them to seek to curb the powers of the courts, because they have been found guilty of violations on more occasions than almost any other country in the European Union? Will the Minister also admit that he is absolutely embarrassed among the European countries because of the United Kingdom position?
    Mr. Davis: I will say two things to the hon. Lady. First, in respect of her assertion about the European Court of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) made the point very well. We support a strong European Court of Justice when it interprets and enforces the law and not when it manufactures the law. Secondly, in respect of her comments on human rights, this country has a record second to none on human rights and it is completely untrue to assert, as she did, that this country has lost more cases than any other.
    Mr. Jessel: If the European Court of Justice has a built-in duty to promote European union so that it cannot concentrate exclusively on the application of justice

    383
    within the rule of law, surely it is not, in the traditional sense, a real court of justice and cannot be respected as such.
    Mr. Davis: It is our contention that the court is perfectly capable of concentrating on the law, interpreting the law and enforcing the law. It does not have to extend the law, and that is our major point.
    Ms Quin: As the Government will need the support of the all the other countries if there is to be any radical change in the workings of the European Court of Justice, will the Minister list those countries that support the Government's aims?
    Furthermore, on the working hours directive, is not the Government's case completely undermined by the report that they commissioned which showed a clear link between long working hours and threats to health and safety?
    Mr. Davis: I will make two points on that matter. First, we have had no useful thought or input on the European Court of Justice from the Labour party. It has had not one constructive thought. Secondly, when working hours are related to safety—for lorry drivers and factory workers, for example—national legislation exists to protect British workers. That is why we have one of the best records in Europe for health and safety at work.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: As part of my hon. Friend the Minister's positive and communautaire stance in all his European negotiations, will he seek to move closer to our friends in the Federal Republic of Germany? They seem to have the art of completely ignoring ECJ judgments and getting away with it.
    Mr. Davis: In fact, they do not get away with it. The German Federal Republic loses a large number of European Court of Justice cases. That may make it think a little more about the operation of the court.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Spain and Gibraltar. [22623]
    Mr. David Davis: We regret that relations continue to be marred by unjustifiable delays at the frontier caused by the Spanish authorities.
    Mr. Banks: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give a clear guarantee that the future of Gibraltar will not be sacrificed in the wider interests of Anglo-Spanish relations within European Union political dealing? Will the Minister make a statement on the working or the non-working of the 1987 Anglo-Spanish airport agreement, which most Gibraltarian politicians think is inoperable? Indeed, I believe that the House of Assembly asked for the termination of that agreement in early February.
    Mr. Davis: None of the interests of Gibraltar will be sacrificed in any of our negotiations. Indeed, almost on a week-to-week basis we have to deal with Spanish stances
    384
    on Gibraltar. Only recently, I intervened to prevent a directive that would have been prejudicial in its effect on Gibraltar. In view of the strong local feeling about the airport agreement, we have made it clear that we will not impose it without the agreement of the people and Government of Gibraltar. That is a clear undertaking and it will last.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's last statement, but does he agree that the problem began earlier—even when Spain was seeking access to the European Union? If Spain had abided by the treaty of Rome, it would have been recognising the boundaries. Another problem is arising with Cyprus, as it did with Ireland entering the European Community and not recognising the boundaries of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Davis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is why I adopted the stance that I did with a number of directives—and why one directive did not make it through the Council recently. I insist that we recognise the border as it stands, and the legitimacy of our sovereignty in Gibraltar.

    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands. [22625]
    Mr. Rifkind: The Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands has our full support in his efforts to maintain good government. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), met a delegation from the Legislative Council on 1 April, and he subsequently wrote rejecting its petition for the Governor's recall.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I declare a registered interest. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a triangular administration involving London, a regional secretariat in Barbados and Grand Turk is a trifle excessive for a population of 14,000? Would not a lighter touch be more appropriate?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course we are always willing to consider any improvements for the administration of the island. At this time, I have no reason to doubt that our current arrangements make the best use of resources and do not involve any unnecessary bureaucracy.
    Mr. Flynn: Why did right hon. and learned Gentleman reject the petition that alleged that Governor Burke treated the islands as a private fiefdom, treated the population with indifference and a lack of respect—having called them people of moral indifference, evaded the rules of customs clearance for his own family, appointed himself as a marriage officer to conduct the service for his brother-in-law and then immediately resigned from that office, and used a small fortune on the official residence at a time when the police funds are being neglected and crime on the island has risen 40 per cent. in the last three years?
    Mr. Rifkind: I much regret that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the privilege of the House to make accusations against Her Majesty's Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands, when the allegations made against the Governor have been fully investigated, were found to be totally unjustified and were rejected. The hon. Gentleman might at least have taken account of the fact that, unlike his own efforts, the allegations against the governor were investigated and found to be unjustified. Against that background, it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman chooses to parrot allegations that he has been told about by other people.

    Ukraine
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with Ukraine. [22627]
    Mr. Rifkind: We are committed to supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine playing its full part in Europe.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to ensure that Ukraine is not overlooked in terms of the political and economic support that it receives? Does he agree that Ukraine is a European country in whose continuing independence and developing economic and political stability we have a strong interest?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. Apart from Russia, Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity will have more impact on political stability in Europe than that of almost any other country that has emerged from the old Soviet Union.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Ukraine has sufficient resources to close down the Chernobyl nuclear plant and, more important, to ensure that once it is closed it can be safely decommissioned?
    Mr. Rifkind: There have been discussions between Ukraine and a number of western countries on the help that might be provided with regard to Ukraine's plans in that respect. We recognise that heavy burden on Ukraine, which is why the international community has felt able to make some help available in a number of ways.

    UN Security Council
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss its structure, function and membership. [22628]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to attend a meeting of the UN Security Council. We will continue to take an active part in the continuing debate on its composition and working practices.
    Dr. Godman: What action is being taken by the Government to ensure that the peacekeeping budget is not totally depleted as a result of the financial crisis being
    386
    experienced by the United Nations? What steps are being taken to deal with that massive financial problem? For example, when will the Americans pay off their arrears?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree that it is most unfortunate that the United Nations is facing a financial crisis. I further agree that it is most unfortunate that, of the $2.3 billion that the United Nations is currently owed, nearly half is owed by the United States of America. We are pressing the Americans to make good their deficit; I fear that in the short term I see little prospect of that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, however, the British and French Governments took the lead in the European Union in advancing proposals, which are now being considered by the UN and which have the full support of the EU, for reforms that should ensure the payment of arrears and a proper funding process.
    Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister agree that the United States' $1 billion debt is quite intolerable? Will he get all Ministers, whenever possible, to put pressure on the Americans and the American Congress to put that right? This accumulated deficit is doing more to damage the structure and functioning of the United Nations than anything else.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. All Ministers will continue to pressurise the United States at every available opportunity to make good its deficit. My right hon. Friend is also right to point an accusing finger at Congress, which is not being co-operative with the Administration in attempting to resolve this difficult problem, but which appears to be using it for party political purposes.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on Western Sahara. [22632]
    Mr. Hanley: We frequently make clear our support for the UN operation in Western Sahara in contacts with the UN Secretary-General, at meetings of the Security Council and in the informal Group of Friends of the Secretary-General on Western Sahara.
    Mr. Mudie: The idea of a referendum on Western Sahara was first raised in 1973 and then promised in 1992, and we were assured by the Minister on 1 March last year that it would take place by October of last year. Does the Minister find it acceptable that it has still not taken place because of Moroccan obstruction? Can he explain why the Moroccans continue to be allowed to move thousands of Moroccan settlers into Western Sahara in an attempt at gerrymandering? When may we expect the Government to press in the United Nations for the referendum to take place, and for an end to the gerrymandering?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is certainly disappointing that there has not been greater progress towards the referendum.

    387
    We are concerned by the current lack of progress in identification, including that of the extra people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. The truth is that, unless significant progress is made by the middle of May, when the UN Secretary-General is due to report on the subject, he will be forced to present options for the future of the UN operation which may include phased withdrawal. I would regret that, and I would urge both parties to agree to the referendum, and to arrange for one as soon as possible.

    Helms-Burton Act
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the impact of the Helms-Burton legislation. [22633]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament and business men about the possible impact of the legislation.
    Mr. Michie: I welcome the Minister's comments earlier this afternoon about the legislation passed by the United States Congress. May we have a guarantee from the Government that if any British company finds itself faced with court action we will at least give it all necessary support? I accept that the President of the United States can delay title III after August, but in the meantime our companies need to know that they can engage in free trade without the threat of isolation.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it would be appalling if United Kingdom companies were disadvantaged by the extra-territorial aspects of the legislation. I cannot give him the undertaking for which he asks; what support might be given to companies is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. We will certainly do our best to ensure that the impact on British business is limited. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of continuing to encourage United Kingdom-Cuba trade.

    Angola
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of progress in the peace process in Angola. [22634]
    Mr. Hanley: President Dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi reached agreement on 1 March on several important points, including the formation of a Government of unity and national reconciliation by June and/or July. We look to the Government of Angola and UNITA to honour their commitments and implement the provisions of the Lusaka protocol without further delay.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister heard the recent warnings given by the UN Secretary-General that time is running out for UNITA to comply fully with its responsibilities for quartering and the delivery of weapons, and for it to demonstrate its good faith? Are not those warnings compounded by recent belligerent speeches from Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who said that he was prepared to fight on? Given that, at one stage, the civil war cost 1,000 lives a day, will the Government act with some urgency to prevent the circumstances in which Angola would slide back into civil war?
    Mr. Hanley: I believe that the prospects for peace are brighter now than at any time since the elections in 1992. The United Nations Angola verification mission—UNAVEM III—is now fully deployed and is providing the conditions necessary to maintain the ceasefire, to undergo the quartering to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to demobilise the UNITA troops. Seven quartering areas are now open to receive troops, but it is disappointing that the rate of quartering has not been quicker. We are also concerned by reports that most of those being quartered are not front-line troops. We hope that progress will be made and we are keeping tabs on it. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited the area recently and talked to Dr. Savimbi, from whom she received some assurances.

Sentencing
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about crime and sentencing. I am today publishing a White Paper entitled "Protecting the Public", which sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy to tackle crime. That strategy is designed to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent crime; the police have the powers and resources that they need to catch criminals; the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted; and criminals are properly punished.
There is clear evidence that that strategy is working. Last week, I announced that recorded crime has fallen for the past three years in succession. That has happened only twice before this century. In 1995, there were 468,000 fewer crimes committed than in 1992—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes.
I pay tribute to the police—and all the local communities with which they work in partnership—for that achievement. But crime is still far too high and there is more to be done. That is why I announced a series of radical new sentencing proposals last October in Blackpool, which have one simple aim: to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals.
The first proposal relates to honesty in sentencing. At present, offenders sentenced to less than four years in prison can expect to be released after serving just half their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can expect to be released after serving between half and two thirds of their sentence. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. I therefore propose to abolish it.
Under our proposals, there would be no more automatic early release. Prisoners who co-operated and behaved well would be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. That will ensure that sentences actually served are much more closely matched to those handed out by the courts. In addition, it will give prisoners a strong incentive to behave properly in prison. On release, all prisoners serving 12 months or more would be supervised by the Probation Service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original prison sentence. The courts would be expected to take full account of those changes in the sentences that they pass.
Secondly, I refer to persistent serious sexual and violent offenders. The maximum penalty for crimes such as rape and attempted murder is life imprisonment. The advantage of the life sentence is that the offender will be released if and only if the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But serious sexual or violent offenders rarely get life—even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence. All could have received a life sentence—but only 10 did.
Offenders who do not receive a life sentence have to be released from prison after serving two thirds of their sentence, even if everyone working with them knows that they are likely to commit another serious crime on some innocent member of the public. The sad reality is that many of them do.
390
In 1994, around 40 serious violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of a second such offence. I believe that that is indefensible. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
In these indeterminate life sentence cases, the trial judge, not Ministers, would set the tariff—the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once the tariff had been served, the Parole Board would decide whether it was safe to release the offenders or not. If the Parole Board decided that they still posed a danger to the public, they would remain in prison. Those considered safe would be released on life licence and subject to recall to prison at any time during the rest of their lives.
Thirdly, I refer to drug dealers. Drug dealers are a scourge on society. They prey on the young and the innocent and wreck people's lives and, because addicts often resort to crime to finance their habits, they wreck the livelihoods of others. Dealers in hard drugs such as heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine usually receive prison sentences but, in many cases, those prison sentences are not long enough for those who persistently commit that very serious crime.
A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs was just over four years, and those offenders are automatically released after serving only two and a half years. We need to send a strong and clear signal that persistent dealing in hard drugs is not something we are prepared to tolerate. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted on three separate occasions of dealing in class A drugs should receive a minimum sentence of seven years in prison.
Next is burglary. All burglary is disruptive and costly, but domestic burglary is particularly distressing for victims who lose their treasured personal possessions and feel that the sanctity of their home has been violated. I believe that persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences, yet they rarely get them.
A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. Even after three or more convictions it was only 18.9 months, and after seven or more convictions it was barely higher, at 19.4 months—and offenders actually serve just over half that. Indeed, 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary in the Crown courts were not sent to prison at all. In the magistrates courts, that figure was even higher, at 61 per cent.
I simply do not believe that that gives the public the protection they deserve. Those sentences do not deter career burglars for whom the occasional short stretch in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard. That is why I propose a minimum sentence of three years for anyone aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary for a third time.
In addition, I hope that the courts will use to the full their new powers to seize burglars' assets. The prospect of long prison sentences, coupled with loss of their possessions, will, I have no doubt, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred, but at least communities will get a lengthy break from their criminal activities.

391
Five thousand more policemen to help catch burglars; new vigorous police tactics designed to take the offensive to the burglar; long sentences for persistent burglars; and the prospect of their own property being seized—those are my proposals to take on the burglar as has never been done before. I have no doubt that they will be warmly supported by the public.
I accept that there may very occasionally be cases where it would not be reasonable for the court to impose the minimum sentence. I therefore propose that the courts should have the discretion not to impose it in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
Let me summarise my proposals. Automatic early release from prison will be ended; anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime will receive a life sentence; and persistent domestic burglars will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of three years, and those dealing in hard drugs seven years. Those are deliberately tough sentences, designed to deal with serious, persistent and wholly unacceptable offending by individual criminals. I accept that they are likely to lead to an increase in the prison population: the necessary prison places will need to be built, and that will require extra resources. I believe, however, that we simply cannot afford not to take such action.
I intend to phase in the measures. The provision to deal with second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and drug dealers will be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent to the Bill. I intend to implement the provisions to deal with persistent burglars and honesty in sentencing two years later, as new prison places become available. I also intend to consult fully on the proposals contained in the White Paper, and I shall carefully consider the points that are made. Having done that, I propose to introduce a Bill giving effect to my proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
The first duty of Government is to maintain law and order—to protect people's freedom to walk safely in their streets and sleep safely in their homes. We have taken action to ensure that the balance in our criminal justice system favours the law-abiding public, not the criminal. The police have revolutionised the way in which they fight crime, targeting known and persistent criminals with impressive results, and the public are increasingly playing their part through neighbourhood watch, street watch and the special constabulary.
My proposals are intended to protect the public from those who persistently commit offences that cause particular public concern—serious violent or sexual offences, drug dealing and domestic burglary. They will ensure that, once caught and convicted, persistent and dangerous criminals are properly punished. The proposals are tough, and they should be: they are needed to protect the public and build a safer Britain. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me time to read the White Paper.
When he referred to the recent figures for recorded crime, the Home Secretary might have mentioned that in the past six months the level of recorded crime has begun to rise, and that in the past year the number of robberies
392
has increased by 14 per cent. Two thirds of the White Paper contains a useful summary of measures already taken and announced by the Government over the past three years; it is very disappointing that it contains no proposals to improve the operation of the youth justice system, which is unquestionably one of the weakest parts of our present criminal justice arrangements.
The Home Secretary has made much of the current lack of consistency and progression in sentencing, and he is right. Does he agree that chance plays far too great a role in sentencing today, as I pointed out in a paper that I published last week? How can anyone explain to the public that the chance of receiving a custodial sentence in a magistrates court can vary from one case in six in Staffordshire Moorlands court to one in 66 in a similar court in Berkshire?
Is it not deeply disturbing, especially to the victims of crime, that—according to figures that the Secretary of State has given me—the average prison sentence imposed on burglars remains the same, at 15 months, whether it is for a first, second or third offence? Is it not bizarre that the average sentence imposed on a third-time drug dealer—30 months—is two months shorter than the average 32-month sentence imposed on a first-time dealer?
Does the Home Secretary accept that, in large part, the lack of consistency and progression arises from the Criminal Justice Act 1991, for which he voted? That Act also cut the maximum sentence for theft and non-domestic burglary by a third. Is it not the case that, just five years ago, the Government decided to resist proposals from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to bring about greater consistency in sentencing?
The Secretary of State recently complained that the current sentencing system
"makes a farce and mockery of the Courts".
Would he not be more convincing, however, if he recognised that that "farce and mockery" is almost entirely of his Government's making and a result of their failure in the past 17 years?
On the issue of consistency and progression, does the Home Secretary accept that his proposals deal directly with only a limited number of offences? Therefore, does not consideration need to be given to our proposals for the Court of Appeal to have a duty to issue sentencing guidelines, after public consultation, in respect of all the most common or most serious offences?
We support the principle of the Secretary of State's proposal on the way in which court sentences should be explained to the public and to victims—so-called honesty in sentencing. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposal is not of itself intended to increase the overall prison sentence served? Will the ending of parole mean that there is no longer any assessment of risk before many long-term prisoners on determinate sentences are released?
My colleagues and I also support the principle that repeat rapists and similar offenders should receive indeterminate, reviewable sentences. We believe that there would be advantage in having a formally different regime from lifers for those offenders, as I think the White Paper accepts, but there needs to be further discussion on the matter.
To illustrate why we support the proposal, may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a case to which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone

393
(Miss Widdecombe), has already been alerted by one of my hon. Friends? In that case, a former spouse sexually assaulted his 11-year-old daughter and was gaoled for three years. On his release, he went almost immediately and raped one of his family's neighbours. He received a 12-year sentence. He is due to be released in June.
I understand from my hon. Friend that the police and the Prison Service are convinced that, on his release, the man will commit further offences against those people or others. So great is the danger that one of the families is having to be rehoused. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that that is intolerable. Reviewable, indeterminate sentences, proposed 21 years ago by the Butler committee, are needed and are strongly supported by us. Will the Secretary of State say, however, whether he thinks that the final decision might be made on application in open court and not necessarily by the Parole Board?
I refer to the Secretary of State's minimum sentence proposals. We do not argue with his purpose, which is to ensure that there is far greater certainty—for victims and offenders alike—that people who persistently burgle or deal in hard drugs receive appropriate tough, deterrent prison sentences. There are considerable doubts, however, about whether the Secretary of State's method will achieve his purpose.
The fact that, in the past 17 years, every previous Conservative Home Secretary has resisted inflexible minimum sentences may not persuade the current Secretary of State, but what has he to say of someone of whom he normally takes great notice, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs? On 20 February 1991, he said:
"I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practise in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness.
Governments have resisted the idea of going down this slippery slope because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases".—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 311-12.]
That was exactly the Home Secretary's position just 16 months ago, when the House was told by his Minister of State that, in the Secretary of State's view,
"The courts should be left to determine appropriate sentences in individual cases."—111[Official Report, 3 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1336]
What does the Secretary of State say to one of the many objections raised by previous Home Office Ministers, that inflexible minimum sentences
"could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment."—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 349.]—
the view put in 1991 by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when he was Minister of State, Home Office?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman—we congratulate him on this—has come a long way since his party conference speech. Exceptions to minimum sentences were not mentioned anywhere in that conference speech, but they are now. They certainly will be necessary to avoid injustice, but what guidance will be given to avoid inconsistency and injustice?
I think that the whole House knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut the Secretary of State's budget for each of the next three years. Will the Secretary of
394
State therefore confirm that that is the main reason why his principal proposals cannot begin to take effect until late 1999, and will not take full effect until 17 years after that? Will he therefore confirm that, after 17 years of this Administration, the public are expected to wait for many more years before they receive the protection that they unquestionably need?
After 17 years and 10 criminal justice Bills, public confidence in the criminal justice system has never been lower. The Secretary of State must acknowledge that these proposals represent a rejection of almost everything that the Conservative party has done on sentencing during the past 17 years. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that public confidence has collapsed not just because of inconsistency and lack of progression in sentencing?
Does the Secretary of State not understand that public confidence has also plummeted because, while crime overall in the past 17 years has doubled, burglary has increased by 150 per cent., rape has quadrupled and robbery has risen fivefold, convictions for all those offences are now far lower than they were in 1979? Does he accept that this much-heralded White Paper does nothing to tackle those problems?
Mr. Howard: As is so often the case with the hon. Gentleman, he huffs and he puffs and we are left wondering what his attitude to our proposals actually is. We thought that he might tell us just this once whether he was in favour of these proposals and whether he would support them. He made much of the need for greater consistency in sentencing but, as is so often the case with the hon. Gentleman and his party, he espouses the ends but denies the means. The way to obtain consistency in sentencing in the most serious of cases is to introduce precisely the proposals that are contained in the White Paper. We are still waiting to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the mandatory sentences.
Let me take the poignant case to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the course of his observations. He referred to what I think all hon. Members would regard as a dreadful case—a case of a man who, having committed an indecent assault and a rape, is now about to be released when everybody knows that he is likely to commit another offence.
Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals on that.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with my proposals on that, but only 10 days ago he issued a policy document that set out a quite different proposal.
Mr. Straw: No.
Mr. Howard: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman. He has a short memory. He has already forgotten the contents of the proposal that he put out 10 days ago.
Ten days ago, the hon. Gentleman said that there should be a presumption in favour of an indeterminate sentence. A presumption in favour of an indeterminate sentence is a far cry from an automatic sentence with exceptions only for genuine, very special, exceptional circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between those two, he simply does not know what he is talking about. It was a very different proposal indeed.

395
We still do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the minimum sentences for persistent burglars or for persistent dealers in hard drugs. Those are at the core of my proposals to protect the public from the activities of such serious offenders. The hon. Gentleman now seems to wish to give the impression from a sedentary position that, for the most part at any rate, he agrees with the proposals. Let me remind him of not only what he said 10 days ago when he issued his policy document, but what he said about my proposals immediately after my speech at Blackpool.
On that occasion, he dismissed my proposals as
"ill thought through and ill considered."
The hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), described my proposals as "daft". Either they are daft or the Labour party agrees with them. It ought to make up its mind which it is. The truth is that, as usual, the Labour party is at sixes and sevens. It does not know what to say or what to do.
The proposals will give the public the protection that they deserve, and it is about time the Labour party made its position clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I seem to have been listening to a debate rather than a statement, questions and answers. I insist that from now on questions are put directly to the Home Secretary briskly, and I am sure that they will be responded to in that spirit.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the proposals that he has outlined this afternoon will be welcomed in Harborough? Does he further accept that the concept of the minimum sentence is not foreign to our law and that the introduction of further proposals on minimum sentences should be widely welcomed by the courts and those who wish to benefit from the protection of the courts?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the introduction of sentences with both a minimum and a maximum, so that the well-behaved prisoner knows that he can serve the minimum, but the badly behaved prisoner who does not recognise his criminal behaviour may have to serve the maximum?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support. My proposal achieves what he suggested in the second part of his question in a rather more effective way, by making it clear that a maximum of 20 per cent. remission can be earned by good behaviour. We make it clear to prisoners exactly what the consequences of good and bad behaviour will be. So I think that my proposal achieves the objective that my hon. and learned Friend desires.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to see the proposals earlier in the day. Now that we know that the shadow Home Secretary can be described as "Howard lite in a new blue can", will the Home Secretary tell those of us who are genuinely opposed to the substance of his
396
proposals why it has taken 17 years for his burglar alarm to go off? Why does he not spend between £400 million and £1 billion on something useful, such as preventing crime before it occurs, instead of on locking up people who could have been prevented from committing crime after it occurs? Does he really believe that it is in the public interest to request, as he does in the White Paper, that judges pass not longer but shorter sentences?
Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his evidence for the claim in the conclusions of the White Paper that there will be a reduction of 20 per cent. in an element of the prison population as a result of the proposals? If, as he says, it will take four years to bring the proposals on stream, why did he not introduce them four years ago? If he says that sentences that are too short are being passed, why has not the Attorney-General appealed against more of the sentences passed in serious cases?
Finally, will the Home Secretary tell us why he believes that it is right to impose minimum sentences of seven years' imprisonment on small-time heroin addicts for sharing out drugs among themselves on three occasions? They need the treatment that the Government are not providing rather than these absurd, populist proposals.
Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has at least made the position of his party absolutely clear. He has made it crystal clear that his party is opposed to the proposals. We look forward to continuing the debate on the proposals with members and representatives of his party up and down the country. We shall particularly draw the people's attention to the way in which he dismisses those who traffic in hard drugs—those who are convicted for a third time of trafficking in hard drugs.
Mr. Carlile: Answer the question.
Mr. Howard: I am answering the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I am explaining to him, if he will listen for a moment, what would happen if those who cause such desperate damage to others were dealt with in the way that he proposes. He referred to small-time traffickers in drugs.
Mr. Carlile: No—small-time heroin addicts.
Mr. Howard: These proposals are designed to deal with traffickers in hard drugs. It took only one Ecstasy tablet to kill Leah Betts and other victims of hard drugs. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, on reflection, be truly and deeply ashamed of the attitude that he has espoused.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he is doing precisely what the British people want, and that the only people who will oppose his measures are the friends of the lawless? The lawful will want the action that he has announced. Will he confirm that there will be absolute rigour and consistency in sentencing and that the force of the law will fall with equal weight on all criminals found guilty, whether in the north, the south, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I am sure that his assessment of the public mood is correct. These proposals are brought forward not simply

397
for that reason, but because they represent a careful and precisely targeted response to the worst crimes that afflict the public and will achieve greater protection for the public, which has to be our overriding priority. The protection of the public must be paramount. That is why the proposals have been brought forward.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will more prisoners serve longer in prison as a result of the proposals? If so, where will the funds come from, to make that possible? Will the Home Secretary tell the people of Birmingham and the west midlands what the measures will do to counter theft, robbery and car crime, which are still rising?
Mr. Howard: I certainly expect the proposals for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs to lead to longer sentences and to their spending longer in prison. The same would apply to those who had automatic life sentences passed upon them for second serious sexual or violent offences.
The outcome is less clear in relation to the honesty in sentencing proposals. Their purpose is to enable the public to see clearly the effect of the sentence that is passed so that they are not cheated, as so many people feel at present, by nominal sentences of 10 years that turn out to be actual sentences of five years. That is not through any fault of the judges, but is the result of measures that have been passed by Parliament over many years. That will be the net effect of the proposals on the length of sentences served.
Mr. James Couchman: I am sure that the public will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, even if the Liberal party does not. It has been said that those who commit serious sexual or violent crimes for a second time and who can expect open-ended sentences will have the inhibition not to harm or even kill their victims removed from them. What steps does he intend to take to differentiate between the indeterminate sentences that will be passed on such a criminal as opposed to those who kill?
Mr. Howard: I can indeed answer my hon. Friend's point. Most people who have just committed a rape are unlikely to be behaving or thinking rationally. They are unlikely to draw the inference that he suggests could be drawn from the fate that might await them. If they were to be rational, they would know that they would serve longer in prison as a consequence of any further criminal act that they might be tempted to commit.
The position under my life sentence proposal is that the judge would decide how long would be served for retribution and deterrence. He would decide that the prisoner should serve five years, for example, and then there would be an assessment of risk, after which, if it was safe to release the prisoner, he would be released. If someone murdered after having committed a rape, the tariff imposed by the judge would be very much longer even than that which would be imposed in a case of rape.
Ms Janet Anderson: Could the Home Secretary explain why prison works? In the last six months of last year, as prison numbers rose, so too did recorded crime. Does he expect the proposals to result in a reduction in recorded crime?
Mr. Howard: We have seen a reduction in crime for the past three calendar years—only the third time that that
398
has happened this century. That coincided with a significant increase in the prison population of about 25 per cent.
Most people readily recognise that, given that a relatively small number of persistent offenders commit a disproportionately large number of crimes, as will be confirmed by any police officer, if those persistent offenders are effectively targeted, brought to justice, convicted and imprisoned, it is not at all surprising that crime comes down. That has been happening, and it has played an important part in the reduction in recorded crime in the past three years.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I point out that we ought to be looking not merely at the crimes that my right hon. and learned Friend counts, but, for example, at the reduction in drink-driving, which has saved 1,000 lives a year and has probably reduced serious offences by about a million a week? Changing the culture is important.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the honesty in sentencing proposals, which are important to the public? Can he make it plain that, if there are to be life sentences for the worst murders, one of the penalties for those convicted is that they will be in gaol for life, while those who will not be a danger to society might be released earlier?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with everything he said— I can do so without qualification. I pay tribute to the work he did while he was at the Department of Transport to reduce the number of drink-driving offences. Perhaps he will agree that one of the factors that played a part in that reduction was the availability of minimum mandatory sentences in that context. The fact that someone was certain to lose his or her driving licence if convicted of an offence while drink-driving played a significant part in the reduction in the number of those offences.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that most people outside this place and many in here—certainly on Opposition Benches—reckon that the White Paper is just a blatant piece of electioneering? Is he aware of the reality in constituencies such as mine? Seventeen years ago, the doors of most of the houses in the pit villages would have been open at night. After 17 years, they are locked up tightly some two and three times over, and they are kicked in at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning.
My constituents do not need the Home Secretary saying that crime is going down—they know the opposite is true. The social fabric is breaking down. The Government should not come here after 17 years and try to kid on the electorate that they have some answers to the problems. The truth is that mass unemployment and other social matters need to be dealt with urgently. This Home Secretary got elected to set the people free, and the prisoners got out.
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that recorded crime in Derbyshire, which was rising for many years before 1979, fell last year. I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the Derbyshire police for their part in achieving that result. On reflection, I hope that he will be able to support the proposals to help ensure that that trend continues.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The British public fully understand that crime is caused by criminals. Is it not the case that the proposals in the statement will mean that criminals will be removed from circulation for far longer and then the British people can sleep better in their beds, including in Derbyshire?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I associate Kent with Derbyshire in the context of his question. We have to take a range of measures across the board, of which longer sentences of imprisonment are only one aspect, to achieve a concerted attack on crime, which is what the people want.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Home Secretary explain how minimum sentences and maximum sentences are meant to act as a reasonable deterrent when, after 17 years of Conservative Government, the conviction rates are plummeting?
Mr. Howard: We need to improve conviction rates as well—and that is precisely what the police are doing. That is why it is important that the police use new methods of tackling crime, which they are doing to great effect; that is why it is important that we have more police officers, and we shall provide 5,000 extra police over the next three years; that is why it is important that we change the law to make it less easy for guilty men to walk free from the court, which we have done, despite the opposition of the Labour party; and that is why we intend to tackle these measures across the board, as I have indicated this afternoon.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that ordinary citizens, including my constituents, will warmly welcome the measures that he has introduced today as bold and decisive? Does he agree that people are fed up with seeing criminals released early after inadequate sentences, and then seeing them commit the same or similar crimes again?
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We know that the feelings that he has expressed are widely held, and I believe that they are also soundly based. By introducing these targeted and focused measures, we shall be able to make a significant impact on the crimes that cause our constituents the greatest distress.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The prisons budget is to be cut by 13 per cent. in the next three years. What will happen now under the new provisions? What are the estimates of the extra expenditure that is needed for prison purposes? Will this mean that the 13 per cent. figure will disappear?
Mr. Howard: No, the 13 per cent. figure is part of a drive to achieve improved efficiency in the Prison Service, as we are endeavouring to do across our public services. Some of the private prisons have shown that it is possible to provide effective services at a lower cost in our prisons. Of course, the extra prison places that will be required as a consequence of the proposals will have to be paid for—we do not shrink from that. If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 13.8 of the White Paper, he will find that all the details are set out there.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I served as a lay magistrate
400
for 12 years before entering the House? Therefore, I understand very well the need for those involved in sentencing to have a degree of flexibility, to ensure that the punishment not only fits the crime but fits the criminal and the circumstances of the offence.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sentences must also take into account public attitudes to all specific offences? A number of judges and magistrates have failed to do that, which has produced the current state of affairs and the need for the White Paper, which we warmly welcome.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's experience adds particular power and credibility to the point that he made. I am extremely grateful to him for his support. I think that his analysis will command widespread support.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Home Secretary's White Paper deals specifically with England and Wales. Will he be consulting the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland? During last night's debate, we discovered that people move around much more and that we have a problem in transferring prisoners because of different sentencing patterns between the two jurisdictions. Is the Minister in a position to give some direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Crown Prosecution Service, which may have a problem in bringing forward cases for trial in the courts, which ultimately demoralises the police who apprehend the criminals?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my responsibilities extend only to England and Wales. My right hon. Friends who have responsibility for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been closely involved in the preparation of the proposals, but I cannot answer for Scotland or for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that while there will undoubtedly be a great deal of support for the fact that violent recidivists will be taken out of circulation for a longer period, there is another advantage in what he has announced this afternoon? With an ending of automatic remission and the introduction of indeterminate sentences, there will be a far greater incentive to the convicted person to co-operate with the prison authorities in his own rehabilitation.
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend; that is a very important part of these proposals. As he will know, we have introduced a new regime of structured incentives for good behaviour and penalties for bad behaviour in our prisons, and I believe that the proposals will reinforce the effect of those measures in encouraging good behaviour in our prisons.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Home Secretary recognises that rape is a very serious crime indeed. Why is it, then, that although recorded cases of rape have quadrupled since 1980, there have been fewer convictions than there were 16 years previously?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady raises a pertinent question, to which I do not think that anyone knows the answer. It is very important that we reviewed our criminal

401
justice system to ensure that the imbalance that had grown over the years, which had come to favour the criminal at the expense of the victim, was remedied. We have taken substantial measures to remedy that imbalance, notwithstanding the opposition of the Labour party, and I believe that, in time, those measures will achieve the object that I believe the hon. Lady and I share.
Mr. David Faber: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see a poll published this week which claimed that 87 per cent. of the population believe that the judges have lost touch? Could not the same be said of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), because presumably his only remaining ambition is to join their ranks? Given the disgraceful outburst that he made this afternoon, showing his complete lack of knowledge of drug abuse, should not the slogan of the Liberal Democrat party now be, "What's a little smack among friends?"
Mr. Howard: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and especially in relation to his slogan, with perhaps one exception. It is not entirely fair to say of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that he has lost touch; he was never in touch.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: The Home Secretary must know by now that the British public will realise that it is an admission of failure for a Government to legislate constantly on crime, even to the extent of repealing their own recent legislation. Will he please draw an elementary philosophical distinction between doing something about crime, in the sense of achievement, and always to be doing something about crime, in the sense of fiddling with the system—or perhaps I should say fiddling the system? It is time that we adopted a wider spectrum of approaches to the causes, prevention and detection of crime, as well as merely constantly chasing the dragon, like a legislative junkie.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement, he would know that I advance a comprehensive approach, which ascribes importance to preventing crime and such measures. We recently set up the new Crime Prevention Agency precisely and specifically to deal with that aspect of the problem.
I believe that it is essential to keep these matters under review so that we can learn from experience, and so that we can see what is working and what is not and constantly improve our approach. I believe that that is the task of Government; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a radically different view.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on having the vision and guts to resist vested interests and on recognising that justice is there to serve the interests not of courts or judges, but of the people? Does he recognise that when the White Paper becomes law, people in Lichfield will sleep easier in their beds?
Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the proposals will play a part in helping people not only in Lichfield, but throughout the country, to sleep more safely in their homes, to walk more safely in their streets and to live in a safer Britain. That is the object of the proposals.
Mr. Max Madden: Is not the statement a fitting obituary for a rotten and morally bankrupt Government who, in the past 17 years, have created a tidal wave of crime, poverty and deprivation? Do not minimum sentences show that the Government have lost confidence in courts, judges and juries setting suitable punishments for crimes? Is it not also the case, as the Tory Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee said some time ago, that successive Governments have resisted minimum sentences because they represent a slippery slope?
Mr. Howard: As I have said, one must be prepared to keep the matters under review, to learn from experience and to improve the system. As to obituaries, I think that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to stand again at the next election. Therefore, his question may be taken as his political obituary.
Mr. Michael Stephen: I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to a statement made today by the Police Federation, in which it said:
"We do not agree with the chorus of criticism from the judges. They should acknowledge their own responsibility for the current situation and they should not try to frustrate the will of Parliament".
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time to put an end not to 17 years of Tory rule, but to 30 years of failure on the part of the judges to use the powers that Parliament has given them to protect the public?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome the support of the Police Federation. When I assess the views of those who have commented about my proposals in the past—and who no doubt will do so again in the future—I believe that it is extremely important to pay particular attention to those who are at the sharp end and who have the difficult task of dealing with dangerous criminals on our behalf day in, day out and night in, night out. I pay particular attention to the views of the police when I consider those matters.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Home Secretary confirm the accuracy of press reports that the Home Office is predicting a rise of 10,000 to 12,000 in the prison population? Are those figures based on the assumption that his proposals will lead to a 20 per cent. drop in offending? If that is so, upon what evidence does he base that assumption, as I have yet to see any evidence that tougher sentencing reduces offending—or on whether tougher sentencing is right or wrong as a means of punishment? If he has made those assumptions and they prove incorrect, the prison system will become so overcrowded as to be unmanageable.
Mr. Howard: It is true that my proposals are expected to lead to an increase in the prison population, and the details are set out in the White Paper. It is true also that we have made an estimate of the deterrent effect of sentencing along those lines, and it is the best estimate that we can make. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see studies that have shown that greater certainty as well as severity in sentencing is likely to have a deterrent effect, I refer him to the studies by Beyleveld in 1980, Lewis in 1986 and Burnett in 1992—all of which support that proposition.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have campaigned

403
for a number of years—both during my time in criminal law practice at the Bar and during my four years in this place—for precisely the sort of measures that he has introduced this afternoon. The victims of crime will particularly welcome the removal of automatic remission of sentences. The victims of crime and the general public want the sentence that is passed by the courts to be the sentence that is served.
Unless the Labour party supports each and every one of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, the people will know that it is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. They know also that the remarks of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—who talked about being soft on drug offenders—may be treated with nothing but contempt.
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. I suspect that we may have to wait a little longer to hear the Labour party's definitive position. However, there is no doubt about the position of the Liberal Democrats, which I believe will be of great interest to people up and down the country.
Mr. Alun Michael: Given his responses, how can the Home Secretary claim that his statement is comprehensive? Where are the proposals to prevent and cut crime? Where are the plans to catch criminals? That is what he promised us in the first paragraph of his statement. He has presided over the chaos that has seen only one crime in 50 punished by a court. Why does not the Home Secretary propose action, as we have, to get a grip on youth crime and to nip it in the bud instead of allowing it to drift until it is too late?
In his statement, the Home Secretary said that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs is four years, with automatic release after two and a half years. What will the average be after his proposals are implemented, and from what date will his standard apply?
404
Finally, on honesty in sentencing, the White Paper states:
"The Government does not expect these proposals to result in a general increase in the period of time offenders serve in prison."
Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that statement?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman mentioned helping to bring people to justice and reducing crime. He will remember that when we introduced proposals on bail, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, his party sought to undermine those proposals.
Mr. Michael: Answer the question.
Mr. Howard: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. When we introduced measures to change the right to silence in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 so that more guilty people would be convicted, his party opposed those proposals root and branch. So it is no use the hon. Gentleman asking where the proposals are, because they are now on the statute book, despite opposition from his party.
On the last two questions the hon. Gentleman raised, the answers are as follows. As is clear, a third-time offender for the offence of trafficking in hard drugs will serve a minimum sentence of seven years. That will be an honest sentence. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the average will be, but the minimum sentence will be seven years.
On honest sentencing, we have always made the position clear. The purpose of the honest sentencing proposal is to end a state of affairs in which the public are misled into believing that the nominal sentence passed by the court is the sentence served, when in truth the relationship between the two is very different. I want the public to know that the sentence passed by the court is the sentence served, and that is the purpose of the honest sentencing proposal.
I look forward in due course to a clear statement from the Labour party about its position on the proposals. On its response, we may be able to reach a considered judgment about the significance that we can attach to the rhetoric of which it is so fond.

BSE
4.26 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the emergency Council that has just concluded in Luxembourg, and related matters.
The high level of public concern over bovine spongiform encephalopathy continues to cause very grave problems, for farmers and for all parts of the food chain. The whole Government have been following the situation closely, day by day, in an effort to identify any problems as they arise and to find solutions.
It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of precipitate decision taking by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country, and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries. Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have no justification on scientific grounds. I hope that soon normality will return.
I will come in a moment to the outcome of the Council, which ended this morning in Luxembourg. At home, my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other members of the Government have kept in close touch with industry organisations, to obtain a full picture of what is going on in a fast-moving situation. We are meeting any organisations wishing to talk to us about how their members are affected.
There are encouraging signs that confidence is returning. In particular, I am encouraged by reports from retailers that their customers are looking for beef in the shops again. Retailers have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and have reported that they need to begin buying beef again. So those with cattle to send to market should know that there are willing buyers for British beef.
From our discussions with supermarkets, it is clear that they would favour a quality assurance scheme based on identification of those herds that have had no cases of BSE, or on a computer system that could trace animals back to the farm of origin. We agree. My officials are working up some detailed proposals as a matter of urgency. The wholesale trade is beginning to return as a result of the revival of retail sales.
The Government recognise that one consequence of those developments that needs to be addressed immediately is a blockage in the slaughterhouse sector as a result of cash flow problems, which may be inhibiting the flow of meat through the system. The Government are determined to restore movement in the processing system, to enable market confidence to recover.
As an immediate but necessarily interim measure, I can announce that all slaughterhouses that continue to handle beef will with immediate effect be relieved from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges in respect of 1995–96 and for an interim period. My Department will seek additional resources to recover the loss of revenue to the Meat Hygiene Service through a supplementary estimate.
To quantify the difficulties facing the industry, qualified expert accountants are being appointed forthwith to provide urgent advice on the industry's immediate
406
problems and how they could be solved. Those solutions will be the subject of close consultation with the slaughtering industry. The Government are simultaneously approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the costs to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business.
I hope that I have by those means demonstrated the Government's commitment to maintaining the vital contribution of the slaughterhouse sector to the meat processing chain and to the essential immediate task of facilitating the flow of fresh meat through the system to meet retailers' and consumers' demand. Additional money will be provided to my Department's Votes to cover the cost involved.
We have continued to discuss with farmers the orders that we laid last week. As a result of those discussions, I have today laid an order amending the Beef (Emergency Control) (Amendment) Order 1996, to provide for the age of cattle to be determined either by dentition—the stage of development of teeth—or by reliable, independently verifiable documents. I believe that that will remove the main cause of uncertainty among farmers, and will help to restore the flow of cattle through auction markets and to abattoirs.
The public and retailers are rightly looking for reassurance that the process of slaughtering cattle and dressing carcase meat is carried out with the greatest possible attention not only to legal requirements but to general standards of hygiene. The Meat Hygiene Service has a crucial role. That agency, which was set up just a year ago, has performed a key part in our action against BSE since then. The agency's budget will need to be increased to cover the cost of additional staff, who are now being recruited.
In view of the heightened public interest, I propose to introduce a quarterly published bulletin, which will report the latest results of audits by the Meat Hygiene Service and the state veterinary service on compliance with meat hygiene regulations and enforcement action taken. I hope that that will demonstrate the continuing efforts that the UK meat industry is making progressively to raise hygiene standards in our slaughterhouses. I shall shortly be placing before the House performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service for the coming year, which will need to reflect the additional duties resulting for the service from the new measures that I am announcing today, and those announced on 20 and 25 March.
I refer next to the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers that started in Luxembourg on 1 April and ended at 6 am this morning. Considerable efforts were made over two days and two nights by Minister Lucchetti for the Presidency and Mr. Fischler for the Commission, but I fear that the propositions on the table at the end of the meeting did not meet our central requirement that the export ban should be lifted. As our partners were not prepared to accept that decision, it was not possible for the United Kingdom to endorse the Council's conclusions. The BSE crisis has presented the whole Community with a challenge of major proportions.
The Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based and fair. The United Kingdom is making a major effort to contribute to that Community response. Arrangements will be introduced to

407
ensure that all bovine animals over the age of 30 months at the time of slaughter will not enter the human food or animal feed chains. This scheme will take the place of the compulsory deboning for which SEAC recently called.
It is right that we should contribute in this way to solving the Community problems caused by the BSE crisis, but the UK also has the right to expect a fair and balanced response from our Community partners to the particular difficulties faced by UK producers. The Community's first response to the BSE crisis was the imposition of a total export ban against UK animals and products. That ban is not justified. It is not based on sound scientific analysis. It is disproportionate; it should be removed.
I made it clear that, in order to be acceptable to us, any Council conclusions must include either agreement to lift the ban forthwith, or a procedure and timetable to that end. It was not possible to reach such an agreement. I was therefore unable to endorse the drafts that were before the Council, despite the real progress that has been made. It remains my intention to work in co-operation with other member states and the Commission to find a satisfactory and rapid solution to the problems that confront us all.
Nevertheless, some progress was made over the past few days, and there are specific steps that we can now take, with financial support from the European Union. First, we shall make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for cattle over the age of 30 months, as they come to market, to be slaughtered under special supervision and destroyed and disposed of in a safe manner. As a matter of urgency, I am considering with the Secretary of State for the Environment the options for the disposal of the additional waste that would arise from these measures. Our objective is to identify the best practicable option and to ensure that the waste is dealt with in a manner that protects the environment and human health.
I emphasise that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme, in the ordinary sense of that phrase. The objective is to take older cattle, cows and bulls which come on to the market for slaughter at the end of their working lives, and to take steps to prevent them from entering the human or animal food chain.
Some attention was focused at the Council on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE. I believe that some of our Community partners have exaggerated ideas of what is possible in this area, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of BSE. We shall, however, be giving further thought to the idea, in consultation with our farming organisations and others. We can proceed only if there are practical and cost-effective proposals.
The Community has taken important steps to stabilise market prices. Intervention support has been extended. The Council authorised purchases of up to 50,000 tonnes in the EU as a whole in April. The beef management committee met while the Council was in session to put that into effect. In Great Britain, the new categories eligible for intervention bring coverage up to 22 per cent. of total UK beef production. Meat will have to be from animals under 30 months of age. These changes will help to stabilise prices in the United Kingdom and in other member states. They will help to restore confidence to the UK beef sector and to restart activity in the slaughtering sector.
408
Lastly, with all the new developments of recent days, and those that I am now announcing, it is important that all concerned in the industry know where they stand, or can find out immediately if they are not clear. To meet that need, I have made arrangements to supplement the helpline service which my Department has been providing to deal with inquiries about BSE and the beef export ban. Staff will be on duty during the Easter holiday to deal with business inquiries. My and other Ministers' private offices will be on duty during the Easter recess to deal with queries and questions raised by colleagues.
In conclusion, I believe that the steps the Government have taken up to now rest on sound science. Our objective is still to take science as our best guide. Our senior adviser on the science, Professor Pattison, has told us that, with the latest steps we are taking, beef is for all practical purposes safe to eatc—safer than it has ever been.
I see signs that public confidence is returning, but the position taken by our European partners is unhelpful. The sweeping ban on our exports is unjustified, and the Government will continue to work by every means possible to get that ban lifted.
Meanwhile, with all that is being done by Government and by industry, British beef is a product of which we can be proud. We shall do all that we can to promote and to protect it.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the deal that he has brought back from Luxembourg is the worst of all worlds, and that, once again, a weak Government who are isolated in Europe have completely failed to represent effectively Britain's interests in Europe? Is it not clear that, far from securing a complete package of measures to tackle the crisis, he is now expected to go back to Brussels with a proposal for an additional selective slaughter scheme?
Does the Minister recognise that the industry is now confronted with huge uncertainty? It has no idea how many additional cows the Government will condemn, no idea whether any new proposal for selective slaughter will be acceptable to our European partners, and no idea when Britain will again be allowed to export beef and beef products.
Will the Minister give us some idea of the number of cattle that are likely to be targeted under any new selective slaughter scheme? Will he give us some idea of the criteria that the Government are likely to take into account in deciding whether to slaughter individual animals or herds? Will he today give the House an undertaking that any slaughter under those policies will be carried out humanely? [Laughter.] I am surprised that Tory Members do not regard that as an important point, because many cattle will be slaughtered, and surely we want to ensure that it is done humanely.
Will EU funds will be available only for compensation to farmers—towards the cost of buying the cattle to be slaughtered—or can the funds also be used for the incineration and destruction of the carcases and for other expenses associated with these measures?
Will the Minister give the House some idea—there was nothing about it in his statement—of the total cost of all the measures to tackle BSE announced by the Government in the past two weeks, and will he tell us what will be the likely net cost to the UK after taking into account the reduction in our rebate from the EU budget?

409
The Minister advised the House last Thursday that the Lord President of the Council was to convene a committee to address the problems faced by abattoirs and by the wider rural economy. I have noted what he said about waiving red meat inspection charges in slaughterhouses, which I welcome, and what he said about making an approach to the banking sector to help slaughterhouses, but will he assure us that, following the deliberations of the Lord President's committee, he will still make a statement on additional assistance for our slaughterhouses and for the broader rural economy? Perhaps he can give me some idea about when we are likely to obtain that announcement.
Does the Minister agree that, although a selective slaughter policy may have a part to play, consumers will be confident that British beef is safe only when all the measures necessary to keep the BSE agent out of human food are in place, and are being effectively enforced? In that connection, I welcome what the Minister said about Government support for quality assurance schemes. The Prime Minister may shake his head, but I remind him that that was one of the seven proposals put forward by the Labour party last week, which he derided in the House. I welcome the Government's willingness to provide assistance for a quality assurance scheme.
I do not need to remind the House that the Government's record on enforcement of BSE controls is appalling. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, part of the agreement reached last night involves a requirement that those controls will be reinforced and that the state veterinary service will make additional inspections. In that context, I again welcome what the Minister said about the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service. Can he confirm that the Government will provide the required additional money not only to the Meat Hygiene Service, as he said, but to the state veterinary service?
Although I welcome the proposal for quarterly reports of those inspections, in the current circumstances, monthly reports might be more appropriate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about hourly reports?"] I ask him to consider that. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister may not like such a proposal, but it is an important issue.
Does the Minister agree that the industry and consumers cannot simply be left in limbo? Will he go back to the Commission to try to secure earlier meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and of the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee with the view to reaching an earlier agreement with the EU on the measures that are required? Surely he recognises that it is quite unacceptable that we should carry on until the end of this month in the worst of all worlds.
Mr. Hogg: It is sometimes desirable for the House to focus on the main issues and that is why I am going to make some general remarks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). Let me make the first one so the House can hear it clearly: the hon. Gentleman did not condemn the ban. More than that, on many occasions in the past few weeks, he has expressed his understanding for it. It is not surprising that in Europe we find a determination to keep the ban in place when people there hear members of the Labour party supporting it. I regard that as outrageous, and so does the farming community of this country.
410
Let me make another point of a general kind. The Labour party has said on many occasions that it is not prepared to stand alone on Europe. What does that mean in this context? It means that it will acquiesce in anything that is done to the destruction of our interests. The truth is that those abroad who have heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution this afternoon will take comfort and say that they are justified in imposing restrictions on British goods.
I shall make another point. The hon. Gentleman also asked what we have done to support agricultural and other interests. I shall tell him. We have brought to this country either the fact or the prospect of millions of pounds; we are waiving the Meat Hygiene Service charges; we have provided very satisfactory assistance for the renderers; last week, we provided financial assistance for farmers producing young bull calves; we succeeded in negotiating a very satisfactory intervention package; and we have secured the promise of hundreds of millions of pounds to support the implementation of the 30-month rule, and other funds are available. None of that would have been done had the hon. Gentleman been discharging my responsibilities.
Mr. John Biffen: I tender my respects to my right hon. and learned Friend for the stamina that he has shown in the past few days at the Council of Ministers. During that great ministerial marathon, when our partners proposed a more intensified policy of slaughter, did they also advance scientific and veterinary evidence to justify those proposals? If not, were the proposals designed to promote a restoration of consumer confidence? Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to point out that it is price that is restoring consumer confidence in this country, that it is price that will continue to restore consumer confidence in this country and that, in this context, we do not want another politically motivated, complicated, bureaucratic scheme for an intensification of slaughter policy initiated by those who do not have British agricultural or consumer interests at heart?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. First, I am grateful to him for his kind remarks as to the length and character of the discussions of the past two and a half days.
There may be a case for a tightly targeted selective culling policy to reduce the incidence of BSE, provided that it is clear that it is tightly targeted and will actually bring about a substantial diminution in the number of BSE cases. What is not justified is a wholesale slaughter of herds which may, to some small degree, have been affected by BSE. Should we contemplate such a policy, we would have to be clear, according to the scientific facts, that what we were doing was justified.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I agree with the Minister about three things. First, we agree that beef is safe. That view has been endorsed now that the World Health Organisation has today made its definitive pronouncement, and we hope that that information will be disseminated as widely as possible. Secondly, we agree that the best thing that we can achieve from negotiations is the lifting of the ban by the European Union. Thirdly, we agree that confidence is returning, although it has been so battered that it is probably only 15 per cent. of what it was before the crisis began.

411
If the Minister really wants to make sure that confidence returns as quickly as possible and that the ban is lifted as quickly as possible, may I suggest that the Government should do what he criticised the Europeans for not doing—take prompt and effective action? It is no good announcing today that, as a matter of urgency, there will be a slaughter of cattle more than 30 months old when that idea has been on the table—put there by us, and by others—for nine days. It is no good announcing today a quality assurance scheme as a matter of urgency when that idea has been on the table for eight days. It is no good announcing a credit guarantee scheme today when that idea has been on the table since at least the weekend.
The Minister has to understand that, if the Government act quickly, we can expect Europe to respond. Will he admit to the House that the lesson of the previous two days' negotiations has been that the more and the sooner we co-operate with our partners, the better and more effective their response will be? Will he go back to Europe as soon as possible, and show that he has done what he is still only talking about?
Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed what the House has heard many times—that British beef is safe and can be eaten with confidence. I am also glad that he endorsed the Government's view that it is essential for the European Union to lift the ban. Confidence is returning, and one of the reasons for that is the prompt action taken by the Government. As soon as we have been in a position to do so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have made full statements to the House on a number of occasions, setting out the conclusions of the scientific committee, together with a range of measures that we were advised to take. It should also be borne in mind that we have implemented, promptly and fully, all the recommendations of the specialist advisory committee. That in itself should reassure the consumer about the safety of British beef.
We have also acted promptly in ensuring that money has become available from the European Union to provide substantial financial assistance for British farmers. Let me draw particular attention to the large intervention package that has been secured, and to the support for the endorsement of the 30-month rule.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. and learned Friend has my sympathy. Does he agree that Ministers were absolutely right to make public announcements about the most likely link between animal and human disease, rather than attempting a cover-up or denial? Was he himself not right, at the beginning of the problem, to call for a selective slaughter policy to restore public confidence? Are the Government not right to seek, and to continue to seek, the support of our customers and colleagues in the rest of Europe, if we are ever to restore the export market for our beef that has been so profitable to this country?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I am grateful for her support.
We have an absolute duty to put considerations of human health above all others. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that we had a paramount duty to make a full
412
statement to the House. We had an obligation to the House, and nowhere else, to make the first statement about the conclusions that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee had reached and the recommendations that it was making. It may be fashionable in some quarters to suggest that reports should be made elsewhere first, but I do not accept that. The accountability of Ministers is to the House, and we shall always discharge that duty first, and above all others.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it true that we shall be paying back, over a period of years, large sums that are supposedly coming from a European source? If so, would it not have been better for the Minister to abandon his slightly disoriented bobbing like a cork between here and Brussels, and got on with finding both the money and the health measures to support the industry and customers? If he did that, random testing could go ahead, details of the destruction of carcases could be given to the industry and, above all, people would know how the ashes will be disposed of. If the Minister is entirely safe and secure in his knowledge of those public health measures, will he please get on with it and stop wandering around the continent?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady's first question related to the rebate. Labour Members would be well advised to acknowledge that the fact that we have a rebate of this kind is due to the determination of my noble Friend Lady Thatcher. Had it been left to the Labour party, we would not have a rebate to talk about.
Facilities are available for disposal. We have a comprehensive range of rendering and incineration plants. As I made plain in my statement, disposal will be undertaken in a safe and proper way and in accordance with measures that have been considered in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Minister realise that, although his announcement today of assistance for slaughterhouses and of the banks' involvement is welcome, the effect could be serious for the infrastructure in some rural areas? I am thinking of a wider group than, say, slaughterhouses. Hauliers and markets could be badly affected. At the same time, the bad effects could be much more regionalised. Will he try to avoid considering the problem in a broad, overall way? He should realise that the bad effects are especially likely to be felt on the west side of England and in Wales and Scotland, for instance, where the bulk of livestock are to be found.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, who knows an enormous amount about the industry and who has represented its interests with great distinction in a number of capacities, is entirely right. My right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of the possible consequences for the infrastructure of rural areas and for various industries and economic communities associated with the agricultural community. Because of that, we are watching carefully the impact of this crisis. The waiving of Meat Hygiene Service charges, which was announced in my statement, is one clear example of the way in which we have responded.
My right hon. Friend makes the point that we should be alert to differences between rural areas and regional areas. I was enormously helped in my negotiations in

413
Brussels by Lady Denton, who represents the Northern Ireland Office interest, and by Lord Lindsay, who represents the Scottish Office interest—they played a considerable part in what happened in Luxembourg. I am most grateful to them.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome, on behalf of my colleagues, what the Minister has done to date for the beef industry, but the crisis has been calamitous for Northern Ireland, where we are so dependent on the beef industry. We do not believe that the intervention that is on offer will be sufficient to take us out of the difficulty. While the Minister's officials are considering the possibility of quality assurance schemes, may I remind him that every animal is tagged and computer recorded? In addition, there are quality assurance schemes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The ban must be negotiated away.
Our erstwhile European partners have been motivated by self-interest and opportunism to seek advantage for themselves. Will the Minister consider getting good British beef, whether it is from Ulster, Scotland, Wales or England, on the move where there is already quality assurance, while further schemes are being introduced?
Mr. Hogg: I appreciate the considerable importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland's economy. That was one reason why I was grateful for the presence of Lady Denton, who represents the agriculture interest in the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman is right when he draws attention to the characteristics of beef management in Northern Ireland, which go a long way to making it one of the finest parts of the UK's beef industry. In particular, he draws attention to tagging and to the management of beef.
The hon. Gentleman is wholly right to say that it is vital to negotiate the ban away. He has my undertaking that we shall do our utmost to bring that about at the earliest possible opportunity. He makes some interesting points about especially well-protected herds. I shall consider that specifically to find out whether it offers a way forward.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that any reasonable person will know that, in the past few days, he has been fighting desperately for the farming industry? Does he realise that the panic reaction started with the disgusting speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) from the Dispatch Box?
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about one specific issue—very small farms, especially those in the west country—which was not covered in his statement? The intervention of the banks will obviously help, but, often, some of the farmers who need help most will have the least equity to assist the banks in granting further loans. Will he therefore consider the position of farms that are stuck with calves and beef which are readily available for export, which they cannot move and for which there is not necessarily a market in Britain? Those people will need considerable help from the Government as soon as possible.
Mr. Hogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks—compliments from him are compliments indeed. I agree with his comment on the
414
speeches—there have been a number of them—of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). They have done considerable damage to the integrity of British agriculture and to our reputation, although that is a much lesser matter.
As to small farms, especially those involved in the dairy and beef sectors, my right hon. Friend is right. We shall of course keep a careful eye on particular sectors, whether they be regional or part of a particular industry such as agriculture. I think that he will accept, however, that the important thing is to try to restore market confidence and, through that, to ensure that there is a restoration in prices and movement of beef through auction houses and marketplaces. What I announced last week with regard to the premium in young bull calves will be of particular assistance and value to his constituents. The substantial enlargement of the intervention policy, which we were able to secure in Luxembourg, will be of particular value to those constituents. I hope that, when it works out, he and I can agree on that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a serious situation that calls for statesmanship. Our Front-Bench spokesman asked a series of questions regarding further regulations, and not one of them was answered. The Minister blew his top and gave us a rant. Will he reconsider now? He will have notes on all those questions. Will he give the answers to which hon. Members and my constituents are entitled? Pits in my constituency have been destroyed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the farms are due to be destroyed, so we need serious answers to serious questions.
Mr. Hogg: In the last two weeks, I have had the pleasure of standing at this Dispatch Box on three occasions—I have made two statements and I opened a debate last Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has done likewise. We had the pleasure to appear before the Select Committee for Health and the Select Committee for Agriculture for about six hours, in the course of which we answered many questions. The hon. Gentleman should read the record more assiduously.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware that Conservative Members have total confidence in the way in which he has conducted the negotiations, but is he also aware that there is a growing loss of confidence in the integrity of the European Union Ministers with whom he is trying to negotiate? If, despite Britain's efforts, the worldwide ban continues much longer, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will consider its legality?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks as to confidence. He is indeed right when he refers in those terms to the action of some overseas Ministers. It is important that we secure a lifting of the ban. The justifications for the imposition and the maintenance of the ban are not based on logic or science, and we are looking earnestly and urgently at the legality of what has been done.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the specialist accountants, who are to tell us how much damage has been done in our constituencies, look specifically at the problems of the specialist beef producers, people who are not dairy farmers—to whom

415
culled cows are an additional aspect of income—but whose entire income is caught up in livestock; people who cannot market their cattle; people, perhaps on the hills, who cannot sell their cattle? Will instruments such as the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which exist to help such people, be used?
Has the Minister seen the report from TSB Scotland, which estimates that, even with a 25 per cent. decline in demand, there will be 6,000 job losses throughout the food chain in Scotland? Does he know that that report also said that the way forward was a specifically Scottish policy response to mitigate the scale of the disaster?
When the Minister was unable to persuade our customers to lift the ban, did he then, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) recommended, go down the route of arguing that the quality assurance schemes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere can be used to identify cattle as BSE-free? Can they get through the ban until such time as all cattle can be identified as BSE-clear? Every single producer in my constituency to whom I have spoken during the past two weeks has agreed that only by declaring them BSE-clear can cattle from Scotland or elsewhere be marketed with confidence in the future.
Mr. Hogg: On the narrow question that the hon. Gentleman asked regarding accountants, their purpose is to look to the abattoirs. On the broader question of the prosperity of the Scottish beef industry, I am happy to say that, while I was in Luxembourg, I had the resolute assistance of my noble Friend Lord Lindsay, who has responsibility in this matter and who was acting on the express instructions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is deeply concerned.
We are looking closely at what we can do to address the question of quality herds. There may well be steps that we can take in that direction, but most important of all is the need to restore market confidence and urgently to provide financial assistance. In that context, the package of intervention to which I have referred, and the action that I announced last week with regard to young bull calves, is of particular importance.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that many British people look ill on criticisms offered by Ministers in Europe from countries where BSE is not even a notifiable disease? How do they know how much BSE is in their own country? Before they try to cast the mote out of the British beef industry's eye, they should cast the beam out of their own.
I thank the Minister for his tribute to the Ulster beef industry, but does he remember that our economic structure is built around that industry and that Northern Ireland is worse off now because of this crisis than any other part of the United Kingdom, because 70 per cent. of its beef is exported, and that trade has come to a standstill?
The present stocks in storage are worth £26 million. They are not moving at all. They cannot be guaranteed to be from cattle under 30 months old. Will those stocks come under the new rule, and will clearly defined help be given to the meat processing industry to get rid of those stocks, to empty the stores and to get the herds that are being fed and overfed on the farms to the abattoirs for slaughter and for export?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made a formidable case for the quality of British and Northern Irish beef. The quality of Northern Ireland beef is well known to hon. Members and is an essential part of the economy of the Province. It is for that reason that I was so pleased when I was in Luxembourg to have the assistance of my noble Friend Lady Denton.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right when he makes the point that we in Britain have a range of controls relevant to the issue which are better than those that operate in most countries abroad, most particularly with regard to the disposal of specified bovine offal and the controls relating to feeding material for cattle. In those two respects, our regime is infinitely better than those on mainland Europe, where there must be many cases of undetected BSE. I am sceptical about the extremely low figures that are formally reported.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State comment on the work of Dr. Harash Narang, the Newcastle virologist who, in the early 1990s, developed a test for BSE in live animals? Is that not the very kind of test that we now need, so that, instead of destroying whole herds, we can destroy only individual animals carrying the BSE virus?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a test for live animals would be a great advantage in the control of BSE, in terms of animal health and protecting the human food chain. Unfortunately, we do not have such a test at the moment and the best advice that I have is that there is no sensible prospect of our having one in the near future. I wish that that were otherwise, for the reasons set out by the hon. Gentleman, but the best advice that I have been given is that there no immediate prospect of one.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we recognise how hard he has battled in an extremely difficult situation, not made easier by the precipitate action of the European Commission, which has now made it difficult in the short term to remove the ban? My right hon. and learned Friend was right not to rush into some additional agreement on the slaughter policy, which could have been catastrophic for a large section of British agriculture and which would have been impossible to explain to Britain, or, perhaps, in the courts.
As we are not in the short term to have the assistance of our partners in Europe, the answers and the solutions to how to restore confidence now lie with ourselves. With the good sense of the British people, that will return, but it will take time. During that time, we must ensure that the fabric of the industry in all its aspects is, as far as possible, kept in being so that the restoration of confidence can be met by a continuing industry.
In that respect, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to deal over Easter with a raft of different questions from all sections of the industry, which, at the moment, have no answers to many difficult questions about which they are concerned. I am sorry to hear that he will be working over Easter, with his colleagues and the officials in the Department, but it is right that he should do so, in order to ensure that we have answers to as many questions as possible and that farmers, hauliers, slaughterhouses and everyone else involved have somewhere to go to get the answers that they need.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the precipitate action of our European partners has been

417
one of the major causes of the lack of confidence. I agree with him on the importance of an early removal of the ban.
My right hon. Friend is also right when he says that confidence will return, but it will take some time to return; therefore, he is also right when he draws attention to the need to maintain the fabric of the industry in the meantime. It is against that background that I was anxious to secure, and did secure, an extended intervention package, which he knows about. That is why the Government are looking to the financial support that is available for implementing the 30-month rule so as to buy in the old milking cows, for example. My right hon. Friend will also recall what I said last week about financial support in respect of young bull calves.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have some of the figures for which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) asked? Taking the rebate into account, what would the net cost to the United Kingdom have been if the Minister had been able to settle on a 70 per cent. rather than 80 per cent. EC contribution and a general settlement? What is the margin that we are arguing about, without taking into account the additional requirement placed on us for a general slaughtering of the herd?
Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that question in the broad because there are so many elements within the spending policies. There is, for example, spending on intervention and spending in support of the 30-month rule. There would be spending if we went down the road of a highly targeted slaughter policy such as I have described. A range of spending would be possible. Unless and until I have the costs of carrying out the specific programme, I simply cannot answer the question that the hon. Gentleman posed.
Sir Kenneth Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend has earned the thanks of the House for the tenacity with which he has pursued these difficult negotiations. We know that his aim is to restore confidence and underline the fact that British beef is safe. In that respect, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a credit insurance scheme which would ensure payment to those who trade in cattle and beef products? Such a measure would help to bring confidence back to markets.
Mr. Hogg: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his kind remarks, especially as he knows as much about agriculture as any person in the House. What he said about credit is of importance. I said earlier today that the Government were approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the cost to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business. That is adopting the type of approach that he has been good enough to suggest.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is this not an inadequate and complacent statement? What comfort does it give to an abattoir in my constituency, Woodhead Brothers, which has laid off 70 people and has 200 people on part-time working? All that the Minister offers is relief from meat hygiene charges. The slaughterhouse in my
418
constituency wants compensation for loss of earnings, loss of stock value, redundancy costs and so on. The statement is inadequate.
Safety is a related matter. Is it not the case that Ministers gave parliamentary replies earlier this year which confirmed that people from the veterinary service visited slaughterhouses between September and December last year and found that 48 per cent. were handling bovine offals inadequately? In the light of those facts, how can the Minister possibly come here and invite the British people to express confidence in British beef?
Mr. Hogg: I think that most hon. Members will find a certain mismatch between the hon. Gentleman's comments. He correctly says that the abattoir in his constituency has seen a dramatic fall-off in business, with the consequences to which he has referred. The reason for that is loss of confidence. Why do we have a loss of confidence? There are a variety of reasons, but one is alarmist allegations, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), which are not put into proper context, and which are damaging to confidence. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be well advised to suggest to him that he thinks rather more carefully before he opens his mouth.
Mr. John Greenway: Did the other Ministers in the Council give any assessment of the state of the beef market in other member states? Why is it that, in spite of this wholly unforgivable ban on British beef, the market for beef in other member states remains depressed? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the ban itself has created a loss of confidence in British beef? Is it not about time that the rest of Europe recognised that the measures that he has announced today mean that beef from Britain will be the safest in Europe?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There has indeed been a substantial fall in beef consumption across the European Union. One of the reasons for that lack of confidence is the imposition of the ban. That was one of the arguments that I urged on member states during the council meeting in Luxembourg. It adds powerfully to the argument that the ban should be lifted. My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about agriculture as he represents a constituency which has powerful beef interests, is entirely right when he says that the quality of British beef, the safeguards taken in the industry, the controls in the slaughterhouses and the controls on the preparation of animal feed are in most respects infinitely better than those that can be found in most places on mainland Europe.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: As 90 per cent. of all agricultural activity in Wales is in the livestock sector, I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the tremendous impact that the loss of confidence in the beef industry has had on people in Wales in the farming, slaughterhouse and meat processing industries, and in the wider rural economy. He will therefore understand my pressing him further on the need to obtain early agreement in Europe to lift the ban. What further measures does he consider reasonable to meet concerns that might be felt in Europe? Will there be urgent discussions before 29 April so that we can be sure that when that meeting comes, we shall be in a position to move forward significantly to lift the ban, even if we cannot do it before then?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the serious consequences that have flowed from the crisis in the beef industry, for the rural part of Wales. What he says about that is wholly right. He also asked specific questions—whether there would be urgent discussions and whether action would be taken between now and the Agriculture Council fixed for the end of April. The answer is yes. There will be very many discussions at official and, if necessary, other levels to impress on our European partners the urgent need to lift the ban. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I declare an interest, as I have a suckler herd. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there is a world of difference between using culled cows for a different purpose and the compulsory, and, as he admits, unnecessary, slaughter of healthy working herds which, in some instances, have been kept by families for generations? If the European Union, in its arbitrary, unaccountable way, forces our farmers to make such a cruel sacrifice to the European gods, it will be remembered for many a long year.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the distinction between the slaughter of cull cows—that is, cows that have reached the end of their milking careers—and the slaughter of herds for other reasons. He would probably agree that it is desirable to reduce the incidence of BSE in herds. Because he has a logical mind, he would agree that it is at least desirable to find whether we can work out with our scientists and experts whether it is possible to determine those herds which, for various reasons, are most at risk. If we could do that, it might be justifiable to pursue a highly targeted slaughter policy in respect of some such herds to reduce the incidence of BSE.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister accept that the real bottleneck in the system is in companies such as Highland Meats of Saltcoats in my constituency, which are packed to the ceiling with meat that has been boned, chilled and packaged ready for supermarkets or export and for which there is no market? What is in his statement to assist such companies to clear that blockage so that, when confidence recovers, there is somewhere for the farming industry to sell its products?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked my point about the evidence that there are some signs of market confidence coming back. That is the most encouraging thing at the moment. If there is movement at
420
supermarkets and other retail outlets, the blockages will be removed. That is the only way to provide continuing prosperity in any industry. He should, in the first instance, observe the extent to which market confidence is reviving.
Sir Colin Shepherd: Is not the quickest way to get back to firm foundations to reassert the scientific foundation for the argument? If that is re-established, the export ban could be more easily lifted. What steps are my right hon. and learned Friend and his officials taking to persuade the European Standing Veterinary Committee to reassess the matter on the basis of scientific knowledge? Secondly, will he keep a close watch on consumption? If it should be that the apparent resurgence of market confidence is not being sustained other than by severe discounting, and that his intervention scheme is not sufficient, will he consider the introduction of a make-up scheme?
Mr. Hogg: We shall clearly have to keep consumption and confidence under careful review. I hope that one of the consequences of what I announced today and at the end of last week, and what was asserted in Luxembourg, may go some way to restoring confidence. If it does, and market confidence picks up, it will have a dramatic effect on the prosperity of the industry.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to assert the importance of resting policy on science. He rightly asks what steps we are taking to ensure that those who advise European institutions, especially the Commission, are in possession of the scientific information. Throughout last week, we had experts in Brussels who were consulting with those who advise the institutions of Brussels and we shall ensure that that contact continues. Indeed, I made it absolutely plain to the Ministers around the Council table that I was anxious that they should be put in possession of the all the relevant scientific information that I had at my disposal, and that will be done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Questions on the statement have ended.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Chemical Weapons Act 1996
Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996

Victims of Communism (Commemoration)
5.34 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to establish a permanent memorial to the victims of Communism; and to promote appropriate methods of honouring their memory.
Outside the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow, tucked away on the edge of what was until recently known as Dzerzhinsky square, is a small memorial to the victims of Stalin's labour camps. To my knowledge, it is their only memorial and it lies on the cold earth like an unvisited gravestone in an untended cemetery.
Political executions, deliberate politically determined famine and the appalling conditions of the labour camps killed millions of people in the Soviet Union. One Russian historian, Roy Medvedev, says that 12 million people were executed. Another, Dmitri Volkogonov, says that 22 million were either executed or died in the camps. Robert Conquest, quoting Soviet statistical work, says that 8 million people died in the famine of the 1930s, which was caused by the brutal policy of forced collectivisation. Stalin said:
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
Those are Soviet statistics. How many millions died in the cultural revolution in China? What of Korea, Albania and Romania?
Few people have been brought to trial for the crimes against humanity committed by communist regimes throughout the world against their own people. In those countries lucky enough to have thrown off the shackles of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and other forms of Marxism, there has been no effective process of decommunisation in the way that Germany was denazified at the end of the second world war. By ignoring the past, we learn nothing from it and are probably condemned to repeat it.
Communism is stronger now than at any time since the fall of the Berlin wall. Chinese destroyers fire missiles at targets in the straits of Taiwan and threaten a democratic republic as free elections are held. In Russia, the Communist party, resurgent and unrepentant, is mounting its challenge to President Yeltsin with reawakened vigour. North Korea looks menacingly over its border to the south. Communism is not dead; it continues to present a greater threat than any other ideological system to the traditional freedoms of western civilisation. Its historical record shows it to have been more destructive and brutal than even the Nazi tyranny, yet its crimes are forgotten and the threat of its re-emergence is ignored.
It is 50 years since Winston Churchill made his famous speech to the students of Westminster college at Fulton, Missouri, in which he warned that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. The fact that that curtain has been lifted is due in no small part to Britain's resolute opposition throughout the cold war to communism and everything that it symbolised. Our victory in the cold war, the break-up of the Soviet Union and re-emergence of the nation states of eastern Europe as independent democracies was a triumph of which Great Britain can be
422
proud. It was achieved by our determination to remain strong and unyielding in the face of evil, despite all the protestations of left-wingers, so-called peace campaigners and fellow travellers.
History will remember the west's victory in the cold war as the greatest achievement of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. That victory should be celebrated along with the other proud moments in our history when Britain fought off tyranny and championed the cause of freedom, but it should be celebrated in a different way, because the enemy has not been finally vanquished. Totalitarian ideologies such as communism or fascism cannot be entirely destroyed once they have begun to seep into the well-springs of human consciousness. They continue to hold their poisonous allure and, at times of crisis, the vulnerable, the weak and the desperate are drawn to them. That is why we must remember the past and commemorate those who suffered or were sacrificed. My Bill seeks to provide for a permanent memorial to the victims of communism.
It is right that there should be such a memorial in this country. British troops fought to prevent the consolidation of the Bolshevik regime during the Russian civil war. They fought for freedom against communism in Korea and during the Malayan emergency. Britain was at the centre of resistance to communism during the cold war.
There is another reason, however. Britain became a refuge to hundreds of thousands of people who fled from communist regimes, so we should have some permanent memorial. Thousands of Chinese, Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Baits and Czechs came to Britain because they were driven out of their own homes and countries. The freedoms that they had known ceased to exist and they fled to this country to make new homes in towns such as Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. They found a refuge here from the political system that had destroyed their families, friends and nations, but they have no memorial, no garden of remembrance, no cenotaph and no public recognition. There is no church service for them; no civic reception; no two minutes' silence. It is time that Britain gave them a permanent memorial to everything they lost and everything we have to cherish by the preservation of our freedom.
I do not intend to suggest what the memorial might be—perhaps a simple sculpture in a public park or a much grander project, such as a museum or an archive which could preserve the experience of those who died, fought or suffered. It might also record those who sought to explain, apologise or collaborate—those many prominent leftists and other fellow travellers who, by design, wickedness or naivety were prepared to see their country go the way of Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
My Bill would also require the Government to promote other appropriate methods of honouring the victims of communism. There could be no more appropriate method than for them to ensure that the truth about communism, about those who suffered and still suffer under it, about those who excused it and about those who heroically resisted it is taught in our schools. The left-wing political correctness that has progressively crept into some of our schools, driving British heroes such as Nelson, Wellington or Churchill into the margins of history text books, should be replaced by history lessons that teach the lessons of history.

423
The history of communism in the 20th century is a history of bloodshed, suffering, misery and evil. We must ensure that that dark period of human history is never forgotten. A memorial to the victims of communism would help us lest we ever forget.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva.

Victims of Communism (Commemoration)
  VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM (COMMEMORATION)
  Mr. Harold Elletson accordingly presented a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to establish a permanent memorial to the victims of Communism; and to promote appropriate methods of honouring their memory: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
Orders of the Day
  London Regional Transport Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  London Regional Transport Bill
    New clause 1

      REPORTING TO PARLIAMENT, ETC.
      'In section 34 (annual report) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, in subsection (3)—
      (a) after paragraph (b), there is inserted—
      "(bb) include details of any agreement entered into or continuing during the year in question under the provisions of section 3(2A) or 3(2B) above, together with a general description of the purpose and scope of each such agreement;"; and
      (b) in paragraph (c), for the words "section 3(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 3(2), 3(2A)(a) or 3(2B)".'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.42 pm
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 24, after `out', insert
      ',with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 2, at end insert—
      '(2) After subsection (8) of that section, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(8A) Where the consent of the Secretary of State is required to any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament notification of his consent together with a general description of the purpose and scope of any such agreement, not less than one calendar month before the agreement is to come into effect.".'.
      No. 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out `34(3)(c),'.
      Mr. Spearing: New clause 1 concerns the visibility of the decisions taken by London Regional Transport and the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. Quite apart from the merits of this important Bill and what it may permit, the new clause, which is in two parts—one requires additions to the annual report and the other requires the consent of the Secretary of State to any agreements—will essentially give visibility, as I think we can all agree. I hope that it will at least attract the Government's sympathy and assent in principle, because it pursues their advertised policy of open government.
      To argue the case for the two safeguards, I have perforce to talk a little about the agreements that would have to be reported under the new clause in London Regional Transport's annual report and the other sort of agreements that I believe—and which the House should believe—the Secretary of State should have the power to assent to. Alas, to argue the merits of the two safeguards, some description of the Bill is necessary, without which it is impossible to understand their importance.
      The intention behind the Bill is to

      425
      "extend, and facilitate the exercise of, the powers of London Regional Transport to enter into and carry out agreements; and for connected purposes."
      That is the long title of the Bill, which further emphasises that the agreements are at the centre of the legislation.
      In shorthand, the Bill extends in certain respects London Regional Transport's power over and above the powers that it has in existing legislation. It adds to the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Section 3(2) of that Act reads:
      "London Transport shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for London Regional Transport or otherwise, of any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on".
      As one might expect, it gives London Regional Transport the power to contract for those persons for those purposes.
      Section 2(1) of the 1984 Act gives London Regional Transport the general duty to
      "secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London".
      Clause 1 of the Bill extends the agreements in two ways. It adds two powers to section 3 of the 1984 Act. I shall paraphrase because the Bill is complex. The first is to have power with the consent of the Secretary of State
      "to enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person (`the contractor') of any activities which London Regional Transport does not have power to carry on if the agreement includes provision for one or more of the following".
      Constitutionally, the Bill is extraordinary, because it extends the existing powers granted to London Regional Transport under the 1984 Act without specifying what the activities should be, providing that one or more of three criteria are covered in the agreement with the said person or contractor.
      This is a legally permissive Bill that allows lawyers, contractors and London Regional Transport a doorway to walk through into territory that is not perceived and might be unknown. For that reason, the nature of the agreement ought to be included in the London Regional Transport annual report as my new clause provides.
      The remarkable thing about clause 1 is that it includes three necessary criteria in relation to the contractors. The first is the carrying on of activities that are already under the power of London Regional Transport. The second is the provision by the contractor of
      "services ancillary to the provision of public passenger transport services",
      which goes beyond the present Act. The third criterion is the most remarkable. It concerns
      "the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by London Regional Transport, or transferred to the contractor by London Regional Transport for the purposes of the agreement."
      I shall deal with the merits of that later. That is the legal outline of the Bill—it is the first type of agreement, with rather complex criteria.
      As the Bill says, the agreements are within the consent of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to consent to them. As the Bill stands, London Regional Transport does not have to lay anything before Parliament about that, nor does anything have to appear in its annual report—unless the Government agree to this change.
      The second sort of agreement is even more remarkable in constitutional and legal terms. The proposed subsection (2B) provides:
      426
      "Where an agreement has been entered into under subsection (2) or (2A) above, the powers conferred on London Regional Transport by that subsection include power to enter into and carry out other agreements with other persons".
      There is a cascade of these two sorts of agreement, with two sorts of contractor. It is remarkable—London Regional Transport can enter into and carry out this second type of agreement with other persons for the purpose of
      "(a) fulfilling any condition which must be fulfilled before the agreement can have effect; or
      (b) satisfying any requirement imposed by or under the agreement."
      In other words, there is a labyrinth of agreements for purposes that are outside the scope of the present Act. For those reasons, the consent of the Secretary of State is wanted not only for the first set of agreements but for the second set of agreements. This presents a possible scenario that must be made public. I shall use the analogy of doorways to a remarkable legal labyrinth, which could give powers to the Secretary of State, to London Regional Transport and to a contractor for all sorts of activities that are not related to the provision of public transport.
      The Minister for Transport in London quite openly said in Committee and in the notes on clauses—but it is not stated in the Bill—that this is to facilitate the use of what is known, in the jargon, as the private finance initiative. The private finance initiative allows private money—from banks or investment agencies—to be used for public purposes to finance, design, build, maintain and operate any public facility for which the contract with the money lender, the bank or the credit house is available. That is tremendously important these days, because we hear about these things in many respects, even in relation to hospitals. Perhaps in the future it will relate to roads—I do not know. The PFI is now a big thing in local government and there are attempts to use it to provide all sorts of public facilities, of which public transport is one.
      The Minister was very kind and answered a question that I submitted for answer yesterday. It is not yet in Hansard—I believe that it will be printed in a big version that will come out shortly. I asked for details of how visible the public finance initiative agreements would be. The Minister provided the following answer:
      "The London Regional Transport Bill does not require London Transport or its subsidiaries to publish information about their projects under the Private Finance Initiative. Invitations to tender will continue to be published where this is a legal requirement."
      I do not know what the legal requirement is—in other words, they may not be visible at all. The answer continues:
      "I understand that London Transport will normally announce the award of such contracts, giving an indication of their value and duration where this information is not commercially sensitive."
      We know that, very often, information on contracts of this sort is commercially sensitive.
      The answer continues:
      "When a contract ends, assets transferred from London Transport to the contractor at the beginning of the contract will generally be transferred to a new contractor, or will revert back to LT until a new contract can be let. Assets no longer needed by LT may remain with the contractor, and LT already have powers to make such disposals."
      I submit that that answer suggests that we would not get the visibility that the new clause and the consent of the Secretary of State would like if it is laid before Parliament.

      427
      I suggest that, without these safeguards in the legislation, all sorts of things will happen—there will be a cascade of agreements for purposes that are not necessarily known or clear. That is why amendment No. 4 states that consent should be laid
      "together with a general description of the purpose and scope of each such agreement".
      I refer to agreements of both sorts.
      I hope that the Minister—purely on the merits of public visibility, of open government and of the arrangements that we may come to in later amendments—will agree to my proposal. Without it, how can we tell what is going on? This also applies in relation to the annual report, because it will show the use of powers that Parliament is giving the Government.
      If we give powers to the Government, they should have a responsibility to tell us how they are using them, both in respect of London Regional Transport's annual report and the use of the Minister's powers when he gives consent under the Bill. He should be accountable to the House for that agreement. That is covered in amendment No. 3. Such matters should be laid before Parliament. I hope that, purely on the merits of open government, the Minister will give a nod in the direction of the new clause and these amendments—perhaps better ones could be made in the other place. In any event, public visibility is absolutely essential.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: The new clause is called "Reporting to Parliament". Yesterday, the Secretary of State answered a written question on crossrail, a project that was always envisaged as requiring private finance and thus, presumably, falling within the scope of the Bill. Some hon. Members might think that crossrail would have been a fit subject for a statement rather than a written answer.
      I was tempted to put down a private notice question, which may or may not have been accepted by Madam Speaker. However, I did not, because I recognise how much business the House has to discharge today and because Ministers at the Department of Transport, in a manner not universal in other Departments, have earned a considerable fund of good will in the House as a result of the regularity with which they have kept hon. Members fully informed of developments in their Department.
      Both Madam Speaker and the Leader of the House periodically invite hon. Members to use their ingenuity in raising certain matters on certain business. Crossrail is a serious issue. The House is due to rise later today and I would be grateful if the Minister for Transport in London, when responding to the new clause, gave those of us who are London Members a greater reassurance than was available in the bald question and answer yesterday.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I strongly endorse everything that was just said by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who in a sense picked up on the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who tabled new clause 1.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke of openness and transparency. It is extraordinary that the Bill, which contains powers for London Regional
      428
      Transport to enter into money-raising ventures with outside organisations under the Government's private finance initiative, contains nothing relating to crossrail.
      6 pm
      Yesterday, an announcement should have been made to London and Londoners, via a written answer, that a project that the Government have consistently supported—certainly for the past two years, every time that the issue has been raised with them—has in effect been axed. That is scandalous, not least because £150 million of taxpayers' money was spent on the feasibility study.
      A vast body of opinion in the capital city—in commerce, in industry, in the financial sector, among commuters in London and among millions of commuters who, morning and evening, travel into this city to their place of work—regarded crossrail as part of a properly integrated public transport system that would begin to solve the problems of transport and traffic. It is unacceptable that that body of opinion should have been sloughed off.
      The Secretary of State for Transport made no statement to the House. Had he done so, that would have allowed London Members, who obviously believe that their constituents' interests have been betrayed, and hon. Members with constituencies outside what might be deemed the Greater London area, justifiably to question him about why what we understood to be a promise—a strong commitment by the Government—has been reneged on.
      It is almost farcical that we are debating a Bill called the London Regional Transport Bill in the light of the fact that crossrail—which all who have an interest in this city and its transport would have argued was integral to the proper expansion of London Regional Transport, which I understood was what the Bill is about—has been taken away without any presentation to the House. It is nothing short of scandalous.
      Mr. David Chidgey: As has been said, the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is about openness in the Bill, and he should be congratulated on the assiduous way in which he has looked through the Bill.
      The main question is, however, why should we debate a Bill that will not be used to any effect? I refer to the comments by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about crossrail.
      It is a scandal that we are in the ludicrous position of trying to pass a Bill that would allow London Regional Transport to use the PFI to create better transport for London, to provide a major artery connecting the City to Heathrow for the first time, yet here we are in a position in which the Bill can no longer be used to implement such a scheme.
      I shall leave further remarks until later in the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been very tolerant. The new clause is headed "Reporting to Parliament, etc."
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I hope that your tolerance will last a few more minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, we hoped at some stage of the

      429
      proceedings to mention crossrail, which is very relevant to the Bill, and to some extent the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) set the hare running. If the Minister is to discuss the issue, I hope that a few remarks of my own can be accommodated before he does so.
      The Bill is a mouse of a Bill, which may already have had more parliamentary time on the Floor of the House and in Committee than it warrants. The contrast with other, far more controversial, pieces of legislation is obvious, but so is the contrast between the treatment of the Bill and the failure of Ministers to come to the House to explain, and face questions on, the apparent collapse of the crossrail project.
      Whereas the Bill may facilitate some useful but modest joint ventures between public and private sectors within the activities of London Underground Ltd., the abandonment of crossrail is an enormous issue for London and beyond and at least £150 million of taxpayers' money has been squandered, yet no opportunity has been offered for the House to hold Ministers to account. I hope that at least a small voice will emerge from the House tonight, to the people of London especially, that the Labour party at least believes that the priorities with which we are confronted are entirely wrong.
      Tonight we should be holding Ministers to account for the collapse of crossrail to facilitate the utterly unwanted privatisation of Rai1track. I regret that we do not have the opportunity to do so in a more procedurally correct way than we are attempting to follow at present. I, too, will leave my further remarks on the subject until later in the proceedings, but it is important, as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South rightly raised the crossrail issue, to place on record at this stage the fact that we, too, believe that it is absurd to discuss the Bill without discussing crossrail.
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I never cease to marvel at the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), which he demonstrated admirably today. I, in my naivety, came prepared to discuss the Bill—a mistake that I make all too frequently in the House. I have on occasions instructed officials in the Department that it would be appropriate for all officials other than those concerned with the subject of the Bill to attend, because the ones who know something about the Bill are never required, whereas one frequently wants to call on all the others.
      Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister not admitting a structural weakness in his Department, if the people who know something about crossrail are different from the ones who know something about London Regional Transport?
      Mr. Norris: The issue is that I came prepared to discuss the mouse of a Bill—the Bill that the hon. Gentleman and I know will make modest improvements to the ability of London Regional Transport to enter into several PFI and related projects—and to discuss the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which I am sure enjoy the hon. Gentleman's full support. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I had known that you would show the tolerance to which I suppose I should have become accustomed in the years of sitting under your chairmanship, I might have come better briefed to deal with crossrail.
      430
      Let me deal with the substance of the issue in passing. I would have deeply regretted feeling that I had shown discourtesy to the House in the matter of crossrail, and it would indeed have been a discourtesy, had my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South in effect said something that was at variance with the oft-repeated line that we have taken in relation to crossrail.
      The line was that it was important, in the capital city of London, for these major capital projects to emerge sequentially, first, because of the cost implications of running more than one mega-project at a time in the city—bill costs are classically about —500 million a year—and, secondly, because of the disruption, of which my right hon. Friend will be well aware, that might be caused to this city if more than one such project were running at a time.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South will be prepared to admit—I suggest, somewhat at variance with Opposition Members—that in the past few weeks London has had some extraordinarily good news. We had the very good news that the Jubilee line extension is still on track to open on 28 March 1998. I shall be there, and I hope to see you there too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as many of my hon. Friends. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will cut some ribbon or slice some cake on that occasion.
      In addition, my right hon. Friend will know that we hope thereafter to see the completion of the Thameslink 2000 project—a £600 million project. Thereafter, we shall embark on the channel tunnel rail link extension, with the tens of thousands of new jobs that it will bring, especially to east London and Stratford—a fact which I had hoped that the hon. Member for Newham, South, if no one else in the House, would have acknowledged with pleasure. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should make it clear that the right time for crossrail to start—for the record, we remain committed to that project—is as the channel tunnel rail link project ceases.
      My right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that crossrail will follow the channel tunnel rail link—no more and no less. In an ideal world—or the world of fantasy finance inhabited by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—it might be possible to assume that all the good things will come at once. The hon. Lady always makes great addresses to the House without having talked first to the Opposition Treasury spokesman, her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Were she to consult him, she would find him rather less than forthcoming on the issue of running several projects of that scale in London. Indeed, he would be hard pressed to countenance the level of investment that we have seen in London in the past 10 years.
      Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
      Mr. Norris: I shall complete my point, as the hon. Lady might like to reply to it. I do not propose to detain the House; I simply wish to respond to the hon. Lady.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not allow the Minister to detain the House on that subject. I have shown more than usual tolerance. The Minister must now return to new clause 1, which is before the House for consideration.
      Mr. Norris: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Logic suggests that you are correct, and that those who

      431
      have sought to divert the debate are trading too much on your customary courtesy. Leaving clearly on the record the Government's commitment to the scheme and the rationale behind my right hon. Friend's statement—both of which, if one looks at them independently and objectively, are perfectly rational and are evidence of a well-structured policy—I now turn happily to new clause 1 moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
      The new clause requires LRT to include in its annual report not only a description of the purpose and scope of any agreement entered into under new section 3(2A) but a similar account of any subsidiary agreements that are entered into. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the existing legislation requires LRT to report any contracts which have been entered into that will affect the co-ordination of public passenger transport services. That is the qualification on the obligation to publish. In clause 4(2), the Bill extends the requirement to publish similar contracts—those that are made under the new powers—in the same way as those contracts made under the old powers. To the extent that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about ensuring a continuity of the duty to publish, I am happy to reassure him that that provision is contained in clause 4(2).
      I fear that new clause 1 is unduly onerous—I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of London Regional Transport, so he will understand why I say that. For example, it would require the publication of the details of contracts that are, quite rightly, commercially confidential. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is not a cloak under which Ministers can hide, but a perfectly proper commercial arrangement that ensures that LRT is able to go about its normal commercial activities. For example, new clause 1 would affect the contractor's financial backers in relation to any arrangements that LRT might make under the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the new clause would not sensibly extend the powers of disclosure, but would prove extremely unhelpful to LRT.
      As to amendment No. 3, proposed subsection (2B) in clause 1 enables LRT to enter into subsidiary agreements with persons other than the contractor to allow a main private finance initiative deal to be achieved. It is important to bear that in mind, as it is the cornerstone of the Bill. It follows that some of the projects that we envisage will result from the PFI shall involve contracts of considerable value. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable for both LRT and the contractor's financiers to be able to give each other a direct assurance in respect of their rights if the contractor should default for any reason. LRT has no powers to enter into such agreements under the London Regional Transport Act 1984—hence the need for the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment proposes that those subsidiary agreements should be subject individually to the consent of the Secretary of State. As it stands, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to give his prior consent to any agreement that LRT proposes to sign under proposed section 3(2A). In giving that consent, the Secretary of State has powers under existing legislation to impose conditions that could, in theory, extend to cover the details of any financial issues. Therefore, it is difficult to see what additional protection the amendment could provide.
      432
      In practice, I think that the small print in the contractor's financial arrangements is best left to the experts to determine. Without casting any doubt on the immense abilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I do not think that he needs to be involved in details of that sort. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—to put it simply—that the House is capable of managing the affairs of LRT. The House is obviously not in a position to do so, and it should not attempt it.
      As to amendment No. 4, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to be kept fully informed of all developments regarding LRT, particularly its PFI projects. However, he should consider the additional time and cost involved if the amendment were accepted by the Government. LRT is presently able to enter into major, high-value contracts—whether for conventional projects, such as the Central line trains deal or train refurbishment contracts, or PFI projects, such as the Northern line trains deal—without notifying Parliament. In some cases, LRT may have sought the agreement of the Secretary of State before authorising the project, but there was never any requirement to notify Parliament. I believe that the existing arrangements for advertising major projects—whether PFI or conventional schemes—are perfectly adequate.
      6.15 pm
      LRT advertises its major commercial opportunities publicly in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It usually announces publicly the award of major projects, giving an idea of their value and duration when that information is not commercially sensitive. That is the correct way to advertise: to attract potential bidders at the outset and to inform passengers at the conclusion. Hon. Members are also in a position to ask questions if they require further information about a particular project. I see no value in imposing an obligation on the Secretary of State to notify Parliament in all cases when he has given his consent under section 3, and to do so before the agreement has been concluded.
      In light of the reassurances that I have given about the publication of information about PFI contracts, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will feel able to withdraw his motion.
      Mr. Spearing: With the consent of the House, I shall refer in passing to the questions regarding crossrail, on which perhaps the Minister could comment later. He referred to contracts, but I have heard nothing so far that would prevent London Regional Transport from entering into a big contract with, shall we say, crossrail plc to construct the central part of the line from Paddington to Stratford—the Minister is correct in saying that I would welcome such a project—under the Bill. Perhaps we can deal with that issue on Third Reading.
      Mr. Norris: I remind the hon. Gentleman of our original discussion concerning the purpose of the "mouse of a Bill", to quote the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
      Mr. Wilson: Do not be harsh.
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman must know that I am his good friend in the House. That is the ultimate kiss of

      433
      political death and, having delivered it, I return to the point that I am making to the hon. Member for Newham, South.
      Nothing in the Bill alters the fundamental obligation placed on London Regional Transport by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to—I shall paraphrase the legal language—provide or ensure the procurement of public passenger transport services in London.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to an agreement that London Regional Transport may enter into with crossrail—he mentioned a body such as Crossrail plc and, for the purposes of the argument, we shall forget about Railtrack and assume that such an entity will emerge with a plan to deliver the scheme. That plan could be delivered under the provisions of the 1984 Act.
      The disclosure provisions—including the disclosure of commercially sensitive information—would be precisely those that apply at present. The Bill extends into those areas where LRT previously had no power—where services provided by contractors are ancillary to the main services provided by LRT, but which will involve LRT as a partner in the agreement. That is the key to the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that on that basis he will see that his crossrail line of questioning is, to some degree, misdirected.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that most interesting and lengthy intervention. I am reminded of the famous phrase about the lady protesting too much.
      I have used crossrail as a test case of the visibility and reportage of agreements, but I see from the Bill that agreements can be made containing provision for
      "the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in subsection (2) above".
      Subsection (2) is, of course, in the existing London Regional Transport Act 1984.
      We have to leave the argument here, but I cannot see why a project for a crossrail plc could not be reported to the House and why the consent of the Secretary of State is not possible. I shall pass over the merits of crossrail, but given the possibility of its construction by a contractor, I still think that the Bill might be rather more than a mouse. The Minister has not yet convinced me that it is not a mouse of a Bill.
      On the question of reports to the House under new clause 1, the Minister claims that we cannot require them because of commercial confidentiality. We now know that if contractors, in the health service or anywhere else, have to bid for projects, public accountability is prevented by the chasm of commercial confidence. I understand the Minister's reasons, but they make accountability all the more important.
      On amendment No. 3, the Minister claimed that the Secretary of State would not have to give consent to the second layer of agreements because LRT and the contractor would deal with them. We do not know how big those contracts will be and I find the Minister's explanation unconvincing.
      On amendment No. 4, the Minister claimed that the notifications do not need to be laid before the House. They do not include confidential or financial information, since amendment No. 4 states:
      "the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament notification of his consent together with a general description of the purpose and scope of any such agreement, not less than one calendar month before the agreement is to come into effect."
      434
      What is the Secretary of State afraid of? The Minister said that we need not worry because the notification will be laid in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Why cannot it be laid before the House? I find the Minister's explanations unsatisfactory.
      I hope that our discussion about the visibility of such matters will provoke debate elsewhere and I hope that it has been useful, if only on the subject of crossrail, and for the public who own the railways at the moment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      EXTENSION OF GENERAL POWERS
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 13 and 14.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out `transferred' and insert 'leased'.
      Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 1 follows conveniently on the discussion we have just had. I do not understand the need to include in the Bill the paragraph that provides that, provided a contractor is involved in such activities as are mentioned in section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, he can make use of the PFI and the secondary layer of agreements that we have discussed. Why is that provision in the Bill? If it was excluded—as amendment No. 1 would provide—what effect would that have? I suggest that it would cut out a privatised or contractualised crossrail.
      The Minister and I have much in common in applauding the addition of the new sections of the Jubilee line to London's transport. We have seen parts of the work and I visited a station in my constituency only last week. I suspect—I hope that the Minister will reply if he can—that under the proposed section 3(2A)(a) of the 1984 Act it would be possible for London Regional Transport to contract out the Jubilee line. That decision could be made, perfectly legally, by 50, or perhaps 55, people at 55 Broadway.
      What a line that would be, because it has been built at considerable public expense. That is halfway to happening on the Northern line already. I think that the Bill would make that possible. Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment, since it would remove proposed section 3(2A)(a), because I believe the Bill would allow such contracts to be made. Moreover, when such contracts had been made and following the transfer to the contractor by LRT of land or other property, the proposed section 3(2A)(c) would allow
      "the use by the contractor of land or other property".
      Again, the Minister and I differ in our view of the operation of privatisation. If a contractor takes on an underground line—the Deputy Prime Minister was not far from suggesting that, according to the press reports—the contractor may have to take on a liability, because the line may not pay its way. We know that there is a degree of public subsidy of London transport. So the Government would have to provide some form of incentive. We know that the incentive for the fast rail track to the channel tunnel is a considerable transfer of land. In other words,

      435
      use of the PFI in capital projects for London's underground railways, which is clearly in the Government's mind, cannot occur without some sort of incentive. That would involve a procedure under which assets would also be handed over. That is what the Bill will do. The inclusion of the proposed section 3(2A)(a) will mean that the existing railways, or indeed crossrail, could be run by contractors, under the existing powers of LRT.
      Amendment No. 2 would change a transfer of property to a lease. Again, it is a probing amendment to ask why land would be transferred to a contractor—presumably as freehold for development. Why could such land not be leased and kept as the property of LRT and the people of London? I await the Minister's reply with interest.
      Mr. Chidgey: I am puzzled by the intention of amendment No. 1, because it would appear to preclude LRT from undertaking the subcontracting activities that the Bill sets out to permit. If so, we should be debating whether or not the Bill should progress. I take the point of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the difference in terminology between transferral and leasing. I would feel concern if property assets could be permanently transferred to a contractor, and particularly about the acquisition of profits through the disposal of property assets. I would insist that any profits accruing from surplus land and assets through development should be reinvested in London Regional Transport, rather than go to a third party.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Norris: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is confused by amendment No. 1, because so am I, and I was glad to hear that it was a probing amendment—which I treat as one that we are not expected to take overly seriously as to its effect.
      If I have a vestigial grasp of the point that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was attempting to make, amendment No. 1 is undesirable because it would make parts of an agreement under new section 3(2A) subject to the Secretary of State's consent while those made under existing section 3(2) could be made without his consent.
      It is almost certain that in practice the contractor would seek the Secretary of State's consent if there were any doubt about the contractor's vires in the matter. Amendment No. 1 would achieve nothing, but it would create confusion which is wholly avoidable by not accepting the amendment. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was entirely right to make that point.
      Amendment No. 2 is much more serious. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, South that assets transferred to a PFI contractor should revert to LRT at the end of the contract, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said. The purpose of clause 2(1) and (3) is precisely to ensure that LRT's claim on essential assets at the end of a PFI contract can be safeguarded and continuity of service protected. On Second Reading, I emphasised that those provisions exist precisely because LRT needs to safeguard continuity of service and to keep property at the end of such contracts.
      436
      The proposal to confine LRT to a lease is extraordinarily naive. It would be perfectly possible for LRT, if it were so minded, to sell instead of a freehold a long leasehold for a peppercorn for the equivalent capital sum. We should not follow the suggested path in respect of leases. Nor should we be diverted from the fact that the essential protection that the hon. Gentleman seeks is already in the Bill.
      Where assets are surplus to LRT's needs, it already has a power to dispose of them. If the assets were in the control of the PFI contractor, it might be perfectly sensible to allow the contractor to remain in possession for an appropriate consideration.
      Amendment No. 1 would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's purpose and would cause confusion. I therefore hope that he will seek leave to withdraw it. As for amendment No. 2, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are already covered by the Bill.
      Mr. Spearing: I disagree with the Minister in respect of leasing, but I will concentrate on amendment No. 1, which has been derided as unnecessary and curious. The Bill's purpose is to allow a PFI to be used not just for additions to LRT's existing role as a peripheral or ancillary but to permit a contractor to move into core activity—perhaps including running an entire railway. The Minister's refusal—he can call me confused if he likes—reinforces my suspicion that the Bill could be used for that purpose.
      Mr. Norris: If the hon. Gentleman invites me to call him confused, I will do so. He is confused. LRT already has the power, under the 1984 Act, to deal with circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described. Central to the speeches of the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Newham, South and of other Opposition Members on Second Reading was that the Bill was not to be seen as a back-door facility for privatisation.
      I told the hon. Member for Newham, South that the uncomfortable truth was that to the extent that such powers might be necessary, they are contained in the 1984 Act. I do not seem to be able to get it through to the hon. Gentleman, which is probably more my fault, that his arguments are not relevant to the Bill. The scenario that he described might have been debated in 1983 in preparation for the 1984 Act, but it is not relevant now.
      Mr. Spearing: The problem with the Government is that time after time legislation is produced which appears to be sensible, in pursuit of and of assistance to public service but ultimately—particularly when legislation is extremely confined and dense in its wording—other things happen. In Committee, the Minister referred to
      "the rather misleading story told by the hon. Member for Newham, South, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the system may not quite have caught up with the existing make-or-buy policy operated by London Transport specifically within London Underground. Under that policy, we decide in relation to each measured area of activity whether it is better in terms of value for the user and the taxpayer for the facility to be procured from outside or provided in-house."— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 March 1996; c. 21.]
      The Minister said that LRT's existing powers could be used for a crossrail plc, but we know that there would not be such a thing—or improvements to any other line—unless facilities exist under the PFI. We know what

      437
      happened when contractorisation occurred in relation to signalling and track: there were escalating signal delays and point failures. I believe that the Bill would make it possible for PFI to enter core activity, which is not possible under the existing legislation. That could occur under the 1984 Act if crossrail were a public project, but the Bill concerns the PFI and the incursion of private capital—including, as we have seen in other parts of the country, Wisconsin Central or a water company—and the private operation of part of London Transport.
      The amendment was not intended as a serious amendment to the Bill; it was designed to find out the Minister's intentions. I hear what he says—that he does not intend to use the Bill in the way I have explored. The Bill may not be a huge animal—my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) may be right to call it a mouse—but the people of London are so used to bad legislation on health, traffic or anything else that we have learnt to scrutinise Bills rather carefully. The language of this Bill is obscure and legalistic, so we must beware.
      All I can hope is that the debate will at least have laid to rest some of the suspicions entertained by the Minister's supporters, if not those of Opposition Members.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      SUPPLEMENTARY TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (2)(b) above, "supplementary, incidental and consequential provision" does not include any financial provision which has not previously been approved by the House of Commons.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either'
      and insert
      'laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each'.
      Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 5 relates to the curious power exercised in respect of the second set of contracts, under which secondary functions can be taken on by a contractor. In such cases the Minister is empowered to pay for anything that goes wrong. The exact words are:
      "make such supplementary, incidental and consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient."
      We shall deal later with amendments seeking clarification of the wording; at this point I just want to know how much the Minister envisages being paid.
      My amendment declares it desirable not to
      "include any financial provision which has not previously been approved by the House of Commons."
      Without that, we might find ourselves in some difficulty.
      Amendment No. 7 relates to the powers of Parliament. Proposed section 31B(5) states:
      "A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      438
      Of course, it is possible to pray against such instruments, when the arrangements of the House permit that, but I suggest that it would be more reassuring to allow for the affirmative procedure in this case. If an instrument is nodded through, well and good. But if a transport matter needs debate—nowadays, that is done in Committee—my amendment would provide a secondary safeguard in respect of this labyrinthine Bill. Transport matters do not always get the scrutiny they deserve.
      Mr. Norris: The first amendment would place an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State. We are dealing here with supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions. That being so, I do not believe it right for the Secretary of State to be placed under a duty of the sort that the amendment suggests.
      As for amendment No. 7, there is plenty of precedent for the negative resolution procedure—it would be entirely usual. Indeed, it is not unknown for there to be no parliamentary involvement at all in this sphere.
      Section 27(4) of the 1984 Act provides—except in the case of powers taken under that Act or any statutory provision amended by it—for statutory powers to be transferred by means of a transfer scheme, prior to the sale of a business belonging to LRT, without any parliamentary scrutiny. We have not followed that precedent. There is scope for parliamentary scrutiny of orders under new section 31B, but I frankly do not think that the affirmative resolution procedure is justifiable. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that explanation—it is always useful to get the Minister's reasons on the record. That is what my proposed amendment has achieved. I cannot say that I agree with the Minister's reply. Indeed, I am sorry that he did not agree to the affirmative procedure, which I regard as superior. However, I will leave it at that.
      The Minister did not deal with the point about expenditure incurred by a contractor for an emergency or a deficit. If a second contractor finds himself unable to continue with, say, railway track, signalling, communications or ventilation service—I showed in Committee that such services may be contracted out—I would like to be certain that the liability incurred is not unlimited but will be paid for out of a contingency fund voted to the Secretary of State for Transport by this House in a Finance Bill and relevant appropriation Bill. In that way it would be visible to Parliament, and would thus constitute a necessary safeguard.
      I will readily give way to the Minister if he wants to deal with this issue. Meanwhile, he talked about a burden on the Secretary of State. I do not see how prior approval by the House amounts to a burden. The Public Accounts Committee, and this House in pursuit of the stewardship of taxpayers' money, would be wise to require such approval. I repeat my offer to give way to the Minister so that he can explain why the provision is unwise. I believe that it would protect tax money and the travelling public in London.
      I note that the Minister remains seated. I can only hope that his silence will be noted elsewhere.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 41 to 43.
      If the issues raised by my amendments had been unimportant they would not have been selected by the Chair. We come finally to what may be a lacuna in the Bill. I mentioned it in Committee, but received no satisfactory answer. I shall read out the relevant words of the Bill to get the matter straight.
      Proposed section 31B(3) reads:
      "This section does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport under this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act."
      That appears not to apply, then, to the core activity. But line 29 says:
      "the Secretary of State may by order provide for any functions of London Regional Transport under any statutory provisions to be exercisable by that person (whether to the exclusion of or concurrently with London Regional Transport)."
      If the clause is to achieve its purpose—which, because of the Minister's silence, I am not too sure about—there will be difficulty, in court at least, because those phrases are mutually incompatible, although I may have got that wrong or misread the clause. There may be a perfectly simple explanation for the confusion.
      If we are to get our legislation right and ensure that it is not only clear but seen to be clear, we must ensure that it can be understood by people who read it. If hon. Members cannot understand it, how can we expect the public to be able to do so? I hope that the Minister will tell us that, even though a lawyer may be able to understand it, that anomaly will be dealt with at a later stage in the Bill's passage.
      Mr. Norris: There are times when even those as prolix as myself recognise that there is a value in silence. On this amendment, I merely point out that it is a pièce de résistance, even by the standards of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), as it has the totally perverse effect of allowing the transfer to a contractor of LT's principal functions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Thus, for example, the amendment would allow LT to transfer its duty to
      "provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services."
      The amendment would allow LT to facilitate someone else setting fares and service levels.
      440
      It may be that we are witnessing a Pauline conversion of unprecedented proportions—
      Mr. Wilson: It is new Labour.
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman suggests that this may be a manifestation of new Labour. If new Labour has suffused even the depths of the people's republic of Newham, there will be much rejoicing in Epping Forest and elsewhere, where those glad tidings will be greeted with unalloyed joy. However, I fear that the hon. Member for Newham, South is misguided if that was his intention.
      The serious point is that, as we have said, we are at pains to ensure that none of the obligations laid on LRT by the 1984 Act can be transferred by LT. It is no part of that Act to give LT the power to divest itself of the responsibilities that it holds under the 1984 Act. This modest Bill, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have frequently described it, will allow LT to take advantage of contracts arranged under the private finance initiative, the purpose of which are to secure better value for the travelling public in London.
      I almost hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will press the amendment because those on the Opposition Front Bench might then be in the unenviable position of having to vote against him. In all fairness to him, it might be kinder to ask him whether he might think of seeking leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Spearing: I assure the Minister that the idea of withdrawing amendments has been constantly before my mind as I have moved amendments which are, as I am sure the House will agree, justifiable probing amendments. I hope that the Bill will not cause the trouble that I fear that it may cause.
      The Minister is absolutely right: my amendment to leave out section 34(3)(c) is not a serious amendment to the Bill. I wanted him to explain—which he did not do—the apparent anomaly in the wording of the Bill. I understand that he wants that wording for the purposes that he mentioned, but I suggest that it is confusing because it appears that the one clause says opposite things.
      I hope that—surreptitiously, in another place—that confusion will be rectified. On that understanding, Madam Speaker, I will again take the Minister's advice—perhaps for the last time in this debate. For the reasons that I have outlined, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  Pensions
  [Relevant document: The memorandum relating to these Orders contained in the Fourteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (House of Commons Paper No. 34-xiv of Session 1995–96).]
  6.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  Mr. Heald: The independent Government Actuary issued a consultation document in August and has taken account of responses in preparing his report to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken account of his advice in preparing his own proposals, which are before us today. They were laid before the House together with the three orders and the Government Actuary's report on 13 March.
  On the current system and future proposals, we recognise that people need to be able to invest with confidence in their pensions. The Pensions Act 1995, which received Royal Assent last year, is intended to ensure that their investment will be safe. At the same time, we took the opportunity to make the system of contracting out more attractive. We responded to charges of complexity by breaking the current links between state and private second-tier provision, and we widened the appeal of contracting out by introducing a system of age-related rebates for contracted-out money purchase schemes and appropriate personal pensions rather than the current flat-rate rebate for those contracting out on a money purchase basis.
  On the contracted-out salary related schemes rebate, the flat-rate rebate currently paid in salary-related schemes is 4.8 per cent. Of that figure, 1.8 per cent. goes to employees and 3 per cent. to the employer. The changes we propose to the contracting-out system mean that the basis of the rebate calculation has to be changed.
  Had we continued the old system, the rebate would have been 4.4 per cent., which would reflect the decline in the accrual rates of guaranteed-minimum pensions. In future, it will be based on the cost of providing benefits of an actuarial value equivalent to the state earnings-related pension scheme given up rather than, as at present, the cost of providing the GMPs. In other words, the rebate is now higher than it would have been under the previous system, to reflect the greater liabilities now undertaken by salary-related schemes that contract out—for example, inflation proofing.
  The independent Government Actuary took account of those changes, developments in SERPS provision and up-to-date actuarial assumptions. He reached the
  442
  conclusion that the rebate should be set at 4.6 per cent. from April 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered his advice and decided to set the rebate at that level. We propose that 1.6 per cent. should go to the employee and that, as now, 3 per cent. will go to the employer.
  We remain committed to the widest possible choice of pension provision. Currently, some 10 million people are members of salary-related schemes, which form a key element of pension provision in the UK. We believe that our proposals will ensure a sound basis for their continuing operation and development.
  I shall deal now with age-related rebates for those who contract out into appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes. People who contract out of SERPS in those two ways receive the same flat-rate rebate as those in salary-related schemes, except that people over the age of 30 with a personal pension receive an additional 1 per cent. That extra amount recognises the need for the rebate to be higher for older people with personal pensions. The nearer a person gets to retirement, the higher the initial investment has to be to match the state pension forgone.
  Age-related rebates are the logical next step, and one which we pledged to introduce some time ago. Two of the orders laid today set out the respective age-related rebates for both COMPS and for personal pensions for each of the next five years, starting in April 1997. For COMPS, in the first year the rebates will range from 3.1 per cent. of relevant earnings for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent. These rebates will be available partly as a flat rate 3.1 per cent. deduction from national insurance contributions. This deduction will be split, with 1.6 per cent. for employees and 1.5 per cent. going to the employer. Any additional age-related payment up to a total ceiling of 9 per cent. will be paid directly to their scheme by the Department of Social Security at the end of the tax year.
  The age-related rebates for personal pensions will also be paid directly to the member's scheme at the end of each tax year. The rates will vary in the first instance from 3.4 per cent. for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent.
  We have capped the age-related rebates at 9 per cent. rather than allow rebates at much higher levels for older scheme members during the early years of the scheme, but we have ensured that the great majority of those with appropriate personal pensions should be best advised to remain with them, now and in the future. By imposing a 9 per cent. cap, we have been mindful of restraining the cost to the taxpayer of all this, too.
  In deciding on the level of expenses and charges of pension providers to be used in calculating these age-related rebates, we have also sought value for money. Necessary and reasonable charges and expenses of providers and the correct amount to be invested on behalf of the member are both crucial in calculating the levels of appropriate rebates for money purchase pensions. In deciding that, we have taken the Government Actuary's advice on what were the charges of the more efficient providers. That again reflects our aim to be fair to pension holders, pension providers and the taxpayer.
  We are confident that the measures will maintain the attractiveness of contracting out and promote more choice in the private pension provision available. The cost to the

  443
  taxpayer in the first year of the new rebate will be £7.7 billion of revenue forgone. By 2020, we expect annual savings to the national insurance fund from those contracted out of SERPS to outweigh the annual revenue then forgone on the rebate, and by 2030 we anticipate savings nearly double the costs. By 2050, savings should be some three times greater than costs. That represents a major burden lifted from future generations.
  The Government have taken steps towards defusing the demographic time-bomb in the UK. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Canada is the only other country to have taken the necessary steps to do so. In fact, the OECD suggests that the UK may be able to repay its national debt and start to accumulate assets by 2030, leaving us better placed than almost any other country to meet the challenges of global competition in the 21st century.
  Mr. Frank Field: For the first time, the Minister has given us the cost of age-related rebates. The Government Actuary's report was detailed, but the one piece of information for which taxpayers might have been looking was missing, but he has given it to us this afternoon. So that I and other hon. Members understand correctly, is the Minister saying that the costs of age-related rebates will rise from £7.7 billion in the first year that we are considering to £8.1 billion at the end of the five-year period? Are we therefore talking about the equivalent of a 5p increase in the standard rate of income tax? Will the Minister tell us again what he thought the savings would be from people who remain contracted out of SERPS and who are therefore not liable to gain SERF'S pensions as a result of these orders?
  Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall deal with that point in my winding-up speech. That would be more convenient, and I shall have the exact figures checked to see whether we are talking about 5p on income tax.
  We are giving maximum scope for individuals to provide for their future, based firmly on a partnership between the state and the private sector but maximising the choices available. The orders underpin the almost uniquely strong position of the UK in meeting the challenges of the coming century. I commend them to the House.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I make it clear at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the orders. We have many criticisms of the pensions strategy that has led to them and, so far as it relevant to do so, I shall outline a number of them. We have many concerns about the implications of these orders for future pensions policy. Again, I shall explain what they are and ask the Minister some questions about the Government's intentions and expectations.
  The principle of age-related rebates is a logical development from the current situation, although the practice may leave much to be desired. The background to the orders is, of course, the introduction in 1987 and 1988 of two new measures—the establishment of contracted-out money purchase schemes, which may be described as
  444
  COMPS, and the introduction of the right to opt out of SERPS into personal pensions or, as they are somewhat optimistically called, appropriate personal pensions. If I refer generally to personal pensions in this debate, I shall be referring to appropriate personal pensions.
  What is in dispute in the debate is not the importance and value of funded pensions but the way in which the Government have gone about promoting wider membership of funded schemes. The promotion of personal pensions has formed a key part of the Government's pensions strategy. The Government miss no opportunity to promote the sales of personal pensions as a triumph, but the detail of the orders reveals that they are considerably less than that.
  The promotion of personal pensions was part of a conscious and determined attempt to reduce the future pensions of millions of working people. If we forget about funding methods for a moment, what the Government have done to pensions—pay-as-you-go pensions, personal pensions and, indeed, the underpinning of occupational pensions—leads to a reduction in future pensions.
  When SERPS was dramatically reduced in value in the 1980s, the pension was cut from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. of earnings. It became based on career earnings instead of the best 20 years. Widows' inheritance of their husbands' earnings-related pension was halved, and earnings-related invalidity benefits for those retiring on health grounds were abolished.
  What was perhaps less clear at the time was that the new, reduced SERPS was to become the benchmark for the new appropriate personal pensions and for contracted-out money purchase schemes. In other words, whether one plumped for a funded or pay-as-you-go pension, the pension that one could expect for a given level of contribution was slashed.
  In the beginning, the incentives to opt out, introduced at a cost to the public of £4 billion, may have disguised the link between low SERPS expectations and low expectations of personal pensions and COMPS. The high incentives may have gone some way in the short term to reducing the harm done to people on low incomes who, ill advisedly, opted out of SERPS. However, as the incentives have been cut and, above all, with the introduction of earnings-related rebates, it is crystal clear from the orders that a personal pension receiving only the national insurance rebate is not intended to perform better than the crippled level of benefits provided by SERPS.
  The retirement income inquiry pointed out in its valuable appendix that a man on £10,000 a year would receive a SERPS pension worth only 10 per cent. of average male earnings. The Government intend that the same should apply to rebate-only APPs.
  There can be a great deal of wild talk about how funded personal pensions could do better because of better investment returns. Indeed, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said in another place yesterday:
  "Quite often the effect of charges on a pension fund is more than outweighed by the investment performance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 1996; Vol. 571, c. 209.]
  With all due respect to Lord Mackay, in the context of this debate, that statement is nonsense. It is counter to everything that the Government are trying to do in the orders.
  We can assume that the Government Actuary is an independent, professional and honourable man. He is under a clear legislative requirement to recommend

  445
  rebates that would provide an actuarial value equivalent to that of the SERPS benefits forgone. His job, and what he has done in advising the Government, is to take into account the best possible estimates of the long-run rate of return on investments. I assume that the Government accept his advice on this point.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm not only that there is no question of personal pensions in general beating the markets but that, if it happened over a period, the Government Actuary's future advice would have to be to reduce the level of rebates under the terms of the current legislation.
  The first point to establish is that these rebates are not intended to produce better benefits overall than SERPS at its current reduced rate. Schemes can only hope on average to do so if individuals and/or employers make additional contributions.
  The second issue that needs to be considered is everything that has gone wrong since appropriate personal pensions were launched. The Government worked hard to create the impression that anyone would be foolish not to have a personal pension. What was the result? The policies of more than a million people are now being reviewed because they were encouraged to opt out, rather than joining or transferring from employers' pension schemes.
  The cost of the review itself has been estimated at a one-off £100 million, plus on-going costs of £50 million. The cost of compensation has been estimated at between £2 billion and £4 billion. The review is way behind time; many people have not yet responded to their pension holders. Above all, an enormous amount of money that could have been invested in providing pensions for the future is being consumed by this Government and by regulatory disaster.
  A total of 3.6 million people with incomes below £10,000 a year have opted out of SERPS. The average income of a woman with an appropriate personal pension is just £6,300 a year. Nearly half those who bought personal pensions in 1987–88 have failed to make regular contributions or pay in regular rebates each year since then. Low incomes, a lack of persistence and a failure to return to SERPS at an appropriate age all constitute warnings that, in the long run, people may not be best served by personal pensions.
  In recent weeks, what strikes me as a rather clever media campaign has taken place to prepare the way for a conclusion to the current Securities and Investments Board study. The message of that campaign is that there is not much wrong with the sale of pensions to people on low incomes, and that there is no need for special efforts to remedy the problem. Let me make it clear that I do not want anyone's pension to suffer: I feel no pleasure when that happens. Nevertheless, if it turns out that a combination of the initial high incentives and the above-average rate of return on equities in recent years has limited the actual damage to date, that does not mean that it will necessarily be prudent for low earners with broken work patterns to remain in appropriate personal pensions. To suggest that would be to promote a con and a deception.
  I look to the Minister to give an absolute assurance that there is no question of the Government's brushing the issue under the carpet and claiming that there is nothing to worry about. I also ask him to make every effort to ensure that people are given the best possible
  446
  advice—to which they are entitled under the Financial Services Act 1986—and that the regulators' guidance is followed to the letter.
  The main public concerns to date about the promotion of personal pensions have involved poor advice and mis-selling, but the orders, and the Government Actuary's advice, should bring home to everyone why the Government's personal pension strategy is unravelling before our eyes.
  The Government have set out their conclusions about the typical costs of personal pensions; they make sober reading. Let us examine the impact of charges from a typical provider, as identified by the Government Actuary. There are initial expenses of 8 per cent. on the initial rebate, renewal expenses of £30 per annum, a 0.9 per cent. reduction in the annual return and an annuity loading of 2 per cent. on the annuity purchase price.
  Let us consider the example of a person on £10,000 a year who makes a single year's contribution to a personal pension. That may sound extreme, but the Government's own personal pension statistics show that 73,000 of the people who bought personal pensions in 1987–88 had paid in only one year's rebate by the latest available date. Let us assume that that person makes a contribution 20 or 30 years before retirement. By the time that he or she retires, every penny that has been paid will have disappeared in fees and charges, and there will be nothing in the pension to show for the year at work. I do not think that people can afford that.
  At the other extreme, let us assume that that same person on £10,000 a year buys a personal pension 30 years before retirement and keeps it, never missing a rebate payment until state pension age. This, too, is likely to be an extreme case: only half the people who bought personal pensions in the first year had managed to pay in rebates in each of the six years to 1992–93. More than a quarter of the savings in that case will disappear in fees and charges by the time that the person retires.
  That is the position for someone on £10,000 a year; what about someone on £7,000—more than the average income of women with personal pensions? Such a person, paying a single premium, will lose every penny. The person who keeps the policy for 30 years will lose about a third of his or her savings: about £1 in £3 of the money that has been paid in will not be available to provide a pension when that person retires.
  What about those on £4,000 a year? Even if they keep their policies for 30 years, they will lose well over half their savings, and that money will not be available to pay for a pension. That too may seem an extreme case, especially as some reputable companies would not sell a rebate-only personal pension to someone on twice that income; but, in 1993–94, more than 250,000 men and 270,000 women had earnings below £4,000. If their incomes do not rise, more than half a million people are set to lose more than 50 per cent. of their pension savings. In fact, the situation—even for those who attempt to keep their policies until retirement—will often be much worse. As I have said, half those who bought personal pensions at the outset have failed to make regular rebate payments. For many of those people, annual charges will continue to eat deeply into their savings.
  At best, the orders reveal that a quarter of savings will be lost in the case of a typical pension provider; at worst, more will be lost—up to and including every penny. I believe that

  447
  we should be grateful for the Government Actuary's study. A decent Government would have published such figures themselves, as would an effective regulator. That has not happened, and we all know why. The Government have been pouring savers' money down the drain as if there were no tomorrow, and they do not want anyone to find out.
  However, the Actuary and the Government have based the orders on the impact of charges from what is described as a more efficient provider. Even here, a single premium would lose 27 per cent. of its value over 30 years, while a policy receiving rebates continuously for 30 years would lose £1 in £5 of the money saved. Given the cost of typical providers, even the more efficient ones, neither individuals nor society can afford to waste savings at such a rate. Every pound that is eaten up could provide a pension in the future. What an irony: the Government said that they wanted to save taxpayers' money in the future, and they have ended up wasting savers' money today.
  It should be noted that not everyone is convinced that the Government Actuary's estimates of the cost are correct. As his report makes clear, Ministers have announced that they do not intend age-related rebates to incorporate an allowance for flat-rate charges. His figures reflect Government policy; they do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world.
  Responding to the Actuary's consultative paper on 25 November 1995, the joint working group comprising the Association of British Insurers, the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of Consultant Actuaries, the Society of Pension Consultants and the Association of Pension Lawyers—a group whose views should not be taken lightly—expressed surprise at the outcome of the review of charges levied by personal pension providers.
  Referring specifically to the section of the Actuary's report that dealt with the most efficient providers, the group expressed the view that providers with low initial charges would have higher annual charges, and that there would be fixed policy fees. Insufficient weight had been given to marketing costs. The consensus was that the charge on competitively priced APP contracts was likely to be around 8 per cent. of each rebate, plus 1 per cent. per annum of the accumulated fund, plus a policy fee—generally linked with the retail prices index or national average earnings, at between £1 and £3 a month—and twice the cost of purchasing the annuity shown in the orders.
  The group pointed out that younger people, people with rebate-only contracts, people on lower incomes and people who are contracted out for short periods, or who switch to new policies from time to time—for example, job movers who rely on group personal pensions—could lose badly unless adequate provision is made. A powerful voice from the industry has said very clearly that the costs for even the most efficient providers have been set at too low a level, and that many people's pensions will be damaged.
  The Government have made a policy decision. They have decided to base age-related rebates on what they call the reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers. By definition, however, most personal pension providers are not more efficient—their costs are higher.
  448
  The contrast between the typical and the more efficient provider has placed Ministers on the horns of a dilemma. What were the Government to do? Should they listen to the industry, which pleaded with them to recognise its real costs, no doubt amid dark hints about telling everyone that they should opt back into the state earnings-related pension scheme? That would have been viewed, however, as padding out the costs of less efficient companies selling high-cost pensions.
  On the other hand, the Government could do what they have done: base the rebates on more efficient providers, but what is to happen to all the people who do not have a pension from a more efficient provider? They will suffer. Their rebates will be too low to cover the real costs of their pensions. Their pensions will suffer as a result of the Government's decision.
  Of course, to pad out the costs of less efficient providers with taxpayers' money would have caused outrage. To allow the pensions of millions of people to be cut by high charges is a disgrace. It must have been a difficult choice to make. Faced with the choice between outrage and disgrace, the Government chose disgrace. No doubt their decision was coloured by the consideration that higher rebates would mean higher tax or national insurance and less scope for pre-election tax cuts. We can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security saying, "Most people don't understand all this, anyway. They'll never realise what we are doing to them."
  I would have some sympathy with the Ministers who had to take the decision if it were not for two things. First, I sympathise more with people whose savings are being wasted; and, secondly, the whole mess is of the Government's making. They have been driven by a desperate desire to cut spending on SERPS, and have not put a cost-effective and efficient alternative in place.
  My criticisms are directed at the Government, not at pension providers. There have been individual problems with some people and some companies, but the Government cannot escape the fact that the current shape of the industry, with all its attendant costs, is the Government's creation. It has grown in response to the Government's contracting-out legislation and regulatory framework. The fact that so much of savers' money is being eaten up and will not be available to generate pensions is the Government's fault and no one else's.
  I should like to turn to some of the other important issues that are raised by the rebates. What does the Minister anticipate will happen to the balance between APPs and SERPS? Does he expect more people to opt out or to opt back in? Does he expect older employees to keep their policies to retirement, or people to opt back into SERPS once the 9 per cent. cap on the rebate is reached? In his opening statement, he gave the impression that he thought that people would keep their policies to retirement, but in The Sunday Telegraph of 31 March, Mr. Ron Spill, pensions consultant with Legal and General, suggested that there were still pivotal ages for contracting back into SERPS: about 55 for men and 45 for women. What does the Minister expect to happen, and what assumptions has he made about that?
  Will the Minister place on record his view of how the rebate levels that have been set for salary-related schemes, money purchase schemes and appropriate personal pensions will affect the balance between these different

  449
  types of pension provision? There are substantial costs involved in the rebates. As far as I can make out from the orders, overall administration costs in approved private pensions are some five times as high as in occupational pension schemes.
  If rebates were being paid to personal pensions at the same rate as they are being paid, in effect, to members of final salary schemes or salary-related schemes, the reduction in payment would be about £300 million: the loading for the higher costs of personal pensions involves some £300 million per annum of public money, so the issue of the balance between different schemes is of great importance.
  In the past decade, there has been a consistent trend away from defined benefit schemes towards defined contribution schemes. It is difficult to quantify, but no one seems to deny that it is taking place. Next year's introduction of combined schemes, offering one set of benefits to one group of employees and another set of benefits to another, seems likely to hasten the process. The problem, in principle, is not so much the different way of generating benefits, as the fact that the shift is commonly associated with a reduction in employers' contributions to employees' pensions.
  The Secretary of State has announced his intention to promote the sale of group personal pensions. He is presenting it as a way of bringing pensions to people whose employers do not currently provide them. In practice, it is more likely that they will appeal to employers who are searching for ways of reducing their contribution to an existing pension scheme and its members.
  During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, the National Association of Pension Funds, among others, expressed concern at the failure to establish a level playing field between different types of pension provision. A tilt in the value of the contracted-out rebates could influence the decision about which type of scheme an employer establishes on grounds that are not directly related to the best interests of employees.
  The Government seem to have been in several minds about the treatment of money purchase schemes. Originally, they were not sure whether they should have age-related rebates at all; then they suggested that they should, but at a lower level than personal pensions, creating a differential in favour of personal pension providers. Now they have set them at the same level, in effect, as personal pensions, but at the expense, it appears, of creating an even bigger divide between salary-related and money purchase schemes.
  What does the Minister expect to result from the structure of the rebates? Does he expect the rebates to hasten the shift from salary-related schemes to money purchase schemes? If so, is that the Government's policy objective? Does he have any concerns about employers who use that move as an opportunity to cut contributions to their employees' pensions? What does he expect to happen to the balance between contracted-out money purchase schemes and personal pensions? How does he respond to the view that I have received from an industry source who notes that many life offices withdrew from the money purchase market and few new money purchase schemes have been set up since 1993 because of the complexities involved?
  The latest contracting-out changes continue a system that requires different administration for a money purchase scheme and for a contracted-out personal pension. The
  450
  arrangements for a money purchase scheme will be even more complex. As before, the employer will have to operate a contracted-out payroll for national insurance purposes with a special rebate of 3.1 per cent. Minimum contributions equivalent to the flat-rate rebate will have to be paid by the employer to the scheme trustee monthly, and, at the end of the tax year, the Department of Social Security will pay a supplementary age-related rebate to the trustees to top up the flat-rate minimum contributions.
  The view is expressed that the balance in these rebates now means that there are few advantages in establishing and running a money purchase scheme, and that it is likely that employers will set up only group personal pension schemes, and that remaining money purchase schemes may be wound up in favour of group personal pensions. Does the Minister share that view? Is that the Government's objective? What does he expect the outcome to be in the balance between money purchase schemes and personal pensions?
  The Government should have learnt by now that there is a close relationship between what they do and what happens in the pension industry. It would be disastrous if the rebates caused a further movement in the slide towards lower-quality pension provision and reduced pension rights, which has been the hallmark of the Government.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister was kind enough to give way earlier so that I could ask a question. The reason I wished to do so was so that I and perhaps other hon. Members could be clear on the costs of the orders that we are discussing. The Minister kindly replied that it would be convenient if he answered the question in his winding-up speech. Clearly, it would be convenient to him, but it is not to the rest of us. I shall return if I can—
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Field: If we are going to hear the answer now, that is even better.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his parliamentary question on that point. The various costs are set out from the year 1997–98—when the cost is £7.7 billion—to 2001–02, when it is £8.1 billion. He should bear it in mind that, if the present system were to continue unchanged, the cost in 1997–98 would be £8 billion, not £7.7 billion, so there is no question of these being extra costs.
  Mr. Field: If I understand the Minister aright, he is now saying that he is cutting the cost to the national insurance scheme of introducing age-related rebates. If that is the result of what he has just told us, I should have thought that the industry might have had a few things to say before we reached this debate.
  Mr. Heald: The various different categories are set out in the answer, so that the hon. Gentleman can see the way in which the figure of £7.7 billion is calculated. The point that I am making is that, if the system remained as it is at present, the overall cost would be £8 billion, not £7.7 billion.
  Mr. Field: I am sorry to appear so thick, but I still do not understand the answer. Are we saying that, if there

  451
  were no orders tonight, the cost of the scheme with the existing rebates would be £8 billion, and that with these changes that cost is reduced to £7.7 billion—in other words, some people who are currently getting rebates will get less rebate as a result of the measure because we are substantially rescheduling those rebates towards age-related rebates? I know that I am supposed to be making the speech, but I should be grateful if, at some stage, the Minister could intervene to clarify that point.
  Mr. Heald: The point is that, at the moment, the scheme relies upon flat-rate rebates. The point about age-related rebates is that they become larger each year as the person grows older and the amount of money necessary to go into the scheme to replicate SERPS gets larger. Therefore, there is an effect of compensating some people more than previously and under-compensating others in comparison, so that one ends up with a taper rather than a flat-rate charge.
  Mr. Field: If I interpret that intervention correctly, it means that the scheme now is weighting the subsidy towards older rather than younger workers—[Interruption.] If that is not the case, I fail to comprehend what the order is about. As I understood it, the Government needed to make substantial concessions to older workers who are contracted out of the scheme to ensure that they remained outside.
  I tabled a question asking what would be the cost specifically of the new age-related rebates. The answer was given and the Minister included it in his speech. The Minister is now saying that the total cost to the national insurance scheme of the subsidy package is marginally less than what it would have been had the old orders remained in place.
  Mr. Heald: If one looks at the overall figures, the overall reduction is £0.3 billion. The significant part of that concerns salary-related schemes rather than the age-related rebate part. As far as that is concerned, there is no significant reduction in the overall amount, but there is a change in the taper as a result of the introduction of age-related rebates rather than a flat-rate scheme.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful for that. I shall not ask the Minister to intervene on that point again, but I shall return to it in a moment.
  I have one other question for the Minister, which he might be able to answer when he replies to the debate. Perhaps, understandably, the Minister kept carefully to his brief when introducing the orders to the House. No doubt most of us in his position would have done the same. He continued at some pace when he was covering the question of charges for those who have undertaken private pension arrangements. What I could not quite grasp, because I was trying to hear him and understand the parliamentary answer that he read into his speech, was whether he thought that the charges would be reduced because of the power that the Government had over whether people would be able to claim their rebates, or whether the Government had the power to set the charges throughout the private sector for the servicing of personal pensions.
  452
  I shall try to keep my second point going for long enough to enable the Minister to answer that point before we end. Will the Minister use mere suasion to force down charges or, in the background, do the Government have the power if they wish not only to set charges on personal pensions in respect of the rebate, but more generally? That was the question which crossed my mind listening to him.
  Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the new rules that have been brought in on disclosure, coupled with competition and setting the rebates at a level that reflects the position of the best providers with the most efficient levels of charges, should mean that those who are purchasing personal pensions have the best possible deal. There is no doubt that those measures, working together, providing an element of transparency and competition, are creating the right circumstances for the best arrangements to be made.
  There is a power, as the hon. Gentleman will know, which the Government are entitled to exercise by statute, to restrict the level of charges, but that is not something which has been done, and it is certainly competition and the element of transparency on which the Government rely.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful for that, because it will be news to most hon. Members that the Government have always had the power to set the level of charges in the private sector in respect of servicing pensions, despite all the evidence that we have had about the size of those charges. The Government are now saying that, because of disclosure and growing competition, charges will be pushed down. If, in fact, after a period the Minister's faith in competition pushing down charges is not fulfilled, will the Government move against the industry and against some of the levels of charges that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) described in his opening comments?
  Secondly, I wish to move back to the question of costs. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Treasury Bench. He is adept in the public debate at saying to anyone who comes up with proposals for reform that costs must clearly be attached to such reforms and that we should be certain about what those costs are, and even consider what the rate of tax would be to implement those reforms.
  What I thought was interesting about the parliamentary answer that I was given earlier today was that we have the cost of maintaining the Minister's strategy. The cost of the rebates during the next five years is the equivalent of 5p on the standard rate of income tax. If the Minister wants to join in the debate that the Opposition are beginning, on opening up the options of how social security might develop in the next Parliament, I hope that he will bring to it a clear declaration that his policy is not without costs and that, for each of the next five years, his policy is costing every working taxpayer the equivalent of an additional 5p on his standard rate of income tax.
  The "Lilley package", if one can call it that, does not come without a price tag. The price tag was disclosed in the parliamentary answer this afternoon and it is a significant one. It helps to open up the debate on the Opposition Benches. The status quo will have that cost, so should we think of changing the status quo, we know that we shall be starting with 5p on the standard rate of income tax as the cost of the Government's current strategy. That was the point that I wished to make in the debate.

  453
  I am also pleased about the clarification that we heard earlier. While the debate was raging in the country over the appalling level of charges that some companies were making for those who had bought the Government's package, had gone private and had contracted out of SERPS, when figures were being produced showing that some people would have charges that wiped out the whole of their savings, the Government kept quiet about the fact that they had the reserve powers to direct what those charges should be.
  We now know that they have those powers and have never once in one of those years sought to use them. Again today, the junior Minister has said that he is depending on competition to force down charges and safeguard people's savings. If that policy is unsuccessful—as it has been in the past five years—will the Government act to regulate charges before we rise for the summer recess?
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Heald: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised a number of issues. I dealt with most of them in interventions that he kindly let me make.
  On the question of interfering in the market and setting a level by restricting the charges that can be levied, the hon. Gentleman should concede that there are dangers in such interference. If the level is set too low, there may be no provision at all. If the level is set too high, there may be a risk of exploitation of the position. So the Government's view has been and remains that transparency and competition—the new disclosure arrangements and companies competing in the market for pension business—is the best way forward. We have no intention at this stage of considering any changes in that approach.
  Mr. Frank Field: While we all accept that charges can be so low that the industry will not be able to provide a service, the Minister also accepts that charges can be too high. There is a weight of evidence that, in some schemes, people have the whole of their savings wiped out by charges. As the aim of the Government's reform is to ensure that people have a substantial sum of pension capital, so that they will have an income and will not be dependent on welfare when they retire, surely, in instances in which the level of charges is such that it puts at risk whether a person receives an adequate pension or any pension, the Government ought not to sit back and wait for competition to push down charges. Surely they ought to flex their muscles and let the industry know that they will act if such levels of charges continue.
  Mr. Heald: The danger in the hon. Gentleman's approach is that, if one looks at one year in isolation and says that, in that particular year, 77,000 out of 5.6 million personal pensioners paid one contribution in and they have not done so since, one gets a false picture of what pension provision a lifetime of work will achieve. That is the point that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made.
  Mr. Denham: Is the Minister saying that it is of no consequence that 70,000 people who bought personal pensions in one year entirely wasted their pension savings and will have no contribution to their pension to show for that year? Surely to those 70,000 people that is of
  454
  enormous importance. A large number of people who have been in pension schemes for longer will have nothing to show for it. Surely the Minister cannot dismiss that so lightly.
  Mr. Heald: It is a small proportion, and it is not indicative of what the result would be over a lifetime of work. The whole point of personal pensions is that they are flexible. People may pay in one year, not pay for several years thereafter, and then pay in solidly for many years. The Government have encouraged a form of pension that is flexible. The same is true of SERPS. If people pay in one year, it does not buy them much. If they have a long contribution record over years, the pension is judged on that basis, and the benefits they receive are higher.
  Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that the point about SERPS is that people cannot lose a year's pension rights once they have earned them? It is wrong to say that personal pensions are the same as SERPS. In SERPS, if people work for a year and earn above the lower earnings limit, they establish a year's pension rights, which they cannot lose. Everyone accepts that the pattern that the Minister described of someone in and out of a personal pension produces a result that is bad value for money.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman surely concedes that one year's contributions to SERPS taken as indicative of final pension provision would not amount to more than a few pence. Any pension scheme depends on a contribution record. The Government have always recognised that, but one of the advantages of personal pensions is their flexibility. They are a vehicle that can be built on. Many people who have bought personal pensions welcome that.
  It is wrong to say that there is firm evidence that rebate-only personal pensions are unsuitable for specific types of employee. Neither low earnings nor time out of the employment market necessarily means that the final personal pension will not be as high as that from SERPS. One of the reasons for that is the high levels of yield that have been achieved in the private sector in the years since 1980. The hon. Gentleman knows the figures as well as I do—10 per cent. in real terms. It is true that charges vary from scheme to scheme, but only a financial adviser, who is in a good position to judge, can determine what is the best product for an individual.
  Some of the other points raised included the level of the rebates. Some detailed points were raised about that. The hon. Member for Itchen asked whether it was the Government's objective to see employers with occupational money purchase schemes switch to group personal pensions. The answer is no. The Government want to see the second tier of funded provision, which has been built up carefully over the years of this Government, protected and improved.
  We should like to see more individuals taking the option of funded pension provision, if it is the right scheme for them. The hon. Member for Itchen should bear it in mind that employers are not obliged to have occupational schemes, and not all do. Group personal pensions are an additional option especially suitable to those who currently make no provision. We have no reason to think that occupational money purchase schemes will disappear.

  455
  As for the question whether contracted-out money purchase schemes are viable according to the pensions industry, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the comments by Alan Jenkinson, the highly respected policy director of Sedgewick Noble Lowndes. He said:
  "Directly invested contracted-out money purchase schemes now start looking as attractive as personal pensions. What Mr. Lilley has done with contracted-out money purchase schemes is to bring them into line with personal pensions."
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the views of someone such as Alan Jenkinson, who has spent a lifetime in the field and is well respected, are worth considering. They were some of the first comments made after the orders were laid.
  The hon. Member for Itchen said that employers might use the trend towards contracted-out money purchase schemes and away from contracted-out salary-related schemes to reduce their contributions. We attach great importance to good-quality pension provision and we hope that employers will not reduce their level of contributions. We want them to make the best use of the flexibility available to them to maintain good levels of provision for their work force.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Itchen and his hon. Friends concede that the contracted-out money purchase scheme and appropriate personal pension are viable options for various categories of individuals and companies. They have enabled us to expand pension provision in the private sector. I believe that it is wrong always to defend state provision at the expense of private sector provision. It is easy to become Mr. Nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that personal private pension provision has given this country £600 billion-worth of assets—more than all the other European countries put together—which will enable us by 2030 to pay off the national debt and start accruing assets at a time when other countries will be beggared.
  Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept what I said in my opening speech, that this debate is not about the value of funded pensions, but about the fact that so much of the money that goes into funded pensions goes down the drain? The Government have tipped it down the drain like there is no tomorrow. We need funded pensions where people know that their savings are going to grow, be used to provide pensions and not be wasted in fees and charges. The Minister has not yet addressed that issue.
  Mr. Heald: The Government have addressed those problems. It is easy always to carp and criticise and say that everything that the Government do is wrong—that every aspect of personal pensions is wrong, but that the principle is right. As a result of the Government's policies, 5.6 million more people have pension provision. For many of them, that will mean a far better retirement than they would have had otherwise.
  I was asked why there had been a reduction in the cost of the rebate. The reduction is owing to the reduction in the contracted-out salary-related rebate. The cost of introducing age-related rebates is broadly neutral. The figures that set that out are given in my answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  456
  I was asked about whether flat-rate charges drastically reduced the value of individual personal pension funds in years when people could not contribute. I accept that all charges affect the total amount of funds in a personal pension, including the flat-rate charges. Not all personal pension providers levy flat-rate charges, and all such charges are now disclosed to individuals when they take out such pensions. The new age-related rebates have been calculated excluding flat-rate charges and have been based on the charges of the more efficient pension providers.
  I was asked whether people earning £10,000 a year or less should invest in personal pensions. There is no golden rule that people who earn less than that should remain in SERPS. It depends on the circumstances of the individual, investment performance and the charging structure. The fact that some providers use that figure is not proof that people would be unwise to take an appropriate personal pension with another provider. The hon. Member for Itchen has said:
  "There is no single, simple measure of whether an individual will be better off in SERPS or with an APP. This will depend on the cost and charges of individual schemes, the performance of investments and the number and level of contributions people make."
  That was a sensible comment, with which I would agree. It runs counter to some of the arguments that he was putting.
  Mr. Denham indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time telling us his views about people earning £6,000, £7,000 or £10,000 a year.
  Mr. Denham: It is a lot of people.
  Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman says in a semi-sedentary remark, it is a lot of people, but his comment in his 23 February press statement was more sensible. He asked whether I would confirm that there is no question of personal pensions beating the market. The Government Actuary was prudent in his assumptions, in estimating the size of the rebates needed to replace future SERPS that have been forgone. In practice, investment returns vary and may well exceed those assumptions. Over the past 15 years, fund returns have averaged almost 10 per cent. a year in real terms. In future reviews, the Government Actuary will, of course, take account of the latest information and assumptions.
  The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned that half the people who bought appropriate personal pensions in 1987–88 have failed to make regular contributions. I have already answered that by saying that it is not sensible or realistic to assume that a short period of zero or low contributions indicates a lifetime experience. He asked whether the Government were biased against the benefits offered by salary-related schemes. I can give a simple answer: no, we are not.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether flat-rate charges that were unrelated to the level of contributions made personal pensions a bad deal. I have answered that, too. He asked whether the 9 per cent. cap would cause people to go back into SERPS. We have decided to phase in age-related rebates by means of the 9 per cent. cap, but setting the cap at that level means that the majority of the

  457
  current APP holders should be able to maintain their plans until retirement without imposing an excessive cost to the public funds. In so far as other commentators may not agree with that, we do not believe that they are correct. [Interruption.] I could expatiate on that at great length, but I have had advice that that would not be wise.
  Mr. Denham: The Government's intention with the rebates is that people should normally hold their personal pensions until retirement. On that issue, the Government are saying not that people should seek the advice of an independent financial adviser, but that they should stay in their schemes because it will save the Government money and stop them opting back into SERPS, contrary to what some financial advisers are already saying.
  Mr. Heald: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comment was slightly mischievous. We always advise people to take independent financial advice. It is prudent to do so because individual circumstances vary. I would not wish to change that.
  The hon. Gentleman carped and criticised a good deal. He and his party's spokesman on social security have been asked to think the unthinkable for six months—180 days. For ideas, they have been to Singapore, Finland, Australia and Chile.
  Mr. Denham indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman says that he has not personally had the trips, but members of his team have. They have been around the world in 180 days like latter-day Phineas Foggs, but they have not found an answer any better than the Government's proposals. I commend the orders to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]

  Local Government Finance
  7.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 17) (House of Commons Paper No. 299), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 297), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
  Mr. Bowis: The first order sets out two grants for English local authorities. The first is the special transitional grant to local authorities in England for 1996–97 for expenditure on community care services. The second is the capital limits for residential accommodation charges grant for England. The second order sets out the allocation of the special grant to local authorities in Wales for the changes to the capital limits for residential accommodation charges.
  Special Grant Report No. 17 sets out the amount of special transitional grant—STG—for each English local authority for 1996–97. The total amount of the grant is £418 million. The special transitional grants for each of the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 have now been included in the standard spending assessment for personal social services. The total funding that we are giving in 1996–97 to English local authorities for their new responsibilities under the community care reforms is therefore £2.256 billion—a very substantial sum indeed. This is planned to rise still further, by another £325 million, next year.
  Even that is not the total provision that the Government are making for community care. The total provision for community care in England for 1996–97 is £5.6 billion, and the total funding for all social services is £7.4 billion. Total resources for community care have increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms this year on last and by 99 per cent. in real terms since 1990–91. That shows the substantial commitment that we have made to providing resources to enable local authorities to meet the needs of their local communities. Of course, it remains up to local authorities to decide how much of their general funding they actually spend on community care.
  Apart from the overriding condition that the resources be spent on community care, the only condition that we attach to the special transitional grant is that 85 per cent. of it should be used to purchase services from the independent sector, and that that is in addition to the amounts that authorities have been required to spend in the independent sector in previous years.
  The independent sector condition has proved to be an effective measure, giving stability to the market at a time of change, providing existing residents with security and opening up choice to the user. Local authorities should not close down options by creating false divides using restrictive accountancy practices to dictate phoney choice instead of offering real choice to the individual. In its

  459
  report, the Audit Commission said that accounting separately for the STG and other community care resources can lead to distortions, and that
  "where authorities apply maximum cost limits to packages of care … local authority services are sometimes … treated as a 'free good' … this practice distorts priorities".
  The Audit Commission recommended that
  "Resources need to be managed in an integrated way and merged into a single commissioning budget."
  We are providing large sums of money to local authorities for community care.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bowis: Yes, as it will give me time to find my place.
  Mr. Milburn: I am glad to be helpful, as ever. Can the Minister confirm that he still intends to end the ring fencing of STG moneys? This would be the last year of the ring fence. Also, how will he guarantee that community care funding goes where it is needed in future years, particularly given the environment that most local authorities operate in?
  Mr. Bowis: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is the fourth year of the four years that we said would have the transitional grant, which was ring-fenced. Although I have given an indication of the resources that will be available for that in future years, it will be up to local authorities to use the money wisely and ensure that it is spent as it should be, which is for community care and other personal social services.
  The determining factors in the expenditure of the money must be quality of service and value for money matched to the individual's needs and choices. When it comes to value for money, local authorities often need to bring down their costs. They need to consider carefully the justification for spending more on directly provided services than an equivalent service provided by the independent sector. The difference in costs when multiplied by the number of users presents some authorities with the opportunity of considerable savings in their present budgets, and they could be used to improve and extend the community care services they offer their local communities.
  This year, the distribution of the special transitional grant is again based on the standard spending assessment formulae. That is the most equitable method of distribution, as it is based on an assessment of the relative needs of each local authority.
  I now deal with special grants for the changes to capital limits used in the assessment of charges for residential care. Charging for residential care has been in place since a Labour Government introduced the National Assistance Act 1948. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his 1995 Budget statement, the capital limits used in the assessment of charges are being increased this month from £3,000 to £10,000 and from £8,000 to £16,000. The same rate of assumed weekly income will apply to capital between £10,000 and £16,000. The new limits take effect from 8 April this year.
  460
  The increases have been warmly welcomed by all concerned. They are excellent news for elderly and other vulnerable people who make a contribution out of their capital for care. The increases are to be funded through special grants for 1996–97 only because there was insufficient time left during this financial year following the Chancellor's announcement for them to be funded through the usual means of the SSAs for local authorities.
  I am grateful to the local authority associations for the help and advice they gave us and the information that they provided us with in working out how the increases should be financed. There are considerable difficulties in forecasting the future costs of such a change, as it involves an unknown number of people. There will inevitably be different views of the cost. Having taken into account the information gathered by the associations, it was clear that the Government's initial cost estimates for the effects on social services authorities were a little low, so we decided that £64.487 million for England and £3.882 million for Wales was right.
  Mr. Milburn: Having thanked the local authority associations, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that their estimate of the costs of the increase in the capital disregard is not £64 million but £141 million?
  Mr. Bowis: I am certainly happy to confirm that they put in a higher figure, just as the figure that we had initially been working on was lower. We considered the various factors that they presented. We felt that some were speculative. Others were what we deemed to be items that we could take into account. We listened and considered and came up with the increased figure, which is fair and will be judged as such.
  We decided to distribute the grant to English social service departments using the SSA for residential services for elderly people. For Wales, the local authority associations agreed that the SSA distribution formula for elderly personal social services would be an equitable basis for the distribution of the special grant for 1996–97. Again, it was for one year only. The distribution of the resources for future years will be made using the corresponding indicators in the SSA distribution formula.
  The Government have clearly shown their commitment to community care and made substantial resources available. These special grant reports provide for the distribution of additional funds to local authorities totalling more than£482 million for 1996–97 for England and £3.8 million for Wales. They are fair settlements. We now rely on the local authorities concerned to produce fair results for the people who are to benefit from them. I commend them to the House.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: I thank the Minister for outlining in a fairly succinct way the Government's views on the special transitional grant and community care funding. I am disappointed that this debate has taken place at the fag end of the parliamentary Session. Some might say that that shows that the Government have something to hide. Indeed, as I proceed through my speech, I shall try to highlight the fact that the community care system is coming under more pressure and that the very people it is supposed to support are beginning to be denied care.

  461
  At the outset, I should say that there are two issues on which there is agreement. First, community care is right in principle. The overwhelming majority of disabled and elderly people want to live as normal a life as possible in their own homes and contribute to the community.
  Secondly, all hon. Members will concur that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who organise and provide care in the community—not just local authorities, but private sector organisations and voluntary organisations, social workers, district nurses, home care assistants and staff who work in residential and nursing home establishments. They provide invaluable services, often in difficult circumstances. Their work is underpinned by those who provide care for free—the army of unpaid carers, often women, who are the foundation on which the whole community care edifice is built.
  There is no disagreement in principle with the thrust of community care—quite the opposite. There is unequivocal Opposition support for the community care principle. Our profound disagreements concern the way in which the Government have implemented community care. In our view, they have produced a chaotic, perverse and unfair system that denies choice, limits quality and wastes public money.
  The special grant report does nothing to correct those deficiencies. In some respects, it merely makes matters worse. In his canter through the facts, the Minister repeated the mantra that is all too often the common parlance of Health Ministers when they are in trouble—everything is fine because we are banging a lot more money into the system.
  Indeed, on a cursory examination of the figures in the report, the Minister seems to have fact on his side. On the face of it, there are lots of new resources and a substantial increase in funding, but the Minister omitted to mention two further factors that rather undermine his case. First, the social security transfer and independent living elements of the STG moneys do not represent new cash; the money was already in the system. The only difference now is that it is cash-limited.
  Secondly, the £418 million of STG highlighted in the report is a large element—indeed, the bulk element—of the £481 million that the Government suggest overall social services spending should increase by in the current financial year. In reality, total standard spending on social services this year is less than actual social services spending last year£that is before any account is taken of inflation, of pay rises and of additional responsibilities that local authorities will have to bear, including those resulting from the most welcome Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into being on Monday 1 April.
  The local authority associations' latest survey of social services departments has found that 48 out of 68 local authorities are having to make net reductions in budgets totalling approximately £116 million. In case the Minister thinks that that is purely vested interest, I point him towards other evidence. Independent analysts, such as Laing and Buisson, have said that the budget settlement for 1996–97 will not be sufficient to cover inflation and increased demand as a result of demographic change and additional local authority responsibilities, and that they are predicting severe bed blocking in the national health service as a consequence.
  Mr. Bowis: The Government have increased the resources for that area by 10 per cent. in cash terms this year and we have increased resources from £3.6 billion to £7.4 billion in six years. I ask the Opposition spokesman: how much more money would the Labour party put in right now?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall correct the Minister on one point: over the past three or four years, the personal social services SSA has fallen by around 5 per cent. in real terms, as he knows. As for additional investment, during my speech, the Minister will hear ways in which the Labour party proposes radical reform of community care provision to get better value for money—that is the pressing priority. Money alone will not solve the fundamental fault lines that now characterise community care provision.
  Far from there being lots of additional new cash available for community care services, at best there is a standstill budget in this financial year and at worst there is a lower budget than last year. However, as the Minister will know, demand for services has not stood still—quite the reverse: demand is rising sharply. The Government should not be reticent about that fact. Indeed, it could be argued that one of the real successes of the community care reforms has been the stimulation of demand for services from people who need them. That is very welcome.
  Last year, a report by the Association of Directors of Social Services showed referrals increasing by 14 per cent. per annum and assessments generally rising by 11 per cent. per annum. Against a background of rising demand, local authorities are continuing to uphold community care policy, but to provide a service to those most in need, they are reluctantly turning to rationing and charging for services.
  The Audit Commission has found that most authorities are increasing home care services, but I understand that a forthcoming report from the London Research Centre will find that packages of care are increasingly concentrated on those with the highest level of dependency. If local authorities cannot afford to support people with relatively low levels of need in their own homes, they may deteriorate quickly and enter residential care prematurely. We all agree that one of the central thrusts of community care policy has been prevention—ensuring that, as far as possible, people retain independence and do not become dependent—for the sake of the people involved and that of the taxpayer.
  There are also major flaws in the way charging policies are implemented. Financial constraints are leading more local authorities to charge more for local services, but there are almost as many charging systems as there are local authorities. This was one of the conclusions of the National Consumer Council report that was released a year or so ago. The National Consumer Council, the Audit Commission, local authority associations, many providers and patient organisations now argue that there is a need for much greater national clarity to govern local charging policies—and we endorse that view.
  We also take the view that other reforms are needed. During last year's debate, the Minister claimed to have removed any perverse incentives towards placing people in residential care. Such a claim now seems to have been somewhat premature. The Audit Commission said

  463
  recently that it is almost always substantially cheaper for local authorities, in the current financial environment, to place people in residential care, even when there is no difference between the gross cost of residential care and care at home. When residents qualify for the residential allowance in independent sector homes, there is an even bigger cost advantage in using residential care.
  Local authorities are working hard to maintain people in the community, in spite of that anomaly. Last month, the Audit Commission concluded that it was to many authorities' credit that they were increasing home care in line with the Government's policy, even though it was cheaper for them to make more use of residential care under the rather perverse financial arrangements that underpin the report that we are discussing. There is a clear danger that the successes of community care will gradually be reversed unless the perverse financial incentives are addressed as a matter of urgency.
  The threat of more institutionalisation is due in no small part to the impact of the NHS reforms on community care services, which the Government introduced. Competition between hospitals, pressure to increase patient throughput and NHS performance measures have all contributed towards the more rapid discharge of patients into the community. It is a classic case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. It is understandable, if not forgivable, when two separate Departments are involved in the decision-making process, but it is incomprehensible when one Department—the Department of Health—is responsible for the mismanagement.
  For all the talk of a primary care-led NHS, it is a change in the make-up of the acute health sector that is responsible for driving change in the community sector. It is also becoming increasingly clear that community care services are being overwhelmed with increased responsibilities. Recently, Age Concern reported that elderly people are being forced into residential care due to excessive waits for occupational therapy assessments.
  The impact of these policy failures on local authorities is also severe. They have been forced to absorb additional costs shunted on to them by the NHS, for which no financial allowance has been made. In particular, NHS disinvestment from continuing care responsibilities has produced a redefinition of responsibilities between health and social services. The Alzheimer's Disease Society—among many organisations—has voiced concern about the impact of these changes on vulnerable people.
  During the 1980s, back-door privatisation was taking place right under the public's nose. There was an unplanned explosion in private residential care, which was encouraged by Government policy, and then it was crudely restrained as benefit bills spiralled out of control. Costs to the taxpayer rocketed from £10 million to over £2,000 million. Those who now have to sell their homes as a consequence of the brakes being slammed on—an estimated 40,000 people a year—are rightly angry because they had fondly believed that the taxes they paid covered care from the cradle to the grave. They now find themselves in a grotesque game of pass the buck as cash-strapped health authorities and local authorities shunt responsibility back and forth.
  Worse still, by passing responsibility to individual health authorities to decide which continuing care services should be available to elderly people, the Government
  464
  have created a lottery in community care provision. Only a few weeks ago, even the Department was forced to rap the knuckles of health authorities that had produced inappropriate continuing care eligibility criteria.
  The picture is clear. It is obvious that the care that a person receives and the price that he pays for it depend on where he lives. We, the Opposition, say that that sort of national lottery should have no part to play in the NHS or in any civilised system of community care.
  The report does nothing to correct fundamental deficiencies in the system of providing and funding community care. The Government have produced a system that is chaotic, perverse and fundamentally unfair. The system cannot cope with increased demand because it is riddled with fault lines. Pouring in more money alone will not sort out the mess. The pressing priority is for a far-reaching reform of how the system operates in practice. That requires a new approach. We believe that four reforms are needed.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Labour reforms?
  Mr. Milburn: Four Labour reforms are needed, as the Government Whip says from a sedentary position.
  First, there is a need to offer more choice for community care service users. The stark lack of choice in the community care market, polarised between fairly low levels of domiciliary provision and fairly high levels of expensive residential provision, often means that intermediate forms of care are unavailable to those who can best benefit from them.
  The current gaps in provision deny choice to the individual who needs care, and load unnecessary additional costs on the taxpayer. A range of services is needed, including home-based care, respite care, convalescent care and residential care. We want the Government to remove perverse financial incentives towards more institutional forms of care. Institutionalisation is the very reverse of what community care is supposed to be all about.
  In that context, it is disappointing that, through the report, the Minister has decided to retain the requirement that local authorities must spend the bulk of their STG budgets in the independent sector. Surely the requirement for them to do so has long since gone. By and large, there is a well-developed mixed economy of care that is thriving in most parts of the country.
  Secondly, there is a need to end the lottery in the provision of community care services. The Government could begin by introducing, after consultation with users, carers, providers and statutory bodies, a national framework for local charging policies. We, the Opposition, support the call that has been made by the Select Committee on Health for a nationally set framework that specifies eligibility criteria for long-term care so as to define what the health service, a national service, should provide. We support that approach. Do the Government support it?
  We think that the Select Committee's call for a national long-term care charter so that people may know what they can expect from health, housing and social services is absolutely right. We support that; do the Government?
  Thirdly, there is a need to improve standards in community care services. Standards will rise, however, only if there are appropriate safeguards. We, the

  465
  Opposition, recognise the benefits that can flow from a mixed economy of social care that involves public and independent providers. We are in favour of diversity. We are in favour also of consistency. Our concern is to ensure that there is a level playing field of high standards in all forms of care in the private sector, in the public sector, in residential provision and in domiciliary provision. I hope that the Minister's response to the moving forward of the consultation process will concur with the Opposition's.
  Fourthly, there is a need to end the waste of time and money that now bedevils the planning and supply of community care services. That means finding ways of overcoming differences in values and structures between local government and the NHS that can frustrate joint working. When local authorities and health authorities tussle over responsibilities and resources, it is the elderly person and the disabled person who loses out. We want new, nationally agreed mechanisms—if necessary, enforced—to speed co-operation among the three principal organisations that are charged with the planning and delivery of community care services; health, housing and social services.
  The four-point plan that I have outlined would broaden choice, raise standards and provide better value for money. Instead, the Government seem content to pour money into a black hole. Our reforms would be the basis on which to provide long-term care for the elderly in future.
  We are proposing a radical shift in the way community care services are planned and delivered. The current system is unfair, restrictive and inefficient. Our proposed changes to community care policies would provide more choice, higher standards and better value for money. Our proposals will help to bring order where there is now chaos, fairness where there is now injustice and consistency where there is now a lottery. Above all, they would bring security to people in old age, where there is now glaring insecurity.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I shall speak to the Special Grant Report (Wales). Before doing so, however, I take up the Minister's opening statement.
  In general terms, the Minister claimed that the Government had introduced a substantial cash increase over a number of years. The Minister may recall that when we were debating the principle of community care in the late 1980s, especially in response to Sir Roy Griffiths's report, he suggested that if community care were introduced a proportion of those who claimed to be inappropriately placed in residential homes and nursing homes might wish to be cared for in their own homes.
  The policy was introduced on the basis that a proportion of those claiming to be inappropriately placed would be cared for in their own homes. We now find that the number of people making that choice is much greater than anyone anticipated. The proportion of those who are choosing to stay at home as against going into residential nursing homes is substantially greater than hitherto, and I accept that it is greater than anyone on either side of the House expected. The cost of providing care at home is greater than providing care in a residential home. Local authorities in Wales are saying that the Government have
  466
  not gone far enough to meet the demand for care at home. Some local authorities in Wales are saying that the financial shortfall this year is quite substantial.
  The Minister said that local authorities should be seeking ways in which to become more cost-effective, by becoming enablers rather than providers. However, it is difficult for local authorities to do that, especially in extremely rural areas such as the one that I represent—the former county of Gwynedd, which is now the two counties of new Gwynedd and Ynys Mon—because there is no private sector to develop. It is therefore difficult for local authorities to consider moving along that line. There is a highly developed voluntary sector, but not an independent sector.
  Local authorities in areas of Wales such as the one that I represent therefore do not have a choice, even if they agree with the Government's ideology and accept that that represents the direction in which they should be going. These are important considerations in the context of the debate.
  I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) about local authorities in England. Similarly, local authorities in Wales believe that the Government have underestimated the amount that authorities require to meet some of the changes introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget—changes that we all welcome, although they do not go so far as some would have liked. The Government had to make up the funding shortfall for local authorities this year in order to meet those changed circumstances.
  I have asked three local authorities in Wales—Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Ynys Mon—about their feelings regarding the provisions made under the order that we are discussing today. As set out in the Government's order, Ceredigion receives about £100,000, Gwynedd receives £191,000 and Ynys Mon receives £96,000. The local authorities tell me that the shortfall for the three counties totals £164,500—in addition to the cut that each local authority says that it will have to make in its general budget, including cuts in community care. I then asked the local authorities to tell me the reasons for that shortfall and the way in which the sums were calculated.
  I am told that the Welsh Office estimates were based on figures arrived at after consulting the old counties and using a historical formula. The figures were also based on the current number of people in residential and nursing homes. The local authorities believe that it is also important to take into account those for whom the option of residential or nursing home care is now more attractive as a result of the Budget changes. The local authorities face the added burden of having to assess people for contributions who were previously outside the system. Therefore, there will be additional expenditure.
  Local authorities will also have to consider employing more staff or part-time staff to meet the extra workload that the new system involves. The local authorities estimate that there will be more applicants to assess and that the system for assessing short-stay and long-stay patients will differ. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he winds up the debateshort—stay patients will not benefit from the new Budget announcement, as their contributions will be based on the old system. However, long-term patients will benefit from the new capital threshold. In short, the local authorities

  467
  that I have consulted believe that the Government have underestimated the demand and the need for extra staff to deal with the assessment procedures.
  The local authorities estimate that the Government have not provided sufficient additional finance this year. If the local authorities' estimates are correct, will the Government do a reassessment during the year to see whether additional funding may be made available? While welcoming the assessment that has been provided through the special grant, I ask the Minister to assess the situation throughout the year and, if the local authorities prove correct, to meet their concerns.
  8.33 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: I should like to take this opportunity to complain about the small amount of grant that Stockport has received as compensation for the loss of income due to the changes in capital disregard.
  The elderly residential standard spending assessment being used for the distribution of the specific grant comprises a number of indicators. These include, first, the number of elderly people living alone; secondly, the number of elderly on income support; thirdly, the number of residents in residential homes. The formula benefits those authorities with greater numbers of people on income support who are less likely to own their own homes. The SSA is reduced for local authorities with greater income as a result of residents having capital assets following the sale of property or receiving occupational pensions.
  The situation is further complicated by the fact that the all-ages social index is used when calculating the overall SSA. It reflects, among other factors, the proportion of persons living in accommodation that is not self-contained; the proportion of persons without exclusive use of a bath or an inside toilet; and the proportion of elderly persons living in privately rented or housing association accommodation. Thus, if a council has a successful housing policy and also has more elderly people who are owner-occupiers, it will receive less central Government assistance. That is not a point of dispute in itself, but the value that each factor is given when calculating the revenue support grant is indeed a point of dispute.
  The Department of Health has commissioned research regarding SSAs in two areas—children and the elderly—and both projects are due to report in June. I believe that that research is important. Before the introduction of the poll tax, the central Government contribution to Stockport, as elsewhere, was about one third of the council's total revenue expenditure on services. Since then, the situation has been reversed. Councils are also capped, which makes the new research very important in identifying indicators that will more sensitively match grant to need.
  I return to my complaint about the distribution of the £64.487 million specific grant. As I have said, the SSA is reduced for those authorities which have more elderly people with capital assets—that is, home owners. Yet those authorities will lose income as a result of the capital disregard changes. Stockport calculated that it would need £822,000 to compensate for loss of income—£600,000 to compensate for loss of income from existing residents,
  468
  and £222,000 to compensate for existing residents and patients whose capital decline brings them into new eligibility criteria and for new residents and patients admitted to care in 1996–97.
  Stockport was given a grant of £331,000, which is half what it needs to meet the known loss of income from existing residents. The Government cannot have it both ways: if the SSA is reduced to reflect expected income from charges in residential and nursing homes, it is not unreasonable to expect those authorities with higher incomes to be compensated at a higher level as a result of the increase in the disregard, as they are likely to lose the most income.
  From Stockport's point of view, it is ridiculous that the distribution mechanism for the specific grant is not based on actual loss of income as it was supposed to compensate authorities for loss of income. In a letter to the director of social services, Bob Lewis, on 20 March, the Department of Health said:
  "the Association's survey of authorities' estimated costs was indeed very helpful to us, particularly in relation to the information about residents already known to the authorities".
  It was so helpful that it persuaded the Minister to provide more specific grant overall, but it was not helpful in providing a grant which reflected Stockport's estimated, or even actual, costs.
  I understand that the Minister argues that, as it is a one-off payment, applying a different distribution mechanism would risk significant changes to authorities' shares of the funding between the two years. Stockport is grateful for any offer of stability from the Government, but we would have preferred that stability to take account of fairness as well. It is not a fair distribution, particularly as Stockport is a capped authority. The social services division already faces cuts of up to £3 million, which must inevitably affect its ability to deliver support services to elderly and disabled people living at home—that is to say, community care.
  The £500,000 shortfall must come from somewhere. The authority already has comprehensive charging policies for support services provided to people living at home. The £500,000 can be made up only at the cost of community care, which is delivered to people at home.
  I am absolutely fed up with asking the local authority to consider requests from my constituents for something as simple as a shower, for example. People who cannot get into the bath unaided need a shower, which can make a dramatic difference to their quality of life. They cannot get a shower, because the authority does not have the money for that level of community care provision. That is an absolute disgrace, and the situation will be made much worse by the fact that Stockport has been robbed of £500,000 by the Minister. In future, I shall send all requests from my constituents for showers to the Minister: let him explain why they cannot have them. The authority does not have the money because of the unfairness of the way in which the specific grant has been distributed.
  I hope that the Minister will listen to my plea: if later in the year he considers a supplementary grant, Stockport should be top of the list. May we have our £500,000 back?
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I shall confine my comments to the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996. I shall not make any comments on England, which will give one Minister at least a well deserved respite.

  469
  I shall examine the implications of annex B of the report. On 13 April 1993, the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Order 1992 came into force, and it impinges on the report. On 23 February 1995 Welsh Office circular 95/7, headed "NHS Responsibilities for Meeting Continuing Health Care Needs", was put out. The connection between that and the report before us today is that the report builds on a basic principle that the Government are still intent on pursuing—that of means testing.
  The Chancellor fiddled with the means testing requirement in the Budget. He thought that he was improving the position so that—rightly, in my view, if one accepts the principle of means testing—people who had a certain amount of capital were able to retain that capital at a higher level than hitherto. None the less, the principle that people who have paid national insurance contributions through their lifetime to ensure that they would not have to dip into their savings in old age is still Government policy and is still contained in the report.
  The 1992 order brought nursing homes into the remit of the National Assistance Act 1948. The residential home sector was already covered by that Act, but the private nursing home sector was brought into the same category. The 1995 Welsh Office circular amended the 1991 Welsh Office circular. I remind Ministers, not that they need reminding, of the charade and masquerade—I do not like using those words too often—and the difficulty that the Government put professionals into by that circular.
  I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and we considered this topic in 1992. On 5 February 1995 I asked a senior officer of the Gwynedd social services department, Mr. Williams, whether the Welsh Office was making the job of professionals impossible through the means testing system, and he agreed. In column 159 of the minutes of evidence, he said:
  "I quite agree with the sentiments you are expressing. What we have to look at is the pressures on those people in those circumstances, and they are quite appalling. Sometimes it is a kind of social conspiracy, almost, involving a number of people, quite unconsciously, to achieve certain tidy outcomes, which is residential nursing home care."
  A tidy outcome is residential nursing home care.
  The clear point was that there were two types of people being discharged from hospital to private nursing homes, and that is relevant to the report that we are discussing today. There were the people who knew their rights and who refused to be means tested under the 1991 Welsh Office circular: they said that they would stay unless they were forced to leave. Then there were the others—the majority—who did not have that circular to hand in their hospital beds and who were discharged to a private nursing home under the guise that they had to be means-tested.
  Some people knew their rights—they knew that the health authority would have to pay for them to be in a private nursing home if they were discharged—but most people were told a different story by the professionals, who were under enormous pressure in the acute sector to discharge people under an almost false pretence that the law was on the side of the professionals. That is what is behind Mr. Williams' point.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has my hon. Friend seen the latest statistics—I believe that they date from December 1994, certainly no later than that—which
  470
  show that only 45 people in private nursing homes in Wales are paid for by the health authorities? That is about 0.3 per cent. of people in nursing homes in Wales.
  Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am aware of those statistics.
  The reluctance of many health authorities in Wales to pay for anyone to be in a private nursing home is shown up clearly in those statistics. I am glad that the Government have addressed that issue. In other words, they eventually—four years later—decided that the situation was not acceptable. They were content to leave that situation for that length of time. They were quick enough to rush legislation through the House yesterday, but they were not prepared to do the same for elderly and vulnerable people. However, I am glad that the Government eventually—slowly, but surely—saw the light.
  I am pleased that the change has come about, but the report rests on an important circular, to which I have already referred. It was issued in 1995 by the Welsh Office and amended the circular of 1991. My personal view is that government by circular is not very satisfactory. I am uncomfortable with the way in which circulars are churned out by Government Departments. Nevertheless, the circular on which the report rests is about the discharge of people from hospitals. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about the current practice in relation to paragraph 25 of that circular.
  The report before us today assumes that money will be made available to enable implementation of that paragraph of the circular, which contains four pieces of information that hospitals should make available to patients before discharge. The Welsh Office relies on a manual on hospital discharge practice issued in December 1994, which is the latest in a series of hospital discharge workbooks.
  What does the Minister intend to do about information that is clearly not being provided under the terms of the circular? It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that the structure and operation of the health service is satisfactory. When it is not, what will be done? I shall not read all four of the relevant paragraphs, but perhaps the Minister can deal with them comprehensively. I am sure that he has the circular in front of him, or soon will have.
  It states:
  "hospitals should provide simple written information about how hospital discharge procedures will operate and what will happen if patients need continuing care".
  When I visited a hospital recently, I could have caused a major upheaval because I went from bed to bed asking patients who were about to be discharged whether they had received that information. I had the circular in my pocket. The hospital staff looked at me rather charily, wondering what I was doing.
  What has the Minister been doing to check that patients who are being discharged are given the relevant information? My guess is that not many patients receive it. I make the same point as in relation to the discharge of means-tested patients between 1991 and 1995: what is the use of a finance order which changes the method of means testing patients who are being discharged if the circular on which the order is based does not do what it should?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): To save the hon. Gentleman time, if he will write to me about the particular hospital

  471
  that he visited, which did not seem to be complying with any instructions or guidance from my Department, I shall be more than happy to look into the matter.
  Mr. Wardell: I should be more interested if the Minister would write and tell me—or tell the House now—what powers he has to ensure adherence to the guidance. What can he do?
  The order may extend and continue, rather than address, the anomaly that, if a person who is to be discharged from hospital to a private nursing home returns to his or her own home, the capital value of that individual's property would not be taken into account at £16,000 or any other level by the local authority in assessing the charges to be levied against that person. I am worried that the Government may seek to correct that anomaly by including the capital value in that calculation, which I would not want them to do.
  My third point—I shall not continue the debate until 10 o'clock, although I do not often have the opportunity—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That will not be possible.
  Mr. Morgan: That was my fault.
  Mr. Wardell: I was informed by a Front-Bench Member that the debate could continue until 10 o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am glad that you have made that point.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate can continue until 9.26 pm.
  Mr. Wardell: Yes, and I must remember that we have yet to hear the winding-up speeches.
  We see in the current system a division of boundaries, whereby private nursing home patients fall into two categories—and those who are not subject to means testing, which the order continues, may be in the same room as those who are. A line is drawn according to whether an individual is to be a social care or a medical care case. I shall not debate the subject of incontinence pads because the Minister must be fed up with the problem of who pays for them.
  The hospital doctor and the multi-disciplinary team considering the patient who is to be discharged will have to decide his or her future. Whatever their decision, if no long-term beds are available in the hospital service, the individual who is paid for by the health authority will be placed in a private nursing home. Some patients pay for themselves, whatever the capital limits, and some do not. The order builds on that divisive situation.
  Although I am pleased in one sense that the Government have at last ended the anomaly introduced by the 1991 Welsh Office circular, even though it has taken them four years to learn the folly of their ways, I remain concerned that, despite the new capital limits, we are left with a means-tested system which does not make universal provision but is divisive and leads to some patients in the same institution being means-tested while others are not.
  472
  I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This is almost the last debate of this part of the current Session, and I suppose that Oscar Wilde might have said that nothing recedes like the recess for those of us who are left here this Wednesday night.
  The change in the capital disregards that created the need for the order are part of the Government's two-pronged approach to ease the problem facing people with reasonable means who—because they scrimped and saved to purchase their homes, buy shares or acquire pension entitlements—fail the means test. The Prime Minister has made a big fuss in speeches over the past year or two, and as recently as last Friday, of using a phrase about wealth cascading down through the generations.
  The problem is that wealth has not been cascading down the generations. This measure and others that we expect later this year are an attempt to make the Prime Minister's idealised version of the country which he is running appear to come true. I understand that about 40,000 people a year who have failed a means test for community care eventually have to sell their houses. One of the favourite phrases of the last Prime Minister was "a property-owning democracy". For many elderly people, this is a property-disowning democracy for those who require a long spell of care.
  The Government have set about trying to remedy the problem created by their changes to the structure of the NHS and local authority social services provision. The problem for them is that their rhetoric has gone one way and their policy actions another, causing many people to sell their houses so as to stay in nursing homes and old people's homes. I hope that the Minister will shortly be able to confirm my figure of 40,000 houses a year having to be sold to enable people to have long-term care, and will tell us by how much he expects the figure to fall as a result of the change to the capital disregard.
  My figures do not come from the Government—
  Mr. Streeter: Ah!
  Mr. Morgan: The Government Whip need not get so excited. I make no apology for taking my figures from Laing and Buisson, commonly regarded as the bible on all matters relating to long-term care. The figure was given in recent evidence to the Health Select Committee, but if it is wrong I am happy to be corrected. The important thing is to find out how many fewer houses will have to be sold to allow for nursing home care as a result of this measure.
  I wonder whether the Government will be able to put some more flesh on the speech made by the Prime Minister on Friday, to cover the other aspect of the Government's two-pronged approach. The Government want to introduce a partnership insurance scheme under which they will pay for long-term care after the first three years provided that people buy insurance for those first three years. Will that have a direct impact on the fear that old people have that they may not in the end be able to pass on their houses to relatives because they will have to trade their houses in for long-term care?

  473
  This debate also enables us to touch on other significant changes going on simultaneously. The change we are discussing tonight will take effect from Easter Monday, but on 1 April three other changes in related areas took effect. I hope that you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I would be in order if I mentioned them.
  The first change concerns the new statutory right of a carer to have his or her needs assessed by local authorities. Thus local authorities will become instrumental in determining whether people need to go into old people's homes; if they decide that they do, the means-testing operation will be triggered. That in turn will depend on whether a carer at home can last out without becoming ill from strain and stress. That again depends on whether enough respite care is available—usually from a son, daughter or spouse. This change may also have a bearing on the number of people affected by the order.
  The second change dating from 1 April concerns the new health authorities and local authorities in England and Wales. In Wales until 1 April, county council social service departments and health authorities had more or less identical boundaries, so there was a natural tendency to co-operate and work together. Pembrokeshire was the one exception, but that did not cause much difficulty, because it remained a subdivision of a social services authority.
  During the coming year, the Minister will need to ensure that the former tendency towards co-operative working arrangements between health authorities and social service departments—in respect of hospital discharge, for instance—is not dissipated. Instead of eight or nine health authorities and social service authorities in Wales, there will now be five and 22 respectively. The Minister will need to monitor the situation over the next 12 months to be sure that the system does not start falling apart.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) raised another important issue relating to the changes which were made recently, and which are still being digested. They are significant to the order. The orders for England and Wales refer to the fact that they are based on the provisions that have been around since 1948 under which one can means-test anyone who goes to a nursing home or old people's home.
  The point raised by my hon. Friend is significant because, until a few months ago, one did not have to go into a nursing home or an old people's home. If a person wanted to remain in a long-stay bed in the geriatric ward of his local hospital, he could insist on doing so. A person may believe that that choice will cost him a fortune and that he may have to sell his house to fund it, but he would be perfectly within his rights to insist on a bed.
  That voluntary principle has now gone. The change does not equal continuity with the previous provisions. What was voluntary is now compulsory. If a health authority says that someone must go into a nursing home or an old people's home, it has the force of law behind it. Until the ombudsman's case—
  Mr. Bowis indicated dissent.
  Mr. Morgan: I sorry that I have to cross swords with the Minister, but he is wrong. Should he check before the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replies to the debate, he will find that my argument is not ill founded.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: The crucial point behind the remarks of my hon. Friend is that, if it was decided under
  474
  the old system that existed until a few months ago that an elderly person needed to be discharged to a private nursing home, that person would now be asked whether he would prefer to be means-tested or not. If he said that he preferred not to be means-tested, the health authority would face the dilemma of either having to keep that person in a bed or paying for him to go to a nursing home.
  Mr. Bowis indicated dissent.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is right, and I am pleased that he has clarified the matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, although I note that the hon. Gentleman is still shaking his head. I hope that the advice offered by the Welsh Office Minister will clarify the matter for the Minister responsible for England. I can only express a certain amount of gratitude for the fact that he is not responsible for Wales.
  A level playing field must be established between domiciliary and residential care. That is at the heart of the debate. The orders for England and Wales apply only to people going into nursing homes or old people's homes. They do not apply, and do not increase the capital disregard for those who come out of hospital, or who have never been in hospital, who require domiciliary care. The orders do not have any effect on that care, except perhaps by moral suasion or implication, without any force of law.
  The statute that we will pass just has an impact on people going into old people's homes and residential care homes. That poses a real problem for the Government, because true community care must involve the domiciliary care package. I would go further, because I believe that it must give preference to domiciliary care to be true community care.
  The Government have always had the problem of not being sure whether nursing care homes, some of which often consist of 50 beds or perhaps 100 beds, or old people's homes are equivalent to community care. What is the difference between a cottage hospital, which is not considered to offer community care, and a large nursing home with 50 or 100 beds? The latter is considered to be equivalent to community care—search me why—and the other is considered as NHS institutional care. That distinction is rubbish.
  The actual community care that we should provide is domiciliary care, yet the order does not refer to it. The least we could ask for is a level playing field. One may want to increase the capital disregards so that people do not have to sell their houses, or get rid of the savings that they might otherwise be able to pass on to their children, to fund long-term care in a nursing home or in an old people's home, but why on earth should not the same rules apply, with the same force of statute to raise the capital disregards, to domiciliary care packages? Let us at least have a level playing field. In my opinion we should go beyond that; domiciliary care should come first, because it represents true community care.
  I hope that the Minister will address that problem. Perhaps he will give the Government's up-to-date thinking at this crucial stage, when they are devoting so much effort, as late as Friday, into trying to explain how wealth will still cascade down the generations in a way that is compatible with their thinking on community care. We want to know their thinking on such care.
  Does it include domiciliary care in one's own home? Just as important as passing on one's home to a child or grandchild is the right to stay in that home until it is

  475
  medically unavoidable that one has to have institutional care in, for example, an old people's home or a nursing home. We heard nothing about that from the Minister. He simply throws around the phrase "community care" but does not say why the measures that we are discussing avoid domiciliary care, which is where the interface exists between the NHS and social service departments.
  There has been a major withdrawal by the NHS from long-term care provision and even from care in the community. District nurses no longer carry out such a wide range of functions as they used to. There is now an absurd distinction between social bathing, usually carried out by home carers, and medical bathing, which has to be done by district nurses. I am told that, at least for men, the distinction is based on whether the bathing includes bathing below the waist. If it does, it must be done by a district nurse.
  A constituent of mine has severe leg ulcers. If they are suppurating, the dressings are changed by the district nurse; if they are merely quiescent, they are changed by the home carer. That would have been absurd five years ago, but the NHS no longer provides what used to be considered the proper caring component of the NHS district nursing function.
  Why do the Government consider it wise for the NHS to withdraw from that sphere and leave it to the local authority when, at the same time, they are doing absolutely nothing to change the capital disregards for local authorities when they—the local authorities—come to decide whether they should be means-testing the person involved?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) was right to say that there is no rhyme or reason in the Government's explanation of how they have calculated the amounts to be given to English and Welsh authorities. It is a wholly improper procedure. The purpose of the statute is to compensate local authorities for the income that they will lose because of their inability to means-test people with an income of less than £8,000 or less than £16,000.
  The measure is meant to compensate them, but it will not, because the calculation is made on the original needs basis, which has nothing to do with the compensation requirement. Some authorities will gain and some will lose, but the outcome bears no relation to the intention behind the measures. Just as people were supposed to be checking what public expenditure was used for, these measures may finish up before the Public Accounts Committee as legislative absurdities. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) was also well taken. In some areas there are many private nursing homes, but in others there are not. That is a big problem. I have already referred to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower.
  On the same day the Government laid the English and Welsh orders, the Treasury Select Committee had asked the Government whether it was true that the Government had not properly estimated the additional expenses faced by local authorities. It had been estimated that the cost of changing the capital disregard would be £60 million. The Committee said that it thought that the Government had underestimated the amount. The Treasury wrote back to the
  476
  Committee in January, saying that there was no problem and that local authority social service departments would be able to act as "gatekeepers". The Committee replied that it did not think that that was the case and asked the Government to check with local authorities and talk to social workers.
  The ultimate humiliation for a Government who sometimes pride themselves on being careful with public expenditure occurred on 18 March when—[Interruption.] Before the Under-Secretary of State for Wales cheers, perhaps he had better listen to what the Treasury said to the Treasury Select Committee, on the same day that the orders were laid, and on this very subject.
  Paragraph 51 of the Government's response to the Treasury Committee's report on this year's Budget states:
  "The Government has now consulted with the local authorities and
  has listened to their views on the net increase in costs they face as a result of the increase in the disregard levels. In light of further evaluation of the information provided by the local authorities, the Government has decided, subject to Parliamentary approval, to make an increased provision available to local authorities. This provision will be charged to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure in 1996–97."
  What we are doing tonight is not the full story. At a later date the Government will have to come back with a different figure, and apologise to the House for having got their figures wrong in the first place. Why did they get their figures wrong in the first place? Because, as always, they did not ask the people who would be affected. They did not ask the local authorities what figure they would face as a result of the change in the capital disregard.
  The Government have had to apologise to the Treasury Select Committee. I hope that, as a representative of a Government who clearly cannot count because they do not consult, the Minister will now apologise to the House.
  9.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): When I faced the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) across the Dispatch Box yesterday in connection with a different matter, I hoped that I would not have to see him again before Easter. Sadly, however, that was not to be.
  As usual, Opposition Members have found little positive to say, but the plain fact is that our community care reforms are working. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) that he does not appreciate that the policy must be planned over 10 years before its full fruition: we are not even a third of the way through that process. More people are being cared for in their own homes or in homely residential care in their local communities, and they have more choice about how they receive the care that they need. That is what people want, and that is what our policies are delivering for them.
  Let me deal with some of the serious points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) said that the capital limit special grant in Wales was underfunded, and that he had spoken to some county councils in Wales. We also asked councils to give us their estimates of the costs that they would face, and they came up with a figure of roughly £3 million. In fact, we are providing £3.88 million, which is more than they asked for.
  Before the hon. Gentleman suggests that our method of calculation underestimated future demand for places, let me tell him that we considered not only the current

  477
  number of people in care but the potential increase for most people who would now find it a more attractive option, because they would not have to contribute. I hope that that sets his mind at rest.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about additional mid-year funding. We shall look at the outcome at the end of this year, and if there are lessons to be learned, we shall consider the funds that we shall provide in 1997–98.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—who seems to have lost interest in the debate for the moment—was rather critical of the formula on the basis of which her authority claimed to have been disadvantaged. As she will know, Stockport is a member of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the formula that was used was recommended by the association. She will not need me to tell her that it is controlled by her party. I suggest with respect, therefore, that she write to her representatives on the authority and complain as bitterly to them as she did to the Government earlier.
  With regard to resources for her authority, between 1990–91 and 1996–97, total personal social service resources for Stockport have increased by 58 per cent. in real terms. In the past year, total resources for community care have increased by 10 per cent.—the same as elsewhere in England, so her authority has not been disadvantaged.
  The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was, as usual, meticulous in his approach. He told us the touching story of his visiting hospitals to ask patients questions, but the first question that he should have asked—and I am sure I know what the answer would have been, almost universally—was whether they wanted to leave hospital. The vast majority of people in hospital want to go home or just to get out. If he knows of anyone who would prefer to be in hospital than to go home, I should like to know who it is and what the circumstances are.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about people staying in hospital indefinitely—these mythical people who might choose to stay there. He must know that no one has ever had the right to stay in hospital indefinitely. He will have read and understood the 1995 guidance on national health service responsibilities for long-term care. It is not a change in policy, as he implied.
  We have confirmed and clarified the health service's responsibilities for meeting the needs of people with continuing health care needs, whether in hospital, in the community or in other settings. From 1 April, health authorities have been required to publish policies and eligibility criteria, which make clear their commitment and the basis on which decisions in individual cases are taken.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Richards: With respect, I have only a few minutes left and I want to cover many more points.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me sincerely what I would do if hospitals did not provide the information that they should be providing. Clearly, my officials and I will consider and monitor that closely. He asked about the difference in assessing short-stay and long-stay residents. Local authorities can use the same financial assessment and capital limits for both, but anyone who stays less than eight weeks does not have to be assessed. The local authority can set what one might describe as a reasonable charge.
  478
  The Department of Social Security will be using two sets of limits. People who go into residential care for only short periods will not be reassessed for income support based on the higher capital limits. It would be disruptive to reassess them for income support at such frequent intervals. The hon. Gentleman raised some more points, on which I will write to him, but I must deal with other points.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised the issue of 40,000 houses sold per year. I do not know where he got that figure from. I am not aware that it is a Government figure. I should like to know where he got it from to find out whether we can attach any credence it.
  The hon. Member for Darlington did not, of course, raise the issue of funding, although he came up with a four-point plan and talked about planning, revaluation and changes after only three years. I know that, by diktat of the Leader of the Opposition, he is not allowed to do that, but the British people are entitled to know what budgetary or financial resource changes would be implied were there to be a Labour Government.
  We are committed to ensuring choice in community care. Choice underpins our reforms. We do not mean choice at any price. Public funds are limited and choice must be balanced against cost. But we do mean people having a real say in where they receive the care that they need. The direction on choice was introduced specifically to give people that say. Local authorities need to take that carefully into account when they plan their use of their community care budgets.
  If any individual is not satisfied with his or her care arrangements, he or she has, of course, the right to take that up through the complaints procedure. We have made it clear to authorities that we expect them to have complaints procedures which people know about and which are easy to use.
  Community care is all about individuals. It is about making sure that individuals receive the care and support that they need. But it is also about making sure that people who need community care and their carers are involved more widely in helping to shape the services provided to their communities.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Richards: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am very pleased that we have been able to provide the extra help with regard to capital disregard for people in residential and nursing homes. We know that it has been widely welcomed. We have two aims—to help people who have worked hard and saved prudently, and to avoid putting too heavy a burden on taxpayers. The new limits strike the right balance.
  The resources—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [29 March].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 17) (House of Commons Paper No. 299), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 297), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

  Antarctica
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased to have another debate on Government policy towards Antarctica. I am grateful that it is at a reasonable hour because, on other occasions, such debates have taken place in the middle of the night. I have a personal fascination for the subject and that is why I have applied for previous Adjournment debates on it.
  There have been two recent pieces of legislation on Antarctica. The first was the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which was strongly opposed by the Opposition because it envisaged the possibility of mineral exploration in Antarctica for commercial gain, which was completely at variance with the earlier 1959 treaty. I am glad to say that that legislation has now been superseded by the Antarctic Act 1994, which gives effect to the environmental protocol signed in Madrid in 1991. That was an enormous step forward.
  Many people might ask why the House of Commons is debating Antarctica and what relevance it has to the everyday lives of ordinary people. I can understand why people might ask that question, but the answer is simple. We can study in Antarctica a continent in more or less its pristine beauty. We can also study at first hand the effects of gross exploitation of, in particular, the fauna of the continent and the seas around it, and the destruction of the large whale population within the area, a destruction that has meant that now only the Minke whales have a population of anything like the natural size of 100 years ago. Every other species of whale is grossly threatened. In some cases, the numbers surviving are so small that it is difficult to see how they can breed successfully in the future without developing genetic disorders.
  In the past, the area has been over-fished. That is now more or less under control, but the vast amount of krill that have been taken out of Antarctica is a cause for concern because that has a knock-on effect on the natural life cycle of so many other mammals and fish within the seas around Antarctica.
  Aside from the carnage of the whale population and the destruction of so many beautiful mammals, Antarctica has been a place of inspiration to many people, not only scientific explorers. The wonderful poem "The Ancient Mariner" is about a journey to the Antarctic, and is a description of the beauties of the southern ocean.
  My purpose in this debate is to recognise what has gone before. Even at the height of the cold war, during the 1957 International Geophysical Year, countries were able to get together and consider ways of protecting and preserving Antarctica as a place of beauty and peace. In 1959, the treaty was signed at Washington. The document is held by the United States Government in Washington, as host to the signatories. It is still a relevant document which protects the continent in its natural form and beauty from war and military presence. That was an enormous step forward.
  Moves were made by a number of people who had an eye, albeit recognising the enormous technical difficulties, to the possibilities of exploitation of minerals in Antarctica. There are possibly vast mineral resources

  481
  there. That was what was behind the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 and the interests of a number of international mining and oil companies. We have to recognise that public opinion and the campaigns around the world in favour of an Antarctic world park have had considerable impact. A number of Governments—perhaps surprising Governments in some cases—supported the concept of a world park and a place of preservation and peace.
  The Madrid protocol was finally agreed in 1991. There was a great deal in it. I shall not quote it all, but I should like to mention a few points from it. Crucially, it said that there should be a moratorium on all mining or mineral exploration activities for at least 50 years. It is not a 50-year moratorium. It is 50 years in its initial stage. I would not want any long-sighted executives of oil or mining companies to be salivating in offices at the thought of mining exploration in 50 years. I hope that there will never be any mining exploration in the Antarctic, and the environmental protocol looked to that.
  The protocol also confirmed the permanent protection of the environment and flora and fauna of the continent. That is important. Many people believe that Antarctica is a huge wilderness, and therefore that there is no great threat to it, but it has a delicate ecosystem. It is not a place of high precipitation—indeed, there is very little. There is a great deal of snow and ice blowing about and there are enormous ranges of temperatures and desperate cold, but it is a fragile ecosystem.
  As it is so cold most of the time, the speed of biodegradability is slow, so environmental damage from oil spills or pollution of any sort takes far longer to be corrected by any natural process than it would in a tropical, sub-tropical or temperate climate such as we live in. An important part of the protocol established the principle of environmental impact assessment of all visits to the Antarctic by anyone—scientific researchers, tourists or whoever else.
  Greenpeace has done a great deal of work on the Antarctic and has campaigned vigorously. Greenpeace International should be commended for the work that it has done internationally. Its Antarctic campaigner, Iain Redditch, who is based in Amsterdam, should be congratulated on the work that he has done to persuade so many Governments to speed up the ratification process.
  In 1994–95, the Greenpeace ship toured several Antarctic bases—not by any means in a spirit of hostility. It gave due notice to the bases' occupants and sought to examine what was happening, to check the effects of the 1991 environmental protocol and to discover what the bases were doing to clean up their act. It visited eight stations, which were staffed by people from Brazil, Poland, Peru, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, China and Russia. Argentina and Chile staffed two bases each. Greenpeace would have liked to visit more bases, but the process takes time and the journey is difficult.
  The Greenpeace report said:
  "Overall, Greenpeace found that over three years after the signing of the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection, countries with Antarctic bases are continuing to violate the Madrid Protocol's provisions, and many working on the continent are unaware of the Madrid Protocol's requirements."
  It was especially scathing about the conditions at the Chinese station, where a large amount of rubbish had been dumped and which was causing environmental damage. It is important that we recognise the importance of having environmental impact assessments and continuing inspection and monitoring of what happens at the bases.
  482
  If we are to achieve the intended effect of the 1959 treaty and of the 1991 Madrid protocol, the question of ratification of the treaty is important. There are 26 signatory nations to the treaty. They are "consultative parties" in the wording of the treaty and 20 have ratified the Madrid protocol, including Britain. There are six still to go. Four of them look as though they will ratify in the near future with no great problem envisaged.
  The greatest delay involves Russia and Japan. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what pressures the Foreign Office and British diplomats in those countries are applying to make it clear that the House has passed the Antarctic Act 1994. We have ratified the treaty and want it to be ratified by all the nations concerned. Once 24 nations have ratified it, I should have thought that the idea that Russia and Japan are the slowest would embarrass them. I should like to hear that the British Government will do their utmost to encourage them not to be way behind everyone else in ratifying.
  The Russian political system is in turmoil and there is uncertainty about what will happen there. In Japan, there is a problem that is not linked to the Antarctic treaty—its predilection for defying the International Whaling Commission by continuing its so-called scientific whaling of Minke whales. It took 300 from Antarctic waters in the past year. There is an erroneous linkage of the two issues. The environmental protection of the Antarctic stands alone, and it is vital that Japan ratifies the treaty.
  My second main question involves the establishment of the secretariat envisaged in the 1991 Madrid protocol. It is essential that a secretariat for the Antarctic should be set up so that there is a central point of contact for discussion, for environmental impact assessment studies to be lodged and for monitoring the future of the Antarctic and the growing number of people who seek to visit it, and the possible dangers that go with that. That is no minor point. It is important that we get the secretariat up and running as soon as possible.
  I should not have thought that the issue of where the secretariat is to be sited would be greatly controversial, but it appears to have become so. Many treaty nations feel that it should be sited in a gateway nation to the Antarctic. The gateway nations are Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. There is a considerable head of steam among the majority of treaty nations to site the secretariat in Argentina. Unfortunately, I understand from previous parliamentary answers that I have received from the Minister that the British Government are not disposed towards it being sited there because they do not want it sited in a country that has conflicting pre-1959 claims to Antarctic lands.
  As the claims are held in abeyance for the duration of the treaty and the protocols following on from it, the conflicting claims are somewhat academic in many ways. Exactly the same argument about conflicting claims could apply to most other signatory nations. Argentina has not opposed the convention on the preservation of marine life in the Antarctic being based in Australia. So I hope that the British Government will accept that it is important to get the secretariat up and running, and that a majority of treaty nations support it being sited in Argentina.
  During a recent visit to this country of the Argentine Foreign Minister, I took part in one of the discussions with him and mentioned the issue. I understand that,

  483
  at a later meeting with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the establishment of the secretariat was discussed with the Argentine Foreign Minister. I would be obliged if the Minister could tell us exactly what went on at those discussions. Should President Menem of Argentina visit this country, that would presumably be one of the issues that would be discussed with him. It is important that we have a sensible relationship with Argentina. It is not particularly helpful if we adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude towards the location of the secretariat.
  British standing on the Antarctic is good. The British Antarctic Survey has conducted high-quality scientific and biological research in the area for many years. It has produced high-quality reports and has a very high standing indeed. The work done there by Joe Farman and others in discovering the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic has worldwide implications.
  However, British standing has been diminished by the Government's attitude to the location of the secretariat. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the British Government can do quite a lot in that area to ensure that the secretariat is established and up and running as soon as possible. It is some years since the Madrid protocol and the Antarctic Act. It is time that we moved on and got the secretariat working.
  Thirdly, article 16 of the protocol, on liability for damage and destruction that happens in Antarctica, has been under discussion for about four years. I well remember that, when the Antarctic Bill was being pushed through the House by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—as a private Member's Bill with Government support — liability for damage and destruction was debated extensively in the Standing Committee. We discussed whether an expedition's individual members were responsible for any damage, or whether it should be the host country of the expedition. We also discussed what should happen if a ship sank or an aircraft crashed in the Antarctic.
  The question of liability has to be sorted out. The growth of tourism in the area has been considerable. Until a secretariat is established and we have total adherence to the guidelines on Antarctic tourism and non-governmental organisation activities adopted in Seoul, Korea in April 1994, the dangers of damage to the environment and the need to clean it up are considerable. I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know what is being done on that question and how it will be sorted out.
  In four years of informal meetings, why have non-governmental organisations been continually excluded from the discussions, when they have shown that they have an enormous and responsible interest in the Antarctic and much expertise to contribute to the discussions?
  My fourth question for the Minister concerns the future of the Faraday base, which was one of the bases owned and run by the British Antarctic Survey. It was due to be closed and demolished and the equipment brought back to this country. Instead, there was an agreement to transfer the base and its equipment to the Government of the Ukraine, which was a major contributor to the former
  484
  Soviet Union's scientific efforts in Antarctica. They felt that it would be useful to have a base—and they have now got the base, which is a good thing.
  The Ukraine agreed to continue to produce the meteorological information that had been collected at the base—it will be handed over to the British Antarctic Survey. I trust that—like all scientific information collected in Antarctica—there will be the normal degree of transparency and there will be a widespread publication of the results. It is good that the Government of the Ukraine have the base and that it is working.
  However, the Ukraine has serious problems in relation to Government resources and spending. The base would have had to have been upgraded considerably had the British Antarctic Survey kept it. Is Britain using its expertise and assisting in ensuring that the base is upgraded so that waste disposal systems, fuel systems and energy systems are the best and the safest, and cause the least possible environmental damage? Those issues are extremely important in such a fragile ecosystem.
  Antarctica is a beautiful place, but it is also a great weather vane and a source of great information that is of value to the rest of the world. Earlier, I mentioned the work done by Farman and others at the British Antarctic Survey in discovering the hole in the ozone layer. Had the British Antarctic Survey not been doing that work and had other scientists not been doing work on air pollution and sunlight within the Antarctic, we may not have known the disastrous effects of chlorofluorocarbons within our atmosphere and of the continual chemical process that is set off in the upper atmosphere by the release of chlorine gas.
  However, we would have known about the growth of skin cancers in the southern continents—in Chile, in Argentina, and in Australia in particular. We are now finding out the effects of ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere. That had the knock-on effect of the Montreal protocol on the phasing out of CFCs. I wish it was being done more quickly and that it had been done immediately, but at least the information was there in the first place. Perhaps the world woke up and recognised that there were limits to the amount of pollution that it can put into the atmosphere.
  One can drill into the Antarctic ice, take out an ice core and measure what the exact state of the world's atmosphere was like at the time of the Romans, at the time of Christ and at the time of the Norman conquests. One can measure exactly what the air was like, one can see the differing levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, one can see the differing levels of pollution, and one can see the effects and dangers of global warming. It is important that we are able to do that. I refer also to the current process of melting off parts of the Antarctic ice cover—all sorts of things can be measured.
  It is important that we recognise that Antarctica is a place for the whole world; that it is a place of international importance and heritage. We would not have got this far if people had not wanted to undertake scientific research there. Above all, people have not said that this is a place that we can exploit and destroy—instead, they have said that this is a place that we want to protect in all its beauty and learn lessons from. Many environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace International, have campaigned on behalf of the Antarctic. That has been a welcome and an enormous contribution.

  485
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is pleased with the progress that has been made in the passage of the Antarctic Act 1994 through the House. I hope that he will do everything that he can to ensure further ratification of the treaty and the establishment of the secretariat, which is very much part of the treaty, and of the environmental protocol that goes with it.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that the British Government will not be the last in the line in this but, instead, will be a mover and a shaker. I hope that he is able to assure us that all the campaigning that achieved the Madrid protocol and a change in attitude towards the Antarctic will get the secretariat established and will ensure that environmental impact statements are done thoroughly and that Antarctica is properly protected, as it has to be.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for securing the Adjournment debate, for two reasons. First, he is raising once again the extremely important issue of Antarctica. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has a personal fascination for it. I am aware that, both in 1991 and in 1994, Adjournment debates along the same lines as this evening's debate were conducted. It is useful that we have the opportunity for periodic updates as the situation in the Antarctic moves on, quite rapidly. Secondly, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of having the last word in the House before the Easter recess. It is an unusual privilege and one that I enjoy, but I hope that I do not have it too often.
  I largely share the hon. Gentleman's interest in and fascination for what goes on in the Antarctic. Although, as part of my remit, I have not yet had a chance to get down to the Antarctic, a month ago I visited the British Antarctic Survey and Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. I had the opportunity to hear at first hand of the work of our scientists in Antarctica. I was greatly impressed by what I heard and I whole-heartedly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of their work, the vital need for humanity to understand what is happening and the value of the research that is being done in trying to alert us to possible future danger.
  We as a country are a major player in the Antarctic treaty system. Our long-standing presence in Antarctica is provided by a programme of first-class scientific research, which is the envy of most of our Antarctic treaty partners. We are committed to environmental protection in Antarctica. It is our policy to maintain that position and to maintain our lead.
  I shall take up the detail of some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and try to deal with them. First, there is the implementation of the environmental protocol. The United Kingdom ratified the protocol in April 1995. We have already actively implemented all its provisions. We were in the vanguard of treaty partners in introducing domestic enabling legislation. The Antarctic Regulations 1995 are now fully in force, as is much of the Antarctic Act 1994. Steps are in hand to bring the remaining sections into force as soon as possible, and I trust before the next austral season. The legislation provides a tough framework within which to meet our obligations under the protocol.
  486
  United Kingdom activities in Antarctica will take due account of the need to minimise environmental damage. The protocol cannot enter into force, however, until it is ratified by all 26 consultative parties. As the hon. Gentleman said, only 20 have done so far. We shall continue to press the others to join us in ratifying the protocol.
  The six remaining parties are Belgium, Finland, India, Japan, Russia and the United States. They will be pressed to ratify during the forthcoming treaty consultative meeting. The most likely forecast, unfortunately, is that that will not happen overnight. We very much hope, however, that the protocol will come into force within the next two years. We look forward to that time in eager anticipation.
  The United Kingdom's main operator in Antarctica, the British Antarctic Survey, has already introduced measures and procedures to address the protocol.
  Mr. Corbyn: What signs has the Minister received from the Japanese Government, and the Japanese Parliament especially, of the likelihood of early consideration of ratification of the treaty? It is my understanding that the Japanese response is likely to be the greatest stumbling block. The other five nations, while late and slow, are likely, it seems, to endorse the protocol.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. I think that the Japanese are the most difficult to persuade. We are engaged in substantial dialogue with them. We are examining the issues in detail. I hope that they will be persuaded to ratify the protocol. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall win the argument, but we will try our hardest to do so.
  The environmental impact assessment of major proposed developments has been carried out and tough waste management procedures have been introduced. When I was in Cambridge I saw how effectively we are implementing those procedures, which include retrograding waste materials out of Antarctica. To put that into usual English, we are taking all waste away with us.
  Abandoned United Kingdom bases have been surveyed and cleaned up—I saw pictures of what has been done and it is extremely impressive—including a major renovation in the past field season of the designated historic site of Port Lockroy, a United Kingdom presence in Antarctica dating back to the early 1940s. In addition, the British Antarctic Survey has produced a waste management audit, oil spill contingency plans for its bases and ships, and new management plans for protected sites. A number of United Kingdom initiatives have been used as model examples by other Antarctic treaty parties. We remain at the forefront of developing new ideas for environmental protection.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Antarctic treaty secretariat. I agree that the establishment of a secretariat for the Antarctic treaty will be a major asset in the successful operation of the Antarctic treaty system. It will greatly enhance the implementation of the environmental protocol when it comes into force. Indeed, the United Kingdom has for many years urged that a secretariat be set up.
  One of the most important criteria for hosting such a secretariat—which the hon. Gentleman identified in an Adjournment debate in July 1994—is the need for

  487
  neutrality in terms of Antarctic claims. We do not see how a treaty party that has a territorial claim against another treaty party can meet that criterion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Chile, Argentina and the United Kingdom share a claim for the same patch.
  The Government believe that, out of the 26 signatories, it should be possible to find another site that would be uncontroversial where we could locate the secretariat. Unfortunately, that has not yet proved to be the case and I suggest that Argentina should make a concession and agree to a neutral site. I do not believe that the United Kingdom should make a concession to one of the parties that will ultimately test our claims in the Antarctic.
  The forthcoming Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, which will be held in the Netherlands on 29 April for 12 days, will raise several issues. The first concerns the transitional environmental working group. It was established last year as the interim institution for the committee for environmental protection—a new body that will come into being when the protocol is in force. Unfortunately, the first meeting of the TEWG last year was not a resounding success.
  At Utrecht, the United Kingdom will attempt to regalvanise the working group. We shall propose that it be given four or five key tasks to address and no more so that it may focus effectively on matters of prime importance. We shall also propose that the momentum continue between sessions through correspondence groups acting through nominated co-ordinators so that the impetus of progress is not lost.
  The future success of the protocol depends in part on the effective operation of the committee for environmental protection, which, in turn, hinges on the transitional group getting off to a good start. We shall do all we can to assist that process.
  Secondly, there is the question of the liability annexe—an issue raised specifically by the hon. Gentleman. The treaty parties are committed to negotiating a further annexe to the environmental protocol in order to address liability for environmental damage in Antarctica. We are actively engaged in that process. Liability regulations would act as a deterrent to environmental damage and would also help to achieve clean-up and restoration in the event of such damage occurring. It is vital that the liability regime should not only be legally competent but be designed to address the realities of Antarctica. Negotiations must engage not only lawyers, but those who are involved in Antarctica and who are aware of its special and harsh qualities and of the extreme difficulties of operating in that region.
  A liability regime that did not take such factors into account would be unworkable. It could cost a huge amount of money, with no quantifiable environmental benefit. It could also prove damaging to our science programme in Antarctica, where resources would have to be deployed to meet an ill-designed liability regime. We believe, therefore, that it is important to get the basis of the regime right. We are not satisfied that we have currently reached that degree of consensus.
  Mr. Corbyn: I understand what the Minister is saying. I am looking for some hope that after four years of informal discussion we are in a position to reach an
  488
  agreement on a liability regime. In the meantime, people are travelling to the Antarctic and there is a danger of oil spills, ship wrecks and aircraft crashes, as have happened in the past. The longer we delay in setting up a liability regime, the greater the danger of pollution in the area.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: All of us who are concerned about maintaining the ecological strength of the Antarctic would agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. I mentioned the subject when I visited the Antarctica survey team in Cambridge. We have not yet got to the stage of an enormous ecological liability threat, given the current amount of tourism and the amount of work being done in the Antarctic. We have a little time, but nobody should be complacent, and we must try to move forward as fast as possible.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United Kingdom Government will make every effort to do so. However, it is never easy to obtain a consensus among 26 parties, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Tourism is related to that point and continues to grow in Antarctica. Almost 10,000 tourists visited the continent in the past austral summer—most by ship-borne cruises. All the information that I have seen suggests that the tourists behaved well. Those who visited British bases looked after them well and complied with the strict terms we have laid down about going ashore and what they were allowed to do when ashore. We insist that any waste that the tourists may produce has to be removed with them.
  Tourism is a legitimate activity in Antarctica and, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, that will be the reality in the future. We could not ban tourism in that part of the world, but—as the hon. Gentleman said tonight and in July 1994—it needs to be controlled. Adequate means to do so are available. It will require effective implementation of the protocol, not the imposition of yet more regulations. We have the framework, but we must ensure that the framework is properly enforced.
  The UK will provide the latest update on tourism to the forthcoming Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. We were a major partner this past season to a US programme to identify wildlife sites of major importance to tourism. The results of that will also be presented at the Utrecht meeting.
  We are also keen to promote port state jurisdiction to ensure that rigorous standards can be met by vessels and aircraft going to Antarctica. Most of those leave from the so-called gateway ports, which include Stanley in the Falkland Islands in our jurisdiction.
  United Kingdom domestic legislation already incorporates the concept of port state jurisdiction. We see merit in extending that to wider Antarctic communities and enforcing it in that region. That would ensure that comparable standards between gateway ports are maintained. That issue will be explored further with our Antarctic treaty partners.
  The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the transfer of the Faraday base to the Ukraine. On 6 February, the UK base of Faraday was formally transferred to the

  489
  Government of Ukraine. That followed detailed, lengthy negotiations, in which all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised were confronted.
  In a spirit of scientific co-operation under the Antarctic treaty, the UK offered Faraday to the international Antarctic community. Ukraine responded favourably and Ukraine scientists were integral to the Antarctic programme of the former USSR. The transfer will enable them to re-establish their commitment to Antarctica. The transfer will also help to reduce the escalation of bases in Antarctica—a feature much criticised in the past by environmental groups.
  Most important, Ukraine has agreed to continue the acquisition of long-standing scientific data sets. Data will be provided free to the UK and to relevant international bodies for at least the next 10 years.
  Once Ukraine has consolidated its science programme at Faraday, now renamed Vernadsky, we look forward to it, in due course, applying for consultative status to the Antarctic treaty. We also look forward to Ukraine acceding to the environmental protocol. I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the interim Ukraine has made it clear that it will abide by the tough obligations of the protocol.
  The transfer of Faraday is part of a major rationalisation of the BAS programme, a major objective of which is to strengthen the survey's science base in the British Antarctic territory by capitalising on the new infrastructure put in place by the Government since the mid-1980s. That has included the new purpose-built bases at Halley and Rothera; the expansion of the BAS fleet of aircraft, including the acquisition of a De Havilland Dash 7 to operate direct between Falklands and Rothera; and the launch of the survey's highly sophisticated research vessel, the RRS James Clark Ross. I have not seen the ship but have seen a model of her, and she looks an extremely exciting vessel.
  The "Way Forward" programme, which attracted an additional £4 million in the 1993 public expenditure survey round, enabled new laboratory and accommodation facilities to be constructed at Signy in the south Orkneys and expansion of further laboratories at Rothera. That building programme is well on schedule. The transfer of terrestrial ecology and inshore marine biology to the new facilities at Rothera will offer major new scientific challenges.
  Mr. Corbyn: There has been a large increase in the fur seal population on Signy. Is it affected by that development? If so, what is being done to protect the seals' ecosystem and stocks of food supplies?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not aware that the seal population has been affected, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that opinion.
  I refer next to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and to the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources—which was not specifically raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North but is important in this context. I wrote to my hon. Friend for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on 22 March with a full explanation of our policy towards fishing around South Georgia. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library. I am grateful for the additional opportunity to point out the steps that we have taken to ensure the
  490
  conservation of fish stocks around South Georgia—something to which I attach particular importance, as I do to the conservation of all stocks in the Antarctic sea area. I know that sentiment is shared by the hon. Gentleman.
  We are in no doubt about our sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and hence our right to exercise coastal state jurisdiction around the islands. Fishing in sub-Antarctic waters, including the waters around South Georgia, is regulated by a multilateral treaty—the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, or CCAMLR. The commission established by the convention adopts conservation measures binding on its member states, but the commission has no enforcement powers. It is left to flag states to ensure that their vessels comply with the conservation measures. The commission was established in 1980, but flag state enforcement of the conservation measures has been largely ineffective. Over-fishing continued throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s and was increasing.
  Non-members of the convention are not bound by the conservation measures, but the convention recognises that parties to it with sovereign islands within its area of application may exercise coastal state jurisdiction in respect of those islands. Such jurisdiction may be exercised in respect of all vessels, including those of countries that are not parties to the convention.
  In recognition of the continuing threat posed by over-fishing to the conservation of the fish stocks, a 200-nautical mile maritime zone was proclaimed in 1993 around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. A fisheries ordinance was enacted, which provides for comprehensive regulation of fishing within the zone. Licences are required for fishing there. Licences are granted only in a manner consistent with the conservation measures adopted by the CCAMLR commission.
  Mr. Corbyn: I mentioned the over-fishing of krill outside the designated 200-mile zone from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Will the Minister confirm that that issue can be raised at the Utrecht meeting, or that there could be a separate meeting? If over-fishing of krill continues, the effect on other marine live and mammals will be enormous, and could have an ecological effect as devastating as over-whaling in the past, which led to the moratorium.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the over-fishing of krill. It is a critical part of the ecological chain. Over-fishing of krill could have a devastating knock-on effect. I cannot guarantee that this is part of the Utrecht discussion—I am not sure, but I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know. It is certainly a matter of primary concern to the UK Government, and we are in constant dialogue with other countries affected whose fishing fleets might threaten the ecological balance. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that the Government take the issue extremely seriously.
  Argentina asserts that our licensing regime is a new development that impinges on the fishing activities of Argentine-flagged vessels. The licensing regime operated by the Government of the territory has been no different this season from that in force in the previous two seasons. Since the introduction of the

  491
  fisheries ordinance, all vessels have been required to obtain a licence before fishing in the waters around South Georgia. Unlicensed vessels are subject to arrest and prosecution.
  This year it was apparent that a number of vessels, including several Argentine-flagged vessels, intended to target this limited fishery, and that this number was far greater than the total allowable catch could withstand. The projection was for a fishing pressure of about 40 vessels, targeting a 4,000 tonne TAC. There would have been three results: first, a rapid exhaustion of the allowable catch; secondly, an uneconomic take for the majority, if not all, of the vessels involved; and, thirdly, there would have been the inevitable risk of large-scale illegal fishing as vessels attempted to ensure viable, economic returns on their fishing efforts.
  The South Georgia licensing regime does not preclude vessels from fishing unhindered outside of South Georgia waters. But with due regard to the TAC, and other conservation measures, the commissioner for South Georgia limited the number of licences available to 10, although there was far greater demand. Licences were required by Chilean, Korean, Russian and US vessels. In addition, one Argentine vessel voluntarily applied for, and was granted, a licence. The vessel operator subsequently arranged to transfer the licence
  492
  to another non-Argentine vessel as part of a commercial arrangement. The allegation that we put pressure on the vessel to apply for a licence was wholly unfounded.
  The South Georgia fisheries regime is legal in terms of our international obligations under the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. Moreover it is wholly consistent with the convention in terms of its conservation measures.
  In summary, the United Kingdom remains committed to Antarctica. We shall continue to demonstrate that commitment through a programme of first-class science there. We shall also continue to maintain a high political profile within the Antarctic treaty system.
  Antarctica remains the platform from which many of today's global processes such as ozone depletion, atmospheric pollution, global warming and sea-level rise can best be monitored. The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of those activities. Such issues are crucial to the global environment and to mankind. The UK will continue to play an active role in environmental protection and scientific research in Antarctica. I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and to reiterate my thanks to him for raising this important subject in the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock till Tuesday 16 April, pursuant to resolution [26 March].

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  HMSO
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further information he plans to make available to Parliament at this stage of the privatisation of HMSO. [25219]

  Mr. Freeman
  An advertisement for the sale of HMSO appeared in the press on Tuesday 26 March. Potential bidders who satisfy the pre-qualification process will receive the information memorandum describing the business for sale shortly after Easter. The information memorandum has been written primarily to meet the requirements of these bidders. It contains commercially sensitive material and therefore, in order to protect the interests of the Crown, access to the information memorandum will be carefully controlled, with bidders signing a comprehensive confidentiality agreement.

  However, in recognition of the unique role which HMSO plays by providing services which are essential to the smooth working of Parliament, I have already agreed that a copy of the information memorandum will be provided, on a confidential basis, to the Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee.

  On further consideration of Parliament's particular interest in this privatisation, I have decided to arrange for an edited version of the information memorandum to be placed shortly in the Library of the House. This edited version will contain information relevant to the House's interest in the sale but will exclude commercially sensitive information.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24513]

  Mr. Newton
  My Department fully supports the Government's strategy set out in the White Paper, "Making Waste Work, a waste strategy for England and Wales". The adoption of a separate Privy Council Office waste minimisation strategy and target may not be appropriate, given the Department's small size and the fact that it is located within the Cabinet Office. Consideration will be given to this, however, in the coming months.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Receivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will commission a report on the technical and practical considerations of requiring all new television receivers to be fitted with a V-chip; and if she will make a statement. [22139]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are studying the technical and practical implications of the V-chip, and other similar devices. On 26 March the Department hosted a seminar organised by the Advertising Association at which Dr. Pober, executive director of the US Entertainment Software Rating Board, and Professor Goldstein, an expert in studies on violence and the media from Utrecht university, shared their knowledge of the experience to date in the USA.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines are currently in force in her Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within her Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22848]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department and its executive agencies abide by the Government's public purchasing policy, published in the document "Public Purchasing Policy: Consolidated Guidelines". The policy states that goods and services are to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, EC procurement directives and the World Trade Organisation government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be awarded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions. The central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40 provides an overview of best practice in the competitive tendering process.

  To ensure that value for money is obtained, goods and services are subject to competitive tender wherever practicable. In exceptional circumstances, single tender action may be permissible where (i) there is no alternative source of supply, (ii) specialist knowledge or expertise exists with a particular supplier, (iii) there is an overriding urgency arising from circumstances outside the Department's control. Any case for single tender action must be approved at director or chief executive level in the agencies and head of division level in my Department.

  My Department has a single tender delegation from HM Treasury of £25,000. Beyond this, my Department has no authority and must seek approval from HM Treasury.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by her Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if she will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by her Department and its agencies after
  227
  competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22862]

  Mr. Sproat
  The total number and value of single tender contracts, with a value exceeding £500, awarded by my Department and its agencies in each of the last three years is shown in the table. In order to preserve commercial confidentiality, the information cannot be identified by value and individual contractor. In the majority of cases the reason for single tender has been due to (i) the specialist knowledge and expertise of the selected contractor, and (ii) overriding urgency arising from circumstances outside my Department's or its agencies' control. As can be seen from the table, the value of contracts let by single tender represents a small percentage of the total value of contracts let by my Department and its agencies.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total number of contracts let by single tender

  13

  26

  36

  Total value of contracts let by single tender

  £178,806

  £401,200

  £489,140

  Single tender contracts expressed as a Percentage of competitive contracts (by number)

  8

  8

  9

  Single tender contracts expressed as a percentage of competitive contracts (by value)

  1.3

  1.6

  1.6

  Sports Council (Information Technology Training)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when Sports Council staff will be fully trained in IT skills to handle administration of all programmes; and if she will make a statement about the training needs. [23086]

  Mr. Sproat
  These are matters for the members and senior management of the Sports Council, who have day-to-day responsibility for ensuring that the council operates as effectively and efficiently as possible with the resources at its disposal.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for her Department, indicating the targets set. [24503]

  Mr. Sproat
  Waste minimisation is a key aspect of my Department's existing green housekeeping strategy. We are planning to set targets for waste minimisation by the end of 1996.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to her Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24404]
  228
  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage is currently reviewing the necessity for any changes to computer systems to support the year 2000.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the new arrangements for children's play will commence. [25217]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 21 November 1995,Official Report, column 67, I announced that, subject to the successful completion of post-tender negotiations, the National Playing Fields Association would carry out work for my Department in the areas of playwork education and training, information dissemination and play safety. I am pleased to report that my Department has successfully completed post-tender negotiations with the association and that it will be carrying out work for my Department in these three areas from 1 May.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on contracting out in public libraries. [25218]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following consultation with a wide range of interested parties on the report commissioned by my Department from KPMG on contracting out in the public library service, which was published following my previous written answer on 19 July 1995,Official Report, columns 1457–58, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have decided for the present not to introduce competitive tendering in the public library service on a compulsory basis. However, we believe that the public library service should be encouraged to continue to improve its management and effectiveness by involving the private sector more. We intend to explore, over the coming months, how this can best be done and to set out our proposals in detail later in the year.

  Lyric Theatre, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations she has had concerning the adoption of a new lyric theatre for Wales as a successor scheme to the scheme for the Cardiff Bay opera house as a candidate for Millennium Commission funding; [22107]

  (2) what consultations she has had with the chairman of the Millennium Commission on the involvement of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh and their companies in bidding jointly with the Cardiff Bay development corporation for millennium funding for a new lyric theatre for Wales in Cardiff bay. [22418]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answers 21 and 22 March 1996]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Tolling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many consortiums he now expects to take part in the motorway tolling trials; when contracts for the trials will be signed; and when he expects the trials to begin. [22764]

  Mr. Watts
  Negotiations with consortiums invited to participate in the motorway tolling trials are continuing.

  Highways Agency Budget
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Highways Agency budget for 1996–97 is to be distributed between(a) regions and (b) individual schemes. [23082]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Thomas Arnold, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about how the Highways Agency budget for 1996–97 is to be distributed between (a) regions and (b) individual schemes.
  Information relating to planned 1996–97 expenditure was published in our Business Plan on 1 April. For the National Trunk Road Programme funds are not allocated to regions but to individual schemes. An allocation of £713 million has been made for expenditure on the attached list of National Schemes and on settlements for some completed schemes. Levels of expenditure on individual schemes will be determined by the speed at which works progress during the year.

  Road

  Schemes under construction at April 1996

  M1/M621

  Link Road, Leeds MB

  M1

  J21-21A Widening Phase 1, Leicestershire

  M4/M5

  Second Sevem Crossing Approach Roads, Avon

  M4

  Second Sevem Crossing, Avon

  M5

  J18–19 Widening, Avon

  M6

  J20–21 Widening, Lancashire

  M25

  J7–8 Widening, Surrey

  M25

  J8–10 Widening, Surrey

  M65

  Blackburn Southern Bypass Contract 1, Lancashire

  M65

  Blackburn Southern Bypass Contract 2, Lancashire

  M66

  Denton-Middleton Contract 1, Tameside MB, Manchester MB Oldham MB, Bury MB, Rochdale MB

  M66

  Denton-Middleton Contract 2, Tameside MB, Manchester MB Oldham MB, Bury MB, Rochdale MB

  A1(m)

  Walshford-Dishforth, North Yorkshire

  A4/A46

  Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass, Avon

  A11

  Besthorpe-Wymondham, Norfolk

  A12

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 2, LBs Hackney, Redbridge Waltham Forest, Newham

  A12

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 4, LBs Hackney, Redbridge Waltham Forest, Newham

  A13

  Thames Avenue-Wennington, LB Barking and Dagenham

  A13

  Blackwall Tunnel/Cotton Street Junction Imp, LB Tower Hamlets

  A47

  Walpole Highway/Tilney High End Bypass, Norfolk

  A50

  Blythe Bridge-Queensway Phase 1, Staffordshire

  A50

  Blythe Bridge-Queensway Phase 2, Staffordshire

  A249

  M2-Iwade Imp. Kent

  A406

  Silver Street-Fore Street Imp, LB Enfield

  A406

  East of Falloden Way-Finchley High Road, LB Barnet

  A428

  Bedford Southern Bypass, Bedfordshire

  A564

  Derby Southern Bypass and Derby Spur Contract A, Derbyshire

  230

  Road

  A568

  Widnes Eastern Bypass (South) Cheshire Trunk Road Cabling and Communications, London

  Schemes expected to start by 31 March 1997

  A12

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 1, LB Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest

  A12

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 3, LB Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest

  A13

  Wennington-Mar Dyke, Essex

  A13

  West of Heathway-Thames Avenue Imp, LB Barking and Dagenham

  A34

  Newbury Bypass, Berkshire

  A40

  Gypsy Corner Imp. LB Hounslow

  A40

  Western Circus Junction Imp. LB Ealing London Primary Route Signing Project

  London Underground
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of London Transport the stopping of Piccadilly line trains at Turnham Green. [23437]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. I shall raise the matter at my next regular meeting with the chairman of London Transport.

  Central Railway plc
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached a decision on the application by Central Railway plc for directions under rule 12 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules granting waivers from compliance with certain application requirements in respect of the Central Railway project. [24954]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. Having taken into account the views we have received from Members of Parliament, local planning authorities and others, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to refuse Central Railway's applications for waiver directions under rule 12 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules, in so far as they relate to the provision of plans, sections and cross-sections of the works. Subject to further consideration of the scope of non-compliance, he is prepared to agree to partial waivers in respect of the serving of application documents on certain local planning authorities and other statutory bodies. He may also be prepared to waive full compliance with the rules relating to the placing of site notices, subject to being satisfied that persons affected would not be materially prejudiced by such a decision. My right hon. Friend's reasons for refusing waivers are set out in a letter sent today to Central Railway plc. Copies of the letter have been placed in the House of Commons Library and will be sent to all MPs with a constituency interest.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the clearance work for the Newbury bypass. [25216]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has completed the tree felling stage of the clearance work. A few trees remain on site, some of which harbour wildlife, which
  231
  will not be disturbed until later in the year—in compliance with environmental legislation. Furthermore, some 85 per cent. of felled trees have been cleared from the site.

  The sheriff has completed all necessary evictions of protesters from camps along the route.

  Six tenders have been received for the main works contract and we expect to award the contract in the near future. Work will start towards the middle of the year with the aim of opening the bypass in the summer of 1998.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the findings of the Montagu report on alternative funding of Crossrail before his further intentions for the future of the project are announced. [24280]

  Mr. Norris
  I have today placed the report in the Library, with the associated consultants' report on small-scale alternatives to Crossrail. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on the next steps.

  Crash Tests
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 22 March,Official Report, column 388, (1) what representations he has received from (a) consumer groups and (b) car manufacturers and their representatives about how best to present the test results [24451]

  (2) if a test can be repeated at the request of the manufacturer; [24453]

  (3) if he will introduce legislation to require manufacturers to make the test results available to the public; [24455]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to make the test results available to the public; [24456]

  (5) if he will list the supermini cars currently involved in the testing programme; [24450]

  (6) what consultations he has undertaken with (a) consumer groups and (b) car manufacturers and their representatives about how best to present the test results; [24452]

  (7) what arrangements exist for car manufacturers to view the data before they are published.[24454]

  Mr. Norris
  I have not received representations from, nor consulted, industry or consumer groups on how best to present the test results, although I have had some representations from industry that any procedure should be fair.

  There have been discussions with vehicle manufacturers at official level on the test procedure. Manufacturers of car models tested are invited to witness the tests and are shown the results. If there are doubts over the validity of a test, a repeat test might be arranged.

  The car models in the current test programme are: Fiat Punto, Ford Fiesta, Nissan Micra, Renault Clio, Rover 100, Vauxhall Corsa and Volkswagen Polo. Their comparative performance will be identified in the report
  232
  if the research findings show such comparisons to be meaningful and fair. It is the Department of Transport's responsibility to make the research results available to the public.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24498]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's property managers are to prepare local action plans and targets to minimise waste.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24399]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport is participating in the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency initiative to address the issue and implications of the year 2000 for computers in the public sector.

  European Driving Licence
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what stage it was agreed that the European driving licence should include 12 gold stars; if it was agreed by majority voting; what was the United Kingdom's position; if the United Kingdom Government may incorporate a Union Jack in the United Kingdom format; and what provision there is for drivers who wish to maintain a licence not incorporating gold stars. [24281]

  Mr. Norris
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposed photocard licence, which will have the letters UK surrounded by the European logo of 12 stars. A common position on the draft directive providing for the photocard was adopted at the Transport Council on 7 to 8 December 1995, with United Kingdom support. The European logo makes licences easily recognisable throughout the EU and will be of assistance to the many drivers who drive abroad. There is no provision for driving licences to be issued in different formats, but we have no plans to call in current licences. There is scope for national symbols to be inserted on the photocard.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cement Kiln Dust
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much cement kiln dust from the Clitheroe cement works went to agricultural or related uses in 1993 and in each subsequent year; and what were the particular agricultural or related uses to which the dust was put. [23536]

  Mr. Clappison
  No kiln dust from the Clitheroe cement works went to agricultural or related uses during the period from 1993 to date.

  Fly-tipping
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make the enforcement of sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a matter for local authorities with particular reference to control of fly-tipping. [24178]

  Mr. Clappison
  No authority is precluded from taking enforcement action under sections 33 or 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 where it has sufficient evidence to do so. However, the Environment Agency is a competent authority for the purposes of the amended EC framework directive on waste; the authority responsible for issuing waste management licences under section 35 of the 1990 Act; and the authority with which exemptions from licensing are registered. In the Department's view, therefore, the Environment Agency is the appropriate authority to take enforcement action where necessary under section 33 of the 1990 Act.

  No authority has a specific duty to enforce the duty of care under section 34 of the 1990 Act. However, the effect of regulation 4 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 is to require a person on whom the Environment Agency serves a notice to provide a copy of the written description of the waste and of the transfer note which those involved in the transfer of waste are required by regulation 3 to keep. The Department has no plans to amend regulation 4 of the 1991 regulations.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has established the cause of the delay experienced by applicants for European regional development fund grants in the west midlands; and what measures he will take to promote greater efficiency in the handling of applications for the 1997–99 programmes. [24179]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the west midlands objective 2 programme, a competitive entry of over 800 initial applications lead to a lengthy short-listing process. The requirement to secure additional information on the 240 full applications subsequently received then resulted in the process overall taking longer than anticipated.

  Greater efficiency in the handling of applications in the 1997–99 programme will be achieved by more rigorous selection of only high-quality projects at the initial stage for subsequent detailed appraisal.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24226]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department currently has no out-sourcing arrangements with the EDS computer system.

  Green Belt Land (Waste Tipping)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what powers he has to intervene in 234
  respect of local authority decisions not to refer to him decisions to tip large quantities of spoil on green belt land; [24249]

  (2) what are the limits placed upon (a) the volume of waste which may be tipped on green belt land and (b) the period of time during which this may occur, if the ultimate use of the land is said to be for an appropriate use; and if he will make a statement. [24250]

  (3) in what circumstances a local planning authority may authorise the tipping of waste on green belt land without the approval of the Secretary of State. [24252]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Local authorities are required to determine on their individual merits planning applications for the tipping of waste on green belt land, its proposed after-use and the time scale involved by taking into account the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations, including Government planning advice such as, in this case, planning policy guidance note 2: "Green Belts". The disposal of waste also requires a waste management licence from the Environment Agency.

  Local authorities are required to notify the Secretary of State of any planning application which they do not intend to refuse and which will significantly prejudice the implementation of the development plan so that he can consider whether or not to call it in for his own determination. In addition, the Secretary of State has power to call in other applications, but in all instances he will do this only if in his view they give rise to planning issues of wider than local importance and then only if these issues warrant a decision by him rather than by the local authority.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy with regard to the tipping of waste on green belt land. [24251]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The tipping of waste on green belt land is inappropriate development unless it maintains openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt. Further advice is given in paragraphs 1.5 and 3.12 of planning policy guidance note 2, "Green Belts".

  Metal Recyclers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has undertaken(a) a cost compliance assessment and (b) a small business litmus test of the proposals outlined in waste management planning as they apply to metal recyclers. [24462]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department prepares compliance cost assessments in accordance with general Government guidelines, and they include a small business litmus test. The guidelines require a compliance cost assessment to be prepared for proposed legislation or when preparing statistical surveys which will involve business. "Waste management planning—principles and practice" sets out the way in which waste regulation authorities—now the Environment Agency—should collect information on wastes and waste management facilities and use it to promote integrated waste strategies, leading to more sustainable waste management. It gives non-statutory guidance on the way surveys should be carried out, but
  235
  does not constitute the preparation of a survey. Accordingly, no compliance cost assessment was deemed to be necessary for this document.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce his capping principles for 1996–97 and the list of authorities which he intends to designate. [24785]

  Mr. Gummer
  My capping principles for 1996–97 are as follows:(i) Unitary authorities and county councils will be able to increase their budget requirement by 3 per cent. or the increase in their education, personal social services and fire standard spending assessments, whichever is the greater.
  (ii) Metropolitan districts outer London boroughs and fire and civil defence authorities,including London, will be able to increase their budget requirement by 2 per cent. or the increase in their education, PSS and/or fire SSAs, as appropriate, whichever is the greater.
  (iii) Inner London boroughs will be able to increase their budget requirement by 1.5 per cent. or the increase in their education, PSS and fire SSAs, whichever is the greater.
  (iv) Shire districts will be able to increase their budget requirement by 0.5 per cent.
  (v) Police authorities will be able to increase their budget requirement by 3.5 per cent. or the increase in their police SSA, whichever is the greater.
  Authorities budgeting more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA are subject to a cash freeze.
  There is a general proviso that no authority is to be designated if its budget requirement is £10,000 or less above the limit implied by these principles.

  In accordance with sections 54 and 56 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, I have decided to designate the following authorities. The amount given after each authority is the amount which I am proposing should be the maximum amount calculated by each authority as its budget requirement for 1996–97.

  £ Million

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  402.590

  Oxfordshire County Council

  332.024

  Essex County Council

  974.218

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  52.780

  Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  76.958

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  37.444

  Authorities which have been designated for council tax capping now have 28 days, starting today, in which to inform us whether or not they accept their proposed cap. Essex county council, Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority, Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority and Merseyside fire and civil defence authority have been designated at the budgets they originally set and therefore do not have to reduce their budgets nor incur rebilling costs.

  Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire have been designated at a lower level than they proposed. If they accept, the cap is confirmed by notice and the authorities can set a revised lower budget and lower council tax bills forthwith. If they challenge, they must propose an alternative amount together with their reasons for doing so. At this stage, authorities have the opportunity to meet us to explain their
  236
  case. Once we have considered all the available information, we shall propose final caps which will be included in an order, a draft of which is debated by the House of Commons. If the draft order is approved, final caps are set by notice and revised budgets and council tax levels must then be set by the authorities concerned.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24409]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We understand, on advice from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, that this problem is largely confined to old computer systems. The Department's computer systems are primarily based on more modern technology and any older systems which remain are expected to be replaced before 2000.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has taken on the appointment of the Director General of Water Services from 30 June 1996. [25123]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to reappoint Mr. Byatt until 31 July 2000. This will enable him to carry out and complete the implementation of the outcome of a further periodic review of water charge limits to apply from 1 April 2000.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the indicative allocations to Government offices for the regions in respect of round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [25124]

  Mr. Curry
  The indicative regional allocations for the first two years of round 3 of the challenge fund are shown, expressed in terms of bands.

  These figures relate to the current total provision for round 3 of £200 million for 1997–98 and 1998–99, with £50 million of this available in 1997– 98. The funding available to each region for new schemes also reflects commitments arising from earlier bidding rounds. The sums available to support approved round 3 schemes in later years are subject to annual public expenditure decisions. The final allocations will depend upon Ministers' decisions on the bids submitted for support in response to the bidding guidance, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Final bids are due to be submitted by 23 September 1996.

  £ million

  London

  64–70

  South East

  13–16

  Eastern

  2–5

  South West

  6–8

  East Midlands

  5–8

  West Midlands

  9–12

  Merseyside

  7–10

  237

  £ million

  North West

  24–28

  Yorks and Humberside

  20–24

  North East

  30–34

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what exemptions from the requirements of compulsory competitive tendering will be granted to local authorities affected by structure and boundary changes which have been announced but not yet confirmed by orders following the district structure reviews. [25125]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We intend that the exemptions already granted to authorities affected by structure and boundary changes which have been announced but not yet confirmed by orders following the county structure review will be extended to those similarly affected by the outcome of the district reviews. This means that, for existing blue collar services, the requirements of CCT will be suspended from the date of the order until 18 months after the reorganisation date-or up to 24 months in the case of housing management.

  So far as white collar CCT services are concerned, an implementation timetable is already specified for authorities being reorganised, but no timetable is laid down for authorities that might be reorganised from 1 April 1998. Local authorities reorganised from 1 April 1998 will be allowed the same periods for implementation of white collar CCT as those already laid down for authorities being reorganised from earlier specified dates.

  Sulphur Protocol
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish proposals for ensuring that the United Kingdom meets its commitments under the second UN Economic Commission for Europe sulphur protocol. [25126]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under the terms of the second UNECE sulphur protocol, the United Kingdom is committed, among other things, to reducing national emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1980 levels. We are developing a national strategy for meeting these commitments. The strategy will go beyond the existing national plan, which gives effect in the United Kingdom to the requirements of the EC large combustion plant directive in looking at all sources of emissions.

  In developing the strategy, we are now reviewing the operation of the national plan to see whether it will still be appropriate in its current form, in the context of the strategy and in the light of the substantial reductions which have been achieved, and those which are now forecast, in the level of emissions from large combustion plant.

  We hope to publish a consultation document on our proposals shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Hammersmith to the 238
  Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), of 8 December 1995 concerning same-sex relationships and housing policy. [20491]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: I wrote to the hon. Member for Hammersmith today.

  Abattoir Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of abattoir waste volume which enters United Kingdom sewerage systems annually; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of water treatment works when dealing with potential bovine spongiform encephalopathy contaminated material. [23221]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Information for England and Wales provided by the sewerage undertakers shows that there are approximately 200 abattoirs with trade effluent consents. The annual volume of abattoir effluent entering the sewerage system is unavailable. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The adequacy of standard forms of sewage treatment on potential BSE-contaminated material is unknown. All animals exhibiting clinical symptoms of BSE are killed and incinerated. The specified bovine offals, which include all the tissues known to harbour BSE infectivity, are removed from cattle at slaughter and destroyed. As a result, it is unlikely that any BSE-contaminated material could enter the sewerage system.

  Yorkshire Water
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the inventory of Yorkshire Water reservoirs, treatment works and other water storage assets operational at the point of privatisation. [24204]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: This information is contained in pages 562 to 570 of the "Prospectus for the Water Share Offers", which was issued in November 1989. A copy is in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  R v. Burt and Adams Ltd.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the expense to public funds of the case of Rv. Burt and Adams Ltd. on the trading-up of non-monetary prizes from amusement machines; and what is the expected cost of the proposed appeal to the House of Lords if that appeal should fail. [23291]

  The Attorney-General
  The judicial and court costs for the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal totalled approximately £2,593. The prosecution costs in those proceedings were £12,707.29. This does not include those costs attributable to Crown Prosecution Service staff who worked on the case as part of their ordinary duties. It is not possible to give an estimate of the overall costs of the appeal to the House of Lords.

  Executive Agencies
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Attorney-General what further progress he has made towards establishing executive agencies in his Department under the Government's next steps initiative; and if he will make a statement. [25162]

  The Attorney-General
  On 15 March 1995, I informed the House,Official Report columns 580–81, that the Treasury Solicitor's Department had been selected as a candidate for executive agency status. I am pleased to announce that I established the Treasury Solicitor's Department as an executive agency on 1 April. The chief executive will have clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. These responsibilities are to be set out in the agency's framework document, which will be published and copies placed in the Library. Targets are set out in the agency's corporate and business plans. An annual report and accounts will be produced and copies also put in the Library.
  240
  The agency has 390 staff based in London. It will continue to provide legal services to Government Departments and other publicly funded bodies, but on a more commercial basis. It will continue to compete, where appropriate, with private firms of solicitors. The establishment of the Treasury Solicitor's Department as an executive agency will provide the appropriate structure and discipline to enhance its ability to supply a more efficient, economic and effective delivery of legal services to its clients. I have appointed Mr. Michael Saunders, the present Treasury Solicitor, to be the agency's first chief executive.

  The key performance targets are as follows: to achieve efficiency savings of 2; per cent. per annum; to recover the full operating cost for chargeable services of the agency; to achieve 90 per cent. customer satisfaction in advisory services; to achieve 2 per cent. reductions in the average unit cost per chargeable hour or per case as appropriate.

  I wish the chief executive and his staff every success for the future.

WALES

  Regional or Minority Languages
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Government have to sign the Council for Europe charter on regional or minority languages. [25128]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government have given thorough consideration to the merits of signing this charter. We believe that, in the United Kingdom's case, the Government are better placed to assess the needs of, and determine the level of support for, indigenous minority languages. For this reason, we have decided not to sign.

  Purchase Grant Scheme
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to consult on his proposals to exempt rural communities from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [25129]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have today issued a consultation paper asking for comments from local authorities, housing associations and other interested parties on our proposals for exempting rural communities from the new purchase grant scheme.

  As is made clear in the recent White Paper, "A Working Countryside for Wales", we recognise the particular difficulty in building or finding replacement properties for rent in rural areas, and the planned statutory scheme for future publicly funded developments will not therefore apply to rural communities across Wales which have a population density of less than 150 persons per sq km. This will help ensure the availability of affordable housing for rent in rural Wales where this issue is of special concern.

  The Housing Bill currently before Parliament would give my right hon. Friend the power to designate by order rural areas where the new right would not arise.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Average A/AS level point score for 16 to 18-year-old candidates entered for 2 or more A levels or AS equivalent in 19951

  Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5 or more GGSEs grades A to C in 1995

  Average primary school class size at January 1995

  Average secondary school class size at January 19952

  Maintained Schools in:

  Percentage

  Rank

  Rank

  Rank

  Dyfed

  16

  47

  2

  22.6

  7

  19.5

  6

  Powys

  16

  50

  1

  22.4

  8

  17.0

  8

  South Glamorgan

  16

  41

  5

  27.1

  2

  22.0

  1

  West Glamorgan

  16

  38

  6

  25.9

  5

  20.5

  3

  Clwyd

  15

  42

  3

  26.6

  4

  21.0

  2

  Gwent

  15

  37

  7

  27.8

  1

  20.5

  3

  Gwynedd

  15

  42

  3

  22.8

  6

  19.0

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  13

  33

  8

  27.1

  2

  19.6

  5

  Figures are ranked from highest to lowest.

  1 The A/AS level score is calculated for each pupil who was entered for A/AS level examinations on the basis of scores as follows:

  A level: A = 10 points, B = 8, C = 6, D = 4, E = 2.

  AS levels: A = 5 points, B = 4, C = 3, D = 2, E = 1.

  2 Data are for a specific period in the school timetable on the census enumeration date.
  242
  In the case of the voluntary scheme, the statutory list of exempted areas will be available for associations to use.

  The consultation paper sets out the way we propose to implement this designation and invites comments on the methodology and on the list of areas we plan to exempt. Copies have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin 1996
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding will be allocated to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin 1996 by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [23179]

  Mr. Richards
  For 1996–97, the Welsh Office has allocated total funding of £689,872 to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin comprising £537,000 under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 and £152,872 under the support for child and family services grant scheme.

  Schools (Examination Statistics)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by rank order the A-level examination results for each Welsh education authority and show beside each result, together with the education authority's rank order for each statistic,(a) the GCSE result, (b) the average number of pupils in each primary class in that authority, (c) the average number of pupils in each secondary class in that authority, (d) the cost per primary pupil place, (e) the cost per secondary pupil place, (f) the primary school pupil-teacher ratio and (g) the secondary school pupil-teacher ratio. [23665]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is contained in the following table.

  Within the table the columns numbered 1,2,3,4,7 and 8 are in respect of local education authority maintained and grant-maintained schools, while columns 5 and 6 are in respect of LEA maintained schools only.
  243

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Net funding per pupil in LEA maintained nursery & primary schools at cash prices,1993–94

  Net funding per pupil in LEA maintained secondary schools at cash prices,1993–94

  Primary school Pupil teacher ratio at January 1995

  Secondary school pupil teacher ratio at January 1995

  Maintained schools in:

  £

  Rank

  £

  Rank

  Rank

  Rank

  Dyfed

  1,865

  1

  2,206

  6

  19.9

  8

  16.3

  4

  Powys

  1,683

  3

  2,254

  3

  20.5

  7

  14.6

  8

  South Glamorgan

  1,455

  7

  2,116

  8

  22.2

  4

  16.6

  2

  West Glamorgan

  1,644

  4

  2,383

  2

  21.2

  6

  15.9

  5

  Clwyd

  1,428

  8

  2,133

  7

  24.9

  1

  17.0

  1

  Gwent

  1,532

  6

  2,214

  5

  23.8

  2

  16.4

  3

  Gwynedd

  1,696

  2

  2,410

  1

  21.2

  5

  15.0

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,539

  5

  2,228

  4

  23.6

  3

  15.8

  6

  Figures are ranked from highest to lowest.

  House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many council houses were built in(a) 1976, (b) 1989, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995 in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement; [23752]

  New dwellings completed1

  1976

  1986

  1989

  1994

  1995

  Local authority

  Housing association2

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Aberconwy

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  20

  72

  —

  87

  Alyn and Deeside

  115

  —

  33

  19

  29

  26

  16

  23

  —

  107

  Arfon

  111

  —

  —

  9

  31

  40

  —

  79

  —

  29

  Blaenau Gwent

  269

  —

  —

  38

  39

  64

  —

  3

  26

  71

  Brecknock

  289

  —

  —

  —

  12

  65

  —

  71

  —

  54

  Cardiff

  471

  —

  —

  38

  —

  462

  —

  385

  1

  356

  Carmarthen

  228

  —

  18

  —

  4

  2

  —

  24

  —

  23

  Ceredigion

  161

  —

  41

  17

  3

  83

  —

  12

  —

  32

  Colwyn

  22

  —

  18

  —

  —

  34

  —

  36

  —

  52

  Cynon Valley

  165

  —

  —

  40

  —

  67

  —

  36

  —

  50

  Delyn

  177

  —

  —

  16

  —

  12

  —

  46

  —

  49

  Dinefwr

  30

  —

  34

  —

  —

  22

  —

  7

  —

  16

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  8

  —

  17

  —

  4

  Glyndwr

  67

  —

  —

  8

  42

  7

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  102

  —

  40

  —

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Llanelli

  238

  —

  40

  —

  81

  4

  45

  6

  78

  27

  lliw Valley

  122

  —

  34

  14

  6

  14

  —

  71

  29

  27

  Meirionnydd

  103

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  32

  —

  51

  Merthyr Tydfil

  187

  —

  —

  —

  20

  26

  —

  51

  —

  51

  Monmouth

  108

  —

  74

  —

  16

  121

  —

  39

  —

  89

  Montgomeryshire

  110

  —

  26

  19

  15

  79

  —

  203

  —

  56

  Neath

  119

  —

  26

  10

  4

  —

  —

  60

  —

  69

  Newport

  462

  —

  119

  74

  105

  65

  108

  10

  4

  49

  Ogwr

  504

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  234

  —

  55

  Port Talbot

  —

  —

  —

  39

  —

  40

  —

  72

  —

  11

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  110

  —

  9

  29

  20

  29

  12

  72

  —

  73

  Radnorshire

  146

  —

  2

  37

  —

  4

  6

  38

  —

  50

  Rhondda

  74

  —

  —

  12

  —

  73

  —

  79

  —

  40

  Rhuddlan

  17

  —

  44

  —

  24

  16

  —

  108

  16

  30

  Rhymney Valley

  267

  —

  15

  27

  24

  80

  —

  38

  —

  69

  South Pembrokeshire

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  6

  39

  Swansea

  530

  —

  —

  33

  9

  112

  20

  369

  6

  356

  Taff-Ely

  136

  —

  12

  20

  24

  16

  —

  82

  —

  67

  Torfaen

  307

  —

  34

  7

  —

  —

  —

  105

  10

  79

  Vale of Glamorgan

  670

  —

  36

  —

  6

  21

  —

  41

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  242

  —

  11

  28

  12

  24

  —

  200

  —

  17

  Ynys Mon

  80

  —

  34

  —

  —

  23

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Notes:

  1 This information is based on local authority returns which may underestimate the level of building activity.

  2 Data for 1976 were collected jointly with other public sector completions. The total for all categories was 285.

  Source:

  Local authority returns.
  244
  (2) how many houses were built by housing associations in each local authority area in (a) 1976,(b) 1986, (c) 1989, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [23753]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  School Buildings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to the unitary authorities concerning sub-standard school buildings. [23533]

  Mr. Richards
  The condition of school buildings is the responsibility of local education authorities.

  Health Services in Rural Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to extend the provision of health services closer to patients in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [23525]

  Mr. Richards
  One of the commitments made in "Caring for the Future"—the NHS Wales plan for improving quality—is to increase safe and effective care closer to people's homes. I would expect health authorities, GP fundholders and NHS trusts to take this into account when determining what health services are provided to patients in rural areas.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances doctors are permitted to dispense prescriptions to patients living in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [23524]

  Mr. Richards
  Doctors may be permitted to dispense drugs and appliances to patients who satisfy their health authority that they reside in a controlled locality more than one mile from the nearest pharmacy, or would for other reasons have serious difficulty in reaching a pharmacy.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many assisted school places there are currently; and what sums were received by each school in the scheme in the latest school year. [23534]

  Mr. Richards
  There are some 720 assisted school places in Wales. The total amount of central Government funds received by each of the schools in the scheme for the academic year 1994–95 is as follows:

  Academic year 1994–95

  Schools

  Total received by schools £

  Christ College, Brecon

  411,648

  Howell's Cardiff

  441,926

  Howell's Denbigh

  369,460

  Llandovery College

  280,530

  Monmouth Boys

  475,037

  Monmouth Girls

  199,541

  Rydal Penrhos (Girls division)

  316,277

  Rydal Penrhos (Co-education division)

  305,270

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amounts(a) realised and (b) held by each local authority from council house sales receipts since council house sales were introduced; and if he will make a statement. [23751]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given the following table:
  246

  Receipts From the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  Receipts from the sale of council houses 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1995

  Usable receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995

  Total outstanding loan debt

  Districts:

  Alyn and Deeside

  18.4

  0.5

  35.1

  Colwyn

  8.9

  0.6

  27.8

  Delyn

  15.7

  0.0

  32.3

  Glyndwr

  13.1

  0.5

  12.0

  Rhuddlan

  9.5

  0.4

  27.7

  Wrexham Maelor

  42.0

  1.0

  74.6

  Carmarthen

  16.4

  0.8

  35.8

  Ceredigion

  20.7

  1.2

  21.6

  Dinefwr

  9.7

  0.6

  28.1

  Llanelli

  28.3

  0.0

  47.7

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  27.0

  2.6

  41.8

  South Pembrokeshire

  12.6

  1.2

  21.1

  Blaenau Gwent

  26.5

  2.2

  103.9

  Islwyn

  36.9

  0.4

  50.8

  Monmouth

  31.9

  3.6

  45.8

  Newport

  53.5

  7.6

  122.0

  Torfaen

  58.4

  2.7

  83.1

  Aberconwy

  16.3

  0.2

  20.3

  Arfon

  16.5

  0.0

  29.7

  Dwyfor

  3.9

  0.3

  15.9

  Meirionnydd

  7.6

  0.0

  10.6

  Ynys Mon

  17.5

  0.2

  53.7

  Cynon Valley

  13.6

  0.0

  52.9

  Merthyr Tydfil

  20.2

  0.3

  64.2

  Ogwr

  50.3

  0.6

  74.9

  Rhondda

  5.7

  0.0

  87.3

  Rhymney Valley

  35.5

  0.0

  71.7

  Taff Ely

  36.4

  0.5

  42.0

  Brecknock

  15.9

  1.2

  31.6

  Montgomeryshire

  13.6

  0.7

  23.2

  Radnorshire

  8.0

  0.4

  13.2

  Cardiff

  101.0

  7.1

  184.0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  38.7

  6.7

  60.0

  Port Talbot

  33.4

  0.0

  40.2

  Lliw Valley

  18.2

  0.0

  39.7

  Neath

  21.7

  0.0

  40.0

  Swansea

  47.9

  0.2

  135.6

  Total

  951.2

  44.4

  1,902.0

  1 Includes receipts from the sale of dwellings and the repayment of principal from local authority mortgages.

  Fishing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the resources of the Welsh Agriculture Department for the provision of a mechanism to meet the needs of fishing; and if he will make a statement. [23797]

  Mr. Richards
  I am satisfied that the resources of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department are sufficient to meet the needs of fishing in Wales.

  Sea Fisheries Committee
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an all-Wales sea fisheries committee; and if he will make a statement. [23798]
  247
  Mr. Richards
  Sea Fisheries Committees are set up under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 at the request of their constituent local authorities. This is therefore a matter for the local authorities or the SFCs themselves.

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the criteria for lifting the ban imposed on fishing in the designated area affected by the Sea Empress oil spill. [23799]

  Mr. Richards
  The safety of consumers is paramount and the current restrictions will be lifted only when health and fisheries scientists advise that fish from the area are once again safe to eat.

  There are no statutory limits on the amount of oil in fish or shellfish which is deemed safe and I am advised that it is not possible to set limits for all the possible constituents of oil. Therefore, in deciding when and where sections of the fishing industry will be allowed to operate again in the restricted area, our considerations will be on the basis of data on normal background concentrations for areas subsequently affected by the spill and such data from elsewhere around the UK. That is, we will consider whether levels are significantly higher than normal background levels.

  Fish and shellfish from elsewhere around the coast of Wales and the UK remain safe to eat.

  Forestry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of trees planted by the forestry industry within each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [23822]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of trees planted each year in Wales has increased from about 6.5 million to about 7 million over the last five years.

  Cardiff University Hospital
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the recent release by Cardiff University hospital from its mortuary of one body in mistake for another. [24488]

  Mr. Richards
  The circumstances leading to this regrettable incident are being investigated by the University Hospital of Wales NHS trust and the coroner's office. The trust will examine whether proper procedures were adhered to and implement any necessary improvements to current systems.

  Welsh Office officials will be kept informed to determine whether lessons learnt should be disseminated more widely.

  Assaults on Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of pupils assaulting teachers were reported in Wales in(a) 1975, (b) 1985 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24603]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Office, indicating the targets set. [24502]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Waste reduction is already an important feature of the Department's strategy for improving green standards internally and a range of targets are in place for reducing the amount of office waste the Welsh Office sends to landfill. These are the recycling of 37 tonnes of waste paper, 16,000 cans and 600 printer toner cartridges each year.

  The Welsh Office will also review its current practices, particularly in the light of a recent pilot study of waste management carried out by the Department of the Environment, to see if existing performance can be further improved upon.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24397]

  Mr. Hague
  I do not expect there to be any difficulties in ensuring that my Department's computer systems can cater for the year 2000.

  Rail Freight Terminal, South Wales
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive recommendations from the Welsh Development Agency relating to the location of a rail freight terminal in south Wales. [25130]

  Mr. Hague
  I have today agreed with the Welsh development agency that it should enter into further discussions with the promoters of the proposal for a rail freight terminal at Wentloog near Cardiff.

  The WDA board sought my agreement after its meeting on Friday at which it considered a consultant's report on the two proposals then before it. The board has concluded that the Wentloog site offers the better prospect but that further discussions with the promoters are necessary to determine whether, and if so to what extent, it might wish to offer assistance. It will also be looking for substantial and firmly committed private sector funding.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 1.29 of his departmental report for 1996, what were the outturn figures for 1992–93, 1993– 94 and 1994–95; and what were the outturn figures for expenditure on publicity by executive non-departmental public bodies in each of the past five years. [23560]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Paragraph 1.29 of the Welsh Office departmental report for 1996 provides details of forecast outturn expenditure for 1995–96 on publicity by the Department and forecast spend by non-departmental public bodies in 1996–97.
  249
  Publicity expenditure by the Welsh Office for the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 is as follows:

  1992–93: £1,974,000

  1993–94: £1,358,000

  1994–95: £1,725,000

  Publicity expenditure by public bodies is as follows:

  1994–95: £17,197,000 outturn

  1995–96: £17,662,000 forecast outturn

  Figures for the two years include for a number of public bodies, their total marketing budget and reflect for others all expenditure on publications; exhibitions and soon in pursuance of their statutory functions. Information is provided for 1994–95 and 1995–96 only; comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Abortion Facilities, North Wales
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the reasons for the withdrawal of local termination of pregnancy facilities within the NHS in north Wales. [23561]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The responsibility for the commissioning of abortion services in north Wales rests with the North Wales health authority. It is for individual health authorities to assess the health care needs of their local population and to decide priorities within their overall resources.

  General Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the whole-time equivalent number of NHS general medical practitioners working in each family health service association area in Wales at the latest date for which figures are available. [24384]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information, which relates to 1 April 1995, is given in the following table.

  Whole-time equivalent number of general medical Practitioners1

  Clwyd

  221

  Dyfed

  212

  Gwent

  233

  Gwynedd

  156

  Mid Glamorgan

  294

  Powys

  81

  South Glamorgan

  230

  West Glamorgan

  202

  1 Unrestricted principals.

PRIME MINISTER

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what savings to date have been made by the Cabinet Office as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24237]
  250
  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 2 April,Official Report, column 85.

  Danish Tour Guide (Manslaughter)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what letters of condolence have been sent by the British Government to the family of the Danish tour guide for whose manslaughter three British service personnel have been convicted; when they were sent; and which Government Minister sent them. [24564]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the then commanding officer, British Forces Cyprus, sent a letter of condolence to the family.

  Conduct of Government Business
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been furnished to Government Departments on the conduct of Government business during the period prior to local and European elections. [24545]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office is circulating to Departments today the normal guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business during the period prior to local and European elections. It is as follows:

  Local and European elections
  1. Local and European Election campaigns differ from general elections in that there is no prospect of a change of government consequent upon the elections, and the business of government continues as usual. However, there is an increasing tendency by all political parties to approach local and European elections from a national point of view, with nationally produced material. Officials of all departments should therefore take especial care during the period of local or European election campaigns not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality, or could give rise to the criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes. Particular care should be exercised in relation to the announcement of sensitive decisions with a local or European dimension, and in relation to paid publicity campaigns.
  2. The following general principles should be observed:
  (a) there should be even-handedness in meeting information requests from candidates from different political parties. Such requests and responses should be channelled through the appropriate Minister's private office and handled in accordance with the principles laid down in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information;
  (b) special advisers should if necessary be reminded of the rules against circulating material on party paper within departments;
  (c) particular care should be taken over official action and the use of public resources, including publicity, surrounding and supporting Ministerial announcements which have a bearing on local or European matters;
  (d) similar care should be taken over announcements of decisions made at official level. In some cases it may be better to defer an announcement until after the election but this would need to be balanced carefully against any implication that deferral could itself influence the political outcome; each case should be considered on its merits; and
  (e) special care should be taken in respect of paid publicity campaigns, particularly new campaigns, which should not be open to the criticism that they are being undertaken for party political purposes.

  251
  3. The period of sensitivity preceding local or European elections is not fixed in relation to any particular date, but for the purposes of this guidance, the general convention is that particular care should be taken in the three weeks prior to polling day.

  European Court of Justice
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next European Council the operation of the European Court of Justice. [22342]

  The Prime Minister
  The Turin Council of 29 March agreed an agenda for the intergovernmental conference including the operation of the European Court of Justice.

TREASURY

  Beef Stocks
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Inland Revenue will treat, for tax purposes, stocks of beef held by butchers ready for sale whose value has been eroded by the collapse of the beef market. [23769]

  Mr. Jack
  The same rules on trading stock will apply to butchers as to other traders.

  An accountant will draw up a traders' accounts using the normal accounting conventions. These conventions recognise trading stock losses and deal with them appropriately in the accounts. Tax treatment follows these conventions and allows for the profits and losses of trading stock when working out the taxable income. Butchers' stock losses will be treated in the same way as the stock losses of any other trader.

  Earnings
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of workers on adult rates of pay in part-time employment whose hourly earnings(a) including and (b) excluding overtime pay are less than (i) £4.26 per hour, (ii) £5.68 per hour, (iii) £6.03 per hour and (iv) average weekly earnings in (x) Great Britain, (y) Scotland and (z) the regions of Scotland broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers. [22058]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  Information is available from the April 1995 "New Earnings Survey". The information is in the tables.

  NES—April 1995 (GB) Part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Including overtime percentage of employees earning

  Excluding overtime percentage of employees earnings

  Gross hourly earnings

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  Great Britain

  Male manual

  60·0

  73·5

  81·0

  60·8

  73·2

  80·9

  Male non-manual

  32·4

  45·0

  50·8

  32·8

  44·6

  50·5

  All males

  46·0

  59·0

  65·6

  46·6

  58·6

  65·4

  Female manual

  71·4

  84·4

  90·4

  72·2

  84·6

  90·4

  Female non-manual

  35·3

  51·9

  62·6

  36·0

  52·1

  62·6

  All females

  47·5

  62·9

  71·9

  48·2

  63·1

  71·9

  252

  NES—April 1995 (GB) Part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Including overtime Percentage of employees earning

  Excluding overtime percentage of employees earnings

  Gross hourly earnings

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  All manual

  69·2

  82·3

  88·6

  70·0

  82·4

  88·5

  All non-manual

  35·0

  51·2

  61·2

  35·6

  51·3

  61·2

  All workers

  47·3

  62·3

  71·0

  47·9

  62·4

  71·0

  Scotland

  Male manual

  61·9

  75·6

  81·9

  62·5

  72·5

  83·1

  Male non-manual

  37·6

  51·9

  59·1

  37·0

  51·4

  58·6

  All males

  49·0

  63·0

  69·8

  49·0

  61·3

  70·1

  Female manual

  73·2

  85·5

  90·3

  74·1

  86·1

  90·1

  Female non-manual

  35·3

  50·5

  622·4

  36·1

  50·5

  62·4

  All females

  50·5

  64·6

  73·6

  51·3

  64·8

  73·5

  All manual

  71·5

  84·1

  89·1

  72·4

  84·1

  89·1

  All non-manual

  35·6

  50·7

  62·0

  36·2

  50·6

  62·0

  All workers

  50·3

  64·4

  73·1

  51·0

  64·3

  73·1

  Borders

  Male manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Male non-manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Female manual

  58·3

  83·3

  83·3

  58·3

  83·3

  83·3

  Female non-manual

  31·1

  48·9

  55·6

  31·1

  48·9

  53·3

  All females

  40·6

  60·9

  65·2

  40·6

  60·9

  63·8

  All manual

  61·5

  84·6

  84·6

  61·5

  84·6

  84·6

  All non-manual

  30·4

  47·8

  54·3

  30·4

  47·8

  52·2

  All workers

  41·7

  61·1

  65·3

  41·7

  61·1

  63·9

  Central

  Male manual

  66·7

  75·0

  75·0

  50·0

  58·3

  75·0

  Male non-manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Female manual

  77·1

  87·5

  97·9

  83·3

  89·6

  97·9

  Female non-manual

  42·9

  54·8

  67·9

  44·0

  54·8

  67·9

  All females

  55·3

  66·7

  78·8

  58·3

  67·4

  78·8

  All manual

  76·4

  87·3

  96·4

  81·8

  87·3

  96·4

  All non-manual

  43·8

  55·1

  67·4

  42·7

  53·9

  67·4

  All workers

  56·3

  67·4

  78·5

  57·6

  66·7

  78·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Male manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Male non-manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Female manual

  82·4

  94·1

  94·1

  76·5

  94·1

  94·1

  Female non-manual

  56·7

  63·3

  76·7

  56·7

  66·7

  76·7

  All females

  66·0

  74·5

  83·0

  63·8

  76·6

  83·0

  All manual

  76·2

  95·2

  95·2

  76·2

  95·2

  95·2

  All non-manual

  54·8

  61·3

  74·2

  54·8

  64·5

  74·2

  All workers

  63·5

  75·0

  82·7

  63·5

  76·9

  82·7

  Fife

  Male manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Male non-manual

  58·3

  75·0

  75·0

  58·3

  75·0

  75·0

  All males

  60·0

  70·0

  70·0

  60·0

  70·0

  70·0

  Female manual

  81·5

  83·3

  88·9

  81·5

  83·3

  88·9

  253

  NES—April 1995 (GB) Part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Including overtime Percentage of employees earning

  Excluding overtime percentage of employees earnings

  Gross hourly earnings

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  Female non-manual

  42·0

  53·6

  68·1

  40·6

  52·2

  65·2

  All females

  59·3

  66·7

  77·2

  58·5

  65·9

  75·6

  All manual

  79·0

  80·6

  85·5

  79·0

  80·6

  85·5

  All non-manual

  44·4

  56·8

  69·1

  43·2

  55·6

  66·7

  All workers

  59·4

  67·1

  76·2

  58·7

  66·4

  74·8

  Grampian

  Male manual

  55·6

  66·7

  81·5

  55·6

  66·7

  81·5

  Male non-manual

  30·8

  34·6

  42·3

  30·8

  34·6

  38·5

  All males

  43·4

  50·9

  62·3

  43·4

  50·9

  60·4

  Female manual

  62·3

  84·4

  87·7

  63·1

  84·4

  87·7

  Female non-manual

  32·2

  49·1

  59·6

  32·7

  48·5

  59·6

  All females

  44·7

  63·8

  71·3

  45·4

  63·5

  71·3

  All manual

  61·1

  81·2

  86·6

  61·7

  81·2

  86·6

  All non-manual

  32·0

  47·2

  57·4

  32·5

  46·7

  56·9

  All workers

  44·5

  61·8

  69·9

  45·1

  61·6

  69·7

  Highland and Island

  Male manual

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Male non-manual

  36·4

  45·5

  45·5

  36·4

  45·5

  45·5

  All males

  50·0

  60·0

  65·0

  50·0

  60·0

  65·0

  Female manual

  82·4

  94·1

  94·1

  82·4

  94·1

  94·1

  Female non-manual

  56·4

  70·9

  80·0

  56·4

  80·0

  80·0

  All females

  70·7

  83·7

  87·8

  70·7

  87·8

  87·8

  All manual

  80·5

  92·2

  93·5

  80·5

  92·2

  93·5

  All non-manual

  53·0

  66·7

  74·2

  53·0

  66·7

  74·2

  All workers

  67·8

  80·4

  84·6

  67·8

  80·4

  84·6

  Lothian

  Male manual

  63·0

  77·8

  81·5

  63·0

  77·8

  81·5

  Male non-manual

  42·2

  64·4

  66·7

  42·2

  62·2

  66·7

  All males

  50·0

  69·4

  72·2

  50·0

  68·1

  72·2

  Female manual

  77·3

  83·6

  88·2

  78·2

  82·7

  87·3

  Female non-manual

  34·1

  49·6

  58·8

  35·0

  49·1

  59·3

  All females

  48·2

  60·7

  68·5

  49·1

  60·1

  68·5

  All manual

  74·5

  82·5

  86·9

  75·2

  81·8

  86·1

  All non-manual

  35·4

  52·0

  60·1

  36·2

  51·3

  60·5

  All workers

  48·5

  62·3

  69·1

  49·3

  61·5

  69·1

  Strathclyde

  Male manual

  63·1

  75·4

  81·5

  63·1

  69·2

  84·6

  Male non-manual

  33·8

  48·5

  61·8

  33·8

  50·0

  61·8

  All males

  48·1

  61·7

  71·4

  48·1

  59·4

  72·9

  Female manual

  72·5

  85·0

  91·2

  73·6

  85·9

  90·7

  Female non-manual

  30·5

  46·6

  59·5

  31·5

  46·7

  59·8

  All females

  47·6

  62·2

  72·4

  48·6

  62·7

  72·4

  All manual

  71·2

  83·7

  89·9

  72·2

  83·7

  89·9

  All non-manual

  30·8

  46·8

  59·7

  31·7

  47·1

  60·0

  All workers

  47·7

  62·1

  72·3

  48·6

  62·3

  72·4

  254

  NES—April 1995 (GB) Part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Including overtime Percentage of employees earning

  Excluding overtime percentage of employees earnings

  Gross hourly earnings

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  £4·26

  £5·03

  £5·68

  Tayside

  Male manual

  54·5

  81·8

  81·8

  54·5

  81·8

  81·8

  Male non-manual

  33·3

  50·0

  58·3

  41·7

  50·0

  58·3

  All males

  43·5

  65·2

  69·6

  47·8

  65·2

  69·6

  Female manual

  74·6

  84·5

  85·9

  74·6

  85·9

  87·3

  All non-manual

  46·2

  59·6

  74·0

  48·1

  60·6

  74·0

  All females

  57·7

  69·7

  78·9

  58·9

  70·9

  79·4

  Female manual

  72·0

  84·1

  85·4

  2·0

  85·4

  86·6

  All non-manual

  44·8

  58·6

  72·4

  47·4

  59·5

  72·4

  All workers

  56·1

  69·2

  77·8

  57·6

  70·2

  78·3

  n/a = Data not available due to limited sample size.

  New Earnings Survey, April 1995 (GB) Average weekly earnings, of part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the Survey period was not affected by absence

  Including overtime

  Excluding overtime

  Manual £

  Non-Manual £

  All £

  manual £

  Non-Manual £

  All £

  Great Britain

  Males

  98.1

  149.8

  126.3

  86.4

  144.0

  117.8

  Females

  76.6

  114.2

  101.6

  72.2

  109.3

  97.0

  All

  80.8

  118.8

  105.4

  75.0

  113.8

  100.1

  Scotland

  Males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  78.2

  116.6

  101.4

  72.9

  111.2

  96.0

  All

  80.8

  118.2

  103.2

  74.2

  112.6

  97.2

  Fife

  Males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  81.1

  n/a

  Grampian

  Males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  n/a

  120.6

  102.6

  73.0

  n/a

  98.1

  All

  75.2

  124.3

  103.7

  71.3

  119.1

  99.1

  Lothian

  Males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  n/a

  120.2

  107.3

  75.0

  114.3

  101.6

  All

  123.6

  123.6

  111.9

  n/a

  n/a

  105.1

  Strathclyde

  Males

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  81.4

  121.1

  105.1

  74.6

  115.4

  98.9

  All

  83.4

  119.7

  104.7

  75.4

  114.0

  98.1

  1. Data are not available for Borders, Central, Dumfries and Galloway, Highlands and Islands are Tayside due to limited sample sizes.

  n/a = Result not available due to limited sample size.

  EU Contributions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the gross contribution to be made to the European Union in the
  255
  calendar year 1996 and the appropriate net contribution; and if he will publish a table showing these figures for the previous four years. [24068]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's forecast of the United Kingdom's gross and net contribution to the European Community in 1996 will shortly be published in the annual White Paper, "Statement on the Community Budget". Outturn figures for the years 1992 to 1995 are set out in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Gross contributions before abatement

  Abatement

  Gross contributions after abatement

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after abatement and public sector receipts

  1992

  6,738

  -1,881

  4,857

  -2,827

  2,030

  1993

  7,985

  -2,539

  5,446

  -3,291

  2,155

  1994

  7,189

  -1,726

  5,463

  -3,253

  2,211

  1995

  8,889

  -1,207

  7,682

  -3,522

  4,160

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 688, what is his estimate of the average rate of income tax in 1996–97 for (a) a two-earner married couple with no children and (b) a two-earner married couple with two children under 11 years of age, if the households concerned are on (i) half average household income, (ii) average household income and (iii) twice average household income. [24105]

  Mr. Jack
  Standard comparisons are based on calculating income tax liabilities with incomes at multiples of full-time male average earnings and full-time female average earnings—adult rates, all occupations. Estimates for 1996–97 are given in the table.

  Income tax as a percentage of earnings

  Multiple of average earnings1

  0·5

  1

  2

  Two-earner married couple with no children

  10·6

  17·3

  23·5

  Two-earner married couple with two children under 112

  4·9

  14·4

  22·0

  1 Full-time males plus full-time females on adult rates, all occupations.

  2 Net of child benefit.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of their population paying the higher rate of income tax for each regional council area and district council area in Scotland. [23796]

  Mr. Jack
  Information derived from the survey of personal incomes for the larger Scottish regions in 1993–94 is shown in the table. I regret that reliable estimates are not available for the smaller regions or district council areas.
  256

  Number of higher rate taxpayers in 1993–94 expressed as a percentage of people aged 16 years or over

  Scotland

  3·0

  Central

  3·0

  Fife

  2·0

  Grampian

  4·8

  Highlands

  2·8

  Lothian

  3·9

  Strathclyde

  2·5

  Tayside

  2·8

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total sum contributed by employers to occupational pensions on behalf of employees in the last year for which figures are available; [23978]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) higher rate taxpayers, (b) basic rate taxpayers and (c) lower rate taxpayers who benefit from employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes; [23976]

  (3) how much of the tax relief on employers' occupational pension contributions is attributable to (a) higher rate taxpayers, (b) basic rate taxpayers and (c) lower rate taxpayers; [23979]

  (4) what is the estimated average rate of tax relief on employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes. [23977]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest estimate, which is still provisional, is that total employers' contributions to occupational pensions 1994–95 were about £10,300 million. Information is not available to enable employers' contributions to be related to particular individuals. The revenue cost of not treating employers' contributions as a taxable benefit in kind of the employees is based on an average marginal tax rate of about 28 per cent., giving a cost of tax relief of around £2,900 million. This assumes that the distribution of marginal tax rate is similar to that of employees generally, but it would be misleading to provide the more detailed information requested on the basis of very general assumptions.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of employees in pensionable employment whose pension entitlement is not at present covered by the earnings ceiling. [23980]

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available centrally. Only the trustees of individual occupational schemes would be able to provide this information.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of unemployed persons in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales, aged under 25 years; how many have never attained full-time employment; how many have a higher education qualification; and if he will make a statement. [23800]
  257
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information available from the labour force survey for autumn—September to November—1995 is shown in the table. It is not seasonally adjusted.

  United Kingdom

  Wales

  International Labour Organisation unemployed aged under 25

  737,000

  35,000

  Of which: Have a higher education qualification1

  80,000

  2—

  Never had a paid job

  295,000

  12,000

  of which: in full-time education

  106,000

  2—

  1Qualification above A-level or equivalent.

  2Estimate below 10,000 not shown.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24235]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury currently has no out-sourcing arrangements with the EDS computer system.

  Budget (Women)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will ask his Department to conduct a separate analysis of the impact the measures in this year's Budget will have on women in advance of his autumn Budget statement; [22726]

  (2) what assessment his Department made in advance of the autumn Budget statement of the impact which the measures in last year's Budget would have on women. [22727]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The impact of the Budget on all groups is considered very carefully.

  VAT (Sanitary Products)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated revenue generated from value added tax on sanitary products for women in each of the last four years; and what would be the estimated annual cost to the Treasury of reducing value added tax on sanitary products to the lowest permissible level. [22762]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No actual figures are available on the revenue generated from value added tax on sanitary products for women; however, it is estimated to be of the order of £40 million annually. The estimated annual cost to the Treasury of reducing value added tax on sanitary products to 5 per cent. the lowest permissible level, is approximately £25 million.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration his Department has given to reducing value added tax on sanitary products to a lower rate. [22763]
  258
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since the last Labour Government agreed with other EU member states in 1977 that the UK would not extend the scope of its existing zero rates, it is not possible to zero-rate these products. Member states may apply to them a reduced rate of not less than 5 per cent., but it remains Government policy not to have a reduced rate for anything except domestic fuel and power in the interests of having as simple a rate structure for the tax as possible.

  Unfunded Pension Liabilities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the dissemination of information among member states' Ministers and senior officials relating to unfunded pension liabilities and other member state unfunded liabilities in connection with a single European currency. [22624]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Measuring future pensions and other liabilities on a comparable basis for different countries is not straightforward, but studies have been undertaken by the OECD and others and widely disseminated. These suggest that, compared with other member states, the UK is in a relatively favourable position in this area.

  VAT and Excise Office, Hammersmith
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customers have attended in person to pay VAT and related taxes on the last date for payment in each of the last 12 months at Griffin house VAT and excise office, Hammersmith. [23659]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  One hundred and twenty-eight customers have attended in person to pay taxes on the last date for payment during the year to February 1996. The number of customers attending in each month are:

  Number

  31 March 1995

  23

  28 April 1995

  8

  31 May 1995

  4

  30 June 1995

  4

  31 July 1995

  15

  31 August 1995

  18

  29 September 1995

  14

  31 October 1995

  3

  30 November 1995

  3

  29 December 1995

  10

  31 January 1996

  9

  29 February 1996

  17

  128

  In addition, 571 envelopes were deposited for onward transmission to the Department's accounting centre in Southend, and it is fair to assume that a significant proportion of these would have included payments.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24398]
  259
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury is aware of the problem and has already taken action. It will take into account forthcoming guidance to be issued by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in April and, in parallel, it is investigating the scale and complexity of the problem as it affects its own information technology systems. We will proceed on the basis of the results of this exercise.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24509]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury supports fully the Government statement in the White Paper, "Making Waste Work, A strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales". We aim to set targets by the end of 1996.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on trends in the balance of trade in manufactures since 1992. [24827]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There has been no obvious trend in the balance of trade in manufacturers since 1992, although the volume of exports has increased faster than the volume of imports.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards agreeing private finance initiative projects in 1995–96; what steps he is taking to increase the number of private finance initiative contracts; and if he will make a statement. [25127]

  Mr. Jack
  The private finance initiative is now making a serious contribution to the delivery of services to the public. Within 12 months, the Government have agreed projects with a capital value of £4.8 billion. In addition, projects with a capital value of around £300 million are at preferred bidder stage. A further £330 million worth is expected to be agreed shortly. These are listed in the tables.

  These figures tell only part of the story. The total value of a PFI deal to the private sector can typically be three times the capital value because the Government contract to buy services associated with an asset for years to come.

  Through PFI, the Government have achieved more than many people ever thought possible, though agreeing this number of deals has not been without problems. I have published new procurement guidelines today which will be circulated throughout the public sector. They are a practical response to comments made by people active in PFI and are designed to help smooth out processes, reduce bidding costs and speed up the flow of good deals. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  PFI offers prospects for the public and private sectors to work in partnership throughout the country. I am about to embark on a tour to promote PFI regionally and to hear directly from people active on PFI contracts.
  260
  From this solid base, the Government intend to go on to agree at least £14 billion worth of deals by the end of 1998–99. The PFI is unlocking new resources, producing a new range of investment opportunities and increasingly replacing more old-style public sector capital spending and service procurement.

  Agreed private finance initiative projects

  £ million

  Home Office

  Bridgend prison

  50

  Fazakerley prison

  50

  Immigration Nationality Department

  20

  Other Home Office projects

  20

  Transport

  Channel tunnel rail link

  3,000

  Northern Line trains

  400

  Ist tranche design, build, finance and operate

  380

  Social Security

  National insurance recording computer system

  150

  Health

  South Bucks district general hospital

  40

  St. James', Leeds

  50

  Royal Berks and Battle

  20

  Norwich and Norfolk district general hospital

  170

  Swindon and Marlborough

  90

  Smaller deals

  70

  Defence

  RAF vehicle fleet in Germany

  50

  Other defence projects

  55

  Scotland

  Dundee district council: waste to energy

  40

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS trust

  60

  Other Scottish health projects

  20

  Wales

  University Hospital Wales

  10

  Environment

  Waltham Forest housing action trust

  15

  Total value of agreed announced projects

  4,760

  Other hospital projects with identified preferred bidder but which have yet to be announced

  300

  Examples of imminent projects

  Projects

  £million

  Docklands Light Railway extension

  120

  Longbenton DSS: Newcastle site redevelopment

  80

  Benefit payments automation through Post Office

  120

  British museum support building

  10

  Total

  330

DEFENCE

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the 1996 statement on the defence estimates; and if he will ensure that the 1996 edition of "Defence Statistics" will be published concurrently. [23442]
  261
  Mr. Soames
  On current plans, the statement on the defence estimates 1996 should be published and laid in the House on 1 May 1996. As last year, we expect to publish the 1996 edition of "Defence Statistics" in mid-July, the earliest feasible date, allowing for compilation and validation of information relating to the end of the financial year.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23739]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Hydrographic Office and the Meteorological Office under their framework documents. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence for details about out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  I have assumed that the question refers only to computer software systems and I have based my answer on this. DERA does not have any such contracts with EDS.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence two Parliamentary Questions relating to out-sourcing contracts with EDS software computer systems. As your questions relate, in part to the Hydrographic Office and such issues fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office, I have been asked to reply to you.
  2. I have assumed you would not object if I were to answer both of your questions in this letter and on that basis I can advise you that the Hydrographic Office has no out-sourcing contract with EDS. Furthermore the Hydrographic Office has never had any out-sourcing arrangement with EDS and, as a consequence, no savings can be reported.
  3, I hope this information has been helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meterological Office I am replying to your recent questions to the Defence Secretary concerning out-sourcing contracts with EDS.
  We currently have no such contracts.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the savings to date to his Department and his Department's agencies from out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS software computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24360]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally for my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  262
  The matters fall also, however, to the chief executives of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Hydrographic Office and the Meteorological Office under their framework documents. I have asked the chief executives of those agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the savings to-date to his Department and his Department's agencies from out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS software computer system compared with the use of in-house services. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  I have assumed that the question refers only to computer software systems and I have based my answer on this. DERA does not have any such contracts with EDS.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office I am replying to your recent questions to the Defence Secretary concerning out-sourcing contracts with EDS.
  We currently have no such contracts.

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence two Parliamentary Questions relating to out-sourcing contracts with EDS software computer systems. As your questions relate, in part to the Hydrographic Office and such issues fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office, I have been asked to reply to you.
  2. I have assumed you would not object if I were to answer both of your questions in this letter and on that basis I can advise you that the Hydrographic Office has no out-sourcing contract with EDS. Furthermore the Hydrographic Office has never had any out-sourcing arrangement with EDS and, as a consequence, no savings can be reported.
  I hope this information has been helpful.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the ratio of support and maintenance technicians for helicopters in support of the Army between those operated by the Royal Air Force and the Army air corps. [24130]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army air corps has an aircraft establishment of 260 helicopters, with 43 reserves. These receive first and second-line technical support from 1,022 aircraft engineering officers and men, and 293 contractors' personnel. The Royal Air Force has an aircraft establishment of 138 support helicopters, with 35 reserves. These are supported by 1,708 aircraft engineers, and 230 contractors' personnel. Third-line support of these helicopters is provided under tri-service arrangements. It would be misleading to draw a direct comparison between these two sets of figures. The technical complexity of the helicopters involved is very different, as are the levels of maintenance carried out at the second line by the two services.

  Cyprus (Discipline)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many violent incidents were recorded by
  263
  the British Army in Cyprus which occurred off base and involved the civilian population in each of the last five years. [24076]

  Mr. Soames
  Until recently, this information has not been held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the period 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996, there were 16 cases of grievous bodily harm involving members of the British Army in Cyprus. Of these, seven were between soldiers, seven were attacks on soldiers by civilians, and two were attacks on civilians by soldiers.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the legal costs so far for the defence of riflemen of the Royal Green Jackets for all the charges relating to the attack and killing of Louise Jensen on Cyprus in 1994 for(a) the pre-trial stage of the proceedings taken against them by the authorities in Cyprus and (b) the trial. [24132]

  Mr. Soames
  The bills presented for legal aid have not differentiated between pre-trial and trial costs. Bills presented to 31 December 1995 have amounted to £170,000. We estimate that additional bills to date yet to be presented will add a further £30,000 approximately.

  RAF Bentwaters
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure the integration into the local economy of the development of the vacant site at RAF Bentwaters; and if he will make a statement. [24372]

  Mr. Soames
  Over a period of two years, my Department has liaised extensively with the local authorities, Suffolk county council, and Suffolk Coastal district council and the Department of the Environment to agree a planning brief for this site. That brief has now been adopted in the structure and local plans, and will form the basis on which detailed planning applications from the purchaser are determined.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bids received for the recently vacated site of RAF Brentwaters; and if he will make a statement. [24373]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to disclose the bids received for surplus property as this information is commercially confidential.

  RAF Woodbridge
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the bids received for the recently vacated site of RAF Woodbridge; and if he will make a statement; [24375]
  (2) what plans he has to ensure the integration into the local economy of the development of the vacant site at RAF Woodbridge; and if he will make a statement. [24374]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Woodbridge was taken into the Army estate on a phased basis between 1993 and 1995. It is currently being used for training and as accommodation. The only vacant site at Woodbridge barracks is the former USAF technical site, no bids for which have been invited. Its future use is being considered 264
  by a firm of civilian consultants. The opinions, views and concerns of the local authorities and communities will be taken into consideration before any decisions are made.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the research conducted by Dr. Howard Urnovitz into the effects of oral polio vaccines administered to service and medical personnel serving in Operation Granby is referred to his Department's continuing review of the origins and consequences of Gulf war syndrome. [24291]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department will consider all relevant research material on the health problems experienced by Gulf veterans.

  Patriot Missiles
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made of the effectiveness of patriot missiles during the Gulf war. [24199]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment on the effectiveness of military equipment used by allies, unless it is also in service with our own forces.

  Defence Accounts Agency (Visits)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what visits on official business staff of the defence accounts agency have undertaken in the last 12 months; what was the date and purpose of the visits in each case; how many members of staff the agency has working in non-United Kingdom locations for periods in excess of three months; and in which countries they are located. [24190]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Pay and Personnel Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 3 April 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about visits on official business and overseas working as the matters referred to fall within my responsibilities as Chief Executive of the Pay & Personnel Agency.
  The Pay & Personnel Agency, in common with its predecessor the Defence Accounts Agency, does not maintain records in the detail you ask, and to assemble the necessary statistics would entail the expenditure of disproportionate time and cost. It is, however, Agency practice that all such visits are properly scrutinised before they take place and are only undertaken when alternative arrangements are not practical.
  The Pay & Personnel Agency employs six people in a non-United Kingdom location. These are civilian staff locally employed in Malta, administering the pension entitlements of Maltese nationals who were at one time employed by the United Kingdom Government.

  Alcohol Awareness Policy
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the alcohol awareness policy for the armed forces(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Cyprus and (c) in other overseas ports; and if he will make a statement. [24473]
  265
  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces have a comprehensive alcohol awareness policy. Each service has in place a comprehensive system of education and training on alcohol-related problems. Pamphlets, films and lectures are used to make all personnel aware of the dangers of abuse. Education on alcohol abuse is given to all new recruits on entry and this is continued in units regularly and prior to deployment overseas. Commanding officers are encouraged to limit the number of bars in their units, and opening hours are controlled and monitored. Instructions are published regularly in unit orders to remind personnel of their responsibilities in these matters and the pursuit of sport and other leisure activities is actively encouraged as a means of preventing personnel becoming bored and spending too much time in bars. Officers and non-commissioned officers are trained to recognise symptoms of abuse and all three services offer rehabilitation programmes for those with alcohol-related problems.

  Misconduct in relation to alcohol is dealt with as a disciplinary issue. Drunkenness is a specific offence under the Service Discipline Acts and charges are brought where appropriate.

  The policy applies equally at home and overseas, but local commanders may carry out additional awareness training as may be necessary to cover local conditions.

  In Cyprus all new arrivals, service, civilians and dependants over 18, as well as all visiting personnel and units, are briefed on the dangers of alcohol abuse. This message is reinforced regularly through a rolling programme of alcohol abuse briefings, through routine orders and other orders and the chain of command. The Soldiers, Sailors and Air Force Association further reinforces this message through an active command health promotion programme. The commander, British forces Cyprus keeps the policy on alcohol abuse under constant review, imposing, as necessary, restrictions such as out-of-bounds arrangements or requirements for personnel to sign out and sign in when leaving and returning to barracks in off-duty time. In the wake of the Louise Jensen trial, the commander, British forces Cyprus has begun a full and radical review of what more might be done.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24411]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The capability of the Ministry of Defence's existing computer systems to recognise the year 2000 date change is already under investigation and an initial impact survey has been carried out to give an indication of the likely extent of the problem.

  Early signs are that the effects may not be as severe as originally thought since the managers of most of the MOD's computer systems have already taken action to avoid date change errors. However, further work is in hand to provide a more comprehensive picture and it is expected that this will lead to the issue of guidance to computer users and systems managers. The work being undertaken currently by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on this matter is being carefully monitored.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24505]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As set out in the statement on the defence estimates 1995, Cm 2800, the Department is reviewing its overall waste management arrangements, including waste minimisation. Office waste is only one of many defence waste streams. The Department of the Environment is producing guidance on the minimisation of office waste, on which we intend to draw in formulating MOD strategies for waste management and minimisation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  War Pension Appeals
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time lapse between notice of appeal being given to the war pensions appeal tribunal and the case being heard; what is the shortest time; and what is the longest time before an appeal has been heard. [24044]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As at February 1996, the average time for a case to be heard at the pensions appeal tribunals from the date the appeal was received was 55 weeks. Of those cases finally determined during that month, the shortest waiting time was nine weeks and the longest 302 weeks.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the age profile in five-yearly intervals of outstanding applicants before the war pensions appeal tribunal. [24046]

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

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applicants before the war pensions appeal tribunal are cases alleging combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. [24048]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available as the pensions appeal tribunals do not record appeals by the type of medical condition subject to appeal.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the number of appeals currently outstanding before the war pensions appeal tribunal; and what was the number for each year for the past 10 years. [24043]

  Mr. Evans
  As at February 1996, there were 10,657 appeals outstanding. The number of appeals lodged has increased threefold in the last three years. The number outstanding as at the end of each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  1986: 1,841

  1987: 2,194

  1988: 1,837

  1989: 2,135

  1990: 1,658

  267

  1991: 1,821

  1992: 1,356

  1993: 2,405

  1994: 5,737

  1995: 9,697

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the increase in throughput of appeals before the war pensions appeal tribunal as a result of the recent increase in tribunal members. [24045]

  Mr. Evans
  The appointment of additional tribunal members during 1995 has meant that the number of venues where appeals are normally heard on a weekly basis has increased from four to eight, and it is planned to increase that number to 10 in may. In 1995, 4,907 cases were decided, compared with 2,863 in 1994.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases before the war pensions appeal tribunal have lapsed as a result of the death of the applicant. [24047]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available as the pensions appeal tribunals do not keep a record of cases that have lapsed due to the death of the appellant. There is provision for the next of kin to continue the case.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24405]

  Mr. Evans
  My Department is aware of this potential problem and is assessing the impact on its computer systems.

  County Court Service (Wales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to reorganise the county court service in Wales. [24521]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  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. Ron Davies, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the county courts in Wales.
  The Court Service constantly monitors and reviews the viability of its court network in the light of changing business needs and workload trends. A business case has been submitted to Court Service Headquarters proposing the transfer of administrative work from Ammanford County Court to the county courts at Llanelli and Carmarthen and to a new court centre at Swansea but retaining judicial sittings at Ammanford. Initial business cases are also being considered for the closure of Mold and Holywell County Courts. All proposal will be subject to a period of widespread public consultation. The final decision on the closure of any county court is, however, for the Lord Chancellor.
  268
  A survey of users has been conducted at Chepstow, Aberdare and Caerphilly County Courts to establish the extent of the service that these courts provide to the public. The results of the surveys are currently being evaluated and no decisions have yet been made.
  The structure of the Wales and Chester Circuit is also being reshaped as part of the Court Service Management Structure Review. This is an administrative reorganisation and there will be no effect on the business of the county courts.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were heard during each of the last three years at Caerphilly county court; and what percentage of these cases received legal aid. [24522]

  Mr. Evans
  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. Ron Davies, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of cases heard at Caerphilly County Court.
  No Circuit Judge sits at Caerphilly County Court; instead cases are listed at the trial centre at Pontypridd. In 1995/6, 25 cases from Caerphilly were heard at Pontypridd. It is not possible to identify Caerphilly cases from Pontypridd's lists for the earlier two years.
  In 1993/94, 220 District Judge hearings were held in open court and 768 in chambers. In 1994/5 these numbered 164 and 746 respectively and in 1995/6, 89 and 773. It is not possible to identify which of these involved parties receiving legal aid and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current annual cost of providing the County court service in Caerphilly. [24517]

  Mr. Evans
  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. Ron Davies, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of providing the county court service at Caerphilly.
  The annual cost, including judicial and administrative salaries and accommodation and running costs, is approximately £93,269.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24508]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department will set a target for overall waste reduction by December 1996.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of outsourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what
  269
  assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24232]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has not entered into any outsourcing contracts with EDS.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what outsourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23727]

  Mr. Evans
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, the chief executives of the agencies have been asked to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above Question about the number of computer contracts held by the firm EDS.
  The Court Service has no computer contracts with this company.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 27 March 1996, regarding out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.
  The Public Trust Office does not have any out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system. H M Land Registry has granted no such contracts to this company.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about out-sourcing contracts.
  The Public Record Office has no out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Metropolitan Police (Civilian Officers)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the transfer of civilian enforcement officers from the Metropolitan police service to the inner and outer London magistrates courts will be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive. [23445]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received legal advice stating that, in general, transfers of civilian enforcement staff from the police to magistrates courts committees are likely to be subject to these regulations. Whether the regulations apply in any particular situation depends on all the facts of the case, which will be different from one area to the next. Each magistrates courts committee or police authority involved in a transfer of staff must 270
  therefore determine for itself whether the regulations will apply to it, obtaining its own legal advice on the matter if necessary.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which interested parties or bodies were consulted about the decision to transfer the posts and duties of civilian enforcement officers from the Metropolitan police service to the inner and outer London magistrates courts. [23443]

  Mr. Evans
  The following organisations were consulted either by my Department or by the Home Office about the decision to transfer the responsibility for enforcement duties from the police throughout England and Wales to magistrates courts committees, every MCC, including the inner London magistrates courts service and all outer London MCCs; the Central Council of MCCs; the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society; the Standing Conference of Justices' Chief Executives and Clerks to MCCs; the Association of Magisterial Officers; the Association of Chief Police Officers. Decisions on the transfer of individual posts will be for the Metropolitan police and the relevant MCCs to resolve jointly. So far as I am aware, no such decisions have yet been made by those bodies.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if legislation will be required to enable civilian enforcement officers to carry out their duties when they are no longer employed as the direct agents of the commissioner for the Metropolitan police. [23446]

  Mr. Evans
  No legislation will be required to enable civilian enforcement officers to carry out their duties if, instead of being employed by the Metropolitan police, they are employed and duly authorised by a magistrates courts committee, by a local authority or by another police authority. We are currently clarifying whether legislation would be required to enable civilian enforcement officers to carry out enforcement duties in other circumstances.

SCOTLAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalophy
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what total level of compensation has been given to farmers for the destruction of cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each year since 1990 in Scotland. [22935]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is held centrally on the basis of Great Britain as a whole, and a breakdown by country could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total level of compensation paid to farmers on a Great Britain basis in each year since 1990 was:

  1990: £12.3 million

  1991: £28.1 million

  1992: £56.3 million

  1993: £92.6 million

  1994: £116.2 million

  1995: £126.6 million

  271
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cattle have been identified as suffering from BSE in Scotland by(a) breed and (b) number for each year since 1993. [23792]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is as shown in the following tables:

  Breed

  Cases confirmed at 1 March 1996

  Aberdeen Angus

  28

  Aberdeen Angus crosses

  489

  Ayrshire

  391

  Ayrshire crosses

  29

  Charolais

  38

  Charolais crosses

  50

  Friesian

  3,042

  Friesian crosses

  565

  Galloway

  3

  Galloway crosses

  9

  Hereford

  34

  Hereford crosses

  1,416

  Highland

  5

  Highland crosses

  1

  Holstein

  180

  Holstein crosses

  26

  Jersey

  20

  Jersey crosses

  2

  Limousin

  45

  Limousin crosses

  434

  Luing

  0

  Luing crosses

  4

  Murray Grey

  2

  Murray Grey crosses

  2

  Romagnola

  1

  Romagnola crosses

  4

  Simmental

  61

  Simmental crosses

  498

  Other breeds (including crosses)

  127

  Total

  7,506

  Year

  Number of confirmed cases

  1993

  2,208

  1994

  1,326

  1995

  659

  1996 (15 March 1996)

  48

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which inhabited Scottish islands have had no recorded cases of BSE since 1989 [23793]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information on incidence of BSE is collected on a regional basis and a breakdown of the detail requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Countryside Premium Scheme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be available from the countryside premium scheme for 1996–97 and 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [23794]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Around £2 million is available for the countryside premium scheme in 1996–1997 although the timetable for bringing the scheme into operation means that it is difficult to predict how much of 272
  this amount will be required. My noble Friend will decide later this year on the funding requirements for the scheme in 1997–98.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which further education colleges in Scotland will have their grant in aid reduced in 1996–97; by how much; for what reasons; and which of these will be required to educate more students than the current year. [24038]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  College

  Variation from 1995–96 grant £

  Ayr

  -84,300

  Barony

  -22,500

  Bell

  -265,200

  Clackmannan

  -14,100

  Clydebank

  -291,300

  Coatbridge

  -188,400

  Dumfries and Galloway

  -135,900

  Dundee

  -525,100

  Falkirk

  -60,600

  Fife

  -371,900

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  -241,600

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  -168,700

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  -191,100

  Glenrothes

  -136,700

  Inverness

  -314,400

  Jewel and Esk Valley

  -369,800

  Lews Castle

  -103,200

  Oatridge

  -94,400

  Stevenson

  -131,900

  Thurso

  -133,000

  West Lothian

  -241,300

  Grant levels of these colleges are reducing as a result of the implementation of a new funding formula, which rewards colleges which have been most successful in reducing unit costs and attracting and retaining students. No specific targets for student growth have been set for these colleges.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what efficiency savings have been required of the further education colleges in each year since incorporation; and what is the total amount of money saved since incorporation. [24039]

  Mr. Robertson
  Colleges were expected to achieve an efficiency saving of 3 per cent. 1993–94 and 1994–95 and 4 per cent. in 1995–96. Because financial information pre and post incorporation cannot be meaningfully compared, it is not possible to quantify the amounts of money saved. Between 1993–94 and 1994–95 colleges delivered efficiency gains of 4 per cent. on student activity which was 6 per cent. higher.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been conducted by his Department in Scotland on the consequences of incorporation of further education colleges. [24040]
  273
  Mr. Robertson
  A research study into the operation of further education college boards of management, funded by the Scottish Office, was published in June 1995. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) administrative and (b) management staff employed at colleges (i) on the date of incorporation and (ii) at present. [24041]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information on the number of administrative and management staff employed at colleges on the date of incorporation is not held centrally. The total full-time equivalent number of support staff, on a disaggregated basis, in academic year 1994–95, the latest for which information is available, was 4,517.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lecturing staff were employed in further education colleges(a) at the date of incorporation and (b) at present; and how many were (i) full time and (ii) part time. [24031]

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

  Number

  October 1992

  5,562

  Full-time

  4,960

  Part-time

  6,850

  Full-time equivalent

  Academic year 1994–95

  Full-time

  5,606

  Part-time

  7,448

  Full-time equivalent

  6,903

  Information on staff numbers at 1 April 1993 is not held centrally. The October 1992 figure is the information collated prior to incorporation. Academic staff numbers are now collated on an academic year basis.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which colleges of further education were in deficit at the end of the last financial year; by how much; and which colleges his Department assesses to be in deficit in the current financial year. [24032]

  Mr. Robertson
  At 31 March 1995 the audited accounts showed that the deficit on total reserves, after making provision for the future cost of pension enhancements given for early retirement, for the following colleges was as shown in the table.

  College

  £000

  Aberdeen

  -565

  Anniesland

  -153

  Central College of Commerce

  -59

  Clydebank

  -305

  Coatbridge

  -239

  Falkirk

  -346

  James Watt

  -309

  John Wheatley

  -56

  Langside

  -134

  Moray

  -543

  North Glasgow

  -1,129

  Stevenson

  -593

  274

  College

  £000

  Thurso

  -101

  West Lothian

  -96

  Information regarding financial outturns at 31 March 1996 is not yet available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that no(a) closures and (b) amalgamations of further education colleges will occur in the next financial year. [24033]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend has presently no plans to close or amalgamate colleges.

  Clydesbank College
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis he reduced the budget of Clydebank college in the current year. [24034]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Formula funding aims to increase student participation on a cost-effective basis whilst maintaining quality. It rewards colleges which have been most successful in reducing unit costs and attracting and retaining students. The reduction in 1996–97 was largely due to the college's failure to attract additional students. The setting of the college budget is undertaken by the college board of management.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial position of Clydebank college. [24035]

  Mr. Robertson
  The latest audited accounts to 31 March 1995 show that Clydebank college had a deficit since incorporation of £70,000. In addition a deficit of £235,000 was inherited from pre-incorporation. Officials are in dialogue with college management over their plans to address its financial position.

  Further Education Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the strategic aim of his method of calculating the further education budget in terms of increasing skill levels in Scotland. [24036]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The aim is to increase student participation on a cost-effective basis, while maintaining quality, and thus increase the skills levels and economic competitiveness of Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he takes of levels of local unemployment in allocating budgets to further education colleges. [24037]

  Mr. Robertson
  None, as investigation has shown this not to be a significant factor in determining the total costs of colleges. Colleges delivered 6 per cent. more student activity between 1993–94 and 1994–95. Higher levels of student activity are enhancing employment prospects.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name and location of new industries that have been attracted to Scotland by Locate in Scotland during the last 12 months. [24282]
  275
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All our dealings with inward investors are undertaken on a commercially confidential basis and we do not therefore publish details of individual projects except in cases where details of the project have been announced by the company itself. The following table contains details of the new projects attracted to Scotland which have been the subject of public announcements since April 1995. A number of inward investors have of course also announced plans to expand their existing facilities in Scotland.

  Date of announcement

  Company

  Location

  April 1995

  Birkbys Plastics Ltd.

  Glenrothes

  April 1995

  Patrol Manufacturing

  Glasgow

  June 1995

  Selfcare Inc.

  Inverness

  July 1995

  MAN Truck and Bus UK Ltd.

  Bellshill

  July 1995

  PET Processors LLC

  Dumfries

  July 1995

  Canon (UK) Ltd.

  Glenrothes

  August 1995

  British Gas

  Edinburgh

  August 1995

  National Australia Group

  Clydebank

  August 1995

  BT

  Motherwell

  September 1995

  Precision Tube Technology

  Peterhead

  September 1995

  Bi-Link Metal Specialities

  Cumbernauld

  October 1995

  Lexmark International

  Rosyth

  November 1995

  Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.

  Mossend

  November 1995

  Motorola

  East Kilbride

  November 1995

  Foxconn UK Ltd.

  Erskine

  February 1996

  DuPont

  Hamilton

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24403]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office is taking steps to ensure that administrative computer systems for which it is responsible will recognise the year 2000 and will continue to process information properly.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24500]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office is introducing an environmental management system based on the British Standard BS7750 for its largest building at Victoria quay in Edinburgh. As part of the system waste minimisation targets will be set and introduced as appropriate across the remainder of the estate. The initial review for the system has been completed and data collected in order to develop waste minimisation targets by the end of 1996.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the performance of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against targets for 1995–96 and the setting of its targets for 1996–97. [24978]
  276
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The agency is on course to meet the Commons targets for 1995–96 which my predecessor set out in his answer of 9 February 1995,Official Report, columns 359–60.

  For 1996–97 I have set the agency the following key performance targets:
  fulfilment of the service level agreement with the Scottish Office agriculture, environment and fisheries department within the running costs voted to the agency for 1996–97;
  recovery of full economic costs for charged services;
  continuation of the programme of consultation of all major customers on the quality of the work done by the agency;
  completion of 92 per cent. of all scientific tests and analyses within the timescale set by customers; and
  improvement in the unit of the scientific work of the agency (cost per direct scientist hour).

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the 1996–97 charging scheme for local air pollution control in Scotland under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [25181]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in Scotland in April 1992.

  With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 31 March 1996. From 1 April, the new Scottish Environment Protection Agency has taken over the regulation of these processes.

  The main changes are that the standard application fee is increased by £25 to £1,015, the application fee for a former Alkali Act works is reduced to £300, the substantial change fee is increased by £15 to £650, and the annual subsistence charge is increased by £20 to £625.

  The scheme has today been laid before both Houses of Parliament and a copy placed in the Libraries.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the workings of the environmentally sensitive area agri-environment scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [23016]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: All aspects of the workings of the environmentally sensitive area scheme are kept under review.

  Abattoirs (Hygiene Standards)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment he has made of the hygiene standards in Scottish abattoirs. [24444]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply to the hon. Member direct. The Meat Hygiene Service operates across Great Britain and is accountable to the British Agriculture Ministers jointly.

  Self-catering Properties (Rateable Value)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what account is taken of(a) wages of the spouse of proprietor, (b) self-employed national insurance contributions, (c) pension contributions of the proprietor and spouse of proprietor and (d) turnover in assessment of the rateable value of self-catering properties; [24260]

  (2) if he will list the criteria used in the assessment of the rateable value of self-catering premises. [24266]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Valuation for rating in Scotland is the responsibility of either the council or valuation joint board assessor as appropriate. In carrying out this function assessors are entirely independent of both local and central Government and reach their decisions in accordance with statute and case law.

  Government Expenditure Plans
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the planned expenditure falling within the Scottish block of the Government's spending plans in respect of(a) industry, (b) housing, (c) roads and transport, (d) law and order, (e) education, (f) arts and libraries, (g) environmental services, (h) social work services and (i) health, for each of the years 1989–90 to 1994–95 inclusive, the outturn expenditure for 1995–96, the estimated outturn expenditure and for 1996–97, using 1989–90 as the base year for comparison and excluding expenditure on additional functions taken on as a responsibility by the Secretary of State since 1989–90, and adjusting for transfers between programmes. [8724]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: A tabulation on the lines requested is contained in my departmental report, a copy of which has been deposited in the House Library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11356]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Expenditure by Scottish Office Departments and its agencies was as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure

  Press and PR

  Print and publications

  Advertising

  1979–80

  263,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989–90

  2,251,000

  n/a

  763,000

  1,488,000

  1991–92

  3,905,000

  1,900,000

  785,000

  1,220,000

  1993–94

  3,174,000

  1,300,000

  816,000

  1,058,000

  1994–95

  4,192,000

  1,461,000

  1,049,000

  1,682,000

  1995–96

  4,507,000

  964,000

  1,724,000

  1,819,000

  n/a = not available.

  278
  Advertising includes press, television, radio, cinema and poster advertising.

  Budgets for 1996–97 have not yet been finalised.

  Details of expenditure by non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally.

  Running costs figures are shown in the column headed Press and PR. No public relations companies have been employed during these years.

  The Scottish Office and its agencies carry out pre-post evaluation of all their publicity campaigns and their accounts are audited on a regular basis.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process in the middle east. [22629]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have been appalled at the recent terrorist attacks in Israel.

  The UK condemns these outrages and will work with her friends and allies to combat the terrorist threat and continue to work for peace.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the middle east in 1996 to discuss the peace process. [22649]

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to follow up the recent peace conference to help ensure the security of Israel.[22630]

  Mr. Hanley
  A meeting of officials to follow up the Sharm el-Sheikh conference took place in Washington on 27 to 29 March. The UK will play a full part in preparation of a ministerial level follow-up to take place later this week.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with representatives of the Government of the USA on the question of differences between China and the USA over the future of Taiwan. [22635]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the current tensions between China and Taiwan when he met US Secretary of State Christopher in Moscow on 23 March. They agreed to remain in close contact and to urge both sides to resume dialogue as soon as possible.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government over their planned exercises off Taiwan.[22638]

  Mr. Hanley
  We made our grave concerns about the Chinese military exercises known to the Chinese both directly and through our public and parliamentary
  279
  statements. The EU issued a statement on 8 March. Although military exercises have now finished, we continue to urge restraint and an early resumption of cross-straits dialogue.

  European Union
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government plan to put forward to improve openness and transparency within the European Union. [22636]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are committed to making the European Union more open and transparent and have supported a number of proposals to achieve this. We are considering our policy on any proposals for more openness and transparency, in the context of the on-going intergovernmental conference.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis Ministers in his Department sign public interest immunity certificates. [22637]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are guided by the law according to which in appropriate cases we weigh, but subject always to the overriding discretion of the court, the public interest in non-disclosure against the public interests in disclosure for the purposes of doing justice.

  European Security Policy
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts over a common security policy.[22639]

  Mr. David Davis
  I regularly discuss common foreign and security policy matters with my EU counterparts, most recently at the Foreign affairs Council on 25 March.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends next to raise the subject of European Security at the ministerial Council of the Western European Union. [22641]

  Mr. Davis
  European security will be discussed by the WEU Council of Ministers at its next meeting in Birmingham on 7 May, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and me.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to reduce nuclear proliferation. [22640]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are currently supporting a number of initiatives intended to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. These include the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to improve its ability to detect clandestine nuclear activities, support for early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty, and a range of measures to make more effective relevant supplier regimes.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last meeting between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar to discuss the future of the colony; and when the next meeting is planned. [22642]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are in regular contact at ministerial and official level with the Government of Gibraltar on the range of issues which affect the territory. These contacts will be maintained. I was in Gibraltar last November for discussions with a wide range of Gibraltarians, including the Chief Minister and representatives of other political parties.

  European Institutions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage greater access to European institutions by members of national Parliaments of EU member states. [22644]

  Mr. David Davis
  We support greater involvement of national Parliaments in the European Union, and more contact between national parliamentarians and the European institutions. We are looking at how to take this forward in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

  Sub-Saharan African
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out his Department's priorities for sub-Saharan Africa. [22646]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our priorities are to ensure political and economic stability in the region through the promotion of democracy and good government-including free and fair elections; to encourage the support of conflict prevention and peacekeeping; to promote human rights and to promote UK trade and investment and harmonious bilateral relations.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to bring forward the date of a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [22647]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to urge full co-operation with the UN operation in the Western Sahara by Morocco and Polisario, which would establish the date for a referendum. In our view, the earlier the details of the referendum can be agreed, the better.

  Counter-terrorist Initiatives
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) guidance and (b) assistance he has given counter-terrorist initiatives in respect of the (i) Israeli and (ii) Palestinian authorities following the conference at Sharm-el-Sheikh. [22648]

  Mr. Hanley
  We co-operate against terrorism with both the Israeli Government and the Palestine National Authority and we are urgently examining ways in which to deepen that co-operation.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the United Nations special commission on Iraq has investigated(a) mines and (b) processing plants for phosphates or phosphoric materials in Iraq; and what conclusions they reached. [24200]

  Mr. David Davis
  UNSCOM has inspected numerous facilities in Iraq connected with the production of phosphates or phosphoric materials. Those with the potential to be involved in producing weapons of mass destruction have either been destroyed or included in the ongoing monitoring and verification system. There is further detail in the UNSCOM report of 10 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24227]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department has no out-sourcing arrangements with EDS.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's role as a guarantor power in Cyprus. [22929]

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom, along with Greece and Turkey, is a joint guarantor power of the Republic of Cyprus under the 1960 treaty of guarantee. Britain is at the forefront of international efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus problem.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24408]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department has put in hand a study to determine which, if any, of its computer systems will be affected by this problem. In addition, the Government Centre for Information Systems has initiated a programme of consultation and education in which we are participating.

  The Overseas Development Administration is updating its computer systems, most of which already recognise the year 2000. In the process, adjustments are being to the two systems that require changes for the next year 2000. These adjustments will be completed within the next 18 months.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a282
  statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24511]

  Mr. Hanley
  We aim to put in place office waste minimisation targets by the end of 1996, in keeping with the commitment in the Government White Paper "Making Waste Work". The overall target will be reduce the amount of waste by 15 per cent. over the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1998.

  Terrorism Conference
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent conference in Cairo to discuss measures to combat terrorism.[22631]

  Mr. Hanley
  A meeting of officials to follow up the Sharm el-Sheikh conference took place in Washington on 27 and 29 March. The UK will play a full part in preparation of a ministerial level follow-up to take place later this week.

  British Council
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future funding of the British Council's work in the middle east.[22645]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council plays an extremely valuable role in supporting our diplomatic and aid objectives in the middle east. Following the recent public expenditure survey settlement, we will shortly be discussing with the British Council its proposals for the distribution of resources both between and within individual regions.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the work of the British Council in the middle east; and if he will make a statement [22643]

  Mr. Hanley
  Heads of mission in middle east countries where the British Council is represented, provide regular assessments of the council's work. These serve to confirm that the council makes a very valuable contribution to our diplomatic and aid objectives.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20539]

  Mr. Howard
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 March,Official Report, column 712, comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 expressly provides that I am not required to give reasons for my decisions on applications for citizenship.

  Firearms
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences committed by young people between the ages of 11 and 18 to 25 years have involved firearms in each of the last five years. [23732]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data held centrally on notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used does not identify those responsible for the offences.

  Information for the years 1990 to 1994 on the number of persons cautioned and convicted of offences involving the use of firearms, including air weapons, in England and Wales by age group and type of offence, is given in the table.

  Data for 1995 will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Number of persons cautioned and found guilty (known offenders) of offences involving the use of firearms by age and type of offence 1990–1994

  England and Wales

  Year/age group

  Indictable

  Summary

  11-17 years of age

  1990

  424

  1,491

  1991

  434

  1,146

  1992

  326

  1,103

  1993

  340

  854

  1994

  443

  1,005

  18-25 years of age

  1990

  1,514

  1,453

  1991

  1,509

  1,201

  1992

  1,418

  973

  1993

  1,268

  635

  1994

  1,344

  548

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated number of hand-guns in Wales. [23754]

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of hand guns legally held on firearms certificates in Wales is estimated by the police forces concerned to be about 13,500.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many existing gun licences by police authority have been revoked during the past five years. [23986]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of revocations of both firearm and shotgun licences, by police force, is published in the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many gun licences have been renewed during the last five years in South Yorkshire; [23988]

  (2) how many new gun licences have been (a) considered, (b) approved and (c) refused in each of the last five years in South Yorkshire. [23987]

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information is shown in the following table:
  284

  Firearm and shotgun certificates—South Yorkshire

  New certificates

  Renewals

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  1990

  137

  2

  439

  14

  440

  2,713

  1991

  125

  3

  556

  15

  486

  2,576

  1992

  128

  —

  457

  17

  507

  1,870

  1993

  184

  —

  527

  7

  385

  2,603

  1994

  197

  —

  470

  15

  374

  2,184

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of residents with a licence to keep a firearm on their premises in South Yorkshire(a) at present, (b) last year, (c) in 1991 and (d) in 1986. [23989]

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information relates to the number of firearm and shotgun certificates on issue in South Yorkshire at 31 December each year. This is as follows:

  Firearm and shotgun certificates on issue in South Yorkshire at 31 December

  Firearm certificates

  Shotgun certificates

  1986

  1,718

  11,460

  1991

  1,507

  8,806

  1993

  1,597

  9,174

  1994

  1,766

  9,137

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the discussion paper on possible changes to the control of firearms which was put before the Firearms Consultative Committee by its two police members referred to in chapter 3 of the fourth annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [24082]

  Mr. Maclean
  Copies of the Firearms Consultative Committee's annual reports are in the Library. Chapter 3 and annex E of the committee's fourth annual report contained a summary of the proposals made in the discussion paper referred to. The release of individual papers submitted to the Firearms Consultative Committee is a matter for the committee and the authors of the paper.

  Metropolitan Police (Civilian Officers)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations were received by the Metropolitan Police service from interested parties or bodies about the decision to transfer the posts and duties of civilian enforcement officers to the inner and outer London magistrates courts. [23444]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that his officials have received representations from the trade union side of the departmental Whitley council, the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union, and that the Metropolitan police have liaised with the chair of the strategic management body for the outer London courts, a number of clerks for inner and outer London magistrates courts, the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 406, how many individual records for criminal convictions are held on the police national computer. [23537]

  Mr. Maclean
  Criminal record data held on the police national computer comprise 2.8 million records originating before 1981, which consist of name and criminal record office number and which are supported by microfiche records of convictions held by the national identification service, and 2.3 million records originating after 1981 which include details of convictions.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the concentration of active agent used in the CS sprays currently on trial; what is the solvent used; and what is the total volume of liquid in each canister. [23563]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows: 5 per cent., methyl isobutyl ketone and 30 ccs.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an urgent inquiry into the use of CS gas spray during an incident in Rank's south Wirral leisure park on 25 March. [23965]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. This is an operational matter for the chief constable, who is conducting an investigation.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions Merseyside police have used CS gas since its introduction on a trial basis in the Birkenhead division; [23963]

  (2) on how many occasions CS spray has been used in each pilot area in the United Kingdom;[24711]

  (3) on how many occasions CS spray has been used in the pilot areas after the initial arrest.[24709]

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistical information will be made available when the trials are complete.

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of the misuse of gamma hydroxy butyrate have been reported to his Department during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [24140]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no requirement to report cases of misuse of gammahydroxybutyrate to the Home Office and any reports to the Department of health's drug misuse databases are not at present recorded separately.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received that gamma hydroxy butyrate be re-classified as a dangerous drug and added to the list of controlled substances. [24139]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since mid-1994 we have received seven letters, three questions from Members of Parliament and a similar small number of letters from members of the public about the classification of the drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Immigration
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-EC nationals travelling to the United Kingdom from other EU member states were found by the United Kingdom immigration service to have inadequate travel or entry documentation in terms of United Kingdom requirements during 1995(a) at Heathrow airport, (b) at the port of Dover, (c) on trains from Brussels or Paris, (d) at Waterloo station and (e) at Coquelles shuttle terminal; and how many in each category were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom. [24003]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is as follows:(a) The number arriving specifically from European Union airports is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  (b) 1,526.
  (c) Subsumed within the figure at (d) (all Paris and Brussels trains terminate at Waterloo; records are not maintained according to the place of embarkation).
  (d) 1,218.
  (e) All passengers travelling to the United Kingdom via Coquelles are seen by a United Kingdom immigration officer at Coquelles; those without adequate documentation are not permitted to travel.
  Statistics relating to the number of passengers who arrive both without adequate documentation and who are also refused leave to enter are not readily available. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many £2,000 penalties were notified to carriers under the terms of the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 in respect of non-EC nationals travelling to the United Kingdom from other EU member states who were found to have inadequate travel or entry documentation in terms of United Kingdom requirements during 1995(a) at Heathrow airport, (b) at the port of Dover, (c) on trains from Brussels or Paris, (d) at Waterloo station and (e) at Coquelles shuttle terminal. [24098]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The number arriving specifically from European Union airports is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) 116.

  (c) The provisions of the Act do not apply to channel tunnel traffic.

  (d) The provisions of the Act do not apply to channel tunnel traffic.

  (e) The provisions of the Act do not apply to channel tunnel traffic.

  Deportations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March. [24426]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The numbers of persons removed under the deportation process, including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated, in January and February 1996 were 149 in each month. In addition, 241 and 197 illegal entrants were removed, or
  287
  departed voluntarily, in the respective months. All the figures are provisional. The corresponding data for March are not yet available.

  Winson Green Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those people detained in HM prison Winson Green under Immigration Act powers during the months of January, February and March have been deported. [24425]

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

  Letter from Alastair Papps to Lynne Jones, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, how many of those people detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers during the months of January, February and March have been deported.
  There were 23 people discharged and deported from Birmingham prison in January and 22 in February. There is no information currently available for March.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained in HM prison Winson Green, under Immigration Act powers in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [24424]

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

  Letter from Alastair Papps to Lynne Jones, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, how many people were detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March; and what were the nationalities of those detained.
  Information for 31 January and 29 February is given in the attached table. There is no information currently available for March.

  Population of Immigration detainees at HM Birmingham on 31 January and 29 February 1996 by nationality1

  Number

  Nationality

  31 January

  29 February

  Bangladesh

  2

  —

  China

  5

  3

  Algeria

  2

  6

  India

  27

  25

  Nigeria

  4

  5

  Pakistan

  6

  9

  Others

  5

  7

  Total

  51

  55

  1 Provisional figures.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had at some stage applied for asylum were detained in HM prison Winson Green during(a) January, (b) February and (c) March; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [24423]
  288
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is in the table.

  Population of asylum detainees at HMP Birmingham on 31 January, 29 February and 29 March 1996 by nationality1

  Nationality

  31 January

  29 February

  29 March

  Algeria

  —

  4

  5

  Bangladesh

  2

  —

  2

  China

  6

  4

  —

  India

  22

  16

  14

  Pakistan

  8

  9

  7

  Nigeria

  2

  2

  —

  Others

  2

  1

  3

  Total

  42

  36

  31

  1 Estimated breakdown.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the current members of the race relations management team for Doncaster prison; in each case where is their place of(a) employment and (b) residence. [24489]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the members of the race relations management team for Doncaster prison.
  I attach a table with details of the employment and residence of the members of the race relations management team at Doncaster.

  Name

  Employment

  Residence

  J. Mandefield (Chairperson)

  premier Prisons Servises (PPS), Operations Manager

  HMP Doncaster

  C. Barrett (Race Relations Liaison Officer)

  PPS, Throughcare Coordinator

  HMP Doncaster

  Rev. I. Jennings

  PPS, Chaplaincy

  HMP Doncaster

  Mr. Khan

  Imam

  The Mosque, St James' Street, Waterdale, Doncaster

  D. Kirkham

  South Yorkshire Probation Service, Senior Probation Officer

  HMP Doncaster

  S. Armiger

  PPS, Catering Manager

  HMP Doncaster

  M. Samuels

  South Yorkshire Probation Service

  Arundel Gate, Sheffield

  Ms Verma

  Doncaster Council for Racial Equality

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  D. King

  Doncaster Council for Racial Equality

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  J. Lewis

  PPS, Nurse

  HMP Doncaster

  P. Etherington

  Board of Visitors

  HMP Doncaster

  Metropolitan Police Art Theft Squad
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time and part-time members of the police, and at what rank, worked in the art theft squad of the Metropolitan police at any convenient date in 1976, 1986, 1991 and 1996; and if he will make a statement. [23152]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that precise records are not available for 1976 but that the unit then employed a total of some 13 staff. The unit was not operating as such in 1986. In 1991 there were three staff, one of whom was a civilian. The present staffing is one detective sergeant, two detective constables and two civilian staff. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the name and remit of the art and antiques unit, originally the philatelic squad, has changed several times since its inception in 1968.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify what(a) improvements and (b) other recommendations have been made by the Prison Service's regional area manager with respect to Buckley Hall prison; which have been implemented; and on what dates. [24168]

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

  Letter from Alastair Papps to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the timing and implementation of improvements and other recommendations at Buckley Hall which have been made by the Prison Service area manager.
  The area manager tours Buckley Hall prison in the company of the Director and Controller. During this tour he may make numerous verbal recommendations of an advisory nature. This is fully in keeping with the type of observations which he would make in any of the public sector prisons for which he is responsible. The Controller, who is present, ensures that recommendations are implemented.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the present full complement of(a) part-time and (b) full-time staff by grade currently employed by Group 4 at Buckley Hall prison; [24172]

  (2) what is the full complement of (a) part-time and (b) full-time staff by grade employed by Group 4 at the end of Buckley Hall prison's first year of operation; [24171]

  (3) how many ex-Prison Service staff are currently employed by Group 4 at Buckley Hall; and at what grades; [24094]

  (4) what has been the cost of damage to the building, fixtures and fittings as a result of disturbances and other incidents at Buckley Hall from the date of opening to the present time; and what proportion of these costs have been borne by (a) his Department and (b) Group 4. [24095]
  290
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Buckley Hall prison.
  The table below shows the complement of full-time and part-time staff (excluding sub-contractors) employed by Group 4 at Buckley Hall prison at the end of the first year of operation and currently.

  Month

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  End December 1995

  131

  18

  End March 1996

  138

  25

  The previous employment of any staff at the prison is a matter for Group 4. Prison Service responsibility is limited to the certification of prisoner custody officers. However, I understand that seven staff who are currently employed at Buckley Hall prison have had previous employment in a public sector prison.
  The Prison Service has borne no costs for damage to buildings, fittings and fixtures. I understand that Group 4 have spent £2,287 on materials at Buckley Hall in respect of damage incurred during reportable incidents.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times, and in what circumstances, Group 4 has been financially penalised for failing to perform under the terms of its contract for Buckley Hall prison; [24096]

  (2) how many times, and in what circumstances, default notices have been issued to Group 4 in respect of its performance at Buckley Hall; on how many occasions financial penalties have been levied in respect of default notices that have been issued; and if he will list in each case the reason for not levying financial penalties in respect of a default notice. [24093]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about improvement notices and financial penalties imposed on Group 4 in respect of Buckley Hall prison.
  To date, no financial penalties have been imposed and four improvement notices have been issued. These relate to the standard of cleaning in the dining-room; the supervision of prisoners; the failure to provide an agreed number of industrial work places; and the provision of sentence plans and compacts for prisoners. Financial penalties have not been imposed because, in each case, the Prison Service has been satisfied that Group 4 has taken appropriate action to remedy the situation.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for a full inspection of Buckley Hall prison by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons; and what is the intended date of this visit. [24169]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A full inspection of Buckley Hall prison will be undertaken in the first half of 1997. This is in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons that all new prisons should be
  291
  operational for some two years before being fully inspected: this is to allow processes and systems to become established.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Prison Service visited Buckley Hall prison on the 25 March; what were the grades of the Prison Service members; what was the purpose of the visits; and what conclusions were drawn by members of the Prison Service. [24173]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the purpose, grades and conclusions drawn by members of the Prison Service who visited Buckley Hall on 25 March.
  The monthly progress planning meeting group was held on 25 March at Buckley Hall prison and was attended by Mr T A Bone, Area Manager for the Trans Pennine area; Mr S Eley, governor 3; and Mrs R Simpson, grade 7, of the Contracts and Competition Group at Prison Service headquarters.
  The purpose of the meeting was to monitor the contract.
  No specific conclusions were made.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the incidents which have occurred at Buckley Hall prison that have been reported to the Prison Service.[24170]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a list of the incidents which have occurred at Buckley Hall prison that have been reported to the Prison Service.
  The attached table shows the number and types of incidents reported from 14/12/94 to 29/2/96 inclusive.

  Incident type

  Number of incidents

  Abscond

  4

  Assault

  19

  Self harm

  2

  Attempted escape from escort

  2

  Attempted escape

  3

  Concerted indiscipline

  7

  Drugs

  26

  Escape

  2

  Escape from escort

  2

  Fire

  3

  Temporary release failures

  30

  Key lock compromise

  1

  Miscellaneous

  3

  292

  Incident type

  Number of incidents

  Recaptures surrenders

  9

  Rooftop demonstrations

  2

  Tool loss

  2

  Total

  117

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what terms the original signed contract between the Prison Service and Group 4 for the running of Buckley Hall prison has been amended. [24277]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about amendments to the contract between the Prison Service and Group 4 for the running of Buckley Hall prison.
  The changes made are described in the attached table.

  Amendment number

  Date of amendment

  Subject of amendment

  1(T)

  22 November 1994

  Extension of period for negotiation of Performance Measurement System

  2 (S/T)

  20 October 1996

  Changes in procedures for visits, including the introduction of a requirement for prisoners to wear identification bibs, and to correct a typographical error

  3 (T)

  20 October 1996

  Change of Prison Service representatives who are authorised to amend contract

  4 (S)

  16 January 1996

  Incorporation of a Performance Measurement system and consequential change in amount of maximum penalty points, in any period of 12 months

  5 (T)

  7 March 1996

  Clarification of arrangements for adjusting payments in the light of penalty points accrued under the Performance Measurement system

  KEY: "S" = amendment requires a significant change in service

  "T" = amendment is of a technical nature, that is it clarifies or corrects the text or introduces new names and addresses, etc.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 154, on smuggling into Buckley Hall prison, (a) what is the estimated cost of the additional fencing and the possible installation of external cameras, (b) who will be responsible for payment of such extra security measures and (c) who was responsible for the design of the initial prison fence. [24298]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison
  293
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of additional fencing and installation of external cameras at Buckley Hall, as well as both the responsibility to pay for this extra security and the design of the initial prison fence.
  The cost of additional cameras and fencing will be incurred by Group 4.
  The initial prison fence is standard Prison Service design for category C prisons.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations his Department will carry out into recent allegations about absconding by prisoners at Buckley Hall prison who have been given cleaning tasks outside the prison. [24299]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether an investigation would be carried out into recent allegations about absconding by prisoners at Buckley Hall prison who have been given the cleaning tasks outside the prison.
  The Controller considered it unnecessary to carry out an investigation. The only prisoner to abscond from an outside work area had, up to the time of this incident in December, been a model prisoner, with the lowest security classification.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals there are for an investigation to be carried out into the prisoner who was recaptured in the car park of Buckley prison; if this incident was classified as an escape attempt; and what penalty was imposed on Group 4 following this incident. [24300]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether an investigation would be carried out into the circumstances of the recapture of a prisoner in the car park at Buckley Hall prison; if the incident would be classified as an escape attempt; and if a penalty would be imposed on Group 4.
  The Prison Service Controller carried out an investigation into the recapture of a prisoner in the car park at Buckley Hall prison. the Prisoner was charged under Prison Rule 47, paragraph 7, escaping from prison custody. He was found guilty and warded the maximum penalty of 42 added days.
  Group 4 have not been penalised.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Bosnia have been convicted of criminal offences in the United 294
  Kingdom; and how many have been deported as a result of conviction. [24042]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Category C Prisoners
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prisoners who have failed to return from authorised leave from each male category C prison and have subsequently been caught or returned voluntarily since 14 December 1994. [24097]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking the number of prisoners who have failed to return from authorised leave from each male category C prison and have subsequently been caught or returned voluntarily since 14 December 1994.
  The attached table shows the relevant information from 14 December 1994 to 29 February 1996 inclusive.

  Prison

  Number of prisoners

  Acklington

  11

  Aldington

  1

  Ashwell

  3

  Blantyne House

  3

  Brockhill

  1

  Buckley Hall

  21

  Camp Hill

  10

  Channings Wood

  6

  Coldingley

  20

  Downview

  25

  Erlestoke

  22

  Everthorpe

  13

  Featherstone

  16

  Guys Marsh

  4

  Haverigg

  6

  Highpoint

  2

  Kirklevington

  19

  Lancaster

  4

  Latchmere House

  11

  Lindholme

  15

  Littlehey

  10

  The Mount

  6

  Ranby

  9

  Risley

  21

  Send

  13

  Shepton Mallet

  9

  Stafford

  4

  Stocken

  17

  Usk

  3

  The Verne

  3

  Wayland

  3

  Wealstun

  15

  Wellingborough

  7

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the 1,000 regulations identified for
  295
  repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those, which (a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23658]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 2 April, Official Report, column 85.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Mature Students
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature students currently enter higher education in the Yorkshire and Humberside area; and what was the figure in each year since 1986. [23831]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Mature1 entrants to higher education in Yorkshire and Humberside2

  Academic year

  Number

  1987–88

  15,395

  1988–89

  17,211

  1989–90

  18,034

  1990–91

  19,587

  1991–92

  23,324

  1992–93

  25,707

  1993–94

  26,427

  1994–95 (provisional)

  29,740

  1 Those aged 21 and over on an undergraduate course, and those aged 25 and over on a postgraduate course. Data for ex Universities Funding Council institutions are for full-time home entrants only throughout the time series.

  2 Entrants to institutions located in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what savings to date have been made by her Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with EDS computer system; what assessment she has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in house; and if she will make a statement. [24239]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has made no out-sourcing arrangements for computer systems with EDS.

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days were taken over the European social fund audit at Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council; what was the cost; and if she will make a statement. [24492]

  Mr. Forth
  The last visit to Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council was made by auditors from 296
  Directorate General V of the European Commission in October 1993. The audit took one day to complete. Information on costs is not available.

  Higher Education Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the public expenditure per higher education student in cash and real terms for the years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 (c) 1995–96 and (d) planned for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 (i) in total, (ii) on student support costs, (iii) on tuition costs and (iv) in capital expenditure terms; and if she will list these figures for the universities of (1) Teeside, (2) Sunderland, (3) Durham, (4) Northumbria and (5) Newcastle upon Tyne. [23702]

  Mr. Forth
  The total public expenditure per higher education student is set out in the tables. Information is not readily available for individual universities.

  Public expenditure per student in cash terms (£)

  Actual

  Planned

  Year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  6,519

  6,655

  6,681

  6,501

  6,368

  6,271

  Student support

  1,505

  1,691

  1,732

  1,692

  1,631

  1,571

  Teaching and research

  4,649

  4,622

  4,589

  4,560

  4,512

  4,518

  Capital

  365

  342

  360

  249

  225

  182

  Public expenditure per student in cash terms (£)

  £, 1995–96 prices

  Actual

  Planned

  Year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  6,786

  6,805

  6,681

  6,327

  6,046

  5,824

  Student support

  1,567

  1,729

  1,732

  1,647

  1,549

  1,458

  Teaching and research

  4,840

  4,726

  4,589

  4,438

  4,284

  4,196

  Capital

  380

  350

  360

  242

  214

  169

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in rank order of spending per pupil the initial Government borrowing allocation for education capital spending for the years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 for each local education authority. [23703]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Education annual capital guidelines totals for 1994–95 and 1995–96, pupil numbers in county and voluntary controlled schools at January 1994 and January 1995, and ACG cover per pupil are given in the following tables, in descending order. Pupil numbers for January 1996 are not yet available. Apart from small amounts for local education authority liability at voluntary-aided schools, ACGs cover capital work at county and controlled schools only. Bids are assessed against clear priority criteria, which are not based on pupil numbers, and the ACG cover is used for particular schools, not spread across all schools in the LEA.

  Amounts actually spent by LEAs on capital work at their schools will differ from their ACG totals and full details are not yet available. In many cases the amount is somewhat higher than the ACG.
  297

  Full-time equivalent pupil numbers in maintained schools: by status January 1995

  LEA

  County and controlled school pupils

  1995–96ACG

  ACG per pupil (£)

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  26,992

  12,131

  449

  Manchester

  48,254

  17,190

  356

  Isle of Wight

  16,042

  4,693

  293

  Gloucestershire

  43,385

  10,611

  245

  Salford

  27,553

  5,625

  204

  Wakefield

  44,139

  8,704

  197

  East Sussex

  76,363

  15,026

  197

  Wandsworth

  15,384

  2,994

  195

  Redbridge

  28,302

  5,132

  181

  Lincolnshire

  58,617

  9,867

  168

  Shropshire

  53,155

  7,423

  140

  Kent

  157,204

  21,248

  135

  Isles of Scilly

  283

  307

  131

  Haringey

  22,851

  2,713

  119

  Buckinghamshire

  80,147

  9,245

  115

  Enfield

  29,591

  3,234

  109

  Sutton

  15,226

  1,660

  109

  Barnsley

  30,446

  3,314

  109

  Calderdale

  20,824

  2,193

  105

  Sunderland

  41,972

  4,159

  99

  Liverpool

  46,313

  4,576

  99

  Oxfordshire

  69,041

  6,767

  98

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  32,247

  3,093

  96

  Devon

  124,546

  11,627

  93

  Coventry

  38,729

  3,587

  93

  Suffolk

  87,261

  7,676

  88

  Cumbria

  47,078

  4,105

  87

  Tameside

  27,659

  2,403

  87

  Cambridge

  77,288

  6,669

  86

  Hereford and Worcester

  81,968

  6,865

  84

  Barking and Dagenham

  23,420

  1,899

  81

  Essex

  120,824

  9,668

  80

  Hampshire

  187,546

  14,762

  79

  Wigan

  26,836

  2,066

  77

  Waltham Forest

  26,912

  2,028

  75

  Avon

  123,775

  9,318

  75

  Cleveland

  80,588

  6,051

  75

  Bradford

  67,689

  5,076

  75

  Hounslow

  27,341

  2,035

  74

  Birmingham

  130,472

  9,210

  71

  Harrow

  23,742

  1,644

  69

  Surrey

  81,449

  5,545

  68

  Solihull

  26,723

  1,805

  68

  St. Helens

  19,028

  1,236

  65

  Sheffield

  65,160

  4,177

  64

  Lewisham

  24,024

  1,540

  64

  Croydon

  29,173

  1,860

  64

  Sefton

  28,433

  1,698

  60

  Cornwall

  63,432

  3,719

  59

  Barnet

  24,050

  1,408

  59

  North Tyneside

  26,353

  1,520

  58

  Lancashire

  141,422

  8,105

  57

  Oldham

  29,455

  1,660

  56

  Knowsley

  16,632

  935

  56

  Cheshire

  123,181

  6,657

  54

  Bromley

  24,877

  1,335

  54

  Dorset

  62,871

  3,340

  53

  Gateshead

  24,669

  1,306

  53

  Bexley

  27,693

  1,420

  51

  Camden

  11,822

  570

  48

  Wiltshire

  60,029

  2,786

  46

  Wirral

  41,344

  1,912

  46

  Northamptonshire

  75,616

  3,454

  46

  Somerset

  58,597

  2,608

  45

  Durham

  82,146

  3,545

  43

  298

  Full-time equivalent pupil numbers in maintained schools: by status January 1995

  LEA

  County and controlled school pupils

  1995–96ACG

  ACG per pupil (£)

  Kingston upon Thames

  11,710

  487

  42

  Merton

  16,675

  681

  41

  North Yorkshire

  92,632

  3,647

  39

  South Tyneside

  21,042

  827

  39

  Humberside

  132,267

  4,994

  38

  Norfolk

  86,063

  3,122

  36

  Derbyshire

  111,327

  4,031

  36

  Ealing

  24,743

  ,89l

  36

  Southwark

  21,250

  740

  35

  Northumberland

  44,157

  1,499

  34

  Wolverhampton

  33,482

  1,087

  32

  Hillingdon

  14,986

  475

  32

  Leicestershire

  126,622

  3,845

  30

  West Sussex

  81,151

  2,400

  30

  Bolton

  30,243

  884

  29

  Bury

  20,224

  557

  28

  Kirklees

  54,199

  1,455

  27

  Trafford

  23,420

  575

  25

  Lambeth

  16,488

  389

  24

  Newham

  36,114

  829

  23

  Leeds

  93,362

  2,081

  22

  Berkshire

  89,641

  1,961

  22

  Stockport

  35,801

  736

  21

  Bedfordshire

  71,608

  1,455

  20

  Warwickshire

  56,193

  1,074

  19

  Greenwich

  28,879

  487

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,822

  67

  14

  Dudley

  38,032

  499

  13

  Hackney

  18,691

  241

  13

  Rochdale

  23,607

  301

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  136,029

  1,677

  12

  Walsall

  35,091

  430

  12

  Islington

  17,316

  207

  12

  Doncaster

  45,148

  536

  12

  Brent

  16,968

  179

  11

  Hertfordshire

  112,070

  1,109

  10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,238

  91

  10

  Staffordshire

  143,972

  1,291

  9

  Richmond upon Thames

  14,178

  121

  9

  Havering

  26,694

  199

  7

  Rotherham

  39,405

  267

  7

  Sandwell

  45,137

  275

  6

  Westminster

  7,857

  40

  5

  Office of Standards in Education Report
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the name, type and pupil number of each school that has failed an Ofsted report, by local education authority of location, (b) the number of requests to suspend an Ofsted report on grounds of (i) actual or (ii) possible closure by name, type and pupil number of each such school listed, by local education authority of location, and (c) if each such request was granted. [23704]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Education Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place the non-London
  299
  metropolitan local education authorities in rank order of expenditure per pupil at (a) primary and (b) secondary level for the years (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97. [23705]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following tables show net institutional expenditure per pupil in metropolitan councils in(a) pre-primary and primary and (b) secondary local education authority maintained schools in 1993–94 and 1994–95, the latest year for which outturn figures are available.

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil—metropolitan councils (cash terms) 1993–94

  LEA

  £

  Pre-primary and primary

  Rochdale

  1,307

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  Doncaster

  1,307

  Trafford

  1,428

  Bury

  1,432

  Wigan

  1,437

  Tameside

  1,442

  Sefton

  1,448

  South Tyneside

  1,463

  Stockport

  1,466

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  Knowsley

  1,485

  Dudley

  1,490

  Salford

  1,505

  Sunderland

  1,509

  Barnsley

  1,539

  Manchester

  1,547

  Wirral

  1,552

  Birmingham

  1,572

  Sheffield

  1,573

  Solihull

  1,574

  Wakefield

  1,577

  Kirklees

  1,579

  Bolton

  1,581

  Liverpool

  1,586

  St. Helens

  1,605

  Calderdale

  1,607

  Oldham

  1,645

  Leeds

  1,647

  Bradford

  1,654

  Gateshead

  1,664

  Walsall

  1,672

  Sandwell

  1,681

  Coventry

  1,684

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,697

  Rotherham

  1,723

  Secondary

  South Tyneside

  1.948

  Bradford

  1,969

  Rochdale

  1,974

  Bury

  1,979

  North Tyneside

  1,995

  Doncaster

  2,022

  Tameside

  2,095

  Dudley

  2,098

  Barnsley

  2,101

  Sunderland

  2,114

  Sheffield

  2,119

  Bolton

  2,119

  Wigan

  2,141

  Wakefield

  2,150

  Trafford

  2,156

  Calderdale

  2,162

  300

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil—metropolitan councils (cash terms) 1993–94

  LEA

  £

  Leeds

  2,164

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,187

  Sefton

  2,204

  Kirklees

  2,207

  Salford

  2,215

  Solihull

  2,217

  Knowsley

  2,243

  Gateshead

  2,252

  Rotherham

  2,271

  Oldham

  2,278

  Walsall

  2,281

  Wirral

  2,299

  Wolverhampton

  2,300

  Stockport

  2,310

  St. Helens

  2,315

  Manchester

  2,328

  Birmingham

  2,330

  Sandwell

  2,349

  Coventry

  2,469

  Liverpool

  2,613

  1994–95

  LEA

  Pre-primary and primary

  Doncaster

  1,444

  Tameside

  1,447

  Wigan

  1,474

  Trafford

  1,477

  Sefton

  1,487

  Bury

  1,492

  Salford

  1,507

  St. Helens

  1,521

  Barnsley

  1,550

  Rochdale

  1,552

  Manchester

  1,558

  Stockport

  1,566

  Wirral

  1,567

  Knowsley

  1,575

  Dudley

  1,575

  Sunderland

  1,576

  Wakefield

  1,590

  Solihull

  1,605

  Kirklees

  1,607

  Sheffield

  1,612

  Oldham

  1,621

  South Tyneside

  1,623

  Liverpool

  1,634

  North Tyneside

  1,636

  Gateshead

  1,638

  Leeds

  1,645

  Bolton

  1,646

  Wolverhampton

  1,648

  Calderdale

  1,651

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,660

  Walsall

  1,664

  Sandwell

  1,666

  Bradford

  1,681

  Coventry

  1,705

  Rotherham

  1,719

  Birmingham

  1,721

  Secondary

  Doncaster

  2,025

  Bury

  2,032

  Bradford

  2,041

  301

  1994–95

  LEA

  Wakefield

  2,046

  Tameside

  2,046

  South Tyneside

  2,062

  Barnsley

  2,102

  Calderdale

  2,104

  Sheffield

  2,110

  Wigan

  2,130

  Sunderland

  2,142

  North Tyneside

  2,145

  Salford

  2,151

  Stockport

  2,152

  Dudley

  2,205

  Rotherham

  2,220

  Leeds

  2,223

  Rochdale

  2,225

  Solihull

  2,225

  Sefton

  2,227

  Knowsley

  2,227

  Sandwell

  2,224

  St. Helens

  2,247

  Kirklees

  2,256

  Gateshead

  2,257

  Bolton

  2,261

  Oldham

  2,293

  Wirral

  2,294

  Walsall

  2,314

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,314

  Trafford

  2,319

  Wolverhampton

  2,341

  Birmingham

  2,356

  Coventry

  2,418

  Manchester

  2,435

  Liverpool

  2,603

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place the non-London metropolitan local education authorities in rank order of administrative expenditure per pupil for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [23706]

  Mr. Squire
  The following table shows administrative expenditure per pupil as returned by the metropolitan councils for 1994–95, the latest year for which outturn figures are available.

  Metropolitan Councils—Administrative costs per pupil

  1994–95 LEA

  Gross expenditure Cost per pupil £

  North Tyneside

  53

  Trafford

  60

  Sunderland

  73

  Barnsley

  74

  St. Helens

  81

  Wolverhampton

  81

  Wigan

  82

  Solihull

  82

  Wakefield

  89

  Stockport

  89

  Dudley

  91

  Doncaster

  93

  Sefton

  94

  Rotherham

  95

  Bradford

  96

  Calderdale

  97

  Sandwell

  99

  Liverpool

  99

  Leeds

  100

  302

  Metropolitan Councils—Administrative costs per pupil

  1994–95 LEA

  Gross expenditure Cost per pupil £

  Rochdale

  102

  Bury

  104

  Tameside

  108

  Wirral

  108

  Walsall

  110

  Oldham

  112

  Sheffield

  114

  South Tyneside

  114

  Birmingham

  118

  Manchester

  125

  Gateshead

  135

  Bolton

  136

  Knowsley

  136

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  137

  Coventry

  146

  Kirklees

  146

  Salford

  204

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to her Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24410]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Officials who take responsibility for the Department's computer systems are keenly aware of the potential difficulties presented by the year 2000. During the coming months they will undertake a thorough audit of the software to establish the scale of the problem. They will then prepare and execute a plan of action to overcome them using, where necessary, advice from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and suppliers.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for her Department, indicating the targets set. [24504]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The former Education and Employment Departments both had established "green housekeeping" strategies consistent with their business needs. Waste minimisation forms an important part of the DFEE integrated strategy, but specific targets have not been set.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the status of the Student Loans Company. [25122]

  Mr. Forth
  Following a report by the National Audit Office, and with the agreement of its board, the Student Loans Company has been designated as a non-departmental public body with effect from 1 April 1996.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her present estimate of the monetary value of the backlog of school buildings repair and maintenance. [22787]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: It is for local education authorities and school governors to assess the need for maintenance work in respect of school premises which they own and maintain.

  Firlands Training Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she has taken to obtain information from the Department of Trade and Industry concerning its investigation of Firlands Training Ltd. under section 447 of the Companies Act into the liquidation of AST in 1995 and the fitness of its directors and other persons to be directors of public companies. [24431]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: It is not the policy of the Department for Education and Employment to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

  Dance Training
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students were pursuing vocational training in dance(a) in 1979 and (b) in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [23461]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Information is not available for 1979. The number of students enrolled on further or higher education courses in dance in each year from November 1990 to 1993 is shown in the following table:

  November

  Number of students enrolled on FE or HE courses in dance

  1990

  6,600

  1991

  8,600

  1992

  7,100

  1993

  7,800

  These figures exclude students in universities formerly funded by the Universities Funding Council, although the number of these students is likely to be small.

  Directly comparable information for November 1994 is not available because of changes to the data collection systms for further and higher education students. However, the indications are that the number of dance students was broadly unchanged from 1993.

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pre-16 students have begun GNVQ courses or have undertaken the GNVQ part one. [24366]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Information on the total number of pre-16 students studying GNVQ
  304
  courses is not held centrally. Some 6,000 students are currently studying part 1 GNVQ pilot courses.

  Staff (Hourly Rates)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the lowest hourly rate for(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff employed (i) by central Government and (ii) by next steps agencies. [21481]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two thirds of civil servants have their pay determined in 1995–96 under delegated arrangements, for which information on pay rates is not held centrally. The following figures relate to pay rates agreed under national arrangements.

  The lowest national civil service pay rate is £4,669 per year for an administrative assistant and typist, aged 16 years. This is £2.43 per hour based on a net 37-hour week. Very few staff will be on this pay point. Aside from age points, the lowest national civil service pay rate is £6,928 for the administrative assistant grade, or £3.60 per hour for a net 37-hour week.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Controls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the number and countries of destinations of licences approved under each heading of the Export of Goods Control Orders 1994, part III, group I and (b) the number and countries of destination of licences refused under each heading. [22654]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Statistical analyses of export licences granted for military, paramilitary and security equipment during 1993, 1994 and 1995, with details of refusals in these categories in 1995, have been placed in the Library of the House. Details of licences refused for these categories of equipment in 1993 and 1994 are set out in the annual reports of the export control organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry for those years, which are also available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for export licences were received under headings ML4, ML18 and PL5027 of the Export of Goods Control Order 1994 and how many were(a) granted and (b) refused. [24201]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of today to his related question.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22863]
  305
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information relating to contracts is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The chief executives of the Department's existing executive agencies have been asked to respond separately.

  Data in respect of the former National Physical Laboratory, National Engineering Laboratory and Warren Springs Laboratory executive agencies are no longer readily available.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of contracts for goods or services awarded by The Insolvency Service on the basis of single negotiated contracts in the last three years, the companies involved and the values of the contracts, and why the contracts were awarded on this basis.
  In the last three years The Service has awarded only one contract using the single negotiated tender procedure. In February 1994 Stoy Hayward were awarded the contract to undertake a feasibility study to assess the scope for private sector involvement in the case administration work of Official Receivers. The company had recently completed a pre-feasibility study of this matter and it was therefore considered appropriate to utilise the knowledge and understanding gained from their initial research in undertaking the second stage of the project. The value of the contract amounted to £72,263 (inc VAT).
  Information regarding the percentage this contract represented of total contracts awarded by competitive tendering could only be provided at disproportionate cost given the number of contracts awarded by the Insolvency Service across its 33 sites.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade, the Rt Hon Ian Lang asked me to reply to your question about contracts awarded for goods and services on the basis of single negotiated contracts during the last 3 financial years by Companies House Executive Agency.
  We have only examined contracts with a value of more than £10,000 since this is threshold above which, under DTI guidelines, competitive tendering is generally undertaken.
  During the period there were two single negotiated contracts compared to a yearly average of 25 contracts awarded after competitive tendering.
  The detailed information you sought is as follows:

  Financial year

  Company name

  Goods/Services

  1993/94

  Guardian Computer Services

  Disaster standby services

  1994/95

  Rank Xerox

  4890 Laser Printer

  The reasons for single tender action were respectively that in the first case the company was, as far as we were able to establish, the only one in the field providing disaster standby services for ICL 2980 mainframe computer systems; and in the second case that any other source would have required existing investment in printer driving software and data to be replaced.

  In relation to contract value, it is not the Department's practice to disclose individual contract values, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. However, I can say that the combined value of the two contracts was approximately £450,000.
  306
  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 March 1996:
  I am replying for the Patent office to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the number of single negotiated contracts awarded in the last three years.
  The single negotiated contract procedure is used only rarely for purchases over £10,000 when urgency, monopoly supplier or other factors demand it. In 1994/5 Peter Prowse Associates, a PR company with intellectual property experience, was appointed to help in advertising activities at a cost of £75,000, and after advice was sought from other Government Departments a CCTV security camera system was purchased from Sensormatic CamEra Ltd for £100,000 to help control an increase in thefts from motor vehicles from the Office's headquarters site. In 1995/6 £80,000 was spent with Sun Microsystems to provide access to Internet since the Patent Office had standardised on SUN UNIX equipment. A Docuprint print engine was also purchased in 1995/6 for £105,000 from Rank Xerox as part of an IT development project.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about single tender action. I regret that the information you requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about contracts awarded by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years.
  LGC follows a procedure based on the principles set out in the DTI's Procurement Manual for purchasing goods and services which forms part of its quality system accredited to BS EN ISO 9001. Single negotiated tendering would only be used where the nature of the goods or services makes competitive tendering pointless (and would need to be justified in writing by the person authorising the expenditure), except in the case of low value purchases (where likelihood of repeat orders also becomes a consideration). However the specific information you request cannot be provided without considerable expenditure of effort at disproportionate cost to the Laboratory.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions(a) Security Defence Marketing Services and (b) Compass Safety International have (i) requested and (ii) been granted an export or transhipment licence with regard to electro-shock batons.[23026]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It has been the practice of successive Administration not to reveal details of applications for export licences or export licences. However, in view of the current public interest in the matter, I am prepared, by way of exception, to confirm that, from 1991, the point from which records are readily available, there were no such occasions.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1996,Official Report, column 716, what was the country of origin and receipt for the 1993 licence for the transhipment of electronic batons. [23028]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the Minister for Science and Technology's letter to her of
  307
  3 August 1995 in response to her question tabled on 17 July 1995. For the reason given in that letter, I am not prepared to release any further details about this matter.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent human rights considerations were taken into account before the granting of transhipment licences for electro-shock equipment in 1993. [23027]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The same consideration was given to this application as applies to all others.

  Parcel Force
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Parcelforce has a monopoly on foreign parcels coming into the United Kingdom from overseas; and what responsibility they have for claims for loss or damage. [23403]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Parcelforce has a monopoly on foreign parcels that enter the UK under Universal Postal Union arrangements. Claims for loss and damage on items for delivery by Parcelforce in the UK would normally be settled by the overseas post office. Parcelforce would pay claims on any items posted in the UK for delivery abroad.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what obligations are placed on Parcelforce to deal with complaints and claims for loss or damage to parcels posted to the United Kingdom from overseas. [23402]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Universal Postal Union parcels agreement specifies how claims for loss or damage for incoming international parcels posted to the UK should be handled. The Post Office is a party to the agreement and its procedures for claims for such parcels comply with it.

  Meat Industry (Job Losses)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made in respect of(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of the number of (i) temporary and (ii) permanent job losses in the meat industry following the recent developments in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [24101]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At the moment, no estimate has been made by my Department.

  Birds Eye Walls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he will take to ensure that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission delivers to his officials investigating Birds Eye Walls provision of misleading information, all necessary papers, including transcripts of oral evidence, relating to the 1994 investigation into ice cream; [24458]

  (2) if he will now refer Birds Eye Walls to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the ice cream market. [24457]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am satisfied with the co-operation which I am already receiving from the 308
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Any criminal investigation that might be required will be undertaken by my Department and not by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish the report drawn up by the inspectors from his Department into the affairs of Guinness plc following their appointment by his predecessor in December 1986. [24356]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The inspectors have not yet completed their inquiries into the membership and affairs of Guinness plc and in consequence are not in a position to submit a final report. When they are, it will be carefully considered for publication.

  Unregulated Gasoline
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale from garage forecourts of lead replacement gasoline not regulated by a specific British standard. [24810]

  Mr. Page
  At the time of the last Budget, the Government decided to remove most of the excise duty advantage from higher octane unleaded petrols, which include lead replacement gasoline. The drafting of British standards is the responsibility of the British Standards Institution, BSI.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24512]

  Mr. Page
  The Department plans to commission an independent study to improve existing information about office waste with a view to setting a waste minimisation target by the end of this year for its headquarters offices.

  Nuclear Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the(a) direct and (b) incidental costs of processing spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors. [24707]

  Mr. Page
  The terms for the reprocessing of spent advanced gas-cooled reactor—fuel are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.—Nuclear Electric Ltd. and Scottish Nuclear, the companies with which BNFL has contracted to do this work. The accounts for Nuclear Electric plc and Scottish Nuclear for 1994–95, the latest available year, show the amounts provided for this work.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the full financial liability for processing all spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels will fall on the owners of the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations following privatisation. [24706]
  309
  Mr. Eggar
  As I have stated on numerous occasions, we have established the basic principle that assets will be followed by the associated liabilities. I can confirm that full financial liability for spent reactor fuel will fall on the owners of the reactors following privatisation.

  Helms-Burton Act
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact of the Helms-Burton legislation on British businesses. [22614]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 1 April 1996,Official Report, column 8.

  Small Business
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of new businesses with fewer than 100 employees established in each of the last four years, and how many were set up by women. [22793]

  Mr. Page
  Figures of the number of businesses registered for VAT for 1992 to 1994, the latest year for which date are available, are given in the table:

  Number of VAT registrations in the United Kingdom 1992–1994

  Year

  VAT registrations (thousand)

  1992

  187

  19931

  191

  19941

  190

  Note:

  1 Figures for 1993 and 1994 include adjustments to allow for the increase in the VAT threshold in November 1993

  Source:

  DTI Small Firms Statistics Unit.

  About 45 per cent. of all businesses are VAT registered, so the total number of start-ups can be expected to be around double the number of new registrations.

  Almost all new businesses will have fewer than 100 employees. Research by Barclays bank plc found that women accounted for 27 per cent. of start-ups in 1995, compared with around 25 per cent. earlier in the 1990s.

  Muroroa Atoll
  Mr Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what input the United Kingdom has into the International Atomic Energy Authority investigation of Muroroa atoll; and who will be considering, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, the geological stability of the site. [23153]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The International Atomic Energy Authority has undertaken, at the invitation of the French Government, to assess the radiological situation of the atolls of Muroroa and Fangataufa. The study will, inter alia, assess the geological stability and hydrology of the atolls. Experts from the United Kingdom will take part both in the study and in the high-level international advisory committee of scientists who will provide scientific guidance and direction to the IAEA on all matters related to the conduct of the study.
  310
  The study's findings, conclusions and recommendations will be contained in a report of the international advisory committee. This report will be published by the IAEA.

  Regional Development Organisations
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the business plans of the English regional development organisations; and what level of financial support he proposes to offer for 1996–97. [25117]

  Mr. Eggar
  I have studied the current performance and future plans of the eight English regional development organisations. I am pleased to say that they continue to make a significant contribution to the work of my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, to the overall success of the UK in attracting inward investment, and in particular to their regions' performance. In recognition of this, I have today offered £8.68 million of grant for their inward investment promotion activities for 1996–97. I have also made available a total of £531,000 for inward investment promotion activities in the south-east and eastern regions, to be undertaken by the Government offices.

  This 4.5 per cent. increase in funding is to enable the UK to remain competitive in promoting its locational advantages in the face of increasing competition for mobile inward investment projects. I have allocated the grant aid as follows.

  Regional Development Organisation

  1996–97 £000

  Northern Development Company (NDC)

  1,660

  INWARD Ltd (in the north-west)

  1,388

  Yorkshire and Humberside development agency (YHDA)

  1,410

  West Midlands development agency (WMDA)

  1,128.2

  East Midlands Development Company Ltd. (EMDC)

  810

  Devon and Cornwall Development International (DCDI)

  905

  London First Centre

  1,010

  West of England development agency (WEDA)

  370

  Activities in the south-east and eastern regions

  531

  Grant is offered on an annual basis according to past performance, ability to absorb additional funding effectively, and for an agreed programme of future activities, with proper regard to value for money. It is Government policy to encourage direct inward investment to the UK because it contributes significantly to economic growth. Inward investment brings benefits both to the country as a whole and more specifically to the assisted areas.

  Nuclear Power (Privatisation)
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in the preparations for the privatisation of the nuclear industry. [25120]

  Mr. Eggar
  I am pleased to report that significant progress is being made in the arrangements for privatising British Energy. Agreement has been reached in principle on the capital structure of the company. Details will be included in the share offer prospectus in due course.

  Three further significant milestones were passed on 31 March, 1996:
  311
  an independent segregated fund, which will provide for the cost of eventual decommissioning of British Energy's nuclear power stations, was established and will come into effect on privatisation. The fund will receive an initial endowment of about £230 million from the British Energy Group; the group will initially contribute £16 million per year in real terms to the fund thereafter. An independent trust, known as the Nuclear Trust, will manage the segregated fund and will own a funding company—the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd;

  British Energy plc, and its operating subsidiaries Nuclear Ele tric Limited and Scottish Nuclear Limited, were formally vested, as was Magnox Electric plc, which will operate the magnox power stations in the public sector;

  new nuclear site licences granted by the Health and Safety Executive for all British Energy and Magnox Electric nuclear power stations came into force.

  Arrangements for the British Energy share offer are also on course. The offer is planned for July 1996. It will comprise on open-priced international tender offer to institutional investors and a UK public offer aimed at retail investors. The launch of the UK public offer is planned for late May. At least 30 per cent. of the shares are expected to be offered to retail investors. This proportion may be increased if retail demand is strong. Payment for the shares will be in instalments. The share price in the UK public offer will be at a discount to the international offer price. Incentives and preference in allocation will be available to individuals who register for the UK public offer through a share shop. Arrangements for share shops' participation in the UK public offer were announced on 28 March 1996.

  Social Affairs Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council meeting held on 29 March. [25116]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I attended the EC Social Affairs Council meeting on 29 March in Brussels with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. There were no formal votes involving the UK.

  There was an open discussion on the future of social protection, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) represented the UK. He recognised the similar challenges facing member states —aging populations, affordability and efficiency—and emphasised the need to take decisions about social security at national level.

  The other 14 member states agreed the directive on parental leave, subject to German parliamentary scrutiny. This directive is based on the Maastrict agreement on social policy and does not apply to the UK.

  Political agreement was reached on a common position on the draft directive on the posting of workers. The UK and Portugal opposed the agreement.

  There were Commission presentations on a Commission communication on Community structural policies and employment, and on a Commission communication on worker information and consultation.
  312
  The Presidency announced that there would be an interim progress report at the Florence European Council on employment matters and confirmed details of forthcoming events to consider Presdent Santer's proposed "confidence pact".

  Telecommunications Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Telecommunications Council on 21 March. [25118]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The deputy UK permanent representative to the European Union represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 21 March.

  Following the unanimous political agreement reached at the last Telecommunications Council, the Council agreed a common position on a series of guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks. The Council also reached political agreement on a draft directive on interconnection in telecommunications—Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg opposed. A short debate followed on a Commission communication on directories and other telecoms information services in a competitive environment. The Presidency adopted conclusions calling on member states and the Commission to continue to monitor developments in the sector.

  The Presidency gave a progress report on discussion of a draft directive to amend the open network provision framework and leased lines directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC to a competitive environment. The Commission made a brief presentation of its communication on universal service for telecoms in a competitive environment. A draft decision for EU action on satellite personal communications services was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion. There was also an informal lunchtime discussion on the progress of multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation on basic telecommunications with Sir Leon Brittan.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24400]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is aware of the problem and has already had initial discussions with the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—the Government centre for information systems—and our main computer services supplier. CCTA has initiated a programme of consultation and education in which we are participating and, in parallel, we are investigating the scale and complexity of the problem as it affects our own IT systems. We will proceed on the basis of the results of these exercises.

  Coal Industry Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many claims were settled under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme from 1989 to date; when he will update the schedule of
  313
  payments under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme; if they will be back-dated; and if he will make a statement. [24830]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Assistance to Companies
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in respect of how many liquidated companies in the south-west which received financial support from his Department in each of the last eight years his Department are creditors; and what is the total owed. [20792]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 March 1996]: The information, in respect of recipients of support under the Department's regional, enterprise and technology schemes, is as follows:

  Year of liquidation

  Number of companies

  Total amount owed

  £ thousand

  1988

  4

  141

  1989

  10

  197

  1990

  18

  465

  1991

  12

  290

  1992

  13

  280

  1993

  10

  182

  1994

  8

  471

  1995

  4

  137

  All but £81,000 of the above has been written off.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards exist in his Department to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise between employees of his Department or others giving advice in any capacity in his Department's regional offices in respect of the issuing of financial assistance to local businesses; and when they were introduced. [22566]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: The Department's conditions of service have for many years required staff to declare any conflicts of interest. Failure to do so can lead to disciplinary action against the member of staff concerned. Under the Department's standard conditions of contract for consultants, external advisers who fail to declare a conflict are exposed to the possibility of termination of contract and other legal action. This has been the position since 1992. The Department announced in February that all future contracts with external advisers will contain a clause requiring them to agree not to take up appointments with firms on which they have previously given advice in relation to regional selective assistance grant applications for a period of two years after payments to these firms have ceased. The Department is considering whether similar action should be taken in respect of other financial assistance schemes.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what checks are in operation to ensure that the conditions under which financial assistance is approved by his Department are met by the companies that have received this assistance. [22570]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: The checks vary depending on the nature of the assistance given and the risk to which the Department is exposed.

  ROM-Data Corporation Ltd.
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will allow immediate access by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, on a private and confidential basis, to the completed full report by his Department into events surrounding the collapse of the ROM-Data Corporation Ltd. in December 1994; and if he will make a statement. [23555]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: This report covers matters which are the subject of a current inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office and a preliminary investigation under the Department's own disciplinary proceedings. It would not accord with the requirements of employment law or the Department's own procedures, and would be unfair to those involved, to provide access to any such material until these investigations are complete and the employees concerned have had an opportunity to put their case.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkins) on 26 February.Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation.[23627]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens with implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Wireless and Telegraphy) Order 1996. [23641]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  The deregulatory gain for the television dealer trade arising from this order is estimated to be about £10,000 a year.

  Environmental Technology Industry
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the British market demand for environmental technology was met by(a) Britain, (b) Germany, (c) the United States of America and (d) Japan in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1993, (v) 1994 and (vi) 1995. [24113]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: It is not possible to identify how much of the UK market is met by specific countries due to re-exporting of imported goods. Figures for manufacturer sales and exports can include imported goods.
  315
  There is no international agreed definition of the environmental technology industry. The available information for imports of pollution control and

  1993

  £000

  Implied imports

  Imports from

  Product category

  UK market

  (Total)

  Germany

  USA

  Japan

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying air

  145,858

  21,169

  3,969

  9,100

  168

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a liquid process

  545

  809

  583

  20

  0

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by electrostatic process

  3,424

  458

  364

  87

  0

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a catalytic process

  17,431

  33,504

  3,897

  629

  1

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a thermic process

  n/a

  236

  152

  65

  0

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases

  17,664

  24,707

  1,108

  3,036

  1,281

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying water

  n/a

  45,085

  9,808

  10,397

  294

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying liquids

  n/a

  21,513

  5,467

  3,313

  304

  Activated carbon

  n/a

  16,776

  487

  4,338

  542

  Instrumentation for measuring and analysing liquids

  77,528

  22,410

  1,408

  7,562

  2,431

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (electronic)

  44,804

  16,025

  3,139

  6,161

  3,282

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (non-electric)

  -38,063

  18,800

  7,168

  1,694

  6,708

  Parts of machinery for filtering and purifying gases and liquids

  81,377

  83,011

  23,022

  27,339

  5,674

  Furnaces and ovens for the incineration of rubbish (non-electric)

  12,592

  12

  9

  0

  0

  Industrial and laboratory furnaces, including incinerators (Non-electric)

  12,542

  4,754

  183

  887

  2,096

  Parts of industrial and laboratory furnaces and ovens

  21,340

  13,002

  4,604

  1,012

  134

  Total

  57,064

  324,270

  65,368

  75,640

  22,914

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, PRODCOM.

  1994

  £000

  Implied imports

  Imports from

  Product category

  UK market

  (Total)

  Germany

  USA

  Japan

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying air

  141,522

  16,762

  3,802

  4,289

  311

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a liquid process

  1,107

  2,653

  72

  31

  1

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by an electrostatic process

  -244

  1,021

  564

  382

  0

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a catalytic process

  n/a

  51,969

  1,244

  513

  7

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air) by a thermic process

  n/a

  499

  308

  8

  0

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excl air)

  -50,326

  10,769

  683

  3,560

  803

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying water

  n/a

  41,736

  10,427

  8,342

  338

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying liquids

  n/a

  25,641

  5,309

  5,751

  641

  Activated carbon

  n/a

  17,521

  1,262

  3,217

  939

  Instrumentation for measuring and analysing liquids

  101,881

  30,108

  5,265

  8,925

  2,740

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (electronic)

  28,618

  14,662

  3,738

  5,310

  965

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (non-electric)

  -24,039

  21,350

  4,629

  1,412

  10,373

  Parts of machinery for filtering and purifying gases and liquids

  138,228

  97,641

  27,995

  28,702

  7,639

  Furnaces and ovens for the incineration of rubbish (non-electric)

  16,737

  65

  0

  0

  0

  Industrial and laboratory furnaces, including incinerators (Non-electric)

  18,252

  4,025

  537

  1,416

  4

  Parts of industrial and laboratory furnaces and ovens

  23,676

  8,996

  1,763

  1,043

  842

  Total

  99,591

  345,417

  67,597

  72,903

  25,601

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, PRODCOM.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of profits earned by British environmental technology industries derived from export sales in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995. [24109]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is not available centrally.
  316
  monitoring equipment is given in the table. This is based on definitions prepared by ECOTEC on behalf of the joint environmental markets unit.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of British environmental technology industries derived less than(a) 10 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. of their earnings from exports in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995. [24110]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Information on individual company exports and production is not held centrally.
  317
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the British share of the British environmental technology market for(a) air monitoring, (b) water monitoring, (c) waste treatment, (d) water treatment, (e) energy management, (f) waste disposal and (g) air pollution treatment technologies in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1993, (v) 1994 and (vi) 1995. [24114]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: It is not possible to identify how much of the UK market is met by UK-produced goods due to re-exporting of imported goods. Figures for manufacturer sales and exports can include imported goods.

  1993

  £000

  Product category

  UK manufacturer sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Implied UK market

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying air

  179,532

  56,000

  21,169

  145,858

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by a liquid process

  1,986

  2,400

  809

  545

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by an electrostatic process

  3,204

  200

  458

  3,424

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air)by a catalytic process

  1,560

  19,600

  35,504

  17,431

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by a thermic process

  n/a

  40

  236

  n/a

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air)

  6,111

  13,600

  24,707

  17,664

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying water

  n/a

  82,800

  45,085

  n/a

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying liquids

  n/a

  44,000

  21,513

  n/a

  Activated carbon

  n/a

  13,700

  16,776

  n/a

  Instrumentation for measuring and analysing liquids

  114,929

  60,100

  22,410

  77,528

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (electronic)

  91,172

  63,100

  16,025

  44,804

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (non-electric)

  12,310

  69,800

  18,800

  -38,063

  Parts of machinery for filtering and purifying gases and liquids

  126,616

  131,800

  83,011

  81,377

  Furnaces and ovens for the incineration of rubbish (non-electric)

  14,039

  1,500

  12

  12,592

  Industrial and laboratory furnaces, including incinerators (non-electric)

  17,813

  10,100

  4,754

  12,542

  Parts of industrial and laboratory furnaces and ovens

  36,706

  26,700

  13,002

  21,340

  Total

  183,727

  595,440

  324,270

  57,064

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, PRODCOM.

  1994

  £000

  Product category

  UK manufacturer sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Implied UK market

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying air

  178,396

  54,300

  16,762

  141,522

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by a liquid process

  1,448

  3,000

  2,653

  1,107

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by an electrostatic process

  0

  1,300

  1,021

  -244

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air)by a catalytic process

  n/a

  26,700

  51,969

  n/a

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air) by a thermic process

  n/a

  100

  499

  n/a

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying gases (excluding air)(excluding 8421.39-51 to -75)

  5,485

  66,600

  10,769

  -50,326

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying water

  n/a

  102,700

  41,736

  n/a

  Machinery and apparatus for filtering and purifying liquids

  n/a

  41,000

  25,641

  n/a

  Activated carbon

  n/a

  11,400

  17,521

  n/a

  Instrumentation for measuring and analysing liquids

  123,498

  52,400

  30,108

  101,881

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (electronic)

  70,511

  56,500

  14,662

  28,618

  Gas or smoke analysis apparatus (non-electric)

  15,700

  61,100

  21,350

  -24,039

  Parts of machinery for filtering and purifying gases and liquids

  143,696

  102,700

  97,641

  138,228

  Furnaces and ovens for the incineration of rubbish (non-electric)

  17,172

  500

  65

  16,737

  318
  There is no international agreed definition of the environmental technology industry. Using as a definition of environmental products industries, ones producing "a product which enhances or prevents the deterioration of the external environment", it is estimated that in 1992 UK manufacturer sales of environmental products were £5.4 billion, exports were £850 million, imports were £495 million and the UK market was £5.1 billion. Estimates have not been made for later years.

  The available information for the UK market for pollution control and monitoring equipment is given in the table. This is based on definitions prepared by ECOTEC on behalf of the joint environmental markets unit.
  319

  1994

  £000

  Product category

  UK manufacturer sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Implied UK market

  Industrial and laboratory furnaces, including incinerators (non-electric)

  21,945

  7,900

  4,025

  18,252

  Parts of industrial and laboratory furnaces and ovens

  48,256

  33,600

  8,996

  23,676

  Total

  193,782

  621,800

  345,417

  99,591

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what core functions of the Patent Office are being considered for contracting out; and if he will make a statement. [24160]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The remit placed on the Patent Office by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his statement of 14 December 1994 was to contract out activities wherever this was compatible with its statutory role and good value for money. In pursuit of this remit, the Patent Office, in its latest corporate plan for the next five years, foresees the employment of up to 750 civil service staff supported by about 250 contracted staff working for external suppliers. Services currently under consideration for contractorisation are the London front office, informatin technology services and the central inquiry unit.

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the British Government take to ensure that British companies do not re-export torture equipment originating in third countries. [24274]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The Government control the export of weapons under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. It is not, however, practicable to control the export of the wide range of articles that might be misused for the purposes of torture. The Government deplore the use of torture in any circumstances and would never knowingly do anything to support its practice or any trade in instruments of torture anywhere in the world.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that British companies do not engage in the off-shore sale of equipment which could be used for torture purposes. [24273]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The Government deplore the use of torture in any circumstances and would never knowingly do anything to support its practice, or any trade in instruments of torture anywhere in the world.

  However, it is not practicable to regulate trade in the wide range of articles that might conceivably be misused for the purposes of torture. In respect of goods licensable under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, however, the Government are considering whether to cover this issue in forthcoming public consultation on a range of export control matters following Sir Richard Scott's recent report.

  Defence Technology
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to develop a national strategy for defence technology. [23688]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have been asked to reply.

  In July 1995, my Department announced its intention of establishing a technology strategy for access to, and development of, defence technology. Since that time, there have been discussions with defence industry, academia and other interested parties. It is envisaged that a further round of consultations will be initiated shortly with the object of publication of the technology strategy in the autumn.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what increase in funding has been provided for technology demonstrator programmes for defence since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23695]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the 1995 technology foresight report from the defence and aerospace panel, the defence budget has increased its funding for technology demonstrator programmes by £12.3 million over the next 10 years.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those areas of Executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20533]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested. My Department is committed generally to giving reasons for administrative decisions to those affected, in accordance with the code of practice on access to Government information. My Department has identified from readily available sources the statutory powers of inquiry under the Financial Services Act 1986, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Companies Act 1989 where, although the Secretary of State has to have reason to exercise these powers, he does not have to give reasons for his decision to do so. Import, export and sanctions licensing is also an area where the Secretary of State has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision.

  Home and Overseas Trade Committee
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to establish an interdepartmental committee to oversee home and overseas trade as recommended by Sir Richard Scott. [21299]

  Mr. Lang
  None at present.

  EC Research Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Research Council held on 25 March. [25121]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Council undertook an initial exchange of views on the Commission's proposal to increase the funding of the fourth framework programme for research and technological development by 700 mecu. Such an increase would require amendment of the financial perspectives. The UK, with five other member states, repeated its opposition to such amendment.

  The Council adopted a resolution outlining a strategy for the EU' s relations with third countries in research and technological development. The Council met the research Ministers of the nine associated states of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic to exchange views on the scope for strengthening their scientific and technological links with the EU.

  The Council had a brief initial debate on the Commission's green paper on innovation. The Council will return to the matter in June. The UK drew attention to the contribution that the launch of EASDAQ in September 1996 would make to improving financing for high technology ventures, a key concern of the green paper.

  Scott Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in his examination of issues raised by the Scott report. [24177]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last month entitled, "The timetable for taking forward recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry into the export of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq and related prosecutions".

  Manufacturing Processes (Beef and Beef By-products)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the proprietary products, additives and commonly used manufacturing processes which involve the use of beef or beef by-products which are available for sale in United Kingdom retail outlets. [24091]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not centrally recorded and cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities (Irregular Payments)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was received by each of the 17 persons in receipt of irregular payments from the former Yorkshire regional health authority; [22732]
  322
  (2) if he will break down by recipient and health service body the £579,000 of irregular expenditure on relocation qualified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the NHS—England—summarised accounts 1993–94; and in each case (a) how much was paid to each recipient and by which body; (b) how much has been recovered and (c) what action is planned to facilitate the recovery of outstanding amounts. [22733]

  Mr. Malone
  Irregular relocation payments, totalling £579,000, were made as follows:

  Former Yorkshire RHA

  South Birmingham DHA

  £

  £

  19,750

  131,000

  48,750

  —

  55,000

  —

  43,750

  —

  5,250

  —

  23,000

  —

  16,250

  —

  7,950

  —

  6,000

  —

  49,915

  —

  67,200

  —

  10,250

  —

  28,750

  —

  4,750

  —

  4,500

  —

  13,500

  —

  23,800

  —

  19,455

  —

  The successor authorities are pursuing the recovery of these moneys. Repayment terms have been agreed in one case.

  Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rate of interest on invested capital is to be assumed by a local authority when assessing the charge to be made to a person in residential accommodation arranged by that local authority. [23401]

  Mr. Bowis
  The formula for calculating the contribution a resident makes from his capital between the lower and upper limits is not intended to represent any rate of return that could be obtained from investing that capital. It provides a straightforward method of calculating the weekly contribution which people with capital in between the two limits are expected to make from those resources to help meet their accommodation costs.

  GP Fundholding (Wakefield)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding GPs in the Wakefield area have agreed to enter into a total fund project. [23428]

  Mr. Horam
  Discussions are being held with all general practitioners in Wakefield health authority about their involvement with the district wide total purchasing project. This includes the 148 existing fundholders and a further 28 GPs in their preparatory year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated on the ability of the human immune system to fight against infection by the agent responsible for BSE in cattle and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans; and if he will make a statement. [24176]

  Mr. Horam
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has considered this issue and has concluded that the classical immune response is not seen in these diseases, since the human immune system does not play a major role in protection against the agents causing spongiform encephalopathies. The evidence from scrapie in sheep suggests that immuno-suppressed subjects are at no greater risk than those whose systems are intact.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish all the scientific evidence he has evaluated since 1992 on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [24539]

  Mr. Horam
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee provides the Government with expert scientific advice on BSE and CJD. In 1995, SEAC published "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", copies of which are available in the Library. Arrangements are in hand to publish the evidence about a previously unrecognised form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in a scientific journal as soon as is practicable.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of SEAC. [24174]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor J. R. Pattison

  Dean of University College London Medical School where he is also Professor of Medical Microbiology.

  Deputy Chairman

  Dr. R. G. Will

  Consultant neurologist at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh and Director of the UK CJD Surveillance Unit.

  Membership

  Professor I. V. Allen

  Neuropathologist at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.

  Professor J. Almond

  Virologist and Professor of Microbiology at the University of Reading.

  Professor F. Brown FRS

  Virologist, Molecular Pathology, Plum Island Animal Disease Center, USA.

  Mr. R. Bradley CBE

  Veterinary Pathologist and Chairman of the BSE sub-group of the Scientific Veterinary Committee.

  Professor J. Collinge

  Head of the Prion Diseases Group at St. Mary's College Hospital, London.

  Dr. W. D. Hueston

  Epidemiologist at the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

  Dr. R. H. Kimberlin

  Independent Consultant on scrapie and related diseases

  324

  Dr. Mike Painter

  Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, City of Manchester.

  Mr. D. B. Pepper

  Private veterinary surgeon.

  Professor P. Smith

  Epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

  Dr. W. Watson

  Former Director of the Central Veterinary Laboratory.

  Children (Residential Care)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) the approximate costs of maintaining children in residential care in local authority and voluntary charitable institutions for children of (i) primary and (ii) secondary school age, (b) the approximate total expenditure by these bodies for the latest available years and (c) the net reduction in cost to public funds for each child fully adopted at the same ages. [24414]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has carried out to assess the educational standards of residents and ex-residents of residential children's homes; and what assessment has been made of such standards, with particular reference to reading and writing skills, compared to those of other children; [24519]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out to assess the offending and reoffending rates of residents and ex-residents of residential children's homes; and what assessment he has made of such rates compared with those of other children. [24518]

  Mr. Bowis
  No specific research has been carried out on these areas of residential care. A study which looks at a sample of 224 young people while they are in residential care and examines outcomes, including education and offending behaviour is, however, nearing completion.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place for(a) local authorities and (b) other bodies to monitor the educational achievements and offending rates of residents and ex-residents of residential children's homes; and what arrangements exist for action to be taken by such bodies if such rates are unsatisfactory. [24520]

  Mr. Bowis
  These are matters for each local authority to determine. To assist them, however, in May 1995, the Department launched a set of materials called "Looking after Children: Good Parenting, Good Outcomes". The materials form a complete package for assessing, planning and reviewing the experiences and progress of children for whom statutory agencies have taken responsibility. Specific education sections include questions not only on progress and achievements of children but on the opportunities and support being provided within the care placement to enable them to succeed educationally. Seventy-two local authorities are implementing the materials.
  325
  Matters affecting local education authorities and other arrangements for monitoring the educational achievements of these children are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Relocation Support
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions the NHS executive has reached from its inquiries into irregular relocation support to staff after February 1993; and what was(a) the total cost of such support and (b) the amount to be recovered (i) in total and (ii) by health authority. [21997]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: None. The new General Council agreement on removal expenses, promulgated on 11 February 1993, allows an employing authority to meet any reasonable cost incurred in relocation.

  Clinical Audits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many clinical audits have been carried out by(a) health authorities, (b) trusts and (c) GPs in total, and for each region; [24192]

  (2) how many clinical audits have been carried out for each broad group of treatments and procedures in each of the last three years. [24193]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on clinical audit by NHS regions up to the most recent period for which information is available; and what was the cost per audit in each region and the cost per head of current population in each region. [24225]

  Mr. Horam
  The expenditure on clinical audit by all national health service regions in 1994–95 was estimated to be £61 million in the National Audit Office report presented to Parliament on 7 December 1995. It is not possible to disaggregate this figure to give cost per audit or per head of population.

  Lateral Epicondylitus
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people(a) discharged from hospital and (b) referred to out-patient departments with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitus in each of the last five years. [24195]

  Mr. Horam
  Data available centrally do not separately identify lateral epicondylitis. The condition is one of a group under the general heading of enthesopathy of the elbow region, region, ICD9 726.3. The number of finished consultant episodes within this group, where a discharge from hospital is indicated, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, is shown in the table. Data on referrals to out-patient departments are not available centrally.
  326

  England

  Number

  1989–90

  1,696

  1990–91

  3,182

  1991–92

  3,478

  1992–93

  3,789

  1993–94

  4,195

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in house; and if he will make a statement. [24228]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has no out-sourcing arrangements with EDS.

  Medical Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he currently takes to safeguard against fraud involving medical research studies for which he is responsible;[24486]

  (2) what measures he is taking to safeguard against fraud involving medical research studies for which he is responsible. [24485]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of the whole medical research community and its sponsors—which includes research councils, medical charities, Government Departments and industry—to ensure good practice in the conduct of research. This operates largely on a self-regulating basis through the principles of peer review and through guidelines on good practice which are issued by a number of bodies.

  This Department has had a code of practice since 1993 which sets out the principles and practices for the commissioning and management of all departmentally funded research and development.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a review body to address(a) the investigation of fraud and (b) the review of complaints involving medical research. [24482]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of the whole medical research community and its sponsors—which includes research councils, medical charities, Government Departments and industry—to ensure good practice in the conduct of research.

  This Department is committed to maintaining high standards in the commissioning and management of the research that it funds and maintains open dialogue with the wider research community on all aspects of research.

  There is no intention, at present, for this Department to set up a review body for the investigation of fraud.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the formal career structure for research staff involved in medical research studies. [24483]
  327
  Mr. Horam
  In February, the Department issued a first statement of a research capacity strategy for the Department and the national health service. This statement is out for consultation in the research community and the NHS until the middle of April, copies are available in the Library. This exercise—which covers a range of medical and health care professionals—will be supplemented by meetings with relevant organisations. It will also be considered by the national forum of medical research funders, prior to the publication of a further statement.

  This consultation exercise recognises that responsibility for developing and maintaining a workforce capable of delivering high-quality research rests with a number of organisations, and the Department is committed to working with others to achieve that end.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning fraud involving medical research studies; and if he will make a statement. [24484]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department met with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to discuss the issue of scientific fraud. My Department also maintains close contact with the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which has set up a working group to re-examine the issue of good research practice.

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the impact on the health of children of contact orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. [24791]

  Mr. Bowls
  None.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to carry out research on the impact of contact orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, on regular attendance by children at places of religious worship. [24790]

  Mr. Bowls
  None.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many designated receiving unit accident and emergency departments do not have an associated 24-hour observation ward; and what proportion of the total this represents. [24708]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received about the future of accident and emergency units in Lancashire hospitals following publication of the Audit Commission report; and if he will make a statement. [24123]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received three letters on this subject. Accident and emergency services in Lancashire are a matter for the county's four district health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of these authorities for more details.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there are in each intensive care unit in England; and if he will make a statement. [24637]

  Mr. Horam
  "Bed availability for England", a copy of which is available in the Library, contains the available information by individual national health service trusts, directly managed units and the special health authorities with summary tables for England.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24407]

  Mr. Horam
  Preliminary analysis of the Department of Health's own mainframe computer systems has already been undertaken to assess the likely impact of the change of millennium. A further detailed analysis is to be carried out during 1996–97 to fully assess the impact of the change.

  National health service systems users and suppliers have been alerted to the problem by a series of articles published over the last year in the British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management by the information management centre. The IMC will later this month be deciding what further action is necessary.

  The NHS central register is in the process of installing a new computer system as part of the new NHS number programme. The specification for the system includes provision for the year 2000.

  This issue is common to many organisations and the Department will be collaborating with other government and non-governmental agencies to ensure that intelligence is shared.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24516]

  Mr. Horam
  In common with other Departments, we will set targets for minimisation of office waste by the end of 1996.

  We are currently in the process of establishing reliable baseline data on which these targets will be based.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  All-party Negotiations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if amendments can be made to the consultation paper, "Ground Rules for Substantive All-party Negotiations", following consultations with Northern Ireland political parties. [22443]

  Mr. Ancram
  As the hon. Member acknowledges, the paper issued on 15 March was a consultation paper. There needs to be widespread agreement on the issues covered
  329
  in the paper and I am grateful for the detailed comments which have now been received from most of the recipients.

  Terrorism
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all terrorist activity having taken place in the constituency of West Belfast since 10 April 1992. [23547]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of incidents are not recorded on a constituency basis, however, I can give the hon. Member an indication of the number of incidents which may be considered to be terrorist-related which occurred in the general area of West Belfast.

  Between 10 April 1992–28 March 1996

  Number

  Deaths

  42

  Shooting incidents

  386

  Bombing incidents

  153

  Incendiaries

  11

  Casualties as a result of 'punishment' shootings

  147

  Casualties as a result of 'punishment' assaults

  116

  Armed robberies

  389

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have occurred in each o the Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies in each of the last 10 years; [23411]

  (2) how many Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease-related deaths have occurred in Northern Ireland in the last 10 years. [23412]

  Mr. Moss
  There have been six cases, all fatal, resulting in one death in each of the years 1986, 1992, 1993 and 1995 and two deaths in 1989. Information is not available by parliamentary constituency.

  Benefits (West Belfast)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in West Belfast are currently in receipt of disability living allowance. [23413]

  Mr. Moss
  In August 1995, there was a total of 10,882 people in receipt of disability living allowance in the following wards; Andersonstown, Beechmount, Blackstaff, Clonard, Colin Glen, Falls, Falls Road, Glencairn, Glencolin, Glen Road, Highfield, Kilwee, Ladybrook, Shankill, Twinbrook, Upper Springfield and Whiterock.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people from West Belfast have applied for attendance allowance in each of the last five years; and what percentage of applications have been disallowed; [23415]

  (2) how many people from West Belfast have applied for invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit in each of the last five years; and what percentage of applications have been disallowed; [23417]
  330
  (3) how many people in West Belfast have applied for disability living allowance in each of the last five years; and what percentage of applications were disallowed. [23414]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available.

  Prisoners
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the case of Messrs Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons. [23548]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my response to his motion for the Adjournment of the House of 15 March 1995,Official Report, columns 872–80. I re-emphasised my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that, pending the establishment of the criminal cases review commission, he was willing to consider most carefully any further material put to him about the cases of Messrs Kane, Timmons and Kelly. He has not received any substantive material in the meantime.

  Attendance Allowance
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in West Belfast are currently in receipt of attendance allowance. [23416]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available at present.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from West Belfast are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit. [23418]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available at present.

  Brooklands Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment in each of the past five years at Brooklands primary school; what is the expected enrolment at the school in each of the next five years; what proposals there are to provide additional accommodation at the school; how many places in primary one will be available in the next academic year; how many applicants there are for places in primary one at the school for the next academic year; and if he will make a statement. [23682]

  Mr. Ancram
  The enrolments in each of the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of pupils enrolled

  1991–92

  548 (at January 1991)

  1992–93

  552 (at October 1992)

  1993–94

  537 (at October 1993)

  1994–95

  558 (at October 1994)

  1995–96

  576 (at October 1995)

  It is not possible to accurately project an enrolment figure for each of the next five years. It is estimated, however, that the long-term enrolment of the school will be 593, excluding nursery accommodation.
  331
  Provision of controlled primary school places in Dundonald is the responsibility of the South-Eastern education and library board. I understand that the board has no plans to increase the size of Brooklands primary school at present but is reviewing demand for primary school places in the Dundonald area.

  The Department has approved a temporary variation to the school's admissions number to 87 for the 1996–97 school year. The school has received 92 applications.

  Public Bodies (Women)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to increase the number of women employed in senior positions in public bodies in Northern Ireland. [23970]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The chief executives' forum, the association of chief executive officers of public bodies in Northern Ireland, is actively seeking to encourage women to further their careers within the public services. This month, under the auspices of the women's group of chief executives within the forum, a formal network is to be established for women who have attained senior management positions within the civil service and in public bodies throughout the Province: addressing the problems experienced by women in management in the public services a conference will consider what might be done to help, support and encourage women managers in their careers. This initiative has the full support of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Baroness Denton of Wakefield, the Northern Ireland Office Minister with responsibility for womens' issues, who will address the conference.

  The initiative forms part of a programme of work in the area of gender and equality of opportunity being pursued by the chief executive's forum. In December 1994 the forum and the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland published a joint research report and a number of recommendations. The findings of the report have been accepted by all the public bodies involved and endorsed by the Government. The recommendations of the report are currently being acted upon and, 15 months after publication of the report, further work has been commissioned to ascertain progress and to identify and encourage the spread of good practice.

  Peace Programme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) men have been appointed to each of the partnership committees established to oversee the European peace programme in Northern Ireland. [23968]

  Mr. Moss
  District partnerships are currently being established in each of the 26 district council areas. The composition of the partnerships is to be approved by the overseeing body, the Northern Ireland partnership board. At present the breakdown of women and men is as follows:

  Women

  Men

  Total

  NIPB

  9

  14

  23

  Antrim

  5

  13

  18

  Ards

  8

  13

  21

  Armagh

  5

  12

  17

  332

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Castlereagh

  10

  15

  127

  Ballymena

  6

  18

  24

  Ballymoney

  4

  14

  18

  Banbridge

  5

  13

  18

  Belfast

  7

  14

  21

  Carrickfergus

  6

  12

  18

  Coleraine

  7

  17

  24

  Cookstown

  5

  16

  21

  Craigavon

  8

  13

  21

  Derry

  9

  12

  21

  Down

  8

  13

  21

  Fermanagh

  11

  19

  30

  Larne

  6

  12

  18

  Limavady

  6

  15

  21

  Lisburn

  4

  17

  21

  Magherafelt

  5

  10

  15

  Moyle

  7

  14

  21

  Newry and Mourne

  6

  13

  19

  Newtownabbey

  7

  17

  24

  North Down

  11

  13

  24

  Omagh

  8

  10

  18

  South Tyrone

  6

  20

  26

  Strabane

  5

  17

  22

  1Some names still to be confirmed.

  Making Belfast Work
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) men have been appointed to the "Making Belfast Work" board. [23969]

  Mr. Moss
  "Making Belfast Work" is an interdepartmental programme focusing on the most disadvantaged areas of Belfast. "Making Belfast Work" does not have a board but its strategy is set by the Belfast special action group which comprises senior civil servants from Government Departments and is chaired by Sir David Fell, head of the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Mourne Conduit Replacement Contracts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account he took when seeking tenders for the two Mounre conduit replacement contracts of the request on page 15 of "A Green Guide for Suppliers of Goods and Services to the Northern Ireland Civil Service" published by the Environmental Service of the Department of the Environment. [24352]

  Mr. Moss
  The "Green Guide" was not published by the Department's environment service until 13 October 1995, some five months after the issue of tender documents for the Mourne conduit replacements scheme.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the savings to date to his Department and his Department's agencies from out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS software computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24359]
  333
  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland departments and their agencies have one contract with EDS. This contract resulted from EDS taking over a public sector organisation which had previously provided the relevant service. An in-house service did not therefore exist and could have been established and maintained only at a higher cost than the contract with EDS.

  Hospital Contracts
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used by the Eastern area health and social services board in drawing up its present contracts as a customer of (i) the Royal Victoria hospital, (ii) the Belfast city hospital and (iii) the Ulster hospital, Dundonald; and what is the value of the present contracts at these three hospitals. [24377]

  Mr. Moss
  The criteria used by the Eastern health and social services board in contracting for services take account of: Government policy; the assessed health and social care needs of its resident population; the available resources; the services offered by providers and their effectiveness, efficiency, quality and value for money; and patient and client choice.

  The value of 1995–96 contracts between the Eastern health and social services board and (i) the Royal Group of hospitals trust (ii) the Belfast City hospital trust and (iii) the Ulster North Down and Ards hospital trust are as follows:

  Provider

  1995–96 Contract value £

  Royal Group of Hospitals Trust

  48,301,000

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  39,082,000

  Ulster, North Down, and Ards Hospitals Trust

  38,080,000

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will introduce legislation to inhibit racial discrimination. [23804]

  Mr. Ancram
  I expect to issue a draft legislative proposal for an Order in Council later this year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how(a) the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines and (b) targeting social need policy have been applied to ensure equality for members of ethnic minority communities. [23807]

  Mr. Ancram
  The policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines, which came into effect on 1 January 1994, aim to ensure that in the development or review of policies and programmes departments and agencies do not unfairly or unnecessarily discriminate against specified sections of the community, including people of different ethnic groups. The first annual report on PAFT recorded a range of measures in support of ethnic minority groups, and in 1995 the Government announced their intention to introduce race relations legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Through the targeting social need initiative the Government seek to improve social and economic conditions by targeting resources on areas and people objectively defined as being in greatest need.
  334
  Irish travellers are a minority community which experiences high levels of disadvantage. However, generally speaking, membership of an ethnic minority group in Northern Ireland does not, of itself, indicate that a person suffers socio-economic disadvantage.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to improve the treatment of travelling people in Northern Ireland. [23806]

  Mr. Moss
  As I announced on 27 April 1995 it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation on race relations in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The legislation will be introduced by Order in Council and will specifically refer to the Irish traveller community as an ethnic group. I expect to issue a draft of the legislative proposal later this year.

  The Northern Ireland Department of Environment has published a review of Government policies affecting travellers in Northern Ireland. Interested parties have been consulted and Government's response to the recommendations will be published later in the year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to meet the accommodation needs of travellers; and how many sites(a) have been provided and (b) are planned. [23809]

  Mr. Moss
  To date 10 sites have been provided, one is nearing completion and a further two sites are planned.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24515]

  Mr. Moss
  Office waste minimisation is a key aspect of the green housekeeping strategy of Northern Ireland departments. A strategy for office waste minimisation, containing precise targets, will now be drawn up.

  Gas Supply Licences
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that no licence to operate gas supply in Northern Ireland be granted within three months of the coming into operation of article 8(8) of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. [23906]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: No. A gas market in Northern Ireland offers many benefits and it is the intention to encourage rapid and extensive development of such a market. The purpose of articles 8(8) is to enable the development of the new gas market to commence on the earliest possible date.
  335
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that no licence be granted under articles 8 and 9 of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order which will give monopoly of supply at the expense of competition. [23908]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: No. The ability to grant exclusive rights under articles 8 and 9 reflects the very significant commercial risks associated with the development of a new gas industry in Northern Ireland entirely from scratch. Any applications for exclusive rights will be considered on their merits.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that licences granted under the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order contain a requirement that domestic gas be supplied to the whole of the Province. [23904]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The development of a natural gas industry in Northern Ireland will be undertaken by the private sector on grounds of commercial viability. It would not be appropriate for any licence holder to be compelled to supply gas to domestic consumers throughout the Province.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that licences granted under the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order will require immediate open access and full transparency of charges for use of gas supply networks. [23905]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 April I996]: No. Periods of exclusivity may be appropriate because of the commercial risks attaching to the development of the new natural gas industry in Northern Ireland. Once any exclusivity period had ended, there would be third party access to the network on the basis of regulated charges.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that no licence will be issued under article 8(8) of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 without an evaluation of all licence applications and their area of operation and a full public consultation. [23907]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer I April 1996]: When issuing a licence for any area the Department of Economic Development and the Regulator will have regard for their general duties under article 5 of the order. The purpose of article 8(8) is to enable the development of the new gas market to commence on the earliest possible date.

  Unlawful Industrial Action Commissioner
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the costs of operating the Northern Ireland commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action; who is the current commissioner; how many applications for assistance have been made over the last two years; and if he will give the equivalent data for its Great Britain counterpart. [23787]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action is Mrs. Margaret Ann Dinsmore. The Northern Ireland post was established on 1 October 1995.
  336
  The other information requested is as follows:

  Operating costs

  Number of applications for assistance

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  NI Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  1£12,000

  n/a

  none

  (Great Britain) Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  £92,771

  none

  3

  1 Apportioned costs. Administration of NI Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action is shared with NI Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Bridges
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the daily vehicle traffic flow and (b) the projected flows in the originating plans for (i) the new bridge on the A2 Bangor road into the Belfast harbour estate and (ii) the new Foyle bridge in Londonderry. [23783]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is as follows:

  A2 Bangor road bridge

  Foyle bridge

  Daily traffic flow

  1,581

  20,167

  Projected traffic flow in originating plans

  The new bridge on the A2 was constructed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The Department does not have details of the projected flow in the originating plans

  20,000

  Training (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what reciprocal financial arrangements exists in respect of(a) nursing studentships and (b) other professional training positions between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; [24436]

  (2) what reciprocal financial arrangements exist in respect of third level education between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. [24434]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: None in respect of nursing studentships or awards administered by the Department of Education and the education and library boards.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the number of professional training positions, with special reference to nursing studentships, provided during each of the past five years for students from the Irish Republic; and what has been the cost to relevant Northern Ireland Departments. [24435]
  337
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when it becomes available and place it in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the number of students from Northern Ireland who have received their third level education in the Irish Republic during each of the past five years; and what has been the cost of(a) their tuition fees and (b) their maintenance grants to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland; [24433]

  (2) what has been the number of students from the Irish Republic who, under current European regulations, have received their third level education in Northern Ireland during each of the past five years; and what has ben the cost of their tuition fees to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. [24432]

  Expenditure of Anglo-Irish Secretariat

  1985–96

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Salaries

  24,430

  110,704

  132,101

  139,211

  156,658

  200,159

  256,573

  240,439

  226,529

  239,732

  Travel and Subsistence

  4,853

  18,031

  12,932

  14,167

  17,938

  17,874

  23,303

  23,900

  17,207

  10,460

  Other running costs

  123,495

  80,754

  46,863

  41,687

  41,854

  65,390

  98,461

  72,929

  70,373

  57,981

  Maintenance costs

  34,946

  141,798

  42,139

  50,375

  103,518

  121,563

  148,807

  43,616

  76,943

  21,083

  Receipts from Government of Republic of Ireland

  —

  -33,316

  -39,756

  -41,235

  -41,985

  -39,531

  -51,816

  -295,791

  -75,136

  -88,829

  Total

  187,724

  317,971

  194,279

  204,205

  277,983

  365,455

  475,328

  85,093

  215,916

  240,427

  1. Other running costs comprise costs of training and conferences, hospitality, uniforms and protective clothing, telecomms, stationery printing etc., publications, office equipment, publicity and advertising, postage, vehicles, accommodation charges and running costs.

  2. Maintenance costs comprise costs of estate management DOE(NI) and Non-DOE(NI), maintenance and minor works DOE(NI) and non-DOE(NI).

  3. Receipts from Government of Republic of Ireland for 1992–93 included a contribution towards the cost of political talks.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many beef herds in Northern Ireland BSE has been identified; and how many beef cattle from these herds have been slaughtered in each year since 1986. [24209]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: BSE has been identified in 229 beef herds in Northern Ireland.

  BSE was made notifiable in Northern Ireland in November 1988 when recording of cases of the disease commenced. The number of cattle from beef herds which have been slaughtered since then is:

  1988: 1

  1989: NIL

  1990: 15

  1991: 26

  1992: 47

  1993: 53

  1994: 80

  1995: 42

  1996: 6.

  338
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when it becomes available and place it in the library of the House.

  Maryfield Secretariat
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the total cost to his Department for each of the years 1986 to 1995 of maintaining the Maryfield secretariat in terms of(a) salaries and (b) travel and miscellaneous expenses;[24437]

  (2) what has been the total cost to his Department for each year from 1986 to 1995 of maintenance costs and running cost for the Maryfield building; and what has been the contribution, in each of those years, from the Government of the Irish Republic. [24438]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated total number of beef cattle in Northern Ireland at present; and how many beef cattle there were in Northern Ireland in each year since 1986. [24210]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The information is given in the table:

  Year

  Numbers of beef cattle at December (000)

  1986

  1,090

  1987

  1,046

  1988

  1,084

  1989

  1,123

  1990

  1,136

  1991

  1,177

  1992

  1,183

  1993

  1,224

  1994

  1,235

  1995

  1,236

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how frequently animals are recorded in cow farm herd record books checked against computerised records of beef herds held by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. [24211]
  339
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland computerised animal records for all herds are checked at least once a year.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the advantages of requiring animal feed manufacturers to contribute to the cost of compensating farmers where outbreaks of BSE in beef cattle in suckler herds and beef producing herds can be traced to the supply of contaminated livestock feed since 1986. [24213]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: No such assessment has been made.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Competitive Tendering (Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21040]

  Mr. Boswell
  From records held centrally, over the last three financial years the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its executive agencies have let a minimum of 1,600 contracts following competitive tender. These have a combined total value of £199,556,000.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many companies dealing with the transportation of livestock have been prosecuted for failing to provide adequate rest stops in each of the last five years. [21227]

  Mrs. Browning
  This information is not kept centrally.

  Intervention Beef
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of(a) the amount of beef held in cold stores under European Union intervention rules, (b) the amount of that beef which is from animals fed pre-1989 protein feed and (c) the amount of intervention beef which has been distributed to the most needy in the United Kingdom in each year since 1989. [23154]

  Mr. Baldry
  The answers to these questions are as follows:(a) As at the end of February, the latest date for which EU figures are currently available, beef held in cold stores under EU intervention rules totalled, 5,458 tonnes.
  (b) Exact information on the amount of beef currently held in intervention stores derived from animals fed pre-1989 ruminant protein feed is not available. In the UK, however, the figure is likely to be negligible on the basis that upwards of 99 per cent. of the animals in question would have been born after 1989, and the majority of those born before that date would have been finished on grass.
  (c) The amount of beef taken from intervention for distribution to the most needy in the United Kingdom in each year since 1989 is shown in the table. The greater part of this was processed into canned beef for distribution.
  340

  Year

  Beef (tonnes) taken from intervention for distribution to the needy in the UK

  1989

  2,975

  1990

  3,000

  1991

  3,000

  1992

  2,965

  1993

  6,200

  1994

  6,480

  1995

  7,700

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Department to educate doctors about organophosphate poisoning; and if he will make a statement. [23178]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on 1 April,Official Report, column 47.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23738]

  Mr. Boswell
  Centrally held records show that neither the Ministry nor any of its agencies hold out-sourcing contracts with EDS. Consequently, there are no current costs; contract end dates; or potential penalty fees. Fees for early discharge of contractual arrangements are a matter for negotiation between the Ministry and its suppliers.

  Irradiated Food
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the incidence of irradiated food products being supplied in the United Kingdom in the(a) retail, (b) wholesale and (c) import sector without complying with food labelling legislation. [24197]

  Mrs. Browning
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing food labelling legislation. However, as validated tests are now available for a number of irradiated foods we intend to initiate a surveillance programme on this in the near future.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will notify enforcement authorities of those companies submitting food products for irradiation treatment.[24198]

  Mrs. Browning
  As required under the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1991, details of any licence issued to irradiate food are published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes and announced in a press release.

  Currently only one company, Isotron plc of Swindon, is licensed to irradiate herbs and spices.

  Munitions Dumps
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 510–11, if radioactive waste was dumped by British ships in the English channel after 1966. [24221]

  Mr. Baldry
  Radioactive waste was last dumped in the English channel, at the Hurd deep dump site, in 1963. Details of UK sea-disposal operations are given in the 1984 "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North East Atlantic", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Wheat and Barley
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the margin per acre achieved by growers of wheat and barley for each of the last 15 years in(a) constant and (b) current prices, setting out the definition used by his Department of margin or margins where more than one classification is appropriate. [24279]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 18 March 1996,Official Report, column 27. The 1994–95 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", referred to in that earlier answer, has now been published. A description of the composition of and uses for gross margins is contained in chapter 3 of "Farm Incomes in the UK 1992–93". Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24396]

  Mr. Boswell
  In January this year the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's information technology directorate initiated a project with the aim of ensuring that, by the end of 1998, all existing and planned computer systems for which the Ministry is responsible will be in a position effectively to manage the century date change on 1 January 2000.

  Night Shooting Licences
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 180, if any further night shooting licences have been issued; how many deer have been shot on the new licences and by which licence; and if he will make a statement. [24496]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following my reply of 21 February, no further notices to shoot deer at night have been issued by MAFF.

  Deer and Fox Hunts
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost to the Forestry Commission of supervising deer and fox hunts in the New forest by(a) keeps and (b) administrative costs. [24497]
  342
  Mr. Boswell
  The Forestry Commission spends some £11,000 per annum on supervising deer and fox hunts in the New forest. This includes keepers' wages, the costs of vehicles, and other administration charges.

  Disease Eradication Fund
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the amount of money expended in the United Kingdom from the EU disease eradication fund; [23336]

  (2) which farmers in the United Kingdom have benefited from the EU disease eradication fund; [23337]

  (3) which projects are currently being funded by the EU disease eradication scheme. [23335]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Northern Ireland has been approved funding in 1996 of 50 per cent. of the laboratory costs associated with the testing of samples taken under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme, up to a maximum of 100,000 ecus—approximately £84,000.

  Information on projects currently funded in other member states is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the United Kingdom contribution to the EU disease eradication fund since its inception. [23334]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The United Kingdom contributes to the European Community budget as a whole. Details can be found in the annual White Paper statements on the EC budget. For 1996, the United Kingdom is forecast to contribute 15 per cent. to the EU budget before the Fontainebleau abatement is taken into account and 11 per cent. after abatement.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23648]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 2 April, Official Report, column 85.

  Slaughterhouses (Hygiene)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest assessment of the hygiene standards in red meat slaughterhouses in England and Wales. [24446]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply to the hon. Member direct.
  343
  Letter from J. McNeill to Mr. Henry McLeish, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your questions regarding hygiene standards in red meat slaughterhouses in England, Scotland and Wales have been passed to me for reply. [24446]
  Since early 1994 the Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) has been operating in red meat slaughterhouses. HAS is the method developed by the State Veterinary Service to assess and monitor hygiene standards in slaughterhouses. HAS looks at the specific aspects of performance within five main categories-ante-mortem, slaughter and dressing, personnel and practices, maintenance and hygiene of premises and general conditions and management.
  As you may know, the MHS took over responsibility for inspection in licensed fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales on 1 April 1995. This work was previously undertaken by local authorities. One of the targets set by Ministers for the MHS in 1995/96 was to establish a benchmark of HAS scores in licensed slaughterhouses. Information on the benchmark scores will be published in the MHS annual report, due to be published later this year. Copies of that report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of staff involved in the Meat Hygiene Service in each year since 1989–90; what are the planned numbers of staff for each of the years 1996–97 to 1998–99. [24448]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from J. McNeill to Mr. Henry McLeish, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question concerning the number of staff employed by the MHS has been passed to me for reply. [24448]
  The Meat Hygiene Service was launched on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcement of the hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales. Consequently there are no MHS staff numbers prior to that date.
  The MHS currently employs 509 red meat and 163 poultry meat inspectors on a full time basis. In addition it utilises 69 inspectors (62 red meat; 7 white) on fixed term contracts of 100 weeks duration. There is also a pool of 222 staff (203 red; 19 white) used on a casual basis. As you will appreciate, these last two sets of figures in particular fluctuate according to demand.
  These meat inspection staff are supervised by Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs). The MHS directly employs 39 OVSs and in addition contracts out work to 110 full time equivalent vets to supplement them. 3 vets are also utilised on a casual basis.
  Staff numbers for future years will depend on the actual number of plants operating at the time and any policy developments, as recently on SBO controls. No definitive figures are available at this time.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to allow farmers affected by the crisis in the beef industry to graze cattle on set-aside land until it is possible to market them. [23846]
  344
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: EU rules do not currently allow the grazing of cattle on set-aside land between 15 January and 31 August. In light of the exceptional and unforeseen difficulties facing UK producers in marketing their cattle, we are discussing urgently with the Commission the possibility of varying this requirement on a temporary basis.

  Beef (Labelling)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to require food processors and producers to clearly label products which involve the use of beef or beef by-products. [24090]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 2 April 1996, Official Report, columns 196–97.

  We have no plans to impose further labelling requirements. Food suppliers may, of course, display additional information in relation to their products, provided that it is true and not misleading.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each site in Tyne and Wear, apart from local retail offices, at which staff of(a) the Contributions Agency, (b) the Benefits Agency and (c) the Information Technology Services Agency are employed; and if he will give the numbers employed by each agency in (i) actual numbers are (ii) whole-time equivalent numbers at (1) 31 December 1994 and (2) 31 December 1995. [13283]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Such information as is available is in the table.

  Contributions Agency—actual staff figures at 31 January 1995

  Location

  Number

  Longbenton

  3,783

  Broadway West

  52

  Kenton Bar

  1,100

  Scottish Life House

  97

  Hebburn

  546

  Lancaster House

  112

  Alfred Wilson House

  532

  Bellway

  17

  Durham House

  Nil

  Emerson House

  Nil

  Tyne View

  Nil

  Total

  6,239

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19416]
  345
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Parliamentary Questions

  Session

  Total number PQs tabled

  Number answered by chief executives

  Percentage1

  1992–93

  3,244

  495

  15

  1993–94

  2,359

  442

  19

  1994–95

  2,749

  389

  14

  1995–962

  1,666

  204

  12

  Notes:

  1Rounded to nearest whole number.

  2Up to 2 April 1996.

  1. Figures for written answers were obtained by doing a manual count and may be subject to error.

  Source: Departmental archive of written answers and ministerial correspondence.

  Correspondence

  Year

  Total correspondence

  Number of chief executive replies

  Percentage1

  1994

  23,193

  2,388

  10

  1995

  19,645

  2,192

  11

  Notes:

  1Rounded to nearest whole number.

  1. Figures for written answers were obtained by doing a manual count and may be subject to error.

  Source: Departmental archive of written answers and ministerial correspondence.

  Session

  Total Parliamentary Questions tabled

  Disproportionate cost replies as a Total

  Not centrally available replies as a Percentage1

  Total

  Percentage1

  1992–93

  3,244

  117

  4

  17

  1

  1993–94

  2,359

  129

  5

  6

  0

  1994–95

  2,749

  123

  4

  25

  1

  1995–962up to 2 April 1996

  1,666

  126

  8

  11

  1

  Notes:

  1Rounded to nearest whole number.

  2Up to 2 April 1996.

  Source:

  Departmental archive of written answers; figures were obtained by a clerical count and may be subject to error.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [22897]

  Mr. Burt
  This Department does not calculate the data requested and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the new contracted-out SERPS rebate which will take effect from April 1997 for each of the next 10 years. [21440]

  Mr. Heald
  The contracted-out rebate is set for a maximum of five years only. Estimated costs for the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–2, in terms of national insurance fund revenue forgone, are set out in the table.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1996,Official Report, columns 77–78, what information his Department collates in respect of its expenditure on the Isle of Wight. [20072]

  Mr. Burt
  With the exception of housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure as it relates to local authorities, the Department does not routinely collate any expenditure information on specific areas of Great Britain.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21146]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Cost of contracted-out rebate for 1997–98 to 2001–2

  Year

  £ billion (rounded)

  1997–98

  7.7

  1998–99

  7.8

  1999–01

  7.9

  2000–01

  8.0

  2001–02

  8.1

  1. Costs are estimated on the basis of the levels of contracting out and other assumptions used for the Government Actuary's report on the Pensions Bill 1994, Cm 2714.

  2. The amounts shown are the costs in respect of each financial year and have been rounded to one decimal place. In some cases, the costs will not fall in the financial year to which they relate. In particular, payments by the DSS to appropriate personal pensions and occupational money purchase schemes will not fall due until the following financial year.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for how long after the date of commencement of the Pensions Act 1995 state scheme premiums may be paid in respect of earners who were employed in
  347
  contracted-out employment which occurred before that date in order to buy them back into the state earnings-related pension scheme for that period. [23126]

  Mr. Heald
  No specific time limit has been prescribed within which payment of state scheme premiums outstanding at 6 April 1997 should be made.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority is to be given under the transitional arrangements applicable to the wind-up of occupational pension schemes which have insufficient assets to meet liabilities in full to(a) refunds of contributions to active members with fewer than two years' pensionable service and (b) increases to pensioners of pensions in payment guaranteed under scheme rules. [23162]

  Mr. Heald
  Draft regulations containing our proposals for the transitional arrangements which will operate for 10 years from April 1997 were issued for consultation on 22 January 1996. The consultation period ended on 4 March. We are considering the comments that we received.

  The priority order of liabilities set out in the draft regulations under the transitional arrangements are:
  (a) any liability attributable to the payment of voluntary contributions;
  (b) any liability for pensions, excluding increases, where entitlement to payment has arisen;
  (c) (i) any liability for accrued contracted-out rights in the scheme, which will be the whole of any accrual after April 1997 in a contracted-out scheme, excluding increases and any contribution equivalent premium to buy rights back into the state scheme; or
  (ii) the return of contributions to members with less than two years pensionable service where that period of service has not given the member any accrued rights under the scheme;
  (d) any liability for increases to pensions referred to in paragraph (b);
  (e) any liability for increases to pensions referred to in paragraph (c);
  (f) any liability for non-contracted out accrued rights together with any increases.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) by what date his Department will make available to(a) employers and (b) occupational pension scheme administrators, the documentation required to be completed in relation to the contracting arrangements under the Pensions Act 1995; [23157]

  (2) what advice his Department has issued as to the date by which employers should decide what (a) their future pensions arrangements and (b) their future contracting-out status should be to enable them to comply with the conditions of the new contracting-out provision. [23164]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of national insurance is the responsibility of Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. John Denham, dated 2 April 1996:
  As the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency is away from the office on annual leave. I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme in her absence.
  348
  I have been asked to reply to your questions relating to the advice and documentation arrangements for employers and occupational pension scheme administrators under the Pensions Act 1995. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the response.
  Guidance on the contracting-out arrangements for employers and occupational pension schemes is currently being prepared and consultation with the pensions industry will commence shortly. The guidance will be available by Autumn 1996 and will include examples of the documentation to be used.
  New contracting-out arrangements for Contracted-Out Salary Related Schemes come into effect from April 1997, although there will be a transitional period to enable employers to complete the re-election exercise. The Agency will shortly issue information to schemes about the general handling and timetable. Employers' future pension arrangements are a matter for them, they will however need to ensure they take decisions on their contracting-out status in time to comply with this.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that there are sufficient designers of pensions information systems software to enable contracted-out schemes to design and test their own software between the date at which his Department makes the detail of such an information system available to employers and occupational scheme administrators and the date of coming into force of the contracting-out provisions of the Pensions Act 1995. [23163]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department of Social Security has consulted pensions interests extensively throughout the process of developing the proposals contained in the Pensions Act 1995 and associated secondary legislation, so the broad structure of the new system is already well-known. The main regulations which impact on scheme administration will be laid before Parliament in the next few weeks; those on the new flexibilities for mixed benefit schemes will follow soon after. The Contributions Agency will shortly release draft guidance on the contracting-out arrangements from 6 April 1997, with the final guidance to be issued in the autumn. The guidance will include specimen forms.

  We believe that this gives all concerned enough time to make the arrangements needed for contracting out from April 1997.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the commencement of the contracting-out provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, he will immediately withdraw a contracting-out certificate if it comes to his notice that(a) a contracted-out occupational scheme exceeds the limits on employer-related investments as a result of an increase in the value of the equity of the sponsoring employer as a result of a takeover bid, (b) that a contracted-out occupational pension scheme has inadvertently breached the conditions for contracting out or (c) that an occupational scheme used for contracting out exceeds the limit of employer-related investments as a result of a transaction between the sponsoring company and the company in whose equity the occupational scheme has
  invested. [23165]
  349
  Mr. Heald
  From April 1997, contracting-out occupational pension schemes will be asked to provide an assurance, periodically, that the scheme complies with any prescribed restrictions on employer related investment.

  The Contributions Agency, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will have the power to cancel a contracting-out certificate where any condition relating to the issue of that certificate is no longer satisfied. It is intended that there will be liaison between CA and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, once either agency becomes aware of a scheme that has breached any restriction in employer related investment. The purpose of this liaison will be to provide both bodies with the information necessary to carry out their tasks and to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach in any necessary investigation and/or action.

  Table A: Claimants earning less than £80 a week

  £ million

  Benefit

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Family credit1

  147

  161

  333

  485

  577

  Disability working allowance1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3

  5

  Housing benefit2

  193

  217

  288

  329

  388

  Community charge benefit2

  105

  46

  44

  3—

  3—

  Council tax benefit2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  66

  75

  Total

  445

  424

  665

  883

  1,045

  Notes:

  3Represents periods before benefits were introduced/after they were replaced.

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest million and therefore may not sum.

  Sources:

  11996 departmental report.

  2Estimates derived from the 1 per cent. Housing Benefit Management System sample annual inquiry.

  Table B: Claimants earning £80 to £120 a week

  £ million

  Benefit

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Family credit1

  148

  174

  230

  276

  314

  Disability working allowances1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  2

  Housing benefit2

  44

  57

  69

  74

  85

  Community charge benefit2

  30

  13

  12

  3—

  3—

  Council tax benefit2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  10

  Total

  222

  244

  311

  361

  411

  Notes:

  3Represents periods before benefits were introduced/after they were replaced.

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest million and therefore may not sum.

  Sources:

  11996 departmental report.

  2Estimates derived from the 1 per cent. Housing Benefit Management System sample annual inquiry.

  Table C: Claimants earning £120 to £160 a week

  £million

  Benefit

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Family credit1

  77

  106

  132

  154

  181

  Disability working allowance1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  1

  Housing benefit2

  12

  24

  37

  39

  43

  Community charge benefit2

  16

  6

  7

  3—

  3—

  Council tax benefit2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4

  4

  Total

  105

  136

  176

  198

  229

  Notes:

  3Represents periods before benefits were introduced/after they were replaced.

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest million and therefore may not sum.

  Sources:

  11996 departmental report.

  2 Estimates derived from the 1 per cent. Housing Benefit Management System sample annual inquiry.

  In-work Benefits
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost for each of the last five years of benefit payments made to employed claimants earning(a) less than £4,000 per annum, (b) £4,000 to £6,000 per annum and (c) £6,000 to £8,000 per annum. [21423]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information in respect of the in-work benefits is in the tables. Annual earnings figures are not available. The tables provide information on benefit costs for claimants in weekly earnings bands corresponding approximately to the annual amounts requested, as recorded at the time of claim.

  Office Closures
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the location and (b) the number of job losses or relocation of employees for each (i) Contributions Agency office and (ii) Benefits Agency office which has closed in Scotland since 1990. [21571]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is in the tables:

  Contributions Agency

  The contributions agency has continuously reviewed its field organisation in light of customer expectation, information technology developments, the drive for efficiency and reduced running costs

  Location

  Year

  Job losses

  Relocated to

  Number of staff

  Dundee West

  1991

  Nil

  Dundee East

  4

  Glasgow—

  Anniesland

  Glasgow City

  1

  Rutherglen

  Glasgow South

  3

  Craigston

  Glasgow South

  4

  Shettleston

  Bridgeton

  3

  Kirkwall

  BA1

  1

  Lerwick

  BA1

  1

  Port Glasgow

  Paisley

  1

  Coatbridge

  1992

  Nil

  Hamilton

  3

  Cowdenbeath

  Dunfermline

  2

  Edinburgh—

  West

  Argyle House

  7

  East

  Argyle House

  6

  North

  Argyle House

  6

  South

  Argyle House

  6

  City

  Argyle House

  13

  Glasgow—

  Bridgeton

  Glasgow City

  3

  Springburn

  Glasgow City

  1

  Lanark

  Wishaw

  1

  Leven

  Kirkcaldy

  2

  Motherwell

  Wishaw

  3

  Aberdeen South

  1993

  Nil

  Aberdeen North

  14

  Dumbarton

  Clydebank

  3

  Glasgow—

  Glasgow City

  1

  Provan

  Airdrie

  1994

  Nil

  Hamilton

  5

  East Kilbride

  Hamilton

  5

  Glasgow—

  Southside

  Glasgow South

  4

  Lauriston

  Glasgow South

  7

  Irvine

  Ayr

  4

  Johnstone

  Paisley

  4

  Wishaw

  Hamilton

  3

  Arbroath

  1995

  Nil

  Dundee

  3

  Clydebank

  Paisley

  2

  Greenock

  Paisley

  6

  Kilmarnock

  Ayr

  3

  Dunfermline

  1996

  Nil

  Kirkcaldy

  2

  1. No actual job losses; staff at Kirkwall and Lerwick transferred to the Benefits Agency (BA) and the remainder were relocated in Contributions Agency locations.

  2. Data is provisional and subject to change.
  352

  Benefits Agency: The following rationalisation of the Benefits Agency estate was undertaken as part of the drive for increased efficiency

  Location

  Year

  Job losses

  Relocated to

  Number of staff

  Newton Stewart

  1995

  Nil

  Part time outlet

  Nil

  Dundee West

  1993

  4

  Staff relocated within Dundee. Job losses were all cleaners

  92

  Aberdeen

  1993

  Nil

  Staff relocated to Greyfriars House in Aberdeen

  71

  Lothian West (Edinburgh)

  1995–96

  Nil

  Staff relocated to Bathgate

  50

  1. Data is provisional and subject to change.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21462]

  Mr. Burt
  Wage levels are considered along with other information which collectively allows the Department to determine a contractor's ability to provide a work force at the required skills level. However, terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractor or supplier and his employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. Compliance with health and safety requirements is a legal requirement for the contractor or supplier. The Department always seeks assurances that contractors are fully aware of their obligations in this matter.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the cumulative loss of revenue to the national insurance fund if the employee contribution rates for 1978–79 had remained in force up to 1996–97. [21697]

  Mr. Heald
  If the employees' contribution structure, rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in 1978–79 remained in force from 1988–89 up to 1996–97, about £26.5 billion less would have been paid into the national insurance fund. There is insufficient data to provide a reliable estimate in respect of the period prior to 1988–89.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the Exchequer of enabling those of retirement age to claim their retirement pensions on the date of attainment of pension age rather than the following Monday. [22100]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 March,Official Report, column 181.
  353
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the extra cost to public funds in the current year of paying the state pension from the date of the birthday on which the person attains pensionable age. [22532]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 19 March,Official Report, column 181.

  Benefits Agency Offices (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency offices in Wales are located in rural districts; and if he will list them. [22378]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As the interpretation of "rural districts" is subjective, we are unable to give a definitive reply on what constitutes a rural district.

  There are a total of 75 benefit offices located in Wales, 34 of which are main benefit processing sites and 41 of which are public caller outlets. They are as follows:

  Main processing sites

  Public caller outlets

  Caernarfon

  Ystradgynlais

  Aberystwyth

  Pontlottyn

  Llangefni

  Tredegar

  Newtown

  Brecon

  Porthmadog

  Bargoed

  Dolgellau

  Port Talbot

  Holyhead

  Abertillery

  Wrexham

  Monmouth

  Colwyn Bay

  Abergavenny

  Deeside

  Pontypool

  Rhyl

  Chepstow

  Llanelli

  Blaenavon

  Ammanford

  Bangor

  Carmarthen

  Barmouth

  Haverfordwest

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Pembroke Dock

  Cardigan

  Swansea

  Knighton

  Morriston

  Lampeter

  Neath

  Llandrindod Wells

  Porth

  Llandysul

  Aberdare

  Machynlleth

  Bridgend

  Pwllheli

  Pontypridd

  Welshpool

  Tonypandy

  Ferndale

  Cardiff Central

  Maesteg

  Barry

  Mountain Ash

  Cardiff East

  Treorchy

  Cardiff West

  Gorseinon

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Pontardawe

  Blackwood

  Pontardulais

  Caerphilly

  Kidwelly

  Ebbw Vale

  Llandeilo

  Newport

  Tumble

  Cwmbran

  Denbigh

  Holywell

  Llandudno

  Llangollen

  Mold

  Ruthin

  Shotton

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Contributions Agency investigation and fraud teams to inquire into the evasion 354
  of national insurance contributions by former chairmen and non-executive directors of Yorkshire regional health authority. [22933]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 2 April 1996:
  As the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency is away from the office on annual leave, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency in her absence.
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State if he will ask the Contributions Agency investigation and fraud teams to inquire into evasion of National Insurance contributions by former Chairmen and non executive Directors of Yorkshire Regional Health Authority.
  Together with the Inland Revenue under our general rules of confidentiality I cannot discuss individual cases.
  It may be helpful if I explain that most National Insurance contributions are collected by the Inland Revenue on behalf of the Contributions Agency. Investigations into PAYE and National Insurance compliance may be carried out by either Department when there is evidence of irregularities.

  Child Support Agency (Computer Systems)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what computer system enhancements have taken place to allow the Child Support Agency to handle the departures scheme; who supplied the enhancements; what they cost; and to what extent they were based on existing computer packages. [23330]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 2 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency computer system.
  The existing Child Support Computer System (CSCS) has been upgraded to incorporate the new functions associated with the Departures scheme. The enhancements were supplied by the existing CSCS supplier, EDS, working as part of a joint development team of Child Support Agency, Information Technology Services Agency and EDS staff.
  The total cost of the enhancements are "commercial in confidence".
  A number of Departmental approved computer packages, which form part of the Departments IT infrastructure, have been used to integrate with the mainframe CSCS. These are Windows, ABC Flowcharter and Autoroute. No enhancements were made to these products. The enhancements to the CSCS are being developed through Rapid Application Development techniques by use of the Huron product.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Advice Lines
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what use was made of the 0800 advice service across north Staffordshire in 1995–96; what was the cost of the service; what mechanism he has adopted to assess the value of the service to claimants; and if he will make a statement as to the continued availability of this service. [23723]
  355
  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what use was made of the 0800 advice service across North Staffordshire in 1995–96; what costs were involved; what mechanism he has adopted to assess the value of the service to claimants; and if he will make a statement as to the continued availability of this service.

  The information is not available in the form requested, this is because the Freeline, Social Security service is operated on a national basis. Since November 1994 customers dialling the Freeline number can be connected to any one of the Freeline Centres across the country.

  Annex A gives the national details for the number of calls answered and the cost.
  Freeline, Social Security is covered in the Benefits Agency national customer survey. The National Freeline Co-ordinators Office also conduct their own annual customer survey and they have a formal complaints procedure.
  A review of the service is currently looking at options for handing these types of enquiries within the overall benefit advice service.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Annex A: National Freeline—Performance/costs 1995–96

  (1) Call answered

  (2)Costs

  3.2 million

  £6.6 million1

  1Staff/running costs (including telecomms). Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Figures are rounded to nearest 100,000.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line receives on average per year; how many calls it received for each year of its operation; and how many calls he estimates will be received in the next two years. [23819]

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

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many calls the Benefits Agency's (BA's) freeline benefit advice line receives on average per year; how many calls it received for each year of its operation; and how many calls he estimates will be received in the next two years.
  Freeline. Social Security has been operating since 1984, however information about the number of calls is available only from 1993. The number of calls received has been taken to mean the number of calls answered by an advisor.
  The average number of calls received is approximately 2.4 million per year and the number of calls received is shown in the list below:

  1993–94: 1.5 million

  1994–95: 2.6 million

  1995–96: 3.2 million.

  These figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.
  356
  The target set for the number of calls to be answered for 1996–97 has been set at 3.4 million, a target has not been set for 1997–98. However a review of the service is currently underway.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Lump Sum Widow's Payment
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the Exchequer of(a) increasing the lump sum widow's payment to £1,500 and (b) thereafter uprating this new payment annually in line with the retail price index.[23587]

  Mr. Heald
  The extra cost of increasing the widow's payment to £1,500 would be approximately £21 million in 1996–97 and £22 million in 1997–981.

  Uprating in 1997–98 would cost approximately £650,000 per 1 per cent. increase.

  Note:
  1Source: Government Actuary's Department. Figures rounded to nearest million.

  Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend industrial disease No. Al2 to include frequent and repeated movements of the hand and wrist as a cause of carpal tunnel syndrome, in addition to the use of hand-held vibrating tools. [23972]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans at present to extend the current terms of prescription in respect of carpal tunnel syndrome.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome were granted compensation under industrial injuries legislation in each of the last five years. [23971]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Carpal tunnel syndrome in respect of hand-held vibrating tools was added only in April 1993 to the list of prescribed diseases for which industrial injuries disablement benefit can be paid. The available information is set out in the table:

  Results of initial medical assessments where carpel tunnel syndrome is diagnosed from 19 April 1993 to 30 September 1995

  Period

  All cases

  0 per cent.1

  1–13 per cent.2

  14–100per cent.

  19 April 1993 to 31 December 1993

  254

  205

  40

  9

  1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994

  434

  116

  263

  55

  1 January 1995 to 30 September 1995

  241

  44

  158

  39

  Grand total

  929

  365

  461

  103

  1Cases where there is no loss of faculty or it is assessed at less than 1 per cent.

  2 Benefit is normally paid only for assessments of 14 per cent. or more. Entitlement to benefit could arise if an assessment in this range could be aggregated with one or more other assessments to reach 14 per cent.

  1. Based on 100 per cent. count of cases.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will postpone his decision to introduce the withdrawal of reduced earning allowance to women who have reached the age of 60 years until it has been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. [24253]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. Parliament agreed, in passing the 1988 Social Security Act, that compensation for loss of earnings through reduced earnings allowance should continue past pension age only for those men and women who continued in regular employment. Otherwise it should cease and be replaced by retirement allowance payable at 25 per cent. of rate of reduced earnings allowance.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24401]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department is currently assessing the impact of the millenium on its information technology systems and will work closely with suppliers to ensure that any necessary changes to our benefits delivery system are carried out well in advance of the change of the century.

  One-parent Benefit
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings his Department expects to make by freezing one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium. [22728]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Some £15 million per year from 1996–97.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his time scale for the phasing out of one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium. [22725]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Over time, the intention is to narrow the existing gap between benefits which go to lone parents and those which go to couples. Decisions on the pace and time scale of this process will be taken from year to year. Draft regulations to implement our proposals to restructure family benefits have been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Subject to completion of the statutory consultation procedures and to Parliamentary approval, the draft regulations are expected to be laid in May/June and to come into force in April 1997.

  Retention and Regeneration Packages
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to establish retaining and regeneration packages to assist staff and locations affected by proposed run-downs in his Department's employment after 1 April. [23701]

  Mr. Burt
  It is inevitable that Departmental efficiencies will result in staff reductions. However, it is too early to assess the possible impact of this on staff or particular localities.

  Lowered Standard of Occupation Allowance
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of persons in receipt of the allowance for lowered standard of occupation in each year for the past 10 years. [24050]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  Numbers in receipt of allowance for lowered standard of occupation at 31 December

  Year

  Number

  1986

  10,886

  1987

  10,827

  1988

  10,670

  1989

  10,523

  1990

  10,395

  1991

  10,487

  1992

  10,866

  1993

  11,876

  1994

  13,437

  1995

  14,200

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual cost of the allowance for lowered standard of occupation for the past 10 years and the estimated cost for the coming financial year. [24052]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The estimated cost for 1996–97, rounded to the nearest £5 million, will be around £25 million at cash prices.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision exists for an appeal against the withdrawal of the allowance for lowered standard of occupation. [24054]

  Mr. Heald
  There is no right of appeal against a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State on a war pension supplementary allowance. Such decisions may be formally challenged only by judicial review.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in receipt of allowances for lowered standard of occupation have been offered re-engagement in the regular or reserve forces. [24049]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons have had their allowance for lowered standard of occupation cancelled on the grounds that their pensioned disablement does not prevent them from carrying out their service occupation; [24051]

  (2) how many persons were given a medical examination prior to the decision being taken in deciding to revoke the allowance for lowered standard of occupation. [24053]

  Mr. Heald
  A total of 1,301 pensioners are to have their allowance cancelled on the ground that the war pensioned disablement does not prevent them following their regular service occupation. In order to determine their entitlement to a war disablement pension or gratuity under the war pensions scheme, a medical or audiometric
  359
  examination is normally necessary. Records of these examinations were available when eligibility for the allowance for lowered standard of occupation was reviewed.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24514]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  At their meeting on 29 January 1996, green ministers agreed that the Department of the Environment would complete its waste measurement pilot scheme and by 31 March 1996 set realistic targets for future waste minimisation. Departments would use this information and the Department of the Environment's waste minimisation target figures to establish their own waste minimisation targets by the end of 1996.

  Within the Department of Social Security, a pilot scheme is currently operating in selected Benefits Agency offices to examine a number of key environmental issues including waste minimisation. Findings will be reported later this year, when areas for improvement and targets for waste minimisation will be considered.

  EU Initiative to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on 6 February.Official Report, column 178, if the European Commission has provided a justification for expenditure without legal authority following the Government's inquiry about the legal basis of their funding for projects seeking to combat social exclusion. [25182]

  Mr. Lilley
  The European Commission has not provided a legal justification for these particular expenditure plans, made without the approval of the Council of Ministers. The Government have therefore this week made an application to the European Court of Justice challenging the legal basis of this expenditure. We believe that other member states share our concern. Commission proposals for a further Community spending programme on social exclusion projects were previously blocked in the Council of Ministers by Germany and the UK.

  The challenge is not aimed at stopping sensibly planned funding in support of disadvantaged people. The Government are already funding many projects to combat social exclusion in the UK through inner city challenge, adult training, health care, housing and literacy programmes.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Small Businesses: Late Payments
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to protect small businesses from late payment and bureaucracy; and, if so, which department will be responsible for its introduction.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government fully recognise the problems that late payment of invoices and bureaucracy can have on small businesses and have an ongoing commitment to work with business to address these issues. The Prime Minister announced on 11th March this year a package of new measures to tackle late payment and deregulation which will be taken forward by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Office respectively.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and welcome Mr. Major's statement of some weeks ago. However, the Minister must be aware that substantial numbers of small companies are still going bankrupt because of late payments. Therefore, will the Government urgently consider introducing legislation to make the practice of withholding payment illegal? If it is not made illegal, there will still be victims of the predators in big business who indulge in this practice far too frequently.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, in 1993–94 we consulted on measures to tackle late payment, including the possibility of legislation. At that time very divided views were put forward on whether that was desirable. However, my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for small businesses indicated in January this year that he is prepared to consult business again on the need for legislation and in the light of the responses would hope to announce the outcome of that shortly. Every recent indication has been that most of the organisations representing small businesses, with one clear exception, seem to have shifted their position and are no longer in favour of legislation.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that in 1980, 1991 and 1994 I asked similar Questions to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick? The Answer I received in 1994 was that ministries were instructed to pay their bills within 30 days. Is that still the case, or has the position improved since then?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are certainly clear guidelines to government departments on paying bills on time. Some perform better than others; but there is generally a clear indication of the payment that should be made. We should look not only at payments made by public bodies but, as the Prime Minister indicated, there will now be some consultation on whether public companies should be under a requirement to publish their payment performance. That might be of significant value to small businesses.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that serious consideration should be given to the imposition of mandatory interest for late payers? There should be mandatory interest on late payment by public offices and local authorities because if a taxpayer is late in paying income tax he is charged interest, whether he likes it or not.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will recall, in his statement of 11th March the Prime Minister indicated that there would be more rigorous measurement and reporting of government payment performance and there would be discussions with the Audit Commission to ensure that local authorities follow the lead of government. With regard to his point on legislation, I can only repeat that further consultation is under way, but there appears to have been something of a shift in attitude among those who represent small businesses as to the desirability of such a step.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord inform the House whether the Government have had consultations with the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Henley, who demonstrated in writing some time back the skills of his companies which enabled them to avoid prompt payment? Has the right honourable gentleman had a change of heart; will he be advising the Government; or what?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister set out his views fully in an article in the Mail on Sunday of 11th February which drew on his experience as a small businessman. What he indicated clearly is that where small businesses have troubles, it is not surprising that they look to their own cash flow problems before they look to those of their creditors.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if statutory interest for late payment is imposed, it must go hand in hand with a fast and cheap summary legal procedure for creditors to collect late payments without having to use a lawyer? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that would make things much easier and improve the position a great deal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the key question is to determine whether there should be such legislation. My understanding is, as I say, that more recently those who represent small businesses have been shifting their position, appreciating that if such legislation were to be introduced, small businesses might be reluctant

269
to use it for fear of jeopardising future business. It is not so much a matter of whether lawyers' fees are too great, but reluctance to use legislation because small businesses want to keep existing customers happy.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in using the word "slowly" regarding the Government's procedures on this matter, my noble and learned friend is using the slogan of all late payers all the time; namely, always slowly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that I used the word "slowly". I have indicated that the Prime Minister wishes to ensure that where the Government make payment their performance should be more rigorously measured and monitored.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Minister look kindly on the owners of abattoirs and other beef-related businesses who, having spent a vast amount of money in trying to comply with EC regulations, now have very little income at all to pay off bank loans and pay other organisations requiring money from them?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am only too well aware of the difficulties confronting abattoirs and other businesses connected with the beef industry at the present time. I am bound to say that my noble friend's question goes a little beyond the issue of late payment to small businesses. But I am sure that my noble friend is well aware that the Minister for Agriculture has been in Europe for the past few days and been as vigorous as he can in promoting the cause of those businesses.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that the Minister is not saying that legislation is in the post? Clearly, the Minister is right in that if we take the legislation further, businesses will be a little worried for fear of losing customers. Does he agree at least that if a culture of non-payment begins to dominate British industry, to say the least it will add to inefficiency? In essence, a great deal of trust is involved here. That trust is deficient if we end up with people not paying; it makes businesses that much harder to run, which may benefit lawyers and banks, but it certainly will not benefit the real economy. Will the Minister confirm that that is the real problem that we have to solve one way or another?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if there is a culture of non-payment developing, and if to any extent public bodies are responsible for it, I very much hope that the approach that the Prime Minister has urged is welcomed by one and all—that is to say, if government payment performance is slipping or is not as good as it should be, it should be carefully measured and reported on. Similarly, local authorities should have their performance on payments monitored. It might be equally desirable, as I indicated, to ensure that public companies are under an obligation to publish their payment performance. I would have
270
thought that that package of measures will go a considerable way to destroying the type of culture which the noble Lord is anxious should not emerge.

Aircraft Bulkhead Width Proposal
11.15 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper and to declare an interest. I am president of the Air Safety Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made following the recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority to extend the bulkhead width in a passenger carrying aircraft from 22 inches to 30 inches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, following the accident at Manchester Airport in 1985, the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned a study into the effect of cabin configuration on aircraft evacuations. This study concluded, among other things, that the optimum width for passageways between floor to ceiling rigid structures, such as galleys, was 30 inches. The Joint Aviation Authorities have developed proposals based on this study and will be consulting on the proposals in the near future.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most encouraging Answer. As regards the proposals and recommendations, has he any news as to when they can possibly become fact?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, we hope that the consultation will commence very shortly. I understand that it may be as soon as next month. We hope that it will be taken forward as quickly as possible. There will then be a process to be gone through, depending on the results that come forward, for formal proposals to be developed. It is possible that the rule-making process can begin perhaps in late 1997.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend give me some advice as to the measurements and what dimensions in the aircraft are referred to? I have to declare an interest as a frequent traveller between Edinburgh and London. I find that small is beautiful in climbing in and out of the seats. What exactly is the purpose of the extra eight inches? Will it give me more headroom or legroom?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that it will affect my noble friend's physique in any way whatever. Where there are two rigid structures, such as a lavatory on one side and a galley on the other, or two galleys, or whatever, and there is a gap and a barrier which goes right from the floor to the ceiling the present minimum width is 22 inches. The study undertaken at Cranfield shows that the optimum width for that gap in

271
order to evacuate people quickly from the aircraft is 30 inches. Any more than that and other problems of crowding arise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this improvement is the result of the exercise by the Civil Aviation Authority of its very great experience in aviation matters?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, I can, my Lords. It stems from a recommendation from the Air Accident Investigation Branch which was taken up by the Civil Aviation Authority. It commissioned the Cranfield study, which was a long and serious study. The results have gained very considerable acceptance. The CAA has largely been the driving force behind this change.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a very long time since the Manchester air accident from which these recommendations flow? I understand from the Minister that there is to be further very considerable delay. In view of what is an unsatisfactory situation—and I am in no way denigrating the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a very reliable organization—what other recommendations by that body flowing from the accident remain unimplemented?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the question of time, it is important that these things are done as quickly as possible. I understand that the Cranfield study into physical aspects did not report until 1989; so that was part of the delay. Since then the proposals have been referred to the JAA which we believe is the proper authority if we are to get as wide as possible harmonisation and acceptance of the proposals in order to make them worth while and workable. All that has taken time. We want the matter to be pursued as quickly as possible, and we are pushing hard through the Civil Aviation Authority.
Other recommendations were brought forward for consideration on, for example, cabin water-spray systems for aircraft, as recommended by the AIB. The CAA considered that recommendation but rejected it. The reasoning behind that is lengthy and could perhaps form the subject of another Question. A similar story prevails in relation to smokehoods, but floor lighting has been adopted.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, given the fact that the aircraft industry is, above all, international, are there automatic provisions to ensure that new requirements apply to all airlines and all aircraft manufacturers, or do they apply only to British ones?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an important point. It is why the proposals have been taken forward through the Joint Aviation Authorities. That will mean that all members of the JAA adopt a harmonised standard. The other very big block, affecting a large part of the industry, is the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. It is looking carefully at what the JAA are doing and there is good liaison between those two bodies.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the question from my neighbour, the noble Lord,
272
Lord Lyell, are there any regulations about the distance there between seats? I have been in aircraft where I found it impossible to get into the seat—and I would certainly have found it very difficult to get out. Can aircraft manufacturers pack as many people as will tolerate it into an aircraft or is there a limit?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the reasons for the noble Lord's difficulties could be numerous. But there are minimum regulations for airlines. Depending on which class of passenger they carry, they might make different commercial decisions. However, minimum standards are laid down and must be strictly adhered to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the international responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Authority, is it not strange that it has not converted to the metric system but continues to prefer inches?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I dare say that converting 22 inches and 30 inches into metric measures would be straightforward. Indeed, the conversion is probably concealed somewhere in my brief. However, for the purposes of presentation to your Lordships' House, I think that perhaps inches are preferable.

Northern Ireland Police Authority
11.22 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances and what are the implications of the dismissal of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, Mr. David Cook, and one of the members, Mr. Chris Ryder, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has a statutory duty to appoint and maintain a police authority. Following votes of no confidence in Mr. Cook and in Mr. Ryder, and after consideration of the issues involved, the Secretary of State concluded that the authority could not function effectively with Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder as members. The issues at stake were not substantive policy questions but involved the way in which business was conducted. The deputy chairman, Mr. Pat Armstrong CBE, has been appointed chairman. Members are now continuing their important function of securing an adequate and efficient police force.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Clearly, this is now water under the bridge. But I wonder whether I may ask her in these unhappy circumstances and at this sensitive time in Northern Ireland, first, whether this might not be an opportunity for the Northern Ireland Office and the Government to express their appreciation of two people who have given considerable public service in Northern Ireland over the years and, even more importantly, whether the Minister can reassure the House that the process whereby the authority has been

273
driving towards greater accountability for the police in Northern Ireland, which is surely crucial—it proved to be crucial in South Africa in cementing the idea that the police force there was the force for the whole community—should in no way suffer in the change of personnel at the top of the Police Authority.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is precisely because we did not want that important work to be impeded in any way that the Secretary of State took the action that he did. We have just had the most comprehensive review of public opinion on policing in Northern Ireland which has ever been undertaken. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that 600,000 homes received mailshots and that there were public opinion surveys and a series of meetings. All of that work continues, including a review of the structure of the Police Authority and the police force.
At the forefront of the Secretary of State's mind has to be the proper functioning and credibility of the authority. That is why he took the action that he did. The votes of no confidence were overwhelming and they were followed by interviews with each member of the authority. It became clear that there was so little confidence in those two gentlemen, Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder, that it was in the best interests of the authority that they should be removed.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my view the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had no option but to act as he did given what happened on the Police Authority? However, will she indicate to him that I hope that the services of those two men will not be lost? Chris Ryder knows Northern Ireland inside out. He used to work for a British newspaper and it was worth buying that weekend paper because he knew what he was talking about. That is true also of David Cook. Their views on these matters are well worth listening to, even if they did not act wisely on the Police Authority.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a distinction should be made between the proper functioning and authority of the Police Authority and the particular service of those two gentlemen. It would be improper of me to secondguess how the Secretary of State dealt with the matter when he visited those two gentlemen. He gave them both the opportunity to present their cases to him, and I have no doubt that he would have done that with the utmost courtesy, recognising the positive contributions that they have made. However, for the proper authority of the Police Authority it was important that he took the action that he did.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, is there any difference in terms of policy between Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder on the one hand and their remaining colleagues on the authority on the other, or was it simply the case that personal relations had so broken down that the efficient functioning of the authority could not be guaranteed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was mainly a question of style and of the way in which those gentlemen
274
operated as a member and chairman of the authority. That came across clearly in the interviews with members of the authority.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that the issue has been that those two men, valuable though everyone recognises them to be, chose to discuss a leaked document and thus to pre-empt the discussions and consensus view of an authority of 20 people, which by any standards is not very sensible, and that as a result they have perhaps put a rather good consultation process in jeopardy? I am sure that that is the last thing that they would have wanted to do, but it has been the effect.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which was indeed material. The way in which some information of the authority was represented not as the collective view of the authority but as individual views, and the fact that information was often injudiciously placed in the public domain, were two of the reasons behind all this. I refer to the conduct of the chairman and the member.

Road Signs: Sponsorship
11.28 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for the sponsorship of road signs by firms who would contribute to the costs of installing them.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are looking at the possibility of encouraging the private sector to contribute to allow earlier upgrading or replacement of direction signs or provision of other information signs such as variable message signs. However, the display of messages acknowledging business sponsorship on traffic signs is not permitted under current legislation. Even a trial scheme would involve amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is too early to invite comment on specific detailed proposals.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. If a scheme is adopted, will the logos or advertised names have to be approved to ensure that they will not dangerously distract drivers? Will firms be able to chose their areas? The Middlesbrough area, for example, might be appropriate for the chemical industry, and Northampton for the shoe manufacturers. On the other hand, there could be pitfalls. Yorkshire Water would probably not want to be identified with signs pointing

275
to a nearby town called Leek; nor would the makers of Easter eggs want to be identified with signs to Nuneaton.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I extend my seasonal greetings to the House. There would be strict controls on any such scheme. Any logos on signs would need to be discreet, carefully positioned and such that they would not distract drivers. We recognise that people might have concerns about any such proposals and careful controls will therefore be applied.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the interesting points just made, is the department prepared to consider the correct location of road signs so that they are helpful to motorists and pedestrians? Road signs can be very helpful if they are properly located.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. The location, visibility and clarity of signs are of primary importance in these road safety issues.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that many roads signs—I refer to the brown and white tourist signs—are already sponsored? All of them have to be paid for by the tourist attractions on instructions from the local road authorities.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I understand that brown and white tourist signs are paid for by the attractions to which they relate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in our view this idea should not be lightly tossed aside but thrown away with great force, as Dorothy Parker once said? Where do we go next? Will Ministers be sponsored? Perhaps we may start with Eurostar sponsoring Mr. Portillo or McDonald's sponsoring Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me far. I can think of all kinds of companies that may wish to be associated with the success of the Government. Of course, we would not wish to have any conflicts of interest whatsoever. Serious points have been made with regard to these proposals. We do not wish to do anything to undermine road safety.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some months ago a statutory instrument was passed by the House which was one inch thick and contained coloured photographs and descriptions of how each road sign had to be measured from various distances and roundabouts? Every road sign throughout the country is already specified in terms of size and position.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe that in this country we have very good and clear signing. The
276
reason for it is that the dimensions, details, locations and types of sign are closely controlled in the rules laid down.

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons earlier this day, printed pursuant to Standing Order 48 and read a first time.

Business of the House
11.33 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The purpose of the Motion is to enable the House to take all stages of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill today. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill provides additional powers to the police for the prevention of terrorism. I am happy to say that the purpose of the Bill received considerable support in another place yesterday. There was a considerable measure of agreement that these powers should be granted as swiftly as possible. That being the case, I hope that your Lordships will be content to agree to this Motion without prolonged debate, reserving comment on the substance of the Bill for the proceedings on the Bill itself.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that, at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, it will be proposed that the House do adjourn during pleasure for 20 minutes to give noble Lords an opportunity to ensure that they have copies of the amendments which have been tabled and to ensure that the Committee stage can be begun in an orderly manner. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill having been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to he taken through all its stages this day before the Motions standing in the names of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Lord St John of Bletso.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister and the House will be aware that my friends in another place agreed to a comparable Motion there yesterday. I wish to make it clear from the outset that we, too, are not opposing the Business Motion before the House. I shall not seek to trespass in any way on the Second Reading debate and address the virtues or otherwise of the Bill itself, but I have to say, although we have agreed, and we shall not be opposing the Business Motion, that this is not a happy day for the House.

277
It can only be under the most exceptional circumstances that we agree to the curtailment of parliamentary debate in this way. Fortunately we are in no position to agree to the extent of curtailment of parliamentary debate that took place in another place yesterday, because there is no possibility—thank God!—of a Guillotine Motion in this House as there was in another place yesterday.
In the event, because of the Guillotine Motion, even the consideration of Clause 1 was not completed in Committee, and the other clauses—it is a substantial Bill of 12 pages—were concluded without debate being possible. That is not possible today. In fact your Lordships will recognise that the, perhaps feeble, attempts I have made to understand the full import of the issues in the Bill, and the feeble result in terms of amendments that I have been able to put down, are nothing like the consideration which the Bill deserves from your Lordships' House, and not merely from the Opposition Front Bench.
There should be much more considered debate of the issues, and that has just not been possible, not only because of the Motion which is before the House, but because of the very short time that has been available since the matter was first raised with my honourable friend Mr. Jack Straw last Thursday, and the public announcement of the Bill by the Home Secretary in another place on Monday. There has just not been time for the degree of consultation with outside interests, and the degree of scrutiny of the Bill by Members of the Opposition, for us to undertake the kind of scrutiny which we believe the Bill and all legislation deserves.
I regret, in particular, that the timetable Motion in another place, which was carried yesterday, included a guillotine on consideration of any amendments from the House of Lords. That may be an academic issue in the sense that it may be that your Lordships will not seek to make any amendments to the Bill, but, nevertheless, the precedent of having your Lordships' amendments subject to a Guillotine Motion in another place is one which, in particular, we would seek to resist and restrict to the most dire emergency.
I noticed, when looking back at the history of such Motions, that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was obliged to introduce the original Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 1974, it was done by a Business Motion which provided for multiple stages to be carried through on one day, but there was no Guillotine Motion. I commend the example which the noble Lord set to another place at that time. I regret the Guillotine Motion, and the Business Motion which we have before the House today.
In the light of the crisis which has been identified and the security briefings which have been given to my honourable friends in another place, there is no alternative but for this Business Motion to be carried. However, it should not be taken as a precedent, and it should not be repeated except in the most extreme circumstances.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I may first remind your Lordships that we on these
278
Benches have supported and will continue to support every reasonable measure to combat terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was responsible as Home Secretary for the original legislation when it passed through the other place in 1974. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, as some noble Lords will remember, piloted the Bill through your Lordships' House on 28th November that year. Only a fortnight ago, on 19th March, I spoke in support of the renewal order. So our record is plain, and we shall not oppose the Second Reading today.
We recognise also the need, if the circumstances are exceptional, to take a Bill through the House on one day. Of course, 1974 is a good example. Those of us with experience of government are fully aware of the circumstances, rare though they may be, when that may be necessary. Nevertheless, there are disturbing aspects of how the matter has been handled. I believe it right to set them before your Lordships this morning in debating this important Motion.
I expressed my anxieties on behalf of these Benches when faced with the surprise of the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Monday evening. I said then that we were disturbed about the Government bringing forward this legislation on the eve of the Recess. Nothing that has happened since, neither anything said in this Chamber nor anything said to another place yesterday, has made me change my mind.
If the Government want all-party support in both Houses, they should go to some trouble to get it and not assume that it is there whatever they may do. At the very least, there are a number of courtesies which should be involved. I absolve the noble Earl, who was in no way responsible; I hope that I can absolve the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; but nevertheless these questions need to be addressed.
The first I heard about this legislation was indirectly at 4 p.m. on Monday afternoon. I was then led to believe that the Business Statement would come the following day. There may have been a misunderstanding about that, and I shall not pursue the matter further. Although consultation—this is the important point—took place between the Home Secretary and opposition parties in another place last week, at no time have I or any of my noble friends received any communication from the Home Secretary or from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on his behalf. I have received no indication and there has been no suggestion at any time that I or any of my noble friends should receive a briefing from the police. I should like to ask the noble Earl when replying to tell us why it was thought appropriate, given the responsibilities of the House, to offer briefings to Members of another place but to offer no briefings, at least to Members on these Benches. There are four or five Privy Counsellors, including myself, on these Benches, if it had been thought to be a Privy Council issue.
I do not believe there is any need to say much about why we should be anxious. This is a Bill, so the Home Secretary told another place yesterday, which is sensible and practical, and so it may be. He said that the Bill was

279
subject to clear and careful safeguards. No doubt we will examine that today. But the Bill involves giving the police new powers or putting existing powers on a statutory basis. It is inevitably an intrusion into privacy and a reduction in the freedom of the individual. Whether or not it is a necessity, it cannot be welcomed in this or any other House. It may be a necessity, but we recognise that we are once again balancing personal freedom against the need to deal with those who would seek to destroy it.
The resurgence of terrorism occurred with the Canary Wharf bombing eight weeks ago. I understand that discussions between Home Office officials and the police have taken place since then. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill with which your Lordships will not already be familiar as matters which have been put forward by the police from time to time as those which statute should embody. So, why now, this day, eight weeks after the Canary Wharf bombing; why now on the eve of a Recess has the Bill been brought before us? There is insufficient time to scrutinise something which strikes at the heart of our civil liberties, however important the Bill may be.
There is another point which I would ask the Government and all Members of your Lordships' House, respectfully, to consider. All in this House believe that this House has a role parallel to that of the other place in Parliament. Indeed we believe that to be our justification. Further to that, we believe that this House can spend more time, more usefully scrutinising legislation put before Parliament than can the other House for many different reasons. If that is the case, and this House is as important as we all recognise it to be, and if the Bill deserves proper scrutiny, why was it that more trouble was not taken to inform noble Lords on both sides, and principally the principal political parties, that the Bill was coming forward?
As I said, I, with other noble Lords, spoke on 19th March on the order renewing the Act. I have re-read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and there was no hint that this Bill was coming forward. Surely it must have been in the Government's mind at that time, given discussions between the police and the Home Office, that such a Bill might be needed. There is nothing new—no new emergency—and, thank goodness, no new terrorism attack. Why could not the Minister have then said to your Lordships' House that it might be necessary to come forward with a Bill with further powers? We might even in the course of discussing that order have formed a view of what those powers might be.
I hope that your Lordships will recognise that what I have said has been said in a constructive spirit and in defence of the proper role of your Lordships' House. I should like to make two practical suggestions. If the noble Earl cannot give a positive response today, I hope that he will convey the thoughts to his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and will make a Statement to your Lordships' House at an early date.
As the noble Earl will recall, and certainly the Home Secretary must know, the Bill introduced into another place by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in
280
November 1974 was reintroduced 18 months later. As noble Lords will find if they scrutinise the Official Report, it was set out clearly in your Lordships' House at that time by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that he and the Home Secretary recognised that there had been inadequate scrutiny of the Bill. It had been brought forward as an emergency after the Birmingham bombing. Therefore the Bill was reintroduced early in 1976 in order that the scrutiny could take place on a Bill which had been on the statute book for 15 months.
My suggestion is that during that relatively quiet time that your Lordships' House normally experiences after the Queen's Speech and before the Christmas Recess, the Government should bring forward the Bill again in the way that the 1974 Bill was brought forward again so that we can then scrutinise it in full detail and in the light of experience of it during the interval.
The second point I put to the noble Earl is that I do not wish to pursue this matter further today. It would be inappropriate. I do not know how many noble Lords may wish to do so, but clearly something has gone wrong. Without wishing to attribute blame, and without wanting to argue now that any harm can be undone, there is a case for the Procedure Committee to consider how to deal with emergency legislation, when a Statement to the House should be made and what time should be provided for discussion of it. The Procedure Committee may well endorse the Government's conduct in this case, in which case I shall be satisfied. However, we should at least take the matter out of the arena of discussion across the Chamber. I have tried to make my point on a non-party basis. I suggest that the Procedure Committee should look at the Bill and report to your Lordships' House; we should then not have such problems again. We must all work together to combat terrorism but there is a right way and a wrong way of going about it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, says because he has repeated much of what was said in another place. I was a Member of the other place when the original Bill was passed and I opposed it for similar reasons. Eighteen months later it was admitted that we had been right in saying that there was insufficient discussion and scrutiny of the Bill.
I am puzzled by the fact that only a couple of weeks ago the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was debated and discussed. It must have been known then that the Government intended to take extra measures. We know that the police authorities were in constant discussion with the police forces and no doubt with Government Ministers long before the Baltic Exchange explosion and since. Why was it not possible, therefore, to announce the changes two weeks ago during the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Act? That is a puzzle which no one can solve. Perhaps the need to rush the Bill through is a further example of government by decree rather than the democratic process to which we have become accustomed. There can be no democratic process given the time that has been allotted to discuss a most important Bill.

281
We are dealing with a Bill which could have dramatic and disastrous consequences for the community relations with the police which have been built up over many years. A great deal of work is being done in that respect; it will be put at risk if the Bill goes through in such a rush. Obviously, there will be a dramatic increase in police duties at a time when there are insufficient policemen to carry out the duties placed on them by other legislation and by the general increase in crime. At a time when they face an uphill task in almost every other respect they are being told that virtually everyone with an Irish accent is suspect and should be stopped and searched.
The Bill is being rushed through and discussion is being denied. When I telephoned to put my name on the list of speakers I was told that it had closed last night at 6 p.m. I was amazed. I did not know that the list would be closed at that time and I do not recall anyone mentioning it. I therefore intend, if allowed, to speak for the allotted time in the gap because that will be the only opportunity to mention some of the more worrying aspects of the legislation.
I am also aware that I am much inhibited by the unfortunate statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench that there is cross-party agreement before the debate has even taken place. From the Back-Bench point of view, that is unfortunate because I knew nothing about it. Had I known I should have been opposed. I take the opportunity therefore to record my opposition to the rushed procedure on an important Bill which will have dire consequences. I reserve my right and privilege to speak in the gap.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stallard has been involved in Irish affairs for a long time. In his constituency in north London he represented large numbers of people born in the Irish Republic. However, I have been involved for only 25 years, since I first visited Long Kesh when it was opened. Family-wise, I have been involved for a little longer. My father, who was a Welsh private soldier, was at the Easter rising in Dublin as part of an Irish regiment. Therefore, I knew that Ireland existed before I took my O levels, or whatever they were called. I have no doubt that if Parliament has to act to deal with terrorism it should act, and should act quickly, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It should not allow procedures to prevent change taking place.
I do not wish to discuss the Bill because there is little point in doing so. No amendments can be tabled and received in the other place. I speak on the Business Motion only because I am surprised and perplexed about why the legislation is being pushed forward. I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House, but perhaps I may say that Clause 1 raises matters of public interest as regards civil liberties and needs to be examined carefully. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are highly technical. I see no reason why the legislation should be taken so quickly. If there was need to take it quickly it should have been debated last Thursday and Friday after the Cabinet meeting and the discussions with the shadow Cabinet. I do not understand the situation.
282
I am not sure whether the gossip at the other end of the Palace reaches this end. When I asked what it was all about, I was told, "It's the Home Secretary being political". He is the least political Home Secretary I have ever come across in my career. Political? I would not say that about the Home Secretary. There must be a better reason. There are dark hints about the Unionist vote but I do not see how that comes into the matter. People are thinking around the issue because they can find no good reason for the Bill being dealt with in this way.
There is no point in staying here for the rest of the day because we can do very little and we should be wasting our time. We can make our views clear now, which is what I am trying to do. I am perplexed and surprised. I was privileged to come to this House. But what part can we play? To a large degree we are wasting our time. Today's procedure has been decided. I shall not vote against the Bill. If I did so it would be misunderstood.
One can read the debate which took place in the other place yesterday. It would be very dangerous to become involved in narrow, silly politics, as happened there yesterday, particularly when the Government are talking to the IRA on one side of the water and trying to deal with it on this side. If one became involved in such politics it would be to the detriment of both Houses and to the detriment of Irish policy. Your Lordships have seen the paintings outside the Bishops' Bar. The fact that the politics of Ireland were so involved in party politics was one of the reasons why the aims of the then Liberal Government failed. I do not want that yet I do not understand the Bill. There seems to be no urgency in it. It is highly technical. Clause 1 should be examined most carefully. I shall not vote against the Bill. In my view, we are wasting our time here today.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to make two brief points, to one of which I hope I shall receive a satisfactory answer. First, I should welcome a categorical assurance that another place will still be in session when we complete consideration of the Bill. Secondly, I still do not entirely understand what is claimed to be an emergency. Of course, I understand that some of the evidence on which that may be based could be difficult to put forward. However, the evidence that has been put forward puzzles me somewhat. We are told that it is the 80th anniversary of the Easter rising. I should exaggerate if I said that we have had 80 years' notice of that, but I should not exaggerate very much. We are told also by the Home Secretary in his appearance on "Newsnight" that it is possible to carry a bomb which may be concealed in a pocket. I accept that. It is clearly true, But it is not new. I remember—I think it was something over 20 years ago—during the Christmas shopping rush in Dickins and Jones somebody whom I shall not describe as a dumb animal concealed those in one of every 10 fur coats in Dickins and Jones. Therefore, the Home Secretary has had 20 years to get used to that idea. Why has he only just discovered it now?
12 noon
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to make only a couple of very brief points to follow on from other remarks which have been made. I remind the House and the country that this is the only second Chamber that we have. If it is a second Chamber, it should be allowed to do the job of a second Chamber; that is, to revise and advise. It is being prevented from playing that proper role which has been with us down the centuries and, indeed, which is enshrined in the Parliament Acts which are apparently being set aside.
The other point that I wish to make is that we now appear to have reached a situation in which, if the two Front Benches that is, the Government and the Official Opposition—reach an agreement on something, then Parliament's view matters very little. Even the Liberal Democrats, apparently, have not been consulted.
But I reserve my greatest sympathy for my noble friend on the Front Bench who will advise us to pass this Motion and, indeed, will advise us not to vote against the legislation. My honourable friend in the other place, Jack Straw, has had the privilege of a security briefing. Therefore, he is able to advise in the House of Commons. But my noble friend has had no security briefing; or has he? He did not say so. Therefore, he is advising us in the dark as to what we should do on this Bill. I really do not believe that that is good enough.
I have a final question to put to the Minister. If the Official Opposition had said no to this Bill, had they said that they would not agree to the Guillotine and this procedure which we have before us, would the Government still have brought forward the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is an interesting and important debate and I think that in most of your Lordships there is an internal conflict of interest. There certainly is within me. As a member of the Government in Northern Ireland for two-and-a-half years and in the Home Office for three years, I see the pressing need for instant reaction to imminent danger. As a Member of this House for 23 years, I see the importance of protecting the liberty of the civilian and keeping a close eye on the work of the Executive.
In the particular circumstances in which we are today, we must have a certain trust in our system and in our colleagues. What has been delegated by both Houses de facto is a decision as to the urgency of the situation. Those who are a party to that knowledge, the knowledge on which that decision has been taken, are those who have been preferred by the two principal parties as at least capable of taking that sort of decision on their part.
I believe that it would be entirely irresponsible now to throw a spanner into the works on the basis that they were not trusted; to delay the legislation; and to leave the guard of this country down when they say that it should be up. Therefore, I support Her Majesty's Government in their wish to carry through this legislation with the support of Her Majesty's Opposition.
But I do see that it is a matter of close interest, even after the event. I have been involved in a sufficient number of debates on police, criminal evidence and
284
other such legislation to know how delicate are some of these issues when it comes not just to questions of the liberty of the individual generally but the preservation of a bearable or good relationship between the police and, for example, ethnic minorities.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will have a later opportunity to look at this legislation when it has been in place for some time. The best thing would be if my noble friend could say whether that is feasible, but I doubt that that can be written into a Bill. I hope that in 12 months' time we may have a debate on the functioning of the Bill. If we can have something of that sort, I shall be warm in my support for Her Majesty's Government in relation to this Motion.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at a time when rules are being set aside, it is comforting to know that some rules are in place and are being applied and that there are also mechanisms to circumvent that, if I can put it like that.
I start my remarks by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because last night I was unable to place my name on the list of speakers for the Second Reading debate and so I should also like to speak in the Gap. I know that that will restrict me to four minutes and no doubt that will come as a tremendous measure of relief to your Lordships' House.
But I went to the Chief Whip's Office last night at seven o'clock thinking that it would be polite to let the Chief Whip know that I should be speaking today. I found that the list of speakers had been opened and had already closed. That was in relation to a debate as to which, in theory, there was no certainty that it would take place today. But we have heard—and a number of noble Lords alluded to it—that there has been an agreement between the two Front Benches that this legislation shall go through.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded to the fact that the Government had some notice that this year would be the eightieth anniversary of the Easter Rising. But we can see also that the Government have had effectively eight weeks' notice of the fact that the ceasefire has broken down. It is only two weeks since we debated the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In that debate, I referred to a problem which appeared to present itself because of the requirement following a European Court decision to change the operation of the mechanism in relation to exclusion orders. At this stage I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for responding to my comments and for subsequently writing to me.
While I accept the assurance that she has given from her point of view, I still believe that there is a problem with that particular piece of legislation and effectively we are losing an opportunity to consider that. That could have been included in a Bill such as this. We could have taken that through both Houses of Parliament, not necessarily in the two or three months which it normally takes legislation to pass through, but we could have done it over a period of several weeks. That would have enabled Parliament to scrutinise this legislation and, if necessary, add other parts to ensure that we were protecting ourselves from adverse criticism.

285
We must ask ourselves why the Government are bringing forward such legislation at this time. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that they are facing a by-election in South Staffordshire. Of course, I could not possibly comment on that. We are advised that the Home Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary have received security briefings which indicate that there is an urgent necessity for the legislation. While it would be wrong at this stage in the debate to look at the detail of the Bill, if there is some security information which is of such a precipitate nature, is it right that we should be thinking in terms of legislation rather than actually warning the British public of the information which is available? Again, I could not possibly comment.
While I support virtually everything that has been said by other speakers, perhaps I may pose a question to the Minister. Can he say whether it would be possible for the House to adjourn for a period after the Committee stage, where, I suspect, no amendments will be passed, which means that there will be no Report stage? To ensure that it has the ability to do as much justice as possible to our responsibilities of scrutinising the legislation, I believe that it might be useful for the House to have a gap between the Committee stage and Third Reading to give your Lordships, having taken cognisance of what is said in Committee, the opportunity to table manuscript amendments which could then be considered on Third Reading. I make that suggestion in the hope that it will be recognised that what I am seeking to do is to protect the good name of this House as regards its reputation for scrutinising government legislation effectively.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have been most disappointed with some of the things that I have heard, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The question has been asked as to why this legislation is being introduced. I would have thought that an infant would understand. Obviously, the Government have good reason to do so. If the liberties and rights of our people outside the House are at risk, I should point out that there are times in the history of Parliament when it is necessary to put trust on both sides. We have all done so when we were Ministers. Indeed, every Minister talks to his opposite number and takes him into his confidence if there is a special difficulty.
We are not taking anything away from the authority of this House if we realise that, on a special occasion when the life and liberty of our own people are matters that have obviously been brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, the least we can do is to try to see that they have the weapons that they require at their disposal.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
12.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not fall easy to any government to propose such a Motion because we have the rules of procedure in order to guide the way in which
286
we conduct the passage of our legislation. It is only on very rare occasions that it is necessary to change those procedures and then one can only do so with the approval of the House. If I may say so, I agree with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in what I thought had the merits of being a short, succinct and totally sensible speech, in contrast, as the noble Viscount himself said, to some of the other speeches that have been made.
Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He asked whether the other place would be sitting when we disposed of the Bill. I thought that that was an extraordinary question. The noble Earl knows perfectly well what are the rules of the House. The fact is that Royal Assent cannot take place without both Houses sitting. Therefore, the other place will be sitting in order to pass the Bill into Royal Assent. The noble Earl then made what I thought was an astonishing and remarkable suggestion—and I measure my words in this respect. He pointed out that such incidents had been known about for 20 years, and asked why on earth it had taken the Home Secretary 20 years to get used to them. I found that to be a most infantile comment.
That speech was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The fact is that we are dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is wicked, it is subversive, it is dangerous and it is unpredictable. All those factors must be taken into account. The police sought powers after South Quay which were based on their experience of using the existing Section 13A powers, which have only ever been applied after that incident. It is quite clear that there is a real and continuing terrorist threat. That is the reason why the Bill has been brought forward today.
I can understand anyone who feels that this is a petty exercise because it is not possible to make amendments to the legislation. Well, there are occasions when parliamentary processes have to be fairly swift. But if one has to have such swift processes in order to protect the public, I believe that the House would agree that your Lordships' personal interventions might possibly take second place to the protection of society. I was, frankly, horrified by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the introduction of the legislation might have something to do with a by-election. I believe that that suggestion must have made his own Front Bench cringe as much as it made all of us cringe on this side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that it was bad to have such a process on the eve of the Easter Recess. Of course, this is not necessarily a time of one's choice. However, one does not have choices when dealing with terrorism. The fact is that the legislation is both necessary and required now. That is why it is being put through Parliament at speed.
The noble Lord was also concerned because he did not know anything about the legislation until Monday afternoon. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary had discussions with Mr. Straw, the Opposition Shadow Home Secretary, last Thursday on the matter. He also had discussions with the Metropolitan Police, and I understand that Mr. Beith was also consulted. That was the Government dealing

287
with the Official Opposition in another place. It was after that weekend and as a result of those discussions with the police that the Opposition Shadow Home Secretary agreed that it was necessary. That has been agreed, and the Liberal Democrats also had discussions.
My noble friend the Chief Whip offered to make a Statement to the House on Monday afternoon, but that was declined by the Opposition for reasons which are understandable to them. Therefore, he made a Business Statement. In the circumstances, I do not believe that we can be accused of not having taken into account those people who should have been consulted. If there have been breakdowns in communication between people within their own parties, that is a matter for them. Governments do not push such measures through Parliament without having first secured the agreement and approval of Opposition parties. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, pointed out that that has often been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, together with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—and that is a curious combination—and I believe one other speaker, complained that they had wanted to put down their names to speak on Second Reading but found that they could not do so because the list was closed at six o'clock. Of course that is perfectly true. That is part of the procedures of the House. When a debate takes place at 11 o'clock the next morning the list closes at six o'clock but, as both noble Lords will have observed, they can speak in the gap. I remind them that they would be restricted to four minutes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Earl says that this is part of the procedure of the House. However, we are not dealing with procedures in a normal way. This is not a normal procedure. There is something abnormal about the whole set-up. Why, then, should we be told that it is part of the normal procedure when we are dealing with an abnormal suggestion for carrying the Bill through in a rush? There should have been more leeway given in view of the emergency situation and the need that the Government feel for the Bill to go through in a few hours. I repeat that this is not a normal procedure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, makes an astonishing intervention. Of course, the procedure for this Bill going through the House is different from the normal procedure; that is why we are having the debate. But to say that all the procedures of the House should therefore not take place is quite erroneous. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has known since Monday—as has everyone else—that this debate was to take place. If he does not acquit himself of knowing what the procedures are and attempts at seven o'clock on the evening before the debate to add his name to the list of speakers when the rules of the House state that his name must be put down by six o'clock, that is the responsibility of the noble Lord. However, we shall have the pleasure of listening to him. I am sure that if he speaks for four minutes his speech will be concise and worth listening to, as are all his speeches.
288
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, says that his right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary had the privilege of a briefing which his own Front Bench had not had the privilege of receiving, and that Mr. Straw could therefore advise his people in another place which way to vote, or what to do with the measure, but the Leader of the Opposition here was denied that privilege. I would not wish to intervene in anything that the party opposite does. But both Houses—and the Front Benches of both Houses—know what the position is. I can only suggest to your Lordships that while we all recognise that this is a difficult and an unusual situation, terrorism has to be dealt with and we have to take such action as is required. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, say that if Parliament has to act, it has to act. I was a little disappointed when he said that he was wasting his time this afternoon. He has been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he knows that these things have to be dealt with quickly. I hope that now that your Lordships have expressed your concern, which I understand, your Lordships will agree that the Motion should be approved.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I intervene briefly, partly because as the author of the 1974 Act I have been referred to several times, but I have even more of a reason for intervening. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not, in my view, reply to any of the serious points which were put to him, particularly by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. The noble Earl seems to be in a bad temper today. He has found every other intervention astonishing. I must tell him that I found his reply astonishing because of his refusal to apply himself closely to any issue, his attempt to bluster every point, and his self-righteous unwillingness to believe that anyone else's view is worth considering. On a day when he is seeking all-party agreement, I would say with respect to the noble Earl—of whom I am most fond—that that is foolish conduct. I think that when noble Lords read his speech they will reflect upon that.
The principal point which my noble friend Lord Rodgers put concerned why the Bill cannot be brought back for reconsideration—it can be in operation in the meantime—at some date in the future. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, it was not mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. At the time of the 1974 Act when we were operating under a much more dreadful immediate tragedy—the worst of all things, the Birmingham bombings—we did not have a guillotine, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. The Bill was debated—this was a telescoped period—for over 18 hours in the other place. Moreover, we brought the Bill back to be considered, not under a renewal order, but so that it could be debated in an open-ended way as a new piece of legislation in February 1976. A serious point put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Rodgers—which the noble Earl did not even mention—concerned whether the Government would give serious consideration to following that procedure. It is by far the best guarantee against the evils of hasty legislation.

289
The dilemma was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We all appreciate the dilemma; namely, to respond quickly to terrorism on the one hand, given the knowledge, on the other hand, that hasty legislation tends to have faults. One cannot go fully one way or the other but surely the best balance is achieved by giving serious consideration to the proposition which was put forward clearly by my noble friend Lord Rodgers and echoed to some substantial extent by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is totally unsatisfactory to let the matter go without having some response from the Government to that serious, major and obvious problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would be the first to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, if he thinks that I was cross or in a temper. I was not in the slightest. If I gave that impression, it was a wrong impression. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks I was blustering. I tried to respond to a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. However, he made a number of points over a certain period of time and I apologise if I did not answer them all.
One of the complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was that he knew nothing about the procedures until the evening he mentioned. I have replied to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that I did not answer the point about the re-introduction of the Bill. As long as we require the Prevention of Terrorism Act, that Act is already subject to annual renewal, and the debates on the renewal are informed by the report of the independent reviewer who scrutinises its operation. Therefore, it will be discussed in the future.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a difference between annual renewal when there is merely a Motion before the House and what we did following the 1974 Act, which was to re-introduce the Bill as a new Bill in which case it is open to Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading, and therefore subject to amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that really is a matter for discussion on the Bill and not for discussion on the Motion that the Bill is passed through all its stages now. Certainly that point will be considered. However, if the noble Lord thinks, when my noble friend Lady Blatch is taking the Bill through, that the Bill ought to be re-considered or another Bill brought in later on, that is a perfectly reasonable debating point. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, it is not relevant to the debate we are now having which concerns whether all stages of the Bill should be taken on one day.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is not a debating point. It is a procedural point and wholly apposite to the procedural Motion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether we shall proceed much further with this discussion. The fact is that we are debating whether or not the Bill should go through its paces in one day. It is perfectly
290
reasonable for any noble Lord to say that he is prepared to let it go through its paces in one day but that he thinks it ought to be re-introduced at a later stage. As I understand it, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is saying. All I am saying is that I think that that is a matter for discussion on the Bill itself rather than on this Motion. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will take the opportunity to do that.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. A number of points need to be discussed. However, we are debating whether it is right to have the Bill considered in one day. That is the Motion which is before us. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is appropriate that that should be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then Standing Orders No. 38 and No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to resolution):

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
12.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave notice of his intention to bring forward this Bill when he made a Statement on Monday in another place. As we have always made clear, this Government have no relish for the use of emergency powers. But such powers are needed to protect the people of this country from the violent actions of the terrorist who seeks to destroy both life and property and to dominate and disrupt our very way of life. The Bill will give the police a number of further practical powers which will strengthen their ability to protect the public against this threat.
The measures now before your Lordships' House were debated last night in another place. Naturally there were concerns about the limited time available to debate the measures, and I am sure that that concern—we have heard it today—will be shared by many noble Lords. But as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear, this Bill has been brought before Parliament as expeditiously as possible; and in view of the present security situation, we cannot take the risk of waiting until after the Easter Recess. I am pleased to say that this view was shared by the Opposition Front Bench in another place, and the Government welcome the co-operation shown in securing the swift passage of this Bill.
It is important to set this Bill in the context of recent events. Members on all sides of this House were horrified and appalled by the resumption of violence which occurred on 9th February. The bombing of South Quay, in which two lives were lost and when many others were injured, dealt a cruel blow to the hope of people in this country. Following the end of the IRA ceasefire, my right honourable friend discussed with senior police officers whether any additional powers were necessary to help them safeguard the public.

291
We have concluded that additional powers are now necessary. This Bill will add five specific new powers to the armoury of the police in their fight against the terrorist threat.
I recognise and share the concern of this House for the protection of the liberty of the individual. There is, however, no liberty more important than the right of men and women to life. That is a liberty for which the terrorist has no regard. This Bill makes a number of amendments to the PTA which will clarify and strengthen the powers of the police, reinforcing their ability to protect the public against such threats. The Bill will enable the police to stop and search pedestrians for articles which can be used in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts; to search non-residential premises for evidence which will be of value to a terrorist investigation; to search unaccompanied freight in ports; to cordon off areas in order to look for a bomb or to collect forensic evidence after a bomb has been found or has exploded; and to impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to vulnerable sites such as schools, major transport facilities and government buildings.
I believe that each of these new provisions will make a difference. They will better equip the police to protect the public and combat terrorism. Each measure will also be circumscribed by important safeguards.
Before giving notice of his intention to bring forward this Bill, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary discussed these proposals with Opposition spokesmen, and I am glad to remind this House that the Opposition co-operated with the passage of the Bill in another place. As my right honourable friend made clear, the Government very much welcome the recognition of the honourable gentleman, the Member for Blackburn, of the need to act quickly.
I turn now to the detailed content of the Bill. Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was added to that Act by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It currently allows a constable to stop and search any vehicle, its driver and any passenger within it. It also allows a constable to stop any pedestrian and search anything he is carrying for articles of a kind which could be used in preparing, commissioning or instigating terrorist acts. But under the current law, a constable may not search the pedestrian himself for anything which he may have concealed about him; for example, in a jacket pocket. This clause fills that gap in the current powers.
The operation of the existing stop and search powers, have led the police to believe that an additional power to search pedestrians would be of real practical benefit and the Government have accepted that. Bombs and incendiary devices do not need to be very large to kill or destroy. A typical device may be no bigger than an audio cassette and can be carried in a coat pocket without being apparent to the observer.
Clause 1 inserts a new Section 13B into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, giving the police power to stop and search pedestrians within a designated area. Clear safeguards will apply, as in the existing Section 13A. Searches will only be allowed within an area authorised by an Assistant Chief Constable and only for
292
a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, authorisation of the exercise of the new powers must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the authorisation having been given. If that confirmation is not forthcoming, the authorisation will lapse. The Bill further provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to cancel the authorisation or, if he wishes, to substitute a shorter period during which the power will be exercised.
Once authorisation has been given, a police officer will be able to stop any pedestrian within that area. The search will be a "rub-down" search. The officer may ask the pedestrian to remove his outer coat, jacket, footwear, gloves or head gear in order to facilitate the search.
Such a power requires a means of enforcement. Therefore Clause 1 creates offences of failing to stop when asked to do so, and of wilfully obstructing a constable in the exercise of the new powers. These mirror the offences which exist in Section 13A and will carry the same penalty—on summary conviction, up to six months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale, or both. Prosecution for either of these offences will proceed only by or with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The police are well aware that the new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. My right honourable friend will issue immediate provisional guidance and in the short term, the police have undertaken to apply the relevant PACE code voluntarily. In due course, the PACE code will be formally amended and will govern the exercise of the new stop and search powers just as it does the existing powers under Section 13A. Concern has been expressed that Parliament should receive regular reports on the operation of the new stop and search powers and yesterday my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave that assurance in another place. Furthermore, as with the existing Section 13A powers, the exercise of this new power will be monitored under the relevant PACE code.
Clause 2 relates to searches of non-residential premises. As the House will be aware, the use of intelligence information is an important part of the response of the police to terrorist activity. The nature of such information—for example, that explosives are concealed in a garage in a particular area of London or that a lorry carrying home made explosives has been left in a lorry park near a particular motorway intersection—is quite often insufficient to identify precisely the garage or lorry park in question. It is currently impossible to obtain a search warrant to enter every relevant premises and examine them.
The search power contained in Clause 2 will enable a magistrate, or a sheriff in Scotland, to issue a warrant for the police to search a list of premises. The police will not be required to say in which of these listed premises they believe they will find the material. Such a warrant may only be issued on the application of an officer of at least superintendent rank and any search of premises named in the warrant must be made within 24 hours of the warrant being issued.

293
Clause 3 will provide examining officers at ports with the power to search unaccompanied freight. At present the police may stop and examine individuals coming through ports. In the course of examining them, they may search their baggage and their vehicles for anti-terrorist purposes. Customs officers can search goods which have come from outside the United Kingdom, but police officers cannot at present search unaccompanied cargo. Clause 3 will allow them to do so and should help to deter and disrupt terrorist plans and the re-stocking of their armoury.
Clause 4 will enable the police to cordon off an area and restrict access while they look for a bomb or collect forensic evidence following the discovery or the explosion of a bomb. The police already have limited powers under common law to impose cordons, but the extent of their existing powers is uncertain. Clause 4 will provide a firm statutory basis and remove that uncertainty. It will ensure that the police can exclude people from a cordon for their own safety and for that of others and it will, as I have said, assist the police in carrying out forensic work.
The new power will be exercised initially for a period of up to 14 days, capable of renewal for up to a further 14 days. I might add that most cordons will be kept in place for less than two weeks.
The new power will be subject to the authorisation of an officer of at least superintendent rank. However, in an emergency it may be invoked by any constable and then confirmed by a superintendent or officer of more senior rank.
The schedule sets out the powers which may be exercised by the police inside the cordon. These include power to search premises within the cordon for any device or other terrorist material and to collect any forensic evidence found.
This clause will also create offences of failing to leave the cordon when required to do so; and breaking the cordon and obstructing a constable in the exercise of any of his powers within the cordon. Prosecution for any of these offences will proceed only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As an additional safeguard, a defence is provided for those who can prove that they have lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for their actions.
Clause 5 will give the police the power to impose temporary parking restrictions on roads or parts of roads in response to a general threat to vulnerable targets such as government buildings, financial centres and major transport facilities. Powers are currently available to the police under common law but here also there is uncertainty as to their extent and the length of time for which they can be used. In the Government's view the powers of the police in this area require statutory underpinning.
The power in Clause 5 will be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable or equivalent ranking officer. It will be exercisable only for a stipulated period of up to 28 days. Offences will be created of failure to remove a vehicle when asked to do so and of parking in breach of a prohibition or
294
restriction. Again, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required for any prosecution to proceed. A defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse has been provided.
Clause 6 provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent to any prosecution made for the offences created to enforce the powers given in Clauses 1, 4 and 5. Clause 7 deals with the territorial extent of the new provisions. Clause 3 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. All the other provisions in the Bill apply only to Great Britain, since these powers are already available to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland.
I made reference a moment ago to what I know will be your Lordships' concern for the liberty of the individual. The measures in this Bill are sensible and practical and I can confirm that they are subject to clear and careful safeguards.
I have also made reference to the assurance which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given that Parliament will receive regular reports on the operation of the new power to stop and search pedestrians. I am pleased to have this opportunity to re-state that commitment in this House. I can also confirm that there will be monitoring of the exercise. PACE Code A will apply to new Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as it does to existing Section 13A. Guidance will ensure the considerate and sensitive exercise of the new powers. For this reason, the Government have taken the view that it is not necessary to put this safeguard on the face of the Bill.
The Government believe that the measures will be of real practical assistance to the police in their work. The police bear an enormous responsibility; it is to them that we look to protect the public against the evil of terrorism. The police deserve the support of this House in their fight against terrorism and I hope that your Lordships will give them that support. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
12.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made it clear in my brief intervention on the Business Motion that Her Majesty's Opposition not only do not object to the manner of the introduction of the Bill but also we do not propose to oppose it. It will be no surprise to the Minister that we have thought it appropriate to put down a number of amendments to the Bill, mostly for the purpose of clarification and partly to secure assurances from the Minister about the introduction of the Bill.
When speaking on the Business Motion, I did not think it appropriate to talk about the content of the Bill or its origin. However, now that we are dealing with the substance, it is surprising that a Bill of this complexity should be produced in such a short time-scale and a short time after the debate in this House on the continuance order which was only two weeks ago. If the Government—as would have been entirely proper—had been giving consideration to the need for the police to have extra powers for the prevention of terrorism, they

295
must have had those considerations at all times after the resumption of hostilities by the IRA. At any time immediately after 9th February, it would have been entirely proper for the Government to give consideration to what further powers were needed, to talk to the police about what further powers were needed and to advise Parliament of the fact that further powers might be needed. Under those circumstances, it would have been proper for warning to have been given to Parliament that such matters were under consideration. Then some of the difficulties which have been experienced in the past 48 hours through the sudden nature of the Bill might have been at any rate ameliorated, if not removed.
I also remind the Minister that the Government have asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to inquire into the matter. I am glad to see him in his place this afternoon. I do not have with me the exact text of his terms of reference, but they are to inquire in general into the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and what should succeed it in the event of a more permanent ceasefire. I should have thought that it would be proper for the Minister and the Home Secretary to include reference to the noble and learned Lord's inquiry in talking about the justification for the Bill and its extent and continuance, as it is to be part of the temporary provisions Act 1989, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Minister introduced the Bill as being largely technical and not involving a great extension to police powers in threat of civil liberty. I think it would be fair to say that she did not claim that there were great intrusions on civil liberties which were justified. She said rather that the intrusions on civil liberty were not as great as might be feared. I am paraphrasing her words. If that is the case—and having read the Bill, I accept that it is the case; I do not believe that there are great intrusions here on civil liberty—surely the opportunity for mature consideration which has been available over the past eight weeks could have been taken and consultation could have taken place over a period longer then the six days since the matter first arose in discussions between the Government and the Opposition.
That said, when I examine the Bill in detail I do not find very great positive threats. I do find a number of inconsistencies with which it will be very difficult to deal; and it may be my inadequate reading, but I also find a number of points that are not clear.
Let me deal mainly with Clause 1, which is the most important clause. It gives a power to a constable in uniform to stop any pedestrian and search him, and goes on in subsection (4) to refer to the removal of outer clothing:
"headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves".
In introducing Clause 1, the Minister spoke about this as being a "rub-down" search. I did not hear that said by the Home Secretary in another place yesterday. It raises the question of what powers are actually involved under the clause.
We accept of course that it is proper to extend the power to search from those outer objects that are carried to outer clothing. That is common between us. But what
296
does a "rub-down" search mean? Does it include, for example, a power to say, "Open your mouth", to see what is inside? Does it include the power to search pockets? Does it mean simply the kind of passing of the hands that applies in airport security or security at the entrance to party conferences? Does it include the power to take non-intimate samples, for example? None of those points is entirely clear to me. I fear that the Minister's remark in her introduction may be in conflict with the wording of the Bill as we have it.
Therefore we believe that amendments are necessary to Clause 1 of the Bill. We have tabled a number of amendments to ensure the possibility of greater clarity. We hope that can be achieved, not by amending the Bill itself, but by ensuring as in our Amendment No. 1 that the Secretary of State should give adequate guidance; and as in our Amendment No. 5 that there should be consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the operation of these powers and the sensitivity with which they are to be operated.
I said earlier that Clause 1 was the only clause considered in detail in another place. Perhaps that is appropriate since it is by far the most important. However, consideration was not completed when the Guillotine fell and it is important that we should be as clear as possible about the powers.
Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 refer respectively to non-residential premises, ports, temporary cordons and parking restrictions. It has been made clear that most of those powers are already exercised, normally under common law powers rather than legislative powers. It is entirely appropriate that, wherever possible, there should be statutory authority for the kind of controls that are necessary. Therefore, in general, we shall not oppose or even comment on Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, except to say, as we do in Amendment No. 7, that there should be a test of reasonableness before Clause 4 and indeed Clause 1 are triggered.
In relation to Clause 7, concerned with interpretation and extent, we raise wider issues, some of which were raised in the debate on the business Motion. We welcome the Minister's remark that there have already been undertakings that there will be reports to Parliament—I do not know whether she said at "regular" intervals, but certainly at sufficient intervals. I am sure that we can rely on her word in that respect. We are also conscious that when she referred to monitoring, Code A under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is itself subject to a measure of parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the assurance that new Section 13B, to be inserted in the 1989 Act and in Clause 1 of this Bill, is to be covered by Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
We are also conscious that the device that has been adopted of making this Act entirely in the form of amendments to the 1989 temporary provisions Act means that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of a sort under the affirmative procedures resolution at 12-month intervals. To that extent we welcome the opportunity that will exist in March next year to consider the implementation of this Bill as well as of the original 1989 Act as amended.

297
I have had no discussion with my honourable friends on this matter. However, I am bound to say that I am personally attracted by the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The example of a Labour Government introducing emergency legislation in November 1974 and, just over a year later, re-enacting that legislation without any of the constraints of unusual procedures or the Guillotine was a good example. The fact that it was enacted by a Labour Government and is now repeated by a Liberal Democrat Peer does not seem to me to cause any political difficulty. I certainly urge on my right honourable and honourable friends that they should seek suitable opportunities to see to it that some such procedure is adopted in regard to this Bill. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she will be able, in her response to the Second Reading debate, to give assurances that at least this issue will be considered; and possibly even to go further and say that the example of 1974 and 1976 was a good example. That might help there to be cross-party agreement on these measures, and they might recommend themselves to the Home Secretary and her other colleagues in government.
It is of the utmost importance that there should be cross-party agreement on all legislation that relates to terrorism. It is important in the message that it sends not only to the IRA and all other terrorists, that we in this country are united in our condemnation of terrorism and our determination to take such proper steps as are available to us to counter terrorism, both to prevent and diminish its effect; but also to our people, who suffer when there is terrorism, not only directly but indirectly from the restrictions imposed by anti-terrorist legislation. I put it to the Minister that she would be well advised to seek the agreement of her right honourable friend to a measure which I believe would increase the effectiveness of this legislation by ensuring that we can all support it wholeheartedly without any hesitations or reservations about the way in which it was necessary to introduce it.
As Mr. Jack Straw said in another place yesterday, we agree that on this occasion the measures proposed are proportionate to the threat that we face. However, that is not the end of the matter. There could be, and should be, further opportunities for Parliament to see to it that we have the best possible anti-terrorist legislation.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, in the course of our discussion on the business Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked the question: what is the point of staying? He did so in relation to the procedure and the fact that we are taking the Second Reading and all subsequent stages in one day. I certainly would not go so far as that. However, rightly or wrongly, the Bill having got this far, it being before the House and there being no prospect of amendment in Committee, I certainly have no reason to wish to see it delayed. For that reason I intend to speak very briefly at Second Reading.
298
In the debate on the Business Motion, I made what I thought were two positive and helpful suggestions. They are relevant to the Bill itself and not only to the procedure that we were then discussing. The first suggestion, which was entirely ignored by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his reply and his subsequent and additional reply, was whether the procedure should not be considered by the Procedure Committee. We might have got off to a better start today had we felt that the procedure being followed by the Government had been endorsed by the House itself. I hope that that point will not be overlooked, although I do not ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to do more than acknowledge that it has been made. I do not expect her to give a substantive reply.
My second proposal, for which I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is to adopt the procedure of 1974–1976. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to regular reports in reference to Clause 1 of the Bill. No doubt this House and another place will wish to have them. But that does not take away from the need to look at the Bill when there is more time at our disposal and, I suggest, with the experience of the Bill before us. There is no doubt at all that, even if the subsequent clauses do not create difficulties, Clause 1 might create real difficulties for the police and the community.
I shall make one further important point about our earlier discussion. I do not believe that what the noble Earl said represented the view of any party in this House. He argued that because consultation took place with opposition parties in another place, there was no need for it here. That is a very dangerous principle. I was very surprised to hear it from a Conservative Minister in particular. It is a principle which puts party above Parliament and assumes that relationships and communications between parties are more important than communications within a House between parties in the spirit of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about co-operation on issues of terrorism. I do not want to labour the point or ask for a lesson to be learnt. But I would not want it to stand on record—I do not believe that the noble Baroness would want it, either—that consultation between parties is at any time in any circumstances a substitute for consultation and communication between parties in this House or another place.
In the course of her opening remarks, the noble Baroness said:
"No liberty is more important than the liberty of the individual to life".
I understand what she said. I understand also the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, at an earlier stage about the extent to which we must accept some restriction on our liberty in the very defence of it. That is at the heart of the right approach to legislation of this kind. But it is fair to ask: what is life without freedom? Speaking for myself, I hold my freedom more dear than my life. For that reason, although I do not suggest that any essential freedoms are threatened by this legislation, we cannot simply dismiss the idea of our freedoms and civil liberties on the grounds that life is to be protected. The time would come when the

299
protection of life could so infringe the freedom of the individual that it would endanger the quality of life itself for innocent people as well as those who might be potentially guilty.
Again, I do not want to pursue that philosophical point but it is an important basis for the consideration of all legislation of this kind. How far can we reasonably go against terrorism in defence of our freedom in restricting the freedom that we take for granted?
On this occasion as on others when we have discussed, for example, the Renewal of Terrorism Order, I have returned, and do so again briefly today, to the original debate of 1974. In that debate two speeches struck me in particular. One was the speech of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich when he introduced the legislation. He said:
"I should certainly not want to suggest today that, rigorous and wide-ranging though our proposals are, they will lead to a swift end to the present terrorist campaign in our cities".
We have to take note of that and we must not raise expectations unreasonably high, even by a Bill which, in the view of this House, it may be necessary to introduce a second time. The noble Lord continued:
"But this Bill in my judgment will powerfully reinforce the security forces in the struggle against terrorists".
I do not think that the noble Baroness put it quite so strongly but that is the sentiment that she expressed. I do not quarrel with it at all.
The other point made by my noble friend, which comes back to my recent remarks, warned against:
"powers of [this] kind … involving as they must some encroachment on the liberties of individual citizens".
We must recognise that there is some encroachment on the liberties of individual citizens in this Bill, even if it is a price worth paying.
The other speech to which I need draw your Lordships' attention was that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. At that time he did not speak from the same Bench as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord said:
"all of us who treasure our civil liberties—and that means every Member of your Lordships' House—is bound to want to consider with the greatest care emergency legislation which may have been hastily conceived, hurriedly drafted and passed into law without careful detailed examination in your Lordships' House".
He said that there were certain tests which should be applied:
"First, does it match up to the existing emergency? Does it neither exaggerate it nor under-estimate it?"
I am prepared to give an answer. Yes, it does match up to the existing emergency, subject to some further reassurances that I hope we shall be given today. The noble Lord continued:
"Second, is the encroachment upon our liberty that is inevitably involved the very minimum that is necessary for the purpose?"
I think that I need to suspend judgment there, particularly on the consequences that may follow from the implementation of Clause 1. It is right to give the Government the benefit of the doubt today. But this is a very good reason why we should look again at the substance of the Bill at an early date. The noble Lord went on:
300
"Third, has every possible step been taken to ensure that such encroachment upon our liberty is of a purely temporary nature and is in no danger of drifting into becoming the permanent law of the land?"
As the noble Baroness will remember, that is a point to which I and other noble Lords referred when we renewed the legislation only a fortnight ago.
We all greatly regret the resumption of terrorism. We all entirely support the need to fight it in every reasonable way. But we must make sure that when that terrorism is over, as we must all hope it will be, we do not leave for all time on the statute book legislation which would be inappropriate in very different circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concluded by saying that the fight against terrorism—I should like to say the defence of our liberties in the face of it—is a cross-party matter. He spoke the truth and that is my view as well.
1.8 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I rise to express my support and that of the Ulster Unionist Party for this piece of legislation. It applies not only to Northern Ireland but mostly to Great Britain. It deals not only with terrorism which originates in our part of the world but also with international terrorism. Therefore it is to be welcomed. We are, as some noble Lords have said, reaching the stage when our legislation is becoming more and more piecemeal. Therefore, I look forward with anticipation to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on permanent and comprehensive legislation covering the whole subject and the whole kingdom.
Clause 3 extends to Northern Ireland—it is the only one that specifically does—where there is power to search any goods that arrive in or are about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland on any ship, aircraft or vehicle. That is particularly welcome. It has been suggested—I do not know whether truthfully or not—that before the Canary Wharf explosion the bomb was mounted on a vehicle, driven through Northern Ireland, taken across the sea to Scotland and driven through England to London. It is essential, particularly when it is more easily done at a port, that there be the power to examine vehicles of that kind so that bombs can be discovered.
My views on this subject are well known—I have expressed them several times before—and therefore I do not intend to weary the House beyond saying that I welcome that in Great Britain many of the powers we already have in Northern Ireland will be available to the security forces in the future. There has been mention both here and in another place of civil liberties and personal freedom. I would join those who have said that the greatest civil liberty is the right to live and the right not to be maimed by a terrorist bomb. That freedom is much greater than being able to walk down the street without being searched.
I conclude by offering an apology to the noble Baroness the Minister and to the House if I leave before the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. The reason for that is transport to get me home, possibly

301
straight to bed, if noble Lords have listened to my throat and chest at the moment. But I express full approval for the Bill.
1.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said what needed to be said and said it all, but I, too, should like to say a little. Gerry Adams was perfectly open in the Sinn Fein Congress of 1995 when he said that Sinn Fein/IRA had entered,
"a new phase of struggle which needs new thinking and new tactics".
He added that their principles must not change and their strategic objectives and strategy must be rooted in—a familiar Marxist phrase—objective reality. The object of the political phase of the struggle which began with the ceasefire and ended with the resumption of IRA violence earlier this year had been achieved:
"The winning of international allies, the building of a broad consensus throughout nationalist Ireland".
In those 15 months the IRA became a quasi-respectable political force. Noraid was succeeded by the Friends of Ireland in the United States. Gerry Adams' visits raised more than £1.5 million in a year, half of which went to Dublin. Gerry Adams has claimed that the money has gone to the Northern Ireland economy. The question is: which economy is that—the IRA drug rings, the supply of new sophisticated arms or money to pay the devoted IRA members who recently drove metal spikes through the elbows and legs of an 18 year-old boy?
The issue before us today and the measure recognises that for the foreseeable future Sinn Fein/IRA believe they have extracted the maximum advantage from the political phase of the struggle and are back to what they know best—violence; and violence on the mainland to avoid any Loyalist reaction in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams recently quoted the IRA's spokesman who met him and John Hume as saying that if the British wanted war the IRA would give them another 25 years of war. He also said that there would be no surrender of IRA weapons under any circumstances and to anyone. And it is perhaps relevant to our debate today that the Sinn Fein/IRA paper—the discussion document on policing—published recently calls for the disbandment of the RUC and the Special Branch, the immediate withdrawal of the force from nationalist areas and the immediate repeal of all emergency legislation.
It has been asked why we should pass these extensions of that legislation now, and why so fast. We should perhaps remember that the IRA spent the whole time of the ceasefire collecting money for more arms and tried several raids on cash shipments in the Republic in recent months. They collected information on more possible targets and did their dummy run for Canary Wharf in December, well before the Mitchell Report put them in a corner and also provided their excuse for ending the ceasefire. From their point of view they were simply switching back to another military phase of the struggle after extracting the maximum benefit from a political phase.
302
The anti-terrorist unit in this country found plenty of evidence when it searched the house and garden of the bomber in the bus of planned operations on the mainland, and that cannot be ignored. We are in for a long haul. But perhaps one of the strongest reasons for the need to be able, if necessary, to search an apparently innocent, ordinary man or woman in the street, apart from the fact that the IRA have long had access to very sophisticated weapons as well as the home made variety, is that the IRA Council has shifted from using experienced and therefore probably known operators to the use of sleepers to carry out operations. These are young people with no previous record, sometimes known too, it seems, as lily-whites, who come over to the mainland, some probably as unskilled labourers, with orders to establish themselves and be ready to do the work for which they were trained when the order comes. Edward O'Brien, the bomber who died in the bus, was evidently one. Even his family knew nothing of his sentiments. The anti-terrorist squad must clearly expect others, and it must be given the powers to act.
In Vietnam it was a practice of the Vietcong to smuggle bombs past a checkpoint by concealing them in a baby's clothes: The young sleeper is the IRA version of the same technique. Would a fresh-faced young man or woman about his or her normal concerns on the street be a natural suspect? Unfortunately, the IRA cynically counts on that and the undoubted idealism of these young people in many cases. I urge that we do not tie the hands of the police behind their backs. The victims of IRA bombs are innocent too. They have a right to protection. I share the hope of many noble Lords that there should be some review of this measure in due course—I welcome the promise of regular reports though I do not regard them as a substitute—and I believe very strongly that proper scrutiny is our right and our duty, but the IRA do not play by our rules. They know nothing about our procedures and care less. It would be irresponsible not to listen and to act in time when they make their own murderous intentions so clear.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I decided to speak today not because I am necessarily opposed to the provisions of the Bill but because I am very concerned at the way in which it has been handled. Noble Lords should recall the experiences we have had with Bills which have been rushed through Parliament. We have learnt and lived to regret such Bills as time has gone on. Our experience of rushed Bills has not been a happy one.
The Minister will know that I cannot be accused of being a softie on crime or terrorism. I am, if anything, a hardliner. I am anti-criminal—very anti-criminal; I am victim friendly; I detest the terrorist murderers of the IRA and regret that, instead of being defeated and routed before the peace process, they were let off the hook and allowed to re-arm and regroup. So, basically, I am in favour of any measures to deal with the terrorists and to protect our own people from their activities. But, if we do bring in measures without proper democratic

303
scrutiny, then it is the terrorists who have won, particularly if these measures impinge on the freedom of our people to go about their business unhindered.
I believe that this point was raised by my noble friend earlier; namely, that there is a suspicion that the police asked for these powers some weeks ago in anticipation of problems arising around the 80th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising. If that is true, and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether it is, why on earth was no legislation brought forward earlier so that we could indeed have had a proper discussion? But, even if the police did not ask for powers, the Government themselves should have shown intelligent anticipation, after the ceasefire was so brutally ended, and asked Parliament to consider new measures, but again with adequate time for proper scrutiny of those measures. As it is, we have a raft of significant measures of which the House of Commons was given only one day's notice. The measures were railroaded through on a guillotine, allowing only six hours for all stages of the Bill. That is hardly time to put forward any amendments in Committee, let alone at Report stage, and no time for consultation with, or representations from, individuals and organisations. Democracy means that people have the right of representation in Parliament and that their views can be considered and taken into account.
It is simply not good enough to say that the Official Opposition Front Bench is content to allow the Bill to be forced through Parliament without proper discussion. It really is intolerable that the Front Benches should behave in this way, particularly the Labour Front Bench in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, since he really has not had time to consider the matter properly. Nevertheless, I shall listen to his advice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, once referred to the House of Commons as an "elected dictatorship". I rather fear that things have moved on since then and that we now have a one-party state, certainly in respect of this Bill.
I now turn to the Bill itself. As has already been mentioned, Clause 1 is the most onerous. Stop and search powers may very well be necessary, but Parliament is entitled to consider the implications and to consider them properly. The powers are bound to cause resentment. The Irish community and other minority communities, may very well fear that they will be unduly targeted. There is a risk that people will remonstrate with the police. If one is stopped in the street and asked to take off one's clothes, one's coat, gloves and hat, people may very well get angry and remonstrate with the police. The people will be very severely punished. We should understand that the penalties for obstructing the police are very severe. They are six months in prison or a fine of £5,000 or both. We are considering heavy penalties. We also have to have regard to the shame that people will feel on being stopped and body-searched in the street.
I ask the noble Baroness this question: what is the position of women in particular? Women do engage in terrorism and they are just as suspect as anyone else. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that those searches will be conducted by female officers? What
304
about privacy? These are matters which should concern us. What is the position as regards juveniles? They can carry bombs, too, and they can have bombs planted on them by adults. The present position, as I understand it, is that juveniles must be searched at the police station in the presence of a parent, guardian or a social worker. Do the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill transcend the protection of juveniles that we have at the present time? These are relevant matters which we would have wanted to explore in a reasonable Committee stage debate. Now I have to ask the noble Baroness if she will answer those questions now, because they are important points. Other parts of the Bill which are less draconian than Clause 1 give rise to questions that need to be asked.
As regards Clause 2, are we all satisfied that warrants to search premises are to be issued by magistrates? Some of us might feel that such warrants should be signed more appropriately by a circuit judge. What is the position if some minor fine or misdeed is discovered as a result of a warrant issued under this Bill? Such questions need consideration and that is being denied. Again under this clause, penalties of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £2,500 are involved. In Clause 5, which deals with prohibitions and restrictions and the removal of vehicles, there is a stipulation that disabled persons are not exempt from its provisions. In a panic situation, disabled people may feel very flustered. They may do all kinds of things: they are in a particularly vulnerable position. At least the disabled and their representatives are entitled to be consulted and make representation to Parliament, but that is being denied to them.
Finally, although I have expressed my opposition to the handling of this Bill by the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, I nevertheless understand and accept the urgency of the measure and will certainly not seek to divide the House on Second Reading, even if that were to do any good anyway. I shall not seek to do it. I understand the need and the Government's position. However, to meet the points which I have raised, I have tabled an amendment by which the Government can redeem themselves and give Parliament the opportunity to give proper consideration to a replacement Bill after the Easter Recess. It is an amendment to allow the legislation to run for three months.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench, put forward an alternative solution which I found very attractive indeed. I believe it to be very relevant, and, if the Government accepted it, they will do a great deal to assuage the fears that many of us have about parliamentary democracy and the need to scrutinise this sort of legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will give very serious consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. If that measure were accepted, I should then feel able to withdraw my amendment. I cannot wish the Bill well, although I understand its provisions and support them. I wish that we had had proper time to discuss them.
1.27 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that I may save the noble Baroness time when she comes to reply. I know

305
about the evil of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, my youngest son had two escapes from bombs, which were a good deal narrower than I would have wished. Even when I was abroad and working in the United States, I was not able to get away from it. I shall not forget in a hurry the experience of sitting up waiting for news, with the pregnant wife of one of my postgraduates, on the day the Harrods bomb went off, which was the day on which he was doing his Christmas shopping there. Fortunately, the call, when it came, was from New York airport.
I am well aware that there is a real and a continuing threat from terrorism. My wife's best friend was two cars behind the bus that blew up in the Aldwych. Her passenger, who was much less shaken than she was, was able to assist with pulling the victims out of the bus. I do not think there is any dispute about the reality or the evil of the threat from terrorism. There is only one thing for which I feel more contempt than I do for the IRA's principles—and that is its intelligence. The IRA's weakness is that it is unable to obtain the majority of the votes or indeed, I believe, even of the guns of Northern Ireland. Anything that it may do on the British mainland will not get it one inch nearer to overcoming that obstacle.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was pleased to describe my remarks as "infantile". The noble Earl, like Augustus in Ruthless Rhymes, enjoys his little bit of fun, but he might perhaps reflect that there is authority for the view that wisdom can come out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. I do not think that anything we say about terrorism absolves us of the need, first, to consider whether the Bill will actually do anything to help to prevent terrorism, which is a question that the House has not yet addressed, and, secondly, to consider whether it has got right the balance between civil liberties and fighting terrorism. In both cases I find that I am handicapped in reaching a balanced opinion because I do not have the time to do it. So when I ask whether the Bill achieves those objectives, I can only reply in the words of Marcel Proust who, when asked whether he believed in ghosts, replied:
"Madame, their appearances are against them".
I understand the view of the police. I understand that every Home Secretary, of whatever party, has to listen with great care to the police. However, the police are an expert witness. They are to be treated with the respect due to an expert witness and not with the respect due to an executive authority. When one listens to an expert witness, unless another is saying the opposite, one has to take what that expert witness says within the area of his expertise. However, when making a political judgment, one has to take it in a rather wider context.
I consider this matter as a resident of Kilburn, which is perhaps the most Irish area in the whole of London, more Irish even than the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It is very rarely indeed that my Irish neighbours talk to me about their views of the IRA. Indeed, I am flattered that they have occasionally done so. What I hear from them when they do is a hatred of the IRA such as to make the Home Secretary appear moderate. They feel that the IRA is prostituting an ideal
306
in which they believe. On the other hand, they have a very limited faith in what they still describe as the "Conservative and Unionist Party" and not always all the confidence in the police that we would wish.
It is absolutely vital for the detection of terrorism that people should be prepared to come forward to give evidence. Since 1974 there has been a very great improvement in that respect. So much so that I believe that the area of which I speak, which used to be near the IRA's London headquarters, is now very far from safe for them. Members of the public tend to resent being stopped and searched, especially if they see it as being done for no particular reason. It is possible—I put it no higher—that that resentment may make them less eager to come forward with evidence which the security forces would be extremely glad to know. There is a balancing act to be struck here. I do not know the right way to strike it, but I should like to see the question considered at rather more leisure than has so far been the case.
With the leave of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I wish to correct something he said. He said that my right honourable friend Mr. Beith had been consulted about the Bill. My right honourable friend assures me that he was informed, but he was not consulted. There is quite a significant distinction. I should be grateful if that correction could go on the record.
We have to admit that the task of striking a balance is difficult. I have respect for anyone who strikes it either way so long as they understand that it is difficult. I have less respect for anyone who does not agree that it is difficult. One could go to almost absurd lengths in the course of collecting information to prevent crime. One could technologically now have a situation in which it was literally always true that Big Brother was watching one. It would mean that the security forces had a vast amount of information about all our physical infirmities and that crime was almost impossible. I do not think that anyone would be better off. Somewhere, somehow, a balance has to be struck. That question will have to be addressed in any new Bill.
Speaking to the Business Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned trust. I remember the 1974 Bill. I was then a private citizen, getting information from the newspapers. I weighed the arguments on both sides carefully and the scale appeared to be heavy. When I finally decided that it was a good thing that that measure was going forward, it was in large part because my noble friend, as he has since become, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was putting it forward. The present Home Secretary does not enjoy—I do not think he would want to enjoy—as strong a reputation as a champion of civil liberties as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. That is a matter of political judgment, but it must affect the political judgment of those who reply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the Government have no relish for taking these powers. To an extent that argument is devalued by repeated use. I note that these powers are extremely similar to those contained in Clause 7 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill which we shall be discussing shortly. I cannot help

307
feeling that the repeated use of those powers tends at least slightly to devalue each occasion on which they are claimed.
There are other problems about the use of such powers. We are told in Clause 1 that the police may search whether or not they have grounds to suspect a particular person. Terrorism is not confined to IRA terrorism. We should never forget that when considering the Bill. I have read reports of Sir Paul Condon's speech yesterday. It was a brave speech and I congratulate him on it. He admitted that there are racists within the police. I take his point: the police are a cross-section of the population, so one would expect cross-sections of opinion. However, that means, especially in any terrorism that comes from people with a black skin, that there is a possibility that the powers may be disproportionately used to stop black rather than white people. That could lead to resentment which might be very harmful.
Other parts of Clause 1 concern me. I am not clear—I have read the wording several times—whether the powers extend only to seizing matters which have a security implication; whether the police will be entitled to bring charges about matters with no security implication which they find during the course of searches; and whether they may give rise to what in the 17th century was called a springing offence arising from the search rather than any previous suspicion. I am also concerned about what may happen to information discovered in the course of searches. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who was here earlier today—I gave him notice that I would mention the point—putting down a Question about occasions when information which came into the possession of the police and was not used to prefer a charge nevertheless ended up in headlines in the tabloid press. The noble Baroness may remind me that last time I wrote to her about a case which appeared to be of that kind it turned out that the police were not responsible for passing on the evidence. I was very glad to discover it. But there is a risk. I have not put down an amendment because in the time available I have not had access to proper legal drafting. I would like the Bill to make it an offence to publish in the press any information obtained by searches which does not give rise to a charge. There could be security reasons, as well as ones of liberty and common decency, for such a restriction. It is perfectly possible that security may find information on which it does not want to base a charge but which it nevertheless wants to keep quiet and use for future reference.
I reserve a number of other points for the Committee stage. It remains my dominant feeling that, whether or not there is a good case for the Bill—at present I simply do not know—I deeply regret that something of this importance is passed through in an extremely hasty manner. It does not make us look good.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have four minutes. I could take the rest of the afternoon in dealing with some of these measures. First, I completely disagree with the introduction of the speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, although I agree with most of his remarks
308
in relation to the Bill. We have just emerged from a period of comparative peace in Northern Ireland. The situation is extremely fragile. Thousands of people here and all over Ireland pray and hope that the peace process can be speeded up and all-party talks can commence. That is the priority of thousands of people, unlike the priority of this Government at the moment. They want the mammoth task of seeking a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland to be given that kind of priority. This Bill does nothing to further a peaceful solution. On the contrary, it will create tension, confusion and opposition. In many cases, it will cause difficulties and hardship to a large section of the population who, God knows, do not deserve any of this. It will be counter-productive.
If we seek a reason to rush through legislation, I quote the words of my honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Dennis Canavan, MP:
"If we are looking to rush through emergency legislation in a few hours between now and the Easter Recess, I honestly believe that there is a stronger case—and that there would be widespread public support—for rushing through emergency legislation on gun control in view of the recent Dunblane massacre … The Home Secretary continues to allow gunmen to walk the streets while innocent people can be stopped and searched while going about their lawful business".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/96; cols. 171–2.]
That brief statement has a lot to commend it both in relation to emergency legislation and the probable defects of this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the ceasefire. In my view, the United Kingdom Government completely failed to make full use of the prevailing ceasefire; instead, they erected one obstacle after another to avoid setting up all-party talks. The genuine and constructive Mitchell Report was ignored and its recommendations rubbished by the government spokesman. The Government gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they were more concerned with retaining the Ulster Unionist vote on a range of measures and prevaricating on the need for all-party talks.
This Bill, which is being rushed through without due consideration, will not help the peace process. The peace process is nothing to do with the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Act did not influence the peace process. The peace process came about as a result of dialogue between the SDLP and Sinn Fein, together with the then Taoiseach in the south of Ireland. Under the 1974 Act some 27,000 people were detained, the vast majority of whom were innocent people who were put to a great deal of bother and suffering. Most of them were Irish people. I believe that the Act will threaten the peace process. I suggest that if we are talking about referenda, it may be a good idea to have a referendum involving the entire population to see whether or not plans should be drawn up for the eventual relinquishment of control of that part of Ireland and so save billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
1.46 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in the limited amount of time that I have to speak in the gap, I wish to make a few brief points. First, I believe that we need to

309
question what the Bill is about. Having read it a number of times, I still cannot accept that the Government intend, by what is written in the Bill, effectively to say that Scottish, Welsh or English terrorism is OK but if it is Irish or foreign terrorism it is not.
Baroness Blatch: Oh!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, unfortunately that is the way the Bill is written. The noble Baroness looks horrified. In that respect, I share her horror. If one looks at Clause 4 and the provisions of new Section 16C(3) one sees what is covered:

"(a) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; and

(b) acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom or any other part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland".

One of the difficulties we face is that we have virtually no opportunity to amend the Bill before us. Effectively, it is government by decree and, almost by definition, governments get it wrong.
Mention has been made by the Minister of Home Office ministerial guidance being given to the police. I am grateful for that. If I put to the noble Baroness a number of questions I hope that she will be able to reassure me and the public and, in so doing, give some guidance to the courts as to the way this Bill may be used. First, I should like to ask about footwear and headgear. Curiously, under this Bill a police constable is given power to ask somebody to remove footwear. The same or another police constable may require that person to leave a cordoned area precipitately. I am sure that it is not the Minister's intention that the power should be used in that way. Any guidance and reassurance that she can give would help.
On headgear, we must recognise the sensibilities and religious affiliation of Sikhs and the importance they place on their headgear. Presumably it is not the Government's intention to require Sikhs to remove their turbans.
One of the intriguing things about the Bill is that it sets up a legal basis for cordons, but it does so for investigation only. There is nothing in the Bill that says a cordon may be set up around the area where a bomb may be liable to go off and that the police be given powers to evacuate the area for the protection of the public. That is not written into the Bill. One might think that it is common sense, but the police have powers for investigation purposes only. I am sure that the Minister does not accept that that should be the case.
The Bill refers to those people having lawful authority to be in a cordoned area and those who would have reasonable excuse. Perhaps the Minister will advise the House as to who will be in those categories.
1.51 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the first question anyone involved in the debate must ask themselves is: is the Bill a threat to human rights? The answer, as so many speakers have said, must be yes. That
310
question must be followed by a second: is there justification in the interests of protecting people for such legislation?
In political life there are many occasions when, as individual politicians, we lack the quantity, depth or type of knowledge that colleagues, because of their role, inevitably have. On this occasion I am dependent upon the judgment and advice of the shadow Secretary of State, my honourable friend Jack Straw, and of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because of their knowledge, that such a judgment needs to be made, and this legislation needs to be supported. For that reason, I support it.
I share the concerns and questions relating to the length of time before the legislation comes up for review and consideration, and look forward to listening to the answers. That leads me to my next question: can the powers in this proposed legislation be abused? Do people genuinely fear that they may be? The answer to both those questions must be yes.
As a former member of a police authority who has worked with ACPO, I am concerned to protect the good name of what I choose on all occasions to call the police service rather than the police force. I speak as someone who wishes to protect that good name on the overwhelming majority of occasions when that good name should and must be protected.
All those involved with the police service are aware of the fragile nature of liaison with the community, with minority sections of the community and certain age groups within the community. For that reason I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any justification for considering the need for an additional—I stress additional and not in place of—report to Parliament and additional scrutiny of the occasions upon which the legislation is used by the police service. There should be some form of additional scrutiny. I do not seek to be prescriptive about the form. But people may be reassured if a genuinely independent body, committee or group had the opportunity to question closely those who had authorised the use of the legislation, prior to, and not instead of, reporting fully to Parliament in the appropriate way.
That might give the opportunity for fears to be allayed. Such a body could receive reports and questions, as appropriate, from those concerned with the use of the powers proposed in this legislation. I await with deep concern the Minister's answer to that question, because I believe that we are trapped in an extremely difficult situation. I fear that we could damage the good community relations that exist with the police.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate. But from what I have heard it seems to me that great chunks have been taken so out of context that I feel honour-bound to say a few words. I have twice had occasion to take the advice of the security forces. The first time I had a fortnight's warning. The second time I had only three days in which to act.
From what we have heard today, it is clear to me that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was advised of the need for these high powers at a very late

311
stage. It would have been irresponsible of me not to have followed the advice of the security forces on my own behalf. How much more irresponsible of the Home Secretary would it have been for him not to follow the advice of the security forces in relation to the whole population?
I am happy to believe that my right honourable friend had little, if no, inkling of the need for this Bill on 19th March—the last time upon which we debated the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Even if he did, what effect, other than warning us, would there have been? I can find no provision in the parent Act to amend it by order. It may only be continued in force by that means, although the powers contained within it can be dropped and reintroduced by order.
I assume that when the Bill becomes an Act Clause 7(8) means that it will be continued in force by the same extension order as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That Act, together with this addition, is harsh. It does to a certain extent infringe civil liberties. That said, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who asked what attention terrorists pay to civil liberties. I would go slightly further and say that one has to fight fire with fire. I believe that is what the Bill does.
The PTA, with this Bill added, will, as I say, do just that. It is right that Parliament should discuss renewing it at regular intervals. Today's argument has been, rightly, about this Bill, which is only one of several amendments to the parent Act, itself, as we have heard, originally emergency legislation in 1974.
That Act has been reintroduced and properly debated over time in both Houses. Back in 1974–75 there was only one piece of legislation, so it was appropriate to leave the existing legislation on the statute book and to discuss it in full as a Bill later.
As I said, in the intervening years the Act has been amended more than once. I therefore venture to suggest that there is another legislative way of considering such legislation; that is, by means of a Consolidation Bill, possibly with a committee specially chosen by the House for that specific purpose. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that we have heard almost no comparison between this Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Act this afternoon. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reinforces that point more deeply than it was already reinforced. For now, my advice to the House is to enact the Bill. There will be plenty of time to review it in the near future, even in the unlikely event that we are legislating in haste and will have to repent at leisure. I just do not believe that.
2 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been a valuable and constructive debate and I am well aware that it is under considerable constraints of time. The powers that I have described to your Lordships' House are sensible. They are practical measures which build on those already exercised by the police. They are supported by the police and I hope that Members on all sides of the House will support them today. A number of points have
312
been raised and I shall touch on some of them. Those I miss, which I hope will not he material to the passing of the Bill, I shall deal with in letters to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked why not allow the Bill to be brought back for re-enactment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who has tabled an amendment to that effect, put forward another variation for allowing the House to reconsider it. The 1974 Act, which was used as an analogy, was a wholly new proposition to Parliament. The present Bill provides new statutory powers but they build on the existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation and on the common law powers exercised by the police. The operation of the powers will be scrutinised annually by a wholly independent reviewer and will be subject to annual renewal. Therefore, it is not sensible to allow the powers to lapse in, say, three months and bring them back for re-enactment. The powers are needed now and we should provide them to the police. That was wholly accepted by the right honourable Member in another place, the Shadow Home Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about rub-down searches. The term has been used previously and I am sure that many noble Lords are familiar with them at our party conferences. A rub-down search is less intrusive than a strip search or an intimate search. A constable will be able to examine the contents of an individual's pockets. He will also be able to examine clothing, which he can ask the individual to remove. As I have said, that is the outer coat, jacket, headgear, gloves and foot wear. A constable may not take non-intimate or even intimate samples, nor may he make examinations of an individual's mouth, which was raised by the noble Lord. Rub-down searches are made by the police in a non-terrorist context under PACE.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke about the future of the PTA and asked whether it would be repealed once there was a lasting peace. I believe that noble Lords know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who I am delighted to see has been present throughout the debate, is currently examining the need for specific counter-terrorism once there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the conclusions of that inquiry, but I cannot do so in any event.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly spoke about the balance of freedom versus the threat to life. I can say to him hand on heart that freedom of the individual is not lightly tossed aside by the Government. The way in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act works is constantly monitored and there are annual reports. As I said, a thorough review is being undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We believe that this is a necessary piece of legislation and we understand all the sensitivities about individual freedom. Therefore, constant scrutiny is important in that context.
Much has been said about the need for cross-party agreement. I agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the point. That is precisely how my right honourable friend has approached this legislation. Noble Lords asked how he led up to where

313
we are today. It is true that after the bombing at South Quay the police raised their anxieties generally with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He is discussing operational matters with the police all the time. It was necessary for him to consider whether those concerns needed to be met with specific measures. It was also necessary for him to secure agreement from his colleagues in Cabinet as to whether they could be met and by this particular means. I can say that without any delay whatever when Ministers agreed on 28th March—last Thursday—that these additional powers should be made available, my right honourable friend even before he left Downing Street contacted oppositional spokesmen of all parties.
Only when agreement was reached on Monday of this week between the official Opposition spokesman and the Government—without that agreement we would not be using these emergency measures today—were the emergency procedures appropriate and the whole matter became available for wider discussion. We have assumed that the leaders of parties in another place have spoken with their colleagues in each of those parties. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Beith would not have spoken to his colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party. Indeed, I know that Mr. Straw discussed these matters with colleagues in his party.
A Statement was offered to both Houses on Monday but it was refused by this House. Therefore, the House was denied an opportunity to discuss the measures which we have put before it today. It fell to my noble friend the Chief Whip to make it known to the House on Monday that this business would be taken by these emergency measures in this House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to children and asked what would happen if a juvenile crime were discovered. Normal police powers and judgments of appropriate action apply as they would to any other police powers of search which revealed evidence of other crimes. I understand that if as a result of a rub-down search the police become concerned and had reasonable grounds for believing that a more intimate search was necessary that would have to be enacted. The person would be arrested and taken to the police station and the search would be enacted in accordance with PACE and other powers under other legislation.
Noble Lords raised the matter of rub-down searches of women. For obvious operational reasons it would be impossible for the police to provide a woman police officer to undertake every search of a woman under these provisions. These are exceptional provisions and they would be exceptional circumstances. The police will exercise these powers very carefully and with sensitivity, which is the point of the guidance, and they will be free to use their discretion. The same applies when searching juveniles.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I thank the Minister for giving way. What she said about the searches of women is extremely worrying. Can she say whether in all circumstances such searches will be conducted by uniformed officers and not by plain clothes officers? What on earth will women
314
say if they are asked to remove an outer garment which may be revealing in a way that a man will not be revealed if he removes an outer garment? What the Minister has said is extremely worrying.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the context of the Bill must be considered. It is an anti-terrorist measure. The record shows that women are as capable of terrorist acts as are men and sometimes young people. It is in that context that the searches are carried out. I have been subject to rub-down searches by both men and women and I have always judged that the reason it is being done is to protect my freedom and that of other people. I am reassured to know that such searches take place.
As regards the measure in this Bill, only outer garments can be removed. It is a rub-down, frisk-type search of the body. If the police become suspicious that something is concealed in those garments and this Bill is not applicable, other powers apply. An arrest would be made and there would be reasonable grounds for a more thorough, intimate search. That would be enacted under different legislation and no doubt it would be carried out by a policewoman. However, under the circumstances of this Bill there may be no time to think about the matter and the searches must be done quickly. It would be wrong to allow a dangerous situation to become even more dangerous, perhaps even fatal for someone, because there was not a police woman on sight to carry out a rub-down search of a woman. But it must be said that clearly if it were possible to use a policewoman, that would no doubt be covered in the guidance. However, if that were not possible, the search would go ahead in any event.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to disabled persons and asked why they are not exempt from the parking restrictions. It would be impossible to allow an exemption from the provisions for those holding a current disabled person's badge. If we made such an exemption, the IRA could easily evade the provisions by stealing the badges which are fixed to a car. They could place a bomb in such a car and park it in a vulnerable site. That cannot he right, but I do not believe that, just because they are disabled, the disabled would wish to be allowed to park in a vulnerable area which the police have already declared to be a security risk.
Referring to Clause 2, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether a search warrant would be issued by a circuit judge. The present search warrant procedure in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act applies on application to a JP. There is no reason to impose a stricter requirement for the type of searches provided for in Clause 2. There is certainly no evidence that the present procedures in Schedule 7 are inappropriate.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented that people resent being stopped and searched. We have no evidence yet to suggest that that is so in any great measure in relation to those who have been stopped under the existing Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; that is, the stop and search of vehicles, drivers, passengers and bags carried by a pedestrian. There is every sign that the public welcomes the reassurance which such searches provide.

315
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the stop and search powers could be used against minorities, and that is an important point. The noble Earl knows that much has been done to provide safeguards. The safeguards in place are that authorisation must be from a senior officer; there is a limited duration for the measures; geographical extent must be defined; the Home Secretary's endorsement must be sought; there is an annual review of the PTA; and the Home Secretary has agreed that the use of this power should be covered by PACE Code A which applies to existing stop and search powers. Therefore, a number of safeguards are in place and we shall make sure that the new guidance also covers those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about the territorial coverage of the Bill and whether it covered Scotland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. The definition referred to in Clause 4 applies already in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act addresses the exceptional problems we face. Existing criminal law and public order legislation provide substantial powers to deal with, for example, arson in Wales or violent campaigns for Scottish independence. Of course, a prevention Act is in operation in Northern Ireland which goes further than the powers provided in England.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to information obtained in the course of a search. We have no evidence that information obtained by the police in the course of a search of premises or persons has been passed to the press. PACE Code B specifies the purposes for which information seized may be used. It covers the use of evidence at trial and forensic investigation. The police would be acting inconsistently with PACE if they disclosed information to the press. Of course, there may also be a defamation consideration, a subject which was discussed in this House yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned headgear and the particular sensitivity when dealing with Sikhs who wear a particular form of headgear. First, I agree with him that the police would have to act with discretion and great sensitivity. But it is just as easy to conceal a device under Sikh headgear as it is under any hat. Therefore, again, it would be quite wrong to exempt those people simply because they wear a different form of headgear. Terrorism is terrorism and wherever it is, it must be countered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked whether there was any justification for additional scrutiny of the Act's powers. There is considerable monitoring of the use of the stop and search powers and that will continue. The provisions of the Act are reviewed annually by a wholly independent reviewer who has access to officials, Ministers and to the files. He can talk to whomsoever he chooses. His visits and consultations are listed in his report each year and that will continue. We believe that that provides extremely extensive safeguards and the kind of scrutiny which the noble Baroness believes to be important.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that the priority must be to restore the peace in Northern Ireland. I agree absolutely with that. That must be a priority. No effort is spared in pursuing the restoration of that peace. We
316
should take note of what my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said. While the restoration of that peace is being pursued, the protection of the peoples of the United Kingdom is absolutely paramount. Sadly, no powers can provide complete protection against the evil intent of those who seek to kill, maim and undermine our democratic way of life. The powers before your Lordships will be of practical operational benefit to the police. If, as a result, just one life is saved, those powers will be welcomed by every law-abiding citizen in this country.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek some clarification. I thank the noble Baroness for answering the questions I put to her. However, I asked about those who would have lawful authority to be in a cordoned area and what a reasonable excuse might be. Those are defences available for persons prosecuted under the Act. I believe that it would be useful for the House and for the public at large to know what "lawful authority" would mean in that context and what is a reasonable excuse.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have provided that defence but it would be a matter for the courts to determine whether the reason given was reasonable. It is for the courts to decide whether someone has good reason to be there. I noticed that the noble Lord said in his speech that it is for the Government to guide the courts; but that is not so. The courts must make their own judgments about those matters. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 2.19 to 2.40 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIBES (Lord Elliott of Morpeth) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to stop and search pedestrians]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (11) or otherwise,").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 5. I apologise if there is any confusion in the wording of the amendment. It refers to "subsection (11)" which would follow subsection (10)

317
of Clause 1 which is the new Clause 13B to be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The purpose of the amendment is solely to pave the way for Amendment No. 5 which refers to the necessity, as we see it, for,
"consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, [to] issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers contained in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used".
In the brief time available to us on Second Reading, a number of concerns arose about the wording of this clause in the Bill. Those concerns were about the nature of the search which would be allowed; about the place in which the search would be allowed; about the circumstances; about the period of the order which might be made; and, indeed, about who might make that order. All of them mean that, as is inevitable with legislation which is being produced at high speed and being legislated at an even higher speed, there will be possibilities for confusion. Where there are possibilities for such confusion, there are possibilities for misapplication of the law and either or both injustice and a failure of the law to achieve its effects in countering terrorism effectively.
After we tabled the amendments we were glad to hear from the Home Secretary that guidance should be issued by him and that the chief officers of police in England and Wales, in Scotland, and wherever the Act applies, should be consulted about the practical details of the clause. It may seem that the legislation is relatively straightforward. It may well be—indeed, I believe that it is the case—that the legislation follows the format of Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Nevertheless, the opportunity for misunderstanding and for misuse is still great. It seems to us desirable that that sort of consultation should not only be in place but that it should also be on the face of the Bill if the Government find it possible to agree to it.
We are not suggesting that there should be any delay in the implementation of the Bill. Clearly, guidance could only take place when the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consult. But we understood from the Home Secretary's response in another place yesterday that he was prepared to act very speedily to introduce the guidance which is necessary. We also understood—and perhaps this is the most important aspect in the short term—that the police were prepared to use the guidance which already exists under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as their rule book, so to speak, for the implementation of this part of the Act.
I emphasise the need for guidance because there is confusion between the stop and search powers which exist under Section 13A introduced in the Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994 and such powers as still survive under common law and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those of my friends who have been involved more closely than I have with the old sus law and who are aware of the extent to which that law was abused will know that where there is confusion in the law or where there is reliance on
318
common law, there is the possibility, which should be avoided wherever possible, that the police will misuse the powers they have to stop people.
Over the years the police have used their powers to stop and search people in the street in a discriminatory way. It is an admitted fact. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police admitted that 60 per cent. of the people stopped and searched in the street are black. That is despite the fact that the proportion of black people in the population as a whole does not represent one-tenth of that figure. That is an unfortunate fact. It is also the case that the power to stop and search people is excessively applied to young people. Again, that is way out of proportion as regards their numbers in the population. It is possible—indeed, I do not doubt it—that young people, especially young men, are more likely to be involved in crime than other people. But anyone who knows about the way in which the existing law has been implemented knows that those powers are used in a discriminatory way.
Members of the Committee may ask, "Well, what's the harm in being stopped and searched?" People may say that, for example, anyone who goes on an aeroplane journey knows that he will be stopped and searched before he is allowed to board the plane. Of course, that is true: but, in that case, the person is undertaking a positive initiative by going onto a plane and is doing so in the knowledge that he will be stopped and searched. What young people object to—especially young black people—is the knowledge that by going about their ordinary business on the street they are likely to be stopped and searched. Indeed, they are likely to be stopped and searched over and over again.
The evidence from the City of London police cordon which, we were told, was set up almost entirely to deal with IRA and international terrorism shows that a high proportion of people who were stopped going into and out of the City were black people and black motorists. I am not aware that there is a significant number of black people in the IRA.
There is cause for concern as regards the previous legislation. There is concern about the way it is implemented. There will inevitably be cause for concern about this legislation and, inevitably, there will be a need for both guidance from the Secretary of State and scrutiny and sensitivity in the application of this legislation by the police if justice is to be done, and indeed if anti-terrorist legislation is to work. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I rise to speak briefly because I raised a number of matters during the Second Reading which I fear were not answered by the noble Baroness to my satisfaction. I believe that the police should act extremely sensitively, and the Home Secretary should be satisfied that they will act with extreme sensitivity, because there is a certain indignity in being stopped in the street by a constable—I accept now that it has to be a constable in uniform—and asked to remove certain articles of clothing. There is indignity involved there and the way this is done has to be in such a way as to put a person who is placed in such a position as much at ease as possible. I hope that that matter will be taken up.

319
I am particularly worried about the position of women. Even in this politically correct age when women are supposed to be equal, and indeed are equal in every respect except as regards biology, there is a sensitivity as regards the way in which women are treated. I sincerely hope that the police will be asked to ensure that wherever possible women subjected to this sort of search will have the search undertaken by a female officer. I should not have thought that was too difficult an assurance to give to me this afternoon. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to do so.
I am also concerned about the position of juveniles. As I understand the law, juveniles are not children but are people up to the age of 17. I am concerned about fair treatment. Again I ask that it should be put to the Metropolitan Police and any other police force, that they should use particular sensitivity in relation to those people. Will there be any record of a person who is searched, and will the name and address of the person who is searched be taken by the constable? Will that information be registered, where will it be registered and for how long will the record, if there is a to be a record, remain on police files?
Baroness O'Cathain: I ask for clarification on the point the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made about searching women. Women have a particular problem in this respect and it is right to show some sensitivity. However, as far as I recall, when one passes through security at airports, women are not always searched by women. Certainly in some overseas countries that is not the case. However, I believe that some machines can now he used to search women. The machines are big round things with handles and they are run up and down a person's body. One is not actually touched by either a man or a woman when one is being searched. I should have thought that such a machine would be useful in the case we are discussing because I do not think it is feasible to say that every woman should be searched by a woman. I do not know what is the proportion of women officers in the police force but I should have thought that it is still significantly lower than 50 per cent. of the total police force, whereas women comprise more than 50 per cent. of the population. I believe there is a problem here which I am sure could be overcome. The noble Lord has raised an important point.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Naturally, with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I hope that this can be conducted in a sensitive way. However, I remind the Committee that it was a charming woman who gave a young soldier at a checkpoint in Belfast a cake at Christmas which contained a bomb.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wish to mention an anxiety—in support of the amendment—about the need for sensitivity when asking women to remove their headwear when that is worn because of their religious faith. I think particularly of Moslem women.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness replies I wish to refer to what the noble
320
Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has just mentioned. I appreciate that there are women terrorists and of course people are searched at airports. However, the situation I am discussing is where people will be searched in the street. When people go to an airport they expect to be searched; I hope, usually, by someone of the same sex, but nevertheless they expect to be subjected to a search procedure. In the case I am discussing a person who is just walking along the street may be approached by a constable who asks to search that person. I believe that particular sensitivity needs to be shown as regards searching people on the street who have no prior knowledge that they will be searched and who will be surprised by that.
Baroness Strange: This is a question of sensitivity. My mother was once stopped and asked to remove her hat because it was thought she might have a gun underneath it. She was delighted to remove it and the person who searched her very kindly helped her to put her hat back on again, with the hat pins!
Baroness Blatch: This is an important point and I certainly do not take it lightly. I repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there certainly will be guidance on the use of these powers in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, as the noble Lord has asked. While that guidance is in preparation we think it important not to have a hiatus and therefore my right honourable friend will issue immediate provisional guidance. He will also advise that the relevant PACE Code A for stop and search should be applied to all the stop and search provisions. As has already been said by myself and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the police have already told us that they will apply the PACE code voluntarily until the new provisions are formally brought within its scope.
I wish to clear up a point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made. There are no common law stop and search powers. They were swept away by PACE, and therefore they should no longer be a concern. My understanding of the registration point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is that names of persons are taken and recorded, and indeed so too is their ethnic origin. That is all part of the way in which the police must operate under PACE. The monitoring that will be carried out will include ethnic monitoring. The ring of steel to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred was established by means of powers to control the movement of traffic and not for security reasons, although it has to be said that it helps to maintain security. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me as regards common law powers. I was amused by what she said about the ring of steel. Of course it was introduced by the Corporation of the City of London under traffic regulations but it was never hesitant about saying that it was doing it for security purposes. I do not think we should be diverted from the aim of ensuring sensitivity in the operation of such controls by the ostensible purpose rather than the

321
real purpose of the measures. This may not be relevant to the Bill, but I happen to be a little cynical about the ring of steel altogether. I thought that it was simply an exercise in public relations and that it largely involved moving potential trouble away from one area into another area. I know that people in Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets thought the same. It is a great pity that it is now being extended to parts of the docklands. I believe that it is a misguided activity and I hope that guidance as regards this clause would help to stop people using such crude measures as the City corporation's ring of steel.
The debate has been useful—not in the sense that I intended to seek the opinion of the Committee, because I have the assurances that I sought. It is useful in that it has been an opportunity for noble Lords to give expression to their many concerns about the operation of these powers. None of those concerns in any way diminishes our support for anti-terrorist measures. But there can be no doubt that anti-terrorist measures introduced as such have an impact on civil liberties which goes beyond the need to combat terrorism. That has been the case in the past. It would be extraordinary if it were not the case in the future. Issues debated later in Committee about review will be most relevant to that.
In the meantime, in view of the assurances that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("appears") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 7, both of which insert the word "reasonable", first, in Clause 1, and, secondly, in Clause 4. On reflection, they are not perhaps the most elegant in syntactical terms. Amendment No. 1 provides,
"Where it appears reasonable to a police officer of the rank … that it is expedient to do so".
That is not very pretty. Perhaps we should have used the phrase, "Where it reasonably appears to a police officer", rather than face the problems that I now have. Again it is not my intention to press the amendments to a Division.
However, it is important that all noble Lords should recognise the extent to which those powers are exercised solely on the authorisation of, and by, the police themselves. There is no outside intervention in the exercise of these powers until subsections (8) and (9). Other powers in the Bill are subject to a warrant issued by a magistrate. Even then, after a certain period, there is intervention by a Secretary of State. But initially an area can be declared by the police; and the authorisation can be enforced by them, as the Bill stands, for a period of 48 hours without any other agency having a say in the matter. It seems to me, if only for their protection, that the police should be required explicitly in the legislation to act reasonably. Therefore there should be objective tests which can be tested in a court of whether their action was reasonable.
Clearly no one in a case of an emergency which could result in a bomb will worry about the niceties of what might be said in a court afterwards. I do not argue that. However, experience as regards stop and search provisions over the years has indicated that hundreds of thousands of people have been stopped and searched with a minimal result in arrests and an even smaller result in arrests for terrorist offences.
That is not to say that the provisions are wrong. It may well be necessary to carry out a huge screening in order to find a limited number of terrorists. It needs only a limited number of terrorists to cause a great deal of damage. I do not argue on that point. But where the police alone are involved for a period of up to 48 hours, as the Bill provides, then an objective test which can be challenged in the courts as to whether they behaved reasonably is a desirable practice.
I may be told that police have to behave reasonably anyway. That is often the response to such amendments. However, if we seek not only to ensure that legislation is effective but is seen to be effective by the general public, these amendments are desirable. I hope that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendments. They appear to me to be sensible and helpful. How far the powers under the Bill in practice will he restricted to the prevention of terrorism is rapidly emerging as one of the relevant points of debate. Prevention of terrorism is an objective which on occasion justifies restrictive powers which one would not wish to use in any other context. However, I cannot help wondering whether the use made in particular of the powers of search will in practice result in more charges on matters of terrorism than on anything else.
All of us nowadays are subject to performance indicators. All of us are aware of pressure to improve our performance according to those indicators. It is perfectly possible to imagine a police officer, either in a state of acute frustration about the operation of those indicators or convinced that he knows who is doing something when he has no actual evidence to prove it, using the powers under Clause 1 to stop and search in an area where he believes that he might find cannabis; and coming up with, let us say, 20 convictions, thus improving his performance no end without any real, reasonable grounds to suspect that he might be detecting potential terrorists.
If the powers under Clause 1 were to be used in anything like that way on even so much as one or two occasions, we can be certain that that would result in a good deal of publicity and ill feeling, and, I am afraid, in a diminishing respect for the law.
If the amendment were adopted, it could do something to protect us against those dangers. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will look on it with at least a grain of sympathy.
Lord Finsberg: The amendment shows a great divide—not between the parties in this Chamber but the politicians, the media and the citizen. I do not believe that the citizen will consider the measure in the light that the two noble Lords have put to us.

323
Perhaps I may refer to the stop and search powers. For 22 years I represented a London marginal constituency, receiving 80 letters a day. During those 22 years I received precisely one complaint that someone had been stopped and searched. It is, frankly, a matter that I hope my noble friend will take into account. I believe that the normal citizen will recognise that the Bill is not before us for pleasure or for any reason other than to save lives. I do not believe that the arguments that we have heard today, sincere though they are—I do not criticise them in that sense—hold water for the ordinary citizen. It is a different game for politicians and the media.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that normal citizens differ as much as normal politicians.
Lord Finsberg: I have already sat down.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to make a special plea that ethnic minorities, too, comprise normal, ordinary citizens. We fall into grave danger if we consider that these powers could be aimed at them as though they are aliens in our midst. Many of them have served in the forces—their fathers and mothers too. They are certain to regard themselves as ordinary citizens who wish to see terrorism ended and are prepared to take some discomfort in order to achieve that.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment but wish to refer to my remarks and the lack of response from the Minister in the Second Reading debate. I asked about persons having lawful authority or other reasonable excuse for failing to comply, in contravention of the Act. In the break between the Second Reading and Committee stage, I had the opportunity to seek legal advice on what the provision might mean. The advice I was given was that a lawful authority would be an authority that was conferred by a policeman. That is revealing about the powers which we are conferring in the situation that is likely to occur. As I understand it—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the police can designate an area and, under the Bill, they would have the powers to stop and search any individual without cause within that area. They will have the powers to require people to move out of it or move about in it and the area will become totally police controlled.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh is right. We should ensure that the police are themselves protected. The insertion of the word "reasonable" will ensure that there is a mechanism for testing in the courts the judgment of the police in the designation of the area and how the police operated. As I understand it, the way in which the Bill is drafted means that it would be impossible for the operations of the police, in the 48-hour period before the Secretary of State becomes involved, to be totally unquestioned. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention that a group of citizens in our country, circumscribed by a boundary determined by the police, should come totally under police control, with virtually no alternative. I am sure that the Government do not
324
intend that. I hope that in her response to my noble friend's amendment, the Minister can give us reassurance. Failing that, it would be in order for us to insert the word "reasonable". I understand that that would enable the courts to make a judgment, if necessary, as to what was right and what was wrong.
Lord Blyth: I was asked within this building this morning whether the Bill meant that if one had an Irish accent one was liable to be stopped and searched. It is a difficult problem for people from Ireland of whom a small minority support any form of terrorism.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is entirely reasonable for my noble friend to propose the amendment because the Bill is sloppily drafted. The proposed Section 13B states:
"Where it appears to a police officer".
That means "if it seems to a police officer". It is not tough enough. If the wording stated:
"Where ‖ a police officer of the rank … believes",
there would be no problem. I wish that when Bills are drafted the draftsman would say exactly what he means; then people would know what is meant.
Lord Milverton: There is much talk about liberty and freedom but if we are to have them, surely we should be ready and prepared, in exceptional cases where there is a clear danger, to have intrusions into our liberty and freedom for the safety and security not only of ourselves but of everyone—not only whites but also the ethnic communities. To me all that is being done is reasonable. A lot of nonsense is talked about the danger of the citizen, whoever he or she is, losing his freedom. If we want freedom, then at times we must be prepared for governments to take extraordinary measures which they would not otherwise take. They do not wish to take them, but if there is terror about we must meet it and not be afraid.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That is an appropriate moment for me to intervene on the amendment. I believe that what my noble friend Lord Milverton says is right. Where there is terrorism we must meet it. Those of us who are interested in freedom must accept that inconvenience will go with it.
Clauses 1 and 4 as drafted enable a senior police officer to authorise the exercise of the powers in each case if he forms the view that the use of those powers is appropriate in the circumstances in order to prevent acts of terrorism. That is what the Bill means by the word "expedient". In the case of Clause 1, the authorisation must come from an assistant chief constable. In the case of Clause 4, it must come from an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The formulation in Clauses 1 and 4 is the same as appears in the existing Section 13A of the Act and elsewhere in the Act. For example, Section 4 provides that the Secretary of State may exercise the power of exclusion if he thinks it expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism.

325
I do not believe that senior police officers would act unreasonably in coming to a decision on the use of the powers. They are well aware of the sensitivities and of the need to carry the public with them. The Secretary of State will issue guidance, as I said, in relation to all the new powers to ensure that they are applied carefully, sensitively and consistently.
In relation to the stop and search of pedestrians, the additional safeguard is provided that authorisation will require confirmation from the Secretary of State within 48 hours. Any unreasonable exercise of the powers could be challenged by way of judicial review. That partly answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The court would decide whether the officer's conclusion that it was expedient to use the power was reasonable.
Reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to possible abuse of power under the proposed Section 13B to improve statistics. I have to say that that is a terribly cynical view of the way in which the police act in this country against the evil of terrorism. It is our belief that the powers will not be used in that way. The authorisation would be unlawful. The safeguard of confirmation of authorisation by the Secretary of State is intended to prevent that happening. However, I do not believe that a police officer would try to use the powers in that way. If he did, it would be revealed in the careful monitoring that goes on throughout the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to my lack of response to his question about having a defence inside the cordon. I hope he will accept that I answered it when reminded of it at the end of Second Reading. I repeat that if a policeman decides that because of the particular circumstances at a particular time and in a particular place he needs to cordon off an area and take the powers under what will then be the Act, it would be his judgment at the time. The decision is judicially reviewable, so it can be challenged.
If someone is caught in those circumstances it may be that the reason given by a person at that moment is fully accepted by a policeman and that is an end to it. However, if the policeman believes that there is a case for prosecution, it will still have to be subject to the Director of Public Prosecutions to confirm that the case should go before the courts. If it goes before the courts and the person is given a full opportunity to press his case, his defence of why he was there and that he had good reason to be there, it would be for the courts, quite independently, to make a judgment about the strength of the case put by the individual. I do not think we can be more careful than that in balancing the right of the individual against a very difficult judgment having to be made on the spot by a policeman.
My noble friend Lady Park made a telling point about ethnic minorities. While we are concerned about monitoring and concerned to make sure that any police powers are not exercised in a discriminatory way, I believe quite strongly that they are as deserving of protection and the full effect of these measures before the Committee as any other citizen. That is how I prefer to think of them.
326
My noble friend Lord Finsberg confirmed a point I made earlier at Second Reading; namely, we do not believe there is a body of evidence that tells us there is overwhelming concern about the inconvenience suffered by those of us who from time to time are caught in an area cordoned off by the police or in a particular security check. At the end of the day, most reasonable people in this country know it is for the good of everybody. Certainly we know that it is about saving lives.
There is a comment that I have longed to make, and it is timely to make it now since this has been such a repetitive issue at the Dispatch Box. I really do wish that noble Lords would spend as much energy and parliamentary time concerning themselves about the victims and the innocent people in this country as they do about the perpetrators of evil.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether that remark was addressed to me. I certainly do not devote any of my time at this Dispatch Box or anywhere else to protecting the perpetrators of evil. The Minister chose to respond by praising the police and saying that she did not believe the police would behave unreasonably. I do not dissent from what she says. In introducing these amendments I did not dissent from that. I did not claim that the police would deliberately behave unreasonably. I made a point that was not addressed in the Minister's reply. I said it was a matter of protection for the police that there should he an objective test of whether or not their behaviour was reasonable, and for that objective test to be capable of being tested in the courts.
I remind the Committee of the rest of the wording of Clause (1)(1). It states:
"Where it appears to a police officer ‖ that it is expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism".
Chambers Dictionary defines "expedient" as "profitable or convenient" rather than "fair or just". It is important, not that we lose sight of the need to take convenient action in an emergency, but that we should balance that judgment with the need to be reasonable as well. Reasonable police officers would not object to the possibility of this objective test being included in the legislation. That is as much a defence of the police on my part as the defence the Minister gave.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, talked as though we were separated from the general public. He did not make a party point of that. Despite his 80 letters a day, the general public do not think of turning to politicians to protect them from day-to-day inconveniences or injustices. Had I been a constituent of the noble Lord, I do not think that I should necessarily have written to him had I been stopped and searched, as I thought, unreasonably. I think I should take the matter up through police procedures. The work of the Police Complaints Authority and police internal discipline procedures has increased enormously over the years as there have been increases in police powers.
Force majeure, we recognise that these powers are necessary for the prevention of terrorism. We hope that they will go away, and we hope the reason for them will go away. But while we have these problems, surely it is right that they should be approached in as objective and

327
controlled a way as possible for the protection of the large majority of innocent citizens who will inevitably be affected by this legislation.
Only in accordance with my self-denying ordinance that in order to get this Bill enacted it will not be possible to insert amendments here and force them to be reconsidered by another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to make the point that I did not make in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Blyth. I believe it important that I respond to that particular point on record. Were a policeman to stop somebody simply because he knew that that person had an Irish accent, he would certainly be acting unprofessionally. He would be in breach of the rules if that were the only reason that the person was stopped. The police must not act in a discriminatory way in that sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("48") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to a part of Clause 1 to which I have already referred, if in a negative sense, in discussing other amendments.
New subsections (8) and (9) provide that,
"A person [the senior police officer] giving an authorisation under this section",
must tell the Secretary of State as soon as possible, and the Secretary of State may cancel the authorisation. Subsection (9) states, most importantly, that it,
"ceases to have effect if it is not confirmed … before the end of the period of 48 hours".
That is a fail-safe provision. In other words, the authorisation falls unless there is positive action by the Secretary of State. I welcome that. It is the right way round. It should not need positive action on the part of the Secretary of State to continue the authorisation; it should be the other way round.
However, I seriously question whether it is necessary to have a period of 48 hours before the Secretary of State responds. The Secretary of State is not flesh and blood. The Secretary of State is a concept. If the Secretary of State is in the Bahamas or wherever, then there is somebody authorised to act on behalf of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the least we could provide is that the Home Office, or whatever department it is where the Secretary of State is located, should respond in rather less than 48 hours to what is being claimed as, and indeed is, an emergency. I should like to have specified 24 hours, but I thought about the matter and compromised. A fast response to terrorist action is the crux of this Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Surely we can have a fast response from the Secretary of State as well.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment. By definition, if these powers are to be utilised by an officer in a police force of a seniority
328
described in the Bill, it will be an occasion of grave public emergency. At the very least, confirmation of these powers—which may be necessarily draconian—should be forthcoming from the Secretary of State after 36 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he had internally compromised at 36. Some would say that 24 hours might be more appropriate. In circumstances of serious public emergency, 48 hours is far too long without the Secretary of State's personal and responsible intervention.
Earl Russell: This amendment goes to the point I made on the previous amendment. The more tight the limits are governing the use of these powers, the more likely it is that they will be confined, as they should be, to matters dealing with terrorism.
Perhaps I might take this chance to respond to the noble Baroness's remarks on the previous amendment. I was really rather pleased that she chose to describe me as cynical. It protects me against the accusation of "foolish idealism" which came from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I would rather be accused of idealism by the noble Lord and of cynicism by the noble Baroness than vice versa.
Perhaps I may supply some of the evidence that led me to say what I did. It was an incident that happened to my wife when she was out shopping. Somebody attempted to steal her purse—fortunately, unsuccessfully. She observed the gang and was able to give a physical description and describe the m.o. She telephoned the police to report the crime and the police said that they did not have the time to take the report of that crime until 12.30 a.m. Naturally, she did not feel like hanging around until 12.30 in the morning in order to report the crime. The result was that the crime was not reported and did not go into the statistics of crimes which were not cleared up.
If that was not done in the light of performance indicators, I can think of no conceivable reason why it was done. So I speak with at least a little knowledge of the matter.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It might be my fault but I do not see the relevance of the story that we have just heard to the particular circumstances in which the noble Lord described rub-down searches with a view to notching up convictions to make the policeman's record look better.
With regard to this amendment, the powers of stop and search will be authorised by a senior police officer.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. She said that she did not see any relevance. I believe that the relevance is that the desire to improve the performance according to indicators is capable of changing police performance. If that is not true of the police, they are unique among human beings.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl and I will simply have to agree to differ. There are so many checks and balances in the system that the police, like those in almost every other walk of life, are not infallible. From

329
time to time they will make mistakes. I do not agree with what appears to be the blanket criticism that they operate in such a cynical way. I am not prepared to accept the point other than to appreciate that the noble Earl has clearly had an unfortunate experience.
The powers of stop and search will be authorised by a senior police officer. They will lapse unless confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of authorisation. We believe that that is a valuable safeguard, as was recognised by both noble Lords who spoke to the amendment. A decision should not be taken lightly. Any increased pressure on the Secretary of State by virtue of the reduced timetable proposed, just might curtail detailed deliberation over whether his confirmation should be given. At the end of the day it is a balance. Because we are writing this provision on the face of the Bill, it would be awful if he took slightly more than 36 hours to confirm the order for lack of clarification or another piece of information that was needed. Equally, we have taken the view that to leave the matter for more than 48 hours is unacceptable.
It may be that there is just a difference of opinion. We believe that 48 hours is just about right to give full consideration of what is a very exceptional power to be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not find that argument very convincing. After all, in subsection (9)(c) the confirmation which enables the authorisation to continue can be not only:
"(i) for such period, not exceeding 28 days",
but also:
"(ii) for such shorter period as the Secretary of State may direct".
Therefore, it may be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State at the end of 36 hours to say, "I am not yet satisfied because some information hasn't come in. I shall confirm it for another 36 hours"—or 48 hours or whatever.
The difficulty that the Minister raised does not seem to me to be a real one, whereas the difficulty that I raise of the police being left on their own potentially for 48 hours does seem to me a real difficulty. I do not find the response at all convincing.
However, in line with my self-denying ordinance—this will not be the last time—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("() If, following the exercise of the powers contained in section 13A above or this section a person is arrested and charged with an offence other than an offence under this Act or otherwise connected with terrorism, the fact and nature of the initial exercise of stop and search powers shall be made known to the court.").
The noble Lord said: It has been pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that this amendment is defective. In the fourth line the word "shall" forces the nature of the initial exercise of stop
330
and search powers to be reported to the court, whereas it may well be—I think my noble friend is right—that the person before the court, the accused, does not want the nature of the exercise of powers to be reported.
My noble friend kindly said that if he were representing me, he would wish to report it, but there might be circumstances in which somebody has something to hide, as I patently do not—or rather I do not necessarily accept that additional piece of exemplification. Nevertheless, he has a point. Therefore, on this occasion I shall in the end seek to withdraw the amendment, not only because of my self-denying ordinance but because the amendment does not represent what I want to say.
However, the fundamental point behind the amendment remains. The fundamental point is that it makes a difference whether an offence arises—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used the word "sprang"—out of a random search or a search which, so far as the accused is concerned, is a random search because in those circumstances he is not involved in terrorism. It does matter if I am going about my business and for some reason which is entirely irrelevant the police use powers which they would not otherwise have in order to discover something which might be to my disadvantage and might bring me before the courts. This very modest amendment does not say that those who are stopped and searched should not be accused of minor offences not connected with terrorism but that the fact that the person has been apprehended in this way should be recorded.
A Conservative Back-Bencher in another place, Mr. Peter Bottomley, yesterday went so far as to say that if a person was found to have committed other irrelevant minor offences, he should not be charged. That is going a bit far. Perhaps the Conservative Party has its own divisions on this matter. I do not think my modest amendment raises that problem. Properly worded, it would have served to preserve a proper balance between the apprehension of crime and what we all wish to avoid, which is a general use of stop and search powers under wider circumstances than is necessary. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: One very useful purpose that the amendment, or a redrafted version of it, would serve would be to make it possible to compile statistics on how many of the charges arising out of searches under this clause related to terrorist offences and how many to other offences. That would enable what is becoming a running argument between me and the noble Baroness ultimately to be resolved. When, in whatever form, this legislation comes to be reviewed, that would be material evidence by which I should abide. I should be very interested to see it.
Baroness Blatch: If the question is how many searches subsequently turned out to be in relation to terrorism and how many to other offences, the whole rationale for these measures in this Bill is that they should be used as a prevention against terrorism. Therefore, any searches carried out under these powers are done because the policeman concerned believes that it is part of counter-terrorism activity.

331
On the other hand, if the question were rather differently phrased—how many crimes are discovered subsequently as a result of searches which were carried out under these powers—that is a very different matter. But the noble Earl did not put the question that way round when he first spoke
Earl Russell: The second was the way I put it. What I want to know is how many charges result from these searches relating to terrorism and how many to other things. I should like that to be discoverable.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether that can be discovered or whether it is part of the monitoring process. As long as the powers under the Bill are used properly—that is, there is proper justification for carrying out the searches—it is almost irrelevant that other crimes are uncovered. If the powers are being properly used, and other crimes are uncovered, that has to be a consequence of searching people, but under these circumstances.
We feel it is very hard to see how a person could be dealt with in court without the nature of the original stop and search being made clear in the prosecution evidence. It would be for the court to decide whether such evidence was admissible in any particular case. As the effect of the amendment is therefore already met by existing arrangements, I do not feel it is necessary. But the noble Lord has already said that he is not entirely happy with the words.
It has to be said that, in the circumstances in which a person was suspected of having committed a crime as a result of a search which led to a case being brought in court, it would be very important for the circumstances in which that crime was discovered to be part of the case brought in court. Therefore, I believe it would be a matter for information to the court and for the court to determine how to use that information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that is helpful. I draw from the answer that the desirability of monitoring and the desirability of giving extra help to the court will mean that in as many cases as possible the nature of the arrest will be brought before the court. For that reason, and for the reason I have already given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Police cordons]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation and extent etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may, having regard to any evidence leading him to judge that there is no longer any serious and continuing threat of terrorism emanating from within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, make an order suspending the operation of sections 13A and 13B of the 1989 Act.").
The noble Lord said: It occurs to me, although I was not able to influence the matter, that this amendment is on the same subject as Amendment No. 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. All of us are concerned that the Bill should not survive for longer than is absolutely necessary and that its powers should be limited not only geographically and in terms of the powers given by the Bill but also in terms of time. One solution is along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart; another is along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in the debate on the Business Motion. A third, and a rather different, one is the approach in Amendment No. 8. We are saying that, whether or not the Bill continues until the necessity for a continuation order, Sections 13A and 13B—both of the stop and search additions to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act—should be capable of being suspended if, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, having examined the evidence, there is no longer any serious and continuing threat of terrorism emanating from within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland.
I am conscious that I am trespassing on the terms of reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and I am conscious that his charge will almost certainly make it impossible for him to comment on my amendment. If he did he would in a sense be pre-judging the report he will make this summer. But it is worth airing the matter at the very least for debate. Surely one of the options that he must be considering, and the Government must be considering, is the option that if the ceasefire is re-established and we receive satisfactory assurances from the IRA and other terrorist organisations that they do not intend to resume terrorism and that therefore, presumably, they fulfil the conditions for taking part in the talks which are due to start on 10th June, there really is not much point in retaining the onerous provisions of Sections 13A and 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
Of course, it is a matter of trust, and trust is a very difficult thing to establish or rely on when one is dealing with people who have already declared a ceasefire and have reneged on it. Nevertheless, surely it might be—I put it no higher than that—a weapon in the armoury of the Secretary of State if he were able to say, "Yes, you have abandoned terrorism; yes, you have told us in the terms that we required that your abandonment is an act of permanent policy and you are prepared to take part in good faith in the talks which are due to take place. In return for that we will suspend for the time being the operation of Sections 13A and 13B of the Act." That might be a rather useful bargaining counter in the negotiations which would lead up to full participation in the all-party talks.
I also think that it would be a considerable benefit for those who have to operate these sections—the police and the security services—because they would have the assurance that they were only operating the sections at a time when it was shown to be necessary that the sections should be operating. In other words, there would be no temptation and no pressure on them to operate the sections under conditions of ceasefire.
The amendment is by no means prescriptive. It says "The Secretary of State may". It refers to evidence before the Secretary of State. It allows him to make his judgment and it allows him to suspend the operation rather than to cancel it. Every protection is given for the continued effective prevention of terrorism. But there are real advantages which the Government should seriously consider. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In this amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given me the opportunity to reinforce the point I made at Second Reading earlier today; namely, that the Bill when enacted will be part and parcel of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is clear in Section 27(6)(b) that the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force. In other words, the powers that the noble Lord is seeking in his amendment already exist under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I hope I am right, and I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps I may point out gently that she did not give me an answer at Second Reading.
Baroness Blatch: I am doubly ashamed, first, for not giving an answer at Second Reading and, secondly, for not answering when attending to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. So I may ask my noble friend to come back on that.
We all look forward to the day when we will have seen the last of Irish terrorism. That is why the Government have asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to review the continuing need for counter-terrorist legislation once the peace process has achieved its object. We are contributing to some of the information that the noble and learned Lord will be taking into account—not just through this debate today but also through the debate we had recently.
I can assure the House that in those circumstances the police will rarely want to invoke these powers unless, of course, there was justification; for example, in relation to cases involving international terrorism. However, there may be other Prevention of Terrorism Act powers that we shall want to withdraw at such a time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would include not just the measures in the Bill that we are passing today but those in the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself. That is why the existing Section 27 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the right to revoke any or all of the powers in the Act at any time. That means that this amendment is otiose.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend is very percipient. Even without listening she has answered my point at last. I am grateful to her.
Baroness Blatch: Thank you.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is not an amendment that I wish to press for all the reasons that I have given. My noble friend the Chief Whip is inciting me to divide the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It will wake us up!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that he can be serious, even if he is determined to wake up those Members of the Committee who have not even had time for lunch.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Speak for yourself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is always difficult to say under precisely what circumstances these powers should not be used. The Minister said that if there were a ceasefire the measures would rarely be used and I accept that. I still believe that my first argument stands about protection for the police and the public. I do not retract the arguments that I used in favour of these amendments, but for the reasons I have already given, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
("() This Act shall cease to have effect three months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss this measure at greater length. During the intervening period after the Recess the Government will bring forward a replacement Bill to take the place of the present one. It will then go through the normal parliamentary procedures. I wish that my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary had in fact made his support for this measure conditional on the same or a similar procedure, as suggested in my amendment. That would have had the beauty of accepting that there was an emergency situation that had to be dealt with immediately, but also that Parliament would at greater leisure be able to consider through a similar Bill the very serious issues involved. That would have recognised the emergency situation and also the fears that people properly have and ensured that the proper parliamentary procedure came afterwards. I believe that then we would have the best of both worlds and we probably would not be having this debate this afternoon.
That course of action would in any event ensure proper parliamentary debate. It would also ensure that individuals and organisations could make representations to the Government and to their Members of Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy they must have that right and it is essential that we should ensure that they continue to have that right. My amendment would do exactly that while realising and recognising the emergency situation which undoubtedly exists.
It would ensure that problems would be confronted, opinions aired and difficulties, I hope, overcome. It would then be a properly considered measure in which Parliament, not the Government or the Opposition, would take full responsibility for the consequences, good or bad. In the light of the reply given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rodgers, to their similar suggestion of perhaps a more leisurely approach—but nevertheless an excellent suggestion—that does not give me any hope that the Government will accept my amendment. But I believe that the Government would be wrong not to accept it. In fact, if they accepted it it would do their reputation a devil of a lot of good at the present time—and it needs helping! They would realise that there is good will from this side of the House over what they are trying to do. But it would nevertheless tell us that they recognise that there are serious problems of democratic accountability, consultation and consideration to be addressed. This amendment is one way in which they can do that. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I support my noble friend Lord Stoddart in this amendment. I also recognise that in reality, even if it were pressed to a Division, it would not get through. On that basis I hope that the Government will say that they will listen sympathetically and in due course come back to the House with their considered view as to how they might take this matter forward, not committing themselves at this stage to doing what the amendment asks to be done. I hope that they will think about the matter, come back after the Recess and give the House some advice as to their thinking on these issues.
One of the things I have learnt this afternoon is that this kind of procedure, or one similar to that being suggested by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, was undergone with the original Prevention of Terrorism Act. Prior to this afternoon, my understanding was that that Act was installed within 48 hours in 1974 and thereafter it was renewed annually, initially for the first 10 to 15 years, without amendment. The information that we have been given this afternoon that that Act went through a much longer period of parliamentary scrutiny some time after it came into being was new to me. I hope that, in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the need for the citizens of this country to know that Parliament is there looking after their interests and considering things sensibly, the Government will take on board my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I express some sympathy for the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. As he made clear, it represents an alternative approach to that put forward at Second Reading for getting a proper scrutiny of the Bill. I rise only to deal with the point made by the noble Baroness in reply to the Second Reading debate, when she gave a very much more convincing reason for rejecting the formula put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkins and myself, but the reason was not quite convincing enough. I wish her to say why that is so.
336
The noble Baroness said in an ingenious reply—these are not her exact words—that it was only an amending Bill and that it did not carry the same weight and did not have the same status as the legislation of 1974. Indeed, if this were not an important Bill, amending or not, we would not be taking it today. I suggest that the real reason for considering bringing back the Bill in one form or another is not related to whether it is or is not an amending Bill; it is that the substance of it is sufficient to deserve further scrutiny in your Lordships' House. That has been plain even from the restrained way in which noble Lords have dealt with this Committee stage, anxious as we all are that the Bill should make progress.
If I felt that there was no prospect whatever for the proposal made earlier and if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were to press his amendment to a Division with any prospect of winning, I would find myself supporting him. However, as there is no prospect of so winning and as I have more faith in the Minister than is perhaps entirely justified, I hope that the noble Baroness will revert to the proposal made earlier and, if she does not favour the amendment, that she will be able to offer something so much better.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I should like to express some sympathy with the amendment, although three months is perhaps too short a period for any essential changes to be brought about. I should like to raise with the noble Baroness a point which may or may not have been raised up to now; I have not been present throughout these debates. I am entirely in sympathy in general terms with the police in their attempts to prosecute criminals, although not with our sentencing policy. In my discussions with the police, their essential point has always been that there should be an increase in the number of police. Last year at the Conservative Party Conference it was promised that 5,000 more police would be introduced. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that the situation would look very different today if steps had been taken to fulfil that pledge. What is being done about the pledge to increase the police force by 5,000?
Lord Monson: I should like to give qualified support to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Experience teaches us that rushed legislation is nearly always defective legislation in ways large or small. However, having said that, I somewhat agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that three months is rather a tight time-scale. I think that four months, which would take us up to 3rd August, would be preferable. In essence, however, I support the amendment.
Lord Annan: I, too, support the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I am entirely behind the Government in bringing forward this Bill. Presumably on advice from intelligence, they realised that it was necessary to pass it quickly. Nevertheless, there is always the problem that emergency regulations tend to stand for ever. Let us not forget what happened

337
with the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, as a result of which no one could have a drink at a pub in the afternoon for about 65 years.
I do not believe that it would be wise to have an amendment of this kind, but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, considers these matters I hope that he will address himself to the question of when one should recognise that emergency legislation is no longer necessary. I say that because, although this emergency has arisen as a result of the activities of the IRA, I fear that there will never be a time in our lifetime when terrorists from some quarter or some country or another will not operate in this country.
Earl Russell: This House is a revising Chamber. We live by the creed that, right or wrong, a Bill might as well be as well drafted as possible. Nobody's initial drafting is perfect, and even in the very brief Committee stage that we have had, we have detected one or two ways in which, if we discussed the Bill quietly around a table in private, we could succeed in improving it.
However, we have not succeeded in ventilating a number of other questions. In particular and for the benefit of those of us who are not quite up to pace, if I may put it like that, it would be nice to know exactly what the Bill adds—it does not add—toexisting powers of the police. For all those reasons, it would be an extremely good thing in matters where liberty may be at stake if we could consider the Bill together to make it as good as possible. We have not had the opportunity to do that today, but I hope that we shall have such an opportunity fairly soon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that he might be inclined to give the Minister more credit than she was entitled to. I have sometimes been accused of giving the Minister less credit than she is entitled to, but during the Second Reading debate I was very disappointed by her response to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The noble Baroness said that the difference between the 1974 legislation and this legislation was that that was new legislation whereas this was—I quote because I wrote it down—"new powers to build on the existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation". I did not think that our intention was to establish an "existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation". I thought that the whole intention was to have only that anti-terrorist legislation which was necessary to fulfil the task of combating terrorism, and that when that task was reduced or eliminated there would be no anti-terrorist legislation. The whole of our debate as between civil safety and civil liberty has been on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right that temporary legislation tends to become permanent. Anyone who has been involved in local government knows that there is nothing so permanent as temporary planning permission. It is virtually impossible to get rid of it. I suspect that the same is true of anti-terrorist legislation. However, we should try, and the particular virtue of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stoddart is that it raises that issue in Committee.
338
I happen to think that my noble friend's amendment is mistaken. I think that he is wrong to choose three months. That is too short a period. My noble friend is also wrong to suggest the stick of the Act ceasing to have effect. We have never suggested that the Act should cease to have effect before any further consideration takes place. However, the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there should be an opportunity for full parliamentary consideration of the provisions of this Act within the next year before the order comes up next March as a continuance order seems sensible. I speak personally, not having had the time to consult my honourable friends in another place. Indeed, it seems a more sensible suggestion than that put forward by my noble friend. On that basis and in the light of developments since my noble friend tabled his amendment, I hope that he may see fit to withdraw it.
Nevertheless, some further scrutiny will be required. It will have to be parliamentary scrutiny because I am sure that those who say that legislation brought forward in this way is almost bound to have defects are right. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has been in his seat twice during the past week to give proof of that when referring to the defects of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through in a similar way. We would do well to take account of the reconsideration of that Act which has been called for on many occasions and the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to such a reconsideration when we consider the possibility that we may have got something wrong in this legislation. I think that that is highly likely. The Government should recognise that fact and stretch out an olive branch to parliamentary reconsideration, which is what my noble friend Lord Stoddart is suggesting.
Viscount Slim: I apologise for not being present throughout the debate, but I have had other duties. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with whom I agree on so many things. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and I would agree on very much.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that the problem of terrorism will be with us for the rest of our lives. I believe that. I believe that we are starting to see the commencement of other forms of terrorism which could well be worse than what we have suffered from the IRA.
It has been my experience over 25 years in your Lordships' House—where I have learnt so much—that it has an ability to take matters through the usual channels quite fast when necessary. Your Lordships' House also has the ability to come back to something if a Bill or amendment has gone too far. I should like to think that most noble Lords will see the grave dangers upon us, which may well increase, and agree that immediate steps should be taken to get this right. We cannot have true liberty until we destroy terrorism. Therefore, the actions that we take must be for the moment or for the long term. I have faith in your Lordships that it will be viewed in that way. We are better able to handle this particular question than another place where there is a lot of noise, whingeing or

339
whatever it may be called. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but I suggest that this measure should continue until we are satisfied that it has run its course and we can revert to true liberty. I strongly disagree with the tone that one or two of your Lordships have used in the best interests and in a most noble way. We have to defeat terrorism to gain true liberty, and I believe that we should think that way.
Baroness Blatch: I am deeply grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for what he has said. I believe that it makes it so much easier for me to reply to the question in the context set for me by the noble Viscount.
I have to deal with the amendment that is on the table before me, not all the other suggestions that may well be preferable options. I believe that I have dealt with them in passing. This amendment provides that the Bill should lapse in three months' time. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has suggested that perhaps three months is a bit too short and it should be four months. That will take us into August. It would mean either special sittings of the House in August to cope with what would be almost immediately a vacuum—these measures would not be on the statute book and the police would not have these powers to counter terrorism—or the powers would remain on the statute book until the House sat again in the autumn and they would be at the mercy of the parliamentary timetable.
Lord Monson: I believe that the noble Baroness has misinterpreted the point. We were not suggesting that the powers should lapse but that time should be given to devise perhaps a better Bill and one more thought through in the three or four months between the Easter Recess and the time that the House rises in July.
Baroness Blatch: I understand what the noble Lord has said. However, this amendment says that the Bill should lapse in three months' time. It will then be for Parliament to consider what to do in the absence of the Bill, given that "three months" is literally a matter of a few weeks away. One solution raised after the Statement in another place on Monday—it is no more convincing today—was that if the powers were needed, as I believe they are, they would certainly be needed for as long as the Prevention of Terrorism Act was required. That Act is already subject to annual renewal. Debates on the renewal are informed by the report of the independent reviewer who scrutinises its operation. I cannot see how it would help us to debate again the content of this Bill after three months when there would be very little material on which to base any conclusions about its use. It would certainly help the terrorist if the powers were allowed to lapse, even for a very short time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no suggestion by my noble friend or anybody else that the Bill should cease to have effect before Parliament takes any action. I am sure that what was intended by my noble friend, and indeed all other noble Lords who spoke, was that Parliament should take action before the three months elapsed, not that there should be any interregnum.
Baroness Blatch: That is even more extraordinary. According to this amendment, the time when the Bill
340
will lapse is 12 weeks away. We would have to start considering the matter almost this minute, with a very full parliamentary timetable.
Earl Russell: I am a little puzzled by the argument of the noble Baroness. Is she telling us that the Government had time to put together a Bill between last Thursday and today but would not have enough time to put one together in the next three months?
Baroness Blatch: We have responded very quickly, and I believe effectively, to a particular situation. We have brought this Bill before the House for consideration today. It has been given consideration in another place. This Committee is being invited to accept it today. It is suggested that we may find another, perhaps hurried, period between now and three months' hence when we may have another Bill on the statute book, which perhaps will simply confirm these powers, when we will not even have the experience of policemen as to how these powers have worked in operation. I do not accept that it would be right to do that.
I say that against the background that the Prevention of Terrorism Act—of which this Bill will be part—more than any other Act of Parliament in history is constantly monitored. It has an independent reviewer who makes a full report to Parliament on an annual basis. He looks at files, interviews people and inspects all of the practical operations and the way in which the Act of Parliament is used. He makes a recommendation to Parliament on an annual basis. Alongside that, we think it right that Parliament should give thought to what would happen if there was a cessation of hostilities in Ireland but nevertheless we had to face the real possibility raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Baroness Cox (in previous amendments this afternoon), that terrorism in one form or another would be with us. It is right that the work now being undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, should consider this new scenario. What happens when the present hostilities cease? Will there be a place for a permanent Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book?
As I said in respect of the last amendment, Section 27 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of which this measure will be a part, gives the Secretary of State power to revoke any part or all of the Act if he believes that there is a case for so doing. I believe that he has taken the best possible advice that he can. In response to the police saying that they need these powers, he has asked Parliament for them. He has asked for those powers speedily, because he believes it is right that the police should have these powers as soon as possible. Full all-party discussions have taken place. The shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, has agreed not only that the powers should be accepted but the speed at which the Bill is being taken through Parliament.
I make no excuses for saying that I do not believe this amendment, or any alternative suggestion, should be accepted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that temporary legislation tended to last for ever. This is rather different, in that there is a formal

341
reviewing process. Parliament returns to it on an annual basis. We also have a major review going on. This is not a piece of legislation that is without constant review.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me what the Bill added. Perhaps slightly disingenuously, he does not accept that I gave a fairly full description of each of the clauses of the Bill. I explained where they added to existing powers. They are extensions of existing powers. I also explained that some clauses of the Bill cleared up uncertainties in the present law, and it was important that this matter should be statutorily underpinned.
The point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had nothing whatsoever to do with this particular amendment or indeed the Bill.
Earl Longford: It has everything to do with it. Security depends entirely on the number of police, according to the police.
Baroness Blatch: This matter is about whether or not the Bill should lapse in three months' time. That is the point that I address at the moment. Nevertheless, I shall answer the noble Earl's question. We have agreed that there should be 5,000 extra policemen. The first tranche has been dealt with in this year's expenditure round. This pledge was made over a three-year period. It is our intention that over a three-year period there will be funding for 5,000 extra policemen.
As the proposers of the amendment appear to believe, the Bill is not a radically new approach to the problems of terrorism. It builds on the existing powers and provides further practical and sensible measures. We do not believe that it warrants such excessive caution that it should lapse in three months' time and another Bill should be hurriedly prepared in its stead. I believe that we should allow the normal processes to apply, pass the Bill today, await the proper monitoring exercise and report to Parliament in a year's time.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the Minister if she thought I was being disingenuous. I shall, naturally, read extremely carefully what she said on Second Reading. It is not possible, in a technical matter of this sort, to take in every word the first time one hears it. No doubt, in a perfect world, one might be able to. If I failed, I apologise.
However, I am not satisfied by the Minister's reply to me on the other point about the drafting of the Bill. She said that she did not see what could be different in three months. What could be different is that we could have a parliamentary input into the drafting of the legislation. That seems to me to be important.
The Minister said "we", and by "we" she appeared to mean the Home Office—I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong—would not have had time to do the monitoring and would not have been able to think of a better version. But is it not possible that in any clause or subsection of the Bill all the accumulated wisdom of this place might not think of a better wording than that of the Government? I find that a strange suggestion. My right honourable friend Mr. Beith said yesterday in
342
another place that this appeared to him to be legislation by decree and that Parliament might as well go home. I had not repeated that remark, but now I do.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on that point. I do not believe that I said, although I, too, will have to read what I did say in Hansard tomorrow, that we would not have time. When I say "we" I mean the Government. I speak for the Government on this matter. I merely said that if the Bill, according to the amendment, is to lapse in three months' time, then work to determine what should follow it, if anything, would have to start immediately. These provisions will only go on the statute book today. Therefore there will be no experience of the operation of the measures to give us any feel of how they should be modified, removed, or added to. That is the point I was making.
The noble Earl talked of government by decree. When my right honourable friend took the view, and gained the agreement of the whole Cabinet, that these provisions should be asked for of Parliament he made it his business, as I said, without any delay, to involve all of the parties in that process. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier, it is better that there should be an all-party approach to legislation of this kind. We could not have resorted to the procedure without the acquiesence of the Official Opposition. That was necessary. Without it, we could not have proceeded in this way. We could not have used this process to bring the Bill before Parliament.
It was my right honourable friend's intention to bring before Parliament a Bill containing these powers. But we may have had to resort to other measures to do so. The honourable Member, the shadow Home Secretary in another place, did not just accept the case for the measures; he accepted the need for speed. It was because he agreed with that that we are today dealing with the Bill in this way. Therefore it is not government by decree. I find that a disparaging remark about a Home Secretary responding to what I believe was a request by the police who are at the front line of fighting terrorism on behalf of us all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been an interesting debate, and, I believe, probably a useful one. I thank all noble Lords who spoke to the amendment and who have given me support, sympathy, qualified sympathy, qualified support, or what have you. I shall not attempt to reply to all the points made; they were all extremely useful. However, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who paid me the compliment of saying that he usually agrees with me. Perhaps I can return it and say that I usually agree with him. That means that there are two great minds operating in this place at present. However, I do not believe that he was here for the Second Reading debate. I want to make clear what I said then, because it is important that he and the Committee know that I support the measures contained in the Bill but not the way the Bill is being put through Parliament.
I said on Second Reading that I cannot be accused of being a softie on crime or terrorism. I am, if anything, a hard-liner, anti-criminal, and victim friendly. I detest

343
the terrorist murderers of the IRA and regret that instead of being defeated and routed before the peace process got under way they were let off the hook and allowed to rearm and regroup. I hope that the noble Viscount will not disagree with that.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded us of previous Bills which have gone through this place in haste and which have been repented at leisure. He mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Bill. The one that comes to my mind introduced unit fines. We found ourselves fining burglars £40 and fining people who parked on double yellow lines £500. That is why the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, should be taken into account.
I fully expected the Minister to reject the amendment. I did not think she would reject it so unsympathetically. I was proposing not merely that the Bill should lapse. I began my remarks by saying that we would expect another Bill to come to this place immediately after the Whitsun Recess. That would have given this place three months to consider properly and fully the important measures that are being proposed. That would be much more preferable than pushing through both Houses in a couple of days measures which cannot be properly considered.
I greatly regret that the Government will not take on board some of the suggestions made, particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rodgers, giving a much longer time than my three months which I appreciate may be a little short. The Government have not accepted in any way that there can be room for further consideration and discussion. That I greatly regret.
As I said, I understand the need for the legislation. I am only sorry that the Government will not give on parliamentary discussion and the rights of Parliament to ensure that legislation of this sort is considered properly. Having said that, I am not intending to press the amendment. I thank the Committee for discussing it seriously and in depth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Crime and Sentencing
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on crime and sentencing which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about crime and sentencing. I am today publishing a White Paper, Protecting the Public, which sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy to
344
tackle crime. That strategy is designed to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent crime; the police have the powers and resources they need to catch criminals; the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted; and criminals are properly punished.
"There is clear evidence that this strategy is working. Last week I announced that recorded crime has fallen for the past three years in succession. That has happened only twice before this century. In 1995 there were 468,000 fewer crimes committed than in 1992—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes.
"I pay tribute to the police, and all those local communities with which they work in partnership, for this achievement. But crime is still far too high. There is more to be done. That is why I announced a series of radical new sentencing proposals last October in Blackpool. They have one simple aim: to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals.
"First, honesty in sentencing. At present, offenders sentenced to less than four years in prison can expect to be released after serving just half their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can expect to be released after serving between half and two-thirds of their sentence. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. I therefore propose to abolish it.
"Under our proposals there would be no more automatic early release. Prisoners who co-operated and behaved well would be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. This will ensure that sentences actually served are much more closely matched to those handed out by the courts. In addition, it will give prisoners a strong incentive to behave properly in prison. On release, all prisoners serving 12 months or more would be supervised by the Probation Service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original prison sentence. The courts would be expected to take full account of these changes in the sentences they pass.
"Secondly, persistent serious sexual and violent offenders. The maximum penalty for crimes like rape and attempted murder is life imprisonment. The advantage of the life sentence is that the offender will be released if, and only if, the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But serious sexual or violent offenders rarely get life, even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence. All could have received a life sentence, but only 10 did.
"Offenders who do not receive a life sentence have to be released from prison after serving two-thirds of their sentence, even if everyone working with them knows that they are likely to commit another serious crime on some innocent member of the public. And the sad reality is that many of them do. In 1994, around 40 serious violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of a second such offence. I believe that this is indefensible. I therefore propose that anyone aged

345
18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
"In these indeterminate life sentence cases, the trial judge, not Ministers, would set the tariff—the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once that tariff had been served the Parole Board would decide whether it was safe to release the offender or not. If the Parole Board decided that offenders still posed a danger to the public, then they would remain in prison. Those considered safe would be released on life licence and subject to recall to prison at any time during the rest of their lives.
"Thirdly, drug dealers. Drug dealers are a scourge on society. They prey on the young and the innocent. They wreck people's lives. And because addicts often resort to crime to finance their habits they wreck the livelihoods of others. Dealers in hard drugs like heroin, ecstasy and cocaine usually receive prison sentences. But in many cases these prison sentences are not long enough for those who persistently commit this very serious crime.
"A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs was just over four years. And these offenders are automatically released after serving only two and a half years. We need to send a strong and clear signal that persistent dealing in hard drugs is not something we are prepared to tolerate. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted on three separate occasions of dealing in Class A drugs should receive a minimum sentence of seven years in prison.
"Next, burglary. All burglary is disruptive and costly. But domestic burglary is particularly distressing for victims who lose their treasured personal possessions and feel that the sanctity of their home has been violated. I believe persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences. Yet they rarely get them.
"A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown Courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first time offender was 16.2 months. Even after three or more convictions it was only 18.9 months. And after seven or more convictions it was barely higher at 19.4 months—and they actually serve just half of that. Indeed, 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary in the Crown Court were not sent to prison at all. And in the magistrates' courts that figure was even higher at 61 per cent. I simply do not believe that this gives the public the protection they deserve. And these sentences do not deter career burglars for whom the occasional short stretch in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard.
"That is why I propose a minimum sentence of three years for anyone aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary for a third time. In addition, I hope the courts will use to the full their new powers to seize burglars' assets. The prospect of long prison
346
sentences, coupled with loss of their possessions, will, I have no doubt, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred. But at least communities will get a lengthy break from their criminal activities.
"There will be 5,000 more policemen to help catch burglars; new vigorous police tactics designed to take the offensive to the burglar; long sentences for persistent burglars; and the prospect of their own property being seized. These are my proposals to take on the burglar as never taken on before. I have no doubt that they will be warmly supported by the public.
"I accept that there may very occasionally be cases where it would not be reasonable for the court to impose the minimum sentence. I therefore propose that the courts should have the discretion not to impose it in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
"I summarise my proposals. Automatic early release from prison will be ended. Anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime will receive a life sentence. Persistent domestic burglars will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of three years and those dealing in hard drugs, seven years.
"These are deliberately tough sentences designed to deal with serious persistent and wholly unacceptable offending by individual criminals. I accept that they are likely to lead to an increase in the prison population. The necessary prison places will need to be built and this will require extra resources. But I believe that we simply cannot afford not to take this action.
"I intend to phase in the proposals. The provisions to deal with second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and drug dealers will be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I intend to implement the provisions to deal with persistent burglars and honesty in sentencing two years later as new prison places become available.
"I intend to consult fully on the proposals set out in this White Paper. I shall carefully consider the points made. Having done that, I propose to introduce a Bill giving effect to my proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
"Madam Speaker, the first duty of government is to maintain law and order; to protect people's freedom to walk safely on their streets and sleep safely in their homes. We have taken action to ensure that the balance in our criminal justice system favours the law abiding public, not the criminal. The police have revolutionised the way they fight crime—targeting known and persistent criminals with impressive results. And the public are increasingly playing their part—through Neighbourhood Watch, Street Watch and the Special Constabulary.
"The proposals I have set out today are aimed at protecting the public from those who persistently commit offences which cause particular public concern—serious violent or sexual offences, drug dealing and domestic burglary. They will ensure that once caught and convicted, persistent and dangerous criminals are properly punished. The proposals are

347
tough. And they should be. They are needed to protect the public and to build a safer Britain. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should introduce my remarks with a caveat. The Minister knows that, apart from 20 minutes, I have been in my place since 11.30 this morning. Therefore, I have had no opportunity to consult my honourable and right honourable friends in another place. Therefore, I preface my remarks with what I may call—in variation of a cigarette packet—an Opposition health warning. Any differences that are detected between my response and that of Mr. Jack Straw will be the subject of full and frank discussion in the future.
By any standards, this is an extraordinary Statement, and it is an extraordinary Statement to make on the day on which the House rises even for a brief Easter Recess. It starts with a series of statements which depart widely from the experience of ordinary people in relation to crime, and it fails to reflect at all the experience and incidence of crime over the period of 17 years of this Conservative Government.
The Secretary of State says that everything possible is being done to prevent crime. But he neglects to remind Parliament that it is the Labour Party which has emphasised throughout the importance of crime prevention and the relationship between the police and local authorities and local communities in crime prevention. The Government have resisted those changes.
The Secretary of State talks quite rightly about the powers and resources needed by the police, the need to ensure that the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted and that criminals are properly punished. Nobody disagrees with any of that but all that must be seen within the context of a free civil society. After all, that is the basis of our criminal justice system.
The Home Secretary talks about evidence that the strategy is working. He did indeed announce a fall in recorded crime; but it is noticeable that violent crime, including burglary—in other words, the kind of crime with which his proposed minimum sentences are concerned—has actually increased, as has all crime in the past six months.
I turn to the issue of honesty in sentencing. We must remind the House that the provisions for automatic remission were not invented by a Labour Government. They came out of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which was put forward by this Government. This Government introduced the idea of automatic remission. They persisted in saying that that automatic remission is important from the point of view of discipline.
Throughout, the Labour Party has been in favour of honesty and truth in sentencing. We do not believe that there should be automatic remission at the half-way stage of a sentence. We believe that sentences should be adjusted to reflect the reality and that the parole system,
348
rather than the remission system, should be used both to reward good behaviour, to keep discipline in prisons, and above all to ensure that there is the potential for release for those, and only those, who can safely be released into the community.
Therefore, we agree with the Home Secretary that automatic early release from prison is undesirable and we support legislation to that effect. But we must remind him that it is the Government's problem and not a problem which has been introduced by anybody else.
At the same time, we remind him that unless there is a change in sentencing guidelines to make sure that that does not result simply in a doubling of effective sentences, then the effect on the prison population will be dramatic.
The Home Secretary then turned to the issue of minimum sentences. First, he talked about persistent sexual and violent offenders. We share with him his concern about the increase in sexual offences in particular. But again I remind the House that the incidence of rape has increased four-fold since this Government first came into office in 1980; that the possibility of conviction for rape has been improved, in particular as a result of the possibility of DNA testing; and yet in absolute terms, there are fewer convictions for rape than there were 16 years ago. There is something seriously wrong with our law in relation to rape but it is the problem of failing to secure convictions for rape rather than the sentences which are important.
Instead of proposing minimum sentences or automatic life sentences for repeated rapists, we have a much more wide-ranging proposal which has been publicised in recent weeks by the shadow Home Secretary—that is, all sentences for sexual offences of this kind should be subject to review before release is made possible, even at the end of the sentence.
We recognise the genuine and proper concern about those who serve their full sentence for rape without receiving parole and who are released into the community not having been cured of their impulse for rape. I know that it is a difficult thing to do when there are normally determinate sentences but a way must be found to ensure that the protection which is possible when prisoners are released on parole is available also at the end of their sentences for those who have disorders of the kind which lead to rape and who would be a danger to the community if released. We are just as concerned as the Government about protection for the community from both sexual and violent criminals but we believe there are ways other than the imposition of minimum sentences to deal with that problem.
The Statement then goes on to deal with the issues of drug dealers and burglary. Of course, the Secretary of State is right to say that drug dealing is a dreadful scourge. He is right to say that dealing in Class A drugs is one of the worst ways of breaking up civil society in this country. He is also right, although perhaps to a lesser extent, about burglary. The shock and offence caused by burglary, even when the amounts are small, are very profound as anyone who has been burgled knows from personal experience.

349
I seriously wonder whether minimum sentences of the kind proposed by the Home Secretary are the right way to deal with the problems. After all, both drug dealing and burglary are conspicuous among offences which vary enormously in their seventy. Even drug dealing in Class A drugs could be on a very small scale while burglary might consist simply of putting one's hand through an open window to steal a milk bottle. Is it seriously proposed that there should be minimum sentences of the sort proposed for three separate offences of putting a hand through an open window to steal a milk bottle? I cannot believe that that would be the case. I am surprised that the Minister picked on offences where, very often, cautions are used rather than arrest to introduce the new concept of minimum sentencing.
Of course we must protect the public, but I do not believe that minimum sentencing of the sort proposed is the right way to do it. All the omens are against it. After the proposal was first mooted by the Home Secretary in his speech at the Conservative Party conference, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, wrote a very effective letter to The Times in October of last year in which described the situation in California. There is huge encouragement there for people to plead not guilty because a guilty plea automatically leads to imprisonment for life, 99 years or whatever it is, even for stealing a pizza. Indeed, that has actually happened in California. The courts and remand places in prison have become clogged up, the prison population has increased enormously and the prison budget is now greater than the higher education budget. That cannot be the right approach to the problem. I am sorry that it has not been possible for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to be in his place today. I am sure that he would have delivered a withering attack on the proposals, as he did in October last year.
Similarly, Ministers now appear to be deriding the work of the Parole Board. I find that extraordinary when we consider that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who carried out a review of the board. It has been suggested that prison sentences are not being served enough in custody and that that, apart from remission, is the responsibility of the Parole Board. Yet a review of parole procedures revealed that parole was not being used excessively and that it was essential not only for deterrence but also for securing a civilised regime and discipline in our prisons.
To make our sentences more literal than they are now will cause enormous difficulties for the Prison Service. I have in mind the effect of the proposals in terms of the prison budget. Estimates of the increase in the prison population vary greatly but none comes to less than about 10,000. That means that over the period to which the Home Secretary referred we are talking about at least £1 billion in capital expenditure, and a huge increase in revenue cost and budgets for the Prison Service. Can the Minister say from where—what other budget—that money will come?
The Statement represents a complete U-turn on everything the Government have said, especially on the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We are discussing a problem which has occurred and grown within the lifetime of the
350
Conservative Government and which has been exacerbated by the lack of consistency and progression in sentencing which the Conservative Government have either encouraged, as they did in legislation, or allowed to happen. The Statement must be taken in the light of the complete failure of the Government seriously to tackle the problem of violent crime and to deal with the problem of the failure of conviction for violent crime. It is a deplorable Statement. I realise that the proposals will come before the House for scrutiny during the next parliamentary Session. Let us hope that the next Session is sufficiently curtailed to make it impossible for the proposals to become law.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. In his concluding remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied that your Lordships would be satisfied—if that is the proper word—if a debate took place on the proposals on the Second Reading of the Bill which has been promised. Speaking from these Benches, I have to say that we would not be satisfied if we had to wait until the next parliamentary Session to debate the White Paper. It is a document of over 30,000 words and far more substantial, for inevitable and understandable reasons, than the Statement made by the Minister. I believe that the issues raised by the White Paper are of such importance and destined clearly to be the subject of so much public debate that we should have an opportunity to discuss them at a very early stage.
The White Paper refers to consultation. I shall return later to what that means. If there is to be consultation, the process should begin with Parliament. For that reason, if she is not able to give a positive reply today, I hope that the Minister will make known to her noble friends that a debate before the Summer Recess is highly desirable. I am sure that time could be found.
If not in the Statement made in another place, there are certainly many cadences in the White Paper of speeches made by the Home Secretary at Conservative Party conferences. Indeed, there is much about the White Paper that is more a manifesto than the sort of document that governments are expected to set before Parliament. Even the language is pejorative from time to time; for example, the heading "Honesty in sentencing" implies that in some way there is dishonesty in present policies as they are exercised and applied by the courts. I am sure that that was not the intention. But much of the language in the document is not language I would regard as parliamentary. It is meant principally to appeal to an audience outside.
In the Statement—as, indeed, in the White Paper—there is very plain reference to retribution and deterrence. I am not saying that retribution, although I find it a dangerous and ugly motive at all times, and deterrence have no place in our penal policies. But redemption and rehabilitation also have a part to play. There is nothing in what the Minister said, and very little that I have been able to find in the White Paper, which suggests that the policy towards those committing crime is other than, "Lock up the largest possible

351
number and keep them there for the longest possible time." That is an inadequate policy. In her heart, I am sure that the Minister must know that.
The White Paper, though not the Statement, contains some of the information which I am sure the House requires about the additional number of prisoners we may expect and the quantum of "x" resources; in other words, how much all this will cost. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the questions put initially by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: how many more men and women do we expect to be in prison as a result of the proposals? Is it a figure of 10,800, which I think is mentioned in paragraph 13.8 of the White Paper? What will be the cost? I understand from the White Paper that 12 new prisons will be required, but the figures in paragraph 13 are not at all clear to me. I am not sure whether they refer to capital cost per annum or capital cost over a period of time and whether there is any item included there for the current costs of this much larger prison population. If we do not have the facts straight today, this is a further reason for an early debate on the matter.
There is a reference in the Statement to the number of life sentences for persistent sexual or violent offenders. I believe that the figure for such offenders for the previous year for which figures were available was 217, of whom only 10 were given in effect a life sentence in the circumstances described by this White Paper. That suggests that another 207 new life sentences a year will be required for persistent sexual or violent offenders. If I have misunderstood the figures, perhaps the Minister would explain them. I mention that simply to illustrate the prospect of a much larger population than hitherto.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly referred to the nature of burglary. Of course it is offensive. It is an intrusion into privacy and it causes a great deal of pain, in addition to the harm that it does. I see the arguments within the White Paper repeated in the Statement today. However, to say that there will be a three-year minimum sentence for anyone over 18 convicted of domestic burglary for a third time is surely going too far. How many of the 38,000 people convicted of domestic burglary in 1994 would have gone to prison for a three-year sentence had the policy of the White Paper then prevailed? Under this heading also there is a reference to exceptional circumstances. It would be helpful to know what those exceptional circumstances are.
I referred earlier to consultation and the need to consult this House as part of that consultation, but it would be helpful to know where the Minister believes there is room for consultation. I said that the White Paper read a little like a manifesto. Certainly it reads like a White Paper and not a Green Paper, or even a White Paper with green edges. If there is to be consultation, where is that meaningful consultation to occur? The Minister may know about that and, if so, I should be grateful if she would inform the House.
The document is entitled Protecting the Public, but the greatest protection for the public would be afforded if those who go to prison come out less likely to commit a crime again. That surely must be the test of any policy
352
of this kind. We want men and women who are released into the community to be those least likely to offend again. I do not believe that anything in the Statement—I have not yet found it in the White Paper—leads us to expect that the public will be faced with anything other than a larger and larger prison population costing the earth and quite unable to settle back into normal life on release. To use the jargon which is so common today, I do not see any value for money in that. This may be a robust, populist policy but I do not believe on the evidence that it is a balanced or responsible one. It will mislead the public that they will be better protected. It is an inadequate short-term response to a serious long-term problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall respond to the two Front Bench speakers. As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I should say at the outset that I accept the constraints on the noble Lord in terms of the time he has had to peruse this Statement, and also the fact that both he and I have been fairly preoccupied for most of today. Therefore I accept entirely what he has said. That leads me to the next point which has been made not only by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, concerning how long we must wait for a debate. I hope that both noble Lords will realise that I personally cannot answer that question at the Dispatch Box. However, I have every sympathy with those who asked that question and I shall make sure that all the usual channels are aware that a debate on this White Paper is called for. Much of what the noble Lord had to say was by way of comments on the White Paper after a cursory scan through it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they were not comments on the White Paper as I had not even had a chance to open it; they were comments on the Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that they were comments on the Statement. We debated possible alternatives—in other words, we entered the debate about means to ends. I do not intend to pick up all the points that were raised by the noble Lord because the Statement introduced the White Paper but the intention is that it should be read more carefully and that we should all return to this matter with more considered views on it. We shall certainly welcome that.
The noble Lord made a number of points that lead me to say that the whole purpose of the measure is consultative. We look forward to what will be said and written in response to the White Paper. It is our intention to continue that exchange of views. It is certainly our intention to listen and to consider most carefully all that is said and written in response to the White Paper. My intention is to help Members of this House to understand our proposals.
I wish to put it on record that in the course of reading the Statement I did not deride the Parole Board. I believe the Parole Board has worked diligently over the years. The Statement referred to the fact that the Parole Board has a real place as regards the proposals, which is different from the place it has at the moment

353
but nevertheless it will constitute an important part of the risk assessment process. The noble Lord got closest to asking a question—if he had questions at all—when he asked about the increase in the prison population and how the costs of that would be met. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, also referred to that. Paragraph 13.8 sets out quite clearly our view of how we believe the number of prison places will increase. I hope that on reading that whole section about prison places, the noble Lord will accept that that is our guesstimate. As regards costs, we know that it will be costly and that there will be a considerable expansion of prison places. We seek in particular not to return to the days of three prisoners to a cell. We are still dedicated to a programme of reducing overcrowding. That leads to the need for new institutions. The Private Finance Initiative will meet some of this need. No doubt we shall debate the costs of the programme in far greater detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in a slightly disparaging way said that the White Paper resembled party manifestos or party conference speeches. It is a genuine response to public concern. If the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has not picked that up, I must tell him that I certainly have, and so too has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We have responded genuinely to public concern not just about crime but also as regards the confidence on the part of the public in the criminal justice system. Those two issues are being properly addressed in this White Paper.
I agreed with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that we should seek to protect the public. I certainly agree with that. He also said that we should concentrate on those who are less likely to commit crime again. Certainly there are initiatives to try to prevent crime which have arisen through work in our schools and in the community and through engaging in partnership with all sorts of people, including the community itself, in fighting crime. I believe that should be pursued with great energy. The noble Lord also said that we should release into the community those people who are least likely to commit crime again. That is precisely what is intended by the proposals: that people should be released into the community only after proper risk assessment. That risk assessment should take into account the likelihood of reoffending.
The law is not comprehensive in this respect. I have had personal examples given to me as I have visited prisons in my role as a Home Office Minister. All the people concerned with a specific prisoner—it may be prison officers, outside agencies or voluntary agencies working with him—say, "I know this person is a risk but they have come to the end of their sentence"; and the Prison Service, and even the probation service sometimes, have no locus in continuing supervision of that person. That needs to be addressed. We may argue about means to an end. But I believe from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said—he nods from a sedentary position—that the issue needs to be addressed.
354
I conclude on this point. In the White Paper we are talking about violent and/or sexual offenders, persistent burglars and drug traffickers. I believe that those are the sort of people who should be in prison and should have more effective prison sentences.
5.11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank about the meaning of paragraph 13.9. The sentence that concerns us is as follows:
"The cost of these prisons, together with the recurring current costs of new houseblocks and rebuilt prisons, would reach an estimated peak of £375m-£435m by 2011–2012".
Will the Minister tell us whether that is a cumulative figure for the total cost over all those years? Is it an annual cost which will reach that peak level in that year? Are these capital costs? Are these recurrent costs? Above all, are those the total costs of the measures announced in the Statement? I appreciate that the noble Baroness has been extremely busy today. However, she is in a position to obtain advice. If it does not arrive in time, perhaps she will write to my noble friend and myself and place a copy in the Library. The point is of considerable public importance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am able to give the answer straightaway. They are the estimates of the running costs in that year. It is not the total cost.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I welcome the new policy of honesty in sentencing. On earlier occasions in your Lordships' House I have deplored the enormous disparity between what one might describe as gross and net sentences respectively. It confuses the public and makes them cynical about the criminal justice system. It is good that the gap has been closed.
Having said that, I believe that it would be dangerous and undesirable if there were to be no remission for good behaviour. I am pleased to hear that the Government propose that remission of up to 20 per cent. can be earned.
I am uneasy about the proposal for imposing an automatic life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence. Exactly how does one define a serious sexual offence? Does it include, for example, rape within marriage, or what is colloquially known as date rape when a young man misunderstands the signals sent out to him by a young woman of his own age, or where the young woman having invited the young man into her bed suddenly changes her mind at the last moment? I believe that the general public would be quite horrified if young men were to be sentenced to life imprisonment for a second such offence. I shall he grateful if the noble Baroness will clarify that point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble Lord in welcoming the honesty in sentencing proposals. It is certainly true that there is great confusion among the public about this. I also welcome his comments about remission. One of the beneficial moves on remission—it is already under

355
way—is that it should be earned. We have moved from the days when remission was given in a relaxed way. It should be earned. I hope that that will have an impact on behaviour in prisons and make them more manageable places; and that those who are released are released on the basis of good behaviour.
I note the concerns of the noble Lord about the life sentencing policy. I also note that he has raised an important point. When the measure comes before the House for the purposes of legislation, it will be essential to have a proper definition of what we mean by serious and violent sexual offenders. In the meantime it will be a matter for consultation.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I have said before, no one blames the noble Baroness for any policy of this kind that she announces. She is just the angel of light speaking on behalf of the prince of darkness. She does her best.
I agree with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the acting Leader on our Front Benches, who called it a deplorable document. I would call it an evil document—he chooses his words possibly more carefully and perhaps more gently—and it will be so regarded throughout the Prison Service. The noble Baroness is highly intelligent. She must be aware that the policies of Mr. Howard, in contrast with the policies of the six preceding Conservative Home Secretaries, are viewed with detestation and contempt in the prisons. That is important in enabling the Prison Service to play a constructive part. The relationship between the Prison Service and the prisoners can be fatally undermined by such policies.
I had the honour of being chairman of a committee set up by the late Lord Wilson in 1964 which introduced parole. The Government are virtually destroying the parole system. It denies hope to prisoners in denying them the possibility of proving themselves to be much better people than they seemed at the time of their trial. There is no getting round that. One either holds out hope or one does not. The Government are virtually destroying that hope.
I have a positive question for the noble Baroness. The Government have said that they are cutting the amount of money going to the Prison Service. Will they still make those cuts to the Prison Service when introducing policies which will lead to a vast increase in the prison population?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Please may I leave now", with the description of "angel of light" ringing in my ears. It is only a matter of days since the noble Earl referred to me as a maiden of darkness working for the prince of darkness; perhaps I have come a long way since last week.
The noble Earl makes an important point. It relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I refer to working constructively with prisoners in prison with educational programmes and rehabilitation programmes to address their offending.
We are committed to working with offenders to address their offending behaviour both inside prison and after their release. The intention is that they should be
356
supervised after release. The noble Earl has had experience of those programmes in operation. The sex offender treatment programme is an excellent example of the work done with prisoners while they are serving their sentence. The White Paper makes it clear that all offenders serving 12 months or more will be supervised for a period after their release.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to cuts. We have had debates about that previously. The intention is that there will be an increase in management efficiency. There will be an increase in the effectiveness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of running our prisons. It is a rather tense time at present. But the intention is that it should not affect the front-line services in our prisons; and it is our intention that it should not affect the programmes that we wish to be carried out in prisons which we believe will have a material effect on the quality of life of prisoners after they have served their sentences.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that up. I do not understand the answer. There will be a huge increase in the prison population. It may be 10,000; some people think that it will he more than 20,000. Does that mean that the cuts will still apply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I referred to the extra places being made available to prisons now. That money is additional.
As the noble Earl knows, the efficiency cuts are 9 per cent. over three years and they are on the base budget of the prisons. But there will be extra money for extra places. There will be those sums of money to provide the new places and for the running of the prisons when they come on stream.

BSE (Agriculture)
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the emergency Council which has just concluded in Luxembourg and related matters.
"The high level of public concern over BSE continues to cause very grave problems for farmers and for all parts of the food chain. The whole Government have been following the situation closely, day by day, in an effort to identify any problems as they arise and to find solutions.
"It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of the precipitate decision taken by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries around the world. Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have borne no relation at all to the science. I hope that soon

357
normality will return. I will come back in a moment to the Community front and the outcome of the Council which ended this morning in Luxembourg.
"At home my ministerial colleagues have kept in close touch with industry organisations to obtain a full picture of what is going on in a fast-moving situation. We are meeting any organisations wishing to talk to us about how their members are affected. There are encouraging signs that confidence is returning.
"In particular, I am encouraged at reports from retailers that their customers are looking for beef in the shops again. Retailers have met with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and have reported that they need to begin buying beef again. So those with cattle to send to market should know that there are willing buyers for British beef.
"From our discussions with supermarkets it is clear that they would favour a quality assurance scheme. We agree. My officials are working up some detailed proposals as a matter of urgency. The wholesale trade is beginning to return as a result of the revival of retail sales.
"The Government recognise that one consequence of these developments which needs to be addressed immediately is a blockage in the slaughterhouse sector as a result of cash flow problems which may be inhibiting the flow of meat through the system. The Government are determined to restore movement in the processing system in order to enable market confidence to recover.
"As an immediate but necessary interim measure, I can announce that all slaughterhouses that continue to handle beef will with immediate effect be relieved from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges in respect of 1995–96 and for an interim period. My department will seek additional resources to cover the loss of revenue to the Meat Hygiene Service through a Supplementary Estimate.
"In order to quantify the difficulties facing the industry, qualified expert accountants are being appointed forthwith to provide urgent advice on the immediate problems of the industry and how they could be solved. Those solutions will be the subject of close consultation with the slaughtering industry itself. Simultaneously the Government are approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the costs to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business. By these means, I hope I have demonstrated the Government's commitment to maintaining the vital contribution of the slaughterhouse sector to the meat processing chain and the essential immediate task of facilitating the flow of fresh meat through the system to retailers' and consumers' demand.
"We have continued to discuss with farmers the orders that we laid last week. As a result of these discussions I have today laid an order amending the Beef (Emergency Control)(Amendment) Order 1996 to provide for the age of cattle to be determined either by "dentition"—the stage of development of teeth—
358
or by reliable independently verifiable documents. I believe this will remove the main cause of uncertainty among farmers and help restore the flow of cattle through auction markets and to abattoirs.
"The public and the retailers are rightly looking for reassurance that the process of slaughtering cattle and dressing carcase meat is carried out with the greatest possible attention not only to legal requirements but also to general standards of hygiene. The Meat Hygiene Service has a crucial role. This agency, which was set up just a year ago, has performed a key part in our action against BSE since then. The agency's budget will need to be increased to cover the cost of additional staff who are now being recruited.
"In view of the heightened public interest I propose to introduce a quarterly published bulletin which will report the latest results of audits by the Meat Hygiene Service and State Veterinary Service on compliance with meat hygiene regulations and enforcement action taken. This will, I hope, demonstrate the continuing efforts which the UK meat industry is making progressively to raise standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses.
"I shall shortly be placing before the House performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service for the coming year. These will need to reflect the additional duties resulting for the Meat Hygiene Service from the new measures I am announcing today and those announced on 20th and 24th March.
"I turn now to the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers which started in Luxembourg on 1st April and which ended at 6 a.m. this morning. Considerable efforts were made over two days and two nights by Minister Lucchetti for the Presidency and Mr. Fischler for the Commission, but I fear that the propositions on the table at the end of the meeting did not meet our central requirement that the export ban should be lifted. As our partners were not prepared to accept that, it was not possible for the UK to endorse the Council's conclusions.
"The BSE crisis has presented the Community as a whole with a challenge of major proportions. The Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based and fair. The United Kingdom is making a major effort to contribute to that Community response. Arrangements will be introduced to ensure that all bovine animals over the age of 30 months at the time of slaughter will not enter the human food or animal feed chains. This scheme will take the place of the compulsory deboning for which SEAC recently called.
"It is right that we should contribute in this way to solving the Community problems caused by the BSE crisis. But the United Kingdom also has the right to expect a fair and balanced response from our Community partners to the particular difficulties faced by UK producers.
"The Community's first response to the BSE crisis was the imposition of a total export ban against UK animals and products. That ban is not justified. It is not based on sound scientific analysis. It is disproportionate. It should be removed.

359
"I made clear that any Council conclusions, to be acceptable to us, must include either agreement to lift the ban forthwith or a procedure and timetable to that end. It was not possible to reach such an agreement. I was therefore unable to endorse the drafts that were before the Council, despite the very real progress that has been made. It remains my intention to work in co-operation with other member states and the Commission to find a satisfactory and rapid solution to the problems which confront us all. Nevertheless some progress was made over the past few days, and there are specific steps which we can now take, with financial support from the European Union.
"First, we shall make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for cattle over the age of 30 months as they come to market to be slaughtered under special supervision and destroyed and disposed of in a safe manner. As a matter of urgency I am considering with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the options for the disposal of the additional waste that would arise from these measures. Our objective is to identify the best practicable option and to ensure that the waste is dealt with in a manner which protects the environment and human health.
"I emphasis that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme in the sense that such a phrase is ordinarily used. The objective is to take older cattle, cows and bulls coming on to the market for slaughter in the normal way at the end of their working life and to take steps to prevent them from entering the human or animal food chain.
"Some attention was focused at the Council on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE. I believe some of our Community partners have exaggerated ideas of what is possible in this area, based on misunderstanding of the nature of BSE. We shall, however, be giving further thought to the idea in consultation with our own farming organisations and others, to whom I know the idea is of interest.
"The Community has taken important steps to stabilise market prices. Intervention support has been extended. The Council authorised purchases of up to 50,000 tonnes in the EU as a whole in April. The Beef Management Committee met while the Council was in session to put that into effect. In Great Britain, the new categories eligible for intervention bring coverage up to 22 per cent. of total UK beef production. Meat will have to be from animals under 30 months of age. These changes will help stabilise prices in the UK and in other member states. They will help restore confidence to the UK beef sector and help restart activity in the slaughtering sector.
"Lastly, with all the new developments of recent days and those that I am now announcing, it is important that all concerned in the industry know where they stand, or can find out immediately if they are not clear. To meet that need I have made arrangements to supplement the helpline service which my department has been providing to deal with
360
inquiries about BSE and the beef export ban. Staff will be on duty throughout the coming Easter holiday to deal with business inquiries. My and other Ministers' private offices will be on duty throughout the Easter Recess to deal with any queries and questions raised by colleagues.
"To conclude, I believe that the steps taken by the Government up till now rest on sound science. It remains our objective to take science as our best guide. Our senior adviser on the science, Professor Pattison, has told us that, with the latest steps we are taking, beef is for all practical purposes safe to eat—safer than it has ever been.
"I see signs that public confidence is returning—but the position taken by our European partners is unhelpful. The sweeping ban on our exports is unjustified and the Government will continue to work by every means possible to get that ban lifted.
"Meanwhile, with all that is being done by Government and industry, British beef is a product that we can be proud of. We shall do all we can to promote and protect it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by his right honourable friend. As always, I declare an interest as the director and shareholder of a farming company with dairy cattle which will be affected by the slaughter policy.
This is the third Statement in 10 days. Each has ended with the same words; namely, that the Government have done enough to satisfy the consumer, our European partners etc. And each time they have had to come back with further proposals. This can hardly be called a triumph of European negotiation. If I wished to be uncharitable, I should say that we have ended up with the worst of all worlds.
The scientific advice was quite clear. Professor Pattison, the chairman of the SEAC, Mr. Ray Bradley, from the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, and others, have all made it clear that there is no scientific reason for a slaughter policy. But we are to have a slaughter policy. This is a purely political decision with which we have agreed, but it has no basis in science. The reason for introducing a slaughter policy was to satisfy and convince our European partners. Now we still have a slaughter policy, but the export ban remains. We do not even have a provisional timetable for lifting the export ban.
I have been around long enough to appreciate that there may have been some commercial factors in the minds of our European partners when they considered this problem, as well as the human health aspect. The fact remains that we shall have to slaughter our cattle, but the export ban is still there.
Not only do we still have the export ban. We have to go back to Brussels in four weeks' time with proposals for the further slaughter of whole herds. As I understand

361
it, these will be animals in full milk production. Therefore what is to be the basis of the new proposals for the selective, or targeted, slaughter?
Before leaving the question of slaughter, it is interesting to note that one group of consumers was asked to rank in importance the various aspects that would restore their confidence. The first was better labelling: "We should like to know what we are eating". The second was clean slaughterhouses and hygiene in abattoirs. Allaying public anxiety through a slaughter policy was 17th on the list.
We asked for an 80 per cent. rebate from our European partners. They started at 70 per cent., and they ended at 70 per cent. The Prime Minister, fresh from his triumphs at Turin, confirmed earlier this week that the contribution from Europe would be deducted from our rebate. Will the Minister tell the House what the final net cost of the policy to the UK taxpayer is likely to be? An article in the Evening Standard today gives a figure for the net value of the European contribution of only £85 million for a policy that is likely to cost in excess of £400 million or even more. I refer to the annual cost.
We must return in four weeks time with a proposal for targeted slaughter. As I understand it, that will affect complete dairy herds, which are deemed to be at greatest danger from BSE. I suggest that the Minister takes into account the situation of dairy farmers, who are the victims, as it were, of the targeted slaughter. They have to get rid of their animals. They may be faced with a large bill for super-levy. Will they be able to roll over their excess quota from last year, which ended on 31st March, into the current year? These are the sort of practical points that the Government will have to take into account.
I turn to the slaughter of the cull cows, the 15,000 per week of dairy and beef animals that have completed their useful life. Will the Government now at last agree to the random sampling of the brains of those slaughtered cull animals? That might help to show the true incidence of the disease. It might even produce an argument for ending the slaughter if the incidence is found to be lower than expected as a result of that examination.
Will the Minister also inform the House as to the latest information on a reliable, live test on cattle? If such a test is found, can we have an absolute assurance that the Government will make it compulsory?
I now turn to the Statement itself and some factual questions. It states that the supermarkets would favour a quality assurance scheme, and the Government agree. We also welcome that. In fact, it was recommended by the Labour Party, I believe last week. As I read the Statement, the relief from inspection charges from the Meat Hygiene Service will be retrospective, since it refers to the year 1995–96. So presumably there will be a repayment of last year's charges. It also says that the department will seek "additional resources". How much is intended to cover the loss of revenue?
There is an interesting suggestion as to extension of the trade indemnity and credit insurance. I ask the Government also to look (this is entirely from memory)
362
at the Agricultural Credit Act 1929. I believe that Act allows the Government to extend credit guarantee to farmers. If it is hard to help through the insurance market, perhaps that is another way that the Government might consider.
The Government are extremely sensible to have an alternative means of determining the age of cattle, either by dentition (to examine the state of the teeth) or by independent verifiable documents. As one wholesaler put it, the meat we import from Argentina has no teeth.
There is also the question of additional staff for the Meat Hygiene Service. Will the Minister say how many it is intended will be employed? If he has the figure, will he tell the House the actual total increase in staff for the MHS after the extra staff has been employed. I believe there has been a reduction in staff over the past few months.
The Statement also says that the Government will make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for the cull cow slaughter. It would be extremely helpful to know what "as soon possible" means. When will that start? As I am sure the Minister knows, cull cows are now piling up on the farms. They are being held back. It is cold, spring is late and forage stocks are low. It is extremely important for practical reasons that we know as quickly as possible when it will start.
Will the Minister explain an ambiguity? I believe I understand the Government's intention, but will he explain his statement that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme? It is compulsory in the sense that, as a dairy farmer, I shall not be able to send my cull cow to any other route except that proposed by the Government. Will he explain that apparent ambiguity? The farmer will not in fact be able to choose whether or not he sends the animal to slaughter and then to the incinerator if it is over 30 months.
Do the Government recognise that the industry is now confronted with huge uncertainty? It has no idea what number of cattle the Government will condemn. It has no idea whether the proposal on targeted slaughter will be acceptable to our European partners. It has no idea when it will again be allowed to export beef and beef products. Does the Minister agree that the industry and consumers cannot be left in limbo until the Government returns to the Commission at the end of April? Will he try to secure an earlier meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and of the Standing Veterinary Committee with a view to reaching an earlier agreement with the European Union? It really is unacceptable that we have to carry on for yet another month in such a state of continued uncertainty. Can the Minister give the House some indication of the number of cattle that he envisages will be targeted under the proposed selective slaughter policy? Has he any idea of the criteria for the slaughter? I appreciate that there are practical difficulties, but some broad guidance in this area would be helpful.
Will the funds from the European Union be available for compensation only to farmers or will they also help towards the cost of incineration and the other expenses arising from these measures? All those involved in the

363
industry understand that the production of meat-and-bonemeal is a major exercise in waste disposal. That is no longer available. I understand that meat-and-bonemeal is still being made, presumably for incineration. Perhaps it will have to be taken into intervention and then burned. That may be the only way to deal with it; otherwise there will be a major waste disposal programme with the untreated offal.
Can the Minister put a rough figure on the cost of all the new measures announced in the last fortnight? Can he also set out the net cost to the UK after deduction of our rebate from the EU budget? My first calculation is that the net value of the funds from Europe will be only £85 million. Last Thursday the Minister in the other place advised that the Lord President of the Council was to convene a committee to address the problems faced by abattoirs and the broader rural economy. Can the Minister say whether there has been any progress with that committee and tell us when we can expect an announcement on assistance?
I am sure that none of us can remember anything in our agricultural lifetimes that remotely resembles this crisis. I can assure the Government that we shall do everything from these Benches to help to restore consumer confidence and repair the damage to the beef industry. We shall certainly wish to call the Government to account. I am delighted, and I know my colleagues agree with me, that the Labour debate which will take place on 17th April will be on that subject. But we can wait until then. All our efforts now have to be spent on limiting the scale of this disaster.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I also wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I have an interest to declare in that I am a farmer. I have a pedigree beef suckler herd which I have bred over 30 years and which has never had a case of BSE. That is in common with many other rearers in this country who have herds of cattle entirely free from BSE.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord just said. I cannot remember a crisis of anything like these proportions. I was in the other place, representing a totally agricultural constituency when the foot-and-mouth epidemic occurred on our borders at Oswestry. But it was nothing compared with the present disaster.
Having said that, and heard the Statement today, perhaps I may first say that I regret to a great extent the tone of the Statement. It is very important that we and our European partners co-operate to the utmost in dealing with this matter. One would have expected a clear exchange of information. The third paragraph of the Statement in fact states:
"It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of the precipitate decision taken by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country, and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries around the world".
I sincerely ask the Minister: who caused the panic? On 20th March a joint Statement was made by two Ministers—which was unusual in itself—in the other place about the possible link between BSE and the human disease. Reference was made to 10 cases which
364
had provided some disturbing evidence. I understand that the Agriculture Commissioner said that he was only informed of that Statement and the grounds for it half an hour before it was delivered in the other place. None of the Agriculture Ministers of the other countries was aware of it. The following day, there was a statement in the Independent newspaper about the possibility of 11 million cattle having to be slaughtered. That was confirmed by the Secretary of State for Health the following day in the other place.
That caused great panic in this country. Are we surprised that it hit the headlines in every European country and every other country? To blame the European Community for a panic reaction is overdoing it, to put it at its slightest. Since that time, we have had great co-operation from the European Community. It is a pity that there are no figures to suggest what the cost of the whole exercise will be and how much will be contributed by the other members of the European Community.
I live in the heart of an agricultural community. I am totally aware of the problems that it faces. For example, our area is a great store cattle rearing area. No store cattle have been sold since this happened. They are all in the pipeline. Farmers do not have the fodder to feed them or the straw. The fatteners who normally every week would be moving them have had to hang on to them. That creates an enormous problem. The slaughterhouses are empty. They have had to discharge staff and so on. Everything is an enormous problem at the moment.
I listened to the Statement and I had read it beforehand. If I were one of those people who advise as a result of inquiries, what could I advise a farmer about his position? How could I advise the slaughtermen or the owners of the slaughterhouses of their position? There is nothing tangible. I am convinced that within two months confidence would have returned. It is interesting that the very distinguished scientist Sir Christopher Cockerell, a Fellow of the Royal Society, wrote a letter to The Times last Saturday from which I quote the third paragraph:
"This means that on present data the odds against dying by eating beef are at least half a million to one against. Crossing a road is many times more dangerous".
So, when the Statement says:
"Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have borne no relation at all to the science",
that is apparently absolutely true. Nevertheless, panic has been created. The question of how to deal with it has now assumed different proportions.
What is required is a subsidy of some kind immediately that has effect all along the line. There are so-called passports for all beef animals. Cannot an additional payment be made there to enable those who are hanging on to the stores to feed them and buy straw and so on? What about the finisher who has held back his stock? No doubt some of those cattle will be getting into over-condition. The finishers will need some kind of payment to carry them over the next two months. In a similar way, the slaughterhouses have an enormous

365
problem of dealing with offal that has not been disposed of. They need immediate help to deal with the problem. That help is financial help.
I should have thought that the Community experts would have been provided with a scheme from this country to show how we could achieve that kind of result, so that gradually confidence is re-built for the consumer. It is very necessary to build up that confidence. But I do not see signs of it. I am very sorry to say that.
I turn to the suggestion made by some members at the Community meeting who said that the Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based in fact. Surely there should have been a very much greater exchange of information. I think I am right in saying that in this country 158,000 cases of BSE have been reported and all the animals involved have been slaughtered. The incidence of BSE is decreasing. The country which comes nearest to us in terms of the number of cases of BSE is Switzerland, with 200 cases. Otherwise, every case of BSE, including Switzerland, is said to be traceable to this country. So it has been a particularly difficult British problem.
How do we deal with the problem at the present time? We should give ourselves a two-month period for reflection. It is not unreasonable, although it is undesirable perhaps from our point of view, that the Community does not want to lift the world ban until it is certain what steps we are going to take. The Statement says:
"Some attention was focused … on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE".
There is an interest in that in this country; and clearly there should be. But why on earth should we go to the enormous expense of killing animals that have no chance of communicating BSE or affecting human beings in any way? I refer to the beef herds, many of which have no incidence of BSE. Mature reflection over the next two months would surely not lead to slaughtering every animal over 30 months in this country. Animals under 30 months that have come from herds which have had cases of BSE may, from the point of view of any independent observer, be at greater risk than ones that have been in herds that have never contracted BSE, but when this matter is discussed at greater length in the European Community one is likely to reach a different conclusion.
Perhaps I may ask a practical question on the 22 per cent. of the total UK beef production that will be eligible for intervention during the next month. Does that cover all categories of beef animals—steers, young bulls and heifers?
Surely this situation has demonstrated the enormous effects worldwide of an incident which happens to have affected our country but has also affected our European partners. I had a telephone call the other day from New York to say that what has occurred has affected the sale of beef in New York. It may affect the sale of beef all over the world unless the matter is sensitively dealt with. What is required at the moment to deal with the matter
366
is reassurance to the consumer, practical and immediate help for the farmer, the slaughtermen and so on, and then an agreed European policy within two months.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for various elements of today's package. I agree with him about the absolute need to restore and sustain consumer confidence in what is a great product produced by a great industry. The irony is that we have not only perhaps the best beef in the world but the safest beef as well. So there is every good reason to be sensitive to consumer confidence and to seek to sustain it wherever possible.
I wish to say a few words about the phrase "slaughter policy". Both when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to it and, substantially, when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to it, I believe that on the whole they were referring to our policy that beasts going to slaughter in the normal way at the end of their working lives will be excluded from the food and animal chain if they are over 30 months old. What we will not be doing in this part of our response is compulsorily slaughtering animals which would not otherwise have been going to slaughter because of the natural cycle of their lives. It is an exclusion policy in a sense rather than a slaughter policy.
We are considering details of a targeted cull. The details of any such programme will be carefully worked out. The consultation with the industry itself would be comprehensive and the discussion in this country would simply be a prelude to a discussion with the Commission and with the veterinary committee. We would make absolutely certain that any targeted cull, if instituted, would have to deliver benefits for the costs that are involved. I am not talking just about the financial cost but the cost to cattle numbers and herd numbers. We tread into this area with great care and with all the advice that the national and international veterinary community can bring to us. The other benefit we would expect from such a movement is a lifting of the export ban. It is a substantial move and the very least we would expect is a removal of the ban.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spent some time on the total cost of the slaughter and the total value of the rebate. At this stage it is too early in the game to have worked up accurate figures. Rather than mislead the House by guessing, I would ask the House to be patient on this matter. We shall be debating this subject fairly shortly and I imagine that the subject will be returning to your Lordships' agenda at regular intervals. When hard figures are available they will be delivered.
On the targeted cull, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, painted a picture of a dairy farmer who was being faced with a super-levy charge, with perhaps quota problems if he were to lose his herd, and wondered to what extent we might be able to alleviate the obvious problems arising from that scenario. We want to think through such situations carefully before even initiating a selective cull, even if we want to do that anyway. We will be very careful about such problems.

367
The ability to institute random testing effectively in such a way that the scientists feel that it will deliver useful information is continuously reviewed by SEAC among other authorities. If it recommends that it should be done and it can convince itself that it will deliver something it can work with, we will do it. At the moment SEAC is not recommending it because it is very complex. The noble Lord asked about reliable live tests. If one were available we would want to consider just how widely it could be applied and how usefully it could provide information to prevent other types of cull or exclusion. Good progress is being made on the research towards a live test to detect BSE in cattle but it is not yet complete. There is no way we can practically implement what is known to date.
On disposal, the funding package agreed with our European partners, which is a 70/30 split, covers the value of the livestock themselves but not the cost of the disposal. The UK Government will be covering the cost of the disposal.
The noble Lord asked about the Meat and Hygiene Service. The relief from rates will be retrospective. The 1995–96 charges will effectively become a holiday so those paying MHS charges will receive money in the form of a cheque and, as has been agreed, the holiday will continue for an interim period. As regards resources and the staffing needed, we do not know at the moment exactly what the cost is and how many staff are needed. We shall simply spend what needs to be spent and employ the number that needs to be employed in order to deliver what we know needs to be delivered.
The exclusion policy for beasts over 30 months of age from the human and animal food chain will be instituted as soon as possible. I gather that that involves the following approximate timetable. The Beef Management Committee meets on 12th April when we hope that it will adopt the proposal. Three or four weeks thereafter we hope to have the system up and running. The noble Lord himself will know better than most noble Lords that the kinds of considerations and issues which must be clarified and defined before the system starts are complex and therefore we do not wish to rush into a scheme and find that we have misconstructed it through too much haste.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, delivered a great deal of his own experience to the House. Like many farmers, he has a BSE-free suckler herd. I believe that the anxieties felt by our farming community spreads from both those who have had experience of BSE to those who know that they have never ever had any BSE at all in their livestock. I acknowledge the anxieties that the noble Lord feels. He is completely inaccurate when he seeks to accuse the Government of generating the panic. I remind the House and the noble Lord himself that SEAC delivered a report to the Government followed by recommendations. It would have been quite incorrect if we had sought to keep that from the public and Parliament.
When we responded to that information by tabling Statements, we were very closely guided by, and proceeded extensively from, the reports of the scientists and from the Chief Medical Officer himself. We
368
stressed the fact that beef remains a part of a healthy and varied diet. We stressed the fact that there was still no proven link between BSE and cattle and ill-health such as CJD in man. We stressed the fact that the exposure that they believe they may have identified as being part of the causal link comes from exposure before 1989. What is more, that exposure is not to beef flesh, but to bovine offal. In releasing this information, we did so with considerable emphasis on the scientists and the medical officers involved in gathering it.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I hesitated to give examples. I saw Professor Pattison on television agree with a question put to him that the epidemic could be on the same lines as AIDS. I actually heard him say that.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Professor Pattison and Dr. Calman, and all the other experts involved, answered all questions accurately to the best of their scientific knowledge. How the media then handled the information causes one to wonder whether they have contributed to the panic themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, painted a somewhat inaccurate picture about our disappointment with Europe over their response. We have co-operated with them very closely. I was with my right honourable friend the Minister at the Luxembourg Council. The Commissioner himself, Commissioner Fischler, is being extremely helpful and very constructive. He was contacted by my right honourable friend shortly before he made the statement. Necessarily, it was Parliament who deserved to receive this information first and not other member states.
The export ban that was then instituted was an over-reaction in every way. There was no scientific justification for it and it was totally disproportionate. We cannot sit back here and say that they have been co-operating and very helpful when they have instituted a ban which has no justice in it whatsoever and one which has further disturbed the confidence of the markets both in Europe and beyond.
We shall be providing as much advice as possible to farmers and everyone else in the industry, as I have stressed. We have already produced a great deal of assistance to all parts of the industry, both farmers through various schemes, to slaughterers through the schemes announced today, to renderers and, with devices such as intervention, to the market as a whole. So in the range of measures that we have announced over the past 14 days we have delivered quite a lot of assistance.
The incidence of BSE is declining and the noble Lord is right. It is in fact one-quarter of what it used to be two to three years ago. It is reducing very quickly. I suggest that other countries which have recorded BSE should look at the facts. In most circumstances only a small portion of their BSE can be linked to UK imports. There are still large fractions of their BSE cases which cannot be linked to the UK itself.
I believe that the bulk of the points which were raised by the two noble Lords have been covered. I stress to them and to the House that we are committed to solving this problem and that we are determined to do so.

369
Human safety and food safety are paramount. At the same time we are committed to helping the farmers who are being affected and the rest of the chain that follows through the entire beef industry that is being affected. Our concern has been reflected in the various measures that we have already brought forward and indeed in the measures that we may well be bringing forward in the near future.
6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not in the business of spreading alarm and despondency over this question. Indeed, it would not be appropriate if we went into detail concerning the matters raised in the Statement made by the noble Earl. Quite clearly, over the next few weeks there will have to be continuing discussion across the Floor of the House both in another place and here, concerning this very grave matter. However, I am disturbed about the general attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Government to her European partners in connection with this issue. I can understand, from the purely financial standpoint, the very legitimate desire of the Government to effect as much saving as they can in the expenditure they will have to incur in compensating the farmers and many other subsidiary interests, as a result of the policies that are going to be adopted. I would not have thought that the prospect of receiving £85 million per annum, if that is indeed the case, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, ought to be a matter to which we should pay overwhelming regard since in any event the great bulk of the money will have to be paid by British taxpayers.
As I see it, the Government genuinely believe that British beef is safe. They have made that clear on a number of occasions. Whatever view one takes about this, there are a number of uninstructed views, as well as expert views, upon the subject. Many of them are in conflict, but there can be no doubt about the fact that the Government have reiterated that they are confident that British beef is safe. Okay, let them have the courage of their convictions. Why should they accept supinely a restriction imposed by the European Commission on the export of British beef to countries other than those within the Community?
Noble Lords will recall that I raised that question yesterday. I was answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who said that the Government would make inquiries as a matter of expedition to find out whether or not there was any legal justification for that step. He said that there are many differing views—noble Lords can check his exact words—but that the Government have been expertly advised that there possibly was a liability.
My answer to that is "rubbish!". The Government should have the courage of their own convictions. They should ignore any Commission endeavours to restrict the export of British beef to countries other than those in the European Community. There is no point in being supine about this. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may boil with rage when I say this, but many other member states of the European Community disobey Community regulations, directives and everything else at will if they
370
do not suit them. Generally, we keep to the law—or seek to do so. However, I do not see any reason why we should do anything other than completely ignore any endeavour by the Commission to impose on the United Kingdom a restriction on its right to send its product, in which it believes—so I am told—anywhere in the world outside the European Community. I should be glad if we could have a little courage about this instead of using weasel words into the small hours of the morning and making pleas to our various colleagues in the European Community. They do not all obey the law (even tenuously) all the time, so I hope that we shall take a more robust attitude.
As to the other steps and the general attitude towards us among our colleagues around the table, what comment do the Government have to offer to the observation of Herr Kinkel of the Federal Republic of Germany to the effect that if Britain is going to ask for our help in connection with its beef crisis, he expects Britain to be more co-operative over our general policies in regard to Europe. What answer does the Minister have to that? Does he agree that the European Commission should be able to take such a selective attitude?
In the meantime, I hope that some endeavour will be made out of the funds at the Government's disposal, if only by further selling of the family silver, to make some compensation to the farmers and their subsidiary interests. I sincerely hope that that will be done. Noble Lords will be aware that at this time of the year, when bank overdrafts are beginning to rise in the farming community, the prospects of converting flesh into cash will be welcome to farmers. Many will not be all that averse to that; nor for that matter will their bank managers.
Earl Lindsay: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we do not lack the courage, the faith or the determination to fight for a product which we know is safe, of quality, and which potentially outsells or out- competes beef from anywhere else in the world. If we intended to roll over and accept everything that our partners in Europe wanted to place on us, we would not have left the Council, as we did this morning, refusing to endorse its conclusions. Our partners know that we are seeking a lifting of the ban. They have their ideas about the terms and conditions that they would like to see met before the ban is lifted. Ostensibly, they have mentioned human health and consumer confidence as the basis for those terms and conditions. However, the extent to which they were driving those terms and conditions was such that we felt that we should not comply. We want the ban lifted as soon as possible. It is urgent that that happens, but we shall not comply if that means undermining the UK's interests. Therefore, I refute what the noble Lord implied when he said that, with weasel words, we complied with any suggestions put to us.
There is no cost compliance in the sense that Ministers from other countries are expecting various other concessions on our part in return for any lifting of the ban. I spent a considerable amount of time at the Luxembourg Council where everyone's attention was

371
focused on just one problem: the beef market. Furthermore, we were not focusing only on the UK beef industry, but on the European beef market. Everyone acknowledges that it is now a European problem and that it requires a European solution. We want that solution to be effective, prompt and fair. Any such solution must involve a lifting of the ban because it is disproportionate, unjustified and totally irrational.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I declare an interest as a partner in a farm which has a small fold of highland cattle. I ask the Minister what advice he has to give owners of cattle which mature rather more slowly and are not normally exposed to market until they are about 36 months old?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, asks a very good question. One of the issues that has been discussed with vigour at Luxembourg—and will continue to be discussed energetically—is the kind of exemptions from the exclusion of all carcasses arising from beasts over the 30-month age limit that can sensibly be incorporated. We are very well aware that there are breeds in the United Kingdom that mature more slowly. We want to recognise that fact, if at all possible. It is also important that the response perceived by the consumer and others is seen to be convincing. If we hedge our response with too many complicated exemptions we shall be in danger of confusing the very people we want to convince. We have to balance sensible exemptions with an overriding message of simplicity and determination.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this situation becomes more bizarre every time a Statement is made? I listened carefully to what he said about the statement by Professor Pattison. Apparently, he said that British beef was safer than it had ever been. Why on earth are we sacrificing and slaughtering thousands of cattle at huge cost on the altar of panic, hysteria and ignorance? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I agree with the Government that some criticism can be made of the European Union's attitude to this particular crisis. Although it has itself said that British beef was safe, it exacerbated the crisis by banning British beef, not only in Europe but the rest of the world.
Are the Government yet cognisant of the awesome power that the European Union has over our trade, not only in beef but beef products and virtually every other agricultural product,—and perhaps more—to ban British beef within the European Union and to the rest of the world, whether or not the rest of the world wants to take it? Do the Government realise what an enormous loss of sovereignty that is and the risk to which it puts great British industries in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors? What will the Government do to return to the elected British Government and Parliament power over these great industries only by which this country can survive? I do not believe that my final question has yet been answered, although it has been asked by two noble Lords. Is it true that the European Union plans to give only £85 million towards the slaughter and other
372
measures for a panic which it helped to create? Is that not a drop in the ocean compared with the £4 billion net that we shall pay to the Union this year?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am invigorated by the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has put on this matter. I acknowledge that the European response on the whole issue has been critical. I have said to the House on a number of occasions today—and I reiterate it—that the decision of the Union's standing veterinary committee is disproportionate and not based on the science available. Therefore, it is unjust and irrational. Ostensibly, the standing veterinary committee is a scientific body. It has produced a scientific decision which is at odds with the scientific decision produced by our SEAC advisers. Therefore, the action taken subsequently, on the face of it, has been based on scientific advice. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, that we are taking legal advice on how to tackle this ban through means other than mere negotiation for its removal.
We are prepared to take more dramatic action if that is justified. The basis for our policies to date has been the scientific advice provided by our expert advisers. We probably have the greatest concentration of expertise on the subject of BSE and CJD anywhere in the world. I believe that that is widely recognised within the scientific community. Therefore, when the EU standing veterinary committee decided that it disagreed with that world-renowned body, it somewhat undermined the confidence that the wider community had had until then in our expert committee. We deplore the action that it took.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, perhaps I may put one question to the Minister. In the improbable event of the EU having the genuine legal right to impose a ban upon the export of British beef and beef products to countries outside the Community, will the Minister say what is the worst that could happen to us were we, in the event of continued stonewalling and obstructionism by the rest of the Community, to defy the ban?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the advice we are taking at the moment involves seeking answers to the type of questions the noble Lord asks. I remind the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have explored this avenue that whether or not the ban is lifted and whether or not it is ignored by traders in this country, a considerable number of countries around the world have themselves taken unilateral action against British beef. Furthermore, a number of countries are now taking unilateral action against European beef. That is of great concern to some of our partners within the Community.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to join me for a moment in the pleasurable activity of imagining that we were not in the European Community? If we had, for instance, the status of Norway, which is a member of the EEA but which wisely voted against joining the Treaty of Rome, or if we were to enjoy the status of Switzerland, which was

373
clever enough to avoid even that position, might not our difficulties be very much eased? Would we, for instance, be facing this absurd ban from a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels? What is the position in Switzerland, which I understand has a liberal sprinkling of BSE but, so far as I know, has not had its products banned from world markets? My final question: is this whole story not just one more nail in the coffin of our membership of the European Community?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I must be honest and say that had we not been a member of the European Union the situation would not be very much different. As I stressed, many countries have themselves taken action against British beef-related exports. That was not prompted by the ban imposed upon us by Europe. I stress also that Switzerland does have BSE. I believe that it has the highest incidence of BSE outside the UK but it is a fraction of the BSE we have been having in this country. The controls and various measures we have been imposing since 1989 have begun to take effect. The incidence of BSE in all parts of the UK has fallen dramatically and is continuing to fall. We are convinced that a product that we know is safe and great will soon be recognised by everyone as being healthy and of quality.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as there is a moment or two left, will the Minister help the House and the industry by explaining the arrangements more clearly? As I understood it, the Minister said that the arrangements for the slaughter of animals over 30 months of age will take another three, four or five weeks or even longer to bring into action. What is the position now for the farmer who has the cull animal, which may have gone lame or whatever, which needs to be culled? Are such animals to be kept on the farms? Is there no way in which they can be moved? Do they have to wait there? Does the farmer have to feed them, and the rest of it? Does he have to wait to see what is going to happen? This is intended to be a helpful question. Farmers are genuinely concerned to know what they should do now.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are working urgently on all fronts to produce answers to the many questions which the whole issue has raised for farmers and everyone else involved in the beef industry concerning reassurance, help, short-term assistance and so on. The help lines which are available in all parts of the UK through agricultural offices or MAFF are designed to give specific answers to farmers in their individual circumstances. I would encourage any farmer who is uncertain as to how best to handle the situation to seek the advice of officers. The measures now in place are fairly numerous. We have sought to respond to needs. Advice to each farmer in his individual circumstances is to be recommended.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Chemical Weapons Act,
Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act.

Planning Policy and the Economy
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose to call attention to the role of current planning policy as a mechanism for invigorating the economy at both local and national level; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I must declare an interest. I have a planning application before the East Staffordshire District Council.
I am grateful to the House for permitting this debate to be chosen in the ballot. I am also grateful to noble Lords for taking part in a debate on this last evening of term, so to speak. It has been a long day. I believe that the subject to be debated is a most important subject and one which affects everyone in the country at some stage or other. Following various comments made by your Lordships during a recent debate on inward investment instigated by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, I felt that planning was a subject worthy of a debate in its own right, especially as planning matters are very often one of the key issues to be considered when a business is contemplating re-location.
My interest in planning encompasses both urban and rural areas. I work in the industrial and commercial world but I am also a farmer. From the countryside's point of view, there are a number of issues which deserve further reflection, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth will be addressing some of these matters when he speaks. From my own point of view, I find it quite destructive to the beauty of the countryside to see large portal frame buildings being constructed almost overnight in bare fields, to be followed shortly by a portakabin or mobile home, then followed by a permanent dwellinghouse—usually the design is as plain as a pikestaff and stands out like a sore thumb—often on an area of land which cannot possibly be termed as an economic unit.
However, my concerns lie in the main with the areas of urban decay, brought about by the modernisation of businesses and the changing requirements for industrial and commercial land use. It is vital that we attract new businesses to this country, and vital that we redevelop areas of our industrial heartlands, and therefore vital that commerce and industry work closely with the planning authorities in the pursuit of a common goal of an improving and lasting economy. In the opinion of many, an awful amount of damage was done in the 1960s by both planners and developers. Perhaps I may take the town of Shrewsbury as an example, where in the centre of a very special ancient market town the planners

375
allowed the most ghastly 1960s plain blocks to be constructed. This has to be planning gone mad, and once the damage is done it takes a great deal of expensive undoing. Planning has, thank God, improved in leaps and hounds since those days, but there is always room for further improvement.
There are three problems which I would suggest to my noble friend the Minister, and I would be grateful for his comments when he winds up. The first is the extremely lengthy delay experienced often by developers when putting forward plans to redevelop derelict sites in urban areas and when developing existing historical buildings; for instance, the case of disused hospitals being converted into modern office space in a listed building. In most cases, such delays add dramatically to the cost of the development, often making the end product unviable, and in many cases discouraging potential tenants or investors, to the detriment of the local economy, the national economy and not least the developer. Such delays are unacceptable, stifle business and are detrimental to the process of attracting inward investment, which is most important. Would my noble friend be kind enough to look carefully at such problems to see what could be done to lessen the time-scales being experienced at present?
Secondly, the time taken for planning inquiries to report their findings and adjudicate takes far too long. I have examples in the West Midlands where such matters have taken in excess of four years to be completed. I am advised also that the average time taken to prepare and adopt development plans is in the region of 65 months. Of course, in that time economic circumstances often change and the costs to the developer keep piling up relentlessly. Developers are the very people who put their money where their mouth is, backing their own judgment and taking the risks, which often are very substantial. I do not believe that developers should be treated in that way by the authorities.
In addition, the process of the preparation of development plans by local authorities has become notoriously slow. In short, the whole process of planning, including reports coming back from the planning inspectorate, is far too slow and full of bureaucracy. However, I congratulate the Government on the recent initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to expedite such matters in his proposed changes to the Development Plan Regulations and the Code of Practice on Development Plans. That is a good start but there is still a long way to go.
Finally, I believe that the situation with regard to residential planning needs to be looked at carefully, where planning authorities are insisting on affordable housing being an integral part of a new development; where sometimes up to 25 per cent. of the development land available has to be provided free for that purpose as a condition of achieving consents. I know that developers regard that as grossly unreasonable, not only from a cost basis but also as houses of considerable value may well be sited in close proximity to houses of an affordable nature, making the former properties more difficult to sell and at a lower price. Suitable
376
development is difficult to find; planning consents are slow in coming, expensive and restrictive; and when the construction industry is at an all time low, it needs every possible assistance and a more helpful planning regime.
In the words of Sean O'Grady, director of planning at Stratford upon Avon District Council, quoted recently in the magazine Planning News:
"Local Authorities are deliberately set against the developer. Why can't they work with developers to produce plans as it will be quicker and more realistic".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for securing this debate on an extremely important subject. Planning probably affects most of us more than anything else. It is subtle but insidious. Crisis and calamities make the headlines but most of our lives are lived in a planned environment. In particular, planning affects the buildings we walk past and work in, the countryside we enjoy and the modes of transport which move us around.
But essential though it is, planning is not, on the whole, the most popular subject. We take what we like rather for granted and grumble regularly about what we do not like. As the Roman writer Horace said two millennia ago:
"How is it, Maecenas, that no one lives contented with his lot, whether he has planned it for himself or fate has flung him into it?"
My point is that most of us have not been able to plan it but have been flung by fate into our environment. However, that does not mean we cannot do a great deal to influence its future development. Indeed, we all have a great responsibility to contribute to planning. In view of the late hour and the great delay we have had to the start of our debate, that is enough of general remarks. I turn to the specifics; namely, the economic stimulus locally and nationally that planning can give.
Since planning is an enormously broad subject, I have organised what I wish to say into three areas: development, redevelopment and no development. First, I turn to development. I believe that the single most serious economic waste which the Government must face up to at the moment is urban dereliction. While I have absolutely no financial interest to declare, I can declare a substantial local interest in that a two-acre site literally over my garden wall in the very centre of the republic of Islington is at the moment the subject of imminent selection by my local authority as one of four short-listed comprehensive redevelopment schemes.
I speak of that because, in a way, it is a replica of situations all over the country. The two acres are essentially a bomb site used as a car park surrounded by largely council-owned rundown properties let on short leases. But the site is immediately adjacent to a large supermarket and major shops, to buses which go all over London, and the recently rebuilt Angel tube station. Therefore, the site has great potential. At present, the only economic contribution to the local authority is minimal rents and council tax from the small number of fringe houses and shops. To the national economy, there

377
are again the somewhat minimal income tax and VAT contributions of the car park operator and the fringe shops.
The proposed scheme will embody a mix of housing, shops, restaurants and a multiplex cinema together with an underground car park. If, after some 20 years in the pipeline, that development actually happens it should be a substantial economic stimulus which will contribute heavily to local council tax and business rates and nationally to VAT and income tax. Of course the net increase is by no means the total product of the contributions I have just mentioned but much of it will be an increment to the economy and GDP for we cannot assume that all the new activities will be operated by previously unemployed or under-employed and therefore untaxed people.
Nationally, many of our big cities still suffer major blight from lack of planning and development of derelict or semi-derelict sites. Those sites spring mainly from this country's change from a heavily manufacturing-based economy to one that is more leisure and service based. That has left empty factories and warehouses along with inexcusable undeveloped dereliction from Second World War bombing, most of which took place in the early 1940s, some 60 years ago.
We must make our towns and cities as attractive as possible to overseas visitors, both those who come for business and those who come for leisure purposes. Overseas visitors generate a wholly net economic stimulus equal to the sum of their spending. As well as planning what we might call the built environment, the best possible planning and development of traffic and transport are crucial factors. In a competitive market with continental cities, overseas visitors will be attracted by ease of travel. I am a devotee of greater emphasis on the planning and development of public transport. I am particularly interested in the return of the tram in an increasing number of places such as Sheffield, where I have a house, and Croydon, to name but two.
Development where there is urban blight, dereliction, dilapidation and empty housing presents us surely with opportunities to stimulate the local and national economies. Many possibilities arise, such as the creation of conference and exhibition centres, museums and galleries, restaurants, hotels and parks and gardens which make a town or city an attractive place for the visitor and enable them to compete more successfully. Some groan and say that this country is already saturated with visitors. But concentrating on good quality development should make visitors happy, and the happy visitor spends more. I add here a welcome for the Government's plans to improve road signing, as people who are lost do not spend much.
Redevelopment is my second heading. By this I mean making better use of the built environment we already have. While, as a conservationist, I am against wanton destruction of buildings and areas of excellent quality for architectural or historical reasons, much of our built environment is inherited from a Victorian imperial age when, for example, rooms, foyers and halls were of great height, presumably to appear grand. If sensitive planning and redevelopment allow three floors instead
378
of two that existed before, the net extra activity stemming from the extra floor will stimulate both local and national economies.
A surprisingly large proportion of our people are disabled. Attention to their needs in planning redevelopment can only help encourage economic activity. While it is surely important that great attention should be paid to the quality of each new building, I think that far more planning attention should be paid to the development of the area in which it will be placed—by which I mean streets, whole terraces, squares, and so forth. Otherwise the individual buildings will be hard to let or sell and so generate no cash. An attractive area environment is a positive attraction to occupation and, therefore, an economic stimulus. Perhaps I may illustrate that with two examples close to this place. I well remember from my childhood the old Victoria Street. My father had an office at No. 66—stucco buildings five storeys high with colonnaded porticos. It was a user-friendly and attractive street but war damaged and, in post-war London, an uneconomical use of a major street frontage and so pulled down. But what have we instead? We have a concrete and glass wind tunnel. I never go there unless I have to, thus depriving the local economy of my expendable cash. In contrast I almost look for excuses to go to the Covent Garden redevelopment and usually find it difficult not to buy something. What more need I say about the effects of planning?
My final planning segment is that of no development. By that I mean our countryside, so richly varied like our weather. I realise that forests, woodlands, paths, nature trails and all the rest need careful planning. By no development, I mean basically open and natural spaces. I believe that the flight from the cities in post-war years needs reversing. Properly planned, cities can be great fun to live in. Country that is not real country is less attractive, particularly to economy-stimulating overseas visitors, let alone our own people. Our high streets need encouragement. Out of town supermarkets, DIY stores and warehouses should be allowed only selectively. Country is a fragile thing. A store may argue that it takes up only so many thousand square feet of ground but its mere presence can destroy the precious openness of square miles of countryside. It is not as though what we call "the country" is economically barren. Quite apart from farming, woodlands and forests contribute to the economy, as do farmhouse bed and breakfasts, inns, and so forth, right up to the more expensive pursuits of game shooting and salmon and trout fishing.
Paradoxically, while our countryside, especially the wilder parts, should never look consciously planned, an overall rural plan is essential if these parts of our island are to be attractive and therefore economically stimulating, once again particularly to overseas visitors. The last thing that will develop holidays in Britain is countryside that is neither one thing nor the other. After all, our so accessible next-door-neighbour, France, is twice our size with huge rural areas but no larger population. In conclusion, our island is a crowded one, and crowds need planning and control if we are to maximise economic stimulus.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate because I believe we all agree that without the right conditions for investment and economic growth all the things that we demand in other spheres do not arise. I am aware of the debate last week when we discussed the impact of financial structures on the needs of society. Attention was drawn then to what is important in society: jobs, employment, investment at all levels and the social benefits which are so needed in society.
We had another debate on the importance of inward investment. There is no doubt that, when we discuss a whole range of economic and social issues in this House, everyone draws attention to these important factors affecting society which can only arise if there is sufficient investment and encouragement of wealth creation to maintain the resources of our country. On a number of occasions noble Lords opposite have mentioned the problems which affect the housing industry and the construction industry and they have talked about the need to do something about that.
On a number of occasions noble Lords opposite have drawn attention to the difficulties faced by the lower paid members of our society and the lack of opportunities that they encounter. Noble Lords have referred to difficulties in certain urban areas which need to attract much more wealth and support to tackle those difficulties. I support the points that they have made. However, when we seek to deal with the one issue that can solve so many of these problems, namely to encourage investment and development, the planning system prevents many initiatives from being realised. My noble friend was quite right to refer to the difficulty of obtaining a decision on a long-term investment. That difficulty is mind-boggling for the people who in many cases are prepared to finance vast investments from their own pockets.
I believe that the average time for the development of a structure plan is some 65 months. During that period of time there is probably a complete ban on development and investment in any particular area of a county, a city or a region. It seems to me that there is no proper relationship between those matters which are so important for the nation as a whole, which everyone agrees need to be tackled and which should be driven by the needs of the country as a whole, and the power of small groups of people with their emotional and often selfish approach to what takes place around them. What is needed by the nation is often overruled by the prejudices of a few. The planning system was never intended to do that. The planning system was established, as I am sure noble Lords will remember, to encourage investment. It was a way to make sure that investment, job creation and industry developed. It was a way to make development easier: decisions could be made, and there was some general control over the quality of and need for that investment.
The position has now been completely reversed. The system is now used by a few people to solve their own specific problems. Why is that? I appreciate that the problem is not easy to solve. Local authorities are
380
the planning authority. They are often enormously influenced by local residents who do not want this or that, and definitely do not want it on their bit but may be happy to have it on someone else's bit.
But there is a role that Government can play. They have a tendency to overrule those who wish to see development. There is no doubt that some areas wish to attract investment, create opportunities and encourage job creation. They wish to deal with the problems in their area. They are prepared to make planning decisions which nationally may not be in keeping with the pressures on government. In those instances, the Government will call those decisions in and make progress difficult. They cause delays and problems. In other areas where local authorities are taking a more negative view on development, government will have no control over them.
Government have laid down environmental conditions for growth, development and planning. However, they have not laid down the importance of economic needs. In many instances in the development of structure plans there is a responsibility on the local government to consider its environmental needs. But there is not the same importance as regards the economic needs. I hope that my noble friend will allude to that issue; and perhaps the Government will consider it further.
We raised the matter during the course of the debates on the new environmental body which has recently been set up. During the passage of the measure, we brought in a clause which stated that economic needs had to be recognised. We had support from all sides of the House for that proposal. But that is not sufficient. The Government need also to consider emphasising the economic needs of other areas.
The green belt is an emotional issue. Much of the green belt established around cities and other areas 20 or 30 years ago was seen as a temporary need. Those areas have now become locked in. It is an enormous problem to ease the situation or make some changes in the green belt. It does not make sense to me to create a hard edge between city or urban development and rural areas. There are many unnecessary problems regarding that hard edge which is caused by a strong green belt policy perhaps on the other side of a road, a line, or in many cases a fence. We should review the use of the green belt policy and create a softer edge between the urban and rural environment which allows for forestry; leisure use and other low level use of the land. That creates a softer edge for the people who want space between the urban area and the rural environment.
I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said. I support his views on development in the early days. I do not altogether agree with him when he refers to the rural area as being an area merely of pleasant land. It is also an area where many people live, run businesses, have investments and wish to see the opportunities grow. We should take a positive view on how we can encourage more investment in rural areas. I wish to see our urban areas more open, with more green space, using derelict land, opening up cleaner areas for

381
people to expand and have a breathing space. But at the same time I wish us to encourage more economic activity in our rural areas.
This is an important subject for discussion. I hope that my noble friend will reply positively to some of the ideas that will come from the discussion.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for initiating the debate on what I agree with him is a most important subject. I am only sorry that the timing of it means that it is taking place when thoughts are turning to the Easter break, albeit some seven or eight hours later than we originally expected.
Planning policy and the decisions flowing from it play an important part in all our lives. The Department of the Environment currently produces no less than 24 planning policy guidance notes for local planning authorities on subjects as diverse as green belts, telecommunications, transport and renewable energy. Planning plays a particularly critical role in the economy. It cannot, of course, itself create businesses or jobs. But at its best planning creates the conditions in which enterprise can flourish. At its worst, planning will stifle and prevent the development of businesses and jobs, often in the misguided belief that enterprise can flourish wherever a planning authority directs.
While planning policy is important in our towns and cities—my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury emphasised that—it is even more so in the countryside where there is a particular need to accommodate the changing requirements of rural business amid the constancy of our superb landscape. As chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which as noble Lords know is the government agency responsible for trying to improve the quality of life for all the people of England's country areas, I have seen at first hand both the best and the worst of planning in the countryside. In many areas such as Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and up in my part of the world, North Yorkshire, planning has helped to foster a dynamic rural economy. That has out-performed the urban economy in recent years in terms of employment generation, net small firm formation and the expansion of high technology-based businesses. But it would be a mistake to think that past successes mean that all will now be well with the economy in rural England. There are two main issues: first, success has passed many places by; secondly, more diversification is needed.
On the first point, there are whole areas of the country which are suffering from either structural changes resulting from decline in traditional industries or inherent difficulties such as remoteness and inadequate communications. Here one can think immediately of places like West Cumbria, Cornwall and East Durham. Even in some of the relatively more accessible rural areas such as East Anglia—which is well known to my noble friend Lord Ferrers—there is still a need to strengthen the economic base and improve the quality
382
and variety of local jobs. These areas have simply not shown the growth and success of the most accessible parts of the countryside to which I referred earlier.
On the second point, the need to diversify, we are reminded all too often—and in the case of the BSE scare, all too tragically—of the fragility of the rural economy and its historic over-reliance on a few large industries. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I have some beef animals. Even today, with employment in agriculture only 1.7 per cent. of total national employment, the percentage employed in agriculture in some rural development areas is far higher: for example, 19 per cent. in Staffordshire, 14 per cent. in Wiltshire. In other industries we have seen the disastrous impact in the rural coalfields of 50,000 job losses in the past 10 years and also of jobs lost in the fishing ports. I do not wish to go into the purposes behind that tonight, but if the rural economy cannot continue to diversify because of planning constraints, we may be condemning some places over-reliant on single industries to the bleak future now facing beef producers and processors and the many other people in those rural communities which rely on their earnings.
Nowadays, the nature of work in the countryside is not static; it is constantly evolving and changing. The way planning policy is implemented locally will help to determine whether the economy stagnates or responds to the needs of local people. How glad I was to hear my noble friend Lord Wade remind us of the original purpose of planning policy in his remarks.
There are some who argue that we need no more development in the countryside. The very success of part of the rural economy is being used as a reason to do nothing more. There are some who argue that allowing nothing else to happen is proper and sufficient protection for the environment. That is to disregard people, those who live and work in the countryside and might reasonably expect to continue to be part of the rural environment. That is to assume that future housing and employment needs can be accommodated by allowing development only on urban "brownfield" sites, important though their contribution must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, suggested.
The arguments that nothing should change—here I must disagree with the noble Lord—are dangerous misconceptions. Those of us who care about the countryside know that we cannot sit back and pretend the job is done. The devastating impact of BSE, which is quite the most serious crisis for rural England and perhaps the severest shock to rural communities that I have ever experienced, has reminded us of that. If we are to continue to have a strong rural economy from which the country as a whole can benefit, we must build on the success of those rural areas which have been able to attract new businesses and jobs; other areas must be allowed to develop new business opportunities if they are to survive. As I have said, flexible planning policies and, I might add, flexible planning committees are essential to this economic vitality.
But we also want rural areas to be places where people from all walks of life can live and work. It is conveniently forgotten that a significant proportion of

383
the projected growth in rural households will come from people, or the children of people, already living there. What are we to say to them—move into the towns, the countryside is full? What kind of countryside do we want? Surely not somewhere where only those who are rich enough to buy into it can do so, while the less well-off have no choice but to live and work in the towns.
As the Government's recent rural White Paper says:
"sustainable development in the countryside must involve thriving and competitive economic activity".
The planning system must not preside over a stultified, dying countryside. The Government are shortly to consult on revisions to Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG7) dealing with the countryside and the rural economy. They will no doubt receive many calls for it to be tightened. I hope they will have the courage not to heed them; and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give strong reassurance on that point when he responds to the debate.
The current guidance note, PPG7, has certainly contributed to rural economic diversification. It makes clear that a wide range of modern light-manufacturing and commercial businesses cause little disturbance and can be accommodated easily in a rural setting. It also encourages planning authorities to take account of the vital role of small firms in the rural economy. The re-use of existing rural buildings forms a central plank of PPG7, and I was pleased at the Government's announcement in the rural White Paper that they propose to allow greater discrimination in favour of the re-use of rural buildings for business rather than for residential purposes.
The Government's view of rural England as set out in the White Paper and reiterated on numerous occasions since by the Secretary of State for the Environment is of a living, working countryside. That means people—with access to jobs, homes and services. That requires a planning policy which recognises the case for continuing appropriate development in the countryside, not only in the poorer rural areas but also in more prosperous parts. The alternative—obstacles to all change in the countryside—carries with it too high an economic and environmental penalty.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for introducing this particular debate and indeed must congratulate him on winning the ballot. As he pointed out, this is a very important matter. I myself am sorry that it has had to come up at what many noble Lords will feel is a late hour, on a late day, late in our business before we go into the Easter Recess. It is a matter which deserves the considered opinion of your Lordships' House.
First, I should declare an interest as president of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. I hasten to add that it is an honorary post. It is a federation of local authorities—district councils which have economic development departments that have combined together in order to help each other in
384
invigorating the economy at local level, if I may so put it. Secondly, perhaps I may explain to the House what I propose to do in the light of the noble Earl's Motion. I shall make a general statement about what we believe planning policy is about and then I shall go on to review whether current planning policy—in the words of the Motion—fulfils what we believe to be its aims. Finally, and I hope very briefly, I should like to explain what we believe should be changed in order to do what the noble Earl wishes policy to do; namely, to invigorate the economy at both local and national level.
My general statement is very general but very simple. Planning should be about the quality of people's lives. That is a very simple basic statement. Planning should ensure the jobs, transport and recreation that a high quality of life and a vigorous economy demand. Planning is about more than the use of land. It must encompass and integrate economic, social and environmental considerations. That is a very general statement, but I believe, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that it is the basis on which planning policy should rest.
On that test, how does current planning policy—again I use the words of the noble Earl's Motion—measure up? It seems to me that current planning policy has brought us into a difficult situation. It has been described by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate as one of specific interests, dominated in some cases by vested interests and dominated in other cases by ill advised government public planning policy guidance notes. Planning policy is in a state of some confusion.
Certainly so far as concerns invigorating the economy, I am far from convinced that current planning policy has made much contribution at all. For instance, it has contributed to what I regard as the decimation rather than the encouragement of our industry. Let me give your Lordships one example. In 1987, as part of their deregulation of planning, the Government issued the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, which put light industrial and office use in the same use class. That is very simple and not too difficult to understand. But that led to light industry being categorised together with offices and to light industry being replaced with offices, because higher rents could be gained from offices.
A survey carried out in Westminster showed that more than 20 per cent. of those premises in industrial use in 1983 were, in 1995, used primarily as offices, and that the total number of occupiers in the main industrial sectors declined from 1,146 in 1983 to 460 in 1995. Since some industrial users had remained only through negotiating more favourable rents due to the fall-off in demand for office accommodation, it seems clear that industrial use under current planning policy in the inner cities will fall further. The only way to remedy that would be a change in planning policy.
Current central government planning policy has also encouraged the growth of quangos. We have discussed quangos on a number of occasions. They are indirect and unaccountable bodies. They are TECs, UDCs, English Partnerships, or whatever it may be. They have

385
some planning functions and they tend to be single issue operations. There is therefore little integration between the issues that the quangos address and the strategic development plans, on whatever level they may be, that we believe would be necessary to ensure the kind of result the noble Earl requires in his Motion.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. We have had the problem of out-of-town shopping, which the Government have been wise enough to recognise. Planning permission has been given to large shopping centres outside towns. Town centres in the smaller rural towns—this is not a question of London but it is a question of some of the towns which I, the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, know very well—have been reduced to a no-go desert area. This has now been belatedly, in our view, recognised as a failure in government planning policy and the Government are going to address the issue seriously. I understand that at some stage there will be—I hope the noble Earl will be able to say when it will come—new policy guidance from central government on how to restore and invigorate town centres in small market towns which have been decimated by the introduction of out-of-town shopping.
The verdict on current planning policy is not very good. Nevertheless, we believe that a proper planning policy has an important role to play in invigorating local and national economies. A proper planning policy should ensure—I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said—that appropriate sites and infrastructure are provided by planning, at the right place and at the right time, for economic development. That should be a fundamental rule in terms of planning policy. Furthermore, it should provide a framework for investment decisions through an integrated system of statutory strategic and local plans and local regeneration strategies prepared in partnership with different interests—the private sector and other interests that may be concerned—with a view to ensuring that local economies generate the kind of activity the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wish to see. Thirdly, any future planning policy has to ensure—I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, said—that all new economic development has sustainable development as one of its key objectives. It is no good going for economic development regardless of what many of us feel is the proper role for the countryside or the proper role for towns or villages.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that planning should facilitate inward investment, job creation and the provision of community facilities in bringing under-used land into productive use. That is very important. I say this again: planning must also be democratically accountable. It is no good government overriding local or regional authorities by setting up PPG because that simply will not work as a structure.
Ironically, deregulation has made the planning procedure much more complex. Those noble Lords who complain about delays in planning procedure ought be aware that it is not entirely the fault of local authorities, because they are worried about all sorts of things
386
coming in from the side which have been introduced by the Government under deregulation and which have made their decisions much more difficult.
I believe that I have said enough to reassure the noble Earl that essentially I am on his side. I am on the side of all those who believe that planning policy should be directed to invigorating the local and the national economy. There has to be a balance struck so it is sustainable. Seeing that the noble Earl is to reply, I conclude by noting that he will be absent from your Lordships' deliberations over the next few weeks, as I understand it, and to wish him every success and good health. We look forward to seeing the noble Earl suitably reinvigorated when he comes back.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one point to him? Does he agree that sustainability is as much a question of our leaving at this stage the opportunity for people to continue to create the wealth, the jobs and the structure that will be required as it is of preventing further usage? Surely, sustainability means that we of this generation have a responsibility not to hold back the next generation from its aspirations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I certainly agree with that part of sustainability, but there is another part to it which, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is that we should not use up the resources of today's world to the detriment of future generations. Sustainability requires a balance between the two.
7.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the role of the land use planning system in invigorating the economy. I deeply appreciate the kind remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made, with which the Opposition Chief Whip is associating himself and, no doubt, all his Back Benchers as well. I am very grateful for the cacophony of kindness that has come from the Benches opposite.
This subject is very important. The Government are grateful for the views which your Lordships have expressed. There is no simple answer to planning; it is a contentious matter and there is a great deal of conflicting pressure applied to the countryside, the towns and the planning system in general. How we use our land determines not only the attractiveness of the land in which we live but also the ability of the nation to be successful economically.
One of our most remarkable national characteristics is that we seem to have an insatiable appetite for saying what is wrong and almost total inability ever to grasp what has gone right. In fact, the United Kingdom has done enormously well. As the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said, planning has an important part to play in the economic success of the country. After all, we now find that 40 per cent. of all investment into Europe from Japan comes to the United Kingdom and 43 per cent. of all investment from the United States into Europe comes into the United Kingdom. Despite

387
the agonies of unemployment, we have the highest proportion of our working population in employment, higher than Germany, France, Italy or Spain. Our non-wage labour costs are lower than in any of our major European competitors; and we have had the massive investments of Nissan, Samsung, Siemens and Sony—because the United Kingdom is the best country in which to invest.
None of that would have happened if we did not have a good and sensitive planning system—yes, I agree that it could be better—but such investment will not happen in the future without a good planning system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth that planning cannot itself create investment, but it plays a large part in ensuring that investment is made.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that in order for industry and commerce to succeed, new enterprises need sites which meet their requirements. Existing firms need room to expand. The planning system has an essential part to play in identifying sites for new development as well as in considering the infrastructure, the roads, water, sewerage and so forth, needed to service these sites.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is one thing to have development hut, as he said, it has to be sustainable development. We need not go into that phrase now, but it is important because we cannot wreck the countryside and the country for generations to come by being selfish for ourselves in the present.
The planning system operates at various levels, from the production of planning policy guidance notes by central government to the making of structure plans by county councils, to the making of local plans by district councils and to the issuing of individual planning decisions, usually by the local authorities. It is vital that all of these elements should pull together if we are going to encourage future economic prosperity.
One of the Government's main roles is to set the overall policy for the planning system. We do this through a series of national planning policy guidance notes and regional planning guidance notes. These emphasise very clearly the need for discussion to take place between planning authorities and commercial and industrial interests and for the needs of business to be reflected in development plans. Businesses should not just be told what they have to put up with. They should be involved in the planning process.
We specifically ask planning authorities to pay particular attention to the importance of encouraging industrial and commercial development, and we advise them, in preparing their plans, to think about the role which those plans have in expanding the local economy and in stimulating employment opportunities.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth that some local authorities are too keen on preserving their particular patch, as it is. That is understandable, but it can also be unkind. If local authorities do not invite—and if they do not conduct themselves in such a way as to encourage—industry then industry will not come, and people in the area will find themselves unemployed. Local authorities have a great responsibility here.
388
Within the framework of our general guidance, we issue advice on the needs of particular sectors of the economy and how these can best be met. A draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 6, which deals with town centres and retail developments, was issued for public consultation last July. This advises local authorities to adopt, as it were, a "pecking order" approach in the selection of sites for retail development, with town centres as the first preference. The guidance also promotes town centres as suitable locations for other uses, including leisure.
The last thing which we want is the wholesale abandonment of our town centres—whether by businesses or by communities—thereby creating a desert where all that flourishes is crime and poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, was concerned about that and said that we should act to tackle dereliction. Her Majesty's Government have invested, and continue to invest, huge sums of money in such things as the single regeneration budget and on the work of the urban development corporations - I have seen some - which have been an enormous success in helping derelict city centres to improve. A lot has been achieved under the housing White Paper in which Her Majesty's Government have announced the target to achieve half of all new housing development on derelict and vacant land within urban areas.
Town centres are at present, thank heavens, home to many thriving small and large businesses in the retail and leisure sectors. One of the aims of our planning policy is to help them to stay that way. Planning is not just about urban areas. As we have heard this evening from my noble friends Lord Wade, Lord Shuttleworth and others, it is also about the countryside. My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth will remember that in the recent rural White Paper we said how important we felt it was continually to promote the rural economy in ways which did not wreck the countryside. At the end of last year we published a good practice guide which gave local planning authorities advice on how to encourage the development of the economy of rural areas and at the same time to safeguard jobs and the pleasure of the countryside. Later this year we will issue for consultation a draft revised version of Planning Policy Guidance Note No.7 on the countryside, and we will issue a paper on the possible introduction of a rural business use class to encourage planning permission to be given to new rural enterprises.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth asked for an assurance that we would not tighten up planning policy and preserve the countryside in aspic, as it were. Of course, the purpose of consultation on Planning Policy Guidance Note No.7 is to consult. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the conclusion of that consultation. But I agree with my noble friend that there are all kinds of opportunities for expansion within the countryside which can be taken up without wrecking it. We must be careful not to fossilise the countryside or to be like the proverbial Victorian nanny who said, "Go and see what the children are doing and tell them not to".

389
Both national and regional planning guidance provide the basis on which individual planning authorities prepare development plans for their areas. We now have a plan-led system. This means that individual planning decisions have to be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are very good reasons why that should not be so. That is why it is so important that commerce and industry should participate in the preparation of these plans before ideas become fully formulated. Arrangements have been made for this, and industry and commerce should take advantage of them.
Local planning authorities can supplement these policies and plans by preparing development briefs for particular sites. They can indicate the type of development which the planning authority wants to see on a particular site. This can be immensely helpful to those who are thinking of moving into an area and can speed up the planning process considerably. In particular, where foreign companies work to short time-scales development briefs can provide an excellent way of securing inward investment.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke about delays in reaching planning decisions and the frustrations which that could cause to businesses. I sympathise with him over the utter frustration which unnecessary delay in planning matters can cause. I hope that I am able to give him a little reassurance.
We have set councils the target to decide 80 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks of receiving them. Six years ago only 46 per cent. of applications were decided within those eight weeks. That figure has now risen to 65 per cent. I believe that that is encouraging, but clearly a great deal more needs to be done. We have announced a number of new measures to try to achieve it. We will publish separate figures to show the time taken by individual planning authorities to process commercial and industrial applications. We hope that that will keep all local planning authorities on their toes. After all, everyone likes to be at the top of the tree. When those figures are published it can be seen who is at the top and bottom.
Also, where an application has not been decided by the end of the eight-week period, we will be asking local authorities to let applicants know when they can expect a decision. That will give both the applicants and the councils something to aim for.
The main reason for introducing the plan-led system was to try to speed up the process of making decisions and to reduce the number of applications which are refused. That should also result in fewer appeals.
My noble friend Lord Wade was worried about the time taken to draw up plans. Because of the greater emphasis which is now being given to development plans, developers and local communities are taking a much closer interest in them. As a result, many authorities who are preparing plans for the first time are facing a difficult, and sometimes lengthy, process. Once they have their plan in place though updating it will be easier and a good deal quicker.
390
My noble friend Lord Wade asserted that there was a complete ban on development while development plans were being prepared. I accept that it is appropriate to defer consideration of some major applications while the planning policies are being considered by the inquiry. But the vast majority of applications can be decided while the plan is being prepared. The weight given to the emerging new plan in making planning decisions will increase as it gets nearer its final adoption.
My noble friend was also concerned about green belts. We recently reviewed the green belt policy advice and issued new guidance. The fundamental aim of green belts is to prevent what is described as "urban sprawl". So there needs to be a boundary beyond which the policy will apply. The guidance generally allows the uses referred to and provides for new buildings for, among other things, agriculture, forestry and essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. Where planning applications are refused, the applicant may submit an appeal, and we have issued a draft new circular giving advice on best practice in the operation of planning inquiries and other appeal procedures.
What we want to do is to speed up the appeals process, to reduce delays and expense and to make the system more user-friendly while at the same time safeguarding the underlying principles of natural justice.
Businesses often find themselves having to apply for a variety of different consents before they can go ahead with a new building. That can be confusing, particularly for small firms. We are, therefore, exploring the idea that local authorities should provide a single advice point—the so-called pseudo Business Link—for the different systems. We shall be undertaking a pilot project with a number of authorities and we intend to publish good practice advice later in the year.
I recognise the concern of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury about affordable housing. That is one of the reasons why we have issued a draft circular on this subject. One of the aims of the circular is to prevent local authorities from making unreasonable demands for affordable housing on unsuitable sites. I thought I might send my noble friend a copy of the draft circular—that will keep him quiet over Easter! I am sure that he will enjoy it, and I will be interested to receive any comments which he may have, provided they are constructive and polite in nature.
Good plans, good planning and good planning decisions are all vital if we are to enable the country to build on its continuing success in a rapidly changing world. Planning decisions should be quick and be made with as much consultation with the applicants as possible.
There are bound to be enormous conflicts of interests in any kind of planning application. We all accept that. Not everyone will be satisfied, but it is important that there should be consultation and that the result should be quick. Planning authorities must not be seen as, or feared to be, "the boss". Planning should be a partnership. The applicants have much to offer the community and they should not be considered to be acting only in self-interest.

391
We are sensitive to the role which the planning system plays in providing the right environment in which economic development can prosper. I can assure your Lordships that we will not hesitate to make further changes where these are needed.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend for having drawn to your Lordships' attention an important facet of national life, even if it is on the last day of term and at an hour later than we had expected.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is an important an interesting subject. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I welcome his comments on efforts being made by Government to cut the timescale taken in the planning process. I was delighted to hear that he is to send me some Easter weekend reading. I am duly subdued by that thought.
I was also delighted to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that he is on my side. It is to be hoped that I shall have to remind him of that in future because as yet we have agreed only on matters to do with fishing, about which we have long conversations.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the Labour Party in wishing my noble friend the Minister well on his forthcoming trip to the surgeon's knife. I wish him a full recovery. I hope that everyone has a most pleasant Easter weekend thinking about matters to do with planning. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Southern Africa
7.31 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to call attention to current political and economic developments in Southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to address a few of the key issues relating to the economic and political development in Southern Africa. I am a little sorry that the debate is taking place at this late hour of the night. I had hoped that several other Members would be present and interested in listening to the debate. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, had to scratch his name from the list of speakers. He had intended to contribute, but at this hour he is on a flight southbound to South Africa to take a well-deserved holiday.
I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell is making his maiden speech on this subject. The right reverend Prelate comes to your Lordships' House with an enormous amount of experience and expertise, in particular in developing countries. I am greatly looking forward to his contribution tonight.
I have always focused my debates on South Africa and today it is a little daunting to try to tackle the entire region in the limited time at my disposal.
Southern Africa covers almost 4 million square miles with a population of just over 120 million. During the past decade it has had more than its fair share of political, social and economic upheaval. The two words that are key to the potential success of Southern Africa, both politically and economically, are "reconciliation" and "co-operation". Nelson Mandela has achieved the political miracle in South Africa through his policy of promoting reconciliation. After the decades of civil war in Mozambique and Angola, at long last partial reconciliation was achieved in successful elections in Mozambique in 1994. Following the Lusaka Protocol in November 1994, there appeared at long last, and particularly recently, to be the basis of a lasting compromise between the MPLA and UNITA in Angola.
Southern Africa has undergone a form of metamorphosis during the past 10 years. Countries which in the wake of independence from colonialism has opted for "Marxist/Leninist inspired economic models", referred to by some as "Afro-Marxism", have today turned towards economic liberalism and are implementing structural adjustment programmes.
The milestone of democratisation was undoubtedly the ending of apartheid in South Africa. The so-called political miracle, as I have mentioned, has put an end to many years of destabilisation which was orchestrated to a large degree by the previous government.
The recent political achievements in southern Africa have, to a large degree, been propelled by the fall of communism and the ending of the Cold War and, as I have just mentioned, the end to minority rule in South Africa has removed the final obstacle to the southern African region's desire for closer political and economic integration.
Today southern Africa appears to be more united and resolute than ever in confronting the problems that it must solve in the future. The Southern African Development Community, to which I shall refer as SADC, representing 12 member nations and accounting for 40 per cent. of Africa's total population and 81 per cent. of the continent's GNP, has gathered momentum towards tackling the region's problems through greater co-operation. For example, during 1994, co-operative diplomacy averted the government's crisis in Lesotho, and two months later prevented the otherwise certain collapse of the United Nations supervised elections in Mozambique.
The objectives of SADC are extensive. Among those objectives, it aims to achieve development and economic growth, to alleviate poverty, enhance the standard and quality of life of the peoples of southern Africa and promote and defend peace and security as well as to maximise productive employment and utilisation of the resources of the region. Agreements have been made in relation to sharing water resources and a common grid has been negotiated for electrification. The most ambitious recent call by SADC has been for the creation of a common market and the elimination of trade barriers.
While those objectives are commendable, many would argue that the reality of achieving those goals is another matter, a far-fetched dream. The theme of the

393
recent SADC conference in South Africa in February was the enhancement of trade and investment into southern Africa. That is a much more realistic objective. Without elaborating on the ramifications of the conference, there was a strong call for an institutional framework which would ensure that goods and services produced in the region were competitive on the world market. The conference highlighted the need for the region to invest in the development of human resources so as to provide skills and expertise demanded by industry.
One of the greatest problems, following the years of civil war and unrest in the region as well as the results of the long drought which thankfully has now been broken after the fantastic rains which occurred in southern Africa last year and are still happening this year, has been massive poverty and under-development as well as large numbers of displaced peoples. A recent World Bank survey in southern Africa showed that one of the major priorities for communities was job creation. The story of southern Africa's economic development has been a story of migration of its peoples, migration because of civil war, the drought and insecurity. Cross-border migration has caused problems, particularly for South Africa.
Clearly, peace and stability are essential for social and economic development. The Interstate Defence and Security Committee was established in southern Africa recently and its aims have been to achieve stability and promote socio-economic development in the region with lasting peace the ultimate objective. Plans have been established to endeavour to stem cross-border crime and the illegal flow of arms between the countries in the region.
The economic reality of the past decade has been that many countries and governments in southern Africa have, as a result of the civil war and unrest, increased military spending at the expense of socio-economic sectors. For example, I understand that between 1992 and 1994, the Angolan Government spent almost 80 per cent. of their budget on defence. That has exacerbated another problem which, of course, in Africa is a major problem; that of government debt.
That leads me to make brief mention of the problem of land-mines, particularly in Mozambique and Angola. Angola is sewn with an estimated 15 million land mines, especially in the areas around towns which have seen the fiercest fighting. I was in Luanda a few months ago—in fact, at the same time as the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington—and saw for myself the tragic consequences of the effects of these brutal weapons of war, mostly on children who lost their legs and arms. As we all know, children are especially vulnerable to land-mines and land-mines in southern Africa are certainly a fundamental obstacle to social and economic development, particularly in Mozambique and Angola. With 100 million land-mines already laid around the world, and with another estimated 100 million land-mines stockpiled and, added to this, the huge cost of clearing those mines, do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to ban these weapons of war?
Despite massive economic problems facing Mozambique in the wake of the devastation from the 17-year war, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has succeeded in repatriating almost 2 million refugees back to their country. Unfortunately, the UNHCR is finding it much more difficult to achieve a similar repatriation in Angola, to a large degree because of the massive amount of land-mines there. The civil war in Angola has destroyed much of the infrastructure, including, of course, the Benguela rail link, which desperately needs to be rebuilt and secured if there is to any chance of an economic recovery in that area. In Luanda alone, there are over 3 million displaced people.
I should have liked to have elaborated more on the recent talks and agreements between the MPLA and UNITA and the plans for the new Government of National Unity and Reconciliation in Angola in July, but time restricts me from doing so today. I shall suffice but to mention that there are clearly major logistical problems there. I welcome the 1 billion dollar aid package pledged to Angola from the EU sponsored Brussels conference last year.
Another extremely positive development has been the Maputo Corridor Project between South Africa and Mozambique to be formally launched later this year. That will upgrade road and rail links between the two countries and will certainly improve the economic interaction between South Africa and Mozambique. A major drawback to the successes of achieving democracy in most countries in South Africa has, unfortunately, been the slow process of meeting the expectations of the masses. High hopes were raised in South Africa that the reconstruction and development programme would provide jobs, houses and better education. The reality, sadly, has been that the implementation of the RDP programme has been slow and erratic. I welcome the recent move which will mean that the RDP programme will now fall under the Treasury responsibilities in South Africa.
In Zambia, now three years after the election of President Chiluba, most observers agree that the changes introduced by the new regime have been slow and not particularly effective. The economic and financial situation has barely improved and Zambia has still one of the biggest debts per capita on the African continent. Moreover, its dependence on copper is as great as ever and the population has seen no improvement in living standards. The introduction of international economic systems in southern Africa have, in many countries in the region, not been conducive to building prosperous and secure societies.
It may be contentious, but I believe that the term "democracy" in southern Africa is, in many cases, a myth. The recent election in Zimbabwe, for example, was a classic farce. In South Africa, it is my hope that the ANC will not develop into too strong a party, but that it will have a strong, enduring opposition. I am sure that that would be the wish of President Nelson Mandela. With the rifts between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC, I also hope that the new constitution in South Africa will not be set in stone, but will have a degree of flexibility. The next 18 months in South Africa will be critically important for the country for

395
establishing a sound base for the future. Nelson Mandela's health poses a major problem and also a concern to many, especially if he opts to retire before his term expires in 1999.
Social and economic improvements, particularly for the majority of the black peoples, must be visible. There needs to be constant and sustained GDP growth. Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, in a recent speech aptly summarised the challenges in South Africa in his call for,
"sustained GDP growth of at least 6 per cent. by the year 2000, the provision of a basic household infrastructure for all by 2005, enhanced investment in the economic infrastructure, education and training, a national crime prevention strategy and a rationalisation of the public service".
My time is almost up but in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I briefly wish to make a call which he was going to make this evening for Her Majesty's Government to continue their support for a satisfactory South African/European Union free trade agreement to be negotiated as soon as possible. The European Union has been South Africa's prime economic partner in terms of trade investment, transfer of technologies and financing, and has made many valid contributions to the South African economy. However, several members of the European Union have recently proposed protectionist measures by drawing up a list of products, being almost 60 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports, to be excluded from these negotiations. This is a blatant U-turn on earlier commitments by the European Union to offer a generous free trade area to South Africa. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance this evening of Her Majesty's Government's continuing support to get an expeditious free trade zone agreement with South Africa.
In conclusion, southern Africa has certainly been experiencing upheavals in the past few years but at least the changes have been more positive than negative. The international community has certainly played an important role in influencing many of the political and economic developments in the region. Mozambique and Zambia are to a large degree dependent on western donors. However, the challenge in assisting southern Africa to achieve sustainable growth has in reality only just started. Her Majesty's Government, ably steered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, the Minister, has done excellent work in the region, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister who is to reply to the debate tonight what measures Her Majesty's Government and her European partners are planning to assist in matching the political successes, the so-called political miracle, with the essential goal of sustainable social and economic prosperity in the region. I beg to move for Papers.
7.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I feel a bit like St. Paul, who, when he addressed the Corinthians, was in fear and trembling. However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing this subject and also for his gracious and kind words.
396
As he pointed out, I have spent 17 years in South America, and my knowledge and experience of South Africa in the light of the experience of many noble Lords present is superficial, but my concern is deep. It was on a sabbatical of last year that I was able to visit both South America and South Africa. During that visit to South Africa I became aware of, and was forcibly struck by, the continuing unhealed gap that exists as a legacy of apartheid. On the other hand I was also impressed by the long-standing and respected contribution of all the Churches, and not least the Anglican Church under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in the campaign for an end to apartheid and for an end to the wars in other countries in the region.
I wish to centre my comments around two concepts: reconciliation, to which the noble Lord has already referred, and redevelopment. We have learnt from our South African colleagues, through their long struggle, that there can be no reconciliation without justice. It is not easy to achieve real justice because it is proving hard to fulfil the high expectations of the black population for jobs, housing and healthcare. If using a gun in war or crime have been the only ways in which people have made a living, the social and personal consequences prove immensely destructive.
We see, too, from the tragic devastation wrought by war in places like Mozambique and Angola that there can be no development without reconciliation. Killing has to stop before the conditions for living can be created. In war situations, long-term development and stability simply cannot be achieved. According to the Catholic Institute for International Relations, when the war in Angola restarted in 1992, the Angolan economy declined by 25 per cent. in the following year. It is a country rich in resources, and yet one-third of the population was dependent on food aid in early 1995. We hope and pray that the mediation efforts have now brought the killing to an end.
Few in South Africa believed that the triumphant overthrow of apartheid and President Mandela's achievement at the ballot box marked the end of the story; and today there are still situations of overt and threatened violence which require the involvement and concern of the international community. This is why, for example, Christian Aid is supporting the initiative of the KwaZulu-Natal Church Leaders' Group, which has requested church people from Britain to monitor the elections scheduled for the end of May. At the request of South Africa's Churches, there was a well regarded and successful international monitoring operation at the time of the South African national elections. Now it is time to repeat this operation in the worst of the local trouble spots in South Africa. I understand that it is not unusual for 20 to 30 people to die each week in political violence in Natal. Much of the carnage is attributed to the confrontation between the African National Congress and the Inkatha Freedom Party of Chief Buthelezi. However, violence in communities, as we know from Northern Ireland, is a very complex issue. Tension is high at the moment because of charges laid against highly placed military

397
leaders of the old apartheid regime and because of charges of collusion by Inkatha in killings and the former repression.
There are also important technical economic issues at stake. These do not always find adequate reflection, I believe, in our media or our public debates. The noble Lord referred to this fact. South Africa needs better access to the markets of the European Union. It is urgent for the region's economic development that the agreement concerning tariffs made in Berlin in 1994 between European and Southern African foreign ministers is implemented. South African products affected include fruit, avocados and wine. Lowering those tariffs would help to create jobs in the rural areas where unemployment is high. Since the produce comes from the southern hemisphere and is therefore subject to different growing seasons, competition with European produce is greatly reduced.
I would like to return to the issue of the destruction in Mozambique and Angola due to the wars there, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred. As the noble Lord said, in Angola there are more land-mines than there are people. This presents us with a double responsibility. On the one hand we must seek to ensure that the economy can be rebuilt and the mines cleared. People cannot return and grow food until their land is free of mines. This is painstaking, costly and dangerous work and needs our support. Mine clearance is one aspect of our aid programme which, wherever it occurs in the world, has strong support from the Churches, aid organisations and many other quarters. The allocation of resources to this priority issue by the Overseas Development Administration is much appreciated, but one recognises the constraints under which the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has to operate. I think it is important that the Minister should know how much her stance and personal commitment on this subject are welcomed.
In this connection the General Synod of the Church of England has recently identified a further responsibility and has asked Her Majesty's Government to support an international ban on the production, transfer and deployment of land-mines so that situations of this type are not repeated elsewhere. I remind the House that the Review Conference of the United Nations Inhumane Weapons Convention, addressing precisely this issue, resumes later this month.
The Southern African experience of recent decades shows that the Church, among many others, has sought to support efforts to bring ethical standards into the tense political climate. Politicians themselves recognise that reconciliation is vital for construction of community. No human society can survive unless fundamental enmity is overcome. That is why it is essential that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Tutu, is a success. It was he who asked the salutary question:
"How can I embrace my brother, if he is standing on my head?"
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission exists not to wreak vengeance, nor for the sake of establishing abstract truth, but for the eminently practical and
398
political task of removing the poison of past violence, injustice and lies which continues to circulate within South African society. One recognises that if the commission is successful, it may be a valuable model of good practice which will be desperately needed in other parts of Southern Africa and the whole continent of Africa.
In conclusion, furthering reconciliation and redevelopment are tasks where Churches, politicians and all people of good will can find much in common. Graça Machel, who has overall responsibility for preparing the United Nations report on the impact of war on children, stresses the vital importance of rebuilding churches, schools and other buildings to help restore the sense of community and an ordered structure to society.
In Holy Week, it is appropriate for me to emphasise that the message of our Lord is: "Life in all its fullness". Reconciliation and redevelopment are essential elements if the conditions for a fully human life are to be created for all the people of Southern Africa. We must do all in our power to support and encourage them.
7.57 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure and privilege to follow the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and to have the privilege of congratulating him on it. I know that he has considerable expertise in South American and international affairs and that he will bring to the House great wisdom in our debates on those subjects. Those who follow the South American activities of the House look forward to contributions from him in that arena.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John, for this opportunity to talk about southern Africa tonight. He and I bumped into each other in Luanda, Angola only a few weeks ago so I could hardly avoid his summons to speak tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, I attended the Nestle Lecture in the Banqueting Hall just along the road the other day given by the distinguished Ghanaian economist, Dr. Joseph Abbey. Dr. Abbey's lecture was entitled "Africa in Crisis" and painted a pretty dire picture of the state of the African continent and particularly the countries south of the Sahara. I cannot say that I agreed entirely with his analysis nor all his conclusions, but what was refreshing was to hear an African who did not blame the slave trade of a century ago, did not blame former colonial powers and accepted that much of Africa had only itself to blame for its economic and social predicaments.
I have some sympathy with his conclusion that the Bretton Woods structural adjustment programmes which have had such an impact on many African economies nevertheless offer a harsh medicine rather difficult for some countries to take in the prescribed dose. Such measures as scrapping agricultural produce boards, which were simply taxes on farmers and exports, and the ending of exchange controls, which have got rid of the preferential access of the fat cats or "Wabenzis" to, imported luxuries, have done a lot to help those economies. Sure enough, the outflows that everybody

399
predicted did not happen. Many of the economies have experienced inflows (even if local treasury bill markets have got a little over-heated in the process).
In the few minutes available to me, I do not want to go into a long navel contemplation exercise on African economic theory. Rather I want to set a quick scene in relation to what I believe can be done without vast capital resources to improve the economies of certain African countries.
The Soviet Union has gone. In its going, the principal sponsor for bad economic behaviour has folded his tent. At the same time, investors have begun to realise that the Soviet Union itself is no economic El Dorado; in spite of the promises, apparent oil reserves and so on, there are few quick fortunes to be made there; and above all there is little political stability. Worst of all, there is virtually no established law or business precedent to protect the foreign investor.
Suddenly Africa, from which Dr. Abbey alleges the West is still withdrawing, does not look such a bad place. The rudiments of commercial law are still in place, as is the odd vestige of impartial justice; language is not a barrier; and on the whole the telephones still work—where they do not, that presents some opportunities! Above all, as Dr. Abbey points out, Africans are realising that such theories as Nyrere's Ujamaa socialism simply do not fill bellies. More importantly, they are realising that the world does not owe Africa a living; and if Africa wants foreign investment, it must offer fully competitive terms and a conducive commercial environment.
The opportunities for economic development are legion. Angola and Mozambique, for example, as we have already touched on in this debate, are two countries both emerging from the ravages of long-running civil wars, both with shattered economies and infrastructures but with the enormous natural resources and endowments needed to climb back out of the pit.
Both have suffered, first from a long association with a rather bureaucratic colonial power and then from a serious flirtation with Marxism. It has left them with governments which, whatever their present good intentions, are still far too centralist and authoritarian to allow entrepreneurial activity to flourish and truly to encourage the creative talents of their people.
The best example of how a simple change of attitude can dramatically improve, and I hope already is improving, the economy of Mozambique is in the tourist industry. Mozambique has the most fantastic coastline in Africa. It is largely unspoilt and unexploited.
I paid my first visit to Mozambique for 12 years some 18 months ago, arriving in a light aircraft. On my arrival I was greeted by sullen and officious immigration officers and even sullener customs officials. I was then made to pay exorbitant fees for landing and customs and immigration. Just as I thought I was through it all, I was asked to pay a further 60 dollars for radio navigation fees, a supreme insult as the control tower was not even working!
The following day I called on the director-general of tourism. I asked him whether, now that South Africa had abandoned apartheid and Mozambique was no longer
400
Marxist, South African tourists who until 1975 more or less kept the Mozambique economy afloat would be allowed back. I was informed that his department viewed the average South African tourist as likely to spend about 5 rand a head, camp on the beach and damage the beach with his four-wheel drive vehicle. This view was apparently based on an analysis of pre-independence trends from 1975, and according to the director-general Mozambique wanted only "big spending" tourists. I tried to explain that, while I was not a big spending tourist, they did tend to arrive in light aircraft, did not like being ripped off and wanted value for money.
More importantly, it is a simple fact that tourism is a pyramid, and few countries can choose just the tip. The best example I can give is that the driver of an expensive car will not venture abroad if he cannot get his vehicle serviced in an emergency; but the service facility needs more volume than just the odd Rolls or Mercedes to survive, and that volume has to be provided by regular trade from less expensive vehicles.
I am glad to say that on my last visit to Mozambique a few weeks ago the officials were vastly more polite and—a real sign that tourism is on the up—I found that car hire companies had returned to Maputo airport offering self-drive cars. So maybe, just maybe, my little homily to the director-general had some effect.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, also touched on the initiative of the Maputo Corridor. That should really open Maputo up as the gateway port for what I am told I now have to call Mpumalanga (I used to know it as the Eastern Transvaal).
By contrast with Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia are privatising everything their governments can think of and inviting foreigners to come back into the agricultural sector. What is not clear, however, is where the skilled manpower to drive a privatised economy will come from. Virtually all these African governments have progressively toughened residence controls and steadily driven out the expatriate middle manager and the smaller white entrepreneur as contributors to their economy. It was particularly depressing to hear President Mugabe only last week talking about redistribution of farmland. The only reason that his country is the success that it is is that it has a background of efficient commercial farmers.
If any African government are looking for just one totally self-financing method of boosting their economy, rather than frightening them out, it would be much better to encourage the small foreign entrepreneurs to return—to return to farming, the service industries and small manufacturing. Far from keeping Africans out of better jobs, these people create jobs, raise standards and ensure that goods and services are there to meet the demand.
There is a huge well of talent to do just that in South Africa. The South African business community was kept out of most of Africa for many years. Now, with the political changes, South Africans are to be seen in almost every capital in Africa—mining men, construction engineers, airline pilots, military advisers and transport contractors—everywhere from Nigeria to

401
Tanzania. I sometimes feel that old Cecil Rhodes in his grave in the Matopos Hills will now have a quiet smile on his face.
There is one major topic on interdependence which is important. The Southern African rail system, on which we have touched slightly, though far from perfect as an interstate network, at least in theory connects most of the countries of Southern Africa. South Africa is connected to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Zaire, Angola and, via the different gauge Tazara system, to East Africa. Sadly, theory is about all it is though, because the Benguela Railway lies in ruins. It is an interesting point that I saw an estimate the other day which said that the cost of repair or replacing the permanent way of the Benguela Railway system would be about the same as the current annual cost of flying supplies up to Kuito and Lueña and the hinterland. Further east in Malawi, there is a major missing link at the moment as a result of the Mozambique war; namely, the section of the CFM system from Beira up to the Zambezi which badly needs replacement. It is those sorts of projects with which the major donors could help. If Mozambique kept that line going it opens up the huge coal reserves potentially of Tete Province.
I could go on all day. Suffice to say that I believe that there are many inexpensive politico-economic solutions to southern Africa's problems which require only changes of attitude rather than vast capital infusions. We in the West should encourage economic decentralisation and economic interdependence between the territories. We—by "we" I mean HMG, the World Bank and international lenders to the third world, and indeed SADAC as an organisation—can help financially by assisting with the rebuilding and upgrading of road and rail links. We should bring pressure on countries like Zaire to put their houses in order. I can only touch on this matter, but Zaire is probably the worst mess in Africa at the moment. We should give every assistance to those countries which have recently emerged from the dark days of civil war to continue the process towards liberated democracy. Post-independence Africa in the latter part of the 20th century has been something of a pig's ear. I hope that it can be a silk purse in the 21st.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I have never been to Mozambique. Nor, I must say to the right reverend Prelate, have I ever been to South America. When I was Speaker I paid a visit to Malawi and I was not met with the kind of sullen attitude mentioned by the noble Viscount. Indeed, my recollection on arriving and seeking to telephone the High Commissioner was of a voice which said, "Hold on a minute. I haven't got this thing switched on." I thought that rather charming.
I take a rather more idealistic view of the debate tonight. I was at a school speech day about a month ago and stole what I thought was one of the most positive mottoes I have come across. It was: "Look up and not down; look out and not in; look forward and not back. Lend a hand". I paid my first visit to South Africa in
402
1995 as a Commonwealth observer in the elections. I was enchanted by the beauty of that country and even more by the commitment of the people to participate in democratic elections. Surely that was an object lesson to those in our own country who claim they cannot be bothered to vote.
Two years on it behoves us all to ensure that the first tender shoots of democracy take firm root. The most pressing need is to ensure the economic success of South Africa and in particular the creation of new businesses and of new jobs. Your Lordships will have heard me refer on previous occasions to the Prince's Trust and in particular to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, of which I am proud to be a trustee. This year the trust celebrates its 10th anniversary and over that period in this country it has helped some 27,000 young unemployed people to become self-employed and has thereby created new businesses and new jobs.
One of the most difficult problems faced by South Africa is the urgent need to create real employment opportunities in deprived areas and in particular in the townships. This is an area in which the expertise and also the track record of the PYBT can be of great help. I am pleased to tell the House that the Prince's Youth Business Trust has been asked to play a part in the establishment of the Nation's Trust which is about to be set up in South Africa under the joint patronage of the President, Mr. Mandela, and of Her Majesty the Queen. This new trust will draw on the experience and the expertise of the Prince's Trust in developing in South Africa a programme to help young people. The Prince's Youth Business Trust will second an experienced manager to establish a scheme designed to encourage and to help young unemployed South Africans to set up in business, thereby giving them self-satisfaction and an income and also, it is to be hoped, creating new jobs for others.
As in the United Kingdom, the South African scheme will focus on people who cannot get help elsewhere and again, as in the United Kingdom, the Nation's Trust will be supported by prominent South African commercial enterprises, a most encouraging example of collaboration between the public, the private and the charitable sectors of the economy.
The Prince's Youth Business Trust advisory system is one of the main reasons why in our country about two-thirds of the businesses it helps to set up are still trading after three years. We hope that this track record of success will be replicated in South Africa.
We are all delighted that President Mandela is to pay a visit to our country in July. His remarkable leadership—and, it must also be said, the leadership of Mr. de Klerk—achieved what the noble Lord, Lord St.John of Bletso, rightly called the miracle of the creation of a new South Africa. It is a particular pleasure that one of his first actions on becoming President was to seek to rejoin the family of the Commonwealth, now also enlarged by the admission of Mozambique and the Cameroon and, it is to be hoped, shortly by Angola as well.

403
When I was president of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I heard a charming story from the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament. He said that when geese fly they do so in formation. If a goose gets out of formation, it is honked back into line. If a goose is wounded or falls to the ground for any reason, two other geese go down to see what they can do to help. Furthermore, the lead goose changes from time to time. The moral of the story is that we are all likely to reach our destination in safety if we keep together than would be the case if we were to seek to go it alone.
It is in that spirit that we should seek to encourage and to help not only South Africa, but also the other countries of the region, to prosperity.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso for allowing us to revisit Southern Africa with this debate. I note that culture, sport and tourism do not figure in the title this year, but I cannot let the moment pass without congratulating South Africa on some remarkable sporting achievements since the last debate in February last year.
I wish to confine my remarks to South Africa and to a single area of the economy which is often overlooked. That is education—an investment for the future. I shall rely heavily for my facts on a recent Financial Times survey on South Africa and 1992 figures from the World Bank. According to the South African Foundation, 2.3 million young people in their teens and 20s, are out of work and of these 1.5 million have never had a job or have been unemployed for over four years. It should be remembered that it is estimated that 50 per cent. of the black population is under 18 years of age. Only seven out of every 100 school leavers seeking work will find employment this year. As we have heard from the noble Lord, for positive employment, an economic growth rate of 6 per cent. is probably required as against the 3.5 per cent. growth rate achieved at present. The unemployment rate in the area is about 32 per cent., which is extremely high and leads to the danger of instability caused by young, bored people and puts strains on racial reconciliation and nation-building.
What can be done to achieve a better educated and more highly skilled work force? According to a World Bank discussion paper of December 1995,
"The critical first step in improving training is to strengthen primary and secondary schooling—the most equitable and cost-effective investment the state can make in education".
But all this costs money, and the 35.4 billion rand—which is about £6 billion in sterling terms—education budget is, for the second successive year, the single largest item of government expenditure. However, according again to the World Bank, it is 4.4 billion rand, or about £750 million sterling, below what is required to make up the national shortage of 65,000 classrooms. Certainly, money can be saved and waste of resources prevented if education provided and skills taught are closely focused to provide school leavers with the exact skills that industry and the jobs market are seeking. I wonder whether, in the short term, and for those who have previously been denied a formal academic
404
education, more emphasis should be put on vocational skills to enhance employment and exports. It should also be recognised that prior learning and workplace skills can he just as valuable as formal academic awards.
However, much still needs to be done. According to the 1992 figures, only 14 per cent. of black children stay in school until matriculation, compared with 88 per cent. of white children, and only one black pupil per 10,000 is eligible to enter university in mathematics or science. It is to be hoped that the reconstruction and development programme fund will shortly come to fruition, thereby unleashing greater educational opportunities for the underprivileged. As President Mandela is as keen as I am on education in South Africa, I am sure that resources will continue to be found for the eager-to-learn young people, and that in the next debate initiated by my noble friend Lord St. John we shall learn that considerable progress has been made.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso for initiating this debate today. I have just returned from a long-overdue visit to South Africa, which was my home for many years, so this debate is extremely timely for me. Like the noble Earl, I shall confine my remarks to South Africa. Much of what I have to say is based entirely on personal observation.
The political miracle brought about by elections in 1994 now needs to be complemented by an economic miracle. Perhaps the majority of South Africans feel that things are improving as many now have access to clean drinking water and almost half a million homes which were previously without electricity now have it. Education is also compulsory, and there is free medical care. However, education, at both school and adult level, with subsequent training, is a long-term investment which will reap dividends in the future.
Right now, there is unemployment of about 45 per cent. in the formal sector and about 35 per cent. in the informal sector among the black population. A large proportion of this group is unskilled. In fact, unemployment is in many ways South Africa's biggest economic challenge.
Unionised workers do earn far more than their non-union counterparts. Wages also tend to be high in relation to productivity by world standards. The labour market needs to function far better at the low-skills end. More low-wage jobs need to be created for this sector because at the moment they have no wage at all. The consequences of this can be devastating, and only encourages the inequalities in society as a whole. Our system of trade unionism, already tried in the past, only discourages job growth as only the skilled benefit. Again, education and training will close the gap, but that takes time. However, in order for the South African manufacturing industry to be more competitive in world markets, the labour market needs to be far more flexible than it is.

405
President Mandela said in his speech to the third session of parliament on 9th February this year:
"We can neither heal nor build, if on the one hand the rich in our society see the poor as hordes of irritants, or if on the other hand the poor sit back, expecting charity. All of us must take responsibility for the upliftment of our conditions, prepared to give our best to the benefit of all".
So education for both adults and children alike needs to be high on the agenda.
If the majority are also to benefit, South Africa clearly needs a development strategy of rapid growth, perhaps in the region of five to six per cent., to entice new investment and make the country internationally competitive. I certainly got the impression from one businessman I spoke to that the Government were doing all that they could to create a market-friendly environment. At the moment, in spite of economic growth of around 3 per cent., only about 12,000 jobs have been created. It will continue to be a struggle to widen the skills base and absorb more people into the economy. Part of the problem is that investment in plant and machinery is less expensive and more productive.
NEDLAC, meaning National Economic Development Labour Council, has been set up by government, business and labour together in a three-way co-operation process to promote competitiveness, export and job creation. Consensus has already been reached about the required incentives and will come before parliament this session.
As far as concerns exports, we used to give preferential treatment to Commonwealth countries, but no more. Our excise duty is among the highest in Europe, which makes it difficult for countries like South Africa to infiltrate our markets. For example, a duty of £12.64 on a nine-litre case of wine, excluding VAT, customs and all other costs, means that a £1 bottle of wine costs £2.24 before wholesale and retail costs are taken into account.
I understand that most of the costs on education, health, housing and public transport—which for the majority is non-existent—have been provided by the reconstruction and development board. However, government spending is already high and getting higher. In the recent budget almost 70 per cent. of the 16 billion rand increase in spending for next year will be taken up by improved conditions for civil servants and interest on the country's 280 billion rand debt. Taxes are high by world standards. I suspect that there are not enough taxpayers to support anything like the amount needed. There seems to be a thriving cash economy that contributes nothing to the treasury. If one adds to that the culture of non-payment, one begins to appreciate just what the government are up against.
This brings me to the prospect of privatisation. The government have considerable holdings. If they were to sell off their involvement in the private sector they could realise 60 billion rand of much-needed money to fund their programmes. Two weeks ago the Chancellor, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, received a positive response from the government on this subject when he met the Deputy President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki.
406
On the political side, I felt that people were more at ease with one another. All those to whom I spoke expressed a real desire to contribute to making their country more secure both economically and politically, though, not surprisingly, few knew exactly how to achieve this. Many young couples worried about the education of their children in the public sector; many homes need two salaries for their upkeep; property is expensive; but food by our standards is very reasonable and plentiful.
Crime is a problem. The government are concerned about it and are trying to introduce measures to prohibit the carrying of dangerous weapons as South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world. There is a taxi war going on, with drivers competing not only with one another but also with minibuses, which pack their vehicles to the brim, and it is the poor passenger who gets caught in between. I am not surprised that many people prefer to walk. It is safer. Crime harms the economy both directly and indirectly. Unless it can be checked it will eventually harm tourism, which South Africa needs. She is now on the international stage, whether she likes it or not. For her to harvest all the good will which has come her way from the international community, in return she will have to continue to make reforms sooner rather than later. Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the right reverend Prelate, I also hope that past assistance from HMG will prove to be the start of a future programme to help South Africa achieve the economic miracle that I mentioned in my introduction.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the affairs of southern Africa burn bright with my noble friend at the helm. I should like to follow his lead and extol the trend towards regionalism. Since the end of the Cold War, attention has been able to focus on seeking equitable and balanced solutions to many global problems—solutions without purely national interest.
The world is ever-changing. Borders are no longer appropriate divides. All directions are sign-posted "regionalism". Sustainable solutions to the woes of Africa will come with economic development through regionalism. And the most together of these groupings is SADC. It covers a wide area, with members stretching from Tanzania down to South Africa and over to Mauritius. But the process is gradual and being implemented sensibly in a way that prevents, for example, the de-industrialisation of member states.
The SADC is about to implement a trade protocol that will break down barriers. That will be a first step towards the long-term objective of establishing a common market in the region. Two priority objectives of SADC which are fundamental and from which I believe all else flows are, first, to promote self-sustaining development on the basis of collective self-reliance and the interdependence of member states; and, secondly, to promote and maximise productive employment and utilisation of resources of the region. That is achieved through sectoral co-operation. Duplications of functions are minimised. Everything is covered, from A to Z: Angola with responsibility for

407
energy, to Zimbabwe covering food, agriculture and natural resources, and co-ordination is also being developed in political, defence and security areas.
The political arm of SADC has developed a mechanism for dealing with conflict prevention, management and resolution in southern Africa. This is Africa resolving its internal affairs. Africans want to be their own policemen, even to the extent that military intervention could be decided upon. And SADC is more. Currently being discussed is a protocol on free movement of persons. Those are all building blocks beyond just words.
I shall say a word about developmental aid. What can we as donors do to nurture the process? There is a strong case for regional considerations before bilateral ones. Regional infrastructure in transport, shared waterways and electricity is crucial. High unemployment in southern Africa, for example, can be addressed with interconnected power grid-systems taking electricity to peoples' homes. That would give people the opportunity to work, generating small businesses and revitalising the economies through trade and investment.
There are those who express concern that South Africa will receive the lion's share of inward investment. Certain it is that many promises were made to countries such as Namibia that, after apartheid, investment would flow. That has not been forthcoming. South Africa has the strongest economy in the region. It is not, however, in its interest to prosper in isolation. I accept that there is the Lomé model but it is far from effective. The theory is right, but it fails to perform. One of the few immediate benefits is that it exists. It would be more helpful to build upon it rather than to start from scratch. Primary fault can be found in one word: education or lack of it. The benefits need to be explained, not just in Commission and Government circles in Brussels, but in the field, to the peoples of the beneficiary states. Could the United Kingdom, with its understanding of such issues, be a driving force in that regard?
Perhaps I may conclude by re-emphasising that all the states bar Angola are Commonwealth members. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning published its findings on matters in relation to the Commonwealth, with membership criteria considered. Is there a growing case at the appropriate time for Angola to be considered as an associate member?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I cannot thank my noble friend Lord St. John enough for this opportunity because I am about to give your Lordships my thoughts on South Africa, a subject which is close to my heart. Some 20 years ago I stepped off an aeroplane in Malawi, inhaled my first smell of Africa and fell in love with it. By the time I had finished my year's training in buying tobacco leaf I had visited substantial parts of south and south-eastern Africa and I vowed to return. Subsequently, my family and I moved to South Africa in 1980 and I stayed there for just over 12 years.
I obviously witnessed at first hand the amazing transition from apartheid to democracy. I spent most of my time there working for a brewery, which was one of
408
the biggest in the world. I was directly involved in the marketing of two famous beer brands, both of which are an integral part of South African life—so much so that my colleagues and I regularly visited shebeens, the illegal drinking establishments of the townships. I personally managed a musical road show which visited every township both in the republic and the then homelands, bringing live music to the people. Because of that experience I wish, as have other noble Lords, to address my comments specifically to South Africa and the reality of life for the vast majority of people in that country today.
Thabo Mbeki, vice-president with a major responsibility for the economy, has declared the following objectives: an annual growth of 6 per cent.; annual creation of between 300,000 to 500,000 jobs; and provision of basic housing for all by the year 2005. Those are quite daunting objectives and they will need the full support of the international community.
In reviewing key economic indicators—namely, population growth, education, housing, employment and health—the current picture is not good. Today South Africa has a population estimated at around 43 million and it is growing at just over 2.5 per cent. Various sources agree that the population will continue to grow at that rate, doubling to over 70 million in 30 years' time.
More important though is the mix, a point mentioned earlier. About 38 per cent. of the population are under 15, and in complete contrast to western Europe, only 4.5 per cent. of the population are over 65. Perhaps the biggest change to have occurred recently has been the migration of rural people to the townships and the cities. That migration is simply created by poverty, which currently affects approximately one-third of all South African households. More than 70 per cent. of those households are based in the rural areas.
That statistic is based on a defined poverty line, which is a household of two adults and three children on an income of 840 rand a month; in our currency, about £140. According to a recent study, some 18 million people fall into that category. Those households are a mixture of traditional huts, shacks, hostel rooms or semi-detached houses with fewer than three rooms. Their primary source of energy is a combination of paraffin, wood and coal. And, would your Lordships believe, the most important source of lighting is the candle? When your Lordships then understand that only 60 per cent. of urban dwellers have sufficient water and only 7 per cent. have flush toilets, you will begin to see a very different picture.
As the government begin to tackle those issues the flood of people continues. Informal settlements already account for more than 7 million people, with more than 2 million found living in and around Durban alone. In late 1994 between 5,000 and 10,000 people were moving in to the Cape metropolitan area every month. With internal migration of that magnitude, the last thing the new South Africa needs is the arrival of immigrants from its neighbouring countries whose economies are in an even worse state.

409
Recent success in the African Cup, the final of which was held in Soweto, came with an amazing price. At least 15,000 spectators from outside South Africa have yet to go home. Imagine our outrage if in the forthcoming European Cup some 15,000 European football fans decided to stay behind.
All that movement has placed a great strain on the government's housing ambitions. Current figures show a backlog of around 1.5 million units, with a need to build approximately 150,000 per year for the next 10 years. We must not forget that they must build an extra 200,000 to cater for the additional growth in the population.
Economic growth therefore becomes paramount in that situation. But there again the situation is not good. As we have heard, approximately 30 per cent. of the economically active are unemployed. That represents about 11.5 million people. That high level of unemployment has been aggravated by a lack of necessary skills brought about by a lack of education. An unskilled labour force is a severe weakness in this highly competitive world of emerging markets, where cheap skilled labour is a major draw card for foreign investment.
The government spent an impressive 22 per cent. of their total budget in 1994–95 on education, but they will need to spend more, specifically when they are committed to giving every child 10 years of free and compulsory education. The current schooling is characterised by a high percentage of over-aged pupils, high pupil/teacher ratios, high pupil/classroom ratios and insufficient equipment, learning materials and facilities. Not surprisingly, just under one-quarter of the current population has not received any formal education whatever.
As we know in this country only too well, education is the key to the future. It helps to stimulate growth in the economy, improve the quality of life and eradicate the worst aspects of poverty and health. Today the South African health indicators are a reflection of the country's general socio-economic development. They reflect severe racial contrasts, with the black and coloured population groups showing high infant and child mortality rates, the lowest life expectancy, the highest rates of TB notification and the highest rates of HIV infection. In essence, that is a typical third world scenario. The indicators for the whites and the Asians compare very favourably with most industrialised countries.
All in all it is not a pretty picture. It is certainly not the picture that we have received here: the new South Africa; the rainbow nation; the world champions in rugby and boxing; quarter finalists in the recent Cricket World Cup. But all that success is marking the failure of the reconstruction and development programme to deliver on its promises.
However praiseworthy and necessary their goals may be, we need to ask whether the government are committing themselves beyond their capabilities. The government, full of good intentions, suffer from paralysis simply because they have taken on too much.
410
For example, only 10,163 houses have been built with state funds in the past 18 months and the RDP stipulated that at least 500,000 should have been built.
In concluding, I must ask whether South Africa will go the way of the rest of Africa. Many influential market-makers believe that that is inevitable. The poverty, the appalling levels of crime and political violence are all realities in the daily lives of the majority of the people. Those are ideal conditions for the collapse of a young and fragile democracy. But I believe, as do many of my South African friends, that they hold the key to the future development of southern Africa. After all, it is in their interests to see a stable and prosperous Africa. Just as they are prepared to undertake a long-term commitment, I ask that Her Majesty's Government should swing their full support both in terms of investment and people behind the South African Government. After all, as a nation we have a strong historic tie and I believe that that merits preferential treatment.
Finally, I can think of no greater inspiration for us and the people of southern Africa than the extraordinary achievement of Nelson Mandela in initiating and uniting what was once a deeply divided society. That achievement will only bear fruit if economic growth can be sustained and poverty eradicated. They deserve our fullest support. To this end I say: N'Knosi sikelel' IAfrika—God bless Africa!
8.47 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it falls to me also to thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for initiating this debate and to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his magnificent maiden speech. With his knowledge of South America, I am sure that he will add greatly to our debates on an area which is quite often overlooked in this House.
To begin with, I must say that I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is not present. I say that because I wanted to refer to a previous debate in which she drew my attention to the ODA's Internet site. It is one of the best web sites I have come across. I wanted to mention it particularly because it gives quite a detailed account of where the noble Baroness will be over the next few months. With that information, we shall be forearmed over when to initiate debates in the future.
Tonight's debate is also important due to the fact that, although the noble Lord has initiated debates about Southern Africa before, the subject is one that needs constant attention. The democratisation of Africa really relies on the success of South Africa. The democratisation of other countries such as Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi and, most recently, Tanzania has in every case been a miracle in its own right. Because of the effect in South Africa people tend to overlook the impact of this change on their own population. However, these are fragile flowers and unless debates are initiated on the subject certain areas may be overlooked. The elections in Mozambique took place a mere few months after those in South Africa but they were hardly mentioned.

411
I should like to concentrate on the election process and the continuing role of democratisation. Most people believe that democratisation ends when an election is finished and the winner takes power, but that is not the case. South Africa is a case in point. At present democracy does not really exist in South Africa. At the moment there is a government of national unity which will rule until multi-party politics take over after the elections in 1999. That will be the real test. The five years before 1999 will be the basis upon which multi-party politics in South Africa can take place and that brings into contention the role of the ANC under President Mandela. There is no doubting the fact that it was due to President Mandela that the miracle took place. However, there is doubt about the future when he is supplanted in his role as leader of the ANC. That is important because the May elections, which will take place quite soon, will be a real crucible.
The area that I should particularly look at is that of Natal KwaZulu. The recent massacre in Donnbrook of men, women and children as part of the continual political violence between Inkatha and the ANC is a terrible reminder of the strife which has taken place on the borders of Natal KwaZula and which still continues. President Mandela's initiative to try to introduce democracy into KwaZulu through the election process is to be lauded. However, one aspect which has been overlooked is the fact that the leader of the Inkatha Party, Chief Buthelezi, who actually took part in the election process, was promised international mediation. Perhaps international mediation could prove a way forward if it were pressed. Maybe the Government could press for that.
The other area I wish to consider is the area where I believe this country can take most direct action, and that is the European Union's trade relations with South Africa. It seems so recently that the European Union was promising everything to South Africa before the elections, but it does not seem to have delivered. The agreement by the European Union foreign ministers in March of a negotiated mandate for a proposed economic co-operation accord with South Africa is long overdue. When in 1994 South Africa made the transition to a non-racial democracy, Europe pledged its support to help to build the new state. So far, substantial help has not been forthcoming.
Under apartheid, black South Africans suffered economic discrimination. The new South Africa promised to change all that. Although there is economic prosperity in South Africa at present, it is still the case that one in three black South Africans is without a job. These people are waiting to see economic improvements to their everyday lives. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred to the slowness of the RDP to take effect. That will constitute one of the big danger areas as regards a reconstructed South Africa. If that programme fails, that will be a dire warning for the future.
Improved trade relations are vital to the future of South Africa, in order to create desperately needed jobs and pay for reconstruction, especially the Government's reconstruction and development programme. The European Union is South Africa's largest trading partner, receiving nearly half of all its exports. However,
412
while other non-Western states were negotiating better trade deals with Europe, South Africa was still under apartheid. Many South African goods still face stiff import tariffs, averaging 18 per cent. last year on non-mineral items. Now is the time for the European Union to negotiate a meaningful deal with South Africa that will help it to prosper as a democratic and stable nation.
The European Union, however, seems reluctant to offer such an agreement. It has taken four months just to agree on a negotiated mandate, and already it has produced a list of products which are to be excluded from the negotiations for fear of their impact on the European Union's agricultural sector. This list accounts for nearly 38 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports; precisely the sector which has the best chance of generating jobs most quickly. It seems that the European Union has little real commitment to South Africa, or for that matter to free trade. The agreement proposes the eventual creation of a free trade area, but the exclusion list could well mean that the deal contravenes the World Trade Organisation guidelines, which require free trade areas to cover substantially all trade between two parties.
I welcome the position Britain has taken in these negotiations: these problems have been caused mainly by other European states. I urge the Government to continue to press for a fairer deal for South Africa. There is the potential for these negotiations to produce an agreement which would significantly benefit both South Africa and the European Union. It would be a shame if such an opportunity were missed.
I wish to end by referring to a point which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, and I am sure will be mentioned in many future debates; namely, the role of land-mines in Southern Africa. The economic well-being of Southern Africa will only really come to fruition if the problem of land-mines can be solved. Recently I discussed the Chemical Weapons Convention in this House. It has been acknowledged by all parties that chemical weapons have no moral justification. The main emphasis of land-mines is the coercion of civilians. Civilians are the major victims of land-mines. That is the issue which cripples many countries.
I have personal experience of this problem. When monitoring the elections in Mozambique, I drove between two polling stations and we counted those people with one limb. We counted 38 people walking on crutches between two polling stations. I felt the fear that land-mines produce after driving 20 kilometres along a mined road. One has the choice of driving back those 20 kilometres one has just driven down, or driving 10 kilometres further down the mined road. That feeling is shared by many African people. They are denied access to many areas, some good farming land.
The Government will say that they have no part in producing such land-mines. However, any land-mines will have a knock-on effect on civilians. Until they are regarded as weapons, they should not be used. Recently the military effectiveness of land-mines has been severely questioned. Until they are banned in their

413
entirety the problem will continue to affect civilians, especially in Africa. Perhaps it is time for the Government to say they are against all land-mines.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I find myself in so much agreement with his analysis and concerns, not least his concern about land-mines. I commend to noble Lords a letter in the New York Times today signed by General Schwarzkopf of Gulf War fame and 14 other senior United States officers strongly arguing the need for action on this front.
I am sure we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for the debate. He brings a great deal of personal conviction and experience to our deliberations on Africa. I always look forward to his stimulating contributions. I am sure too that all of us wish to pay a special tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell. In a profound way he reached the heart of so many of the issues that concern us. I was very glad to hear his emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation. When we think of that giant among world leaders today, President Mandela—the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill so properly referred to him—it is his ability to build into his statesmanship, after those terrible years in Robben Island, instinctive and consistent forgiveness and reconciliation that makes him so significant.
My feelings about the president were well encapsulated in a cartoon in the Guardian at the time of the Euro-elections. Standing on the doorstep of his house was an archetypal bloody minded English elector, with an exasperated canvasser standing next to him. The canvasser was saying, "Well, you can't vote for Nelson Mandela, and that's the end of it." I believe that many people throughout the world wish that they shared South African citizenship in that respect and were able to vote for the South African leader.
In reflecting on what the right reverend Prelate said, I am sure he will agree with me that it is not only forgiveness and reconciliation but the importance of conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy in the management of international affairs that is so important. It is a terrible reflection on our age that we still conduct so much of our foreign policy on a reactive responsive basis.
I was privileged to spend some years as director of Oxfam. I can remember standing in the middle of a great refugee reception area in war-torn Mozambique. I was glad to see that supplies were getting through and that I would be able to return and tell the people at home that because of that our efforts had been worthwhile. However, I remember a surge of anger coming over me thinking that the real humanitarian challenge was to ask, "Why is this happening?" How do we prevent a recurrence of tragedy, devastation and suffering on that scale? When we see the consequences of conflict in Angola, Mozambique and the other territories of that part of the world, the challenge is overpowering.
In the midst of that, we have also been considering the issues of democracy, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Our experience of the area, fitting in
414
with the principles of forgiveness and reconciliation, is that while elections and universal franchise are crucially important, they are not enough. The commitment to power sharing and the importance of a civil society as a whole are the other vital lessons that we have learnt from the story of southern Africa.
South Africa itself is obviously central to the situation. As the noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord St. John, and others, said, it is probably right to spend time looking at the situation in South Africa because it will be central to the future of the region. Under President Mandela, South Africa is becoming a strategic player. That is well illustrated by its role in the South African customs union, the Southern African Development Community and the proposed common market for eastern and southern Africa.
However, within South Africa huge challenges remain. While it is true that the economy is enjoying steady growth and inflation is at its lowest for many years, it is also true that the benefits are shared only by a minority. That inevitably has serious implications for social and political stability. Official unemployment is 33 per cent., but some 50 per cent. of the black population are still without formal jobs. Sixty-seven per cent. of South Africans—overwhelmingly black—still live below the poverty line. The majority have no access to electricity, water or permanent homes, and the housing programme, as we have been reminded, is lagging badly behind schedule.
Sadly, fear of violence which for some years has been endemic in many areas is widespread and violence against women is prevalent. In Kwa-Zulu/Natal, as many as 500,000 people—85 per cent. of whom are women and children—may have been displaced and as many as 13,000 people may have died in conflict over the past decade. According to the World Health Organisation, the health of the population as a whole still compares badly with many developing countries. Literacy rates are estimated to be 99 per cent. for whites; 84 per cent. for Asians; 66 per cent. for Coloureds and still only 54 per cent. for Africans. More than 1.5 million children are thought to be out of school and only half the children on farms are in school at all. In other words, the legacy of apartheid remains immense. It would be the ultimate act of betrayal if, at this point, the strong, principled and determined political leadership of South Africa were to be deserted by the international community. It is now that our commitment to successful change is perhaps more than ever on trial. We should be demonstrably strengthening our solidarity, not only in the interests of South Africa itself, but by helping to build a strong South Africa in the interests of the region as a whole.
The firm resolve and courageous priorities of the South African Government, against all that, are there for all to see. Apart from the modernisation of the economy, which must be heart-warming for the high priests of liberal economics as Telekom and South African Airways are privatised, 100 million rand of reconstruction and development programme funds were allocated in 1994–95 to fund school renovation, promote school governance programmes, improve attendance, and encourage parents, students and the broader school

415
community to contribute to discipline, maintenance and ongoing improvement in schools. A total of 2.7 million more people were connected to the electricity supply and 8.8 million primary school children now receive one free meal, known as the Mandela sandwich, each day.
A reform programme has been put in place covering land restitution for victims of forced removal, land redistribution for landless people and tenure reform. Redistribution and restitution have already benefited several thousand families and government funds have already helped between 2,000 and 3,000 families to gain access to land for resettlement.
A labour relations Act has been put in place; a government commission on gender equality has begun its work; a convention on the elimination of discrimination against women has been signed; and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up under the leadership of Archbishop Tutu, is due to report within two years, although it has to be said that there are doubts as to whether the allocated budget is adequate for nation-wide hearings.
Progress is being made on the new constitution with provision for a Bill of Rights recognising economic and social rights as well as political rights for progressive realisation; and the Constitutional Court has been inaugurated, with its impressive first ruling against capital punishment.
At a time of widespread conflict across the world, fed, as it is, by the profiteering arms trade, South Africa has set other arms exporting nations—not least ourselves—a far-reaching example by the appointment of the Cameron Commission, which has recommended a range of important measures to monitor and control South Africa's arms exports and to ensure transparency for South Africa's part in the arms trade.
All this, and more, speaks powerfully for the calibre of government South Africa enjoys. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to reassure us about the British Government's determination to back this impressive endeavour to the hilt.
Meanwhile, where stands the European Union? As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, argued, the evidence is far from positive. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, indicated, our debate comes just the week after the European Union Council of Ministers finally agreed its negotiating mandate for a proposed economic co-operation agreement with South Africa, at the heart of which lies trade relations. As South Africa's biggest trading partner, the deal will be vital to South Africa's economic prospects and its ability to deliver jobs and lift the black majority out of the poverty and disadvantage bequeathed by apartheid. It is therefore sobering to note that the Financial Times said of the European Union deliberations last week, "Relations between South Africa and the European Union are at a low ebb." That is a bitter reality so soon after all the pledges of support for the new democracy in 1994.
The European Union is the destination for nearly half South Africa's exports. However, fresh and tinned fruits, wine, vegetables, clothes and textiles, in particular, face severe import tariffs. And these are the very sectors that could generate employment most quickly. On melons,
416
for example, South Africa pays an 11 per cent. tariff; Turkey, Venezuela and Costa Rica pay nothing. On fresh flowers, South Africa pays 15 per cent.; Israel pays 2 per cent. and Colombia nothing. On avocados South Africa pays 6 per cent. while Israel, a major competitor, with low transport costs, faces no duty at all. When these other countries were winning better trade terms, apartheid South Africa was out in the cold. South Africa's system of racial discrimination was swept away in 1994, but European governments have still to give the new South Africa equal treatment at their borders.
At the same time, by pressing for a separate deal with South Africa rather than bringing South Africa into the Lome agreement on aid and trade with all the other countries of southern Africa, the European Union could serve to undermine South Africa's progress towards building up the regional trade and economic co-operation—especially through the Southern African Development Community—which, paradoxically, the European Union rightly says it wants to support.
Against this background it is indeed worrying to note that in the proposed European Union mandate for co-operation some 38 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports to the European Union may be excluded—probably fruit juices, lemons, oranges, apples, peas, tinned fruits and the like.
There are also anxieties about the position of products originating in ACP countries but processed in South Africa. Such products are, of course, central to the developing southern Africa regional co-operation positively advocated by the European Union. To prove their commitment to the success of the new democratic South Africa and its place within the region as a whole, the British Government must now redouble their efforts to push for an improved offer by the European Union. It would be very good if today the noble Lord could reassure us on that crucial matter.
This has been a useful and timely debate. We need to seize the opportunity to help build the foundations for southern Africa's potentially exciting future. South Africa will be central to that. When President Mandela eventually hands over, it will be a formidable challenge to his successor even to try to emulate his example. Fortunately, there are strong people coming forward. What will matter greatly is that the people of South Africa—indeed, the people of southern Africa as a whole—can see and tangibly experience the fruits of change, greater social justice, better education, more adequate housing, fuller employment and, generally, prosperity in its fullest sense. Without that, all the positive potential could turn into political disaster.
After the long, dark years of tyranny, for which we must all accept some of the blame, surely we must all now share responsibility for contributing to a fulfilling, viable future for South Africa and its talented people, so that South Africa can play the key part that it should be equipped to play in the region and indeed in Africa as a whole.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would like to hear that my noble friend Lady Chalker is very sad not to be able to be here to comment on this debate.
I am pleased that the House has again turned its attention to developments in southern Africa and I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for having provided us with this opportunity. This is a region where the woes so often associated with Africa—famine, drought, civil war, displaced people—have given way to the challenges of peace. For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, peace holds throughout southern Africa. Apartheid, repression, military and civil dictatorship have virtually gone.
The region is passing through profound political and economic change. The establishment of a non-racial democracy is South Africa was an historic achievement for its people. In 1994, Mozambique held free and fair elections after years of civil war. With international help, the peace process in Angola is moving slowly forward, with the prospect of UNITA joining a government of unity and national reconciliation this summer. In Malawi the country's first multi-party election in 1994 resulted in the peaceful transfer of power. In the same year, in Lesotho the elected government were restored to power. There have since been elections in Botswana and Namibia. Swaziland is currently experiencing internal division and political uncertainty but we are hopeful that it too will soon find a democratic way forward.
Much has been achieved but much remains to be done. While good governance and economic reform have been widely embraced, decades of ideological confusion and state ownership have yet to be fully shaken off. There is now no argument in the region on the imperative of economic reform. Government recognise that future prosperity lies in the enterprise and initiative of their peoples. They are allowing markets to work, encouraging the private sector, attracting foreign investment, liberalising trade, cutting down bureaucracies and in several countries cutting military expenditure too. Donor governments have helped with those changes in strengthening democratic and state institutions, drawing attention to corruption and financial irregularity and encouraging programmes of economic reform and structural adjustment. We have used our bilateral assistance and, where necessary, withheld it to help bring about those changes.
But aid cannot by itself achieve the economic transformation which will set southern Africa on the path to prosperity. Only sound economic management, large-scale investment and the development of international and regional trade can do that. That is why we support the efforts of the Southern Africa Development Community to enhance regional economic and political co-operation. From having had a wide experience in emerging as well as developed economies we can commend the virtues of a single market to the member states of SADC. We welcome the new enthusiasm in the region to develop cross-border co-operation of every kind.
418
It is the transformation in South Africa that has made many of these positive developments possible. Not only has the reconciliation of South Africa's peoples been a shining example, but the Government of National Unity's pursuit of sound economic policies and their evolving support for regional co-operation are having a profound effect on South Africa's neighbours. South Africa has become a regional force for stability. I should add that there is still much to be done in reducing tariffs and working towards open and flexible trade regimes.
But there is one word of warning here. The successes in South Africa must not undermine the economies of her neighbours. Perhaps I may run through a little of the history of SADC and attitudes towards it. SADC's relations with the EU were formalised at the Berlin conference of September 1994. The conference culminated in a declaration in which both sides committed themselves to entering a comprehensive dialogue to further the development of relations between the two regions. Since then, developments have been slow. The next meeting at ministerial level will take place in October in Harare. However, SADC has been successful in mobilising funds from international donors for regional integration projects. More than 3 billion US dollars has been spent on a total of more than 550 projects, programmes and studies. The main project expenditure has been on transport infrastructure, telecommunications, energy transmission and food safety measures. SADC has been less successful in reducing dependence on South Africa and promoting free trade among its members.
The UK has supported SADC projects since the 1980s. The main focus of support is currently the transport sector, worth some £6 million in 1992–93. The northern transport corridor—Dar es Salaam to Malawi—and the Maputo corridor, including projects for both Maputo port and the Limpopo railway, have received capital aid support. More limited support has been given to the Beira corridor, which links Zimbabwe to the sea, and the Nacal line linking Malawi to the sea. In natural resources, our main project is the research programme, carried out jointly with the governments of Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania, on fish stocks in Lake Malawi. In the natural resources sector, SADC offers a potentially useful forum for raising awareness on environmental and conservation issues.
For the future, we are phasing out our support for transport projects in line with the declining aid framework for SADC. We expect to focus on technical co-operation projects; for example, on ways to promote regional integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and other noble Lords commented on the EU/South Africa trade negotiations. It is well appreciated that throughout negotiations over the EU supplementary mandate for a free trade area with South Africa the British Government have been arguing for the most liberal arrangements possible. We are disappointed that the EU member states did not agree on a better outcome, but there was clearly no point in

419
delaying further the start of substantial negotiations with South Africa. The important thing now is for the Commission and the South African Government to take things forward towards an agreement that will be in all our interests; and we shall be pressing for that.
The mandate that was agreed at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 25th March includes a list of agricultural products, as detailed, which will at the insistence of certain member states be excluded from the negotiations for a free trade area. We had consistently opposed any list excluding products from the scope of negotiations. We believe that the list annexed to the supplementary negotiating directives may well make it impossible to negotiate a satisfactory agreement which is compatible with WTO rules. For that reason we abstained from voting on the mandate. The EU mandate was formally presented to the South African authorities in Brussels on 29th March, and we await the formal reaction of the South African Government.
Our policy of promoting good government is a constant theme in our relations with southern African countries. The Commonwealth, following the admission of South Africa and Mozambique, is a valuable instrument in support of this. Along with sound economic policies, good government is a force for development and progress. A well-governed country is a stable country and is much less likely to threaten its neighbours and the international order.
I shall now make a brief comment on the Reconstruction and Development Programme. The South African Government continue to make sound progress in the process of economic and political reform after the 1994 transition. President Mandela has followed the path of reconciliation. While the programme has not been as successful as hoped, a major effort is under way, through the Government's RDP programme, to redress the inequities created by apartheid. At the same time, South Africa has pursued fiscally prudent policies. That was reaffirmed by the recent budget of 13th March. The local elections of last November bring South Africa another step closer to completing the transition to democracy. We have every confidence in South Africa's ability to find solutions to the immense challenges which it faces.
I shall speak briefly on education, which the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and others emphasised. Our support to education has always been an important component of our aid programme to South Africa. We are delighted now to be extending that co-operation direct to government. Education reform is one of the major challenges facing the new Government and one of the major building blocks for the creation of a democratic and non-racial society. It is an agreed priority area for our aid programme to South Africa. Our aim is to support the new Government in their task of reconstructing education on a sound, professional, equitable and affordable basis. We work in close consultation with a wide variety of partners in the field of education in South Africa to determine how we can best help. We have agreed that we shall focus on improvements in the content and quality of education at school level, the development and implementation of education policy and basic education.
420
An example of British assistance is the Soweto Skills Initiative launched in 1994 by the President of the Board of Trade. The scheme brings young entrepreneurs to the UK on attachment to British companies. The ODA administers the programme and finds British companies to sponsor candidates. Fourteen black South Africans have so far benefited from this programme and a further two are currently in the UK.
On KwaZulu Natal, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was concerned about the high levels of violence which concern everyone there. However, he seeks international mediation. That question must be for the parties themselves. We cannot impose it from outside. We are very doubtful that President Mandela would accept international mediation in this situation.
The right reverend Prelate and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, mentioned the problem of land-mines. The ODA has provided some £2.8 million in support of de-mining in Angola. That includes the provision of key staff for the United Nations Central Mines Action Office and funding for the humanitarian de-mining programmes of the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. Further possible future involvement in the de-mining section of Angola is currently under review by the ODA.
As regards the support or non-support of international land-mines, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put it correctly. Britain has not produced or exported anti-personnel land-mines for several years. We have a comprehensive ban on the export of non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel landmines, as well as a total ban on the export of all types of anti-personnel mines to any country which has not accepted the constraints of the United Nations weaponry convention. That is the attitude of this Government. We would obviously support other governments taking the same attitude.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the UN Weaponry Convention. We are at the forefront of international efforts to strengthen the convention and introduce tight international specifications for self-destructing and detectable anti-personnel mines, as well as other important provisions. We are therefore particularly disappointed that the Vienna review conference in September/October last year was unable to reach agreement on the tighter restrictions for which we were pressing.
There are considerable grounds for hope in the important recent developments in southern Africa. We shall maintain our involvement in the region. It needs our support. In particular, we shall continue to seek ways of helping those countries along the path of democracy and good government and, with the judicious use of our aid programme and with the support of British trade and investment, we shall encourage sustained growth, which can alone lessen inequalities and improve living conditions for all southern African peoples.
Finally, very kind remarks have been expressed this evening about my noble friend Lady Chalker. I shall make absolutely certain that they are brought to her attention.
9.26 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this most interesting debate. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I congratulate especially the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell on his outstanding maiden speech. I wholeheartedly support his view that success in southern Africa must be based on a culture of reconciliation. I echo his call for a ban on the use of landmines as weapons of war and his call for continued international support for the southern African region and its stability for the future.
I should have liked to thank each of today's speakers individually. Each has spoken from his or her own experience and expertise, with personal experience of having been in South Africa. I am delighted that almost all of the key issues have been covered, from democratisation of the region to education, political reconciliation, unemployment, regional transport links, security and crime, housing, landmines, the free trade agreement and what Her Majesty's Government and the European Union are doing to assist the region for the future.
I certainly believe that it is the hope and prayer of all noble Lords that southern Africa will be seen in the future as the beacon of success and stability in Africa. I repeat my noble friend's call: N'Knosi sikelel' IAfrika.
I take this opportunity, at this late hour, to wish all noble Lords a pleasant and enjoyable Easter Recess, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Foreign Prison-made Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
9.28 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This morning we read that the G7 summit had a slight argument about the best methods of detecting the use of slave labour in developing countries, with Britain and Germany on one side of the argument and America and France on the other. However, I think that there was universal agreement that we had to find better means of detecting the use of slave labour in developing countries and, from there, to move to the kind of steps that we need to take to prevent the import into our own countries of goods made by slave labour or child labour.
The Foreign Prison-made Goods Act has been on the statute book for 99 years and in all that time not a single case has been successfully brought in the courts under it. For most of that time it may not have been very important whether the goods made in foreign prisons were excluded from the British market because they represented no significant threat to our industries, and there was no evidence of human rights violations associated with large scale production in foreign prisons for export.
However, in the past few years there has been a flow of information from China about the Laogai, a prison system in which forced labour is used as a punishment.
422
The noble Lord, Lord Howe, referred to this matter in his report on a visit to China in 1993. He urged the Chinese authorities,
"to adopt and enforce safeguards in regard to compulsory labour of prisoners. These safeguards should include maximum hours of labour, minimum periods of rest, and safeguards with respect to the health and safety of places of compulsory labour".
The noble Lord said that compulsory labour should not be used as a means of coercing prisoners or imposing additional punishment upon them. He recommended that, in line with international norms, political prisoners, including those sentenced for so-called counter-revolutionary offences, should not be required to engage in compulsory labour.
In Harry Wu's most remarkable and moving book, he describes the reality of life in the Laogai. He and other prisoners endured the most appalling cruelty. He was lucky to survive at all when so many of his companions died. At the Qinghe Farm prisoners were roused at 5.30 in the morning. After a ladleful of porridge, a salted turnip and small dumpling they were sent off to the fields where they laboured for four hours without a break. They had a half-hour lunch consisting of two dumplings and a bowl of thin soup, and that was followed by another stint until the work quota had been fulfilled. When they returned to the compound there were two more dumplings and another ladleful of soup, followed by two hours of communist indoctrination.
At the Wangzhuang coal mine, conditions were little better. Torture and beatings were common. Occasionally, prisoners were executed. During the Cultural Revolution prisoners were made verbally to lynch suspected deviants, and sometimes to attack them violently. Harry Wu described a scene where he was tortured at one such meeting and his arm broken by the study leader, who hit him with a spade. Amnesty International, in its latest report on China published last month says that torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in China's penal institutions largely result from official penal policy. It targets particularly any prisoners who refuse to admit their guilt, such as 11 political prisoners who arrived in the Lingyuan No. 2 labour reform detachment in Liaoning Province in May 1991. These inmates were severely beaten, and four who were sent to the correction unit were stripped naked and given high-voltage shocks. Prisoners at a labour camp in Nuomuhong, Qinghai Province, said they were treated like slaves, working up to 12 hours a day and getting beaten if they complained. Chen Pokong, a pro-democracy activist who was in the Guangzhou No. 1 re-education through labour centre in Guangdong Province, said he worked for up to 14 hours in a stone quarry during the day and made artificial flowers at night. He said that inmates who did not work hard enough were often beaten until they were bloodstained all over. Nigel Rodley, the UN Rapporteur on Torture, singles out this establishment for special mention in his current report to the UN Human Rights Commission, but he says that, more generally, he continued frequently to receive information concerning torture and ill-treatment of detainees, including those in labour camps.

423
In the Human Rights Watch World report 1996, China is accused of continuing to round up, imprison and physically abuse peaceful dissenters. The cases of Wei Jingsheng, Chen Ziming and other well-known prisoners are highlighted. The report says that Chinese courts impose sentences of up to 20 years on those who oppose the one-party system, and that where the evidence is weak they substitute bogus criminal charges or impose administrative labour re-education terms, a form of punishment which is condemned by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
Harry Wu now works from the United States, where he highlights the abuses of the Laogai, and is concerned about the West's indirect support for the system, through the purchase of goods made by prison labour. He has published abundant details of the places where forced labour of prisoners is used to produce or grow things for sale, and has also identified products which are exported. He is not alone in the campaign. Glenn Calderwood, the current Clerk to the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, says in a report he wrote for the International Society for Human Rights:
"Products of every description go to make up China's huge export surplus, from tea to tools, batteries to bikes, shoes to soap, fabrics to fine arts, or toys to trucks. Purchase any one of these items and you could be adding unwittingly to the profits of the Laogai—the network of labour camps in which prisoners are tortured and starved to ensure that they keep on producing for the state".
The ISHR put the number of inmates in the Laogai at anything from 10 million upwards. The Laogai Research Foundation says 10 million to 14 million. Harry Wu says that he has collected information on about 1,000 "labour reform camps", and estimates the total number at between 3,000 and 4,000. In evidence to the Congressional Subcommittee on Human Rights in 1991, he said that the current population of the camps was between 12 million and 16 million, including many political prisoners. The so-called "counter-revolutionaries" were estimated at 10 per cent. of the total in a 1980 internal document of the Public Security Ministry.
According to the US State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1995, some prisons contract with regular industries to perform light manufacturing and assembly work, so disguising the use of slave labour. Another device is to use names appearing to be ordinary companies, and to resell goods through the state-run import export organisations. An example was the Shanghai Laodong Machinery Plant, which made hand tools, including monkey wrenches, under the name "Laodong Brand Monkey Wrench" and "Elephant Brand Monkey Wrench". At one point in 1991, the US Customs withheld release of these products, as being in suspected violation of US laws which prohibit the entry of all,
"goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions".
So the US legislation is a good deal wider than ours, as can be seen. The US Customs have the power to make a temporary order against any shipments of goods where they have,
"reason to believe, but not conclusive evidence",
424
that the specified goods fall into the category which is prohibited from entry.
So far as I can ascertain, the "withhold release" orders have never been followed by court decisions, because, in the US as in Britain, the standard of proof required is too high. The Americans realised that, although there were grounds for suspicion that goods produced under inhuman conditions were slipping through the net, they were unlikely to stop this trade by legislation alone, so in 1992 they signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese, prohibiting trade in prison labour products. Then in March 1994 they agreed on a "statement of co-operation" detailing specific working procedures for implementation of the memorandum. That was supposed to allow inspection of prison facilities where it was suspected that goods were being produced for export, but the State Department, in the last report that I mentioned, states:
"co-operation has stalled since mid-1995. As of the end of 1995, the authorities had not granted access to a prison labor facility since April 30. Repeated delays in arranging prison labor site visits called into question Chinese intentions regarding the implementation of the MOU and SOC. For example, authorities refused repeated requests (the first was made on May 30) to visit the Wuyi plant in Zhejiang Province, despite the terms of the SOC requiring a visit within 60 days of a request".
The State Department also reports that the so-called "re-education through labor camps", to which victims are sent by administrative decision, are not defined as prisons by the Chinese, who therefore deny access to them under the MOU.
In Britain, there was an attempt by the Laogai Research Foundation and Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the TV journalist, to mobilise the Customs against the importation of chain hoists made by the Wulin prison factory. The cost of manufacturing these products in the UK was about £100 per item, whereas they were being imported from China by a firm in Coventry, boxed and ready for sale, for £6.50. The Customs looked into the matter, but decided not to proceed, I believe on the grounds that the factory in question employed both free and prison labour and it was not possible to say with any certainty that prison labour had been used in manufacturing the chain hoists.
This illustrates two problems with the present legislation. The first is that, where production or manufacture occurs in establishments of this kind, the only sure way of establishing a case would be unscheduled on-site visits by teams of inspectors. Since the Chinese are not for the time being prepared to allow any visits at all, let alone unscheduled ones, there is no way of proving a case. If, therefore, we relaxed the burden of proof so that the Customs can act when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods do come into the prohibited category, then it would be up to the Chinese authorities to satisfy us by allowing unrestricted inspection.
The second problem is that the Customs are not under an obligation to look for evidence themselves, but only to consider evidence presented to them by individuals or NGOs. Obviously, there is no organisation with the resources to do this job, or with the clout to gain access to the 3,000 locations in China where these goods are produced, when even the State Department cannot do so.

425
At least with the American system there is a government to government mechanism which, however imperfect, allows the question to be raised in the Congress, and it becomes clear when the Chinese are not acting in good faith. If they had nothing to hide they would have no reason to block the visits by inspectors to their prisons.
Neither the onus of responsibility for taking the initiative to stop goods entering nor the question of inspection at the point of origin, is dealt with in the present Bill. It was intended, rather, as a peg on which to hang a much wider discussion about what we mean to do about the Laogai. If we are serious about the matter, we would have to deal with it at the level of the European Union, since goods in free circulation within any member state can pass into Britain immune from the provisions in the parent Act. A Customs official described it to me by saying that for the purpose of Customs moving from Holland to Britain is no different from moving from Liverpool to Manchester. Are the Government prepared to enter into discussions with other EU states to see what measures could be taken by Europe as a whole to stop goods made by forced labour in the prisons of China entering the Union? Would they consider asking the Chinese to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and agreeing a Statement of Co-operation on the US model and, if so, could we also talk to the Americans about joint teams of inspection and put that to the Chinese as a way forward?
It may be said that if Beijing can stop co-operating with the US, they could follow that unfortunate precedent with the EU. A mechanism as loose as the SOC, which did not have the status of a treaty, was not likely to be effective when, at the same time, as Human Rights Watch put it,
"Governments actively pursued trade and investment with China unhindered by any linkage to human rights".
If there had been economic penalties for any breach of the SOC, and these had been applied in April 1995 when the Chinese first stopped the inspection visits, the deal might have worked.
The European Union, in examining the model, would have to consider what the fall-back position would be if we were no more successful than the Americans in gaining access to the sites. Best of all would be for the EU and the US to agree on a joint approach, and, if it proved impossible to get China's agreement, to consider what leverage we might have consistent with our obligations under the GATT against the flow into all our countries of goods produced at very little cost in money but a great deal of blood and suffering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Avebury.)
9.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this evening we are discussing a wretched, miserable and despicable situation. It does not exist in this country and we tend to think that it is not our responsibility. But I listen with incredulity at times to what we are told. In this country we have a humane system which is a
426
million times better. And what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has said makes one despair as a member of the human race.
The great difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has, which other people share, is being able to bring forward incontrovertible proof of what he alleges. It is also difficult to know what action is open to us and how much can be achieved. I shall listen, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with care to what the Minister has to say; but I am certain that he will be sympathetic to the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I wish to express my appreciation, and, indeed, that of the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is not the first time that we are indebted to him for doing the spade work on the kind of issues about which we all feel guilty when they are exposed but which, in our busy lives, we do not have time to delve into. This Bill raises an issue which is well worth the time of the House, even on a very busy day such as today.
I have listened with horror to the details of the situation. But there are other horrors of which we have heard this week and of which we are conscious. One thinks of the horror in Rwanda. That is not as a result of inhumane treatment of prisoners but rather the inhumanity of one race or sect against another in the same country. In this House, we discuss regularly the problems of Bosnia, and we have all seen the television pictures of the terrible events there. It is a miserable situation which we cannot duck.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has painted a picture of the fears, fantasies and facts which surround this situation. I am very grateful to him for doing that. At one time, I had the privilege of representing the Prison Officers' Association and I visited about 30-odd prisons. I was always critical of our prison estate, not least when the industrial work which was available seemed to be diminished. But one cannot compare the situation which exists here with that which exists elsewhere, not just in China but in other countries of the world—and not always in prisons. I saw a recent television programme about Indian serfs, peasants, those of a lower class. They were not political prisoners, and I know that it is political prisoners to whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury refers this evening. But there are people in this world whose lot in life is very miserable because they are suborned and subjected to terrible treatment.
When my wife visited Srinagar a few years ago, she returned proudly with a small marble table which had been made by children. That was fine. We thought we were assisting the poor people to have a better life. But we realised also that they were being dreadfully exploited.
The size of the problem is enormous. I certainly hope that the Minister will be helpful and respond to the suggestions made. The core of this Bill is Clause 1(2). That seeks to help Customs and British civil servants. I am not sure that even if the Bill were passed, that would solve the problem. The noble Lord put forward a number of ways of doing so. For example, consultation with the TUC. It must have a say in the matter because it is very concerned about working conditions.

427
Moreover, it is an international organisation so it is not just concerned about products made by British workers in this country in good conditions. I believe that the British would be repelled if the kind of things drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be proved. The dimension of the European Community which was mentioned is certainly something which we ought to consider.
We are discussing a tiny issue in the totality of what we have dealt with in this House today; but such issues mark out the spirit and humanity of the society in which we live. Anything that we can do or say which exposes or gives courage and hope should be said; and, indeed, it has been very well said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We should all be grateful to him for reminding us of how fortunate we are to live in this country in comparison with the unfortunate lot of so many millions of people who live in other parts of the world and who suffer under regimes which are light years away from what the British people seek to achieve. I thank the noble Lord for doing what he has done, and like him I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in the hope that he can say something helpful.
9.51 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have had a short but important debate. I share the horror that has been expressed as regards any inhumane practices; indeed, we heard considerable evidence. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, eloquently and thoughtfully argued his case for the prevention of inhumane treatment and the exploitation of prisoners overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, had his own concerns and I hope that I shall be able to comment on those as well as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It goes without saying that the Government are also deeply concerned about the violations of fundamental human rights wherever they occur.
However, neither the proposed amendment nor the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act are really effective vehicles with which to tackle the issue. Perhaps I may explain the various points which are fundamental to those arguments. As a starting point, it is very important to recognise that not all prison-made goods are the product of oppressive or cruel practices. Of course, that fact has already been acknowledged. If conditions are right and satisfactory, on the whole prisoners welcome being given the opportunity to work. Indeed, the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners recommend that,
"sufficient work of a useful nature shall be provided to keep prisoners actively employed for a normal working day".
Our own prison system is fully committed to a regime of rehabilitation. Prisoners are encouraged to gain work skills, attitudes and habits. However, I am not so naïve as to believe that good regimes of rehabilitation apply in all areas of the world. Indeed, we have heard some bad stories this evening of desperate and inhumane practices.
Our approach fits within one of the corner-stones of the Government's foreign policy. That policy is to work for a stable and peaceful international order
428
characterised by good government which is democratic, accountable and competent. We attach particular importance to respect for the rule of law and the protection of the rights of individual citizens regardless of social class—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—or, indeed, ethnic group. However, measures to restrict trade are seldom the right tool for achieving these goals, especially when they are not universally applied by all countries. Rather, we need to work through positive action such as development and technical assistance programmes promoting international standards.
I believe it is broadly recognised that linking trade and human rights rarely achieves much in terms of persuading other governments to treat their people properly. Any action that we might take on imports could have no effect at all on the production of goods and services which are consumed domestically in the country concerned or exported to other countries apart from ourselves. Generally the effect of trade restrictions would merely be to impoverish developing countries and to depress their social standards. In other words, free trade is not inconsistent with helping to improve human rights.
That, I understand, is basically the background to the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brings before us this evening to amend the 1897 Act. I shall say a few words about the original Act. History shows that it was originally introduced for the purposes of trade protection and not to benefit the rights of workers in overseas prisons. I would in no way suggest that the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing his amendment Bill to the House are not entirely humanitarian. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, also spoke this evening because of his strength of feeling on these issues.
There are problems with the Act. I have to tell the House that it may not sit happily with our international trading obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. While there is an exception to the rules which allows measures to be taken by a contracting party in relation to the products of prison labour, any such measures must observe the overriding rules of non-discrimination and equivalence of treatment between domestic and imported goods.
In particular, since the 1897 Act does not apply to all foreign prison-made goods—only to those of a kind manufactured in the UK, and when they are not imported from or through other EU countries as a result of an amendment—and since UK prison-made goods are made and sold without corresponding restrictions, the Act might be held to be discriminatory and so open to challenge. This last problem would remain even if the EU acted on a collective basis.
We are committed to the success of the multilateral trading system and to encouraging others to implement and to observe their WTO obligations. We certainly would not wish to do anything which might result in the UK being challenged under the rules which we firmly believe must be fully upheld by all those countries concerned. However, these arguments are to some extent beside the point. The simple fact is that the

429
1897 Act is one that has proved impracticable to apply although it might have had some deterrent effect, but that is obviously difficult to measure.
The Act provides that goods may only be seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on the basis of evidence proving that they have been made in a foreign prison. In practice, that evidence would have to be specific to the consignment concerned. There are two good reasons for that: first, to ensure that any proceedings are viable, and, secondly, because of the potential disruption to perfectly legitimate trade in non-prison made goods that could otherwise arise. Because they are generally indistinguishable from other goods and because of the complex routes of production and delivery, there are severe practical difficulties in identifying goods, especially at the port of entry, which have allegedly been produced using prison labour. That was a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his opening remarks. Of course it is important to note that the likelihood of receiving any co-operation from an oppressive regime would be slim indeed. Against the backcloth of the difficulties I have highlighted I am sure that it comes as no surprise to the House to learn that there is no record of any goods having ever been seized or prosecutions made under the 1897 Act. The proposed amendment, besides doing nothing to render the Act consistent with our international trading obligations, would not address these fundamental enforcement problems. That, I understand, is also very much the view of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In reality it would not make easier the basic requirement that Her Majesty's Customs must be able, if required to do so, to satisfy a court of law as to the grounds for seizure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about European action. All the practical difficulties that I have highlighted would apply just as much to European-wide action as to UK action.
I am sure the House might wonder, if the Act was unenforceable and ineffective, as I have detailed, why it is still on the statute book. The answer is simply that we have not before now regarded the possible repeal of the Act as a priority issue with which to take up parliamentary time. However, this debate today has been extremely helpful in examining the issues. As a result, the Government may well give further consideration to the case for retaining the 1897 Act, or indeed otherwise.
As we have heard this evening, the plain fact is that the Act, with or without the proposed amendment, is anything but comprehensive; it is probably not consistent with our international trading obligations; it does not make the distinction between, on the one hand, exploited prison labour and, on the other, voluntary prison labour; it does not help to protect prisoners whose rights are not being respected; and, last but by no means least, it is in practice unenforceable.
Perhaps I may address the wider points that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, so passionately made about the issues of slave labour and of sub-standard social standards. We in the UK are, of course, fully committed to the elimination of slavery and such equivalent practices. We believe that this is best achieved through
430
a combination of promoting international standards, such as through the ILO and the UN, and positive action such as technical assistance programmes. Nonetheless, I believe that this Second Reading debate on the Bill has given us the opportunity to discuss these very important issues of humanitarian difficulties across the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us that opportunity and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his participation.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his encouraging words. I accept from him the doubts which he voiced about whether the Bill before your Lordships would solve the problem.
The Minister explained in detail not only why the Bill would not solve the problem but that the parent Act on which it is based may not be consistent with our international obligations. I had rather foreseen that. That is the reason that I venture to propose some alternative ways forward which I hope the noble Viscount will take back to the department for further consideration.
We should look at the American methods and consider whether in the European Union we should have a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese providing that they will not attempt to export goods from the Laogai into the European Union; and accompanying the memorandum of understanding we should have some system of inspection which allows us to go into the Chinese prisons and make sure that the goods are not identical with those being exported by their export/import companies.
It is common ground from the statement that emerged from the G7 meeting this morning that we want to do something about slave labour. The only difference between the members of the G7 was whether that should be accomplished through the World Trade Organisation or, as Britain would prefer, through the ILO or the OECD. However, the principle seemed to be agreed by all members of the G7: that we should attempt to tackle the wicked practice of using slave labour to produce goods, whether for home consumption or for export. I accept what the Minister said about the 10 million or 12 million people in the Laogai continuing to be used as slave labour for the domestic markets, even if we were able to stop the goods from entering this country. We might be able to salve our consciences but we would not have cured the problem.
I ask the Minister whether he will consider the proposal I made that we discuss the matter with our European partners and preferably go on from that to look at the American experience. We could then see whether it would be consonant with the European approach to matters and with the obligations of both the United States and Europe under GATT. I believe it must be because the American discussions with China have been conducted fully within the framework of US obligations under GATT. That is why it would be a useful model for us in Europe to consider. It might save us a great deal in trying to work out the problem from scratch when others have already been through it

431
carefully, even though the Americans have hit a barrier for the past year or so. The inspections that were part of a corollary to the memorandum of understanding have not been carried through.
I suggest that if the European Union and the United States could get together and have a common approach to Beijing, then the combined forces of two big trading blocs might persuade the Chinese that it was in their interests to allow whatever limited amount of inspection was consistent with their ideas of sovereignty. Having made that point and in the hope that the Minister will take it away and consider it, I fully accept all—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene. I attempted to go over the difficulties that I foresaw with European action and that it would face the same difficulties as national action. As regards the EU/US approach, there was a feeling that it was difficult to see how it would not run into the difficulties that the approach of the US memorandum of understanding has met. Nevertheless, the noble Lord made a number of suggestions and I shall ensure that they are considered.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Perhaps he will bear with me on one further point. If those approaches do not seem to work, we may come to the conclusion after discussing them with the Americans that an impasse has been reached so that it would be pointless for us to copy it in Europe, even with the combined force of the two
432
great trading blocs. It would then be useful for us to know what action the Government intend to take either with the ILO or the OECD to combat the use of slave labour. At the G7 meeting this morning the Government said that they did not believe that the World Trade Organisation was the right place for that but they would consider the two other forums. I believe that there is that element of common ground between us: we all want to see slave labour eradicated or combated. We are not quite sure of the right way to do it and we must work within the framework of our obligations under GATT.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for the kind way in which he has received my proposals and for undertaking to consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for second reading, by leave, withdrawn.

London Regional Transport Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Adjournment
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, now that at last we have come to the end of this day, may I wish a very happy Easter to one and all. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at nine minutes past ten o'clock until Monday, 15th April next.

  Council of Europe: Agenda for April
  Council of Europe: Agenda for April
  Greek-Turkish Border
  Greek-Turkish Border
  NATO: Enlargement
  NATO: Enlargement
  Boot Camps
  Boot Camps
  UN Committee on Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  UN Committee on Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Local and European Elections: Conduct of Government Business
  Local and European Elections: Conduct of Government Business
  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Air Pollution Control Scheme, Scotland
  Air Pollution Control Scheme, Scotland
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions Control Strategy
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions Control Strategy
  Water Directives: Implementation Costs
  Water Directives: Implementation Costs
  Employed Solicitors: Rights of Audience
  Employed Solicitors: Rights of Audience
  European Court of Human Rights: Saunders v. United Kingdom
  European Court of Human Rights: Saunders v. United Kingdom
  European Court of Human Rights: Goodwin v. United Kingdom
  European Court of Human Rights: Goodwin v. United Kingdom
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  HMSO Privatisation
  HMSO Privatisation
  Motorway Bridge Programme
  Motorway Bridge Programme