Sitting of 25 April 1996

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

  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 2 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to increase the number of CCTV schemes in operation. [25036]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): In March 1995, we distributed £5 million to 106 winners in our first CCTV challenge competition. Those schemes are now coming on stream. We are planning to spend a further £45 million over the next three years to promote the use of CCTV in crime prevention. We aim to fund 10,000 more cameras.
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the strong support in Southport for the introduction of closed circuit television cameras. Does he agree that, where CCTV has been introduced, there has been a clear reduction in crime? Is not that to be welcomed? Will he pursue the policy with the utmost vigour?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly continue to pursue the policy. When closed circuit television was introduced in Workington in 1994, crime was reduced by 57 per cent. on the previous year, and there was a further reduction of 59 per cent. in 1995. There have been similar reductions across the country. In the words of the chief constable of Northumbria:
    "We are leading the world in closed circuit television technology".
    Mr. Tony Banks: Before we all wildly applaud what the Home Secretary has just said, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are more electronic eyes—and that we are under more surveillance—in this country than in any other country on the planet, including all the eastern European countries? Are we not seeing the day of big brother? The fact that we have to have spies on every
    570
    building to try to limit crime marks 17 years of Conservative government, and is a condemnation of him and everything that he stands for.
    Mr. Howard: There speaks the authentic voice of the Labour party. The country will know that, whereas Conservatives are working hard to protect the public through the use of technology and other ways, all those efforts are being met by the most antediluvian opposition of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
    Mr. Carttiss: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, is he aware that although a number of Labour-controlled Norfolk towns, including the city of Norwich, have CCTV, the Labour-controlled Great Yarmouth borough council has rejected the crime prevention measure? What does that say about the so-called policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime that we hear so much from the Labour Front Bench?
    Mr. Howard: It shows yet again that Labour cannot be trusted on crime. Not long ago, I had the privilege of visiting some of the CCTV schemes in Norfolk. They are very successful. It is a great pity that Great Yarmouth council is so blinkered that it is not prepared to follow the example of others in Norfolk.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Home Secretary support the bid of Labour Redbridge council for a CCTV scheme in the centre of Ilford, which is supported by the police and the local business community and would do wonders to cut crime and add to the thriving nature of many Labour-led businesses in our local authority?
    Mr. Howard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the most careful consideration will be given to the bid for funding for CCTV in his constituency. I further give him the undertaking that we shall not hold it against his constituency that his neighbour, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), has such old-fashioned and obstructive views on the subject.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European countries have a domestic identity card. [25037]
    Mr. Howard: Eleven of the 15 countries in the European Union have some form of identity card.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people want identity cards, not least to identify the thousands of illegal immigrants who are drawing benefit? Is he aware that, if the lot opposite ever came to power, inflation would soon be at 26.9 per cent., tax at 98 per cent. and we would need identity cards not to show that we are entitled to be here but to show that we are entitled to get out of here?
    Mr. Howard: As usual, my hon. Friend put his point in a telling and inimitable way. Of course, his suggestion is right, not least because of the new tax on the family

    571
    through the withdrawal of family credit from families with 16 to 18-year-olds that is the latest weapon in the Labour party's tax armoury.
    Mr. Henderson: The Home Secretary was correct that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) put his case in a telling way, which certainly cannot be said of the Government. Will he say whether he agrees with the Prime Minister when he said during last year's local election campaign that compulsory identity cards were necessary to combat crime, or will he own up to the fact that his officials have told him that a compulsory scheme would be too costly, ineffective and unpopular—even with the hon. Member's constituents in Welwyn Hatfield?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at what was said by me and others, he would see that we said that we would consult on various versions of identity cards, ranging from the compulsory through the voluntary to none at all. We said that we would invite people's views on those options, as we have done, and that we would announce our decision in due course. That is exactly what we intend to do.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to identity cards with photographs, which would be most helpful? In my constituency, there is a serious problem of a young man's details having being given to the police on three occasions by a small gang. That young man has been dragged to court, yet he has not been identified as the culprit at the scene of the crime. Someone else is using his name. If tearaways driving around in the middle of the night had to produce an identity card with a photograph, that problem would be resolved.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. She knows that I always take her suggestions particularly seriously. I shall certainly take what she has said fully into account in working up our proposals.

    Robberies
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many robberies were recorded by the police (a) in England and Wales and (b) in Humberside in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1979. [25038]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The figures for England and Wales are 68, 407 and 12, 482. The corresponding figures for Humberside were 680 and 103.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Minister does not care to give us the percentage increases, my quick mental arithmetic gives them as 448 per cent. in England and Wales and 560 per cent. in Humberside. Given that robbery is the crime that most exacerbates the atmosphere of fear of crime, is not that amazing increase, which is continuing, a total condemnation of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Maclean: Not at all, but it is typical of the hon. Gentleman to focus on robbery in Humberside, which has unfortunately been increasing. It is the duty of Humberside police to deal with robbery on their patch. I would have had more respect for the hon. Gentleman if
    572
    he had mentioned that, in the past two years, crime has fallen on Humberside by 12,000 offences, or that there are 4,000 fewer car crimes and 9,000 fewer burglaries. How did the people who get involved in robbery on Humberside start? Perhaps they started as shop thieves. They may have been encouraged by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems to think that stealing from shops is okay and merely putting a "treat in your pocket".
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not robbery a crime of violence against the person? Have not crimes of violence against the person fallen nationwide over the past year, for the first time in 49 years?
    Mr. Maclean: That is true; crimes of violence have fallen considerably in England and Wales for the first time in 49 years. Of course, the Labour party wants to pretend that crime was not invented until 1979, so I thought that I would look at the figures for 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979. In those years in Humberside, violence increased by 23 per cent., violence against the person by 34 per cent., burglary by 6 per cent. and vehicle crime by 25 per cent.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What about crime now?
    Mr. Maclean: Crime rose under Labour Governments and, yes, it rose for some years under the Conservative Government, but it has been falling for the past three years—and Labour Members do not want to talk about that.

    Recorded Crime
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in the incidence of recorded crime since (a) 1994 and (h) 1979. [25040]
    Mr. Howard: Between 1994 and 1995, recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. Between 1979 and 1995, there was an increase of 102 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Home Secretary now accept that there is a good correlation between unemployment and the incidence of crime? Over the past three years, there has been a significant fall in unemployment and a small fall in the incidence of crime but, over the past 15 years, we have had unemployment rates of 10 to 15 per cent., with the despond, lack of self-esteem and hopelessness that that produces in people, and its corrosive effect in society. Is not that the root cause of the fact that crime has more than doubled since 1979?
    Mr. Howard: The research carried out into the matter does not support the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Furthermore, this is an irrelevant argument, because I accept that we must do everything to bring down unemployment, which is a social evil in itself, irrespective of whether it has anything to do with crime. We have been extremely successful in reducing unemployment at a time when it has been increasing in most of the rest of Europe. Why does the hon. Gentleman not rejoice with me in the fact that, in Dyfed-Powys, in which his constituency lies, recorded crime over the past two years has fallen by no less than 22 per cent.—a decrease of 5,300 in recorded crimes since 1993?
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the campaign to keep recorded crime

    573
    figures coming down, the possession of identity cards would be a big advantage to the police? The military and the reserve forces have identity cards, and so do Members of Parliament. Many people who work in companies have identity cards, too. Why should we not have identity cards for every member of the public, which would assist the police in their efforts to bring down crime?
    Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he will doubtless be aware of the fact that the police do not favour a compulsory identity card. None the less, I shall take what he has said fully into account in working up my proposals.
    Mr. Straw: What is there to rejoice about in a record which shows that, as the Home Secretary has confirmed, recorded crime has more than doubled over the past 16 years? Is he not aware that, as crime has doubled, the proportion of people convicted or cautioned for those crimes has fallen by more than half? Is that not the worst record of any British Government since the war—and, indeed, of any comparable Administration in any western country? Is it therefore any wonder that the British people have so comprehensively lost confidence in the Government's ability to keep communities safe from crime?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, crime was rising before 1979. It has also been rising in other western European countries and in countries elsewhere in the developed world since that date. In the past three years, however, there has been the greatest fall in recorded crime since records began to be kept in the middle of the 19th century. That is a matter for some satisfaction, and we congratulate the police on their achievements.
    However, there is much more to be done. That is why I have made further proposals. Why did the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose all the measures that we announced to improve our record further? Why does he oppose our sentencing proposals and the proposals to change the right to silence, which are having such a beneficial impact on crime? Why did he undermine the proposals to change the law on bail? Why does Labour have such an appalling record on crime?

    Border Controls
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers the issue of border controls. [25042]
    Mr. Howard: I have no plans to raise the issue of border controls at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of border controls would effectively establish a single European state without frontiers? What constitutional defences are available to us if the European Court determines—as some of us believe it will—that the declaration attached to the Single European Act does not have the status of European law?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well—because we have had exchanges on this subject before—
    574
    that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are firmly determined to maintain the United Kingdom's frontier controls. That is our position: we will maintain our frontier controls, as we have made clear on numerous occasions.

    Prisons (Illegal Drug Use)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the percentage of prisons that are free of illegal drug use. [25043]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Mandatory drug testing has been implemented in all prisons, on schedule, by 31 March. The data it will yield will provide, over time, a good indicator of the level and pattern of drug misuse in prisons. However, because the random testing programme involves the testing of only 10 per cent. of a prison's population every month, even when all the tests prove negative, it will still not be safe to claim that an entire prison is free of drug misuse.
    Mr. Flynn: That is a disgraceful non-answer. I suggest that the Minister read my question again and the letter that I sent to her Department pointing out that, in my county of Gwent, in two cases, on two different days, convicted offenders were excused prison—which they most certainly would have had—for the serious offences that they had committed because the judge decided that, as ex-drug users, they would be exposed to more drug temptation in prison than they would be in the community. It seems, therefore, that drug users get a better chance of not going to gaol. In what percentage of prisons is drug use endemic? If the Minister does not know the answer, I can tell her what her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told me before—that drug use is endemic in 98 per cent. of gaols. Why is this the case after 17 years of Tory government?
    Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman wanted an answer to that question, perhaps he should have asked it. The hon. Gentleman asked me:
    "what … percentage of prisons … are free of illegal drug use."
    I have clearly explained to him that, even if all the random tests came out negative, it would be impossible to make the claim he asks me to make because all the other prisoners would not have been tested. However, it is well worth pointing out to him—as he referred to the figure for Welsh prisons—that, in the 14 tests carried out in Cardiff in February, there were no positive results. Perhaps he would like to congratulate the Government on that.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the Prison Service on the wide range of initiatives that it has introduced to combat drugs—such as mandatory drug testing, additional searching provisions, closed visits and the increased use of dogs. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome those efforts and acknowledge that they are making a real impact on drug use in prisons? Will he preserve his scorn for those who try to get drugs into prisons, rather than use it on those who are doing their level best to combat drugs—and doing so very successfully?
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be absolutely no rehabilitation of offenders in

    575
    custody so long as they have access to drugs, so removing drugs from our prisons is the single most important priority that the Government could have in ensuring that people do not re-offend when they leave custody? In that respect, does my hon. Friend think that we can learn a great deal from the boot camps in the United States of America, which are no-drug zones? Will she ensure that similar detention centres in Britain are also no-drug zones?
    Miss Widdecombe: I hope that, one day, we shall be able to ensure that there is no prison, whether for young offenders or for adult offenders, in which there are drugs, and I described the measures that we were undertaking to try to move towards that.
    My hon. Friend is right; drugs in prisons are a major evil. That is why it is important not only to take measures against the supply of drugs, but to try to combat the demand. I therefore welcome the fact that 80 prisons now have detoxification units, that we have many programmes designed to tackle drugs behaviour and that we are using education, counselling and medical help in prisons to try to get prisoners out of the habit—which most of them have before they enter prison.
    Ms Lynne: The Minister is aware that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, and that many of those drugs are coming over the perimeter fence. That is one of the reasons why the perimeter fence is being strengthened at the moment. Is she aware, however, that on Tuesday 23 April, at 2 pm, four prisoners, using construction equipment left lying about by the contractors, escaped over the prison fence? Is it not about time that she listened to the views of the people of Rochdale and instigated a full public inquiry into the running of Buckley Hall prison by Group 4?
    Miss Widdecombe: First, the hon. Lady says that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall. It is worth recording that, when the last series of tests was carried out, 19 prisoners were tested and only one was found positive. Although that is one too many, it is not indicative of what she describes as a serious problem.
    Secondly, with respect to the hon. Lady's comments on Buckley Hall, I answered at great length in an Adjournment debate, and proved that she is taking a most unfair line, that she is insulting staff—many of whom are probably her constituents—and that it is high time that she recognised the aspects in which Buckley Hall performed better than its public service comparators.
    Mr. Key: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no lack of determination on the part of the Government or the Prison Service to eliminate drugs from prisons? Can she confirm that the root problem is that, as a result of court decisions, personal contact between prisoners and visitors is now compulsory, and that internal body searches are not allowed unless a doctor is present and the prisoner consents, which means that, for all practical purposes, substances can be taken into prison and prison staff have no option but to allow those substances to be used?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right to identify visitors' contacts with prisoners as being an aspect of major concern. That is why there is now increased use
    576
    of monitoring by cameras at visiting time, why there is increased use of closed visits where prisoners are found to have obtained drugs, why there are strict search procedures and why dogs are often used at visiting times.
    My hon. Friend is right to identify that. He is not right, however, to say that prison staff have no choice but to allow substances to be used. It might reassure my hon. Friend to know that there is a healthy record of detection and removal of substances and—perhaps most important of all—prosecution of guilty visitors.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the mandatory drug testing scheme will be reviewed to discover what, if any, improvements may be made to it? Will she also give the House an assurance that the proposed cuts of 14.5 per cent. in real terms that are due to take place during the next three years will not affect the many effective, well-run drug rehabilitation programmes that are already going on in our prisons? Will she ensure that those programmes are protected? I am sure that the whole House agrees that it is important that people who are into taking drugs are helped to get out of them, especially when in prison.
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman can of course have our reassurance that mandatory drug testing will be continued, that it will be kept under review so that, if improvements can be made, they will be made, and that we shall monitor carefully the results, especially when they have been up and running for long enough to allow us to perceive a steady pattern. I have pleasure in giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about resources. Currently, about £5.1 million is allocated to drug rehabilitation and about £5.3 million is allocated to mandatory drug testing.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done by prison officers throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in my constituency of South Dorset, tackling the drug problem is good news for everyone concerned, not least the prisoners? Will she take further measures, if necessary, to ensure that we can search people going into prisons, and that we can prosecute them with the full force of the law so that we stop people involved in that type of trafficking, which has been going on for many years?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have fairly stringent searching, and when we have reason to believe that there is something untoward we have very stringent searching. We can refuse access, and we can—and do—call in the police with a view to prosecution when we find visitors trying to pass substances of that sort. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek to improve those procedures and that we are thoroughly committed to them.

    British Passports
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the design of British passports. [25044]
    The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The current new-style British passport, introduced from 1988, is in a common format that has been agreed throughout the European Union.
    An internal review in 1995 found that the current design and security features provide adequate protection against fraud. but that is being examined again and consideration is being given to replacing the holder's photograph with a printed digitised image when the current printing equipment is replaced in 1998.
    Mr. Soley: So when people renew their passports, they will, at the Minister's insistence, no longer be able to obtain a traditional British-style passport but must have what is called a "European Community passport". Is the Minister proud of that?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The passport that is held by British nationals is quite clearly a British, not a European, passport. On its front cover, it bears this country's coat of arms and the clear and unequivocal statement that it is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we intend it to remain that way—but I am not so sure that Opposition Front Benchers, with their Euro-enthusiasm, could provide the same guarantee
    Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is correct: the problem is not the design of the British passport, but designs on the British passport. Will my hon. Friend renew the fight to ensure that border controls and the sanctity of passports generally are upheld?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that we can give that confirmation. However, the Opposition are apparently unable to do that. If we received more support from the Opposition in our determination in that regard, we would be in a much better position.

    Private Security Industry
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regulating the private security industry; and if he will make a statement. [25045]
    Mr. Maclean: We are still considering the case for regulating the private security industry.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Minister noticed that Lowther Construction, a company based in his constituency, has been employing an armed robber as a security guard—or at least it was until he was arrested on charges of supplying heroin? When will the Minister overcome his obsession with deregulation and do what all sensible people of all political persuasions both in and outside the industry are begging him to do: start regulating the private security industry?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman and his party are very keen on regulation and more regulation, but they have not thought out the details and there is no blueprint for how it should be done.
    Mr. Purchase: Get on with it.
    Mr. Maclean: That is the Opposition's response to all regulation issues: they do not care about the details or the effect on criminal law or the industry; they would simply regulate and hope for the best.
    The Home Affairs Committee has produced a very thoughtful report to which we are giving careful consideration. We have accepted many of its recommendations and we are working on the details of our White Paper on criminal record checks, which will address many of the problems in the industry. When we have formed our conclusions. we shall announce our proposals for the private security industry—whatever they may be.
    Mr. Michael: Why does the Minister appear so unwilling to regulate the crooks? Does he realise that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not unique? What has the Minister to say about the experience of the police? For example, a police superintendent told me about a man with 23 pages of convictions on the police national computer who is running a private security firm. The police, the Labour party and the private security industry want statutory regulation of the industry. Why will not the Home Secretary bring in legislation to protect the public, instead of continuing to act as the villain's friend?
    Mr. Maclean: It will not surprise the House to know that I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might end with that jibe, so before coming to the House I looked up the Labour party's voting record—not on regulation, but on Bills to deal with people who have been convicted of crime. In 1988, Labour voted against the power to increase from two years to 10 the penalty for cruelty to children. Labour voted against penalties for hard drugs. Labour voted against the maximum penalty for taking a gun to crime. Labour voted against every prevention of terrorism Act until this year. Labour voted against many parts of the last criminal justice Bill and sabotaged others. We will produce our proposals for the private security industry in due course, but we will not take lessons from the Opposition when over the past 15 years they have voted against every measure that would have locked up more criminals.

    Citizenship Applications
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for refusing United Kingdom citizenship applications where the applicant has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, has no criminal record and has met all the duties and obligations which fall to be met by a person resident in the United Kingdom. [25046]
    Mr. Kirkhope: No. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 expressly relieves the Secretary of State from giving reasons in such cases where the decision is at his discretion
    Mr. Prentice: Why will the Minister not give reasons for the refusal of British citizenship to the Fayed brothers,

    579
    as recommended in February by Mr. Justice Igor Judge, who said that not to do so gave the impression of secrecy and was unattractive, and who called on the Minister to think again? Is not the refusal of UK citizenship to the Fayed brothers, who have been in this country more than 20 years, a calculated act of political spite because the Fayed brothers blew the whistle on Ministers who enjoyed lavish hospitality at the Paris Ritz, allegedly for planting parliamentary questions? Is that not the reason for blackballing the Fayed brothers?
    Mr. Kirkhope: Under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, certain requirements must be met for approval to be given to citizenship. Some are objective matters and some are subjective, subject to discretion. Mr. Justice Judge's pronouncement, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, made it clear that the British Government have always acted lawfully in respect of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The judge found as a matter of law that there was no obligation either to give reasons or to invite representations, and that the Home Office in no way acted unlawfully
    Mr. Ashby: Having received a pretty shabby letter from Mohammed Al Fayed, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that he is not fit for British citizenship. People who are fit for British citizenship include children born in Germany of parents serving in the British forces. Why are such children subject to such an onerous burden of proof in obtaining a British passport?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will be pleased to look into that matter and reply to him. I remind the House that we take British nationality extremely seriously. It is a very special status, not to be conferred in a flippant or easy manner—as suggested by the Labour party

    Police Forces (Revenue Finance)
    Mr. Benton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he plans to increase the revenue finance for police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years in order to increase by 5,000 the number of police officers. [25047]
    Mr. Maclean: Police authorities will receive an extra £20 million this financial year, £60 million more in 1997–98 and £100 million more in 1998–99. That will enable them to recruit 5,000 additional police constables over that period
    Mr. Benton: Is the Minister aware of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), drawing attention to the increasing level of violence and use of firearms on Merseyside? Is he also aware that under the constraints imposed by the Government, Merseyside fire authority—this year, not in three years' time—will have to reduce its officer numbers by 130? How will the Merseyside authority cope with the increased levels of crime? Will the Minister put the elderly people and other vulnerable groups on Merseyside at ease with some statement of comfort, and will he agree to meet a delegation from the Merseyside police authority?
    Mr. Maclean: People on Merseyside might be put more at ease if the authority did not waste hundreds of
    580
    thousands of pounds on leaflets claiming that its budget will be cut by £19 million when in fact it received an increase of £8 million or 5.1 per cent. this financial year. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman if he quoted from the latest Audit Commission report which shows, among other things, that Merseyside has almost 50 per cent. more money per head of population to tackle crime than the average police force. As a result of all that extra money, Merseyside has 50 per cent. more bobbies available for ordinary duty than the average police force. I should be delighted to meet a delegation from Merseyside on any occasion to remind it of the success of that force in that regard.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister satisfied that the police establishment of the county of Kent is sufficient to deal with all the manifestations of the channel tunnel rail link, in view of the huge increase in traffic moving through the county from the north to the coast and from there to Europe?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, I am. We no longer set establishments, but in view of the generous funding that all forces, including Kent, have received and the success that Kent police have had in tackling all aspects of crime, I am satisfied that Kent's excellent chief constable will be able to deploy the resources that we have given him in the most effective way to tackle any problems arising from the channel tunnel and any other problems of crime in his county.
    Mr. Barnes: When will sufficient resources be given to the police in Derbyshire so that they can secure the return of their certificate of competence? Why is that force still suffering as a result of a past policy of civilianisation when that policy is now recommended by the Home Office?
    Mr. Maclean: I will tell the House what Derbyshire is suffering from: it is suffering from a legacy of Labour control in Derbyshire in the mid-1980s—from Bookbinder and hostile Labour councillors who hated the police and did everything to do them down. Derbyshire's success is improving because the Tory Government have given more money to Derbyshire than its Labour council in the 1980s took away from it. Derbyshire will get about 5 per cent. more this year. It has had generous capital funding and if Labour councillors in the past had shown some respect for their county force, it would not have its problems.

    Sentencing Policy
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about sentencing policy for crimes of burglary, car theft and shoplifting. [25048]
    Mr. Howard: I receive many representations about sentencing policy, including widespread support for the proposals set out in the White Paper, "Protecting the Public"
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to learn that there is widespread support in my constituency for his proposals for greater certainty in

    581
    sentencing. Is he aware that businesses in my constituency which have suffered through burglary or shoplifting—not just the theft of a tea cake but the theft of hundreds of pounds' worth of household or DIY equipment—expect the courts to provide at least loss of liberty or custody, not just probation, for persistent offenders? Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast that concern with the lightness with which the Leader of the Opposition recently treated such matters?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about sentencing. I am sure that he will have drawn the attention of his shopkeeping constituents to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been going up and down the country making speeches which excuse shoplifters. The Leader of the Opposition will go down in history as the pilferer's friend.

    Recorded Crime
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest recorded crime figures. [25049]
    Mr. Howard: Recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. in 1995 and by 8 per cent. in the three years to the end of 1995. That is the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes. Those figures are a testament to the achievements of the police and local communities in helping to prevent crime.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the stupendously good news in Norfolk with regard to recorded crime? Is he aware that recorded crime and burglaries have fallen during the past year in Norfolk, and that car theft has fallen by 14 per cent. during the past year in Norfolk? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the police and the crime prevention panel in Norfolk for that really good work, and will he say that there will be more resources for more police and more special constables in Norfolk in the coming year?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the record of the police in Norfolk. Norfolk has had a 20 per cent. reduction in recorded crime during the past two years, with some 9,000 fewer victims—the biggest fall of any county. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Norfolk police on that achievement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25066]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today
    Mr. Corbett: Did the Prime Minister hear his Chancellor on the "Today" programme this morning
    582
    deriding the claim that economic and monetary union would necessarily mean the end of the nation state? Is that the Prime Minister's view, or will he be giving another shambolic free vote to his Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that on matters of conscience it is right to have a free vote in the House. I understand that last night's debate was of a very high quality, as is frequently the case when we have a free vote in the House, and I believe that it was the right way to deal with the problem. With regard to the nation state, my right hon. and learned Friend is a strong supporter of it.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government's announcement earlier this week on the abolition of anti-personnel mines has been widely welcomed both within and outside the House? Bearing it in mind that some 2,000 innocent people are killed or maimed every month as a result of those diabolical instruments, will my right hon. Friend please use his considerable influence to obtain their abolition worldwide?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have stated for a long time our aim to eliminate anti-personnel mines and we hope that through international agreement that aim can be achieved. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines
    Mr. Blair: Does not the fact that four of the Prime Minister's Cabinet Ministers—[Interruption.] I am well aware why Conservative Members do not want to talk about this. Does not the fact that four Cabinet Ministers voted against the Prime Minister himself on a Bill from his own Lord Chancellor show the humiliating state to which his authority has been reduced?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall what I said when I announced the Bill last November in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I made it clear at that time that this was a matter of personal conviction for all hon. Members and that I had no intention of riding roughshod over the convictions of any hon. Member, in the Government or beyond, on the matter. I said then that we would propose free votes on matters of conscience. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right to have a free vote on a matter of conscience, does he equally think that it is right that those members of any Administration who feel strongly on these matters should be excluded? Presumably he does. If he does, he has a strange view of what forms a matter of conscience.
    Mr. Blair: I think that most people have an increasingly clear view of the Government. Is the Prime Minister not aware— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen to what is being said.
    Mr. Blair: I remind the Prime Minister that that was a Government Bill, proposed by his Lord Chancellor. Last night's vote was not only about the amendment—it was fundamentally about the ethos of the Bill and about the direction of the Conservative party. Does not that vote

    583
    show the advanced state of decay of his Government—that he now has to rely on Opposition support to carry that messed-up measure through the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading, and he knows that he is deliberately misleading— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend to use unparliamentary language. I refer to the words "deliberately misleading". Will he please rephrase that?
    The Prime Minister: Of course—as Madam Speaker wishes it. I will simply say that the right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in the way in which he addresses this issue. He has known from the Bill's outset that I have made it clear that, on the issue of fault and on other issues of conscience, there was to be a genuinely free vote of the House. A free vote was not forced on the Government. I announced it from the Dispatch Box last November when I spoke about the Bill in the Queen's Speech. I have honoured that promise, for every member of my party.
    I made it clear that we were to have a free vote, and I made it clear to every member of the Government that a free vote would apply to them as well. In the past we have had free votes on other matters of conscience, such as capital punishment and Sunday trading. I believe that on an issue of such importance, and on one which is a matter of conscience, it is right for hon. Members to have an opportunity to vote exactly as their consciences dictate. I believe that that is in the best interests of Parliament. Moreover, if I had imposed a Whip on members of the Government after announcing that there would be a free vote, the right hon. Gentleman would now be criticising me from the Dispatch Box for not allowing the genuine free vote that I promised the House some months ago. I gave my word to the House, and I have kept it.
    Mr. Blair: I do not mind the Prime Minister talking tough with me, but it is time that he also talked tough with his Cabinet—that is all that we ask. Is this not all of a piece with the defiance that we heard—[Interruption.] We heard the Chancellor this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] Conservative Members are all shouting— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Ivan and other hon. Members who are shouting, come to order.
    Mr. Blair: They are all asking where I was. That is a novel constitutional proposition—that it is now my duty to turn up and vote with the Government to save them from their own Cabinet Ministers. After hearing the Chancellor this morning, and with two Cabinet Ministers sitting in silent support of the European Communities (European Court) Bill, is not the Prime Minister's real problem that every member of his Cabinet has a future agenda but him? Until he gets an agenda and asserts it, this country will continue to suffer from the most feeble Government in living memory.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that I set out the agenda last November, and I have kept to that agenda. I realise that in the new autocratic Labour party—where party henchmen oversee
    584
    everything that Front Benchers and Back Benchers say and, should they stray, a signed statement is put out in their names later on the same day—the concept of a free vote is alien to the right hon. Gentleman.
    The next time the right hon. Gentleman talks to us about his conscience and matters related to church and conscience, perhaps he will say that it does not apply when he sees political advantage. He would be prepared to go through people for his own party political interests and to go against their consciences—even on a matter that affects the conscience of every hon. Member. If that is the way he behaves in opposition, people will be aware of that and they will be aware of what sort of Government he would be likely to have if he ever had the opportunity. What he has revealed to the House this afternoon is that he has no understanding of parliamentary tradition, no understanding of individual conscience and no understanding of the way in which Parliament must deal with matters of this sort which affect the consciences of every hon. Member and every family in the country
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share the universal disgust that, despite the clear way forward that has been mapped out for enduring peace and stability in Northern Ireland, the IRA's bombing campaign continues unabated? Does he share my outrage that a proposal to condemn the ending of the IRA ceasefire was rejected by the Labour party in Islington?
    The Prime Minister: I can only hope that the Leader of the Opposition will bring his own party in Islington into line on a matter of importance to everyone in the United Kingdom. It puts into proper context the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has just been talking to the House.
    Sinn Fein and the IRA, with their tired old combination of bullets and bombs, remain locked in the past. While they do so, they must remain outside the democratic consensus established by the two Governments. and outside the democratic consensus of all the other parties in Northern Ireland. I repeat to Sinn Fein that it has to make a choice, for it cannot duck it. If it wishes to become a democratic party, it must make it clear that it will have no truck now or in the future with violence of the sort that we have seen. If it does not do that, there is no way in which it can join the democratic discussions about the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25067]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago
    Mrs. Kennedy: Given the President of the Board of Trade's gloomy prediction that manufacturing firms are set to shed jobs in the coming months, and remembering that almost 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared from Britain since his party came to power, does the Prime Minister realise that his claims to have made Britain the enterprise centre of Europe have no credibility whatever?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has slightly misinterpreted, first, what my right hon.

    585
    Friend said and, secondly, the facts. Perhaps she would care to acknowledge that manufacturing employment is 50,000 higher now than at the beginning of 1994; that this is the first time that a downward trend has been reversed for many years; that manufacturing output has risen by more than 8 per cent.; that exports have risen by a quarter to record levels; that total manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up by 16 per cent.; that across the economy as a whole 5,000 new jobs have been created every week since the recovery began—almost three quarters of a million in all. While the policies of the Labour party would destroy jobs, the Government are creating jobs faster than any other comparable economy in western Europe. We have a lower level of unemployment than any other such economy in western Europe. The policy of the minimum wage and similar policies would certainly increase unemployment. As the deputy leader of the Labour party said some time ago, any silly fool knows that—even the deputy leader of the Labour party.
    Mr. Renton: Contrary to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he made yesterday on Britain as the enterprise centre of Europe and on his vivid comment that those who think that Britain can be a trading haven on the edge of Europe without being in the European Union are in cloud cuckoo land. Does he recall that the original cloud cuckoo land was an imaginary city built in the air by the birds? Would that not also be a suitable destination for those who think that they can vote Labour without seeing their personal and business taxes go sky high?
    The Prime Minister: That does not apply only to personal and business taxes. It now seems that anyone who is ill advised enough to encourage their youngsters to stay on and take A-levels will lose £560 in child benefit every year. Those who happen to have two children aged
    586
    between 16 and 18 doing A-levels will lose more than £1,000 a year. There is no purpose in the shadow Chancellor's shaking his head: that is his policy—that is his response to people on low incomes who want their children to take A-levels, proceed to university and do better.
    We are not talking just about the withdrawal of child benefit. Before child benefit it was a tax allowance. This is the direct equivalent of a tax increase of £560 for every family with children taking A-levels. There is no point in the shadow Chancellor's shaking his head: it is his policy and it is nonsense—and we intend to tell every family in the land about it.
    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25068]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's statement earlier this week about anti-personnel land mines was a case of three steps forward in PR terms and two steps backward in terms of reality? It will greatly disappoint people all over the world who can take no steps at all because their limbs have been destroyed by those inhumane weapons. Will the Prime Minister not support the recommendations in today's left-wing The Daily Telegraph, which suggests that the Government and Britain should take a moral lead in calling for a unilateral ban on the production and use of such weapons?
    The Prime Minister: I just wonder where the hon. Gentleman may have been about 13 minutes ago, when I made it perfectly clear that we would work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. I would have hoped that he could support that.

BSE
3.31 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he would make a statement on the proposals that he was submitting to the European Union on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I made a statement in the House on 16 April, in which I made it plain that the Government's purpose was to achieve, as speedily as we could, a rapid and complete lifting of the ban on the export of British beef and beef products. In that and previous statements, I set out a wide range of measures including a buy-up scheme for all cattle aged over 30 months, further tightening of controls on specified bovine offals, and further tightening of the rules governing animal feed. I discussed the details of those measures with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday.
As I said on 16 April, we were considering the possibility of a scheme of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE at an acceptable cost. Since that time, I have developed the idea still further, and I have incorporated a more flexible approach to the targeting of animals identified as being most at risk of developing BSE.
That concept involves giving farmers the choice between slaughtering them and placing them under a restriction order. As was made plain in my previous statement, the scheme would involve only limited numbers of individual animals, amounting to tens rather than hundreds of thousands. It would not involve the slaughter of whole herds.
I have now sent an outline of my ideas to the European Agriculture Commissioner, who is considering them ahead of next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. I have made it clear to Commissioner Fischler that the Government would consider implementing such a scheme only in the context of plans for the lifting of the EU ban on British beef. I will report to the House on the outcome of these delicate and sensitive negotiations.
I am also discussing my proposals with representatives of the British beef industry, and my officials and I will be having further discussions with them and others in due course.
Mr. Morley: The whole House will welcome a chance to discuss new details of BSE slaughter packages. It is only right for those details to be reported to the House rather than just to the media. We welcome the fact that measures are being put to the Commission to restore consumer confidence, deal with the BSE problem and bring the beef export ban to an end as quickly as possible.
I have some questions about the proposed measures. First, we understand that a system to trace cattle back to their origin has been proposed. While we welcome that—it is a measure that we proposed more than six years ago—there will be difficulties. Could the Minister give some details of how any such tracing operation will work, and of the time scale that would be involved?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, according to his proposals, the tracing will be done from herds in which animals were born after September 1990? Given
588
that the feed ban was imposed in July 1988, why is 1990 the chosen year? Does that not point to some problems in the implementation of the feed ban at that time?
By identifying year groups for selective slaughter, which we understand is one of the proposals, does the Minister appreciate that some holdings could lose cattle from three-year cohorts? The cost implications for those holdings in terms of lost milk production may be more than the simple replacement value of the animals. Will that be taken into account in any compensation package? Can the Minister give some idea of the proportion of the total package of new measures that will be met by European Union funding?
Did the Minister put proposals to the Commission for exemptions for some beef animals over the age of 30 months for human consumption when they are from BSE-free sources? Is he confident that the restriction order measures that he announced will not be open to fraud, and that measures will be put in place to prevent it? I understand from the proposals that calves from cows subject to restriction orders will not be used for human consumption. Does that reflect a change of thinking by the Ministry on risk assessment, or the possibility of vertical transmission of BSE?
I reiterate our concern that the Ministry should recognise potential welfare problems for animals under these new measures, and should ensure that full consideration is given to that.
Finally, may I ask about reports that the Commission is still waiting for details of these proposals in writing, and is disappointed by the failure to deliver the Government's promised plan? Are those details the Government's total proposals to the Commission, and is the Minister confident that they will bring about a lifting of the European ban?
It is important that a negotiated settlement is presented and agreed on the basis of sensible measures, rather than relying on empty threats and sabre rattling. We want to see a clear programme of measures to help the beef sector at all levels, and measures to protect and reassure consumers so as to restore stability to the beef market. We support any move that will put us on course for that objective.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Perhaps I may make the obvious point that we are in the process of delicate and sensitive negotiations. Therefore, I hope that the House will understand if I avoid too much detail.
The ideas that I have forwarded in writing to Commissioner Fischler, to whom I have also spoken on a number of occasions, are set in the context of clear framework plans for the rapid and complete lifting of the ban. I think that that accords with the sense of the House.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. Traceability is clearly important, and he will recall what I said about that in my previous statement—that we hope to have an operating passport system up and running by the beginning of June or thereabouts.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about beasts that were born before September 1990. He will bear it in mind that the mandatory requirement for birth documents came into effect only at about that time. In addition, the incubation period for BSE is between four and five years.

589
Consequently, if we focus on the older animal, the seven or eight-year-old beast, we are not being as effective as we might otherwise be, in the sense that those older beasts will either have developed the condition or will not develop it at all.
Compensation is an important matter, which I discussed yesterday with industry representatives. We will discuss that.
On exemptions, that too is an important point. It goes to the question of the 30-month rule. I have discussed that with Commissioner Fischler and I hope that Ministry officials will shortly go with proposals on how we might agree a carefully defined scheme. The evidence available suggests that vertical transmission does not occur. Welfare is an important question, and my right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of it.
In substance, I agree with the broad approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I am in the business of negotiating and of persuading.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, this morning, I received a letter from a veterinary surgeon who travels extensively in Europe? He tells me that it is commonly recognised on the continent, especially in Ireland, Holland, Belgium, France and Germany, that the incidence of BSE there is at least as high as in this country—and probably, in some cases, considerably higher.
What confidence can my right hon. and learned Friend really have that he will be able to bring reason to bear and to negotiate on the basis of scientific principles, when it is painfully obvious that the people with whom he must negotiate are turning their back against the deficiencies in their own country and arguing from entirely different premises? What possible grounds does he have for optimism? Is not the alternative to turn around and say that, if we were to impose a ban on the importation of European beef products, we would not be indulging in an exercise in law breaking—we would, in all probability, be protecting the health of this country's citizens?
Mr. Hogg: It is the objective of the British Government and, I believe, of the European Commission to restore the single market in beef and beef products. That essential proposition is subscribed to by member states. I hope that I will be able to persuade those states to honour the implied and, indeed, expressed commitments that are part of the single market concept, so I am relying on persuasion and negotiation, pointing to what we have done and to what we propose to do, as set out in my statement on 16 April.
I am certain that there is a much higher level of BSE on the mainland of Europe than has been disclosed in the figures, but I do not subscribe to the proposition that the incidence is as high as it is in this country. I fear that our problem has been greater, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a substantial number of undeclared cases on the mainland of Europe.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that we entirely sympathise with his objective of having the ban lifted as soon as possible, but it would help if he explained the basis for the proposition that he has told the House about today. Is it necessary to have culling of the number of cows that he proposes for
590
entirely scientific reasons—which is not the view, as I understand it, of the National Farmers Union—or is it necessary to restore consumer confidence and because that is the political requirement of other member states and of the Commission? That would be inconsistent with the line that the Government have always adopted so far. He needs to tell us, because otherwise the danger is that we will be in a series of negotiations where the number may just be upped and upped and upped for no justifiable reason.
There is one matter that the Minister has not yet told the House about, and I should be grateful if he or the Government dealt with it: if there is to be any culling, what environmental and public health activities and actions will the Government propose to ensure that there is no public health risk from any culling of any animals anywhere in the country?
Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of achieving human health, because the controls that we have in place already achieve that. It is also true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of promoting animal health, because of the way in which BSE develops, its relationship with feed and the action that we have taken on the feed regulations. None the less, I would make two points.
First, restoring consumer confidence is an important policy objective for us all, and for the European countries. Secondly, if one stands back and asks oneself whether one is content that, in a country such as Britain, which has such high standards of agricultural quality, we should, after 10 years or so of BSE, still have a substantial number of cases in our national herd, the answer must be no.
Therefore, if, in a targeted and proportionate way, acceptable to the industry and the House, we can significantly accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE, I commend it to the House and the industry on its merits.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the warm thanks of the farming community and the National Farmers Union for all the work that he has put into resolving the crisis? Will he accept that, as of today, the most pressing problem facing farmers, where fodder is now very short, is the disposal of beasts over 30 months old to the auction marts or slaughterhouses under his prime beef scheme? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give me any sort of assurance that the intervention board will have its scheme up and running by next week?
Mr. Hogg: It is our intention that the scheme should be up and running in the week beginning 29 April. I am conscious that, in the early stages, it may not run as smoothly as one would wish—there is a risk of that. However, I can tell the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be sensitive to points that have been made by the industry and by right hon. and hon. Members, and we will do our best to ensure that the schemes—there are more than one—operate as smoothly as possible. We will be as responsive as we can to complaints that the schemes are not running as smoothly as possible.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Minister realise that his vacillation,

591
his to-ing and fro-ing and his blowing hot and cold over the past six weeks are causing a great deal of disquiet among farmers in Scotland, in Ayrshire in particular, and to people down the line involved in the meat processing, rendering and distribution industries and in the slaughterhouses? What sort of message does he have for the hundreds of people who have been laid off in those industries over the past few weeks? What sort of compensation will they receive? When will they get their jobs back? He has made some sort of concessions to farmers, but what about all the others whose jobs depend on the meat industry?
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I have been guilty of any vacillation or of blowing hot and cold. I have tried to pursue a steady course, and I think that I have succeeded. I have the utmost sympathy for people who have lost their jobs or suffered lay-offs in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, but, as I made plain in my statement to the House on 16 April, our objective in the targeting of financial assistance is to maintain the vital links of the beef industry in good and viable condition. I have never pretended, and I do not pretend, that we are trying to compensate everybody for loss. That is not practical, and it is not the justification for the compensation payments that I brought forward on 16 April.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the concerns expressed at the meeting of the all-party animal welfare group when it raised this issue earlier this week? First, it was concerned that the scientifically unjustified slaughter plans may turn into an open-ended response to economic blackmail through the Council of Ministers.
Secondly, there was concern about the need to see compensation paid for casualty animals slaughtered on the farm to avoid the inhumane and unnecessary transport to slaughter to obtain payment for unfit animals. Thirdly, there was concern about the need to amend the European directive to base compensation formulas on hot carcase weight rather than live weight, again to avoid cruelty to the beasts.
Clearly we will see the slaughter of many thousands, if not millions, of animals under unprecedented circumstances. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that he will put animal welfare and animal husbandry at the top of his list of priorities?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right to place such emphasis on animal welfare. I hope that he will be reassured by the language I have used—that the ideas that we have in mind involve the slaughter of tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of beasts. That is what I said on 16 April.
I am conscious that the Government's ability to move ahead with such a policy, if that is what is decided, depends ultimately on the consent of the House and the industry. That is a major reassurance on the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the size of any particular policy. The relationship between dead weight and live weight is indeed important. The draft conclusions on compensation made provision
592
for both. I raised the question with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday, and he responded sympathetically to the point that I made.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I put it to the Minister that, while we appreciate the earnestness with which he is trying to resolve the matter, there is inherent prejudice among our European colleagues against accepting his recommendations? In the event of his present proposals not being accepted, will he take account of early-day motion 773, and try to ensure that beef in herds in regions of the United Kingdom that have farm-assured schemes and traceability records that can confirm BSE-free status, can move, and move immediately, without having to cope with the prejudice in Europe?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an extremely useful meeting, at which I was present, with representatives of all the NFUs in the United Kingdom, most particularly from Northern Ireland, although other parts of the UK were represented. I entirely recognise that the system of traceability and record keeping in Northern Ireland is an example to the rest of the Kingdom. I accept that.
I have a very great preference for trying to bring about a collective rather than a partial solution. The point raised about exemptions is particularly relevant. If we can drive through the concept of exemptions in respect of the 30-month rule, it might be part of a process of relaxing the ban, and would, I think, be of particular benefit to Northern Ireland due to the nature of the herds and the very high degree of traceability provided for in the Province.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his efforts on behalf of British farmers, but remind him that one of the problems facing farmers is the damage to cash flow? Will he please ensure that any compensation packages are paid quickly, so that cash flow, and thus businesses, are not endangered further?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very serious point. We will try to ensure the speedy payment of any of the money that is due under the provisions that I set out in my statement on 16 April and in other statements. Other support payments are of course available to producers, and I shall do my best to ensure that they are also made very promptly, especially to producers of dairy cows and beef.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister has said this afternoon and in earlier statements that he is thinking in terms of tens of thousands of cattle, and a figure of 40,000 has been quoted in the media. Will our European partners be impressed by a figure that amounts only to one third of 1 per cent. of the total cattle herd? Would that eradicate BSE?
Is it not now clear that we urgently and desperately need a test for BSE in live cattle, so that we can be certain that the animals slaughtered are the ones that carry BSE? Will the Minister commission urgent work from his Department to develop such a test? I am sure that it could be done in a matter of weeks—certainly months.
Mr. Hogg: Again, I make the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at his very useful fleeting with

593
the NFU, had the opportunity to talk with Welsh representatives, which was helpful and we were grateful to them for coming. Live tests have been discussed before in the House. I have a feeling that I may have had the pleasure of discussing them with the hon. Gentleman. We would very much like to have a live test and are supporting research into one. We want a live test, but so far as we can judge, a valid one is not yet available or likely to be available in the immediate future. I wish that it was otherwise.
On the scale of the cull, slaughtering cattle over the age of 30 months that have completed their working lives—the old milkers—would involve the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of beasts in the course of the year. We are now focusing on the selective cull idea. We have tried to produce a plan that is intellectually sustainable and that targets the group of animals most at risk. I believe that the House wants that and that it accords with common sense. I therefore hope to persuade our colleagues in Europe to accept it.
Mr. John Greenway: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for resisting the temptation to go for a massive cull of British cattle, especially of whole herds of dairy cattle? Can he confirm that what he has told us will have a negligible impact on milk supplies in the United Kingdom? None the less, given the uncertainty that has been generated in the dairy and beef industries, will he do his level best to implement his proposals speedily? Do not our European partners and the Commission have a duty and responsibility to make sure that all the uncertainty is quickly ended?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The ideas that I have presented to the House will have a very small effect on milk production. My hon. Friend is right about the great importance that we and the House attach to rapid progress.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister emphasised selective culling. Can he say whether a proportion of the animals slaughtered will be scientifically investigated to find whether a key link can be established that would help the search for a live test? If we are to go through this procedure, there should be such a
594
recommendation. Scientific and research institutes should be alerted to that possibility. I hope that we will able, at the end of all this, to see some way forward.
Mr. Hogg: Representatives of the Scottish NFU were at the recent meeting with the Prime Minister. I know that the Prime Minister was extremely pleased to have their views, which were most helpful. On the live test, I do not see a relationship between developing a live test and the pathology that might be available at the completion of a selective cull. None the less, the hon. Lady has raised the concept and I am willing to put it to those who are considering how best to bring about a live test to find whether there is anything that we can learn from a selective cull if we adopt it. I do not see a relationship, but I may be wrong about that.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in applauding the tolerance and patience of the meat and livestock industry on both sides of the farm gate? Does he accept that patience and, more particularly cash, are running out? There is an urgent necessity for the ban on British beef to be lifted. Will he assure us that if it is not lifted by the European Community next week, he will assert the authority of the House and instruct his Department to start reissuing export licences for British beef to non-EC countries?
Mr. Hogg: This has been one of the greatest calamities to face British agriculture for decades. Against that background, the farmers of the United Kingdom have shown extraordinary patience and tolerance. It must be an intensely worrying and distressing time for them, and I am deeply impressed by the way in which their representatives in the National Farmers Union and other bodies, as well as individuals, have conducted themselves.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of getting cash, and I understand about the cash running out. That explains the package that I announced on 16 April, and the importance that I attach to making early payments in respect of other support that may be due. We attach great importance to the lifting of the ban, and the concepts that I have outlined for a selective cull must be seen in that framework.
Several hon. Members rose-
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on to the business question.

Business of the House
3.59 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House set out the forthcoming business, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Elections (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
During that week, the House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
On a more provisional basis, the proposals for the following week are as follows:
On Monday 6 May the House will not be sitting, because it is a bank holiday.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order.
WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 1 May to debate natural mineral waters.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 8 May there will be a debate on the welfare of calves in European Standing Committee A and a debate on consumer credit in European Standing Committee B. Details of relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 1 May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community document: 12712/95, Natural Mineral Waters. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-viii (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).
Wednesday 8 May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community documents: 13099/95 and 4647/96, Welfare of Calves. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC-5 I-xii (1995–96).
European Standing Committee B—European Community documents: 7774/95 and unnumbered, Consumer Credit. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 70-xxiii (1994–95), HC 70-xxv (1994–95) and HC 51-xi (1995–96).
Mr. Rooker: I thank the Leader of the House for continuing to use his best endeavours to announce two weeks' business, albeit that the second week's business is given on a provisional basis. Most hon. Members are most grateful for that, because it allows other arrangements to be made.
I accept that business sometimes has to be changed, but we think it unfortunate that last night's Government decision to draw stumps on the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill and to transfer its remaining stages to next Wednesday means that some of the votes next Wednesday on that Bill and on the motions, especially those on Northern Ireland. will be exceptionally late. I am not one who says that the House should never sit late, but we do not think that the business of the House is so overloaded that no other slot could have been found for the Bill.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the two significant defeats that the Government have sustained on the rights of disabled people over 65 in Committee on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which has now completed its Committee stage. There is considerable interest among disabled people over 65 in the fate of those amendments, which would benefit them. We require from the Government both an early statement about whether they intend to accept the amendments, and early notification of when Report stage will take place, so that Ministers and others can be subject to the lobbying that will need to take place.
Finally, I refer to two issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, raised with the right hon. Gentleman last week. The first is about water supply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of reports in today's Daily Express that Ministers are considering proposals to deal with water supply problems? Is not the House the place to debate water supply problems, particularly in advance of yet another crisis? We do not want to have a crisis and then have hon. Members from both sides of the House say, "What has happened since last year?" We should have a general debate on the issue rather than have the Government in a hole in the corner trying to find a solution. Our constituents will not thank us if there is a crisis this summer, just as there was last summer.
The second point that was raised last week concerns the electricity industry. Is it the intention of the Government to make an early statement in the House on the decision of the President of the Board of Trade—with

597
which we agree—to overrule the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on electricity company takeovers? Even when the Opposition agree with the Government, it is still the right of the House to have a statement made so that hon. Members from both sides can question the Minister—otherwise, it looks as if there has been a fix between the two Front Benches, and that is not the intention. Consensus and agreement are not excuses for Ministers not to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. Furthermore, there is turmoil over the ownership and structure of the electricity industry, and there are good grounds for having a one-day general debate on the issue.
Mr. Newton: I shall take the questions in reverse order. I note that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade following his study of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Similarly, I shall bring his points about water supply to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, if only by way of warning him of a question that he may be asked when he is here for questions on Tuesday next week.
On the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends are carefully considering what happened in Committee. However, I am not in a position to say what their conclusions may be. As always, I shall give the House as much notice as I can about the remaining stages of the proceedings—as I do with others, including those that I have announced this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last night—after the House had already had two very late nights this week—it was clear that hon. Members wished to spend a considerable amount of time on the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. We felt that it was right to provide for that at a more convenient time than last night. That is met by the proposal that I have announced this afternoon. Finally, I am extremely grateful for the kind words with which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicate to the House in reply to a question that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem is one of the worst crises, if not the worst crisis, to hit agriculture in this country for many decades. Therefore, I request my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate on agriculture in general, so that hon. Members can present and explore the dire problems that farmers are experiencing in feeding their livestock—as is the case in my constituency of Macclesfield, particularly for those who are on the marginal and hill land—and the problems that we fear for milk, which could well be affected by even the selective cull policy announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Newton: As I have demonstrated on earlier occasions, I shall keep the possible need for such a debate very much in mind. However, I think that the right time to make a judgment about that will be in the light of what happens at the Agriculture Council next week and the
598
statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that he will make to the House following that meeting.
Mr. David Trimble: Is the Leader of the House aware of our concern about the shambles that the Northern Ireland Office is in regarding its business? I understand that the reforms of the Grand Committee are still stuck somewhere in that. More significantly, there is a serious problem with the elections order, which, as he announced, will be debated late on Wednesday night. That is a complex provision, dealing with the details of an entirely novel electoral system. As yet, there has been no consultation that I am aware of with any of the parties concerned—not even, I understand, with the Labour party—yet we must have some basis on which to be able to discuss it, or to catch some of the mistakes before they are made.
Mr. Newton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's opening line about a shambles was perhaps a bit ungenerous. I should perhaps make it clear that I do not agree with it, but I have no desire to pick a squabble with him. On the rest of what he said, I think that he will agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has very much sought to consult people at every stage of the process, acknowledging that there is very great pressure on, for example, the draftsmen and others in view of the speed with which all this is progressing, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to try to maintain the posture that he has previously maintained.
I know that, among the many other things that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do at the moment, he will be seeking a convenient opportunity to speak to the Northern Ireland parties in respect of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
Sir Hector Monro: I ask my right hon. Friend, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton): may we have a debate on the common agricultural policy over and above what takes place in Committee, where time is so limited?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course consider that proposal very carefully.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that next Monday is the start of what is positively the last year of this Parliament, I assume that the Leader of the House does not want to pick a squabble with anyone in the coming year, in view of the Government's majority. I nevertheless say to him that, in the light of the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party at Question Time, he may need slightly to revise the way in which he gives business statements, in a way that I hope will be supportive of him and the Prime Minister.
The principle on which we have always acted on votes in the House is that every vote is a free vote, but some have a party line applied to them. May I say, on behalf of

599
my colleagues, that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have been completely unjustly castigated by the press and by the leader of the Labour party?
Mr. John Marshall: You did not vote last night.
Mr. Hughes: I did vote last night.
Mr. Marshall: I meant that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not.
Mr. Hughes: No, that is—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hughes: They were castigated for voting as they wished to on a Bill that was at all times a Bill on which the Government had a duty to introduce the legislation without expecting even their supporters to endorse it.
Will the Leader of the House reaffirm that Governments will always introduce some legislation that they do not expect their supporters to back, and accept that, if the leader of the Labour party believes that he will abdicate that principle, it is about the most severe threat to democracy that the House has heard for a very long time?
Mr. Newton: Far from picking a squabble with the hon. Gentleman, I very much welcome and wholly agree with the spirit of what he said. Indeed, in the past—notably when I was Minister for Health—I have been associated with such measures myself, related to abortion and embryology, for example, which were brought before the House with the specific intention of enabling the House to make the type of decision that we made last night. I emphasise that further by reminding the House that the Government offered—and I think it was accepted—drafting assistance with the amendments, to facilitate that process.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am rarely at odds with my right hon. Friend in his selection of business, but I must ask why it has not been possible to hold a debate on the Audit Commission report on the performance of local councils, especially at this moment, when in a week's time the people of our country will elect their local councils in the various shire and rural areas. Surely the House should have been able to debate, and point out the shocking service that people receive from Labour and Liberal councils.
Mr. Newton: I must admit that it sounds quite a good idea, but so also, from my point of view, is getting on with the Government's legislative programme, much of which is very helpful to local authorities.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When can the House have an opportunity to debate the horrendous attacks by the racist regime in Israel on the Lebanon, which are intended to destroy Lebanon's economy, to
600
continue Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon and, in the long term, to get the waters of the Litani, which has been a long-standing aim of Eretz Israel?
Mr. Newton: The British Government, working with other Governments in any way that we can, will do everything conceivable to bring about a solution to the tragic situation in Lebanon.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is it possible to arrange for an urgent, early debate on the link between staying-on rates post-16 and child benefit, given that the proposal to eliminate child benefit for those aged between 16 and 18 would be an absolute nightmare for millions of blue-collar worker families?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend: it is the most extraordinary proposal that I have heard for some time. It will leave many families, including those that are less well off, in a significantly worse position while discouraging them from doing what we have encouraged them to do for years: keep their children at school in order to acquire greater skills. The proposed policy is absolutely insane.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: When will there be a statement to the House about the firearms amnesty that was declared yesterday? Although the amnesty is generally welcome, is the Leader of the House aware that many people believe that it does not go far enough? More than 140 Members of Parliament have signed my early-day motion 639.
[That this House calls on the Government to introduce legislation to make it illegal for private individuals to possess hand guns and to enforce much stricter control of all fire-arms.]
More than 420,000 people have signed the Sunday Mail petition demanding an urgent review of firearms legislation and a ban on the private ownership of handguns. Will the Government take steps to introduce the necessary legislation instead of simply waiting for Lord Cullen to state the obvious?
Mr. Newton: While understanding why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, I think that, having set up Lord Cullen's inquiry and created a specific opportunity to examine the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the Government would be open to considerable criticism if they were to act without waiting for the results of that inquiry. However, I note with gratitude the hon. Gentleman's support for the amnesty.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I show solidarity with my honourable, close and affectionate friend, the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in requesting my right hon. Friend to arrange a further debate on BSE, which is the most urgent problem to affect this country's rural areas for decades? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the House debated the issue a month ago, farming communities continue to operate in limbo in spite of the measures that have been introduced? For example, farmers in my constituency ask me whether they will be compensated for the dairy cows that have reached the end of their lives—which were worth £200 at market before the crisis—for which they must now pay £30 to have removed and slaughtered. In the light of the fact that

601
many small dairy farms have difficulty managing their cash flow, it is a vital matter that needs the urgent attention of the House.
Mr. Newton: While I cannot add to my earlier comments about the possibility of a debate, I acknowledge that the combination of Macclesfield and Congleton in happy marital harmony is a formidable pressure.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned, the Water Companies Association stated yesterday that the present regulatory regime is failing both companies and customers. It called upon the Government to take a belated lead and conduct a national overview of water resources. I suggest that the odd answer during Question Time is not sufficient to address issues involving an essential public service such as water. In view of the extreme public disquiet, I urge the Leader of the House to stress the need for a full statement about the present situation.
Mr. Newton: My earlier answer was only a relatively light way of saying that I would ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was drawn to the remarks made to me—and I now have double cause for doing so. We welcome the association's review of water resource levels, and the Environment Agency will report to my right hon. Friend in the next few days.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for the House to review the practical workings of the Register of Members' Interests, in view of concerns that there may be methods of disguising the real origin of hon. Members' non-parliamentary income? I refer in particular to the current entry in the register for the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
Mr. Newton: Some reference to that matter was made in a point of order raised with you, Madam Speaker, earlier this week. I do not wish to comment beyond your own remarks—other than making the obvious point that if complaints are made that hon. Members are not complying with the rules, the right course is to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can the House debate the major flaw in election law, whereby there is no limit on spending by individuals or parties on national funding? One Bill that came before the House in 1989 and another in 1994 warned that if an individual, who might be a billionaire, decided to spend millions of pounds on a campaign, nothing could stop him buying votes that way. Will the Government now act out of their own political interests, having failed twice to act to protect the integrity of our election system?
Mr. Newton: I have no plans to debate those matters, but I shall, with my usual generosity towards the hon. Gentleman—with whom I rarely agree—at least draw his views to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the education
602
of 16 to 18-year-olds, many of whom in my constituency have already had the payment of their fares to school or college stopped by Ealing Labour council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they have—and that is disgraceful. Under Labour, the parents of those children would lose the child benefit that has enabled their children to remain in education. May we debate that double hammer blow on working people, who should not suffer in that way?
Mr. Newton: I think that you, Madam Speaker, would agree—although I had better not ask you to do so—that such a debate is an excellent idea.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I join hon. Members who have called for a debate about the beef crisis. Is not it remarkable that after 16 years of listening to Ministers saying that market forces will solve everything, it is now all a question of compensation and subsidy for a selected few—mainly Tory voters? Why could not miners have been given subsidies when they were being chucked out of work? Why cannot there be subsidies for all the workers in the meat trade who are being thrown out of their jobs? Why are we hearing restricted demands from Tory Members for subsidies for a selected few? If there are to be subsidies and compensation. let us make sure that everybody is treated equally.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure how closely the hon. Gentleman has studied everything that has been said. I accept that he is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and if he has followed the BSE debates carefully, he will know that the purpose of all the Government's actions has been to restore confidence in the market and therefore to assist and underpin the employment of more than half a million people. Government policy is aimed at helping all the people whose work is connected with beef.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Could we have a debate about the criteria exercised for foreign companies seeking to buy into previous utilities in this country, to ensure that they do not have an easier passage than British-based companies? For example, a bid has been made for Mid Kent Water plc in my constituency by a French consortium, half of which belongs to a company that has four subsidiaries arraigned for fraud in the French courts.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring those comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that when the welfare of calves is discussed in European Standing Committee A, there will be an hour of questions, during which time any hon. Member can attend and ask questions to discover the position? Will he also confirm that if the business today in the other place leads to many orders in connection with the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill, it will be possible to change the business next week so that that business can be dealt with next Friday?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, let us see what happens in another place today. On the former point, after the enjoyable two hours or so that I spent being grilled by

603
the hon. Gentleman and others on the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day, I am glad that he has found an opportunity to advertise the merits of debates in European Standing Committees A and B.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the accuracy of entries in the Register of Members' Interests? Over the past fortnight, we have been regaled with stories of stays in five-star hotels, luxury flights and general swanning about in the far east by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tells us that that was for the purpose of fostering industry in his constituency. Today, we have a letter from Barclays plc, which states:
"There is no question of Mr. Mandelson being financed to support his Hartlepool constituency".
If we had a debate, we might get accurate information about that and not be misled by spin doctors.
Mr. Newton: I have focused on the fact that there appeared to be some difference of opinion about the precise object of that exercise. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I had better not get involved in that argument beyond pointing once again to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Mr. Tony Banks: Could we have a debate on this country's relations with Germany? It is bad enough that the Germans get down to the swimming pool first and rubbish our beef, but they have been pinching our balls. Is the Leader of the House aware that the ball with which Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick at the Wembley world cup final in 1966 was stolen by Herr Haller at the end of the match and conveyed back to Germany? This is a serious point, because that ball is the equivalent of the holy grail to English football supporters and we want it back. In that debate, we could remind our German colleagues that this country went to war over Jenkin's ear, and we are prepared to take action over Hurst's ball.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I share that splendid moment in our relative youth when that third goal went in.
Mr. Banks: Or did not.
Mr. Newton: Or did not, as the case may be. On the question of the ball that did or did not go in, I am not sure whose attention I should draw that to—perhaps His Excellency the German ambassador.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Could I too ask for a debate on the BSE crisis, so that my hard-pressed farmers can get an answer to the following question, which I was not able to put during the private notice question? What possible rational criteria could there be for lifting the ban on the export of British beef, given the fact that it was imposed by the European Commission without the slightest scrap of scientific evidence in the first place?
Mr. Newton: I realise that my hon. Friend has, in a sense, asked a frustrated question from previous business.
604
I shall not attempt to comment beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concern and the way in which it was expressed is brought to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
Mr. Clive Betts: On 16 April, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), the Prime Minister said of Sheffield city council that
"It does not…make its interest payments".—[Official Report, 16 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 509]
That comment was completely untrue and without foundation. There is not one single example of the city council failing to make its contracted interest payments. Given that the Prime Minister has so far only acknowledged a letter from my hon. Friend on that point, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to withdraw that misleading statement before the House and to apologise unreservedly to the House and to the people of Sheffield for the completely unfair and inaccurate slur that he made against their city?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman said in his question that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond appropriately.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider closely the demand by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for a debate on the middle east, so that I can point out that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets for many years and that Hezbollah kamikaze bombers have been going into Israel to kill innocent Israelis? Surely no democratic Government should stand idly by and not react to such a situation, when those guerrillas are supported by the Government of Iran as well.
Mr. Newton: I shall say almost exactly the same as I said earlier. The right thing for all of us to do is to concentrate on doing the best that we can to bring an end to the situation in the Lebanon.
Mr. David Hanson: May we have an early debate on the impact of the cuts to the reduced earnings allowance, which will mean that up to 20,000 people, who are among the most severely disabled in the United Kingdom, who have earned that allowance as a result of injuries at work, will lose £29 a week? Many of my constituents, including many miners, have now lost that money from 1 April and there has been scant parliamentary discussion on the matter. May we have an early debate?
Mr. Newton: Parliament agreed in 1988 the principle that compensation for loss of earnings through reduced earnings allowance should continue past pension age only for those who continue in regular employment. People moving from REA to what is called retirement allowance still receive a preferential benefit, which recognises that reduced earnings during their working life may have led to reduced earnings-related pension rights. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge those points.

605
As for the notion that at this moment I should be pressed for a debate under the general heading of social security cuts, in view of what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are suggesting about child benefit, I simply marvel at the nerve.
Mr. Tony Bank: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, two Conservative Members raised the matter of the Register of Members' Interests. That included an attack by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not someone I usually leap to defend. If such exchanges are to take place, would it not be appropriate for hon. Members to give notice—it may have been in this case—to hon. Members that such points, which are quite serious, will be raised, which, in this case, have gone unchallenged?
Madam Speaker: I have made it clear that we now have a structure in the House whereby we have appointed a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and if hon. Members are concerned about matters of finance, resources or visits abroad which have been received and are not properly recorded, or which should not have taken place, the Commissioner is the person to whom the matter should be referred. Such matters should not be raised either in points of order or during business questions across the Floor of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTED HEAD OF STATE (REFERENDUMS)
  Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to make provision for referendums to be held on the future constitutional status of the Sovereign as Head of State and on the means of electing any future elected Head of State: 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 115.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 2nd May, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th May.—[Mr. Streeter.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1),
That the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended, in paragraph 8, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 13th May' and inserting the words 'in the Maryatt Halls, Dundee, on Monday 13th May'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
    Clause 1

      CARAVANS AND BOATS OCCUPIED AS SOLE OR MAIN RESIDENCE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      ("(4A) Subsection (3) or (4) above does not have effect in the case of a pitch occupied by a caravan, or a mooring occupied by a boat, which is an appurtenance enjoyed with other property to which subsection (1) (a) above applies.")
      4.31 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      We welcome the amendments proposed in the other place and I urge the House to accept them.
      Lords amendment No.1 ensures that pitches occupied by caravans or moorings occupied by boats which are part of a larger domestic property, such as a house with a river frontage mooring, will be considered as an appurtenance to the main property. They will therefore be domestic property. Without this amendment, any such pitches or moorings would be non-domestic property and subject to non-domestic rates. Furthermore, new rating lists are required because of local government reorganisation in Wales. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will enable the Bill's provisions to apply in the same manner in England and in Wales.
      I have been asked to mention another issue in relation to boat owners' concerns about council tax. This is a rating Bill and, as such, it is not the right vehicle with which to deal with problems relating to council tax. Nevertheless, the Residential Boatowners Association is being consulted, and will be fully consulted, on the Valuation Office Agency's new guidelines on moorings. The VOA has issued instructions to its local offices that no mooring cases will be pursued until the guidelines have been issued.
      If the association still feels that there are problems after the guidelines are in place, we shall review the situation and, if necessary, put the problems right through the right mechanism—council tax legislation.
      Ms Hilary Armstrong: We are quite happy to accept the amendments, which demonstrate the problems encountered in making legislation. The Bill was originally introduced because a valuation panel had, in essence, changed people's understanding of the existing law, which we were trying to put right. Apparently, we did not manage to do that during the Bill's earlier passage through the House, but that problem has now been corrected. I certainly agree with the Government's intention in the amendments, and I shall not oppose them.
      I thank the Minister for his words of reassurance to the Residential Boatowners Association. Members of that organisation clearly have been working on the issue for

      607
      some time, and I am pleased that they have received some reassurance. It is important that groups such as that one—composed of people who live a different life style but who, none the less, have rights and responsibilities, as do the rest of us—feel that they are being fairly treated and properly consulted. Those people are looking basically for a rating system that is fair and simple to administer, as are we all. I think that we are accomplishing that aim, but the Bill's passage shows how difficult that is to achieve.
      Many boat residents feel that they are being unfairly treated, and that there are too many grey areas resulting in constant disputes that waste the time and resources of everyone involved. As the Minister said, boat residents are particularly concerned about some aspects of council tax legislation. Their concern has arisen because of how they are treated by changes in council tax legislation in comparison with how they were treated under the general rates, which was, of course, before the poll tax.
      Many boat residents who previously had no rates liability contend that that they now have to pay council tax in addition to licence and mooring fees, which previously were how they paid a share of local rates. Boat residents have substantial concerns, and it is right for the Government to deal with their concerns in a way that enables them to feel that they are properly involved in consultations.
      Any legislation on rating and valuation ends up being far more complex than any hon. Member would like it to be. I hope that we are able to move to a clearer system so that there are not continual wrangles and conflicts over a matter in which everyone has a responsibility to make his contribution. People also have a right not to be treated unfairly. I am happy to reassure the Minister that we do not wish to press our concerns any further.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
  As amended (in the Select Committee and on re-committal in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That on consideration of the Bill, as amended, the New Clauses be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses 4 to 7 and New Clauses I to 3.—[Mr. Streeter.]

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
    New clause 4

      EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH SECURING CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments under any agreement entered into by him for the purpose of securing the construction of—

      (a) any of the works authorised by this Part of this Act, or

      (b) any related works.

      (2) For the purposes of this section, the following are related works—

      (a) a station at Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham, for use in connection with the rail link, and

      (b) a railway providing access between the rail link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 5—Related works: application of section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
      Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10.
      The Question is—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I call Mr. Tony Banks.
      4.40 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are moving so fast that I almost missed the train. I thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clauses and amendments. When I proposed in Committee that Stratford should be named in the Bill, some of my colleagues tried to dissuade me from doing so on the ground that I would be defeated. When I explained that the amendment was exploratory and that we wished simply to go over the case, they seemed more satisfied. Even I did not expect that we would move to this particular position and I am deeply grateful to the Minister for having given an assurance at the end of a constructive debate that he would consider including Stratford within the Bill, and that he has done precisely that.
      For the record, the campaign to name Stratford in the Bill and, indeed, to have the international station at Stratford, was waged—or I should say conducted; waged is too hostile and macho—by both the public and the private sector in the east end. During the campaign, we invited virtually all the Transport and Environment Ministers to the area so that they could see the site. I well remember the Minister standing at Holden point, a tower block which overlooks the Stratford railway lands, when it was pouring with rain. We were well protected and he was not, and I was worried that he might hold it against

      609
      us, but he did not. He—and, I am sure, others—was impressed by the scale of the potential in Stratford. One has to see the area to realise the scale of the potential. I am glad that the Under-Secretary will also be visiting. We look forward to letting him see what is possible at Stratford.
      The campaign for Stratford was a good campaign. We worked together. It was necessary for us to argue coolly and rationally. There was not much point getting hot under the collar, which is perhaps one of my normal styles of doing things. When needs must, I can sup with the devil, although I always remember my long spoon and my manners, and the coolness with which I can maintain a good case. In the end, it was not the activities of Members of Parliament or the council which achieved success. It was simply a good case. It was good to see that Ministers were able to recognise that.
      I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clauses and amendments. They have given enormous encouragement to the locality. I should just point out—this is really for another time—that we must make sure that when, as we can say now, the development goes ahead, the jobs that come to the east end and particularly the Stratford area match the needs of the people in the area. We do not want to see another Isle of Dogs, where the local people realised that they would not get the jobs. They suffered the conditions, but they did not get the benefits. We must make sure that the local people get the benefits because they deserve a break.
      The international station at Stratford will be more than just a break. It will be a wonderful opportunity to look forward to the future with great confidence. So, again, I say thank you very much to Ministers present and past who took the time and trouble to come to Stratford, to hear our case and to listen to the lobbying from the public and private sector in the east end.
      I should like to ask the Minister just one thing. Stratford will be regarded as a proposal of national significance under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Will the Minister explain for the record precisely what that will mean? The new clause does not mean that the development will necessarily take place, but I assume that when and if it does, we shall not have to argue the case for Stratford again. I welcome the new clause and amendments with much enthusiasm.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Stephen Timms: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in introducing the new clause and amendments. It is worth putting on the record the strong support by the private sector for the campaign in favour of Stratford station. The Stratford development partnership comprised organisations such as Land Securities, Tarmac Construction, John Mowlem and Company, P and 0 Developments and Laing Civil Engineering as well as the London borough of Newham, the university of East London, the Carpenters' Company and the London Docklands development corporation. All those bodies worked together effectively with politicians to advance the case. I, too, am delighted that the Government have accepted it. Just last week, the university of East London published with Lawrence and Wishart a book called "Rising in the East", which
      610
      drew attention to the Stratford station proposal and the benefits that would come from it, all in support of the new clause that we are considering.
      It is encouraging that the conditions are now right for a major boost to the economy of east London over the next 20 years. This is our one chance to change things permanently for the better in the east end. We need to get on with it now that everyone—the Government, the local authority, the local institutions and the private sector—is pointing in the same direction.
      I look forward to hearing the explanation, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West asked, of the implications of treating the proposal as one of national significance. I welcome the fact that it will be treated as such, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that means that the matter will be expedited and that we can make progress.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I merely wish to say how pleased I have been to be associated with the excellent campaign for Stratford, from fairly early on. It was extremely well run. I enjoyed my visit to the site at an early stage. It has probably changed since then, but it is a remarkably good place. When I joined the campaign, there was no need for the Conservative party to find another Stratford to distract attention from the other one, which has been somewhat of an embarrassment to us.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for Transport for writing into the Bill that which I and my hon. Friends requested should be there, at the second sitting of the Standing Committee. When the request that Stratford should be named in the Bill was put to the Minister, he replied that it was not possible to do so because it would delay the passage of the Bill by introducing a rehybridising amendment. Will the Minister clarify what has changed in the comparatively short space of time since 7 March when I requested that Stratford be named in the Bill?
      Mr. David Chidgey: I shall make a brief point about new clause 4(2) (b). Can the Minister assure us that the trains will be able to use the whole length of the new line, including the section between Ripple lane and the junction with the North London line north of St. Pancras? That would facilitate access for freight to and from the west coast main line. I appreciate that that is a detailed point, and if the Minister is not able to answer now, I should appreciate an answer later.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have a query about new clause 4(2) (b), which deals with the connection with the west coast main line. I am delighted that such a connection is to be provided, but why was that not made explicit in the competition overview so that all the companies bidding for the contract to build the link could make specific proposals for the connection between St. Pancras and the west coast main line? It is clear from the Minister's statements, and from the letter that we received from the chairman of London and Continental Railways, that that was one of the measures that tipped the balance in favour of awarding the contract to London and Continental.
      The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My rather wet visit to Stratford did not dampen

      611
      my enthusiasm for the project. I can now confess that for quite some time I was a closet supporter of Stratford; subsequently, I have been able to come out.
      The new clauses and amendments have three major effects. First, they make it explicit that the provision of the new station at Stratford and the dual-track connection with the North London line, for which no powers are granted in the Bill but which are none the less contained in the development agreement, are part of the works for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make payments to London and Continental under the terms of the agreement. Secondly, the measures deal with the Transport and Works Act powers for Stratford station. Inserting in the Bill the provision that the scheme will be treated as a scheme of national significance will enable the proposal to be dealt with on the Floor of both Houses before the principle can be approved. What will remain will be local public inquiries to deal with the more general planning issues; but the principle will have been decided by the House—assuming that the House endorses it—on the basis that the scheme is of national significance.
      Thirdly, the measures bring the regulatory regime for Stratford station into line with those for Ebbsfleet and St. Pancras stations. That could not have been done in the original text of the Bill, because at that stage Stratford was not included.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked what had changed between the second sitting of the Committee and the end of our proceedings. If we had included explicit powers to build Stratford station in the Bill subsequent to Second Reading and consideration in the Select Committee, that would have rehybridised the Bill, and would have caused delay. In a later debate in Committee, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and others that I would seek ways in which Stratford station could be brought within the terms of the Bill, but in a way that would not rehybridise. That is what we have done in the new clauses and amendments.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about freight. It is a requirement for the link to be built in such a way that freight can run on the line, but it is not a requirement that it shall run on the line. I take that to mean the whole line, but, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it is a fairly detailed point. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library; that will enable me to go into the details.
      I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Timms: May I ask the Minister a simple question? Does the designating of Stratford station and the connection with the west coast main line as "of national significance" mean that they will be presented as Government proposals when the Transport and Works Act procedure is reached?
      Mr. Watts: No. They will have to be presented by London and Continental Railways, as promoters of the project. However, a motion will be proposed to the House by a Minister of the Crown—presumably my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me—and the House will then be able to decide on the principle.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      RELATED WORKS: APPLICATION OF SECTION 9 OF THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
      '.—(1) If an application under section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (application for an order under section 1 of that Act) is made by a relevant undertaker, section 9 of that Act (procedure where the Secretary of State considers an application relates to proposals of national significance) shall have effect in relation to the application with the insertion at the end of subsections (1) and (2) of "or relate to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction of works which are related works for the purposes of section [Expenditure in connection with securing construction of works] of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996".
      (2) In subsection (1) above, the reference to a relevant undertaker is to a person who, under section 32 above, is the nominated undertaker for any purpose of section 1(1) above, so far as relating to the rail link.'.—[Mr. Watts.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 6

      TRAFFIC FLOW
      '.—(1) The nominated undertaker shall in constructing the scheduled works have regard to easing the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;
      (2) The nominated undertaker shall, in relation to the works authorised by Part I of the Act, operate and use them in such a way as to ease the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;
      (3) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to provide him with such information as he deems necessary to show how subsections (1) and (2) above have been satisfied and shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the steps taken by the nominated undertaker to comply with those provisions.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Graham Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am here in the stead of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because I understand that his wife is about to give birth. I believe that they are hoping for a girl. A rumour is sweeping the House that she will not be named Clare, but that may be just Tea Room gossip.
      I am conscious of being a new boy among all the old lags of the Select and Standing Committees, but one thing is obvious to me. It is appropriate, on the day when the Government have officially conceded that they have no transport strategy—in a Green Paper published an hour and a half ago—that Opposition Members should raise the issue of how to integrate the channel tunnel rail line into our United Kingdom transport strategy in both regions and nations. By the end of the month, our own transport policy document will be in the public domain, and we hope that everyone with an interest in transport will then see a return of the sense of strategy that is so sadly lacking in the Green Paper.
      The channel tunnel represents a huge opportunity for regions outside the south-east, opening up new markets for British business, attracting increasing numbers of

      613
      visitors and tourists to the British Isles and offering an efficient means of travel to and from the continent. What Ebbsfleet and Stratford can do for the south-east must be replicated in every other region. I should say immediately how much we welcome Stratford's inclusion in the plan, and pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friends in Committee and throughout many months of lobbying before that stage was reached.
      On the very day when I stopped dealing with super-highways and the media and took up the transport brief, I addressed a conference in Northampton. I had been in my post for all of 40 minutes when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) sat down next to me and began lobbying me about Stratford international. My hon. Friend is someone who wastes no time, and he and his east end colleagues have succeeded in their campaign, thanks largely to the energy that they put into it. Now that they have won their battle, hon. Members representing other regions—Scotland, Wales and all the English regions; the east midlands, in my case—must make their case with similar force and I hope, given a new Government, with similar success.
      The tunnel also provides a unique opportunity for us to transfer more road and air traffic to rail, reducing road and airspace congestion and supporting sustainable development. Up to now, the debate has focused on the relatively minor aspect of the link between the tunnel and London, but it should now become wider. When a new Government come to power, we will ensure that our whole transport planning structure—from our national transport framework, through the regional transport strategies, to our local transport plans—reflects the need to exploit the rail links with the tunnel. That will be good news for the regions, but also for London and Continental, which will be able to capitalise on such developments.
      Failure to capitalise on the tunnel would threaten our regions with increasing isolation on the edge of Europe, reduced ability to compete in the single market, less inward investment and the prospect of United Kingdom firms being attracted to mainland Europe for expansion or relocation. Economic imbalance between the south-east of England and the rest of the country could then widen.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: Can I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition Front Bench thinks that the high-speed rail link should be used for freight trains?
      Mr. Allen: I shall come to that later. There is certainly room for increasing freight and the high-speed rail link could assist in that.
      The Bill does not refer to the potential benefit of the tunnel to the United Kingdom as a whole. That may be mentioned in the contracts, but Parliament has not been allowed to scrutinise them. For the regions fully to benefit from the tunnel, we should like to see not only ministerial and company assurances but a duty in the Bill on the statutory undertaker to build and operate the link in a way that will require the free flow of passengers and freight between the tunnel and the regions.
      5 pm
      We should not simply be delivering people to London to make the connection, causing extra air and traffic movements towards and in the capital. The Government
      614
      have been slow to promote other possibilities. It was left to London and Continental Railways to add to the plans the small but all-important usable link north of King's Cross that would allow a connection to the west coast line. We commend LCR for that addition. That company is currently excluded from many of the regulator's powers which could be used to insist on the provision of regional services. That will have to be reviewed by an incoming Government.
      As far as we can discover, current proposals for a regional service are limited and unsatisfactory and cannot realistically compete with air travel for people in the regions. The current rail timetable suggests that it will take nine hours 15 minutes to go from Glasgow to Paris and five hours 45 minutes to go from Manchester to Paris. In addition, the frequency of the service is still unclear. Those problems must be addressed if the regional links are to compete with air travel.
      Ticketing must also be addressed. Never has so great a service been marketed so badly. Having to force one's fare upon a reluctant Eurostar must become a thing of the past. When it does, regional usage will be able to take off. Arrangements need to be put in place to provide a speedy and satisfactory freight service. Sir Alastair Morton was quoted recently in The Guardian as saying that in 1993 the railways had planned to transport 3.3 million tonnes of freight through the tunnel in 1995. It managed only 1.3 million tonnes—barely half the objective.
      To ensure that constraints are not replicated when the high-speed link is built, it is important that the requirements of freight and passengers from the regions are taken into account from the beginning, and that the finished link has the capacity to cope with increased future flows. The Minister may wish to comment on the reports in yesterday's Evening Standard which, ironically, implied that one of the first impacts of the channel tunnel rail link will result from giving away the King's Cross lands because three cement and construction companies are to be evicted from their sites there, resulting in a massive transfer of freight from rail to road.
      That is exactly the opposite direction to the one that we should seek to take. Even that has been given a nod in the weak Green Paper that was published today. Are these just press reports or will the Minister make it clear that this is not an unfortunate early precedent on these large sites at King's Cross? If those companies are thrown off their sites, it will massively increase the number of heavy goods vehicles trundling in and out of the centre of the capital.
      The linkage to the regions underlines what we mean by integrated transport. Regional services should be able to join the high-speed link directly without complex manoeuvring and without having to enter congested areas of London's suburban railways. The link needs to be built in a way that will make that possible from the moment that it is operational. Direct services to the regions beyond London are essential, and the Government should use this opportunity to instigate and promote new developments, including innovative service patterns that will allow domestic and international passengers to use the continental trains, as happens on the continent. They should allow the extension of the London-Paris/Brussels trains to other UK cities.
      Currently, domestic passengers are not allowed to board any train whose ultimate destination is outside the UK. That means that load factors will fall alarmingly as

      615
      trains travel northwards through England and that frequencies will be poor. The solution has to be Paris/Brussels-London regional through trains, and attempts to develop services under present operating conditions could lead to the raising and the dashing of expectations and could have little impact on the regional economies of England, Wales and Scotland.
      Initially, there will be an inadequate rolling stock to deliver a frequent service on that basis, but when the link has been completed and international trains are operating to St. Pancras, an intermediate approach could be adopted whereby Eurostar trains, Eurostar regional trains and InterCity trains would all run to St. Pancras and a gradual process of train renewal, or the adaptation of the capital-to-capital trains, would eventually facilitate through running.
      Regional passenger services should be able to use the high-speed link at all times and should not be held up by slower freight trains. That requires that the construction of the route takes account of the needs of both types of traffic. There must be sufficient rolling stock to provide an attractive and competitive service, and the timetables must offer convenience and must compete with the airlines. The Minister may wish to comment on the class 92 position and say when approval for that class type is likely to be granted.
      In the context of freight services, the Minister may wish to speak about security because, as he knows, the freight industry is deeply concerned about the great delays caused by security on approaching the channel tunnel from the UK side. No one underestimates the need for security clearance, but perhaps the Minister has had some thought about whether the process could be tightened up so that freight does not suffer further delays.
      Railtrack's current track access charging regime is inhibiting private and public rail companies and will have a detrimental effect on the efforts of London and Continental Railways. It should not be allowed to price freight off the railways by making them uncompetitive with road, sea or air. Freight services to the continent, including trainload intermodal, piggyback and wagonload should give maximum choice to customers. By strengthening the powers of the regulator, Labour will make sure that rail access charges are fair and will encourage a greater shift towards rail and the development of the regional potential of the links to the tunnel.
      The development of the high-speed link should take forward the European Union's vision of trans-European high-speed rail networks for passengers and combined road-rail or sea-rail transport for freight. Our amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. Rather than warm words and assurances from the Minister and the company, we want to see these matters in the Bill.
      Taxpayers in Scotland, Wales and the English regions are providing the massive funding for the channel tunnel rail link. We shall come to that in the next debate. The Government should look after their interests by taking full account of the wider economic and environmental opportunities that are offered by the tunnel because, much as we commend the additions to the channel tunnel rail-link in respect of the south-east, it belongs to
      616
      everybody in Britain. We have paid for it, and we wish the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to benefit from it.
      Mr. George Stevenson: May I impress on the Government how important the new clause is? There is a perception in the UK as a whole that this tremendously important project is viewed as a south-east project and will primarily benefit that region. For the purposes of the argument, whether that perception is correct is neither here nor there. I wish to give the example of the west midlands to illustrate the strength of feeling about the vital need for the link, from the beginning, to be constructed and operated to benefit directly the countries of the UK.
      The west midlands faces two significant problems in terms of rail links and the connection to the high-speed link and, therefore, the channel tunnel. The first is the state of the west coast main line. I shall not go into that in this debate because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would probably stop me, but it is important that, if the Government are, as we hope, determined that the benefits of the link are spread throughout the country, the present infrastructure is examined carefully. There are particular problems in terms of the west coast main line, although we look forward to improvements in, we hope, the not too distant future—there have been considerable delays.
      The second problem faced by the west midlands and, especially, Stoke-on-Trent, part of which I have the honour to represent, involves services operating through the channel tunnel. There is a service from Manchester, but its operators have decided that trains will stop only at Stafford. That is of considerable concern to us as it gives a worrying idea of what the operators' approach—taken because of commercial pressures—will be once the link is up and running. That approach could be to the detriment of the regions. It has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
      At present, there is one stop at Stafford and none at Stoke-on-Trent, which we are rightly lobbying and arguing about. That region in north Staffordshire has a population of some 350,000, who, because of a decision by the operators, have no direct access to the train services through the channel tunnel. We hope that that will change and that the advent of the link will have a beneficial and positive effect, but the evidence is not encouraging.
      Unless the Bill includes an obligation—the new clause seeks to do this—both on the builder and operator of the link and, through the Secretary of State for Transport, on the Minister to ensure not only that the regions are seen to benefit, but that the construction of the scheme is designed to benefit the south-east and the other regions, the fear is that commercial pressures, which will certainly exist, will mean that the regions will not benefit, which I am sure no hon. Member wants.
      The example that I am giving of the west midlands and Stoke-on-Trent in particular is a stark and reasonable one which causes concern. At present, the operators are simply, as it were, putting their toe into the water—they are seeing how the service works. If it does not work, through inconvenience or whatever, they will not continue it. If the loadings are such that, because of the way in which services operate, getting to London is one commercial proposition, but getting north of London is another, services that we hope will develop investment. business, industry and, I hope, employment will be jeopardised at the outset.

      617
      5.15 pm
      I am sure that what I am about to say applies to many other regions throughout the UK, but it is reasonable for hon. Members, when making a case, to use their best knowledge and that tends to be of the constituencies that they represent. I do not want to argue this from a purely parochial view, but, obviously, I am not qualified to speak about other regions. The position as it affects Stoke-on-Trent, however, is possibly a microcosm of the dangers that we will face if the benefits of the high-speed link and the channel tunnel are not available to the rest of the UK, which will happen unless the Government are minded to accept the new clause.
      The region was built on mineworking and the pottery industry. There is now hardly any mineworking, but I will not go into that—we all know the reasons for it. It is important, however, to say two things about the pottery industry and the efforts to bring investment into the region, about which the Minister knows full well because he has been there on two or three occasions, for which I am grateful.
      First, the pottery industry depends for its survival on its exports. It does not sell much of its stuff in the domestic market. Historically, it has always had a clear export-driven philosophy and it is seeking to develop export markets, which have traditionally been in the United States of America and in Europe. It is willing to make that investment so that it can use its undoubted expertise in exporting its quality products to Europe. Unless it has an opportunity to maximise transport links, especially through the high-speed link, those investment plans and the attempt to capture more of the European market will be put in jeopardy. Heaven knows, like many other regions, we desperately need that investment.
      Secondly, significant efforts have been made, through the Government, the European Union, local authorities and private money, in the region. There is potential for development and investment of many millions of pounds. Chambers of trade, which I know the Minister has met recently, businesses in the region and potential investors continually ask not only what the road links are like—and, as the Minister knows, we are working on that—but what the rail links are like and how they can gain maximum access to the high-speed link and the channel tunnel so that they can seek to exploit the European market.
      At present, we are not in a position to give as positive a response to that as we would like. Unless the new clause is included in the Bill, for the foreseeable future, we shall not be in a position to give such a positive response and, more important, we may send the wrong signals to potential investors in regions north of London.
      I hope that the Minister understands that I am not discussing a parochial issue, but using the best knowledge that I have, which is of my constituency, to illustrate, I hope, how important it is that this obligation is included in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it as such.
      Mr. Chidgey: I shall not revisit some of the arguments made earlier in the debate—I would not try the patience of the House that much—but I must make a couple of points.
      I believe that there is a good deal of sense behind the main thrust of the new clause, particularly in relation to linking the channel tunnel rail link to the remainder of the United Kingdom rail network. What is particularly
      618
      important is the linking for large-gauge freight trains to and from the west coast main line. It is fundamental to what the link can achieve. It also brings in the entire context of making sure that Railtrack does facilitate freight trains coming from the channel tunnel rail link. I believe strongly, as we have said in the House before, that there is a need to regulate Railtrack so that it encourages freight business. That business should be encouraged with far lower access charges than is now the case. I believe that those charges should be at wear and tear costs only if we are to achieve a shift of freight from road to rail.
      Equally important is the operation of through passenger services from the channel tunnel rail link, particularly to the east coast and west coast main lines. Of course it would be totally unreasonable for the nominated undertaker to be expected to provide facilities and links for through operations unless, in turn, Railtrack was playing its part in upgrading the remainder of the network. That is precisely why, in the national interest, the Liberal Democrats wish to take back control of Railtrack at an early date and regulate its operation with a series of strategic measures. It underlines the need for a national transport strategy, which was so lacking in today's transport Green Paper.
      Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised the issue of the cement batching plants. We gave an undertaking to the Select Committee that we would secure suitable replacement premises for the plants. The Government will comply fully with that undertaking. A lease that is consistent with that undertaking is currently under discussion with all the parties concerned and I understand that we hope that it will be concluded and granted before 24 May—obviously as speedily as possible.
      The Government have always recognised the importance of spreading the benefits of international services throughout the United Kingdom. It was always part of the reference design that there would be connections to both the east coast and west coast main lines. One of the attractions of the bid from London and Continental Railways—the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to it earlier when he chided the Government for their base design—is the strong emphasis that it has placed on developing the market for international services, not just in the south-east but to the rest of the country.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made what I have always thought is an important point, which is that this should not be looked upon as a scheme that is intended to benefit just the south-east—of course, it will benefit the areas of north Kent and around Stratford because of regeneration benefits. London and Continental's proposals to enhance the project in connection with the Stratford station and the dual-track link to the west coast main line exist because of its intention of developing business north of London.
      The main reason for favouring a station at Stratford is that it knocks a further 30 minutes off journey times north of London. Today, a journey from Birmingham to Paris—to use another part of the country—would take five hours using a through train. With the combination of the new high-speed link and the dual-track connection and using Stratford as a London stop instead of taking every train into St. Pancras, there would be a one-hour saving,

      619
      making the journey time from Birmingham to Paris about four hours. That saving of one hour will apply to every destination north of London. We have already approved new clauses and amendments which facilitate the provision of those enhancements to the service.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned ticketing arrangements. I understand that one of the early intentions of London and Continental Railways, as soon as it has operational control of Eurostar, is to improve the marketing, particularly of the interim services operating as feeder services north of London. Before today's debate I was in Shropshire visiting Gobowen station, which has just had its waiting room and ticket office refurbished. The station is run as a business venture by a local school. I was told that it was able to sell tickets for Eurostar and to any other part of the United Kingdom rail network.
      Mr. Allen: Is it better than Waterloo?
      Mr. Watts: It may well be. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants a ticket for Eurostar he should try the Morton Hall travel service operating from Gobowen to see whether it can provide a better service.
      I agree that the better marketing of the service is crucial and that is one of the reasons why it is part of the development agreement that European passenger services are transferred to the nominated undertaker so that the business can be built up as early as possible.
      Mr. Allen: Is London and Continental Railways free to go ahead with taking over the ticketing arrangements? There were some question marks because of the intervention of the European Union on that matter.
      Mr. Watts: I would not describe it as intervention. Part of the process involves formal approval on state aid and competition grounds. That must be cleared before the formal handover can take place.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked about class 92 locomotives. They are currently being operated on a trial basis on the Swanley-Maidstone line. That is to ensure that the modifications that have been carried out allow them to operate safely without interfering with signalling and so on. It is British Rail's intention that the frequency of use of those locomotives should build up through the year until they are operating all the freight trains on that line. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get those modern locomotives in proper operation as soon as possible, but I am sure that he will agree that as a prerequisite we need to be sure that that can be done safely and without any interference with signalling and control.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the channel tunnel freight security regime. In the autumn I announced some modifications to the regime, particularly in relation to—I forget the precise term—security-cleared freight forwarders, which were welcomed by the industry. We will remain in close touch with the freight industry and if we can make further modifications that are consistent with providing the necessary security for the tunnel, we are prepared to adopt a flexible approach. We want to see more freight on rail in general and operating to continental destinations in particular.
      620
      As I said earlier, the base requirement of the project is that it is capable of taking freight, but it is not a requirement that freight should be operated on it. Generally, it has been considered that the main benefit to freight flows will be the train paths on the existing network which will be freed by the transfer of the international passenger services on to the new infrastructure.
      I am not aware of any great enthusiasm for being able to operate high-speed freight. Over the longer distances to continental destinations, freight trains travelling at conventional speeds can have a significant time advantage over road haulage. It is more likely that, apart from low weight-high value goods, perhaps some of those produced in Stoke-on-Trent which may be carried on high-speed passenger trains, freight will develop on the capacity that is released on the domestic network. We have always wanted to keep that option open and that is why there is a requirement for the freight links to be provided.
      Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend and I have exchanged correspondence on the matter, but it remains of concern, first, that the curves on the line are not designed for freight trains. A serious question is still hanging over that design. They do not, for example, conform to either German or French standards. Secondly, the big freight loops that are being built in my neighbouring constituency of Ashford are static. If he is really as doubtful as he seems to be about the likelihood of freight being carried on the line, is the building of such freight loops not a huge additional land take and expense?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Watts: We have always thought that it is important to keep open the option of freight on that infrastructure. That is why we have made provision for the freight loops.
      A further point in considering what sort of services should be using the capacity concerns the domestic services that will also operate on the high-speed link. Thirty minutes will also be knocked off journey times for commuters travelling into London from parts of Kent. Right hon. and hon. Members would probably agree that it is more beneficial for domestic passenger flows to be able to move more conveniently and quickly and that they should have priority over the haulage of freight on the new high-speed link. We have therefore reserved eight train paths an hour in peak periods for those domestic services, which will bring considerable benefits.
      Sir David Mitchell: If the line will potentially carry freight—it will certainly be used for passengers—a far heavier infrastructure will have to be built to enable it to take the weight of freight trains than would be required for either high-speed passenger trains or local passenger trains. Is my hon. Friend really telling the House that he will incur those substantial costs without knowing whether the line will be used for freight?
      Mr. Watts: The minimum requirement, which is embodied in the development agreement, is that the link must have the capacity to take freight traffic and that the passing loops must be provided. I am perhaps not as well versed in the technicalities of rail freight and its operation as my hon. Friend, but if it is essential that there is some greater strength required in the infrastructure to enable such operation, and if it incurs greater cost, my answer to him must be yes.

      621
      I share the sentiments of a number of Opposition Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, that we must ensure that this major project delivers benefits to regions of England and, indeed, other countries in the United Kingdom, not only the south-east. The private sector promoter has identified market opportunities in order to do that and has proposed modifications to the original design, to which we have agreed, which he considers enhances the overall project. The requirements that the new clause would place on the promoter are therefore unnecessary.
      As there is no intention that, beyond the general regime of track access, freight facility grants, and so on, which we have in place to support rail freight, there should be any general subsidy to the operator, it would be wrong to impose on him a requirement to develop plans for developing freight services that might not be commercially viable and for which he would receive no public sector support. The new clause is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will not press it to a vote.
      Mr. Allen: Opposition Members made the point that not only are there commercial opportunities in the channel tunnel rail link for all regions—that is why London and Continental has made those links—but there are service and economic opportunities. No doubt, those points will be taken up by my hon. Friends in the other place, and with the assurances on the specific points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 7

      RAIL ASSETS NOT TO BE TRANSFERRED
      '.—(1) No Minister of the Crown shall transfer to a rail link undertaker ownership of any asset which is owned by the Crown which is a rail asset.
      (2) In this section "rail asset" includes any railway asset or additional railway asset, any ancillary service, any premises (including any station), any locomotive, any network, any railway facility, any railway vehicle, any rolling stock or any track.
      (3) In subsection (2) above, the terms used shall be construed in accordance with section 83 (Interpretation of Part I) of the Railways Act 1993.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 30, page 16, line 32, at beginning insert
      'Subject to the provisions of section (Rail assets not be transferred):
      Mr. Allen: In years to come it will be judged that the channel tunnel rail link was a vital, exciting and very welcome scheme. Whatever unnecessary delays and sordid sweeteners have accompanied it, the Opposition will repeat the view that the high-speed link is essential and will considerably help economic regeneration throughout the United Kingdom and not just the south-east—especially when we have a Government who will seize the opportunities to which I referred in an earlier debate.
      622
      It is almost incredible that the present Government have somehow managed to contrive a losing position for the taxpayer out of such a magnificent concept—first, by delay, and secondly by the financing of the project. Delay has, of course, caused incalculable loss. I do not mean because of the increased expenditure required to complete the link; I mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said in Committee, because of the years of use that have been lost by the project not going ahead when it could have done in the late 1980s. In addition, there is the loss of what one might term prestige. We look like a backward nation in Europe that was unable to seize the opportunities of the channel tunnel once it was built, not least when compared with our friends and neighbours across the channel in France, who moved so quickly to seize the opportunities and advantages offered by it.
      As for the financial aspects of the deal, never in the history of privatisations in the past few years under the Government has there been a sweetener as large as the one that we are about to nod through today. There is no question but that seven years ago Conservative dogma determined that it was unacceptable to use any public money to get the project off the ground. Yet we know that the project could have been ours for the ludicrously small sum of £1 billion just a few years ago in 1989.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would have accepted that bargain basement scheme, which would have cost the environment and people in Kent and east London dearly if it had been railroaded through with no consideration to the environmental interests of local residents?
      Mr. Allen: There is no question but that the final scheme would have been very different from the one initially proposed by Trafalgar House and British Rail, and—one hopes—those considerations would have been taken into account.
      Although the Conservative party may not admit it, I hope that the lesson that all important large-scale transport projects are massively subsidised has been learnt and that the pipe dream of a totally privately financed scheme of such magnitude has been dispelled once and for all by the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that we have matured enough to move on from the "private good, public bad" sloganising, and that serious discussion is now about the form of that subsidy and, consequently, the value for money achieved for the taxpayer, which will need to be in even greater detail as we approach a change of Government.
      The Conservatives' chosen form of subsidy is a £1.4 billion hand-out, plus a free gift of taxpayers' assets of £3 billion and the writing off of a loan to Eurostar of £1.3 billion—a grand total of £5.7 billion for something that we could have had for £1 billion in 1989. Some people question those figures. It is impossible to tell whether they are accurate. Some people think that we are understating the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has followed the matter closely and will no doubt allude to it later. The cash subsidy is £1.4 billion at net present value. By the time we come to pay it in real money over the period involved, it could approach £2 billion. Equally, some people think that the profits to be made out of

      623
      development lands, not least at King's Cross, will be far higher than the original estimates that were made when the deal was announced.
      That is not a clever twist of creative accounting; the assets are as much real money as our income tax payments are real. Anyone who has ever bought a rail ticket or paid a penny in income tax has helped to build and buy the Eurostar trains that are being given away, the station properties at King's Cross and Waterloo and the plum development lands at King's Cross, Stratford and elsewhere. We are not discussing a tiny amount of money; £5.7 billion pounds is equivalent to almost 3p on the standard rate of income tax or asking every family to pay another £370 on its tax bill to fund this Conservative incompetence.
      The £1.4 billion cash giveaway is roughly equivalent to the money that will be raised by the Government selling off virtually the whole of our rail network. We are getting nothing from privatising the rail network; we are giving the proceeds straight to London and Continental because the Government are desperate to carry out the PFI in this tack-handed way. To rub salt into the wounds, the Government's failure to clinch the deal in the late 1980s meant that the taxpayer had to build Waterloo international. That, too, has disappeared in the special "build one, get one free" offer to London and Continental.
      Most remarkable of all, every one of the assets has been given away up front, before a single sleeper has been laid on the channel tunnel rail link. Only a Parliament doped by years of endemic privatisation sleaze would tolerate what the Government have done—and all because the Government could not admit that a public-private finance partnership was the way forward in the late 1980s, despite constant pressure from the Opposition and the hopes of many people not only from around the link, but from all the regions of England and from Scotland and Wales.
      We blame the Conservative Government, not London and Continental. It is debatable whether the constituent parts of London and Continental—Halcrow, Virgin, National Express, Warburg, Bechtel and Systra—are happy with the "some in cash, some in kind" arrangement. They might well have preferred a straightforward private-public sector partnership and to have got on with the job in hand without the complications with the assets that come in its train.
      All this gives the PFI a bad name in the same way that the design, build, finance and operate concept on our roads has begun to undermine the valuable concept of public-private initiative because of its complexity, lines of accountability, high borrowing costs, large mortgages for the taxpayer and high tendering overheads. Public-private initiatives are welcome, essential and indeed unavoidable as a way forward, not least for transport schemes, but they should be genuine partnerships assessed on their merits, and not clumsy devices to get assets off the public books or to produce income tax cuts today paid for by massive mortgages on future taxpayers.
      After all that largesse, what guarantees are there that the job will be done? The Bill gives only outline permissive powers and the guarantee of completion rests on contractual obligations that may appear very different in four years' time. The Government have delayed the scheme so that there has been a massive spiralling of cost.
      624
      The incompetence and profligacy with our money almost defies comprehension. As we celebrate the construction of the high-speed link and work to make it effective for all our regions, we must never forget its tremendous costs. We will never forget the incompetence of the Government who incurred them.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I support new clause 7. I welcome the rail link, which is long overdue. If people knew the extent of the subsidy involved, they would choke on it. Public assets are being given away. It amounts to grand larceny. If it were not being done by the Government, the person responsible would be behind bars in Pentonville. Public assets are being gifted.
      The story is full of ironies. One of the four bidders is Lord Parkinson, in his latest metamorphosis as chairman of Eurorail. In 1990, he vetoed a proposal by British Rail to construct the rail link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, it is a matter of public record that the subsidy required then was £1.9 billion: a low-interest loan of £1 billion, capital grant of £500 million and an additional £400 million investment required by Network SouthEast. Now the Government are shovelling public money into the pockets of London and Continental as if there were no tomorrow. It will not be the people of Britain who own this magnificent new railway but the shareholders in London and Continental.
      Lord Parkinson said at the time that it was not the Government's policy to subsidise the rail link and came out with this fantasy on 11 June 1990, when he said that it was
      "illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link, on the ground that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines."—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 4.]
      We have the same Government but a different situation. The most enormous subsidy is going to London and Continental. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, the outrage that people should feel is not being felt because of the diet of privatisation outrages. The Guardian on 4 March 1996 said:
      "It is only because we have been nurtured so long on the drip-feed of privatisation sleaze that people haven't been more outraged."
      How true that is.
      I shall deal with the specific figures. The straight cash subsidy, the so-called financial contribution, for a 68-mile long line is £1.4 billion. Railtrack is currently being floated, and all the pundits and commentators who know about such things tell us that that will raise about £1.7 billion. It was originally valued at about £6 billion, then the figure went down to £3 billion; now we are told that it is worth £1.7 billion.
      What assets are we, the British people, losing in exchange for that £1.7 billion? First we shall lose 10,000 route-miles of permanent way, compared with an important rail link 68 miles long. Then 2,500 stations will go, plus 90 light maintenance depots, 40,000 bridges, viaducts and tunnels and, Railtrack tells us, 9,000 level crossings, with other bits and pieces. All that is to raise £1.7 billion. Even then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. North said, £1.4 billion of that will be transferred seamlessly to the private sector company, London and Continental, to build 68 miles of fast link.
      The fast link should have been built years ago, in 1989–90. It is a national disgrace that it still has not been built. When I was on the Select Committee we went to

      625
      France to see the TGV. It was a blur of light; we could not see the thing as it flashed across the plain in northern France. But over here in Kent there is a puffing Billy: it is a Eurostar train, but it wends its way to the channel portal at 40 or 50 mph. And that will continue until the fast link is built. It is a tragedy that the Government were so short-sighted—or rather, ideologically blinkered—that the line has not already been constructed.
      Now for the great railway sell-off. The Opposition have calculated a total of £5.7 billion, and I think that that figure is right, but for the purposes of argument I shall concentrate on what the Government say the assets are worth. There is a big difference. All the commentators and journalists and economists without exception, including the Financial Times and all the business broadsheets, say that although the Opposition may have pitched the figure a bit high at £5.7 billion, no one believes the Government's subsidy figure, which I shall deal with in a moment, because it is too low.
      Apart from the £1.4 billion, there are the King's Cross railway lands, with an existing use value of £5.8 million. When I asked the Minister a question, he said that the development value of those lands was £10.6 million. I am not a surveyor, but the King's Cross railway lands are within spitting distance of central London.
      The Minister told me that the existing use value for the Stratford rail lands—they were valued as railway marshalling yards, although they would not really be worth anything for their existing use—was £15.2 million. He then told me that
      "the development value of the Lands excluding those parts required for the CTRL"—[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 721.]
      was £12.5 million. Pull the other leg.
      Mr. Watts: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a surveyor, but the estimates of the development value of the land were made for British Rail for the purposes of its accounts. They are not my estimates, but professional valuations.
      Mr. Prentice: Yes, those may have been the valuations prior to development, but it takes nothing more than common sense to see what will happen. There will be a new international station at Stratford, all the traffic coming in from East Anglia and the rest of eastern England will funnel into Stratford, and the adjacent railway lands are ripe for development. The British Rail surveyors should be out of a job if they value them at £12.5 million. We are not talking about one or two acres, but 240 acres, with the King's Cross and Stratford lands combined.
      There are more depots too—for instance, Manchester Longsight. I do not know it personally. I have not visited it, as I have visited Stratford and King's Cross, but I have been told that the historic cost valuation was £5.9 million. No other valuation was given, just a historic cost valuation. So we do not know what that might be worth.
      Then there is the Eurostar maintenance depot at North Pole in north London. The Government say that that is worth £77.5 million. Again, that is a historic cost value. I do not know when British Rail acquired that depot. It may have been a long time ago, or relatively recently. No other valuation was given. Again, the Government relied on a historic cost valuation.
      626
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned the Eurostar fleet of trains. The loss of that is something that people should gag on. The fleet of 11 trains, each one weighing about 800 tonnes—a marvellous triumph of engineering—is being gifted to London and Continental. The Government say that it is worth £380 million. Yet the debt write-off alone for Eurostar trains was £1.3 billion.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a politician's judgment on the value of development land, as against the judgment of highly professional experts. He is also telling us that a politician's judgment of the value of carriages should be based not on their value but on the money spent on them. No business man would do that. The hon. Gentleman is making the fatal mistake that Labour politicians always make, especially when they are in government: they believe that politicians can carry out business better than business men. There is a very good example that he could look up—the Labour Government's attempt to set up the groundnut scheme.
      Mr. Prentice: I should not have given way and allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that nonsensical intervention. We are talking about the valuation of public assets. As I told the Minister, every commentator who—unlike the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—knows anything about the subject, says that those public assets are being given away at a bargain basement price. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself for a second, I want to mention a few more public assets and tell the House the Government's valuation of them.
      The new Waterloo international station has just been built. It is a marvellous beautiful station—the gateway to London. Apparently its value is £136 million. Then there is Ashford international station. All the work that has been done in Ashford in preparation for the new link—
      Mr. Stevenson: That was all public money.
      Mr. Prentice: Of course it was all public money; £41 million was spent.
      Back in London, the Government tell us that the valuation of St. Pancras station, on existing use, is £3.7 million. Then there are some little dribs and drabs with which I shall not weary the House—the land at Kensington Olympia, the marshalling yards and the 650 properties along the line, all of which will be given to London and Continental.
      If we add all those together, using the Government's own figures, the valuation amounts to £621 million-worth of assets, which are all to be gifted to London and Continental. If we add the £1.4 billion contribution, that makes more than £2 billion. Yet all those years ago, the entire line could have been constructed and kept in public ownership for less.
      The whole affair has been an absolute disgrace. The Government say that it is a triumph, but people out there are not so stupid. They realise that valuable public assets such as Railtrack and the assets associated with the channel tunnel rail link are being handed over. If any

      627
      other organisation were doing that, its managers would be behind bars, not sitting on the Front Bench. The sooner the Government are out of office, the better.
      Mr. Chidgey: I listened to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) with great interest. There is considerable public concern about the details of this transaction, and to some extent I share that concern. I refer hon. Members back to the amendment and to the implications that it might have for the contractual arrangements that the Government may or may not have entered into for the channel tunnel rail link. I hope to get some clarification on this from the Minister.
      The amendment may block the progress of the channel tunnel rail link. If the Government have entered into a contract with London and Continental, and if progress is blocked, where would we stand? If the amendment is passed and the Government abandon the contract, will London and Continental—having negotiated or won a contract for the channel tunnel rail link against significant competition and having struck a deal—be able to make a claim? Would we find ourselves faced with yet another huge bill to be met by the public purse?
      6 pm
      The key question is: under the terms of the contract that has been struck with London and Continental, what assurance do the public have that there is no escape clause allowing the contractor to abandon the project before its completion? I am most concerned to ensure that there is no opportunity in the contract for London and Continental to decide that the project is no longer a valid financial proposition or that it cannot possibly complete the project without further access to, or drain on, public funds.
      I am anxious to see the project go ahead. It is many years late, as been most eloquently stated by many hon. Members. One could argue long and hard about the money that has been lost because of the delays. I want to see the project completed because it is most important to the transport strategy of this country. I also want an assurance that there is no way, having struck this deal, that the contractor can walk away from the project and leave the public holding the purse strings and shelling out more cash to make it viable and complete.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) gave an almost depressingly graphic elucidation of just what the Government have stolen from the people of this country in handing over the building of the channel tunnel rail link to the designated undertaker. All hon. Members will welcome the fact that, at long last, a designated undertaker has been selected, and that there is a possibility that a high-speed rail link will be entered into.
      Over the past few years, we have watched the travesty of the Government changing their mind on which route the link should take and how it should be financed. That vacillation impacted disastrously on all those who live on the previously proposed routes—in Kent, in east London and in north-west London.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, this vital link for the nation could have been the nation's property years ago for a fraction of what
      628
      it will cost us now, in both cash and kind. I will not repeat just how much the Government have stolen from the public purse. I wish to refer to the enormous amount of national assets—in both cash and kind—that are being handed over to the designated undertaker, and, as far as I know, we still have no absolute guarantee that the line will be built.
      We welcome the line—we have argued for it for long time. The nation is in desperate need of such a line. During the debate on the previous two amendments, we heard of the requirement that the designated undertaker must acknowledge that the channel tunnel rail link is not for the exclusive benefit of London and the south-east—it is of vital importance to the nation. The Minister, in his response to my hon. Friends in relation to those amendments, made no mention of the fact that profits—if they are made by the designated undertaker over the running of the channel tunnel rail link—should be invested in improving the lines that are north of what will be the channel tunnel rail link.
      The Minister mentioned the station at Gobowen—a station that I know well from my childhood—as having something to do with the creation of a rail network fit for the 21st century, which the channel tunnel rail link surely must be. That would have been almost laughable—if it had not been so sad.
      The ease with which we are supposed to accept the possibility that mere marketing techniques and improvement in selling tickets could open up the rest of the country, its people, its products, its business and its facilities to the channel tunnel rail link is patently absurd. The only thing that will open up the rest of the country to the facilities of the channel tunnel rail link is modernising the west coast main line—and there should be a requirement on London and Continental to assist in the vital investment to improve that line so that the country can be opened up.
      In Committee, we said that it was almost impossible to define the cost—not only financially, but emotionally—of the delays, the vacillations and the changes of mind that have sat over this project year after year. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North referred to this on the previous amendment.
      Hon. Members have referred to the King's Cross lands. A previous scheme for the building of the channel tunnel rail link said that the London terminus should he at King's Cross. While that project was still in that curious limbo that Conservative Governments call planning, there was a scheme between the London borough of Camden, British Rail and other owners of the lands at the time to enter into a scheme to regenerate the area—it is in desperate need of regeneration.
      The work that had been engaged in by British Rail, by Camden and by other local authorities in the area for the regeneration of the King's Cross land was thrown out of the window overnight. Links that had been made with interested businesses, with financial houses and with architects as to how the land could be regenerated were scrapped and dustbinned. It would be possible to work out how much that waste of a scheme cost—and it became meaningless overnight.
      There is still a great need for regeneration in that area of London—regrettably, there is a great need for regeneration over the whole United Kingdom after 17 years of Conservative misrule. National treasures such

      629
      as St. Pancras station and St. Pancras chambers—which was recently refurbished at a public cost of, I believe, £8 million; it now glows like a glorious rose on Euston road—could have played a vital and intrinsic role in the regeneration of this part of London, where it is desperately needed. They should not be handed over to London and Continental.
      Unemployment in certain wards in that part of London is between 35 and 85 per cent. There is a vast preponderance of children under the age of five. Illness is infinitely higher in certain wards in that part of north-west London than in others.
      If—as we are told—public money must be attracted, why should an investor be attracted to this project, to help in the regeneration of those parts of the King's Cross lands, when the Government have set the model that all one has to do is to wait? The Government have created the expectation that, because they cannot decide on a continuous plan, they will in effect decide to wash their hands of something that has become inordinately difficult—like a properly integrated public transport system and the construction of a channel tunnel rail link—and will declare, "Take it away from us. We can't handle this problem any more. Take all this money, take all these assets and tell us that you will, possibly, probably, hopefully, build us a line."
      When the Secretary of State announced to the House that a designated undertaker had at last been selected, I asked him what guarantees there were that the British taxpayer was getting a good deal, and he replied—I paraphrase his response—that there would be an explanatory memorandum of the contracts with London and Continental. I understand that no one in the House is privileged to see the contracts in any detail or to discuss them, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is a curious commercial enterprise that is clouded in mystery in one direction.
      It has been accepted, has it not, that the sharing of risk is essential in projects of so large a scale and so extraordinary a nature. We should surely look to a Government to protect the taxpayer from risk, so that—as has been said—should London and Continental not succeed in attracting the funds it claims it can to make the line a reality, not a dream, we do not suddenly find that the public purse is expected to fill up any possible hole.
      There is an interesting definition of sharing of risks in the explanatory memorandum of the contract with London and Continental Railways. Paragraph 13 says:
      "The possible events to which the sharing of responsibility is to apply include the following:
      changes in law or taxation which discriminate … against London and Continental Railways".
      It is an interesting possibility, is it not, that London and Continental would appear, by that sentence, to be given fiscal powers. I should have thought that changes in law or taxation were the responsibility of Government—indeed, of the House—but apparently there is a sharing of responsibility.
      Other possible events to which the sharing of responsibility is to apply are "war, rebellion and revolution". It is unlikely that London and Continental would be responsible for war, rebellion and revolution; regrettably, those are far too often the responsibility of Governments. As we know, the female former leader of
      630
      the Conservative party was responsible for taking this country to war twice. I would hardly have called that a genuine shared responsibility.
      We are asked to believe that the vast amounts of public assets being handed to London and Continental are necessary to get the line built, which may be the case—I do not know how well or how toughly London and Continental argued its case—but that the handing over of those assets will guarantee for us, as a nation, that the line will be built.
      We all agree that the line needs to be built. It is a scandal and a disgrace that there was such a long period between the time when it was first considered possible to build the line and its construction. It is doubly disgraceful that what we could have had a few years ago for £1.8 billion may have cost, on completion, more than £8 billion, and that none of the profits will be returned to the public sector.
      Unquestionably, the line needs to be built, but there is doubt that it ever will be built. Let us hope that those doubts prove unfounded. Indisputably, the country, given the exchange of assets and cash, is not getting the best of all possible deals.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I should declare what I believe to be an interest, as chairman of the Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation, which has a professional interest in St. Pancras chambers, allowed by the appropriate authorities. I heard the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) describe it as "shining like a … rose". I am conscious that a considerable amount has been spent on making it appropriately watertight, but she would be exaggerating if she suggested that it had been returned to its former glory, for which considerable subsequent investment is still needed. The hazard of language such as she used is, I fear, that it devalues the effectiveness of some of the other things she said.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is right. Although money has been spent on restoring the exterior of the St. Pancras buildings to a very attractive condition, anyone who has visited the interior knows that a great deal more money needs to be spent to bring that into any—
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I was making was clearly about the exterior of the building. Despite the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), when I make comparison now between the exterior colour of that building and the colour that I knew it to be only a few years ago, I stand firm in my belief that it now glows like a rose in Euston road.
      Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady has made her own point.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on getting to the nub of the problem with the new clause. The new clause goes to the heart of the channel tunnel rail link competition. It would prevent the transfer of European Passenger Services Ltd. and other assets to London and Continental Railways, and in so doing would wreck the basis on which the project is proceeding.

      631
      The transfer of those assets was assumed in the promoters' bid for Government support, and the removal of that part of the equation would lead to a corresponding and massive increase in the taxpayer's contribution. It would seriously damage the viability of the project, and we would return to the position that we were in in 1993, before the competition was launched.
      Opposition Members appear to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the assets being transferred are an integral part of what will be the high-speed link, and are necessary to its proper operation.
      Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Watts: I would rather make a little more progress.
      Mr. Allen: On that point?
      Mr. Watts: I give way.
      Mr. Allen: The Minister rightly said that there may well be a stronger argument about assets that are integral to the project, but many of the 240 acres of King's Cross lands surely cannot be put in that arena. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was chided from the Conservative Benches for saying that the £126 million valuation—
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: No—£12.6 million.
      Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend. He was chided for saying that a valuation of £12.6 million was rather modest. A scheme was proposed in the 1980s to take over those lands and develop them, and even in those days it was a £5 billion scheme. Now the Government are giving away those assets for £12 million.
      Mr. Watts: In fact, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned several operational assets. He mentioned North Pole depot, the Longsight depot at Manchester, and Waterloo international station. Those could have substantial development values only if they were not used for the purposes of a railway.
      The hon. Gentleman sounded like the most rampant of property speculators. All these matters were debated in considerable detail in Standing Committee. I gathered then—and it has been confirmed today—that Labour Members are not entirely at one with our proposal for funding the project. Nonetheless, our approach to the competition produced high-calibre bidders, and we reached an extremely good deal with London and Continental Railways that minimises the taxpayer's contribution and maximises the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link to the nation.
      I shall deal first with the cash contribution of £1.4 billion from the public sector. A substantial part of that sum is a charge for the domestic capacity that we have secured in order to run domestic commuter services. The money will be paid over a long period, and it may result in corresponding revenue to the Government from train operators that operate services on the link. It is not an up-front contribution: it will be spread over a number of years when the link is in operation.
      632
      I can answer in part the question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who asked how we will guarantee that the line will be built and that the promoter will not walk away from the project. Not a single penny of the lump sum capital contribution will be paid until the promoter has incurred 68 per cent. of the project's outturn cost. If the promoter must put up so much of his own money before receiving a single penny of taxpayers' money, he will need to have very good reasons for not seeing it through.
      Mr. Stevenson: The Minister has said that the £1.4 billion will be paid over a long period. Will he say whether that is an absolute figure? In other words, is there a ceiling on the figure, so that it cannot be increased over time?
      Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred to the summary of the terms of the development agreement and certain events that would trigger a sharing of costs, or allow costs to fall on the Government. Clearly, that could lead to an increase over and above the £1.4 billion.
      For example, if a Government—for some perverse reason, as the hon. Lady mentioned—introduced tax provisions that discriminated against the company, it would give rise to a further payment by way of compensation. With that one proviso, I can confirm that the amounts in the development agreement are the sums that will be paid over a considerable period.
      Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is not allowed to look at the contracts and examine the real details. After applying pressure in Committee, we were permitted to see the explanatory memorandum; but we have no insight into what appears in the contracts. The explanatory memorandum says that there could be changes in the amounts payable if there are changes to the project ordered by the Government or if there are variations in the draft agreement. Virtually any changes would trigger increased payments.
      I refer the Minister also to the fact that the £1.4 billion payment is calculated at net present value. When it comes to be paid, the real amount will be nearer to £2 billion. Ministers are bandying about £600 million as if it were nothing.
      Mr. Watts: There is nothing unusual in expressing contributions to a capital project—particularly a long-running project—in net present value. We have evaluated the benefits of the project in the same terms.
      I must correct the hon. Gentleman on another point. The explanatory memorandum was produced not because of pressure applied in the Standing Committee. In announcing his decision, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would place in the Library the explanatory memorandum summarising the main terms of the agreement.
      Some very odd figures have been bandied about this afternoon. We heard the old chestnut about delivering an alternative scheme for either £1 billion or £1.9 billion—Opposition Members have advanced two different figures. That is a very different scheme, which would have pursued a highly unpopular route into London through the south, and involved much more tunnelling.

      633
      Hon. Members have argued persistently and effectively for the construction of a station at Stratford. Stratford would not have been part of the project unless it took a very odd route through the south of London, around to the east and then back to the terminal. Therefore, all the regeneration benefits that have been rightly applauded would not have been part of the scheme.
      As to the value attributed to the assets to be transferred, the hon. Member for Pendle quoted correctly from the information that I have supplied to him through answers to parliamentary questions. The assets transferred amount to £600 million in accounts values, or a little more if one substitutes for existing use value the development value of the two areas of railway land.
      The more fanciful evaluations that Opposition Members have tried to place upon the development value of the land depend upon one other important factor: that someone has completed the new high-speed link and that it is operating successfully. Unless that occurs, the value cannot be enhanced further. Even if one were to try to estimate that value, figures of £3 billion, £5 billion and so on are completely fanciful.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
      Mr. Watts: No, I shall not give way, as I have done so a number of times. We have had a fairly lengthy debate, and I wish to reply to it as speedily as possible.
      As I explained in reply to expressions of concern about the development of services to the north of London, a critical part of the strategy is that the promoter should take control of Eurostar services at the earliest possible date and promote them. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate sneered at the idea that better marketing could increase passenger numbers. I think that she will find that marketing is crucial.
      Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
      Mr. Watts: No, I shall not give way again; I have given way to the hon. Lady twice already. She should not be insulted by my quoting her words back at her. The hon. Lady must wait and see whether marketing improves the performance of the service.
      Hon. Members must understand that, if the new clause were added to the Bill, it would wreck the whole project. It would involve either a massive additional sum by way of taxpayer subsidy or the total abandonment of the project as a joint public sector-private sector scheme. The alternative is probably one that Opposition Members would favour—a scheme funded entirely out of the taxpayers' pockets.
      We know that one hon. Lady would be very happy to pay more taxes in order to fund that scheme or any others, but I suspect that her view is not universally shared by her colleagues. The new clause must be recognised as a wrecking attempt and nothing else. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to treat it accordingly, and to vote it down.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 175.

      Division No. 111]

      [18.28 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Barnes, Harry

      Keen, Alan

      Barron, Kevin

      Khabra, Piara S

      Battle, John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Bayley, Hugh

      Livingstone, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McCartney, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      McKelvey, William

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

      McWilliam, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Cann, Jamie

      Michael, Alun

      Clapham, Michael

      Miller, Andrew

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Corbett, Robin

      Mullin, Chris

      Corston, Jean

      Pike, Peter L

      Dewar, Donald

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dowd, Jim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Flynn, Paul

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Galbraith, Sam

      Ruddock, Joan

      Galloway, George

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gapes, Mike

      Short, Clare

      George, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Soley, Clive

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hanson, David

      Spellar, John

      Heppell, John

      Stevenson, George

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Timms, Stephen

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Hoyle, Doug

      Wise, Audrey

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ingram, Adam

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Mrs. Bridget Prentice and

      Jenkins, Brian (S. E Staff)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Ashby, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Conway, Derek

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bates, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

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

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Booth, Hartley

      Dicks, Terry

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evennett, David

      Butterfill, John

      Faber, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forman, Nigel

      Carttiss, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      635

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Moate, Sir Roger

      French, Douglas

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Norris, Steve

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Paice, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hannam, Sir John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Sackville, Tom

      Harris, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hawksley, Warren

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Hendry, Charles

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Horam, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stem, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Streeter, Gary

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sumberg, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Sweeney, Walter

      Jessel, Toby

      Sykes, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Legg, Barry

      Waller, Gary

      Leigh, Edward

      Ward, John

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Watts, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      MacKay, Andrew

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Madel, Sir David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Wood, Timothy

      Malone, Gerald

      Yeo, Tim

      Mans, Keith

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mates, Michael

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      and

      Merchant, Piers

      Mr. Simon Burns.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 1

      PURCHASE OF BLIGHTED PROPERTY
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, if so requested by an owner or occupier, either—

      (a) acquire the interest of such owner or occupier in any property which as a consequence of the provisions of this Act cannot be sold except at a discount to unblighted market value, or

      636

      (b) pay to such owner or occupier the difference between the unblighted market value of such interest and the amount actually realised in the open market when it is sold.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by order appoint one or more persons to perform on his behalf the duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above.
      (3) Compensation shall be payable to an owner or occupier whose interest is acquired under this section on the same basis as compensation in respect of blighted property under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
      (4) The Secretary of State may—

      (a) by regulations, amend or extend the provisions of Chapter II of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to implement the provisions of this section, or

      (b) by order, repeal this section.

      (5) An order repealing this section shall not be made before the implementation of improvements to existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation resulting from recommendations by the Inter-Departmental Review established following the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
      (6) The power to make orders or regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Rowe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rowe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Compensation—
      ',—(1) On application being made to him the Secretary of State shall pay compensation to any residential occupier of property the value of whose interest in such property has been diminished by reason of the provisions of this Act.
      (2) The amount of such compensation shall be the difference between the value that interest would have had if this Act had not been passed and the value it has following the passing of this Act; and both such values shall be calculated at the date of application to the Secretary of State.
      (3) In default of any agreement between the Secretary of State and the applicant as to whether the provisions of this Act have caused such a diminution in value or as to the values referred to in subsection (2) above these matters shall be decided by a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or (in default of such agreement) to be appointed on the application of either party after notice in writing to the other by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.'.
      New clause 3—Hardship—
      'Neither the Secretary of State in exercising any discretionary powers to purchase property affected by the provisions of this Act, nor the nominated undertaker in operating any similar or other discretionary or voluntary purchase scheme, shall require any applicant to show any degree of personal hardship in order to qualify for any purchase or other benefit.'.
      Mr. Rowe: The debate so far has emphasised again that the line, when it is built, will belong to the whole nation and that the links that extend to the east and west coast main lines and other areas are indispensable to making the project a success. I agree, but it is worth recalling that the line will be built through Kent and south-east London. Whatever benefits the rest of the country will derive from its construction, the costs will fall most heavily on us.

      637
      The story has gone on for a very long time and part of the cost that has been carried by my constituents and many other people along the route has been the sheer anxiety and uncertainty that that long delay has occasioned. The purpose of new clause 1 is twofold. First, it would add to the Bill a recognition of the gain that we have made in the course of the long-drawn-out proceedings.
      When the proceedings on the project began, the Department of Transport was adamant that there were only two forms of blight—statutory blight and discretionary blight. I am glad to say that after the long series of arduous debates, hearings, Select Committee meetings on the ombudsman's hearings, and the ombudsman's inquiry itself, we have now arrived at the recognition—I believe with the sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—that there is a third kind of blight which, in some ways, is the most damaging of all. That is the blight which destroys the price of somebody's home or business, not because it will be acquired compulsorily for the project and not because it is in the corridor sufficiently for the owner to claim compensation, but because nobody will buy or even come to look at the property if he realises that it is in a village in an area affected by the route.
      6.45 pm
      On this project, the matter has been made worse by the tergiversations about the actual route. For example, two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, live in Harrietsham. They are 76 years old and have been trying to sell their house for a long time. Their family now live some distance away, and Mr. Atkins has had open-heart surgery. They live only 10 m outside the original rail corridor, and that totally destroyed any interest that any potential purchaser might have had in buying their property. After the route was changed, it is true that the line moved somewhat away from their property, but the effect on potential purchasers remained the same. That old couple have been effectively imprisoned in their home by that generalised blight.
      Similarly, Mr. Gardiner, another of my constituents, had his family business plunged into bankruptcy when the bank revalued his property. The properties of both his immediate neighbours had been bought by British Rail, which was the lead promoter at the time, but his property was not bought. He had secured a loan for his business against the value of his property, and when the bank revalued his property, it valued it at nil. The result was that the security on his loan was withdrawn, and he had to take his family business, which had been going for 30 years, into bankruptcy.
      Those are the costs that fall on citizens up and down the land when there are such massive projects, inspired by the Government and bringing ruin in their wake. The first purpose of new clause 1 is to add to the Bill, as I said, the recognition of that type of blight. Secondly, the new clause contains a feature to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic. I know that, because we have talked about it informally on several occasions. Under the new clause, a property would be valued by an independent assessor, because sometimes there is a genuine doubt about the market value of a property. If the property were then sold on the open
      638
      market, the compensation paid would make up the difference. It would be based not on a notional price, but on the price fixed by the market.
      Those two provisions are just and overdue. I hope that when the interdepartmental working party, which is one of the gains from the whole tortuous business of the link, publishes its results, it will accept the second provision.
      The new clause would deal with a third problem. It would be monstrous if the householders and other owners, whose plight has caused the working party to be set up, were unable to benefit from any of its findings because those findings came too late or could not be implemented until after the project was under way. Therefore, the new clause contains the proposition that until an improvement in the compensation rules is achieved as a result of the interdepartmental working party, the purchasing of properties that can be shown to be blighted, in the way that I have described, should go ahead.
      It is unacceptable for major Government schemes to stride through the country, wrecking people's lives in a wholly unpredictable way. In our case, four routes were put on the table at the beginning. Two of those routes were manifestly different and although they seem to have been a blind to conceal British Rail's original intentions, that does not alter the fact that the blight was spread over many families. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): I am delighted to be able to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whom I am glad to see able to speak in defence of his constituents. He was not a member of the Committee and so at that stage had to depend on Opposition Members to defend his constituents' interests.
      Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is being extremely kind, but I must be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who also spoke with considerable eloquence on behalf of my constituents.
      Ms Hodge: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did try his best, but his constituents are not as directly affected as are those of the hon. Gentleman. Our proceedings might have been enhanced by having his contributions and those of other Conservative Members with a specific constituency interest.
      This is the final opportunity for those for whose constituents this is a major issue to argue the case across the political spectrum, for a fair and just system for responding to all residents who, through no fault of their own, have been affected by the route.
      None of the new clauses that are concerned with compensation has been motivated by NIMBY—not in my backyard—interests. All who have a constituency interest have supported the building of the high-speed rail link. We have all argued that, in the interests of the British economy, it is imperative that it should be constructed. Only a week ago, I made my first trip on Eurostar from Paris to London. I was deeply impressed at the speed with which we travelled across France, but deeply depressed by the slowness with which we travelled through the English countryside. Of course, we want to promote the rail link in the national interest, but at whose expense? It is in answer to that question that we raise the issue of compensation.

      639
      I remain of the view that the route need never have gone through the centre of Barking, either above ground or through a tunnel. There was a perfectly sensible alternative solution, which would not have resulted in thousands of my constituents being unable to move or to sell their property. A disservice has been done to my constituents by all those involved before I became a Member of the House, in their determination to stick to that route and not to seek the sensible alternative of taking the route across a large tract of derelict land in Barking reach. People in the constituency, in the town hall and in Union Railways must share much of the blame for what has happened.
      At the same time, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was a member of the Select Committee, that I am grateful to the Committee for its work in ameliorating the absurd plans that were originally put forward by Union Railways. It is heartening that the concerns raised by individuals who attended on their own account to put their case before the Select Committee were listened to. The original proposals were led by engineers who had no regard to the impact that they would have on the lives of ordinary people all along the route but, in particular, in Barking.
      The issue of compensation is important, not only because of the impact of the route on many people, but because of the time that it takes to build a railway. Ten years have elapsed between the original decision to build the tunnel and today, when the Bill will be sent to the other place. During that time, there have been rumours, counter-rumours, proposals, further proposals and changes of mind that have blighted the property of many householders along the route.
      That is not the end of it. Under the current compensation scheme, were anybody to qualify for compensation and to get back some of the money that they have lost through no fault of their own, they would have to wait until well after the channel tunnel rail link was built, certainly in my constituency. I would love to think that we were talking about 2002, but in all probability we are talking about 2005 and perhaps even closer to 2010.
      To qualify under the current discretionary purchase scheme, not only do people have to prove a diminution in value of their property, but they have to show that they are suffering from ill health or noise. My constituents, who are now to have a tunnel directly under their houses, will not know whether they will be eligible under the current scheme until after the tunnel has been built and tested—in 2007 or 2008. Since 1990, they have been unable to sell their properties. There is no market for any property, certainly in Barking, on the channel tunnel rail link route.
      The residents believe that there will be a noise impact, although the promoter says that there will not. That dispute will not be resolved until 2005 or even 2009, whenever the route is completed. That is simply not good enough for ordinary people.
      The other criterion of the current discretionary purchase scheme which has to be met is one of ill health. I have constituents who are suffering from real ill health brought about by the stress of not having the freedom to sell their property and move house. They are nervous wrecks,
      640
      taking endless drugs, and some have had to be hospitalised as a direct result of the nervous tension that they have suffered. But that is not sufficient for them to qualify under the current scheme. The current scheme is simply not good enough.
      What does all that mean for people in Barking? More than 300 properties abut the railway. As I have said in the Chamber and in Committee, those are not properties with long gardens. The distance between the railway line and the kitchen window is the distance between the two Front Benches. Those properties were bought on the understanding that they were close to an existing line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line, on which traffic is limited.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If one is lucky.
      Ms Hodge: As my hon. Friend says, one is lucky to get anything. There is probably a train every 20 minutes in the rush hour. At the weekends, there is hardly any traffic, because it is primarily a commuter line and there is very little traffic after the rush hour in the evening and during the night.
      That is what life was like. That is what those residents committed themselves to when they purchased those properties. As I have consistently said, they are ordinary people. They do not live in high-price, high-value properties. When the market was at its peak, the properties probably went for £75,000 or £80,000. Today, they are worthless, although the odd property has been sold for about £20,000.
      A further 2,000 to 3,000 properties have been blighted by the proposals. We can look at maps and say that only properties on one side of a road should be blighted because only they abut the railway, but purchasers who understand what is about to happen, certainly now that a tunnel is to be constructed, will not touch properties that are a far greater distance from the railway line than those involved in the scheme would expect. Those properties simply cannot be sold.
      Some people argue that the blight should have lifted, now that we have determined that a tunnel should go through Barking. In particular, Union Railways—or the new promoter—has told me on a number of occasions that there is blight because I and the residents have drawn attention to it. That is absolute nonsense. The blight has been created, first, by Union Railways' original, chaotic proposals—which were then amended by the Select Committee—and, secondly, by the Government's plans. The route for the tunnel was not planned by people in Barking; it was planned by the Government.
      There is not one estate agent who will put on his list a property in Barking that is along the channel tunnel rail link. There is not a building society that will lend to a potential purchaser who wants to buy property in Barking. The council, working with a local housing association, has been unable to persuade the housing association to buy properties along the route so that they can at least be used for social housing. No one seems to care.
      7 pm
      At every surgery that I hold in my constituency, at least one family come to see me with yet another heart-rending story about how their inability to move is impacting on their lives. I realise that hon. Members would like to finish this debate, but this is our final opportunity to go through some of the cases.

      641
      There is one family with a young son who has bacterial meningitis, which was contracted when he was eight months old. Because of his condition, he suffers from respiratory and hearing problems. Two summers ago, he had an operation to remove tonsils and adenoids and to put grommets in his ear. The family doctor has recommended that the family move to a rural area, and they want to move as soon as possible for the sake of their child's health. The channel tunnel rail link proposals have made it impossible for them to sell their house, so they cannot move.
      Down the road lives an elderly lady with angina. She can no longer climb the stairs in her little home. She is desperate to sell her house so that she can buy a bungalow in Norfolk and retire there to be nearer her daughter, but she cannot move.
      There is a gentleman who was on the verge of selling his house in 1992, until prospective purchasers became aware of the rail link. His son has chronic asthma. His family's GP has recommended that the family move to a coastal area. He works for the Post Office and was recently offered a transfer to Colchester, but he had to turn it down because he cannot sell his house. He is now redundant. His wife is unable to work because she suffers from a chronic breast disease and has arthritis of the spine. They are stuck there.
      There is a family who have lived at an address for, probably, 17 years. Mrs. Downs is confined to a wheelchair and requires periods of quiet during the day in a stress-free environment. The family already suffer some noise nuisance from passing trains. Their lives would be made intolerable by the construction and operation of the channel tunnel rail link, which would go through their back garden. They have made no progress in selling their house.
      There is a family who inherited a house when their mother died. They live in another house down the road, because it is a very close community. They want to sell both homes so that they can move, and to use some of the resources that they would realise to put their children through higher education. They have tried to sell the houses by significantly reducing the asking price, but both properties are still unsaleable. They sought to rent out one of the properties, but a local accommodation agency advised them that a property that would normally rent at £120 a week cannot be rented out even at £90.
      One couple bought a house in 1983. They have had a family since then. The house has two bedrooms, but they have three children. They want to move to a larger property as the children are of different sexes and have grown older. They cannot sell their property. The list goes on and on.
      There is a family in which the father has an arthritic spine. He has had an operation, but it was unsuccessful. He has now had a second operation. Doctors and consultants have sent letters to, at that time, Union Railways, but the family have had no luck under the discretionary purchase scheme. They are stuck there.
      There is a family who want to buy a business in Devon. They cannot buy it because they cannot sell their house.
      In another family, the husband died. The wife is an epileptic and has been advised by doctors not to live alone. She wants to sell the house and go to live with her son.
      642
      The parents died in one family and left the house to their three daughters. They cannot sell the house. The list goes on and on.
      In one family, the woman is on a breathing apparatus and really needs to move out of the area into a different environment. They cannot sell their house.
      There is a family in which an elderly widow suffers from angina. She wanted to buy a bungalow when she retired. She cannot sell her house. It goes on and on.
      I think that probably the worst case—it made me very cross—was one in which I was finally able to get Union Railways to agree to purchase the property. The couple in that house were desperate to move. Before the purchase went through, however, the husband died.
      Those examples show the proposals' impact on ordinary people in a very ordinary part of London.
      The Select Committee's and the ombudsman's reports recognised the importance of blight. On page xxix, referring to environmental improvements, the Select Committee stated:
      "Blight cannot be dealt with in this way, and can only be responded to by compensation."
      Later, it added:
      "Furthermore, we require that the promoter improves the operation of the discretionary purchase scheme to reduce the apparent delays in making payments under the scheme."
      The Select Committee stated on page xxxi:
      "We have observed that the present law appears totally inadequate in situations in which a reduction in the price of a property is attributable to a project such as the rail link even though the property will not actually be physically affected."
      The ombudsman's report stated:
      "In my view, it is unquestionable maladministration not to have considered the effects of the policy upon those to be affected by it.
      Such maladministration is more evident when the problems caused to individuals by the implementation of a policy become apparent, but still no action is taken to consider a remedy. I have found that that is what happened in respect of the CTRL."
      I welcome the Government's response in setting up the interdepartmental working party, although, as I said in Committee, we need a time frame for it. I suspect that the Government will not bring the results of the working party's efforts to the House—I would welcome an assurance to the contrary—before the end of this Parliament.
      The French can build railway lines properly—why on earth cannot we do the same? When the French want to construct a railway line, they provide generous compensation to people who, through no fault of their own, experience a diminution in the value of their property and who lose the freedom to move—that primary control over their lives.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse what my hon. Friend said, and merely underline her point that the French can construct lines so swiftly because people genuinely welcome them and there is not a long-drawn-out battle, as there is when people realise that they are going to suffer physical and economic hazards. Perhaps that is why the French are able to build lines so much more quickly than we can.
      Ms Hodge: I concur with my hon. Friend entirely.

      643
      Additional costs would be involved in a more generous compensation scheme, but in relation to the project as a whole, they would be marginal. Compared with the additional costs that have already been incurred by the delay in this case, the costs of additional compensation would be peanuts. The Government appear to have accepted the additional costs arising from the changes in the scheme, so why cannot they accept the additional costs arising out of an appropriate compensation scheme?
      I hope that hon. Members will today take this issue seriously. The question is who pays. In this context, is it fair that ordinary residents—householders who have found that, through no fault of their own, the value of their property has been massively diminished and that their ability to sell it has been annihilated—should pay? In other matters, the Government say that the polluter pays. In this instance, the Government are the polluter and they should pick up the bill and support the three new clauses.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have considerable sympathy with the new clauses. The key point is the one that has been made on several occasions—that the House and the country want the rail link, in which case the developer and/or the Government should pay for it. The people who should not pay for it are those whose properties are in the line of the rail link and who face the diminution of the value of their homes and businesses.
      Like the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I have had dozens of people come to my surgery over the years, some with cases just as heart-rending as those that she mentioned. I should point out that this blight hit my constituency all the way back in 1988 when the original route was proposed. So we are no novices in this dreadful business of blight and the compensation that is required.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to three forms of blight. I strongly support his comments about peripheral blight. Where the rail link goes through the urban area of my constituency, it passes literally thousands of homes. In that broad swathe, those residents have found that they cannot sell their houses or achieve properly secured mortgages. They are well and truly stuck, whether or not the circumstances of their family or employment require them to move. We must examine the matter of peripheral blight.
      Another form of blight was brought before the Select Committee, although it did not grapple with it—the blight that brings about bankruptcy. I brought two cases before the House in an Adjournment debate, which were also heard in the Select Committee, of residents in the direct line of the high-speed rail link. They were small business men who used their properties to secure loans for their businesses. In both cases, the security of their loans proved inadequate, the finance ceased to become available and their private companies withered and died. The blight compensation provisions include no provision to compensate people in such dreadful cases.
      I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement that he will appoint a working party to consider matters of blight. I hope that the working party and the Minister will give careful and rapid consideration
      644
      to peripheral blight and the extraordinary cases of failure of family businesses resulting from the impact of the rail link.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add to the litany of overwhelmingly strong cases? I notice that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) also wishes to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has been an assiduous chaser after the same solutions. I have no direct vested interest on behalf of my constituency in this particular Bill, although the borough of Southwark was directly affected by the previous proposals and route and the issue of blight was very pertinent. When my constituents and those of two other constituencies in my borough were spared, it would not have been fair if we walked away and left the case to be fought by those who are in the same position. People in the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and of Newham and in Kent and Essex—
      Mr. Chris Smith: And Islington.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Hughes:—and in Islington, are still directly affected. It is a very important issue.
      I wish to rehearse again the fact that we have had an unsatisfactory law on compensation for a ridiculously long period. Of course the interdepartmental working party is a good idea, but unless they result in proposals, good ideas are not much use. The Minister will be aware that, on a regular basis, I persist in arguing the same case in relation to those who suffer blight from works connected with the underground. My constituents have an interest in that.
      Some businesses in my constituency have gone under—not physically, but commercially—as a result of the Jubilee line extension. Some of them fall within the rules. If a building is physically taken out of the local geography because the line or the works go through it, people are compensated. If it happens to be two yards away—as a building is in Borough high street by London Bridge station—such that all a person's business is taken away, they are not. If a great hole is dug before the front door, if people can hardly see that the business is still there and if to get to it they have to be athletes or trapeze artists—in short if the business is clearly no longer viable, people do not qualify for compensation. If the traffic is redirected because the works are outside the door of a business and passing trade disappears, no help is available.
      It could be said that people just have to take the commercial risk. That is true as long as it is not a matter of public provision for public benefit made through an Act of Parliament. However, when we are talking about a rail link between the channel tunnel and the capital city, about public railways—even under a privatised Railtrack—or about public tube services—even under a privatised tube network, although I hope that that never happens—it is not good enough to say that people must take the commercial risk and accept that they may be sitting pretty one day and the next be blighted by a proposal that affects their business or home life.
      People can suffer blight even with the benefit of the advice of the most vigilant lawyers in the world. One of my constituents inquired whether his business would be

      645
      affected by the route. He was expressly told that it would not. On the day on which he bought the business, there was no blight. Literally a month later, the proposals changed. It was too late. He had made the commercial transaction, acquired the business, laid out the investment and borrowed the money. He got into difficulties, but when the plans changed, it was too late. That was a risk that he was meant to take.
      I should be grateful to hear in the Minister's response how soon we shall hear the results of the review and how soon legislation will be introduced. I join my colleagues in requesting that any response does not benefit generations to come, to the exclusion of those who have precipitated this call for a fairer compensation system. Other countries have such a system. Compensation can be provided through insurance. It need not cost the nation a fortune. We really must stop blighting the lives of hundreds and thousands of families and business people without compensating them, when simple legislation such as has been introduced by many colleagues over many years could reasonably do so. It is not beyond the wit of men and women to devise a system. We ought to get on with it.
      I hope that this is the last time that we have to put in a plea in the Report stage of a Bill. I am sure that if the Government wanted to introduce a compensation Bill in the one remaining Session of this Parliament, all of us would be willing to postpone the general election by a few months to put it on the statute book.
      Sir John Stanley: I, too, support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and the comments made by those who have spoken in the debate so far. I also support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will note that hon. Members from the three major parties are all saying the same thing on the issue of blight and compensation. The position is profoundly unsatisfactory.
      The issue of blight was raised at the very outset of proceedings on the Bill in the Second Reading debate on 16 January 1995. Fifteen months later, we still have had no practical response other than the formation of an interdepartmental working party. Those of us who have been privileged to serve in government know well the immense length of time that it takes for any legislation to emerge from interdepartmental working parties, if it ever does.
      Also, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not responded to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Perhaps he has now proposed a scheme to the Committee, but, if so, it has not been reported to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether a scheme has now been devised in accordance with the undertaking to produce one in response to the Committee's recommendation, whether it has been submitted to the Committee and when we shall know the details.
      The Select Committee examined the Bill over a long period, and did heroic and sterling work. The issue of blight and compensation was raised continually. Now the Bill is on Report, but as far as I know—unless my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us something positive—we have been given neither a Government amendment nor a Government policy to deal with the problem.
      646
      As the hon. Member for Barking pointed out, this is not really a public expenditure issue but an equity issue affecting individuals. It cannot ever be right for a responsible public body to look to individuals, through the value—or devaluation—of their assets, to subsidise the public sector infrastructure work that is required in the public interest. It is fundamental that people must be treated fairly, and not be faced with a massive, long-term and perhaps permanent reduction in the value of their main asset so that a public sector project can proceed. The burden should be spread across all taxpayers.
      I consider it morally incumbent on the House, on Union Railways and on the Government to provide an equitable answer to a problem that has been described eloquently by members of all the major parties in the House. If that cannot be done here, perhaps it can be done in the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will respond positively.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief constituency contribution from the Back Benches, and to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). As I always do on these occasions, I declare an interest, not only on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who are affected by the rail link but on my own behalf: my home abuts directly on to the line.
      I want to make two specific constituency points about blight. First, however, let me pay a warm tribute to the Select Committee's work. It deliberated carefully for many hours, and listened attentively to the numerous representations of my constituents.
      Last July, when the Committee made its initial findings public, my constituents were overjoyed by its recommendation that the line running under the borough of Islington should be in tunnel all the way into the railway land behind St. Pancras. For a few weeks, it appeared that the blight that had threatened many of the streets immediately surrounding the western end of the line through Islington would be lifted. Then rumours began in the press that the Government were reconsidering the Committee's recommendation, and Union Railways subsequently submitted a revised version of the scheme. That revised version is now included in the Bill.
      It must be said that the revised scheme is still massively better than the original reference case first advanced by Union Railways, but it gives the petitioners less than the arrangement that everyone thought had been decided last July, and a number of concerns remain—two in particular. The first relates to the timing of any decisions arising from the deliberations of the interdepartmental working party. The timing of any compensation scheme is vital to the affected areas.
      I am particularly concerned about the impact on homes in Bunning way—flats and houses in my constituency that were sold a few years ago, specifically as starter homes. Many were sold to young couples who were buying their first home, intending to move in due course. A number of those couples now want to start families, but their homes are not large enough for them to bring up children there, and they wish to move. At present, however, their homes are severely blighted, and they could sell only at sharply reduced prices.

      647
      Under the present scheme, even if those people qualify for compensation, they will not receive it until the railway has been running for a year—and it may not start running until seven to 10 years from now. By then, they will have had to give up the idea of having children at all, or they will have had to subsidise a railway by selling their homes at a loss. I do not consider that a just way of dealing with the impact that the line will have.
      My other concern relates to the Gifford street embankment. It is currently proposed that the line should be tunnelled through the embankment until it reaches a point just before the east coast main line, when it will emerge into the open to cross that line. It is extremely important to those living in Gifford street—one of those homes happens to be mine—that the tunnel be bored through the bank rather than dug in a "cut and cover" operation. A ministerial assurance has been given, in a letter to the local representative group that raised the issue with the Minister, that the tunnel will indeed be bored, but I fear that that assurance will mean little if a problem suddenly arises on the site. When the time comes for the work to be carried out, we may be told that it is far too difficult to bore the tunnel, and that half the embankment will have to be removed instead.
      We asked for the requirement for the tunnel to be bored to be inserted in the Bill, but, sadly, the Select Committee did not agree to that. I hope that the Government will none the less give enforceable undertakings to the Committee in the other place, because that particular question will substantially affect the issue of blight in Gifford street.
      Those are two specific issues, but they reflect the general concern that I know is shared by all of us with constituents who are directly affected by the proposed line. We all want to see the channel tunnel rail link in place and we want trains travelling fast from St. Pancras through the tunnel to the continent. However, we must make sure that that is done in the right way and with due consideration for the lives and livelihoods of the people who live immediately beside the line and who will be directly affected by the work when it starts and when the trains are running.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Brooke: I follow my parliamentary neighbour, the hon Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). If, in speaking to the new clauses, I referred to a railway line or route other than the one that eponymously gives its name to the Bill, I would almost certainly be ruled out of order. Therefore, I say elliptically that if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had tabled his new clause mutatis mutandis in relation to another Bill that related to another railway line, I would have supported it in the same way as I support this new clause.
      I cannot claim a constituency interest, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because the original line changed for both of us. There is also the historic fact that the profession of British consulting engineers grew up along Victoria street in the last century so that its members could be within walking distance of the House to advise Committees on railway legislation during that era.
      648
      I support the principle of the new clause and I should like to make a supportive reference to what I would call the long-standing anticipatory blight about which other hon. Members have spoken—caused because no compensation is affordable until the relevant works are triggered. I shall also refer to those unfortunate people who, when the works are going on, will have to sustain the aggravation, potentially without receiving in benefit from the completed works even a tithe of the disruption that they have suffered. In that respect, I found a sympathetic resonance in the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), whose new clause we are also discussing.
      I have been delighted to hear about the interdepartmental working party. In view of all the rail workings that stretch in front of us, I hope that its terms of reference are wide and that they relate to the widest possible range of contingencies so that we may make the maximum use of fallow time as this line and others unroll. The hon. Member for Barking spoke about the French arrangements and in that context I have taken the liberty of suggesting to London First, which rightly presses London Members on a series of issues on London's behalf, that it might sensibly mount an examination of those arrangements to see whether their application would economically accelerate the building of railways that they otherwise support.
      As I have not so far been ruled out of order, I shall conclude by reminding the House of Miss Katherine Whitehorn's account of the effect of the London motorway box in the street in which she once lived. She recounted that the only house adversely affected by the plans had been bought three months earlier by a professional clairvoyant.
      Mr. Watts: I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that the terms of reference of the interdepartmental working party are broad.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Do they include clairvoyants?
      Mr. Watts: I do not think so.
      The working party will look at changes in the compensation codes that could be applied not just to this project but more broadly and, undoubtedly, to another project that my right hon. Friend might have had in mind.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) asked about the working party devising a scheme to meet the requirements of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That work is still in progress but, as we said when the setting up of the working party was announced in November, it will be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot be more precise on that.
      Mr. Hughes: When is "as soon as possible"?
      Mr. Watts: Perhaps I should consult a clairvoyant on that.
      I sympathise with the view of many hon. Members that property owners or occupiers should not suffer loss on the sale of property as a result of perceived blight. However, I do not think that the new clause is the right way to

      649
      address the problem. It goes much further than the concerns that were expressed by the Select Committee and that led to the setting up of the working party. It is premature, as it is in advance of the outcome of that review, which we announced on 18 March.
      We should briefly consider the principles that underlie all existing compensation provisions. They include that the basis for any claim should be assessable against objective criteria; that the cause and effect must be demonstrable; and that the claimant should not finish up in a better position than would otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained in Standing Committee the three main circumstances under which owners may be compensated under current law. They are, first, where property is acquired compulsorily for the purposes of a public project; secondly, where property is subject to statutory blight, that is, blighted because of a future intention to acquire it; and, thirdly, where property is subject to injurious affection. It may not need to be acquired, but the conditions apply if there is a clearly demonstrable adverse affect on its value as a result of, for example, noise or vibration.
      Mr. Rowe: I hoped that I had made it clear that, by putting properties on the market and seeing just how much less they fetched than would have been their valuation otherwise, we had met the standard of objectivity that the Minister has just stated.
      Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend's suggestion and those made in the debate by other hon. Members will be looked at by the working party. I have said that the terms of reference are wide, and we shall wish to consider all relevant experience and suggestions, including, of course, overseas experience.
      The new clause ignores the principles under which existing arrangements have operated. Some hon. Members may say, "That is well and good, but we think that the existing arrangements are inadequate." However, such fundamental changes should not be made just in respect of a specific project, but made only after careful review and as the basis for making changes that would apply to all similar projects.
      We recognise the legitimate concern about the wider effects of blight—so-called perceived or generalised blight—which may affect property values even where there is no direct effect on the property, so existing compensation provisions may therefore not apply. That concern was raised by the Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence on a wide variety of concerns related to the Bill. Many of the matters that were raised essentially had to do with the provisions in general law rather than those in the Bill. The Committee concluded that in all such cases the existing national rules should apply. Even in the case of property compensation, the Committee concluded that existing arrangements were inadequate and called for a national review rather than special treatment for the project. In response, we set up the interdepartmental review of blight which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 18 March, Official Report, column 9.
      New clause 1 recognises that any scheme now instigated may be premature, in that subsection (5) provides for the arrangements to be repealed in the light of the recommendations following the review.
      650
      The new clause raises practical issues and difficulties. If we were to agree to such a radical extension of the statutory blight concept, it would raise difficult issues about the definition of "unblighted value" and on the means of disaggregating the various factors that may have reduced the property's value, given that "perceived blight" can be widespread and is a thoroughly subjective, although pernicious, concept. By definition, there would be no identifiable or measurable physical effects.
      Furthermore, the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposes might increase blight if it encouraged people to sell at a loss because they knew that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be obliged to pay the difference between unblighted market value and any amount realised.
      I am not rejecting out of hand the notion of a compensation rather than a purchase basis. As my hon. Friend alluded, in my discussions with him, I have acknowledged that that might be a sensible approach, but, today, I am not prepared to say that I have reached that conclusion. These important matters must be considered carefully in the review.
      Mr. Allen: Will the Minister consider asking the interdepartmental working group to consider also non-monetary compensation so that, for example, the homes for the frail elderly on the Euston side of St. Pancras might have to be rebuilt rather than an exchange of money taking place?
      Mr. Watts: The working party can consider all suggestions made during this important debate.
      There is a danger that the effects of a scheme such as the one that my hon. Friend suggests could lead to snowballing blight. There could be a perverse effect. If the new clause were added to the Bill, his scheme would be part of the Act and if the new clause caused a blighting effect on other property, the operation of the scheme under the Act would be compensatable under the new clause's powers.
      I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about blight caused by earlier routes and proposals. I understand that his new clause would not cover that and that it cannot be made to do so within the scope of the Bill, so I am not sure that the new clause would achieve all that I know that he wants it to achieve on behalf of his constituents.
      I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept what I have said about the inadvisability of making piecemeal changes to the compensation code on blight before the outcome of the review, specifically set up, at the Select Committee's request, to consider that subject, but the important issue that remains is how any changes that are made as a result of the review would be applied to people affected by the project.
      The House will know that, for obvious reasons, it is not the usual practice of Governments to give any prior commitment in respect of policy reviews that have yet to be completed and in, Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would consider sympathetically how the review's outcome could be applied.

      651
      I have given further thought to that. I take the point made in the debate that it would be perverse if a review that led to changes in the compensation code—a review prompted by the blight problems caused by the project—and the outcome of its recommendations were such that people affected by the project could not benefit from the review. Therefore, I am prepared to go further and to give a clear undertaking that any changes introduced to the compensation code as a result of the review will be given effect in respect of blight arising from the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the new clause.
      Mr. Rowe: Is it in order for hon. Members and members of public to submit evidence to the working group and, if so, how do we do it?
      Mr. Watts: Certainly. A total of 130 organisations, professional and otherwise, have been invited specifically to submit their views, but the views of hon. Members and of members of the public, submitted in writing to the Department of the Environment, would be most welcome.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the House will be encouraged to hear what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We are grateful for that and for the additional information. This may not have been put to the Minister in these terms and therefore I will not expect an immediate reply. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised a similar matter. Will the Minister consider whether people affected simultaneously, not by channel tunnel works, but by the same issue and who have raised those effects in parallel—although they do not come under this specific legislation primarily—could also be considered? We are looking at a date start for a new scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, equitably, all people affected in similar ways by similar legislated-for proposals might be considered and reply in due course, as soon as he has had a chance to examine the matter.
      Mr. Watts: I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says and reply to him in due course. That is one of the factors that can be taken into account in the review.
      I hope that, with the clear assurance that I have given hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the House, he will not feel it necessary to press his new clause to a vote.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Rowe: I have been in this place long enough to know that it is frequently wise to accept half a loaf rather than no bread at all and, given that we are shortly to send the Bill to another bakery, I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend the Minister's concession with considerable gratitude and pleasure. I wish that he had been able to go much further, but I understand the constraints under which he is operating and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      LICENSING
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'and'.
      No. 2, in page 8, line 10, at end insert
      ', and
      (c) any station constructed for the purposes of the rail link at Stratford, in the London borough of Newham.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

    Clause 30
      CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORISED WORKS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 29 to 33.—[Mr. Watts.]
    Clause 31

      RESERVED CAPACITY ON THE RAIL LINK: EXPENDITURE
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 16, line 34, leave out
      'enter into an agreement with'
      and insert 'make payments to'.—[Mr. Watts.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
      Mr. Timms: May I briefly ask the Minister a question that arises from the amendment and that has been raised with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), dealing with the terms on which payments will be made to London and Continental Railways?
      Suggestions have been made in the press—I have with me a copy of the New Civil Engineer from 28 March—that London and Continental Railways will not have to start work on building the channel tunnel rail link until European Passenger Services is profitable, which will clearly give London and Continental Railways, as the owner of EPS, the ability to borrow against the Eurostar revenue stream. Is that part of the agreement between the Government and London and Continental Railways?
      Profitability for Eurostar will entail about 6 million or 7 million passenger journeys per year, compared with about 3 million journeys at present. It is projected that that will take 18 months or so. If it does take that period, that may just about be consistent with the current timetable of construction commencing in autumn 1997, but it is tight.
      Is there uncertainty about the timetable for the scheme related to the speed of achieving profitability at Eurostar? Will that be a factor in whether the 2002 target date for the first trains from Stratford to Paris is achieved? As far as I know, the Government have said nothing on the point, but there has been speculation about it and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position.
      Mr. Watts: In the development agreement, there is no relationship between the start of construction and the profitability of European Passenger Services, although it will be desirable for EPS to be transferred to London and

      653
      Continental Railways as soon as possible so that it can start to improve the service's profitability. There is nothing in the agreement that ties the profitability of the Eurostar services to the start of construction.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 16, line 35, after 'undertaker' insert
      ', or its nominee, in pursuance of an agreement'.
      No. 5, in page 16, line 35, leave out 'to it'.—[Mr. Watts.]

    Clause 32

      HOLDERS OF FUNCTIONS OF NOMINATED UNDERTAKER
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 17, line 11, leave out from beginning to second 'the' and insert—
      '(3) An agreement by the Secretary of State with respect to'.
      No. 7, in page 17, line 12, at end insert
      'shall be effective notwithstanding that it fetters his discretion.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

    Schedule 13
      PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
      Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 216, line 15, at end add—
      PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
        'PART V

          PROTECTION OF OWNERS OF LAND OR BUILDINGS AT RISK OF SETTLEMENT
          1. The following provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the nominated undertaker and the owner, have effect.

          2. In this Part of this Schedule "the zone of influence" means the area within which land is liable to subside as a result of the construction of an authorised work.

          3. The nominated undertaker shall in the construction, maintenance, use and operation of the scheduled works employ best practice to prevent or minimise settlement or damage to buildings.

          4. The nominated undertaker shall notify in writing the owners of any land within the zone of influence at least 28 days in advance of the commencement of tunnelling and on completion of tunnelling in such zone.

          5. If a building within the zone of influence of an underground authorised work is suffering or has suffered serious structural damage during the construction of the authorised work, an engineer or surveyor appointed by the owner shall, on giving reasonable notice, be entitled to inspect the authorised work in the vicinity of such building accompanied by a representative of the nominated undertaker.

          6. The nominated undertaker shall ensure that any tunnel forming part of the authorised works has sufficient strength on completion of the construction of the tunnel safely to withstand a uniform or partial load of 50 kilonewtons per square metre.'.

          I must begin by declaring an interest because my house in Forest Gate in the east end of London lies directly over the proposed channel tunnel link; not just to the left or just to the right, but immediately over it. Obviously, my property is very much affected. On the other side of Sprowston road is the site of the vent shaft. No one can say that I will not be materially affected by what is going on. I hasten to add that I am more than happy to undergo all the privations that will no doubt accompany the construction of the tunnel in order to achieve what we have all been trying to achieve—the international station
          654
          at Stratford. I make no complaint about that. Of course, I raise this matter on behalf of many others as well as myself. A large number of people in the London boroughs of Newham, Hackney and Islington will be affected.
          There are many Victorian properties in the area. There was a great deal of war damage and many of those buildings suffered badly. Movement of the ground underneath them potentially puts them at risk. I do not want to be sitting in my front room on a quiet day with my good lady wife, Sally, listening to our favourite Status Quo records, as we often do, only to find that with a horrible crash my entire house has fallen in on to the 4.15 pm out of Stratford and we find ourselves being conveyed at 186 miles per hour towards the Gare du Nord in France. If we were going to do that, perhaps I could have my own small station called Sprowston halt, or something like that. In that way I could descend into the tunnel in a more dignified fashion.
          There is a problem and there will be subsidence. Although we are given all these assurances, the point of my amendment is to try to obtain certain assurances that, if the older properties are affected, compensation can be paid.
          Mr. Allen: Is this one of those occasions when, unusually, my hon. Friend is seeking to defend the status quo?
          Mr. Banks: I would always defend the group Status Quo, but it extends only as far as that. I certainly would not defend a joke like that.
          I should give the reason behind the amendment. In the same way as statutory undertakers are offered protection in the Bill for their services and equipment, home owners and other owners of land and buildings should be offered protection. The promoters informed the Select Committee in June 1995 that a deed concerning settlement would be offered to owners within 30 m of a tunnel and the proposed deed was put before the Committee. However, it was on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the promoters were not willing to enter into negotiations on its terms as they require it to be in standard form.
          After considerable pressure, the promoters have responded to amendments suggested by the London borough of Hackney, in concert with Islington and Newham. A meeting to discuss points arising but not to negotiate took place at the beginning of March.
          For the sake of amity, co-operation and some of the other things that we have seen associated with the Bill, I have given the Minister a copy of my briefing note so that he is in a better position to answer. The points included in the amendment are matters of general principle upon which it has not been possible to date to reach agreement with the promoters. I specifically draw attention to paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6.
          I will not bother to go through all the points since I have already conveyed them to the Minister. If the Minister can give me some assurance that he is looking at those points sympathetically, I will be overjoyed.
          Mr. Watts: As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has acknowledged, most of these matters in our view are already covered by the code of construction practice, which is a legally enforceable agreement.

          655
          With regard to the inspection of the works, paragraph 5 of the proposed amendment would give an engineer or surveyor appointed by the owner of the building which was suffering or had suffered "serious structural damage" the ability to inspect the CTRL works in the vicinity of the building. That is an issue that the local authorities have raised in terms of an addition to the deed and we have considered it carefully.
          In view of the fact that the main issue of relevance in the unlikely event of such damage is the determination of remedial works to the building, we have concluded that the advantage to building owners of such a right, when measured against the difficulties of providing for building owners' engineers to have access to, for example, major underground tunnelling operations, would not be warranted.
          With regard to the load-bearing standards of tunnels, paragraph 6 of the proposed amendment would place a requirement on London and Continental to construct tunnels so that they could withstand a load of 50 kilonewtons per square metre. I am not an engineer, but I am told by those who are that, while we would not expect there to be a problem in meeting and indeed, in some cases, exceeding that sort of load strength where the existing ground conditions provided that level of load-bearing capacity, there are concerns about the burden that such an absolute general requirement would place on those building the CTRL, in cases, for example, of made ground where that load bearing might not exist and also in terms of the monitoring requirements and the need to demonstrate that we had met the requirement in each and every case.
          I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if individual owners have residual concerns about protection for existing buildings, we would be willing to consider including this sort of provision in additional individual settlement deeds.
          The code of construction practice is contractually binding on London and Continental through the development agreement. In addition, the settlement deed which is available to householders provides a direct and legally enforceable remedy for individuals. So there is double protection.
          We believe that the deed, coupled with the provisions in the code of construction practice, deal with the subject of settlement in a much more detailed and comprehensive way than the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be adequately reassured. If he requires further reassurance, perhaps we could correspond on the matter.
          Mr. Tony Banks: All I can say is that I would not like to be around and facing my wife if our house did fall into the tunnel, but, of course, I probably would not be. With the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 10, in title, line 5, after 'therewith;' insert
    'to make provision about related works;'—[Mr. Watts.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    7.57 pm
    Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    This debate completes 16 months of scrutiny of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill by the House. Between February last year and February this year the Bill was considered by the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). More than 1,000 petitions were received and the Committee's task was on a scale without precedent. It was carried out with great patience, care and balance, and tributes have been paid from both sides of the House to the work of the members of the Select Committee. The Committee has sought some substantial changes to the route and has rejected others. The Government accepted in full all the recommendations of the Select Committee.
    We have given the Bill further careful scrutiny in Standing Committee and in the House today. Everyone is united in the desire to see the project proceed with the greatest speed and I can assist that process by drawing my remarks to a close and wishing the Bill a successful and speedy passage through another place.
    7.59 pm
    Mr. Jamie Cann: As a member of the Select Committee, I should like to say an odd word or two about the way in which the Bill's proceedings were conducted. I know that I speak for everybody who served on that Committee when I say that we are very grateful to the Government—I say this because I can see that there are no press around—for the way in which they listened to the Committee after its year and one month's worth of deliberations, took on board the proposals and suggestions made, and in a bipartisan manner produced plans which I think are a very good result. Let us hope that works on the ground come off just as well and that they are completed as quickly as possible.
    I should also like to say how much I as an Opposition Member valued, as we all did, the way in which the hon. Member for Reading, West handled matters in the Select Committee. He dealt with every one of the more than 900 petitioners with patience, care and attention, even though many were apprehensive. What is more, one or two barristers the Committee left feeling more apprehensive than they had been when they arrived, which was also a good thing. The hon. Gentleman was ably assisted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
    By and large, it was a delightful Committee on which to serve. It did practical, good work, producing a rail link that, at the end of the day, was accepted by the Government. I think that the link is accepted by the people of the counties and boroughs through which it passes as well as it could possibly have been. Serving on the Select Committee was one of the better parts of my time so far in the House.
    8 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: The House has been working on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill since Second Reading on 16 January last year. My constituents and I have been

    657
    working on what was originally a threat and is now an opportunity since the autumn of 1988. Between those dates, a difference has been made by the appearance on the scene of London and Continental Railways. Since the announcement in late February, hon. Members who represent Kent and other Members who are affected have yet to meet the leaders of London and Continental Railways. I should not like to miss this opportunity to draw very much to their attention the fact that Members of Parliament who represent constituencies along the route are not to be ridden over roughshod; our concerns and those of our constituents should be listened to very carefully. I hope that meetings will shortly be held so that we may highlight matters.
    Although I appreciate very much the attention that the Select Committee paid to the concerns of my constituents, I should like to highlight to the promoters and to the House a number of issues affecting Gravesham that have not been addressed. Perhaps the greatest environmental threat along the channel tunnel rail link remains that to Ashenbank wood and Cobham park in my constituency—issues that I raised on Second Reading which have not been addressed.
    I remind the House that Ashenbank is ancient woodland, of significance for its wildlife habitat, and a site of special scientific interest. Cobham park and its ponds along the route are a fine example of a Repton landscape, which would be damaged by the link. Proposals provide for a wedge to be driven through the woodlands and a railway to be driven along the edge of Cobham park. The devastation would be considerable. Scientific analysis conducted subsequent to the proposal showed that the subsoil at Ashenbank wood is such that the cutting would need an even wider land take, which would be devastating to that ancient woodland. Scientists and engineers have developed proposals for tunnelling under the site and they should be addressed.
    I should also like to draw to the attention of the promoters the proposal for crossing the A227 Wrotham road in my constituency on an elevated viaduct. It is highly inappropriate to the environment and we have not yet seen a design that gives us any confidence that blight from noise will not affect the considerable number of houses nearby.
    It is proposed that the channel tunnel rail link will also pass underneath the A2 motor road in Northfleet in my constituency. That road carries extremely heavy traffic from north Kent to London, and very careful attention must be paid to mitigation work so as not to disrupt the traffic passing through during construction.
    My constituents are delighted by the Ebbsfleet station proposal, which brings regeneration benefits to our area and the prospect of commuting to London in 19 minutes instead of the current 40 minutes. The Blue Circle properties company owns a large amount of land in that immediate area and has come up with magnificent development proposals. I hope that London and Continental Railways will negotiate effectively and constructively with Blue Circle so that the development of the station and the Blue Circle property areas are co-ordinated to the benefit of my constituents.
    I should like also to refer to the Northfleet bypass. That town has on one side the Thames tunnel of the channel tunnel rail link, which is a major construction project in itself, and on the other the Ebbsfleet international station.
    658
    The only connection between the two is the road that trundles right through the middle of that old town. We need a bypass, and the Select Committee said that the matter should be addressed. It is known as the south Thameside development route phase 4. Kent county council is being far too slow in acting on the matter, and there is talk of the planning application for the road being called in. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that if that scheme takes place, work will be extremely fast, since it would be very unfair to my constituents to have construction traffic for the channel tunnel rail link passing through the town.
    On balance, I welcome the Bill, because it means improved transport and thousands more jobs for my constituency. However, I ask the House and particularly the other place not to lose sight of the environmental impact on Kent, which badly affects my constituency. There are still problems that need to be addressed.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. Brooke: The length of time that the Bill has been in gestation has been testified to by others. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) was very generous in his comments on how the Select Committee was conducted. I should like to take advantage of the presence in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to record one of my favourite pieces of British film comedy dialogue.
    In the early stages of the "Titfield Thunderbolt", when the vicar of Titfield is confronted with the news that the line is already closed between Whitstable and Canterbury, he says:
    "Perhaps there were not men of sufficient faith in Canterbury."
    That faith has been deployed in the passage of the Bill, to the pleasure of all of us.
    As the tail light of the departing Bill moves into the penumbra towards the other House, I should like to recount briefly my involvement in the very early stages of the tunnel that gave rise to the Bill. I was a Treasury Minister and we were negotiating a treaty with France. A problem arose about what we should do, since French customs officers carry guns; if they were on the train when it entered the tunnel, they would still have the guns on them when they came out of the tunnel at this end, and British customs officers do not carry guns.
    The preferred solution of myself and the officials working with me was that French customs officers should be allowed to carry guns, but if in the event of their arrival on British soil they wished to use them, they would have to apply in writing to the chief constable of Kent. I am delighted to say that the preferred solution was acceptable to both Governments who were negotiating the treaty, and I think that it is established in writ.
    I hope that solutions of similar ingenuity are deployed in the face of any other difficulties that the Bill meets before it completes its journey and when it is subsequently implemented.
    8.8 pm
    Sir John Stanley: I cannot resist a brief rejoinder to the comments on Report of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and other Opposition Members on the subject of delay. Their sense of history was curtailed at about 1988. I remind them that the biggest single cause

    659
    of delay was the 15 to 20-year delay occasioned by the cancellation of the previous channel tunnel project in 1975. It was fitting that the last amendment on which the Labour party chose to divide the House was a wrecking amendment that would have set the project back another three or four years.
    The delay has been of huge benefit to Kent and south-east London, though possibly not to Essex. It greatly benefited my constituents because the result of the delays is a route that, environmentally and in engineering terms, is a vast improvement on the original scheme. All the key improvements were made by Ministers, often against the opposition of British Rail.
    The project began back in 1989 when British Rail produced its so-called three alternative routes. That was a desperately ill-conceived scheme in engineering terms and catastrophic environmentally. It resulted in tens of thousands of people suffering blight needlessly. Successive ministerial interventions brought about this much better scheme.
    My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Parkinson was responsible for scrubbing the awful route 3 through the heart of Kent—some of the most beautiful countryside in the county and, I believe, the whole country. It was a devastating proposal. We in that part of Kent will always be indebted to him for taking steps to dispose of that route.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) also decided to say no to the route that British Rail then preferred and chose instead the private sector alternative brought forward by Ove Arup. It is poetic justice that it is a small shareholder in London and Continental because its scheme, devised off its own bat, provides the basis of the present one.
    My constituency owes an enormous debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he listened closely to the representations that I and others in the Medway gap area of my constituency made and decided to put the line past the north downs and across the Medway gap in tunnel instead of, as previously intended, overland. As a result, we have what some of my constituents are kind enough to refer to as the Stanley tunnel. On 1994 prices, I fear that it added another £70 million to the cost of the scheme, but my constituents in Aylesford, Eccles, Burham and Wouldham are eternally grateful for the Government's good decision to put that section of the route in tunnel.
    Having said that, it may sound carping to end with a limited but important note of criticism about one matter. I make no apology for that because I have a small handful of constituents, six home owners, who are now above the line of the so-called Stanley tunnel on the top of Bluebell hill, whose treatment has been totally indefensible. At the beginning of 1994 a letter from Union Railways dropped through their letter boxes. It was a formal, Dear Sir/Madam letter headed, "Announcement by Government on Channel Tunnel Rail Link". I will read out its first three sentences. I hope that hon. Members will consider the implications for the saleability of their homes, had they received it. It states:
    "I am writing to let you know that the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the Government's decision on the route to be safeguarded for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This has been developed by Union Railways for the Department of Transport.
    660
    The route selected is proposed to be in tunnel at this point and may affect the subsoil to the property described above."
    In each of the six cases, the property described above was the address of my constituent's home. All hon. Members will reach the conclusion that if such a letter had descended on their doormats, it would have had a devastating affect on their ability to sell their houses. That group is wholly blighted. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that it is morally unacceptable that they should be left in that position. The basis for buying them out is entirely compatible with the three compensation criteria that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads read out in response to the amendment moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
    The letter is specific, directly relates the event to the channel tunnel rail link and refers precisely to the fact that the subsoil of those properties may be affected. Critically, it cannot be chucked away. It cannot be stuck in the bottom of a drawer, torn up—that would be inadvisable—or given to the dog to chew. It is a legally significant letter. A vendor of a property who received such a letter and failed to disclose it to a prospective purchaser could face a substantial damages suit. The letter has to be disclosed. It is a killer letter for valuations and it has wholly blighted the homes of that small group of my constituents.
    On Report we discussed amendments on compensation. That will take a considerable length of time. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that any changes will be made retrospective in respect of this project. New legislation is not necessary to deal with this problem. It can be dealt with immediately under existing legislation. The ambit of the existing discretionary purchase powers available to Union Railways enables it to be dealt with.
    As my last offering, at the final stage of the Bill, I once again urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that people who received the letter saying that the project may affect the subsoil of their properties deserve—indeed, rightfully demand—that the discretionary purchase scheme should be extended to enable them to sell their houses to Union Railways. That request is wholly justifiable and equitable. If necessary, I urge my right hon. Friend to use his powers of direction to direct Union Railways to ensure that the discretionary purchase scheme is extended to cover the purchase of the houses blighted by the letter.
    8.18 pm
    Mr. Rowe: I owe the channel tunnel rail link a great debt of gratitude. Without it, probably nobody in my constituency would know who I was. I am sure that every hon. Member has had the experience of being told, "I saw you on television, but I have no idea what you were talking about." But when people see me on television they always know what I am talking about, because it is always the channel tunnel rail link. I do not quite know what I shall do when the Bill has gone to the House of Lords.
    I pay a big tribute to the people along the line who have given up hours and hours of their time, spent large sums of their own private money and worked enormously hard, not only for their own benefit but for that of their friends and neighbours along the route. At least two of the people in my constituency who took a tremendous interest in the subject have died—John Castle, who became a real expert

    661
    on freight, and contributed substantially to the development of some of the thinking both in the Department and outside, and Professor Bob Bottle, whose contributions on the subject of noise were much respected.
    Lamentably, at the beginning of the project British Rail treated local people with the most profound contempt. But since Union Railways took over, that attitude has changed. I believe that John Armit, Bernard Gambrill and others, who have treated my constituents with courtesy, have discovered little by little that those people had a considerable contribution to make to the development of the project. Sometimes we tend to take far too lightly the wealth of knowledge, experience and sheer hard work that volunteers put into such operations.
    I must add three short comments about my anxieties. I am still deeply anxious lest, despite the Select Committee, the private consortium should seek to cut corners in the provision of protection and the like. There is still a worrying lack of detail in many of the drawings. Fully detailed design drawings have not yet been produced, and in such things all sorts of devilment may lurk. So I want to be assured again that Union Railways really will be held to the protections that we have gained so far.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) cannot be with us tonight—I believe that he is representing the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe—but he asked me to associate his name with my statement that we need proper protections, bunds and noise barriers.
    Some of the effects of noise are hard to predict. For example, the Department covered the newly extended M20 with a concrete surface, and the noise has now been admitted to be horrendous, despite the fact that when measured technically it does not reach a critical level. When one hears it, that noise makes a huge difference. In villages such as Harrietsham, in my constituency, which will be sandwiched between the channel tunnel rail link, the new M20 and the old A20, all in one tiny gap, there is a great need for proper protection. I much regret the fact that the Boxley long tunnel was not accepted by the Select Committee, and I hope that the Select Committee in the House of Lords will investigate the idea effectively.
    662
    I should also like to be assured that the speed for which the line is designed will not change once it has been determined. I have heard that the speed at which the trains should run has already been agreed, but if a decision were taken later to run trains at 20 or 30 mph faster, we should see the absurdity of an enormous bund of earth on which trees had been planted having to be uprooted to create further protection, if that were possible. So we need an assurance at the beginning that the speed for which the line is designed will not change sharply after the initial protection has been put in place.
    The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association say clearly, and I agree with them, that the power to take and occupy land for the construction of the CTRL should be restricted to the absolute minimum. We want to keep the land out of its proper use for as short a time as possible. There should be no nonsense about the constructors hanging on to land "just in case" for years after it is needed.
    Finally, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said. I have spoken to the chairman of the consortium, and we had hoped for an early meeting, so let us send a message from the Third Reading debate that the sooner the new consortium can meet us and talk about our problems, the better we shall all be pleased.
    8.24 pm
    Mr. Allen: The Opposition unreservedly welcome the concept behind the Bill, and are pleased that the channel tunnel rail link now appears to be on the way. However, the Government have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by overrunning their 1988–89 costings from the £1 billion estimated then, when we could have had the line, to what is now projected to be about £5.4 billion. That is quite a feat, even by the Government's standards. The eight-year delay has also cost an incredible amount.
    As I said, I welcome the concept. However, the light at the end of this tunnel for the Conservatives is the on-rushing train of a general election. It will thus be left to the Labour party to carry out the pledges and promises in the Bill, and we shall do that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  GEC Closure (Gorton)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful, on behalf of my constituents, that Madam Speaker has selected this subject for discussion. I should like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) with what I am about to say. He wished to be present for the discussion, but compelling circumstances have prevented him from being here.
  East Manchester, and my constituency in particular, used to be a national centre of heavy engineering. We had many famous names in Gorton, and one can still go to the railway museum in York and see the great engines that were manufactured there. But now my constituency is an industrial graveyard, and out of 634 constituencies in Great Britain, Gorton is 30th in terms of unemployment.
  We have almost double the national level of unemployment, and male unemployment, at 21.3 per cent., is more than twice the national average. In the Manchester area, we have lost 30,000 jobs in recent years, and now local unemployment is about to be increased as a result of a wanton action by GEC, which has decided to close down the Long and Crawford factory in Gorton road.
  Long and Crawford manufactures switchgear. It has a high reputation. GEC bought it in 1988, and the productive efforts of the work force resulted in a profitability that meant that, by 1993, GEC had recouped the money it had paid for the company. Now, having used that company and its dedicated and skilled work force for its own convenience, and having turned my constituents and those of my hon. Friends into industrial pawns, GEC intends to close the company. The death sentence will be carried out on 16 August.
  There is a work force of 234, and 127 are to be thrown on the scrap heap. The 107 remaining staff will be transferred to another site—which 107, it is not yet known. When they are transferred to the other site in Higher Openshaw, it will be at standards much inferior to those they now have, and on a much more precarious basis.
  The men who will lose their jobs—the 127—are, in theory, eligible for redundancy compensation of up to £20,000. However, the maximum redundancy compensation available will be £17,000, and the median compensation will be only £8,000—and that is for men who have 25 years' service. Even the largest sum would not be of much help to men with mortgages to pay and with children to feed and clothe—particularly as there is an extremely unpromising prospect of new employment.
  The closure notice that was distributed to the work force promised:
  "Assistance will be given to those affected in seeking alternative employment."
  What good will that be in an area with such high male unemployment? One hundred and seven men will be transferred—in the inelegant language of GEC, they will be relocated. While keeping their jobs will be better than nothing, they will not keep their present pay and conditions.
  664
  A notice issued by N. F. Collins, director and general manager, said:
  "All 'relocated' employees will relocate on GEC ALSTHOM T and D Long and Crawford Limited contracts of employment. Terms and Conditions of Employment will remain unchanged with the exception of those employees who are covered by the payment by results (PBR) scheme."
  The notice continued:
  "The Company proposes to remove the existing outdated PBR scheme and replace it with an improved basic rate, paid monthly, which will be more comparable with those elsewhere in the industry, thereby helping to ensure the long term viability of Long and Crawford."
  The "long term viability" of Long and Crawford means that the company is shutting down the Long and Crawford factory and transferring the name and some of the work to GEC at Higher Openshaw. The scheme is outdated simply because GEC has decided to scrap it—and for no other reason. What does this mumbo-jumbo mean? It is GEC doublespeak for an ultimatum to the transferred workers.
  Mr. Collins said in his notice that workers will be "invited" to agree to these changes. It means compel and force—they will have no choice. It is GEC doublespeak which means that the workers will be forced to agree to the changes.
  Ending the payment by results scheme will cut the wages of the men who will be lucky enough to be transferred by some £60 a week—that is a severe pay cut. Management will buy out the scheme for a lump sum, but will not compensate workers for the loss of their bonus scheme over much more than a 12-month period—particularly as, even if transferred, they will have no guarantee of job security. They are subject to blackmail.
  Another note was distributed to the work force. Under the heading "Co-operation", it stated:
  "The scheme is conditional on full co-operation which includes the working of such overtime as is both required and approved.
  Any instance of industrial action will result in the immediate withdrawal of the scheme."
  Co-operation is not a matter for agreement between the company and the work force—it is an ultimatum imposed on the work force by the management, including compulsory overtime if management so decides. The workers will have no power to defend themselves, because if they try to do so, the scheme will be scrapped.
  Apprentices will not be transferred as the sub-contract work at the new site will carry no apprenticeships with it. The skilled workers of the future will not be trained at the new site. What hope does that bring for Britain's industrial future if an area of high skill is not to train young people who can succeed and continue to do the work?
  I am informed that the same applies to inspection. Inspection standards are high at the present Long and Crawford site. At the new site—where the work will be sub-contract work—inspection may be little, inadequate or even non-existent. We are talking about extremely important matters, because both supply and safety are involved. Several hundred thousand switchgear units may have to be refurbished at any time.
  The work force have told me that a new product is coming, and that it will presumably be manufactured at the new site. I am informed that it will be developed only for the home market, and that potential export markets in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf oil states and South America are to be thrown away.
  As for the Gorton road site, the closure notice states:
  "The Gorton Road site will be decommissioned and sold for industrial development which should lead to the creation of some alternative jobs for the area."
  Again, that is GEC doublespeak. GEC has every intention of selling off the site and realising what money it can from getting rid of it—that is part of a classic asset-stripping operation.
  Talk of creating alternative jobs is meaningless at best and hypocritical at worst. Just what are these alternative jobs going to be in an area with such high unemployment? I have asked GEC this, and it has been unable to give me any information that is meaningful in any way. If a powerful combine such as GEC is destroying jobs, who will be able to come along and create the new jobs that it says are possible?
  I raised this matter at Question Time last week, and the President of the Board of Trade responded to my question. With respect, the President of the Board of Trade knew nothing of the matter—I do not criticise him for that, because I raised this matter as a supplementary question. However, in response to my question, the President of the Board of Trade immediately launched into a panegyric of praise for GEC. In Manchester, we know GEC all too well—we know it as a ruthless employer and as a company that has made a practice of shutting factories, sacking men and making money out of methodical asset-stripping.
  Long and Crawford is not the first closure that GEC has inflicted on people in the area, but I hope that it will be the last—but with GEC's record, one cannot be sure. From my encounters with the people at the very top of GEC, I know them as arrogant and uncaring. GEC is run on the basis of a quick turnover and fast profits at the expense of its workers and products. Unlike other companies that I can think of, the record of GEC is a telling explanation of the industrial decline of this country and the transformation of much of Manchester from a centre of excellence and innovation into its present state, with all too many closed factories, and all too many derelict sites.
  Manchester is a city of innovation and energy. Our people create things; we are the home of the computer; we have done things in Manchester that the rest of the country should envy. Nevertheless, because of the actions of GEC and companies like it, we have high unemployment, and the skills that my constituents would be only too happy to deploy are not used.
  What hope is there for these men when the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have said that there are signs that firms expect to shed labour in the coming months? Despite the response by the President of the Board of Trade last week—which I realise was an off-the-cuff response—I hope that the Minister of State who will reply to the debate will offer some hope to my constituents.
  We need not sympathy—we will provide our own sympathy in Manchester—but practical action, which we in Manchester would be happy to provide for ourselves if we had the opportunity to do so. My constituents, the people of Manchester, are proud, skilled and dedicated men, whose wish is to work for their country. They ask the Government to work for them so that they can work
  666
  for their country. As their voice in the House of Commons, I ask the Government to take action for them, for the city of Manchester and for Britain.
  8.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, with its obvious importance for his constituency and the surrounding area.
  Of course it is unfortunate for Gorton and the surrounding area that GEC Alsthom has decided to transfer its work from its Long and Crawford site in Gorton to Openshaw, but that does not mean that that was the wrong decision, or avoidable. From time to time, companies must make tough decisions of that type to ensure that they have a sound long-term future. Even in a healthy economy, jobs will inevitably be lost. The important thing is that more jobs are created to replace them.
  As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, GEC Alsthom has been hit by a drop in demand for its switchgear. Changes from oil to gas-based products and changes in technology that are vital to the company's international trading position have meant that only half as many people as previously are needed to produce its gas-insulated switchgear. As the right hon. Gentleman observed, the company has therefore decided that, in its judgment, relocating to another of its sites in Openshaw can help it to remain, in the overall sense, competitive.
  It would be commercial suicide to keep on high numbers of staff in industries where automation had reduced the demand for labour, and it would put businesses at the mercy of overseas competitors. Where efficiency savings from merging two parts of a company might be made, it would make no sense not to adjust staffing levels.
  My contention is that it is not for Government to seek to interfere with or second-guess commercial decisions of the type that have been described. If we tried in any way to force companies to keep unprofitable sites open, we would add intolerable burdens to their businesses and risk destroying jobs in the long term, as firms went out of business or chose to relocate overseas.
  However, having said that, and in reply to one of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman reasonably asked, agencies and services exist to help those who become redundant as a result of actions such as have been taken on this occasion, to try to ensure that everyone involved has the best chance of a speedy return to work. For example, the Employment Service and Manchester training and enterprise council have contacted GEC Alsthom to offer help.
  I am told that the company has appointed a firm of employment consultants to advise its workers on employment issues, and has pledged to do everything possible to support those who will lose their jobs in the reorganisation. Following discussions with the training and enterprise council, the affected workers will be given immediate access to the training for work programme and other adult training programmes.
  As part of that package, Manchester TEC also offers training grants to employers who are prepared to recruit and train those who have suffered from redundancies. The

  667
  TEC has been working with the Trafford Park development corporation to help local firms there recruit and upskill engineering workers to meet their current and anticipated labour needs.
  For those affected by a decision of the type that we are discussing, the prospects are not necessarily as gloomy as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest. We know that most spells of unemployment tend to be short. Of people who become unemployed, about half leave unemployment within three months, two thirds within six months and 80 per cent, within a year. If we add to that help of the type that I have described—from the Employment Service and its programmes, or the training and enterprise council, or the actions that I am told that the company is taking—there is good reason to believe that the people affected by such a decision can expect, directly or after retraining or other support, to find other work in the foreseeable future.
  I do not want in any sense to underestimate, or not to have regard to, the pain and problems that are caused to those affected and their families. That, I fear, is a common experience for those who lose their jobs, but I believe that it is much better to look on the more positive side of these matters and have regard to the measures that can be taken to help them.
  The overall picture in the Greater Manchester area is certainly more positive than that. To paraphrase, the right hon. Gentleman asked, "What hope is there for people who are thus affected in Gorton?" I wish to mention some examples, which are by no means a complete list.
  Nynex is creating 4, 500 jobs with a £1.1 billion investment in the north-west as a whole. Four hundred and twenty-five jobs are being created in Stockport with the Co-operative bank's new telephone banking centre. Three hundred jobs are being created in Warn with Omega Engineering. Six thousand short and long-term jobs are coming in the new £127 million Lowry centre in Salford.
  There will be two thousand jobs from a new concert hall next to the G-Mex centre, 1,000 new jobs in Cheadle with John Lewis and Sainsbury's, and 6,000 jobs in the new Trafford shopping centre. I could add to those the many thousands of jobs and inward investment that will result from Manchester hosting the 2002 Commonwealth games.
  The right hon. Gentleman is probably thinking, "But what relevance do these have to the people who have been affected at GEC Alsthom?" In the world we face today, as I said earlier, jobs may be lost and others may be created, and sometimes that will require people to be prepared to retrain or reskill or alter their career direction to take up opportunities like those that I have mentioned, which may at first glance not be immediately relevant to the people who have lost their jobs and to the skills that they have acquired.
  668
  There is a wider and general recognition that this is likely to be the pattern of the future; that people, perhaps regrettably, can no longer expect to do the same or a similar job throughout their working lives; that we must find ways to help people, by education, training, and support of different kinds, to make the career changes that may be necessary to give them better prospects for the future. Increasingly, that must be understood and accepted.
  We and our agencies want to do everything possible to help. Training programmes such as the training for work programme, work trials, jobfinders grants—at least for the long-term unemployed—and various job-finding measures that we have on offer, are the sort of things that may come to the rescue of those who find themselves out of work for a longer period.
  The new jobs that are coming along may not be the same as the old ones, and may not be in exactly the same location—they may not even require the same skills—but, with some flexibility and a preparedness to contemplate career changes and new directions, there is real hope for the people who have been affected by the changes that the right hon. Gentleman has described, and for others of his constituents. They should be prepared to consider changes in employment or perhaps be willing to travel some distance to work elsewhere.
  The lessons of other large-scale engineering redundancies in the Greater Manchester area suggest that those wishing to remain in engineering are often successful in finding work within a few weeks or months of being made redundant. As the right hon. Gentleman said, more than 100 of the 236 employees of Long and Crawford will be transferred to Openshaw. There is also a distinct possibility that some of the staff who have been served with redundancy notices may be redeployed elsewhere within the group.
  I cannot agree with many of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about GEC. I believe that we must exercise some good will on such occasions. Government agencies and the company must be willing to work together to try to maximise opportunities for the people involved and affected. By adopting a positive outlook and by working together co-operatively, we can help those who are affected by difficult decisions such as this.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is real hope for his constituents. The Government are always prepared to work with the company and with local authorities to try to maximise the opportunities available to those affected by redundancy. I am sure that Government agencies also will be prepared to listen and to offer positive assistance. Therefore, I hope that he will take from this brief debate a more hopeful and positive outlook. He may be assured that the Government, their agencies and all those involved will continue to work positively to assist his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Nine o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on refugees now living in that country; and what assistance is being made available for the welfare and health care of such refugees.[26308]

  Mr. Hanley
  Such topics are part of our normal ongoing bilateral discussions with the Government of Kenya. Our 1995–96 assistance to refugees in Kenya included £500,000 via the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and nearly £83,000 through Christian Aid and CARE.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25311]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding the manner in which the licensing authority handled the matter relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene.[26577]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a small number of letters from doctors and members of the public in relation to this matter.

SCOTLAND

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to publish the reports of his advisory group on sustainable development. [25839]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: My right hon. Friend expects to publish a report on progress in sustainable development in Scotland later this year which will include an outline of the activities of his advisory group on sustainable development. He has no plans to publish the advice he receives from the group.

  Forest Enterprise Agency
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that the environmental targets established for the Forest Enterprise agency will not be compromised by actions taken to meet financial objectives and targets; and if he will make a statement.[26208]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The framework document for the Forest Enterprise agency sets out its environmental, financial and other objectives. Progress will be monitored against the performance measures which are also listed in the framework document.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for encouraging the improvement of Britain's woodlands. [27106]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that the Forestry Commission will be giving support, under the woodland improvement grant, to two further projects aimed at improving Britain's woodlands.

  The woodland improvement grant was launched in 1995 as part of the woodland grant scheme. That first project is helping to provide for public access to woodlands and will run for a further two years. The woodland improvement grant will now also be available to improve the management of poor-quality woods and for work to enhance the biodiversity of woodlands.

  In the rural White Papers, we recognised the importance of bringing woods back into productive management. Now we can support landowners who wish to do restorative work in poor quality woodlands to return these areas to sustainable management. Many aspects of work will receive funding, including uneconomic felling, respacing, rhododendron control and protective work.

  Woodland improvement grant funds will also be available to help Britain's ancient semi-natural woodlands and to support work in woodlands to conserve rare species such as red squirrel, dormouse, capercaillie and various bats and butterflies. These are some of the most important habitats and threatened species identified in "Biodiversity, the UK Action Plan" which the Government published following on from the Rio and Helsinki conferences. We expect woodland improvement grant to grant aid work identified in agreed management plans, for example coppice management for rare butterflies and dormice, fence removal for capercaillie and the conservation of native woodlands in national parks and priority areas in Scotland.

  Within these two umbrella projects, we expect to see local partnerships develop which not only means that resources are used more effectively but allows such groups to come together and work towards one cause. Woodland improvement grant will normally fund around half the cost of the work but, subject to approval by the European Commission, we expect a number of local projects to be run as challenge funding where owners have the opportunity to compete for the available funds.

  Further information for those wishing to apply for these new grants is available from the Forestry Commission.

  Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1996–97. [27108]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  For the financial year 1996–97 I have set the following targets:

  Aerial surveillance—per cent. of hours flown on task: 85 per cent.

  Aerial surveillance—cost per aircraft sighting: £88

  Marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea: 2, 600

  Marine surveillance—cost per boarding: £2, 590

  —utilisation of effective patrol days: 96 per cent.

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate—cost per logsheet check: £64

  75 per cent. of cases for prosecution to be reported within six weeks of offence being detected and 90 per cent. within eight weeks

  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities: 75 per cent.

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash releasing efficiency gains of 2 per cent. during 1996–97.

  The chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's annual report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Royal Observatories
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the report of the review of the Royal Observatories; and if he will make a statement. [26724]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have received the report of the review steering committee chaired by Professor Ian Halliday of the university of Wales, Swansea. Its central recommendation is that the management of United Kingdom telescopes and the delivery of the instrumentation programme currently provided by the Royal Observatories should be subject to competitive tendering by all competent suppliers. I have accepted in full the review's conclusions and recommendations, which have been endorsed by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. I have asked PPARC to take forward implementation of the recommendations. I have today published the review steering committee's advice to me and have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufacturing exports for each year since 1979(a) by volume and (b) by value. [24781]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The data requested is set out in the table, based on estimates derived from OECD data.
  220

  UK value and volume shares of world exports of manufactured goods 1979–94

  Year

  Volume share Per cent.

  Value share Per cent.

  1979

  6.9

  6.7

  1980

  6.7

  7.1

  1981

  6.1

  6.2

  1982

  6.2

  6.1

  1983

  5.9

  5.6

  1984

  5.8

  5.3

  1985

  5.9

  5.5

  1986

  5.9

  5.4

  1987

  6.0

  5.6

  1988

  5.8

  5.7

  1989

  5.8

  5.6

  1990

  6.0

  5.9

  1991

  5.8

  5.8

  1992

  5.7

  5.6

  1993

  5.5

  5.3

  1994

  5.5

  5.4

  Departmental Code of Practice
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what codes of practice operate in his Department to ensure that(a) individuals advising on financial assistance to companies and (b) those assenting to company applications on the DTI board do not themselves financially benefit from their decisions as, or subsequently to become, (i) directors and (ii) trading partners of the beneficiary companies; and if he will make a statement. [25301]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]: The civil service code states that civil servants should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others. This general principle applies to full, part-time or fee-paid employment in business or other bodies outside the civil service or the establishment of a consultancy within two years of leaving crown employment. With regard to external advisers to the Department, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 April 1996, Official Report, columns 313-14. Appointments to the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the regional industrial development boards are made in accordance with the Cabinet Office's guide to public appointments procedures which covers potential conflicts of interest. Registers of members' interests are also held. In this connection also, the Department is implementing the recommendations on regional industrial development boards referred to in its note on the collapse of ROM-Data, laid before Parliament in February.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Boards of Trade how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25952]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995, departmental records show that 13 appointments to nine separate public bodies were made from names supplied by the public appointments unit. A list of the appointments is as follows.

  221

  Copyright Tribunal

  Mrs. Dawn Baker

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  Mr. Richard Prosser

  Nuclear Electric Plc

  Mr. Patrick Macdougall

  Professor Roger Perry

  Coal Authority

  Mr. John Cunliffe

  Mr. Roy Lynk OBE

  Mr. Tom Slee

  National Consumer Council

  Mr. David Hatch, CBE JP

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Mr. Richard Thomas, MBE

  Gas Consumers' Council

  Ms Jenny Kirkpatrick

  Link Board

  Mrs. Susan Bird

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  Dr. Geoffrey Robinson

  Dr. Carole Jordan.

  Nickel Dust
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of nickel dust will be released by combustion for the purposes of electricity generation; and if the figure exceeds the action levels determined by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in 1995. [25627]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: The vast majority of UK electricity generation arising from fossil fuels is based on coal or natural gas combustion. Nickel features as a trace element in coal, with a typical concentration of 20 ppm covering a range from 0.5 to 50 ppm, and is also present in fuel oil.

  Nickel compounds, along with other trace elements which are released to air during electricity production, are generally associated with particulates. These are captured by particulate removal devices which, in large coal-fired generating plants, exhibit a typical removal efficiency greater than 99 per cent. Emission levels of nickel compounds arising from the combustion of fuel in power stations are not identified separately. Controls on these substances are applied indirectly through the regulation of particulate releases and there is little routine monitoring of such trace elements or reliable estimates of their release in the UK.

  Preliminary estimates provided by the power generators to the Environment Agency indicate that release rates are in the range 9x10-3 to 4x10-2 grams per second—g/s—for coal-fired stations and to 3 to 5 g/s for oil-fired stations. These levels are greater than the "significant release rate" of 8x10-3 g/s proposed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in 1995. The "significant release rate" provides guidance to operators on the level of release above which the substance should be considered in any environmental assessment submitted as part of an application for authorisation under integrated pollution control. The "significant release rate" supersedes but performs the same function as the "Action Level" proposed by HMIP in a consultation guidance document on best practical
  222
  environmental option—BPEO—assessment procedures in April 1994. Under typical operating conditions, releases of this magnitude might be expected to result in ambient air concentrations which are less than 2 per cent. of the environmental assessment level for nickel as an annual average.

  In view of the preliminary nature of these estimates, the Environment Agency has asked the major operators to provide a written response by 1 October 1996 to demonstrate how reliable annual estimates are to be provided for a number of trace substances, including nickel compounds.

  Inward Investment (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 137, how many inward investment strategies for Merseyside have been produced by his Department since 1985. [26504]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No inward investment strategies for Merseyside have been developed since 1985, although a strategy is currently being developed with local partners.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 137, when he expects an inward investment strategy for Merseyside to be completed; and if he will publish that strategy.[26505]

  Mr. Taylor
  An outline strategy has been prepared involving all the relevant local agencies on Merseyside. It is set within the framework for inward investment support provided by the objective 1 single programming document. A decision on whether and when to publish the strategy will be taken by local partners in due course.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the objectives of process re-engineering as applied to the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement. [26616]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The objective of process re-engineering is the more effective delivery of services. That is also the criterion by which any specific proposals are judged.

  Single Market Programme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many pieces of legislation have been enacted to implement the single market programme(a) in the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) in the United Kingdom affecting firms with fewer than 100 employees and (c) in each other EU country (i) as a whole and (ii) affecting firms with fewer than 100 employees. [26040]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: A table showing the number of measures in the Commission's 1985 White Paper on the single market transposed into national law by each member state as at December 1995 follows. The Department does not monitor the number of pieces of national legislation necessary to transpose the directives. The measures contained in the White Paper aim to benefit business generally and apply to all companies.
  223

  State of Implementation of the White Paper Measures 276 provisions in force/222 reqiring national implementing measures Breakdown of situation by Member State1

  (31 December 1995)

  Measures notified

  Not applicable

  Derogations

  Measures not notified

  Partial notification

  Infringement for non-conformity

  DK

  217

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  NL

  214

  2

  0

  5

  0

  1

  E

  211

  1

  2

  4

  1

  3

  S

  203

  4

  7

  7

  1

  0

  L

  207

  6

  0

  9

  0

  0

  P

  207

  3

  3

  7

  0

  2

  UK

  210

  2

  0

  3

  4

  3

  F

  209

  1

  0

  7

  3

  2

  FIN

  193

  6

  4

  10

  9

  0

  B

  200

  2

  0

  11

  2

  7

  I

  198

  4

  0

  15

  2

  3

  IRL

  198

  4

  0

  16

  2

  2

  EL

  193

  3

  3

  21

  1

  1

  D

  194

  3

  0

  11

  4

  10

  A

  184

  3

  7

  18

  10

  0

  1 The situation regarding transposition in the new Member States is being reviewed in the light of bilateral meetings in early 1996.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26110]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: This information is being collated by the Department and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26146]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: This information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Coalfield Communities (Recreational Sites)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the discussions between his Department and British Coal in regard to the retention and safeguarding of recreational sites in coalfield communities to be included; and if he will make it his policy that the future of these sites be safeguarded. [26354]

  Mr. Page
  The Government's objective remains that British Coal land in active use for sport and recreation will be retained for those purposes. Discussions continue with British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation as to how this can best be achieved. Those discussions will be concluded as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Works of Art
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost to public funds of the three paintings depicting the Army in Bosnia; [20840]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures used within his Department to authorise the purchase of works of art with public funds; [20839]
  224
  (3) for what purposes his Department buy works of art; [20841]

  (4) how many works of art have been purchased by his Department since 1979 using public funds. [20838]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Works of art are purchased to enhance the working environment or to represent an aspect of the history of the Department. The three paintings representing events in Bosnia were purchased for the departmental art collection in January 1995 at a cost of £6,556.50, including VAT. The purchase was made because it was considered that the collection should include paintings depicting the Army's important contribution in Bosnia.

  Approval was given in the normal way within the civilian management area which is responsible for works of art. It complied with normal budgetary and accounting procedures.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the value of the equipment to be placed on the new type 23 frigates. [25780]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated value of the major combat systems, including the command system, for the new type 23 frigates is about £115 million.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters his Department currently possesses; how many of these are currently up for sale; and how many are currently unoccupied. [25778]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As at 31 December 1995—the latest date for which figures are available—the married quarters stock of the Ministry of Defence numbered 71,016. Of these, 14,396 were unoccupied. Those currently available for sale include 58,371 in England and Wales offered in the sale of the married quarters estate and approximately 4,000 other surplus properties being disposed of by the MOD directly.
  225
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bids for the married quarters estate are(a) for the whole estate and (b) for selected parts. [25918]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All the indicative bids for the married quarters estate are for the whole of the estate for sale.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of housing(a) are currently being sold from the married quarters estate and (b) are the subject of sale negotiations. [25919]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We intend to transfer ownership of the majority of the married quarters estate in England and Wales to the private sector. In addition, 3,322 quarters are currently in the process of disposal, separately from the overall sale of the estate.

  Admiralty Arch Residence
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he moved into a residence in Admiralty Arch; for how long he plans to retain the residence; how many rooms it possesses; if he is paying rent on it; and if he will make a statement. [25777]

  Mr. Portillo
  Like a number of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Defence, I obtained the Prime Minister's permission to use one of the three flats in Admiralty house which are within his gift. I have used the flat since August 1995, including for overnight accommodation between October 1995 and March 1996. In accordance with long-standing practice, the ministry of Defence makes a payment to the landlord—since 1 April 1996, the Cabinet Office—for its rent and maintenance costs. Council tax on the flat is paid direct to the City of Westminster. The flat has up to three bedrooms.

  Defence Estates Organisation
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Defence agency for the Defence Estates Organisation. [27292]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Estate Organisation was formed on 1 April 1995 from the Defence works service, Defence lands service and a central secretariat branch. The DEO provides a strategic overview of the defence estate and professional support to MOD budget holders and United States visiting forces for the management of the estate, including the contract provision of works services, maintenance of the rural estate, advice on planning issues and the disposal of surplus property. The organisation will now be considered for Defence agency status under the next steps procedures. The first stage of this process is a "prior options" study. This study will consider whether the work that the DEO does should be abolished, privatised or contractorised. An entry inviting comments from interested parties will appear tomorrow in the May 1996 edition of the "Government Opportunities Bulletin".

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26721]
  226
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is currently considering a licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency. We are awaiting a reply to correspondence sent to the agency.

  Phoenix Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning current progress on the Phoenix unmanned surveillance aircraft; when he plans to make an announcement concerning its future; and what is the current estimated cost of the project. [25799]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Phoenix prime contractor, GEC-Marconi Avionics, has recently completed, at its own expense, the agreed programme of work described by my predecessor on 5 April 1995—Official Report, columns 1139-40. The results are now being assessed, and I hope to make an announcement about the future of the project before the summer recess. The estimated cost of procuring the system is £227 million at 1994–95 price levels.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Assessments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 25 March,Official Report, columns 434-35, what evidence she has evaluated which shows that performance of a school pupil in respect of subjects and grades achieved in any public examination at the age of 16-plus years can be predicted on the basis of assessment made at the age of 11-plus years. [25852]

  Mr. Paice
  The school year 1999–2000 will be the first year when it will be possible to compare pupils' 1995 key stage 2 national curriculum assessment results at age 11 with the same pupils' public examination results at age 16.

  The majority of existing local schemes that I am aware of use GCSE examination results in any measurement of value added at secondary level. Measurement with other results, such as vocational qualifications, is made more difficult because the nature of the qualifications aimed for are often not directly comparable with the previous academic attainments of the pupils concerned.

  Teaching Agencies
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she published draft codes of conduct to regulate the activities of agencies supplying teachers for schools; and when she intends to publish a definitive code. [26768]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A draft circular giving advice to schools on the recruitment of supply teachers, and guidance notes for employment agencies, were sent to consultees on 17 November 1995. A wide range of comments has been received and is still under consideration. We plan to issue the final guidance later this term.

  Incapacity for Work
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who have been found incapable of work since April 1995 have signed on as unemployed and receive(a) income support, (b) unemployment benefit, (c) both unemployment benefit and income support and (d) credits only; and how many people have joined the unemployment register as a result of being found capable of work or disallowed incapacity benefit, income support or severe disablement allowance. [26819]

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

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about how many people who have been found incapable of work since April 1995 have signed on as unemployed and what benefits they have received; and how many people have joined the unemployment register as a result of being found capable of work or disallowed Incapacity Benefit, Income Support or Severe Disablement Allowance.
  In answer to the first part of your question, people found incapable of work following the All Work Test can continue to receive Incapacity Benefit (IB) and would not therefore need to claim unemployment benefits.
  You also ask how many people have joined the unemployment register as a result of being found capable of work or disallowed IB. In the period April 1995 to March 1996 40,257 people disallowed IB following the All Work Test made a claim for unemployment benefits and thereby registered for employment. No figures are held for those who have joined the unemployment register, who previously claimed Income Support or Severe Disablement Allowance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress her Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26720]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has been in correspondence with the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd. and is awaiting a proposal directed at the Department for Education and Employment.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessments she has made of the performance of jobcentres in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough measured against charter standards in the last 12 months; [26611]

  (2) how many complaints were received about the services provided by jobcentres in (a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough during the last 12 months; and what were the equivalent figures for the previous (i) 12, (ii) 24 and (iii) 36 months. [26612]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  228
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the performance of Jobcentres in Doncaster and Mexborough in the last 12 months measured against Charter standards, and about the number of complaints received about the services provided by the above Jobcentres.
  Jobseeker's Charter standards are monitored throughout the Employment Service. The standards are agreed by the Citizens Charter Unit and Number 10 Policy Unit. The following standards can be expected by jobseekers under the Jobseeker's Charter:
  jobseekers should be seen on time if they have an appointment, if not they should be seen within 10 minutes of offered an appointment;
  telephone calls should be answered within 30 seconds;
  letters should be responded to within five days, jobseekers's questions should be answered in clear, plain language;
  vacancies on display should be up to date and available; and
  benefit payments should be for the right amount of money and on time.
  Table 1 and 2 attached show the standards achieved for the periods you requested in the Employment Service (ES) Districts in which Doncaster and Mexborough are located. Analysis would indicate that the standards, particularly on client waiting times, are lower in the Doncaster ES District compared to Barnsley and the Dearne. The main factor affecting the service to the public during the period was the introduction of a pilot system known as the Labour Market System (LMS). LMS is a computer based system designed to support the ES frontline, job-broking and client advisory processes. As with any major innovation of this size there have been a number of system and organisational problems to resolve. I am pleased to report that the majority of teething problems have been overcome and we are now starting to see real improvements for our clients. You will be interested to note that following the successful pilot of LMS in the Doncaster ES District a decision was taken to rollout LMS in all Jobcentre locations.
  As part of the Jobseeker's Charter we obtain feedback from our clients on the quality of our services. A formal suggestions and complaints system is in place at Jobseekers to monitor this. Table 3 shows the volume of complaints received by Doncaster and Mexborough offices. Suggestions by clients and employers are regularly monitored and where possible improvements are made to our services. For example, improved Back To Work Teams (BTWTs) are currently being introduced into Jobcentres following the 1995 local customer satisfaction surveys. BTWTs are groups of ES people who provide the full range of ES programmes and services to specific groups of clients. The teams can offer a continuity of service to clients, as well as ensuring all eligibility conditions for receipt of benefit are satisfied.
  In addition to the above quarterly monitoring of standards, information is gathered via local and national customer satisfaction surveys. The last local customer satisfaction survey in Mexborough was carried out in the two weeks commencing 18 March 1995 (published July 1995). Offices within the Doncaster ES District were excluded from the 1995 survey because of the LMS pilot. You will be interested to note that a survey of customer satisfaction within the Doncaster Jobcentres took place two weeks ago although the results are yet to be published and analysed.
  Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact my District Managers. Terry Allen is District Manager for Doncaster District and he can be contacted on Tel: (01302) 552101, and Paul Armstrong is District Manager for Barnsley and the Dearne—which covers Mexborough—and can be contacted on Tel: (01226) 263000.
  I hope this is helpful.
  229

  Table 1: Standards of service by Barnsley and the Dearne Employment Service District under the jobseeker's charter Barnsley and the Dearne Employment Service District comprises the Jobcentres in Barnsley, Goldthorpe, Hoyland, Mexborough and Wombwell.

  Percentage

  Quarter ending

  Waiting times (Seen within 10 minutes)

  Answering telephone (within 30 seconds)

  Reply to letters (within 5 working days)

  Up to date vacancies

  First payment within 13 days1

  Accuracy of payment by value2

  March 1996

  86

  97.3

  100

  96.6

  74.3

  398.4

  December 1995

  97.1

  96.9

  100

  95.2

  82.8

  498.1

  September 1995

  100

  99

  100

  95

  75.6

  597.7

  June 1995

  100

  98

  99

  96

  77.3

  699.4

  1 This indicator is compiled monthly and the figures for the month highlighted have been given.

  2 For this indicator the quarterly return dates differ.

  3 5.1.96.

  4 6.10.95.

  5 7.7.95.

  6 7.4.95.

  Table 2: Standards of Service by Doncaster Employment Service District under the Jobseeker's Charter Doncaster Employment Service District comprises the East Laith Gate, Queensgate Corner, Queensgate House, and Trafford Way Jobcentres in Doncaster and Thorne Jobcentre

  Percentage

  Quarter ending

  Waiting times (seen within 10 minutes)

  Answering telephone (with 30 seconds

  Reply to letters (within 5 working days)

  Up to date vacancies

  First payment within 12 day1

  Accuracy of payment by value2

  March 1996

  82

  100

  87.5

  91.1

  74.5

  396.8

  December 1995

  80.8

  100

  100

  89.7

  77.8

  498.2

  September 1995

  86.6

  100

  100

  83.9

  70.8

  592.5

  June 1995

  92.6

  100

  85.8

  82.7

  70.8

  697.0

  1 This indicator is compiled monthly and the figures for the month highlighted have been given.

  2 For this indicator the quarterly return dates differ.

  3 5.1.96.

  4 6.10.95.

  5 7.7.95.

  6 7.4.95.

  Table 3: Complaints received under the jobseeker's charter

  Number of complains received by Mexborough jobcentre

  Number of complains received by Doncaster jobcentres (excluding Thorne)

  Year ending March 1996

  7

  33

  Year ending March 1995

  2

  45

  Year ending March 1994

  0 (Records not available until quarter ending December 1993)

  Records not available

  Year ending March 19931

  Records not available

  Records not available

  1 Under the Jobseeker's Charter, there are no national guidelines on the length of time completed documents are retained and it is at the discretion of the District Manager as to how long information are kept on file.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he has made to ensure that disabled people who wish to defend themselves without drawing upon the services of a solicitor and barrister, are able to do so in bankruptcy proceedings before the High Court; and if he will make a statement. [26801]
  230
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns as 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. Harry Barnes, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the ability of disabled people to defend bankruptcy proceedings in person.
  Under the Rules of the Supreme Court, any person under a mental disability may not defend proceedings themselves but must act through a next friend or guardian ad litem. The Rules also provide that a next friend must act by a solicitor. Physically disabled people are, of course, free to defend themselves in all proceedings, including bankruptcy.
  The Royal Courts of Justice has made a number of improvements to disabled access to its buildings over the last four years. Bankruptcy proceedings normally take place in the Thomas More Building. This is the most modern part of the complex and there is wheelchair access to all floors. Facilities are also available for the hard of hearing to have access to a hearing enhancement system. Blind court users are assisted through Braille indicators at strategic locations in the building, such as next to lift buttons, and space is also provided in courts and chambers should they wish to use Braille machines for transcription.
  There is also a Customer Service Officer in the Royal Courts of Justice who is permanently on hand to help with any problems that a disabled person may have.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the magistrates courts covering the Greater London area. [25577]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are presently 50 magistrates courts in the Greater London area. They are:

  Area

  Inner London

  (These courts deal with mainly adult business)

  Board of Green Cloth Verge of the Palaces (Special Jurisdiction: Gaming and Licensing)

  SW1

  Belmarsh

  SE28

  Bow Street

  WC2

  Camberwell Green

  SE5

  City of London

  EC4

  Clerkenwell

  WC1

  Greenwich

  SE10

  Hampstead

  NW3

  Highbury Corner

  N7

  Horseferry Road

  SW1

  Marlborough Street

  W1A

  Marylebone

  NW1

  Old Street

  EC1

  South Western

  SW11

  Thames

  E3

  Tower Bridge

  SE1

  Walton Street

  SW3

  West London

  W14

  Wells Street

  W1

  Woolwich

  SE18

  Outer London

  Acton

  W3

  Barking

  IG11

  Barnet

  EN5

  Bexley

  DA6

  Brent

  NW10

  Brentford

  TW8

  Bromley

  BR1

  Croydon

  CR9

  Ealing

  W13

  Enfield

  N17

  Feltham

  TW13

  Haringey

  N6

  Harrow

  HAl

  Havering

  RM1

  Hendon

  NW9

  Kingston upon Thames

  KTI

  Redbridge

  IG6

  Richmond upon Thames

  TW9

  Stratford

  E15

  Sutton

  SM6

  Uxbridge

  UB8

  Waltham Forest

  E17

  Wimbledon

  SW19

  Youth and family courts

  Camden and Islington

  N7

  City, Hackney and Tower Hamlets

  E3

  Greenwich

  SE10

  Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea

  W1

  Lambeth and Wandsworth

  SW17

  Lewisham and Southwark

  SE5

  Family court

  Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and

  Westminster

  NW1

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bahrain
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bahrain about human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [25836]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding reply 23 April 1996]: Bahrain is a friend and ally. We have followed recent developments there closely and have been concerned at the recent violence. We are aware of allegations of human rights abuses, and will speak to the Bahraini Government about them.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when Mr. Ghafoor Ahmed, born 1 January 1972 is to be interviewed at the post in Islamabad in connection with his application to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [26805]

  (2) when the explanatory statement into the refusal to grant entry clearance to Mr. Sajid Mahmood, (Ref. IMM/B9871) is to be (a) completed at the post in Islamabad and (b) despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in London; and if he will make a statement; [26803]

  (3) when the explanatory statement into the refusal to grant entry clearance to Mr. Mohammed Usman, (Ref. IMM/C6876) is to be (a) completed at the post in Islamabad and (b) despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in London; and if he will make a statement; [26804]

  (4) when a decision is to be taken on the application by Mrs. Salim Bibi (Ref: LB A/1081/95 and B548471) made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [26777]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the copyright licensing agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26715]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Discussions between ourselves and the Copyright Licensing Agency are continuing. An issue of particular concern which remains to be resolved is whether CLA's jurisdiction extends to posts overseas. An agreement with CLA is not necessary to comply with United Kingdom copyright legislation.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd. to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26713]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has been approached by Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd. and is considering the terms of the photocopying licence proposed by the agency.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if the Commission has appointed new auditors for the National Audit Office. [27162]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  Yes. The Commission has appointed the firm of Robson Rhodes. The appointment will be for a fixed term of three years from 1 April 1996. The appointment is renewable for a further two years at the discretion of the Commission.

TREASURY

  Capital Gains and Transfer Taxes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the total receipts form(a) capital gains tax and (b) capital transfer tax for the last five financial years for which figures are available. [22992]

  Mr. Michael Jack
  The information requested is given in the table which follows. Inheritance tax replaced capital transfer tax in 1996.

  £ million

  Capital gains tax1

  Inheritance tax

  1990–91

  1,852

  1,262

  1991–92

  1,140

  1,299

  1992–93

  982

  1,211

  1993–94

  710

  1,333

  1994–95

  925

  1,411

  1995–96 (provisional estimate)

  800

  1,550

  1 Capital gains made by companies, including the gains of insurance companies attributable to policy holders, are chargeable to corporation tax and excluded from, the figures above.

  Self-assessment (Self-employed)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the income tax yield form the self-employed for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 which will result from the change in the basis period of account under self-assessment. [26189]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 9 February, Official Report, column 388,
  234
  just over £700 million of the yield in 1998–99 from self-assessment, as shown in the table 5.2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", relates to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions on the profits of trades, professions and vocations. The equivalent figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are a yield of about £50 million and a cost of about £100 million respectively.

  These estimates are particularly sensitive to assumptions about growth in income from these sources.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the full-year yield of restricting income tax relief at each marginal rate; [24926]

  (2) if he will estimate the full-year yield from limiting (a) all tax reliefs claimed at the marginal rate and (b) the personal allowance to relief at (1) the basic rate and (2) the 20 per cent. rage giving in each case the number of taxpayers affected; [24934]

  (3) what was the cost of tax relief for the most recent year available for deductions and reliefs listed under each of the reference numbers 303 to 317 on form X of the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes. [24931]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full year yields at 1996–97 income levels for personal allowances, pension contribution and other reliefs are as follows. These are based on readily available information from a projection of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes and other survey data projected in line with assumptions in the Budget forecast. The figures do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes. If all allowances and reliefs were restricted the total yield would be greater than the sum of the individual figures.

  Restriction to

  Basic rate

  20 per cent.

  Effect of restricting

  £ million

  Numbers affected £ million

  £ million

  Numbers affected million

  Personal allowances

  1,600

  3.3

  5,000

  25.2

  Relief for pension contributions

  790

  2.0

  1,350

  11.7

  Other reliefs

  190

  0.8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a—not available.

  Latest estimates of the costs of deductions and reliefs from information collected in the SPI are included in tables 1.6 and B1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995". In some cases the SPI, which is based on administrative date, provides only some of the required information about a relief and other data sources are also used.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25953]
  235
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: During 1994–95, there were 14 appointments from names supplied by the public appointments unit to bodies listed under HM Treasury in "Public Bodies":

  Name

  Public body

  Mr. W. D. Walker, OBE

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Mr. I. L. Rushton

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Mr. M. C. Mowat

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Mr. I. N. Mokhtar

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Ms M. S. Lai

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Mr. R. G. Burnett

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Ms M. E. Black

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Ms Ruth Lea

  Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Mrs. Sheila Gleig

  Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Mr. David Penton

  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body

  Mrs. Elizabeth Drummond

  Schoolteachers' Review Body

  Mr. Guy Neely

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  Mrs. Yve Newbold

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Mrs. Rosemary Day

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Conceptions (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conceptions occurred in each of the last five years for which figures are available in the Doncaster health authority.[26644]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The figures requested are shown in the table. They cover conceptions which led to maternities or to abortion under the 1967 Abortions Act. No information is available centrally about conceptions terminated by spontaneous miscarriages or illegal abortions.

  Conceptions recorded for Doncaster Health Authority

  Year

  Thousands

  1989

  5.1

  1990

  5.1

  1991

  5.0

  1992

  4.9

  1993

  4.7

ENVIRONMENT

  Human Organs (Disposal)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 169, if human organs subsequent to pathological examination should be classified as waste, and upon disposal require the completion of waste transfer notes under the duty of care regulations. [25776]

  Mr. Clappison
  The issues which need to be addressed in the circumstances described by the hon. Member are those which I set out in my answer of 2 April 1996,Official Report, column 169.
  236
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what organs or body parts of (i) Ronnie Kray and (ii) Frederick West(a) should have been, according to his Department's guidance, and (b) were recorded on a duty of care waste transfer note; and if he will make a statement. [25853]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is the responsibility of the producer or the person in possession of a substance to decide whether it is waste and, if so, to take the necessary action in relation to that waste. It is the responsibility of the person transferring controlled waste, and the person to whom such waste is being transferred, to take the action in relation to transfer notes which is required by the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. The Department does not have a right of access to records kept under the 1991 regulations.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if human corpses are classified as waste; and if human corpses are subject to duty of care work transfer notes as controlled waste. [25775]

  Mr. Clappison
  The burial and cremation of human corpses are outside the scope of legislation on waste.

  Battle of Trafalgar Bicentenary
  Mr. Spellar
  To the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations his Department is making for the commemoration of the bicentenary of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department will consider any plans for commemorating this event in October 2005 a little nearer the time.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [16170]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies attracted over £4.5 billion in private investment in support of its programmes in 1994–95 and anticipates a similar outturn in 1995–96. Forecasts for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are for about £6 billion in private investment to be generated. The level of capital expenditure by the private sector on the Department's recently announced private finance initiative projects is forecast to be £0 million in 1995–96, £25 million 1996–97 and £47 million 1997–98.

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of the National Physical Laboratory monitoring of plume grounding at Castle Cement were sent to Lancashire county council; and for what reasons no request was made for observations or comments. [26007]
  237
  Mr. Clappison
  A copy of the National Physical Laboratory monitoring report was sent as received, for information, to the chief executive of Lancashire county council on the 23 January 1996.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the date when the Government will publish their response to the second report of the Environment Committee on "The Burning of Secondary Liquid Fuel in Cement Kilns", HC 497 of Session 1994–95. [26099]

  Mr. Clappison
  Our current estimate is that the response will be published by the end of May 1996.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of potential conflicts of interest arising from the appointment of a director of Ready Mix Concrete as a director of the Environment Agency in respect of decisions on the circumstances in which cement companies should be permitted to burn hazardous waste in cement kilns. [26100]

  Mr. Clappison
  Careful consideration was given to potential conflicts of interest presented by appointments to the agency board, including the appointment of a director of Ready Mixed Concrete. Appropriate arrangements exist for such conflicts to the be declared, and for board members to withdraw from discussions or decisions likely to affect those interests.

  Employment Department

  Expenditure outturn

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  1993–94

  Training for work fees

  39.5

  38.5

  23.9

  47.5

  44.3

  36.7

  23.4

  28.6

  27.6

  59.6

  Youth programmes

  60.8

  74.7

  47.0

  80.1

  74.9

  57.6

  56.7

  55.6

  64.0

  58.4

  1994–95

  Employer Investment in People (£ million)

  4.2

  7.5

  2.4

  5.9

  5.8

  6.4

  5.0

  6.0

  7.2

  10.7

  Childcare Grants (£ million)

  0.8

  1.2

  0.4

  1.3

  1.2

  1.0

  0.9

  1.1

  1.6

  1.6

  Training for Work Fees (£ million)

  35.6

  36.6

  18.4

  43.6

  34.7

  34.4

  22.0

  25.9

  24.6

  54.7

  Youth Programmes (£ million)

  55.8

  91.3

  33.2

  71.9

  72.8

  60.5

  60.5

  53.1

  77.6

  60.4

  WRFE (£ million)

  5.0

  13.1

  3.8

  14.6

  11.9

  8.5

  10.2

  10.3

  15.7

  18.5

  Skill Choice (£ million)

  1.7

  1.0

  0.6

  n/a

  1.7

  1.3

  3.6

  1.0

  0.6

  0.6

  Workstart (£ thousand)

  376.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24.0

  —

  —

  Learning for Work (£ million)

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.7

  0.8

  Technical Vocational Education Initiative (£ million)

  2.6

  11.2

  4.5

  11.3

  4.6

  9.2

  5.3

  9.5

  9.5

  14.3

  Careers Service—Contracted (£ million)

  3.0

  4.5

  n/a

  2.8

  10.3

  3.3

  2.5

  5.7

  3.0

  n/a

  Careers Service—Directed (£ million)

  6.7

  13.1

  5.9

  13.7

  9.7

  8.4

  12.0

  8.6

  16.7

  22.2

  Employment Department/Department for Education and Employment: 1995–96

  Expenditure outturn

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  Employer Investment in People (£ million)

  3.9

  7.8

  2.1

  5.2

  6.4

  5.9

  4.6

  4.0

  6.0

  10.2

  Skills for Small Businesses (£ million)

  0.4

  0.8

  0.2

  0.6

  0.8

  0.5

  0.8

  0.5

  0.6

  1.1

  Childcare Grants (£ million)

  1.0

  1.9

  0.5

  1.8

  2.0

  1.4

  1.9

  1.7

  2.5

  2.2

  238
  These arrangements are set out in schedule 1 to the Environment Act 1995, and in the Environment Agency's own internal guidance for board members. The latter requires details of interests to be held on a register which will be available for public inspection.

  Appointees to boards, such as the Environment Agency, are people with a track record of success in their chosen fields, who are likely to have a variety of outside commitments and interests. It would be wrong to exclude such people from public appointments as their skills and experience are essential to the board's success.

  Regional Offices
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his Department's responsibilities on which the integrated regional offices are required to advise him on the allocation of resources. [25934]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government offices for the regions are required to provide advice to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the allocation of resources for the housing investment programme, housing partnership fund, flats over shops programme, cash incentive scheme, the single regeneration budget challenge fund and the European regional development fund.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the annual expenditure for each integrated regional office on each programme in each of the last three years. [25933]

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:
  239

  Employment Department/Department for Education and Employment: 1995–96

  Expenditure outturn

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  Training for Work Fees (£ million)

  28.7

  30.9

  16.6

  36.0

  33.6

  24.9

  18.5

  21.4

  21.8

  43.2

  Youth Training and Modern Apprenticeships (£ million)

  54.7

  94.1

  29.1

  74.0

  70.6

  60.7

  56.4

  53.3

  78.3

  59.7

  Accelerated Modern Apprenticeships (£ thousand)

  14.0

  2.0

  0.0

  20.0

  9.0

  8.0

  6.0

  3.0

  0.0

  2.0

  Work Experience (£ million)

  0.4

  0.4

  0.1

  0.3

  0.7

  0.3

  0.6

  0.4

  1.1

  0.4

  FECDF (£ million)

  1.7

  3.9

  1.0

  3.2

  3.9

  2.3

  3.0

  2.9

  4.5

  4.3

  Adult Information and Guidance (£ thousand)

  552.6

  403.8

  242.8

  926.5

  361.3

  0.0

  308.8

  61.6

  70.0

  426.0

  Skill Choice (£ thousand)

  246.7

  87.5

  76.6

  0.0

  79.4

  10.6

  600.3

  43.8

  63.8

  58.5

  Workstart (£ thousand)

  70.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jobmatch (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  Technical Vocational Education Initiative (£ million)

  1.1

  7.1

  3.9

  10.7

  1.9

  5.4

  1.3

  4.6

  1.8

  13.2

  Careers Libraries (£ thousand)

  82.2

  208.5

  45.9

  183.1

  167.1

  160.0

  193.2

  149.3

  257.0

  191.7

  Careers Guidance (£ million)

  0.0

  1.1

  1.2

  1.4

  1.3

  0.5

  1.1

  0.5

  2.6

  4.8

  Careers Service—Contracted (£ million)

  12.2

  17.7

  0.8

  15.2

  16.4

  13.8

  16.5

  16.5

  16.0

  0.3

  Careers Service—Directed (£ million)

  0.6

  6.1

  5.3

  6.6

  5.5

  2.4

  4.7

  2.4

  11.3

  21.7

  1. The tables identify the former Employment Department and DFEE programmes in whose administration and delivery Government Offices are involved. The programmes are mainly delivered through Training and Enterprise Councils, Local Education Authorities and Careers Services, under contract to the Department.

  2. The table for 1993–94 refers to programme expenditure by Employment Department Regional Offices, whose boundaries are in some instances different from those of Government Offices for the Regions, which were formed in April 1994. Breakdowns of all programme spend for 1993–94 are not available. However, spend on the two largest programmes run by the Department is given. The spend in the table may not align precisely with the outturn published in the Appropriation Accounts at national level.

  3. Final outturn for 1994–95, as published in the Appropriation Accounts, is available at national level only. The spend in the table for 1994–95 may not align precisely with outturn published in the Appropriation Accounts.

  4. Spend for 1995–96 is still provisional. Final outturn will not be available until the Appropriation Accounts are published in the Autumn and is available at national level only. The spend in the table therefore represents the most up to date information available but may not align precisely with spend to be published in the Appropriation Accounts.

  5. Training for Work spend excludes Allowances, not available at Government Office level.

  Department of Trade and Industry

  £ million

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 expected outturn

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  ERDF Payment to third parties

  18.0

  18.0

  29.3

  29.3

  29.2

  29.2

  Regional Selective Assistance

  95.1

  95.3

  112.9

  113.2

  111.7

  113.0

  Inward Investment

  8.8

  8.9

  10.5

  10.5

  12.5

  12.5

  Business Services Locally Delivered (including development of Business Links)

  83.8

  83.8

  48.2

  48.2

  86.2

  86.2

  Export Promotion Schemes and Services (excluding Trade Policy element (WTO subscription)

  39.5

  54.7

  45.6

  56.2

  54.2

  57.6

  SMART

  12.9

  12.9

  13.4

  13.4

  11.8

  11.8

  SPUR

  8.7

  8.7

  8.5

  8.5

  8.7

  8.7

  1. The table identifies the main DTI programmes in whose administration and delivery the Government Offices are involved. The GOs are not directly involved in administering or delivering the whole amount of the programme expenditure identified in the table. Regional breakdowns for DTI programmes are not available.

  2. Net figures are net of receipts.

  Department of Transport

  £ thousand

  Outturn

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  1994–95

  Statutory Advertising

  54.1

  71.0

  23.5

  44.0

  36.6

  13.1

  23.7

  24.2

  6.7

  42.0

  Public Inquiry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Consultancy and Studies

  0

  17.0

  2.8

  0

  11.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80.0

  Woolwich Ferry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,768.0

  Transportation Studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,089.0

  1995–96

  Statutory Advertising

  147.4

  53.0

  25.4

  42.0

  23.5

  20.4

  30.0

  18.7

  39.8

  45.6

  Public Inquiry

  0

  0

  1.7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  35.0

  0

  0

  240

  241

  Department of Transport

  £ thousand

  Outturn

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  Consultancy and Studies

  0

  13.0

  12.1

  10.0

  18.4

  0

  0

  24.3

  40.0

  261.0

  Woolwich Ferry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,136.0

  Transportation Studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,490.0

  1. Details of programme expenditure prior to the formation of Government Offices for the Regions in April 1994 are not available.

  Department of the Environment

  £ million

  Outturn1

  NE

  NW

  M

  YH

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  1993–94

  Housing Investment

  Programme

  83.0

  162.0

  53.8

  154.6

  194.7

  116.2

  142.4

  140.6

  187.5

  530.4

  Estate Action23

  28.7

  60.3

  39.6

  41.8

  46.1

  27

  5.9

  12.2

  3.8

  85.3

  Housing Partnership Fund

  3.6

  2.6

  0.7

  2.8

  3.4

  4.0

  3.9

  4.8

  3.1

  1.1

  Housing Action Trust2

  —

  —

  16.0

  26.5

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.6

  Flats Over Shops

  1.0

  0.8

  0.3

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.9

  Energy Efficiency/Cash

  Incentive Scheme

  0.4

  0.6

  0.7

  0.8

  0.5

  0.7

  0.4

  0.5

  0.3

  0.3

  Derelict Land Grant4

  7.8

  27.5

  8.0

  23.9

  19.9

  8.7

  0.8

  3.3

  0.8

  3.6

  City Action Team2

  0.8

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  Task Forces2

  1.8

  1.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.6

  2.3

  —

  0.6

  —

  5.0

  Urban Development

  Corporation2

  78.5

  37.1

  22.5

  16.7

  62.4

  —

  —

  20.7

  —

  105.4

  City Challenge1 5

  45.8

  31.8

  22.3

  27.8

  29.0

  21.2

  —

  —

  —

  52.3

  Manchester Regeneration

  —

  23.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Docklands Light Railway2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28.1

  Merseyside Special grant

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ERDF

  41.2

  28.2

  23.0

  32.6

  34.3

  10.4

  —

  2.4

  11.5

  —

  Coalfield Areas Fund6

  Total expenditure: 166.5

  Urban Programme2/UPF6

  Total expenditure: 2.3

  1994–95

  Housing Investment

  Programme

  78.1

  156.2

  63.3

  142.8

  172.2

  108.8

  112.9

  115.4

  137.7

  442.4

  Housing Partnership Fund

  1.5

  3.0

  0.7

  2.6

  2.9

  2.1

  2.4

  2.3

  3.0

  10.2

  Flats over Shops Programme

  1.0

  1.0

  0.2

  1.2

  0.9

  1.0

  0.4

  0.9

  0.8

  1.5

  Cash incentive Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  —

  3.2

  2.0

  7.6

  16.3

  Single Regeneration Budget

  160.9

  148.8

  104.6

  161.5

  176.1

  75.6

  14.6

  42.7

  13.7

  320.8

  Coalfield Areas Fund

  0.2

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.4

  1.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester Regeneration

  —

  30.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ERDF

  53.9

  49.5

  32.5

  43.0

  70.1

  23.3

  —

  13.0

  2.7

  0.1

  1995–96

  Housing Investment

  Programme

  64.9

  134.4

  37.1

  119.7

  136.7

  84.3

  93.6

  97.8

  136.8

  367.0

  Housing Partnership Fund

  1.6

  2.8

  0.7

  2.7

  3.1

  1.9

  2.1

  2.8

  3.2

  9.7

  Cash incentive Scheme

  0.6

  1.9

  0.7

  0.3

  1.9

  1.5

  4.8

  2.6

  10.9

  34.6

  Specified Capital Grant for Private Sector Renewal

  12.6

  52.0

  13.5

  32.3

  49.1

  25.6

  24.4

  33.8

  43.6

  49.8

  Single Regeneration Budget

  152.6

  143.9

  102.7

  133.1

  147.9

  73.8

  9.6

  29.7

  9.4

  313.5

  ERDF

  28.8

  27.4

  29.2

  32.8

  27.6

  10.8

  0.2

  11.5

  1.3

  1.6

  1 The table above refers to programme expenditure by the Regional Offices of the Department of the Environment. Government Offices were established in April 1994.

  2 Subsumed within Single Regeneration Budget from April 1994.

  3 Estate Action figures exclude resources for Design Improvement Controlled Experiment (DICE).

  4 Transferred to English Partnerships from April 1994.

  5 City Challenge figures include City Challenge Housing Corporation expenditure in 1993–94 and exclude payments made in 1993–94 for expenditure actually incurred in 1992–93.

  6 Figures for the Urban Programme, Urban Partnership Fund (UPF) and Coalfield Areas Fund are not held centrally on a region by region basis. The Urban Programme was subsumed within the Single Regeneration Budget from April 1995.

  Whitley Incinerator, Coventry (Fire)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions have been reached by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's investigation into the fire at Whitley incinerator, Coventry, on 8 March; and if he will make a statement. [25922]
  242
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The investigations into the incident at the Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co. Ltd. incinerator on 8 March are still in progress. A detailed report from the operator is expected shortly, together with a report from Coventry Environmental Services, which has been investigating the health effects. These reports will be considered in order

  243
  to determine whether there are any actions required to prevent or minimise similar incidents in the future. The investigation is likely to be complete by the end of May.

  Shopping Development
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the response he has received to his draft planning guidance on out-of-town shopping development. [26530]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Over 500 responses were received.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue revised guidance on planning permission for out-of-town shopping development. [26529]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We hope to do so before the summer recess.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which local authority districts in the south-west a satellite dish size of 90 cm is currently permitted without planning permission. [26339]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A general planning permission, without the need for a planning application to the local planning authority, is granted by the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for the installation of satellite antennas, subject to certain restrictions including size limits. In the south-west of England, the size limit for installation on dwellinghouses and other buildings under 15 m high is 90 cm in Devon and Cornwall. The size is necessary for good reception in those counties. Elsewhere in the south west the permitted limit is 70 cm. Our recent consultation paper, "Planning and Telecommunications", proposes that satellite antennas of up to 90 cm should be permitted throughout England.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if orimulsion will be included in the hazardous waste list. [25507]

  Mr. Clappison
  The list of hazardous waste was established by European Council Decision 94/904/EC. In the United Kingdom it is reproduced in the list set out in part I of schedule 2 to the Special Waste Regulations 1996 laid before Parliament on 1 April 1996. In my Department's view, orimulsion is not included in the list.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the functions of the toxic metals contained in orimulsion. [25508]

  Mr. Clappison
  Toxic metals contained in orimulsion have no function and are present as impurities.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each local authority's capital allocation, credit approvals and capital grants by(a) protective services, (b) single regeneration budget, (c) fire service, (d) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (e) European regional development fund, (f) personal
  244
  social services, (g) education, (h) housing, (i) transport, (j) other services and (k) total for the years 1996–97,1995–96,1994–95,1993–94, plus the bids made by local authorities for 1996–97. [26778]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list has been placed in the Library of the House, giving annual capital guidelines and basic credit approvals for each local authority for the years 1993–94 to 1996–97, and total supplementary credit approvals and capital grants for each local authority for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. The rest of the information requested is not available centrally; to collate it would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26716]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department is undertaking a review to ensure compliance with copyright law. If necessary, a photocopying licence will then be sought.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will split band G of the council tax into narrower bands. [26781]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the council tax payable by a band D household for each local authority area in Essex, excluding parish council precepts. [26877]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The council tax payable by a band D household for each local authority area in Essex, excluding parish precepts is as listed.

  1996–97

  £

  Basildon

  651.96

  Braintree

  588.33

  Brentwood

  583.38

  Castle Point

  636.84

  Chelmsford

  591.70

  Colchester

  607.61

  Epping Forest

  573.82

  Harlow

  704.55

  Maldon

  561.96

  Rochford

  586.71

  Southend on Sea

  573.00

  Tendring

  583.94

  Thurrock

  605.34

  Uttlesford

  568.81

  Council Housing Transfers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce additions to the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [27241]
  245
  Mr. Curry
  I am pleased to announce that Cotswold district council has gained a place on the 1996 housing transfer programme. The authority aims, subject to the approval of its tenants, to transfer its stock of over 4,300 homes to Fosseway housing association by the end of March 1997.

  The Government are committed to a continuing programme of transfers as a means of generating private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing and to increase diversity and choice for tenants.

  The inclusion of Cotswold raises the number of authorities on the 1996 programme to six, giving a revised programme of approximately 25,000 dwellings, valued at £223.6 million.

  The 1995 transfer programme has been completed. Eleven authorities transferred almost 45,000 homes to housing associations, raising a total of £963 million in private sector funds.

TRANSPORT

  Young Drivers (Accidents)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal accidents occurred during(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995 involving drivers under 20 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [25159]

  Mr. Norris
  There were 428 fatal accidents in 1993 involving drivers under 20 years of age, and 426 in 1994. Information for 1995 will be available in July.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major investment schemes which have been assessed as not meeting the commercial criteria but having wider benefits to the north-west are included in Railtrack's network management statement; and if he will make a statement. [26417]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's network management statement sets out an illustrative list of investment schemes which include infrastructure renewal works in the Manchester area and the west coast main line route modernisation scheme. As the statement explains, in the restructured railway, it is for the Franchising Director, in consultation with train operating companies and Railtrack, to assess whether an infrastructure investment scheme meets the service standards and other criteria to enable Railtrack to take the project forward.

  Union Railways
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list total payments to date made by Union Railways to(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals, indicating the name of the body involved and the services provided. [22238]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: This information is not available in the form requested. The following is a list of consultants who have either undertaken studies on behalf of Union Railways, or seconded persons to work in house with UR on the
  246
  development of the CTRL project. The agencies that provided temporary draughtmens and general office staff.

  Engineering

  Mott MacDonald

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners

  Partners Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick

  Sir Alexander Gibb

  Eurorail Ltd.

  Ove Amp Engineering

  Faithful and Gould

  Kier Build Ltd.

  Knight Piesold and Partners

  WS Atkins

  Geotechnical Consulting Group

  TH Technology

  Environmental

  Ove Amp Environment

  Aspinwall and Company Ltd.

  Land Property and Town Planning

  Parkman Ltd.

  Terraquest Land Services Ltd.

  Symonds Travers Morgan Ltd.

  Tibalds Monro

  Peter Brett Associates

  Jones Lang Wooton

  Land Aspects Consultancy

  Montagu Evans

  Miscellaneous

  Laing Henry Ltd.

  Public Policy Unit

  WS Atkins

  TH Technology

  Grandfield

  McKenna and Company

  Freshfields

  Transmark Worldwide

  Environmental Resource Management

  Oxford Archaeological Unit

  Mott MacDonald

  Ashdown Environmental Ltd.

  Cobham Resource Consultants

  Reading Agricultural Consultants

  Rupert Taylor

  Shankland Cox

  PIDEA

  Michael Boddington Associates

  Kennedy and Donkin Transportation Ltd.

  SQ Design

  Cremer and Warner

  Arthur AnderRon and Co.

  C. Price

  SG Warburg and Co. Ltd.

  Bechtel Ltd.

  Buchanan and Partners

  Llewellyn Davies

  Newell and Sorrell Ltd.

  DCA Design Consultants

  247

  99 Productions

  Nick Derbyshire and Associates

  GH Nichols

  MAI Research Ltd.

  Hutchinson Lock and Munk

  Business Forecasting and Evaluation

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Oscar Faber TPA

  Hunt Analytics Inc.

  Michael H. Schabas

  Hague Consulting Group

  London Economics Ltd.

  Henley Centre for Forecasting Ltd.

  MVA Consultancy

  Sir Alexander Gibb

  Kleinwort Benson Ltd.

  Steer Davies and Gleave

  Marcial Echenique and Partners

  National Economic Research Association

  Derek Salkeld and Associates

  The total aggregate payments made to the listed companies since Union Railways' creation in 1992 is as follows.

  Aggregate payment excluding VAT

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  12.7

  1993–94

  20.5

  1994–95

  28.8

  1995–96 (to date)

  10.7

  Weighbridges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many weighbridges in the United Kingdom are run by(a) his Department and (b) local authorities. [26772]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency to write to the hon. member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of weighbridges run by a) the Department, and b) local authorities.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate is responsible for the maintenance and operation of 72 weighbridges throughout the UK. We do not have information on the number of weighbridges under local authority control.

  Car Accidents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish figures relating to car accidents involving(a) private cars, (b) company cars and (c) rental cars by (i) vehicles and (ii) mileage travelled. [26773]

  Mr. Norris
  Some of the information requested is published in the report "Cars: Make and Model: The Risk of Driver Injury and Car Accident Rates in Great Britain: 1994".
  248
  The following table shows a summary of the available data which are contained in this report. Rental cars are included in the category of company-owned cars and it is not possible to identify rented vehicles from the available accident record.

  Injury accident involvement per 10,000 licensed vehicles in each group

  Privately owned

  Company owned

  Fatal or serious

  All

  Fatal or serious

  All

  Registered on or since 1 January 1992

  Standard

  performance

  23

  144

  30

  198

  High

  performance

  27

  143

  32

  216

  Registered before 1 January 1992

  Standard

  performance

  23

  150

  25

  156

  High

  performance

  31

  176

  27

  157

  Corresponding estimates of mileage travelled are not available. However, the following annual average mileage estimates have been drawn from the 1992–94 national travel survey and are included in the report.

  Estimated annual average mileage by age and ownership of car

  Age of vehicle

  Privately owned

  Company owned

  Up to 1 year old

  10,200

  22,000

  Over 1 and up to 2 years old

  10,000

  23,000

  Over 2 and up to 3 years old

  9,900

  21,200

  Over 3 years old

  8,100

  17,700

  All ages

  8,600

  20,800

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26688]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has the following contracts with Serco Ltd.:

  Description

  Termination date

  Software Services Agreement

  31 July 1996

  Maintenance of radar (call-off)

  31 March 1997

  Maintenance of Vessel tracking systems (call-off)

  31 March 1997

  The total cost of the contracts is £123,000. Individual contract costs are not provided as this information is commercial confidential.

  The cost to the Department of early termination of these contracts would be negotiable and depend on the individual circumstances and loss suffered by the

  249
  contractor. In any case, this amount, when taken together with any payments already made, should not exceed the total contract price.

  London Taxi Fares
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about London taxi fares and fees. [27293]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 4.59 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 27 April 1996. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum charge of £1.40—including a hire charge of £1—for the first 513 m—561.22 yds—or 111 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 256.5 m—280.61 yds— or 55.5 seconds up to six miles and 20p for each 171 m—187.07 yds—or 37 seconds thereafter. The charge for each additional passenger will be 40p.

  The Secretary of State has decided that there will be no increase this year in the fees for London taxi driver and vehicle licences, currently £87 and £78 respectively.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest position on Croydon Tramlink; and if he will make a statement. [27147]

  Mr. Norris
  I am glad to say that, following analysis of bids from four consortiums, London Transport has identified Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. as the preferred bidder for the concession to build and operate Croydon Tramlink. London Transport will therefore be taking forward discussion with Tramtrack Croydon Ltd., with the aim of completing the concession agreement with it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the final proposals before making grant available, but I welcome that further step forward for this private finance initiative scheme.

  This important public transport scheme should be seen alongside other projects. I know that many Croydon residents are keen that the Coulsdon inner relief road on the A23 should go ahead; and I am glad to be able to confirm that, despite the substantial reductions in roads spending announced in the last Budget, that particular scheme remains in the trunk road programme.

  National Transport Debate
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the Government's response to the national debate on transport. [27107]

  Sir George Young
  I am publishing today a Green Paper, providing the Government's response to the transport debate and setting out our vision for the future of transport policy. The Green Paper, "Transport: the Way Forward" draws together for the first time in nearly 20 years most of the key issues affecting transport policy.

  The Government issued last October a statement on transport priorities in Northern Ireland. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales intend to publish transport policy statements later.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will introduce regulations granting residents of mobile homes at Chesters croft, Cheadle Hulme, rights of compensation under the provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. [26737]

  Mr. Watts
  I hope to introduce them as soon as practicable.

  Motorway Repairs (Lighting)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects on accident levels of inappropriately sited(a) security lights and (b) lights used on motorways to illuminate repair work. [26779]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the assessment of the effects on accident levels of inappropriately sited security lighting and lighting used on motorways to illuminate repair works.
  I am not aware of any studies into the relationship between security lighting and road accidents. The Highways Agency has carried out a number of accident studies at roadworks over the years and the illumination of repair works has not been identified as causing a safety problem.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26709]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is revising the matter. Staff are told to comply with copyright provisions and checks are made to reduce the risk of infringement when photocopies are made.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the implementation of the second EC directive on driving licences. [26859]

  Sir George Young
  The changes being introduced as a result of the second directive are very complex. Some aspects have required clarification or negotiation with the commission, and some information from the commission is still awaited. We understand that a number of other member states do not expect to be in a position to implement the directive fully for some time.

  We now intend to implement the directive in two stages. The theory test for cars and motorcycles will be introduced as planned on 1 July 1996. However, other changes to the legislation will be introduced on 1 January 1997. They include the introduction of theory tests for other vehicles; the introduction of new categories of driving licence—in particular for new applicants for entitlement to drive minibus and light good vehicles—and changes to eyesight requirements for driving of lorries and buses.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to councillors serving on National Lottery Charities Board panels; [26313]

  (2) how many councillors have applied to serve on National Lottery Charities Board panels; [26311]

  (3) what measures she has taken to ensure that appointments procedures for National Lottery Charities Board panels are transparent and democratic. [26314]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the appointment of members to the National Lottery Charities Board currently lies with my right hon. and learned Friend, although responsibility is soon to pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  The board itself is responsible for appointing members of its non-executive regional advisory panels. I have asked the chief executive of the board to write to the hon. Member on the points raised.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [11392]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The total publicity expenditure incurred by this Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies, is as follows:-

  1989–90: £15,598,464

  1991–92: £17,546,566

  1993–94: £18,333,603

  1994–95: £20,654,914

  1995–96: £22,917,1731

  Of these figures, the amounts spend on advertising are as follows:

  1989–90: £5,343,986

  1991–92: £4,834,813

  1993–94: £5,964,988

  1994–95: £3,597,308

  1995–96: £6,383,4671

  1 Estimated figure to end of year.

  1. Detailed plans for 1996–97 expenditure are yet to be finalised.

  2. Information is not available prior to 1989–90. This Department was not in existence before 1988 and information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  3. The above figures are for publicity only. Press does not form part of publicity spending.

  4. This Department does not incur expense on Public Relations.

  Allowance Claimants
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were in receipt of reduced earnings allowance and special hardship allowance at the end of February; and what was the average payment under each scheme. [25854]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Reduced earnings allowance

  Frozen or restricted reduced earnings allowance

  Allowances current

  107,213

  35,583

  Average weekly payment

  £36.05

  £24.64

  1. Special Hardship Allowance was replaced by Reduced Earnings Allowance from October 1986.

  2. Figures shown are at 2 April 1994.

  3. Based on a 10 per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons were receiving income support on medical grounds at 31 March 1995. [25790]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As of February 1995, 787,000 people were receiving income support because of disability or incapacity.

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available for March 1995.

  2. Figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. The above figure includes those persons in receipt of the disability-premium and those receiving short term incapacity benefit, but excludes persons aged 60 and over, and those persons who would qualify for a lone parent and/or carer premium.

  4. Sample Size: 1 in 20.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiry Febniary 1995.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons are currently receiving income support on medical grounds. [25791]

  Mr. Evans
  As of May 1995, the latest date for which information is available, 807,000 people were receiving income support because of disability or incapacity.

  Notes:

  1. Figures has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The above figure includes those persons in receipt of the disability premium and those receiving Short Term Incapacity Benefit, but excludes persons aged 60 and over, and those persons who would qualify for a lone parent and/or carer premium.

  3. Sample Size: 1 in 20.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiry May 1995.

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average level of award paid to sufferers of occupational asthma, from whom benefit was recovered by the compensation recovery unit in each of the last three financial years; [25784]
  253
  (2) how much was recovered from payments to sufferers of occupational asthma by the compensation recovery unit in each of the last three financial years; [25782]

  (3) from how many occupational asthma sufferers benefit was recovered by the compensation recovery unit in each of the three financial years. [25783]

  Mr. Roger 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. Ian McCartney, dated 24 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office an annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what was the average level of award paid to sufferers of occupational asthma, from whom benefit was recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU); how much was recovered from payments and from how many occupational asthma sufferers benefit was recovered by the CRU; for each of the last three financial years.
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. The average level of award paid to sufferers of occupational asthma is not available. Under the recoupment provisions, compensators are only required to notify CRU of a compensation claim if the award exceeds the Small Payment Limit of £2,500. Compensators are not required to provide information about either the level or composition of the award.
  Prior to May 1994 information about recovery from payments to occupational asthma sufferers is not available, as the data held on the CRU computer system did not specifically identify such cases. Information from May 1994 is provided in the table below:—

  Period

  Number of cases

  Total amount recovered1

  May 1994—March 1995

  3

  £7,161.06

  April 1995—March 1996

  27

  £211,510.18

  1 These figures include money recovered from both final and interim payments.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Retirement Allowance
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if claimants over retirement age but not yet 70 years of age and not in full-time employment who are in receipt of invalidity benefit as well as reduce earnings allowance will be transferred to retirement allowance. [25856]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes. The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations 1990, as amended by the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 with affect from 24 March 1996, provide for reduced earnings allowance recipients who are over pension age and in receipt of incapacity benefit, which replaced invalidity benefit, to be transferred to retirement allowance.
  254
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants over retirement age and not in full-time employment who receive reduced earnings allowance will be transferred to retirement allowance from April; and what will be the estimated average change in weekly income resulting from the change over. [25855]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The Benefits Agency has identified about 20,000 reduced earnings allowance recipients over pension age, who are not being paid at a frozen or restricted rate. Of these, any not in regular employment will be transferred to retirement allowance under the amended legislation which came into force on 24 March. The average difference between reduced earnings allowance and retirement allowance is estimated to be around £29 a week. This may be offset by additional income related benefit entitlement for some retirement allowance recipients.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a claimant who is transferred from reduced earnings allowance to retirement allowance and is disadvantaged through his lost occupational pension entitlement will be compensated by extra retirement allowance. [25857]

  Mr. Evans
  Retirement allowance is paid in recognition that a reduction in earnings, due to an industrial accident or disease, during a person's working life could result in reduced pension entitlement. The rate payable can be no more than 25 per cent. of the rate of reduced earnings allowance.

  Small Farmers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to set up emergency procedures for income support for financially vulnerable small farmers by exempting them from the actively seeking work criteria. [26131]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Any claims from unemployed farmers would be subject to the normal benefit rules, including the actively seeking work rule. Farmers who continue to work may be entitled to in-work benefits depending upon their income and family circumstances.

  Disability Pension
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers benefiting financially if the housing benefit taper for people receiving a disability premium were reduced to 50 per cent. [26343]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of reducing the housing benefit taper to 50 per cent. for claimants with a disability premium is £70 million; 245,000 existing claimants would gain, while a further 15,000 would be newly entitled to receive housing benefit.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the family expenditure surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Expenditure estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million, and caseloads to the nearest 5,000.

  Social Fund
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his Department's plans for the future funding of(a) social fund money advice and (b) the Benefits Agency out-of-hours service, with particular reference to that provided by the London emergency office. [25630]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question asking what are his Department's plans for the future funding of (a) Social Fund money advice and (b) the Benefits Agency (BA) Out of Hours Service, with particular reference to that provided by the London Emergency Office.
  I recently outlined the BA's plans for the future delivery of social security benefits based on the BA vision of "right benefit money to the right person at the right time every time".
  The Agency will carry out a wide-ranging review of its activities as part of the Departmental Change Programme. Such a programme of change will cover all fundamental areas of the organisation's business and we are committed to achieve a 25% improvement in our productivity by 1998/99. In the first year it has been necessary to identify efficiencies and economies in excess of £200 million. All efficiencies and economies have been considered alongside the expenditure priorities the Agency has been set.
  It is against this background that the Agency decided to review the need for the Out Of Hours Service and the London Emergency Office which both provide a service to customers at night and weekends, and also the provision of Social Fund Money Advice.
  It was decided to end the funding for Social Fund Money Advice from 1 April 1996 because it was found that the service that could be provided by Social Fund Officers was very limited, there was a very low customer take up, and other outside bodies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux were able to provide a comprehensive service.
  The need for and the level of service provided by the Out of Hours Service and the London Emergency Office is currently being examined and a decision on it viability is expected later this year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets apply for the operation of the Child Support Agency's computer system. [25629]

  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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System (CSCS) performance targets.
  The performance targets for CSCS are set out in a Service Level Agreement between the Child Support Agency (CSA) and the Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA).
  The service level targets are as follows:

  Availability
  The target is for ITSA to provide the computer service to all CSA locations 95% of the planned service hours as laid down in the agreement.
  256
  Response Times
  There are two targets for the time it takes the computer to respond and display information to the user these are:
  an average response time of 5 seconds and for
  95% of all responses to be within 7 seconds

  Output Handling
  The target is for ITSA to accurately handle and despatch 95% of all computer outputs within one working day.

  Service Support
  The target is for ITSA to clear 95% of all incidents (problems) within agreed clearance times as laid down in the agreement.
  I am pleased to be able to tell you that all performance targets for CSCS have been consistently exceeded in 1995/96.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the annual running costs of the agency and the total to date. [26570]

  Mr. Mitchel
  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. Frank Field, dated 24 April 1996:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency running costs.
  The running costs of the Agency for its first two years were published in our relevant Annual Reports and Accounts. The details for 1995–96 are not quite finalised yet. The most up to date figures therefore are:

  £ million

  1993–94

  139

  1994–95

  192

  1995–96

  1197

  Total

  528

  1 Forecast figure subject to end of year adjustment. I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of full assessments by the Child Support Agency by amount and as a proportion of cases cleared from 1 April 1995 to the present time in the same format as his answer of 25 October 1995,Official Report, column 802. [25765]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessments.
  Data is currently available to 30 November 1995. A breakdown of the full maintenance assessments by amount and as a proportion of cases cleared from 1 April 1995 to 30 November 1995 is attached. Work is currently in progress to update this information and details should be available in July 1996.
  I hope this is helpful.
  257

  Full assessment by amount and as a proportion of cases cleared: 1 April 1995 to 30 November 1995

  Weekly maintenance

  Full assessments (000s)

  Percentage a proportion of cases cleared

  £0.00-£ 42.35

  34.3

  15.6

  £2.36-£4.99

  0.9

  0.4

  £5.00-£9.99

  1.4

  0.6

  £10.00-£19.99

  4.8

  2.2

  £20.00-£29.99

  5.7

  2.6

  £30.00-£39.99

  5.6

  2.6

  £40.00-£49.99

  7.0

  3.2

  £50.00-£59.99

  5.9

  2.7

  £60.00-£69.99

  5.5

  2.5

  £70.00-£79.99

  4.0

  1.8

  £80.00 +

  4.4

  2.0

  Total

  79.6

  36.3

  1. Data extracted from a 5 per cent. sample of cases as at 30 November 1995.

  2. Includes absent parents on Income Support.

  3. Figures do not sum due to rounding.

  Benefit Savings Achieved

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 up to February 1996

  Total

  Maintenance collected (including AP IS deductions)

  30

  57

  67

  154

  Maintenance arranged

  177

  133

  117

  427

  Non-maintenance cessations

  138

  200

  169

  507

  Other elements

  73

  89

  101

  263

  Total

  418

  479

  454

  1,351

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Child Support Agency documents are available under the terms of the open government code. [25628]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency documents which are available under the Open Government Code.
  The attached list shows the principal Agency documents which are available to the public.
  This list is not exhaustive; each request under the Open Government Code is dealt with individually, and wherever it is possible to do so the information or documents requested are made available.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Available to the public

  CSA Annual Report/Accounts

  Business Plan

  Child Support Guide Vols. 1-3/Legislative Changes Handbook

  CSA Charter

  Field Operations Guide

  Child Support Adjudication Guide

  258
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much benefit savings have been achieved each year since April 1993; broken down into(a) maintenance collected, (b) maintenance arranged, (c) non-maintenance cessations and (d) in total for each of (a) to (c) since April 1993. [26569]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 24 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency benefit savings.
  The attached table shows the yearly breakdown of benefit savings achieved by the Agency since April 1993. Up to February 1996 the Agency has firmly recorded a total of £1, 351 million in benefit savings. The figures for March have yet to be finalised. They will include the annual reconciliation of components like family credit and housing benefit. This will certainly mean that the forecast of £510 million for 1995/96 will be achieved. It may even be an underestimate. On this basis the estimated forecast for the first three years is £1,407 million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Act and Statutory Instruments

  Post Opening Handbook/Manual.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what number and proportion of persons who have failed the all work test for incapacity benefit have registered for employment; [25807]

  (2) how many and what proportion of persons who have failed the all work test for incapacity benefit have subsequently become entitled to unemployed benefit. [25808]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 25 April 1996.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about the number and proportion of persons who have failed the All Work Test have registered for employment and subsequently been entitled to unemployment benefit.

  259
  In the period April 1995 to February 1996,84,518 people have been disallowed Incapacity Benefit (IB) following the All Work Test. In the same period, 33,454 (43%) disallowed IB following the All Work Test made a claim for unemployment benefits and thereby registered for employment. No figures are available as to whether these people proved to be entitled to unemployment benefit or whether they received Income Support instead.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Overpayments
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much is owed to his Department in overpayment of benefits; and how much his Department has had to write off in each of the last five years. [26799]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The amount owed to the Department due to the overpayment of benefits, as at the end of March 1996, is £462 million.

  The amounts written off in each of the last five years are set out in the list:

  1990–91: £51,573,000

  1991–92: £63,404,000

  1992–93: £77,914,000

  1993–94: £92,743,000

  1994–95: £107,887,000.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26717]

  Mr. Burt
  This Department is currently considering an approach from the copyright licensing agency to decide whether it is necessary to obtain a photocopying licence, and, if so, the basis for determining the fee payable.

  Capacity for Work Test
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people found capable of work have subsequently signed on as unemployed for(a) February and (b) March 1996.[26367]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 25 April 1996.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about the number of people found capable of work under the All Work Test, who have subsequently signed on as unemployed in February and March 1996.
  In the months of February and March 1996,5,735 and 6,803 people respectively made a claim for unemployment benefits, having been disallowed Incapacity Benefit (IB) following the All Work Test.
  I hope this is helpful.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Operations Bumblebee and Eagle Eye
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about Operation Bumblebee and Operation Eagle Eye. [25050]

  Mr. Maclean
  Both operations are proving their worth. The commissioner tells me that the clear-up rate for domestic burglary has doubled and street robbery has fallen to 2,587, a drop of over 27 per cent.

  Sentencing (Consistency)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken into the consistency of sentencing across different courts. [25052]

  Mr. Maclean
  No specific research project has been undertaken on this topic. However, information on sentencing variations between courts is published annually and a new publication has recently been issued showing the variations graphically between magistrates' courts.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the partnership approach to crime prevention. [25053]

  Mr. Maclean
  Partnership in all its forms has made a significant contribution to the fight against crime in recent years. We remain firmly committed to the concept and will continue to do all we can to encourage it.

  Sentencing (Persistent Criminals)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to ensure that sentences passed on persistent criminals more accurately reflect the time actually served in prison. [25054]

  Mr. Maclean
  I believe that there should be greater honesty in sentencing. Accordingly, I propose that the present parole and early release arrangements should be abolished and the term served would match more closely the term of imprisonment imposed by the court.

  Fire Authorities (Budgets)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from fire authorities during the past two months on their budgets for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [25055]

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been a number of such representations. Responsibility for deciding what level of financial provision should be made available to fire brigades rests with the local fire authorities. They are obliged to set budgets which will enable them to comply with their statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the impact of the measures contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill on charities dealing with the destitute and homeless. [25056]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received a number of representations expressing concern about the impact of the Bill's housing provisions. The Government consider it wrong that people who are present without valid leave or have been admitted on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds should be able to claim housing assistance form local authorities. Clause 9 will enable that anomaly to be removed.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact on the employment of members of ethnic minorities of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [25059]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We believe that the Asylum and Immigration Bill will improve the employment position of members of the ethnic minorities lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to work here. Illegal working damages them just as it does everyone else who is entitled to work here.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated as to the effectiveness of CCTV in combating crime. [25058]

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has published a number of research papers looking at various aspects of CCTV effectiveness as part of its series of crime prevention unit papers and the successor series of crime detection and prevention papers. The most recent of these—published on 29 December 1995—is paper number 68—"CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies". Copies of all these papers are held in the Library.

  Robberies (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secrtary of State for the Home Department how many robberies were recorded in Cambridgeshire(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1995. [25061]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 46 offences of robbery recorded in Cambridgeshire in 1979 and 352 offences recorded in 1995.

  Recorded Crime
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the trend in the incidence of recorded crime since 1993. [25062]

  Mr. Maclean
  Recorded crime in England and Wales has been falling since 1993, with recorded crime in 1995 down 468,000 offences on 1992 levels. The recent falls have been nationwide, with 35 out of 43 police forces recording falls in 1995. This demonstrates that the police, along with law-abiding members of the community, can make a real difference in helping to prevent crime.

  Policing (East Anglia)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet chief constables from East Anglia to discuss policing in rural areas. [25063]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Illegal Immigration (Profit)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to curb the activities of those bringing illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom for profit. [25064]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Immigration Service works closely with the police and other agencies in this country and abroad to gather, evaluate and disseminate intelligence about those engaged in facilitating illegal entry to this country; suspected areas of abuse are investigated and the Crown Prosecution Service instigates prosecutions in appropriate cases.

  The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 requires all air and sea carriers to ensure that they do not carry inadequately documented passengers. In addition, the Asylum and Immigration Bill seeks to create the new offences of facilitating for reward the entry of an asylum seeker and assisting a person to obtain leave to remain to which they have no entitlement.

  Police Forces (Revenue Finance)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much he plans to increase the revenue finance for police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years in order to increase by 5,000 the number of police officers. [25065]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Bootle, (Mr. Benton).

  Persistent Burglars and Drug Dealers
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to deal with persistent burglars and drug dealers; and if he will make a statement. [25057]

  Mr. Maclean
  I propose that the courts should be required to impose stiff minimum prison sentences on persistent burglars and drug dealers. Full details of my proposals are set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public: the Government's strategy on crime in England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) strength and (b) cost of the Metropolitan police force (i) in 1979 and (ii) currently; and if he will make a statement. [25310]

  Mr. Maclean
  At the end of March, Metropolitan police strength, excluding officers seconded from the Metropolitan police, for example to regional crime squads and central service, was 27,342. I understand that the latest estimate for net revenue expenditure for 1995 –96
  263
  is £1,688.493 million. These figures compare with police strength of 22,168 as at 31 March 1979 and net revenue expenditure of £381.673 million in 1979 –80.

  Criminal and Terrorist Activity
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship with the Republic of Ireland(a) as a common migration zone and (b) regarding criminal and terrorist activity. [25352]

  Mr. Howard
  The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, along with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, form the common travel area. The CTA reflects the fact that, with the exception of a short period around the second world war, British and Irish nationals have always been free to reside in either country. Journeys within the CTA are normally exempt from, immigration, control, although journeys which start from, or extend beyond, it are still liable to border controls.

  Practical co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Metropolitan police and the Garda continues at all levels. Security co-operation with the Irish Government, and between our respective security forces, remains of vital importance.

  Mrs. Audrey Grant
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when Mrs. Audrey Grant of Birmingham is to be deported to Jamaica; and what are the reasons for the deportation; [26844]

  (2) what plans he has to review the case of Mrs. Audrey Grant and the deportation order served against her; and how many representations he has had from people concerned about the deportation. [26846]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mrs. Grant is not the subject of a deportation order. She has been given leave to move by the High Court for a judicial review of the decision to remove her to Jamaica as an illegal entrant. No action will be taken pending a decision by the court.

  We have received recent representations about the case from nine members of Parliament and from 11 members of the public or organisations.

  Deportees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportees, over the last 12 months, have parents and children living legally in Britain. [26845]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  KPMG
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total value of contracts awarded to KPMG in each of the last three years for which information is available. [26283]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Individual contract values cannot be given for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The number of contracts awarded to KPMG in each of the last three years and their total value is as follows:
  264

  Number of contracts

  £

  1993–94

  3

  153,000

  1994–95

  2

  60,000

  1995–96

  3

  117,000

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultancies have been let to KPMG by(a) the Forensic Science Service, (b) the probation training unit and (c) C6 division of the Home Office in the last three years. [25560]

  Mr. Howard
  Only one such contract has been awarded, by the probation training unit.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the procedures for informing(a) his Department and (b) the public when an escape has taken place from a prison. [26336]

  Miss Widdecome
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: 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 Mr. Doug Hoyle dated 25 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what are the procedures for informing (a) his Department and (b) the public when an escape has taken place from a prison.
  The procedures for informing Ministers are set in the Prison Service's Framework Document, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The Framework Document specifies that the Home Secretary will receive reports from the Director General on the escape of a category A prisoner. In addition to the stipulation contained in the Framework Document the Home Secretary receives reports on multiple escapes and escapes of notorious prisoners. Prison Service headquarters is informed immediately of any escape.
  There are no national arrangements for the notification of the general public of an escape from prison.

  Legal Actions (Costs)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to public funds of all the legal actions he has(a) lost and (b) settled since his appointment. [26012]

  Mr. Howard
  Records are not kept centrally in the form requested.

  Prisoners (Drug Use)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are available to his Department in respect of prisoners in England and Wales who are registered drug users. [26543]

  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.
  265
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what records are available to the Department in respect of prisoners in England and Wales who are registered drug users.
  The Home Office Addicts Index maintains records of notified drug misusers. Because of the confidential nature of the data, the only prison staff allowed access are Medical Officers, who also have access to the medical records of individual prisoners.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total value of commercial orders placed by his Department with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25816]

  Mr. Howard
  Information about the value of commercial orders placed with British Steel plc is not available before April 1993. The value of commercial orders placed since then is approximately £750, in financial year 1995–96.

  Training Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many empty places for inmates serving life sentences there were at training prisons in England and Wales on 15 April. [26305]

  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 Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many empty places for inmates serving life sentences there were at training prisons in England and Wales on 15 April.
  There are currently 48 prisons with regime arrangements for life sentence prisoners. However, only Kingston prison, at Portsmouth, is an all-lifer prison. Lifer places in training prisons are not reserved and therefore the question of empty places for such prisoners does not arise.

  Police Finance Services
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for bringing competition to bear on police finance services. [27163]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Government's intention that compulsory competitive tendering should be introduced to police white collar support services as part of a rolling programme. Detailed consultation proposals for police finance services were issued on 27 July 1995. The Government have now considered the responses received from the police service, local authority associations and other interested bodies.

  The Government have decided that police authorities will be subject to the same CCT regime for finance services as other authorities defined under the Local Government Act 1988, except for a number of specific exemptions, and a reduction in the overall competition requirement. The exemptions take account of the
  266
  specialist nature of police work, and focus on the financial advice given in support of operational aspects of crime investigation.

  Racial Incidents (South Wales)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statistics for the number of reported racial incidents in south Wales since 1988, indicating the annual percentage changes; and if he will make a statement about Government policy on this matter. [26368]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for the total number of racially motivated incidents recorded by South Wales police since 1988 are shown in the table.

  A further report from the inter-department racial attack group is expected to be available by the summer.

  Racially motivated incidents1 recorded by South Wales police since 1988

  Year

  Number of incidents recorded

  Percentage change

  1988

  103

  —

  1989

  93

  -9.3

  19902

  308

  +231

  1991

  385

  +25

  1992

  311

  -19.3

  1993

  401

  +28.9

  1994

  501

  +24.9

  1995

  472

  -5.8

  1 A racial incident is defined by the Association of Chief Police Officers as any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident in which an allegation of racial motivation is made by any person.

  2 Changes in monitoring and recording practices of racially motivated incidents were introduced in 1990 together with a campaign of awareness raising within ethnic minority communities in South Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Race Relations Legislation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to implement race relations legislation in Northern Ireland. [25462]

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to issue a draft legislative proposal for an Order in Council later this year.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of CAP fraud were reported in Northern Ireland in each year since 1993. [26220]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22 April, Official Report, columns 50-51. It is not possible to give a full breakdown of these figures in respect of Northern Ireland because market-based irregularities are compiled by the Intervention Board on a UK-wide basis. The figures for
  267
  Northern Ireland for farm-based irregularities reported are:

  1993: 2

  1994: 5

  1995: 1

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of complaints taken up by the Fair Employment Tribunal in Northern Ireland since the implementation of the Fair Employment Act 1989 have concluded in a pre-trial settlement. [26234]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: This information is not available as applicants to the Fair Employment Tribunal are not legally obliged to state the reasons for the withdrawal of a complaint.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites of special scientific interest there are in Northern Ireland. [26195]
  268
  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Responsibility or this matter has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under the chief executive, Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 24 April 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question about the number of areas of special scientific interest (ASSI) in Northern Ireland.
  There are now 92 such areas covering approximately 75,800 hectares involving 2,787 landowners/occupiers.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26718]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Negotiations have not yet taken place with the Copyright Licensing Agency to determine the photocopying licence requirements of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments.

WALES

  Methane Gas
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy guideline in respect of methane gas drilling and extraction near residential communities. [26518]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Government policy on planning control over oil and gas operations is set out in Welsh Office circular 3/85—copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House—the annex to which makes clear that commercial and economic considerations are subject to the environmental acceptability of specific projects, as determined by the land use planning system and by other environmental controls.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take action to halt methane gas extraction at Cimla in Neath; and if he will make a statement. [26520]

  Mr. Jones
  No.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on drilling for methane gas near Resolven, Neath; and if he will make a statement. [26519]

  Mr. Jones
  None.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what environmental constraints he has placed upon Enron Oil in relation to its proposals to extract methane gas in neath. [26521]

  Mr. Jones
  The two appeals by Enron Oil determined in January 1996 were allowed with conditions. These conditions are intended to protect the environment and the amenity of residents. Copies of the decision letter, which sets out the conditions on which permission was given will be placed in the Library of the House. Enron Oil must also obtain a licence from the National Rivers Authority in respect of the disposal of water from its drilling operations.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the Society of Chief Officers of Welsh Community Health Councils following its criticisms of the relevant consultations carried out by his Department about the transitional arrangements for community health councils consequent upon the changes in health authorities and local government. [26769]

  Mr. Richards
  Officials wrote to the secretary of the society of chief officers on 22 April. A copy of the reply has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members he will appoint to each of the Welsh community health councils; how many he appointed before 1 April; and how many he has appointed to date. [26800]

  Mr. Richards
  Community health councils in Wales have between 16 and 20 members. My right hon. Friend is responsible for appointing two members to each council; none of these has yet been appointed. The balance of the appointments are filled by representatives of the voluntary sector and nominees of unitary authorities. Most of these members are in place.

  Radar Transmitter (Milford Haven)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the occasions in the last two years on which the radar transmitter on St. Ann's Head in Milford Haven was not operating effectively. [25766]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 13 March 1996, columns 607-08

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the wild bird species affected by the Sea Empress disaster in south-west Wales indicating(a) total populations estimated in the area in 1995, (b) his latest estimate of casualties caused by the spillage and (c) the number of estimated casualties as a percentage of the 1995 populations; and if he will make a statement. [25767]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest estimated figures of wild bird species affected are shown in the following table. Only the largest colonies have been counted annually, and most of the breeding total figures were collated during the period 1987–95. The Countryside Council for Wales will be conducting surveys of breeding colonies this summer in order to assess the level of mortalities caused by the spill.

  Species

  Breeding total

  Number affected (individuals)

  Per cent.

  Black-h-gull

  n/k

  16

  —

  Black-t-diver

  n/k

  2

  —

  Cormorant

  254 pairs

  21

  4

  Common scoter

  n/k (10,000)

  4,704

  47

  Common gull

  n/k

  2

  —

  Curlew

  n/k

  2

  —

  Eider

  n/k

  9

  —

  Fulmar

  957 pairs

  2

  <1

  Gannet

  26,277 pairs

  3

  <1

  Great B-B gull

  229 pairs

  0

  0

  Great-c grebe

  n/k

  3

  —

  Great n diver

  n/k

  7

  —

  Grey heron

  n/k

  3

  —

  Guillemot

  22,270 pairs

  1,484

  3

  Herring gull

  3,473 pairs

  42

  <1

  L B-B gull

  19,378 pairs

  0

  0

  Kittiwake

  3,647 pairs

  8

  <1

  Mallard

  n/k

  1

  —

  Manx shearwater

  155,000 pairs

  0

  0

  Mute swan

  n/k

  25

  —

  Oystercatcher

  n/k

  32

  —

  Puffin

  13,393 pairs

  0

  0

  Razorbill

  6,841 pairs

  340

  3

  Red-b merganser

  n/k

  1

  —

  Red-n grebe

  n/k

  3

  —

  Red-t diver

  n/k

  62

  —

  Scaup

  n/k

  2

  —

  Shag

  84 pairs

  21

  13

  Shelduck

  n/k

  2

  —

  Storm petrel

  3,500 pairs

  0

  0

  Turnstone

  n/k

  1

  —

  Velvet scoter

  n/k

  3

  —

  Unidentified

  —

  130

  —

  n/k = not known (migratory).

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many complaints his Department received
  271
  alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Wales under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 in each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction; [25895]

  (2) how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Wales under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction as a result. [25901]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office received the following number of complaints alleging anti-competitive behaviour under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988:

  1990–91: 6

  1991–92: 8

  1992–93: 19

  1993–94: 11

  1994–95: 4.

  Our records for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are incomplete. Consequently the figures for these years could be understated. The following numbers of notices and directions were issued in respect of apparent anti-competitive behaviour.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  —

  —

  1 section 19A notices

  6 section 13 notices

  1 section 13 notices

  —

  —

  —

  2 section 14 directions

  2 section 14

  —

  —

  —

  1 section 19B direction

  —

  Section 19a notices and section 19b directions relate to the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. Section 13 notices and section 14 directions relate to the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the running costs borne by his Department for the financial years 1991–92 and 1993–94 of the local government compulsory competitive tendering enforcement team. [25896]

  Mr. Jones
  The approximate running costs borne by the Department for the years in question are as follows:

  1991–92: £41,689

  1993–94: £53,070

  Costs are not available on a consistent basis over the period in question. The main distortion was caused by the introduction of superannuation charges in 1993–94.

  Local Authority DLOs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how may local authority direct labour and service organisations in Wales, operating contracts under the terms of(a) the Local Government (Planning and Land)
  272
  Act 1980 and (b) the Local Government Act 1980 have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [25897]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The required rate of return was achieved by 241 local authority direct labour and service organisations in 1992–93 and by 260 in 1993–94. The information requested for 1994–95 is not yet available as the Welsh Office has not yet completed its analysis of the reports submitted by local authorities for that year.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by service the local authorities in Wales that have been challenged by his Department under regulations under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client/contractor splits. [25898]

  Mr. Jones
  None.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by authority the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95 for (i) general highways work, (ii) construction and maintenance of sewers, (iii) works of new construction and (iv) maintenance work, delivered by local authorities direct labour or services organisations in Wales under the terms of (1) Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, and (2) the Local Government Act 1988; [25899]

  (2) if he will list by authority and service area, the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Wales that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 for each financial year from 1990ߝ91 to 1994–95 in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices. [25900]

  Mr. Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Read Codes (NHS)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what pilot work has been carried out in Wales on the application of Read codes in the NHS; what independent evaluation has been carried out in the Read code's applicability; and by whom; [26840]

  (2) what pilot schemes have been carried out work on applying Read codes in the NHS; and what independent evaluation he proposes to carry out on the investment so far and by which body is it to be carried out. [26839]

  Mr. Hague
  Pilot work to test the utility and usability of Read codes is being undertaken at Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest. Further, independent evaluation of this particular work is still under consideration. Separately, the school of postgraduate studies in medical and health care at Morriston is undertaking a technical evaluation of the feasibility of incorporating Read codes into an operational clinical information system. Issues concerning pilot schemes and evaluations in England are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public expenditure has been spent on the development of Read codes for application in the NHS in
  273
  Wales; when the expenditure was commenced; if expenditure was committed outside the main Loughborough development centre; if he has proposals to continue part-funding the centre; and if he will make a statement. [26841]

  Mr. Hague
  The costs of pilot work at Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest, and the technical evaluation at the school of postgraduate studies in medical and health care at Morriston, have been shared equally between the Welsh Office and the centre for coding and classification at the Department of Health. Costs to date to the Welsh Office, all incurred in 1994–1995 and 1995–96, amount to £69,000. The Welsh Office makes no contribution to the funding of the centre.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to secure an independent evaluation of the bidding procedure for the materials management contract of the authority under market testing. [26837]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no consultations with the chairman about the market testing exercise which is being carried out in line with established procedures.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26712]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  General Practice Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, columns 39-40 to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West on general practice beds, what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Llandough Hospitals trust, and the Bro Taf health authority and GP fundholding practices in the Vale of Glamorgan concerning the supervision of the GP beds at the Barry community hospital. [26838]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the Bro Taf health authority and the local NHS trusts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20117]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The information is as follows:
  274

  (a) None

  (b) The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council

  The Food Advisory Committee

  (c) The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council

  The Food Advisory Committee

  (d) The Consumer Panel and the Veterinary Products Committee publish a register of members' interests.

  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Food Advisory Committee state members' interests in their annual reports.

  The interests of the members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Committee are made available each year via an arranged PQ.

  (e) The Consumer Panel, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and the Food Advisory Committee publish agendas for its meetings.

  (f) The Consumer Panel publishes the minutes of its meetings.

  There is no statutory requirement for any of the above.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20104]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The following advisory non-departmental public bodies have a statutory basis:

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  The Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  The Consumers' Committee for Great Britain The Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  The Committee on Agriculture Valuation

  The Hill Fanning Advisory Committee

  The Veterinary Products Committee

  (a) Advice to Government is published by:

  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  The Consumer Panel

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council (majority of reports)

  The Food Advisory Committee

  Publication is carried out on a voluntary basis by these bodies:

  (b) Annual reports are published by:

  The Veterinary Products Committee under a statutory requirement; and on a voluntary basis by:

  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  The Consumer Panel

  The Food Advisory Committee

  (c) An annual report is laid before Parliament by the Veterinary Products Committee under a statutory requirement.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the penalties for
  275
  contravening the regulations preventing specified bovine offal entering the food chain; and how many prosecutions there have been to date. [22942]

  Mrs. Browning
  The penalties which would apply on summary conviction for a contravention of the controls in the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995, as amended, which prevent SBO entering the food chain, are a fine of up to £5,000 and where appropriate a further fine of up to £1,000 for each 508 kg of SBO, beyond the initial 508 kg of SBO, in respect of which the offence is committed. Furthermore, a person who has been convicted for contravening the provisions of the SBO Order is liable in the court's discretion on a further conviction for a second or subsequent offence against the order to imprisonment for a term of up to one month in lieu of the applicable fine.

  To date, there is one case before the court. A number of other cases are under investigation.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an eradication scheme for BSE. [23382]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: This Department has been taking steps to eradicate BSE since July 1988, when the ruminant feed ban was introduced. This has resulted in a substantial decline in the number of cases, which is now less than one third of the rate at the height of the epidemic.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the measures necessary to eradicate BSE. [23383]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: BSE is believed to have been caused by cattle consuming contaminated feed containing infected bovine or ovine material. Preventing the recycling of such material in feed should prevent cattle being exposed to the BSE agent and so becoming infected. A ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants was introduced in 1988. Unfortunately, some leakage in this ban has occurred and a number of measures have been taken over the past few years to strengthen the controls. The total prohibition on the inclusion of mammalian meat and bonemeal in all feed for farm animals and fertiliser for use on farms, which has just been introduced, should prevent any further infection of cattle by BSE material in feed, and eradicate BSE from the national herd.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he intends to make to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers on measures to improve the methods used by other member states to detect BSE in their cattle herds. [23149]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: BSE is notifiable in all member states. Suspect cases are examined by a state veterinarian for clinical signs of the disease, and slaughtered and destroyed if BSE is believed to exist. The diagnosis is confirmed by examination of brain tissue after death, using protocols which are internationally agreed and validated.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the research commissioned by his Department into(a) maternal and (b) lateral transmission of BSE to be reported. [23201]
  276
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The detailed cohort study into the possibility of maternal transmission of BSE will not be complete until early 1997. Some information about this experiment has been published in the progress report on BSE laid in the Library of the House in November 1995, but the result cannot be interpreted until it is complete. A report of earlier experiments on maternal and lateral transmission of BSE was published in the "Veterinary Record", volume 136, pages 312-318 of 1 April 1995, details of which were given in the progress report laid in the Library of the House in May 1995.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence if BSE in England and Wales by(a) type of herd, (b) age of herd and (c) region. [23363]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: As at 22 April 1996, 64.61 per cent. of all dairy herds had had at least one case of BSE and 15.95 per cent. of all beef herds.

  As at 22 April 1996, the proportion of herds in each region in England and Wales which had had at least one case of BSE was:

  Per cent.

  East Anglia

  40.3

  East midlands

  35.3

  North

  31.48

  North-west

  48.16

  South-east

  44.59

  South-west

  48.8

  West midlands

  40.74

  Yorks/Humberside

  35.99

  Wales

  30.06

  The information is not recorded by age of herd.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship of feed from scrapie sheep and BSE. [23367]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The relevant research projects are:

  Project code

  Project title

  Status

  OC8964

  BSE Deactivation Studies

  Commissioned/evaluated

  SE0201

  BSE: Epidemiological Studies

  Commissioned/evaluated

  SE0209

  BSE: Epidemiological Studies

  Commissioned

  SE1404

  Susceptibility of BSE and Scrapie isolates

  Commissioned/evaluated

  SE1405

  Susceptibility of BSE agent to chemical and physical inactivation in the field/laboratory

  Commissioned/evaluated

  SE1413

  Strain typing of Scrapie agent in meat and bone meal

  Proposed—not yet approved

  SE1417

  The effect of PrPgenotype on the thermostability of scrapie agent

  Commissioned

  SE1421

  BSE and scrapie agent susceptibility to laboratory facsimilies of rendering practices (was SE1404)

  Commissioned

  277

  Project code

  Project title

  Status

  SE1422

  Practical aspects of inactivation of BSE and scrapie agents (was SE 1405)

  Commissioned

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of BSE in Scotland by(a) type of herd, (b) age of herd and (c) region. [23362]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March I996]: As at 22 April 1996, 37.5 per cent. of all dairy herds had had at least one case of BSE and 14.01 per cent. of all beef herds.

  As at 22 April, the proportion of herds in each region in Scotland which had had at least one case of BSE was:

  Region

  Incidence per cent.

  Borders

  26.97

  Central

  16.08

  Dumfries

  33.85

  Fife

  29.67

  Grampian

  22.24

  Highland

  8.24

  Lothian

  24.85

  Strathclyde

  20.95

  Tayside

  25.83

  Islands

  4.67

  The information is not recorded by age of herd.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now publish the papers discussed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [23839]

  Mrs. Browning
  Many of the papers discussed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee contain interim reports on research, medical case reports and commercial information provided in confidence. It would not be appropriate to make such information publicly available. Indeed, to do so would harm the working of SEAC, as people would be unwilling to provide it with much important information.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the minutes and proceedings of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee since its inception in 1990. [23767]

  Mrs. Browning
  Much of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's discussions, as recorded in the minutes, cover interim reports on research, medical case reports and commercial information. It would be inappropriate to make this information publicly available. To require this information to be published could make people reluctant to provide this committee with material, which could seriously harm its ability to make well judged and timely recommendations to the Government.

  The Government will continue to publish the statements made by SEAC outlining its advice to Government and the reasons for that advice.

  Beef Cattle Producers
  Miss Emma Micholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for differentiated compensation payments to provide market values to producers of beef cattle. [26133]

  Mrs. Browning
  In respect of animals coming to slaughter at 30 months or over, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 16 April that a market support measure would come into effect in the week beginning 29 April. The basic premium will be equivalent to the cull cow price, but a supplement in respect of steers and heifers will be available for six months. This will be set at no less that 25p/kg for the first four weeks of the scheme.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times officials of the State Veterinary Service have observed the killing of mink and arctic fox on fur farms during the last 12 months; and what method of killing was used in each case. [26429]

  Mrs. Browning
  Officers of the State Veterinary Service have monitored the slaughter of farmed mink on one occasion in the last 12 months. The method of slaughter used was exposure to carbon monoxide.

  There is no requirement to register fox farms. However, I am not aware of any in England and Wales.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Council of Ministers has to consider the option of limiting the number of days spent at sea by fishing vessels in the renegotiation of the EU common fisheries policy. [26500]

  Mr. Baldry
  The option of limiting days at sea already exists in the context of implementing member states' multi-annual guidance programmes for fleet capacity reduction. Negotiations on a further series of programmes will be taking place in the Council later this year, but the Commission has still to make proposals for this.

  Fishing (Scientific Teams)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds his Department allocated to the scientific teams attached to the monitoring of fish stocks and the regulation of fishing quotas in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [26501]

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure by the Ministry's Directorate of Fisheries Research for these purposes was as follows:

  1992–93:£4.3 million

  1993–94: £4.4 million

  1994–95: £4.3 million

  1995–96: £4.5 million (forecast outturn).

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm animals have been exported, by species, from Britain for(a) further fattening and (b) slaughter in each year since 1989. [26431]
  279
  Mrs. Browning
  The table shows total recorded exports of live farm animals by species, as recorded in the Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom. It is not possible to identify precisely whether the animals were exported for fattening or slaughter. However, the hon.

  1,000 head

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  19951

  Bovines

  330

  352

  400

  429

  445

  480

  429

  Sheep

  589

  584

  882

  1,422

  830

  915

  596

  Goats

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swine

  115

  108

  293

  379

  150

  176

  190

  Poultry

  13,555

  14,646

  21,058

  23,192

  21,132

  27,615

  25,341

  1 Data are provisional.

  Ostriches and Emus
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods are used to kill ostriches and emus in the United Kingdom; and which methods are approved by his Department. [26430]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 21 March 1996,Official Report, column 314.

  Aggressive and Disruptive Children
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department on the nutritional and dietary aspects of aggressive and disruptive behaviour in children. [26440]

  Mrs. Browning
  No work has been commissioned by my Department on the nutritional and dietary aspects of aggressive and disruptive behaviour. However, MAFF's food research requirements document 1997–98 invites research proposals in the following area:"To what extent can hyperactivity and other behavioural problems be traced to food and food ingredients."

  The Food Advisory Committee has also recently requested that a review of the scientific literature on links between hyperactivity and food or food additive intolerance be conducted. This work is being carried out by the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, the Environment and Consumer Products.

HEALTH

  Creutzfield-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possibility that CJD in humans is linked to scrapie in sheep; and if he will make a statement. [25463]

  Mr. Horam
  The possibility that scrapie in sheep might be a cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans was examined by the Southwood working party in 1989. The working party concluded that there was no evidence for this and, in particular, that"scrapie has been endemic in Great Britain for centuries without there being any evidence to show an incidence of CJD higher than the international average in the human population."
  Paragraph 3.7.
  280
  Member may wish to refer to "The Business Monitor" MA20 and MA21 series, available in the Library of the House, which provides more detail on recorded overseas trade statistics, within which live animal trade can be found.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the human CJD victims regularly ate lamb and mutton; and if he will make a statement. [25457]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest data on the meat-eating of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases was published in the fourth annual report of the National CJD surveillance unit, August 1995—page 16—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Broadmoor Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who were detained in Broadmoor hospital as at 30 March. [25574]

  Mr. Bowis
  A total of 374 men and 91 women were detained in Broadmoor hospital under powers in the Mental Health Act 1983 on 1 April 1996.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total value of commercial orders placed by his Department with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25814]

  Mr. Horam
  Commercial orders placed with British Steel plc by the Department of Health during the period 1988 to 1995 were as follows:

  1994–95: £56,400

  1995–96: £343,215

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his calculation of total costs in real terms and the total number of prescriptions for drugs issued in each of the past five years. [26281]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The table shows the annual number of prescriptions dispensed in the community in England between 1990–91 and 1994–95 and their total cost, including dispensing fees, in real terms.

  Year

  Total number of prescriptions dispensed (thousands)

  Total cost of drugs and appliances including dispensing fees (£ millions)

  1990–91

  396,580

  3,074

  1991–92

  415,370

  3,206

  1992–93

  432,370

  3,469

  1993–94

  455,320

  3,725

  281

  Year

  Total number of prescriptions dispensed (thousands)

  Total cost of drugs and appliances including dispensing fees (£ millions)

  1994–95

  467,790

  3,931

  1. The number of prescriptions are rounded to the nearest thousand and include items personally administered and prescriptions dispensed by chemists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors. It also includes prescriptions written by hospital doctors but dispensed in the community.

  2. The costs relate to gross pharmaceutical services expenditure (drugs, medicines, appliances and dispensing fees) and is rounded to the nearest £million.

  Tampons
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has to designate tampons as a sterile product similar to medical dressings; [26532]

  (2) what proposals he has to reintroduce the Tampon (Safety) Bill; [26522]

  (3) if he will bring forward proposals to improve the safety of tampons. [26531]

  Mr. Horam
  Since 1984, the Association of Sanitary Protection Manufacturers has operated a voluntary prior notification scheme for tampons. Under the scheme, all new products are submitted to the Department of Health for assessment of their safety. I have no proposals to introduce a tampon safety Bill.

  Complaints Procedures
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to publicise the new national health service complaints procedures among users of the service.
  [26362]

  Mr. Horam
  A supply of public information leaflets and posters was sent to all national health service trusts, family health service authorities, district health authorities, community health councils and family health services practitioners for use from 1 April when the new system was implemented. In addition, leaflets and posters have been supplied to all citizens advice bureaux, main public libraries and health information service outlets. The leaflet will also be available shortly in the 11 most commonly used ethnic minority languages.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's hospices there are in the Greater London area; and what responsibility he has for the funding of such hospices. [26312]

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that the first children's hospice to be based in the Greater London area is at an advanced stage of planning. Recurrent funding has been included in annual financial allocations to health authorities, to enable them to commission services from children's hospices to serve the needs of their resident populations.

  Management Cost Reductions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, by health authority, the severance costs 282
  incurred in order to achieve the 1996–97 management cost reduction targets cost reduction targets. [26318]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26681]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no record of the Department of Health or its agencies having any current contracts with Serco Ltd.

  Carers (Recognition of Services) Act 1995
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources he estimates are required to meet the needs identified by the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; and what plans he has to make such resources available. [26355]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on 1 March, columns 758-59.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Committee on Safety of Medicines had considered the safety of oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene at its meetings subsequent to 13 October 1995. [26603]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes, important safety issues are kept under regular review by the committee.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whose staff drafted the letter of 18 October 1995 relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene. [26600]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 March, column 428.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 184, if the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) consulted him before authorising the letter of 18 October 1995. [26604]

  Mr. Malone
  Disclosure of information such as that requested would be in breach of the long-established convention, observed by successive Governments, protecting the confidentiality of the internal decision-making process.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report column 184, on what date the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) authorised the issuing of the letter of 18 October 1995 relating to desogestrel and gestodene. [26605]

  Mr. Malone
  On 16 October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column

  283
  185, what external legal advice was sought prior to the referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 11 October 1995. [26608]

  Mr. Malone
  No external legal advice was sought prior to the United Kingdom's request of 11 October 1995 for this issue to be discussed at the Committee of Proprietary Medicinal Products meeting of 17 to 18 October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a referral of matters relating to combined oral contraceptives containing desopestrel or gestodene was made to the Law Officers in terms of paragraphs 22(i) or 22(ii)(c) of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" of May 1992, prior to the issuing of the letter of 18 October 1995. [26607]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 April, column 185.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in 1995 travelling expenses for members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines were paid for travel to the United Kingdom from overseas. [26606]

  Mr. Malone
  Once.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the number of refused admissions to paediatric intensive care beds in England between 1 January and 22 April. [26806]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of paediatric intensive care beds, excluding high dependency beds or coronary care beds, in England; [26807]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the number of admissions to paediatric intensive care beds in England between 1 January and 22 April. [26808]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief executive of the national health service to report to him on paediatric intensive care by the end of April. Information for this report is still being collated.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the state of progress of the Read codes system development; how much has been spent on the Loughborough centre for the development of Read codes; and if he will list the different applications of the Read codes according to progress achieved. [26836]

  Mr. Horam
  A project to develop version 3 of Read codes, extending version 2 currently used in general practitioner practices to cover all national health service environments, particularly the acute sector, commenced in 1992. The two-year project to identify all new medical terms was completed in April 1994, that for professions allied to medicine in October 1994, and that for nursing terms in April 1995. This involved 55 working groups and over 2,000 clinicians at a total cost of £3.7 million.
  284
  A programme of projects has now commenced to pilot the new version 3 in a variety of environments including the acute sector. Previous versions, for example 4 Byte, version 2, continue to be fully supported by the Loughborough-based NHS centre for coding and classification and are in use in about 7,000 GP practices and about 170 NHS trusts.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place a copy in the Library of the independent inquiry into the departmental delay in instituting parliamentary authority for the payment of general practitioner fundholders' management allowances between 1 April 1991 and 1 April 1995; and if he will make a statement; [26843]

  (2) if he will specify the nature of the independent inquiry into the departmental delay in providing suitable parliamentary authority for the payment of management allowances for general practitioner fundholders between 1991 and 1995; who carried the inquiry; how the appointment was made; how much it cost; on what dates it commenced and was completed; and what disciplinary consequences flowed from it. [26842]

  Mr. Malone
  The internal inquiry into the events which led to the extra-statutory payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders between 1991–95 was established in June 1995. It was undertaken by Mr. Strachan Heppell, a former deputy secretary in the Department of Health. The terms of reference were:"To establish by studying all the relevant papers and by interviewing the relevant members of staff how management allowances came to be paid to GP Fundholders from 1991–95 without legal authority; to draw out any lessons that can be learned and need to e applied across the Department of Health; and to report."

  The report of the inquiry, which was conducted at no additional cost to the Department, was received in January 1996. Its conclusions and recommendations have been fully accepted and are being implemented.

  The report contains internal advice which it would not be appropriate to publish. I am arranging for a memorandum to be prepared setting out the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the report. I will send a copy to the hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central can expect an answer to his question of 19 March on the companies involved in the purchase of the former headquarters of the Yorkshire regional health authority at Harrogate. [26760]

  Mr. Malone
  The reply was given on 23 April.

  Ambulance Call-outs (Kirklees and Wakefield)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of call-outs per week since the beginning of 1996 for ambulances operating out of each of the ambulance stations in Kirklees and Wakefield; and what was the average response time of these call-outs. [26761]
  285
  Mr. Horam
  West Yorkshire Metropolitan ambulance service national health service trust has consistently met and exceeded that national patients charter standard for ambulance response times. Figures for 1994–95 are set 286
  out in the NHS performance guide, copies of which are in the Library. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Alan Titterington, chairman of the trust, for further details.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Government Statements: Repetition Procedure
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Leader of the House:
How many Government Statements made in the House of Commons in the last year have not been repeated in this House, and how many of these were not repeated as a result of a decision by the Opposition.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, in the period from 1st April 1995 to 1st April 1996, 30 Statements were made in another place and not repeated in your Lordships' House. In each case a decision on whether or not to repeat the Statement was made in accordance with guidance recommended by the Procedure Committee and endorsed by the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if a Statement is important enough to justify being made in another place, surely this House is not being treated properly if the same Statement is not repeated here, and if this House is ignored by the Government for this purpose? In these circumstances, is it not particularly odd that a decision as to whether or not a Statement should be repeated here can be made by the party opposite whose attitude towards the whole future of this House is well known?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I would not be exaggerating the flavour of what seem to be a great number of Procedure Committee reports over the years on this subject if I characterise them by suggesting that there was a mild feeling that making Statements in your Lordships' House was an alien procedure from another place. I exaggerate a little to make the point to my noble friend. It might be helpful if I remind my noble friend that the Procedure Committee recommended that Statements should be repeated,
"when in the opinion of the Leader, after consultation through the usual channels, they are on a matter of national importance".
If I take the first part of my Answer, I hope the House will feel that that is the right procedure. It is certainly in line with the nature and ethos of your Lordships' House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree—and perhaps, on reflection, would not my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter agree—that a number of Statements made in another place are scarcely worth making at Hyde Park Corner on a Sunday morning, and
1246
that they are made for reasons more concerned with intricate negotiations to avoid other forms of parliamentary debate than for their own merits?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me strangely, particularly in view of the fact that I have heard him with some elegance make many Statements of an oral nature in another place. However, I think what my noble friend says undoubtedly supports the first part of the Answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware—I know he is, but perhaps his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is not—that that same report of the Procedure Committee also stated that the criterion for oral repetition was to be,
"strictly interpreted, so that the number of Statements taken orally is substantially reduced",
and that that recommendation of the Procedure Committee was accepted by the House?
Is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware that we on these Benches appreciate his courtesy in consulting us on the issue of whether or not a Statement should be repeated in this House? Is he also aware—I know he is—that any opinions expressed by us are of course within the usual channels? The noble Viscount will be aware that some of the matters that we try to take into account in considering whether or not a Statement should be repeated here are the state of business in this House and the importance of the Statement itself; that is, whether it falls into the "Tebbit category" or is considered in the opinion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to be a matter of national importance. Is the noble Viscount aware that we take very much to heart what the Procedure Committee says the House should do with regard to Statements made in another place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for what I think reflects entirely my sense of what the feelings of the House are. He is, of course, as aware as I am that the usual channels always work best when the details of that rather arcane procedure continue to be wrapped in mystery.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I entirely agree with the comment that the usual channels should operate in confidence and, at the end of the day, through confidence, they stand by what they have agreed. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the fact that it is no defence when questions are raised—certainly this has happened in this House in the past 12 months—as to why a Statement was not repeated here to say that the Opposition did not want it? In the light of what the noble Viscount has said, I think that much of the misunderstanding of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be put at rest. However, will the noble Viscount ask his colleagues not to use the phrase, "The Opposition did not want the Statement here and therefore we did not hear it"?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his experience in the management of business in this House, the noble

1247
Lord will know that it is always wise to rest one's case on the exact phraseology of the Procedure Committee. With his permission, and the permission of the House, I shall continue to do so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the value originally attributed to Statements being made in another place and repeated in your Lordships' House has been greatly undermined by the growing practice of putting down planted Questions for Written Answer in another place as a substitute for making a public Statement in the place in which it ought to be made?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in view of the policies being advocated with regard to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord's party at present, I am constantly gratified, if surprised, by the amount of support that I find for your Lordships' House and its procedures. I leave it to your Lordships to draw conclusions as to the institutions with which those reactors are drawing comparisons.

Education: Selection
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to extend selection in secondary education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently consulted interested parties on proposals to increase flexibility in school admissions. This will take effect later in the year. We are also considering the options for further extending self-government for schools in the longer term, including in the area of admissions and selection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, first, why should there be a possible extension of selection when there is overwhelming evidence that it is both unfair and inefficient and it is widely discredited by most educationists? Secondly, when selection is made, by whatever method, what happens to those pupils who are not selected? Thirdly, what becomes of parental choice when selection is made, in particular since the Government place so much emphasis on parental choice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, unlike the party opposite—as we know, it says that it believes in a universal comprehensive system, taking away both choice and selection, but practices the opposite—we believe in extending both choice and selection. We believe in diversity. But that does not mean that we propose to go back to universal selection. What we want to do is to go back to a diversity of different systems, which will allow parents the appropriate choice of schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the state system of education in
1248
this country is in the trouble that it is precisely because it has paid too much attention to the views of "most educationists", as promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington? Is it not true that the state system of education delivered a much higher standard of education to all people in this country, including the poorest, when it was more selective?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to extensive reliance on the views of educationists. I remind my noble friend that we rely very much on the views of parents. I draw my noble friend's attention to a recent poll conducted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which indicated that the majority of people in this country, and the majority of parents, are in favour of a return to a degree of selection.
Baroness David: My Lords, the DFEE proposals for changing admission arrangements were made in a consultative document with the rather dry title, Review of Circular 6/93: Admissions to Maintained Schools, and Grant-Maintained School Admissions Arrangements. That document was published on 8th January. Responses were required by 22nd February 1996. Can the Minister tell us when Her Majesty's Government will respond to their January consultation; or is this all wrapped up in the proposed White Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we intend to allow grant-maintained and LEA schools to extend their selection from roughly 10 per cent. to something like 15 per cent. without coming to the Secretary of State for approval. Obviously if schools wish to go further, they can seek approval from my right honourable friend for such major changes should they so wish. I welcome applications from all schools, whether LEA or grant maintained.
As regards further steps forward, again as my right honourable friend made quite clear in her speech to the University of London Institute of Education, we shall bring forward further proposals in the White Paper in June; and we would want to introduce a greater degree of selection.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people feel that the educational policy in this country is inadequate and has been so for a long time? The new theories to avoid selection and various other methods are not popular with the majority of parents.
Is it not high time that the educational policy in this country was governed by the Government and the Department for Education rather than the National Union of Teachers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can accept a great deal of what the noble Lord says. We believe that education should be governed by the policies of this Government but also by the choices of parents because we believe that parents are the right people to make the right decisions as regards the education of their children.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us were late developers? If an important

1249
selection has to be made at the age of 11, it could be wrong for young people who are late developers but who turn out to be near geniuses. Therefore selection at the early age of 11 is not always right.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much accept my noble friend's remark. As I have made quite clear, we do not propose any system involving a return to a universal 11-plus or its equivalent. We say that parents should be able to make the choice. A great many parents want to select schools. Whether that selection is made on the basis of their own specialisms or the ability of their children, they would like to make that choice. We believe, therefore, that schools have a right to select, and to select appropriately. We want to see a diversity of provision that will allow parents to make that appropriate choice.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is not this harking back to the issue of selection a terrible diversion from the real challenges in regard to the provision of high-quality education to pupils of all ability in our schools if they are to face the future successfully and help this country to face the future successfully? When the Minister talks of parental choice, is he aware that those of us with experience of the system would like to have the choice of not having our five and six year-olds educated in classes of over 30, and not having to sell raffle tickets and hold car boot sales to buy textbooks for our 15 year-olds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the education spokesman for the party opposite himself said that the comprehensive system of the past 30 years had failed, and then seemed to suggest a scheme that would widen it even further. That would serve only to remove all choice from parents. Choice can never be total. We want to extend choice as far as possible to as many parents as possible.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, apart from their own speculations, dreams and opinions, what hard evidence based on what research do the Government have to suggest that the introduction of more selection will improve the quality of education for all children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the hard evidence is that it will extend parental choice. By extending parental choice one will increase parental involvement. As I believe anyone knows, even the noble Lord, parental involvement improves standards in schools.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that very many teachers find it quite absurd to be told that all children are equal and must be taught together and in the same way? There are teachers who have been crying out for some form of opportunity to teach children according to their innate abilities and talents. They would welcome some form of increased selection based on a range of different characteristics.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Sadly, those who represent a great
1250
many teachers and some of the more extreme teacher unions do not send that message out from their members.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in answering my Question and responding to others, the Minister once again emphasised parental choice. We on these Benches do not disagree with him. What we are saying—a point which he continually refuses to answer—is that thousands of parents do not have parental choice and that to a large extent education is based on selection. Will he answer that point?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have never said that choice can be absolutely total. I have said that we want to make choice as widely available to parents as possible. We want to offer a whole range of schools: grant-maintained schools; local authority schools; comprehensive schools; specialist schools; city technology colleges; and technology colleges, or whatever. By extending that choice and diversity, we increase choice and diversity for parents.

Mr. Portillo: Israel Visit
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow The Earl of Glasgow asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the reasons for the recent visit to Israel of the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Michael Portillo; and what have been the results.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, my right honourable friend's visit to Israel was made in response to a long-standing invitation. The visit provided the opportunity for discussions on a range of issues, including bilateral defence relations. My right honourable friend was also able to stress the Government's determination to see a diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Lebanon and a speedy return to the peace process.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that explanation. I have just returned from a visit to the Lebanon as a member of a parliamentary delegation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government appreciate how desperately the Lebanese Government want peace at the moment; how much the people there have suffered, more so than any other Arab country, from the Arab-Israeli conflict; and also how very aware that government are of their helplessness against Israeli fire power? Yet they are invited by the Israelis, supported by the Americans, to do something that is impossible; namely, rid their country of Hizbollah while at the same time the Israelis occupy one-tenth of their country. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government still believe that the Israeli action against Lebanon is appropriate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's horror at what he saw in Lebanon. That is why I authorised the spending of a

1251
quarter of a million pounds to try to ameliorate the situation in the Lebanese camps that were attacked only last week. Lebanon has a desperately difficult situation to face. Hizbollah has been at the root of all that. There is absolutely no doubt that the Israelis faced a substantial terrorist threat from Hizbollah, with a very large number of Katyusha rockets being fired into Israel. While we understand the problem and have discussed the situation with the Lebanese Prime Minister—it was discussed again at the Moscow summit on Friday and Saturday last week—we have to help Mr. Harm and others to find a way towards a diplomatic end to the fighting and a cessation of attacks from both sides of the border.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, would not Mr. Portillo have been better advised, even at that time, to have urged an immediate end to the bombardment of civilians and the removal of occupying forces from southern Lebanon? Will my noble friend now assure the House that the British Government will use their undoubted influence in the area not only to secure peace but to see that, whatever guarantees are to be put in place, Lebanon is quickly re-established as a fully independent sovereign state?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend knows, not only has the United Kingdom called for an immediate ceasefire. We have also been actively engaged throughout in diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. We remain in close touch with the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli governments, with the Americans, and with our European partners. We were co-sponsors of Security Council Resolution 1052 last week. We will continue our efforts and use all our influence to bring about an end to the horrific war that is going on in southern Lebanon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister was perhaps a little reticent in regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question. What have been the results? Is it not the case that Mr. Portillo—on an official visit, paid for, I assume, by the taxpayer—made certain pronouncements about the Lebanese situation which were perhaps different from those made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rifkind? Will the noble Baroness, and the Government generally, ensure that when Cabinet Ministers make pronouncements on the same issue, they sing from the same songsheet?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is always very easy to be wise after the event. The remarks to which the noble Earl refers were made on 15th April, before the new, and much worse, phase in the fighting. Therefore, I understand why the spokesman for the Labour Party seeks to make fun out of the issue. For me, it is far too serious. The Government have worked, and will continue to work, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that all is done to bring this issue to a peaceful end through diplomatic efforts as soon as possible.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that by the time Mr. Portillo made the statement
1252
supporting the operation and calling it proportionate retaliation, civilians in Lebanon were being killed as a result of the operation? Would the Minister not have done better, if he had to be in Israel—the visit was not well timed—to warn the Israelis that the operation was unlikely to succeed; that it would be widely condemned in the world and that the British Government opposed it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would be useful for the House to look at what the Defence Secretary said. He said that the United Kingdom looked to the Israelis to make their response measured and proportionate. But he also said that the problems of the area could not be solved militarily. He made that absolutely clear. He said that the United Kingdom was looking for a diplomatic solution and a return to the peace process and would take whatever steps necessary to achieve that. There is no getting away from the fact that the Israelis were facing a substantial terrorist threat from Hizbollah. I know that two wrongs do not make a right, but Israel does have a right to self-defence. We should not forget that.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that this matter is of enormous interest to your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there will he an opportunity to return to it. There is another equally important Question on the Order Paper and we have only six minutes in which to deal with it. I wonder whether your Lordships feel it right to continue.

Unclaimed Benefits: Campaign
3.31 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the current week's campaign by Age Concern on unclaimed benefits.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for pensions (Mr. Oliver Heald) recently met Age Concern to discuss (among other things) unclaimed benefits and ways of improving benefit take-up. In 1994–95 the Government spent over —26 million on publication and information about the benefits available.
Information and leaflets about which benefits to claim are widely displayed, not only in local benefit offices, but also in many other locations such as post offices, doctors' surgeries and citizens advice bureaux.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, especially the part about the response in another place, of which I was well aware. However, does the Minister realise that in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, up to £1.25 billion was unclaimed by one-third of all pensioners who were eligible to claim the benefits? There is also the question of expenditure on fraud. Can the Minister say whether

1253
the new benefit cards, which will contain an element to try to prevent fraud, will have any information on them that will help people to be identified as eligible for benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to know how much faith to place in the accuracy of such surveys. They ask about people who do not claim benefit and obviously they do not come forward to say, "I do not claim benefit". One must bear in mind the broad margins of error that they may contain. The noble Lord ought to know, before he goes any further, that an average take-up of around 75 per cent. of income support among pensioners has been reported in surveys over quite a few years, including in the 1970s when the party opposite was in power.
We try to ensure that pensioners realise that they are eligible for benefits; for example, the reverse side of the pension book contains a little entry which asks them if they can manage and whether they are entitled to income support and/or housing benefit. It suggests where they can go to find out more about those benefits. In relation to the card, we are still working on that. It is too early to say how much information one can reasonably put on a plastic card.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that if elderly people fail to claim the income support to which they are entitled, they will be living below income support levels, possibly unable to afford heating and food? Why then has the Benefits Agency cut its benefits advertising budget in real terms from £8.5 million in 1994–95 to £6.9 million in 1995–96? Equally importantly, why are the Government threatening to cut the free benefit helpline used by 3 million people, mainly pensioners? We have cuts in advertising budgets and cuts in helpline advice. Is that how the Government plan to cap social security expenditure—by discouraging the old and the poor from claiming that to which they are entitled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as usual the noble Baroness goes over the top. It is a pity that she did not listen to my answer when I pointed out that the figures were pretty similar for the three years of the surveys during the government of the party opposite in the late 1970s. The histrionics about the motivation behind what we are doing is totally uncalled for. We are spending £26 million, as I said.
In relation to the helpline, the position is that we are examining the scheme with some care. We sent out questionnaires to individual branches and are looking at who uses it and how it is used. I am afraid that the noble Baroness has no evidence at all that it is largely used by pensioners because I do not have any evidence of that either. We do not break down the inquiries into categories. If I do not know, the noble Baroness certainly does not know. The important point is that pensioners are considerably better off today than they were when the party opposite left power.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend give me some figures on the number of claims for child benefit for 16 and 17 year-old children still at school? Is that well claimed? Is it a popular benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the important aspects of child benefit is that the uptake is extremely high. That covers the whole sphere, including the child benefit which we pay to 16 and 17 year-olds. As my noble friend will know, the party opposite intends to remove that benefit from those parents and families who keep their children on at school. It sounds to me very much like taxing the poor for sending their children to school.

Business of the House: Whitsun Recess
3.36 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday 23rd May and return on Monday 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 23rd May.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the proposals submitted to the European Union on BSE. Since that Statement has yet to he cleared and we are about to start the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill, I suggest that that convenient moment should take place after the Front Bench speakers and therefore after the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and before the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a means to an end; and that end is the launch of all-party negotiations on 10th June intended to lead to a comprehensive political settlement in relation to Northern Ireland. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing all stages to be dealt with today. It is an important step on the path to peace; the ballot box instead of bombs and bullets.

1255
The Government acknowledge a duty to all the people of Northern Ireland to defeat terrorism, promote political stability and encourage social and economic development. Those goals are intertwined.
This Bill and this debate focus on the search for political stability. They reflect the analysis that such stability can best emerge from discussion and negotiation involving as wide a spread of political opinion in Northern Ireland as possible. But the sources of tensions within the divided community of Northern Ireland reach out beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The nature of the relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the two Governments can fundamentally affect the political situation within Northern Ireland. The search for political stability in Northern Ireland must therefore extend to a consideration of these wider relationships and the way in which they are, or might be, given institutional expression.
Since 1990 the Government have sought to promote political talks in relation to Northern Ireland which would address all the relevant relationships: those internal to Northern Ireland and those I have mentioned which reach out beyond the borders of Northern Ireland. Self-evidently, such discussions must involve—at relevant points—both the British and Irish Governments and representatives of political opinion in Northern Ireland. I believe there is in fact general support, within Northern Ireland, in your Lordships' House and in another place and among the political parties in the Republic of Ireland for the view that the best hope of achieving a comprehensive and lasting political accommodation in relation to Northern Ireland lies in addressing all those relationships as part of the same process of dialogue; and producing a comprehensive package of agreements which balances the varying interests of all the parties to those relationships in a mutually satisfactory way.
The talks which took place in 1991 and in 1992 were based on that analysis. They made considerable progress and certainly illustrated the correctness and utility of the analysis. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to bring those talks to a conclusion. This Bill signals a new phase of the talks process.
The decision, announced on 28th February, to proceed to the talks by way of an elective process in Northern Ireland provides a means for the Northern Ireland political parties to secure fresh electoral mandates for the talks. The ground rules for the negotiations were published as Command Paper 3232 on 16th April. These are broadly similar to those which applied in 1991–92 and certainly retain all their key features. But we have taken the opportunity to learn from previous experience and the new ground rules should facilitate an effective negotiating process. In discussing the draft ground rules with the parties my right honourable friend was able to incorporate a number of constructive comments and suggestions.
It is also, of course, helpful that the issues to be covered in the negotiations have already received a preliminary airing at the previous talks and in
1256
subsequent exchanges. It may not be possible simply to pick up where the previous talks left off, but the participants in those talks were able to conclude that they had discussed most, if not all, of the elements of a potential accommodation. The frameworks for the future, published by the British and Irish Governments a year ago, pulled those elements together and illustrate the range of issues which the participants in fresh talks are likely to wish to address.
Another significant development since the 1992 talks has been the development of a broad consensus across political opinion in both Britain and Ireland on the constitutional issue. The Downing Street Declaration and the frameworks document both reflected the total commitment of both Governments to the principle that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people who live there. That principle was also reflected in the recent report of the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which was endorsed by the whole spectrum of political opinion in the Republic of Ireland, except Sinn Fein. Such a breadth of common understanding on such a key issue bodes well for the success of further talks.
Another advantage which the talks commencing on 10th June will enjoy is that they will be as inclusive as possible compatible with democratic principles. The election method announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 21st March will ensure that at least the 10 largest political parties in Northern Ireland will be eligible to be represented. Sinn Fein's eligibility will of course be totally dependent on whether or not the IRA ceasefire has been unequivocally restored.
I should make clear to your Lordships that the talks process will not be held hostage by the unrepresentative and faceless figures on the IRA's so-called Army Council. The talks will proceed—with or without Sinn Fein. I hope the IRA leadership will make it possible for Sinn Fein to participate in the talks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he believes the prospects for a lasting agreement would be immeasurably improved if they were included in the negotiations. But it is a fundamental ground rule for negotiations in a democracy that violence or the threat of violence can play no part in affecting the outcome of the negotiations.
If Sinn Fein secures a sufficient electoral mandate in the forthcoming elections the door will be open to its participation in the negotiations. The choice as to whether it steps through it is for the republican movement to make.
As to the course of the negotiations, concerns have been expressed that they will not be truly comprehensive or that one issue—the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons—will be given such a high priority that it could be used to prevent progress being made on any other issue. Others have expressed the opposite concern, that decommissioning will not be adequately addressed until the very end of the negotiations.
The views of the two Governments were set out clearly in the joint communiqué of 28th February. We believe that at the beginning of discussions the

1257
participants must make clear their total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and, at the same time, address the Mitchell Report's proposals on arms decommissioning. We also agree that there must be reassurance to all concerned that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of all traditions and to address the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify.
The principles, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister accepted on behalf of the Government on the day that the Mitchell Report was published, are not preconditions. They add up to a statement of the fundamental principles for negotiating in a democracy. Any party which cannot accept them would forfeit the right to join in negotiations with democratic political parties.
As to the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning, these cannot be ducked or left to the end of negotiations. There is a substantial agenda to work through, including the Mitchell Report's proposals on the modalities of decommissioning and the suggestion in paragraph 34 of the report that:
"The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, rather than before or after as the parties now urge".
Progress must be achieved in parallel with progress on the substantive political issues covered in the "three strands". There will need to be agreement on a format which can achieve this. When the parties come, at the beginning of the negotiations, to "address" the decommissioning issue there will be no question of "merely" addressing the issue, as one Irish columnist put it. There will need to be a serious engagement on the issue and some indication of good intent on the part of those parties which have influence with paramilitary organisations.
At the same time, all the participants, including both Governments, will need to confirm, in adopting a comprehensive agenda, that they will constructively address, fully and seriously, in good faith, and with every effort being made to reach agreement, all the items on the agenda. This will include, but not exclusively, the difficult issue of decommissioning.
Such commitments, carried through, will be the key to a successful negotiating process. In the nature of things no party will concede its negotiating position in advance of the negotiations, but equally it will not be possible to bring the negotiations to a conclusion unless the participants show themselves genuinely ready to engage on all the issues and to move towards a broadly acceptable outcome.
Ultimately, of course, any outcome from the talks will need to be acceptable to the political parties in Northern Ireland, to the people of Northern Ireland voting in a referendum and to Parliament. That "triple-lock" remains.
Besides the negotiations, the forthcoming elections will lead to the establishment of an elected forum in Northern Ireland, which could provide an important and valuable complement to the negotiations.
1258
The elections themselves will provide an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to express their views on who they want to represent them in the negotiations. The establishment of a forum will, I hope, provide an ongoing mechanism for securing and channelling the views of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland throughout the life of the forum on the issues which will be under consideration in the negotiations. I have to say that I have yet to meet an ordinary person in Northern Ireland. We envisage that a primary function of the forum will be to conduct hearings at which public submissions could be made by community, voluntary, women's and youth groups, trades unions, business and professional organisations, the Churches, academics and others. These submissions and any subsequent consideration of them within the forum will inform those members of the forum who are their parties' delegates to the negotiations. The experience of the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation suggests that a programme of submissions, public hearings and subsequent deliberations can have a very positive impact on attitudes and analyses.
There will, as I say, inevitably be a relationship between the forum and the negotiations because many delegates will be participating in both. To facilitate that, the Bill provides that the forum will not sit when negotiations are in progress. This might mean, for example, that negotiations would take place largely—as they did in 1992—on the first three days of each week with the forum sitting on a regular day at the end of each week. The discussions of the forum and any studies or reports it may produce would inform the negotiating process. There are concerns about giving the forum an explicit role in relation to the negotiations. The Bill fully addresses these concerns; the forum will be deliberative only. It will not include two of the negotiating participants—the two Governments; and some areas of developing consensus within the negotiations might not benefit from public debate before a conclusion is reached. However, it will be open to the participants in the negotiating process to agree that certain issues should be formally referred to the forum to assist in the process of developing agreement.
I shall now turn to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 make provisions for the holding of elections. They will be for delegates who will be drawn from constituency and regional lists submitted by a nominating representative on behalf of a party. An order to be laid before your Lordships for approval next week will name polling day as 30th May.
Five delegates will be elected from the party lists in each of the 18 new parliamentary constituencies and a further 20 from the regional lists of the 10 parties with the highest aggregate votes in Northern Ireland as a whole.
As a necessary corollary of the constituency list system, the second part of Schedule 1 sets out those parties which may participate. This list has been drawn up following intensive consultation in Northern Ireland. We have taken account of the representations made to us and have sought to achieve as inclusive a system as is practicable.

1259
The nominating representative of each party which wishes to participate in the election will submit to the chief electoral officer a list of between two and five candidates for any or all of the constituencies of Northern Ireland; and they may also, if their party has submitted lists in at least three constituencies, submit a regional list of up to 10 candidates, at least two of whom would be names not on any constituency list. Regional seat allocation will help small parties which secure considerable Province-wide support but which might fail to secure a seat in a constituency to have a chance to be represented. The Secretary of State is required, by Clause 5 of the Bill, to identify these nominating representatives. This will he done with very thorough consultation.
For the voter, the system is very simple: he or she casts a single vote for a single party. Lists of candidates will be on display. Ballot papers will show parties' names.
Various systems are used for apportioning seats in countries that regularly conduct elections by party list. After consultation and research we have decided on the system set out in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the schedule, which is well recognised and has been employed in several European countries over the years.
In addition, the votes of the parties which have submitted regional lists will be aggregated over Northern Ireland. The 10 highest scoring will each receive two additional delegates.
The disqualification provisions for candidates are, in our view, the minimum necessary. Offenders in prison, people detained on account of mental illness and those not of voting age are, by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, disqualified. The franchise is the same as that for local government elections in Northern Ireland.
Returning to the main provisions of the Bill, Clause 2 provides for the selection, from among delegates returned, of teams to participate in the negotiations. The proposed ground rules for those negotiations are available to your Lordships in Command Paper 3232, The Ground Rules. The Bill defines these by reference to that paper.
In principle we wish to see involved in the negotiations all parties that have shown they have sufficient electoral support. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government, as well as the Irish Government, have consistently made clear that whether Sinn Fein takes its place in the negotiations is for the Republican movement to decide. So that the position is beyond doubt, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall refrain from inviting nominations from any party where he considers the requirements in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules are not met.
Clause 3 of the Bill, with Schedule 2, provides for the forum. It will be composed of all the delegates elected, and have the purpose of discussing issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland.
The Bill makes very clear that the forum is a deliberative body; it has no legislative, executive or administrative functions. Nor has it power to determine
1260
the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations. But it may, by agreement among the negotiators as determined by their rules of procedures, consider matters referred to it by them.
The forum has potentially a role of great value. It does not threaten and does not favour any particular part of the community. It offers a new opportunity for people from differing political backgrounds to talk and to listen to the views of others whom it may invite to address it, in order to promote dialogue and understanding.
Schedule 2 sets out a number of points about forum procedure. It will meet after the negotiations have begun. We intend that there should not be a long delay. We believe that it should proceed by broad consensus. At the start it will have a set of rules of procedure provided by the Secretary of State. It will later be able to propose its own rules. These must be agreed by at least 75 per cent. of those participating in any vote and they will then require the Secretary of State's approval.
In providing the initial set of rules for the forum, and approving those decided by the members, the Secretary of State is required to make every effort to secure that they facilitate promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland. The forum is also to elect its own chairman. There again, a 75 per cent. majority will be required. Until the forum has made its choice, the chairman will be a member nominated by the Secretary of State.
Clause 4 provides for referenda. Its provisions are broadly cast, sufficiently to permit consultation on any arrangements emerging from the negotiations. Any such proposals for a referendum would need to be approved by Parliament. We have concluded, after the most thorough consideration, that the case has not been made for a referendum to be held at the same time as the elections.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides for payment of allowances to delegates for their participation in the negotiations for the forum.
By Clause 7, the forum is given a life of a year, but may be continued in effect for a further year by order. It may also be suspended and the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to provide for the forum to cease if negotiations are concluded or suspended, although it could be brought back into being if they subsequently resume.
This afternoon we are examining a Bill which brings great hope and new opportunity to Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will be able to give it fair passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
4.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her compendious introduction. Our stance is well known and I repeat it. First, we wish to assist, as far as we possibly can, in the process of a negotiated settlement of the areas of dispute in Northern Ireland. Secondly, we have adopted, and we shall continue to adopt, a bipartisan approach. It is not

1261
slavish adherence to the Government's line—no one could sensibly expect that—but it is a determined refusal to take any party or partisan advantage from any area of disagreement or shade of emphasis, between the Government and us.
The voting system proposed is unusual, but that is because the purpose of the election is unusual. The forum is to have no legislative, executive or administrative functions and, most important of all, the forum can never acquire them. So election to the forum is simply the passport to the negotiating place. The purpose is to provide the opportunity for significant areas of opinion to be represented. Therefore, the process, in a sense, works backwards to produce the desired consequences.
We entirely support the Government in their view that it is essential that the smaller groups—for instance, those on the loyalist political side—be represented. The negotiations would utterly fail without their presence. Therefore, the mechanism, though rather crude and strange, is in our judgment likely to produce, by and large, what is wanted in terms of who is to be at the negotiating place. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that there will be resources by way of publicity and advertising to encourage all those in Northern Ireland to vote in these elections.
I have to sound a note of caution, which derives from the 18th Report from the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, as always, for his guidance on this. The report is dated 24th April. It sets out this principle which is worth reflection:
"As a general principle we believe that primary legislation and not secondary legislation is the appropriate tool by which to establish electoral rights… The House may therefore wish to seek an explanation from the Minister as to why the bill deals with entitlement to vote by way of secondary rather than primary legislation".
I hope that that is not a lawyer's cavil. Before we broke at Easter, I asked the Leader of the House, bearing in mind that constitutional issues are involved, whether we might have the legislation as soon as possible. Unfortunately—I make no criticism—the Bill was published rather late for informed reflection.
I now turn to the forum. I would welcome from the Minister an assurance, which I believe that she may well be able to give, that the forum will not meet before negotiations begin and to confirm that it cannot lawfully take to itself anything other than deliberative functions.
Perhaps I may now deal with one or two specifics which have caused a degree of unhappiness in another place. Why, in Schedule 1 (Part II), are the names of the parties set out as they are? I believe that there are 29 in all, including such parties as the Natural Law Party and No Going Back. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State in another place undertook to review the party nomenclature? For instance, the Reverend Paisley may well be reasonably aggrieved—from a study of what was said in another place I believe that he is—that his party is nominated as the "Democratic Unionist—DUP", without his surname, but when one comes to the UK Unionist Party, it is specified as "UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney". Ought there not to be some
1262
consistency of approach because lack of consistency brings about mistrust which itself tends to militate against successful negotiations?
I want to deal with the negotiations themselves. They are required to begin without the prior decommissioning of a single stick, stone or weapon. There must be no doubt about that at all. What is required is set out in Paragraph 13 of Command Paper 3232 to which the noble Baroness referred and which states:
"All participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body"—
that is, therefore, the six Mitchell principles.
"They would also need to address, at that stage, its proposals on decommissioning".
There is no doubt at all, therefore, that negotiations are to begin without prior decommissioning. I believe that we need to distinguish between the six principles and the Mitchell proposals for parallel decommissioning. Our belief is that this matter is one of the utmost urgency. Sinn Fein's purpose, announced yesterday, is to stand in the elections. The SDLP has indicated that that is its view also. But we need to recall that that is the first step. The second is participation in the forum and the third is the negotiating table. In our view, it is vital that the Government should have some alternative mechanisms concerning the decommissioning of weapons to offer at the negotiations on 10th June. Failure to do that may well abort the negotiations. I entirely agree with the Minister that it is preferable for Sinn Fein to be present at the negotiating table.
Is Mitchell to be reconvened as Mitchell 2? Have the Government other alternatives to offer? Has Senator Mitchell been asked whether he can serve further? Has any alternative avenue been explored? If 10th June approaches without the most diligent consideration of alternatives, there may be a catastrophe. If alternatives are available, my best information, which I believe on past experience to be reliable, is that such a step will be of enormous assistance in getting the parties to the negotiating table in order to negotiate with a serious moral purpose.
I turn next to the position of Patrick Kelly. No one can doubt that he is seriously ill. He has applied for transfer to a prison in the Republic. He is presently held in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government have both ratified the relevant convention for the transfer of prisoners. I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government would not wish to run the risk of an inappropriate early release of a convicted criminal who is not, and never has been, a prisoner of any war. However, if his condition further weakened or he died in prison, it would be a severe blow to the prospects of successful negotiations. I understand that this is a matter of real concern to the Dublin Government and to large sections of nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland.

1263
Sometimes we forget the importance of perception and disregard as relatively minor questions that have a significance in Northern Ireland beyond what some may regard as their appropriate position in thought and political approach.
I have not tabled any amendments—although I dare say that there is scope for them, as there always is in a Bill of this kind—because I do not believe that it is responsible to do so. The critical theme that I put forward in a spirit of bipartisanship is that Her Majesty's Government must seek to shape events, not simply drift upon the tide of circumstance: 10th June is very close and 30th May is closer. This is an opportunity for a new beginning. If it is lost there may be little scope for further opportunity. Therefore, the more preparation there is as to the detail and the alternatives for decommissioning, the better the prospects of an ultimately successful outcome.
Therefore, on this side of your Lordships' House we shall support the Bill, although we recognise, first, that there may be blemishes in it and, secondly, that other things being equal, it would have been better if your Lordships had had more time to consider various aspects of it than has presently been agreed.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her customary clarity in presenting a very complex Bill. I dare say that many Members of your Lordships' House, considering the interrelationship of talks, fora and elections, are somewhat bemused. As someone who closely follows Northern Ireland matters from these Benches, in my mind there are great lacunae and matters of confusion to be resolved. Perhaps that is always the way in Northern Irish affairs; perhaps a degree of ambiguity is essential on the long and tortuous road forward.
I put the noble Baroness out of the suspense in which she no doubt finds herself as to whether or not she will receive support from these Benches. We shall support the Bill. We intend to support it in much the same spirit as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. That is not to say that we are uncritical. I believe that at Second Reading it is as well if I voice some of our reservations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the way in which the Bill has been brought before your Lordships' House. On Tuesday my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich took up that matter with the Government. That we should deal with all three stages in one day is an extraordinarily accelerated process. I am by no means convinced that your Lordships' House needs to be treated in this fashion. It creates a most undesirable precedent, and it should be considered in conjunction with the speed at which the terrorism legislation was recently pushed through your Lordships' House. This is a complicated matter that deserves careful consideration. To put it no higher, it is a shame that we are presented with a collapsed and condensed schedule.
1264
I refer next to a constitutional point. Clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for referenda, is the most extraordinary constitutional innovation in a parliamentary democracy that I have ever seen. Subsection (1) recites:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct the holding of a referendum for the purpose of obtaining … views".
Subsection (3) goes on to say that an order under subsection (1) may include provision for such trivial details as what question is to be put, who is entitled to vote and so on. Why must there be this kind of blank cheque? Why should there be a referendum by order whenever the Secretary of State thinks there might be one? I understand well the reality. The Government know that on 30th May they may want to have a referendum, although I understand that opinion is moving away from that. I also understand that the framework document envisages that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland at the end of what we all hope will be a successful process and the people of Northern Ireland will say whether or not they like what has been arrived at. But why does it have to be dealt with in such an extraordinary way—by orders to which Parliament can either assent or dissent, rather than the referenda being the subject of normal parliamentary legislation?
The key issue is that many people are dubious that elections are the way to produce negotiating teams at talks. However, the Government have set their hand to this plough. It is with very great pleasure that I hear that the SDLP has decided to contest the elections. We also hear that Sinn Fein (about whom I will say a word or two in a moment) will also contest the elections. All of the horses are at the starting gate. The crucial task is to make sure that the elections, whatever the reservations expressed on the way to them, are a resounding success.
I refer to one matter that I have taken up with the noble Baroness, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Leader of this House. I should like to hear an explicit commitment from the Government that they will do everything in their power, including use of television advertising, to rekindle the spirit that surrounded the framework document. One recalls that people queued outside post offices for copies of the document. There was the spirit that attended the visit of President Clinton; tens of thousands of people turned out. The Government must recognise that this is not an ordinary election. If we are to have one it must be a success. Every resource of government communication must be put behind it to make sure that people know about it, that there is a high turnout, and that people see the connection between their votes and a successful peace process.
On a slightly less happy but related topic, I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness what the Government propose to do—perhaps we shall see it in the election order—about the endemic evils of Northern Irish politics, including electoral fraud, personation and even intimidation. If these elections are to be popular it is extremely important that they are seen to be fair and that it is worthwhile people participating in them.

1265
I hope that there will be no mistaken meanness on the question of popularising the election. For instance, the drink-drive campaign on television in Northern Ireland at Christmas cost £328,000. I believe that it had a considerable effect. It is a powerful medium. The Government must not penny-pinch on making a success of the elections to which they have set their hands.
When we come to the election system, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that it is somehow irresponsible to put down amendments. From these Benches we have put down an amendment on the electoral system. It is an amendment to which we shall come in Committee. Its purpose is to substitute in the 18 five-member constituencies the single transferable vote—the system used in Northern Ireland with which people are familiar—for the rather complicated list system that the Government have spent page after page of the schedule trying to describe. I believe that it is a thoroughly responsible amendment. I believe that system to be a great deal more popular in Northern Ireland as well, but we shall return to that issue later.
I wish to address the question of the participation of Sinn Fein in this whole process. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" last night. I thought that it was an extraordinarily one-sided programme. It clearly had heroes and villains. Mr. Peter Brooke, who, I believe, laid the foundations for a great deal of the progress we are now making, was rightly singled out; otherwise it appeared that the British Government had played an entirely negative role. I do not accept that. There was a great deal of disingenuousness in the programme about the representations made on behalf of Sinn Fein.
Even had there not been the programme, the fact that there was a large quantity of semtex in Hammersmith last night—it is only by the greatest good fortune that the detonator went off rather than that a major explosion occurred—means that that was not some, as it were, low-key event, meant merely to demonstrate that Sinn Fein and its friends in the IRA could damage us in London. It was potentially much more dangerous. We have to couple that with the statement made by Mr. Martin McGuinness that Sinn Fein does not propose to have a ceasefire. The Minister has been clear about this, and I thoroughly support what the Government are saying. There can be no question of Sinn Fein's participation in the talks unless there is a prior ceasefire. The more often and the more clearly that is understood, the better.
As I understand it, in the earlier stages of the talks there will have to be a commitment to the Mitchell principles by those participating in them. The Mitchell principles include non-violence. If, in the first day or two of talks, Sinn Fein, in the context of an IRA ceasefire, makes it plain that it does not agree with the Mitchell principles, can we hear from the Minister, in unambiguous terms, that it will then no longer be part of the talks? There can be no misunderstanding about this. Sinn Fein and the IRA do stand together. That came out clearly in the "Dispatches" programme last night. Although Mr. McGuinness now talks about making representations to the IRA, in that programme he was
1266
happy to speak for the IRA. If he is in that position, he and Mr. Adams must be clear that they cannot have their cake and eat it; that they either commit unambiguously to the Mitchell principles or they do not remain part of the talks.
I am one of those who thinks that perhaps in this difficult process—it is easy to be critical—there were many over-elaborate conditions early in the process. But now, after the horror of the Docklands bomb and the clear bad faith that that represented, there can be no ambiguity about the next stage. I am relieved to read in this morning's newspapers that the White House, the American Administration and President Clinton himself are making it plain to Sinn Fein that if the IRA persists in this course it will be, and should be, an international pariah. Let us hope that the good sense that attended the original ceasefire comes back into its deliberations.
Finally, whatever reservations we on these Benches have, it is extremely important that the Bill goes through and that the elections are a success. In that sense, we wish the Government well.

BSE (Agriculture)
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said as follows:
"Madam Speaker, right honourable and honourable Members will recall that I made a Statement in this House on 16th April in which I made it plain that the Government's purpose was to achieve, as speedily as we could, a rapid and complete lifting of the ban on exports of British beef and beef products.
"In that and previous Statements, I set out a wide range of measures, including a buy-up scheme for all cattle over 30 months, further tightening of SBO controls and of the rules governing animal feed. I discussed the details of those measures with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday. As I stated on 16th April, we were looking at the possibility of a scheme of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the incidents of BSE at an acceptable cost.
"Since that time, I have developed the idea yet further, and I have incorporated a more flexible approach to the targeting of animals identified as being most at risk of developing BSE. That concept involves giving farmers the choice between slaughtering them or placing them under a restriction order.
"As was made plain in my previous Statement, the scheme thus outlined would involve only limited numbers of animals, amounting to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. It would not involve the slaughter of whole herds.
"I have now sent an outline of my ideas to the European Agriculture Commissioner who is considering them ahead of next week's Agriculture Council. I have made it clear to Commissioner

1267
Fischler that the Government would only consider implementing such a scheme in the context of plans for a lifting of the EU ban on British beef. I shall report to the House on the outcome of those delicate and sensitive negotiations.
"I am discussing my proposals with representatives of the British beef industry. I and my officials will be having further discussions with them and with others in due course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place. As always, I declare an interest in that the farming company with which I am involved has dairy cattle.
I should explain that as it is a Private Notice Question I do not have the benefit of a written Statement to which to respond, so this is very much a preliminary response. If what we hear beyond the Answer—that animals born after September 1990 may be those included in the proposal—is right, that seems to admit implicitly that the feed ban was broken in the early 1990s. We presume that the scheme will deal with animals born after the feed ban on the basis that they risked eating infected food. That can come only through cross-infection in the feed mills or transgression of the ban by feed companies.
I believe that I am entitled to point out that it was six years ago that we suggested the banning of the inclusion of meat and bonemeal in all forms of animal feed. If that had been accepted at the time, it would have prevented the situation with which we are now dealing.
Have the Government the information to trace all the animals that they wish to trace in this selective slaughter scheme? There were proposals in 1989 and 1990 to improve the traceability of cattle. If it is to be the cohorts—animals born in the same year as the infected cattle—which are to be traced back, they could be spread over a large number of farms. Not all dairy herds are self-contained or have the good recording systems which are required. Are the Government confident that they have the systems necessary to trace all the animals that will be involved?
Let me take the example of what I might describe as a clean farm—a farm which has never had a case of BSE. It purchases perhaps an in-calf heifer which it does not realise is a cohort at another farm. Eventually the animal purchased is traced and removed because its sister animal, as it were, has gone down with BSE. That farmer, who has never had a case of BSE on his farm, will presumably lose his BSE-free status. What about the flying herds—that is, the herds which purchase their replacement heifers every year? We will have to trace back to heifer rearing farms and then trace all the cohorts over a large number of farms. Therefore, technically, this will be a fairly hard system to impose.
As I understand it, our negotiating position is that we will not introduce the system unless the export ban is lifted. However, the European Union has made it clear
1268
that it will not lift the ban until we introduce the system. That does not seem to me to be a particularly brilliant negotiating position to be in. It will be interesting to know how the Government propose to deal with it. As regards compensation, there will obviously be a cost to farmers over and above the cull value of animals in terms of lost milk production, the loss of profit, and so on. Can the Minister say whether that will be included in any compensation which is to be provided?
Can the Minister also tell the House what proposals the Government are putting to the Commission in the case of exemptions for beef animals over 30 months for human consumption where they are from BSE-free sources? I have already referred to the problem of the cohort animals which could mean a farmer losing his BSE-free status, even though he has never had such a case on his farm. Is the Minister absolutely confident that the proposed restriction order will not be open to fraud?
I also understand that there is a possibility that calves from cows which are subject to a restriction order will not be used for human consumption. Can the Minister say whether that reflects a change of thinking from the ministry on risk, or the possibility of the vertical transmission of BSE? As regards the hope that we have for funding from the European Union, can the Minister explain how much of the cost of the scheme it is intended will be met?
I should like to reiterate to the Minister the obvious point; namely, the concern of all of us that the ministry and all those involved recognise the potential welfare problems for animals under the new measures. We hope that they will ensure that full consideration is given to that aspect.
I am extremely glad that the Government have rapidly retreated from the sabre rattling we heard on Monday. Can the Minister say what the Government will do if the Council of Ministers rejects the proposals? What are the "other options" that the Prime Minister has mentioned? I believe that we are entering into a numbers game. We have produced the minimum number that we think we can introduce on the negotiating table. However, if that is refused, it seems to me that the number can only be negotiated upwards. That is a very serious position for the dairy and beef industry as regards the uncertainty that we all know currently exists.
From this side of the House I should like to say that, in our view, it is important that a negotiated settlement is presented and agreed on the basis of sensible measures rather than relying on empty threats and, as I said, on sabre rattling. We want to see a clear programme of measures that will help the beef sector at all levels and measures to protect and reassure consumers so as to restore stability to the beef market. We support any move that will put us on course for that objective.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should also like to thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question given in another place. I presume that I am right in assuming that the response clearly sets out the negotiating position, or part of it, for discussions with the Agriculture

1269
Commissioner with a view to having the European world ban on our exports lifted. I should say immediately that it is my view—which I have always expressed from these Benches and, indeed, which has been expressed by my party—that it is very much better to go down this pathway rather than the other one; in other words, to go for selective slaughtering.
I should declare an interest as, indeed, I have before. I am the owner of a pedigree suckler herd which, over the 30 years of its existence, has never had a case of BSE. I believe that I am representative of the majority of suckler herd owners and probably of the majority of other herd owners in the country. I do not understand why on earth one should embark upon the needless expenditure of getting rid of millions of animals which are perfectly healthy in a kind of panic reaction. That has always seemed to me to lack proper justification.
I believe that the Government should have announced such a measure immediately. I say that because what consumers, our compatriots and, indeed, members of the European Community are concerned about is that we should ensure that we take effective action. The most effective action is to get rid of all those animals which are most likely to have BSE; in other words, those which have been in contact with other animals which have had the disease.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, there are many problems as regards tracing some of those animals. Am I right in thinking that, in putting forward the scheme, the Government have worked out, at least broadly, that they can carry out the operation pretty swiftly? Although drastic action is needed, it must, as I said, be effective action. That is what people are looking for in this country and elsewhere. After all, two or three months have now gone by since the outbreak and it is only now that we are getting close to something like effective action.
There has been a knock-on effect in the rural community. Indeed, I witness it every time I return home. It is not just farmers and slaughterers who are affected. All the ancillary industries in the rural areas have been enormously affected by the crisis. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need to compensate some of them. Otherwise the whole of the rural economy could be badly damaged by the announcement originally made about BSE in cattle and the serious possibilities of it affecting human beings.
I shall not probe any further into the question because I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is now in a negotiating position and, obviously, he wants to present the scheme as a very effective alternative. I assume that it will be an alternative to the slaughter of 10 or 11 million animals. However, if it is to be part of it, I think that the matter should be reviewed after the initial slaughter of 45,000 animals, or whatever the number is. The progress that has been made could then be assessed. I make that suggestion because there has been a very sharp decline in BSE in this country over the past year or two. If this is an effective measure, we can look back on it afterwards with a view to reprieving all those very
1270
safe herds and animals which are really the pride of the country. It seems to me that there is no real justification for slaughtering them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me a large number of questions. I shall do my best to reply to them reasonably briefly. He asked why we had decided on September 1990. I should tell the noble Lord that that is the date from which we can run traceability. That is when we started to keep the records required by the European Union. Animals older than that which became infected as calves are likely to have developed the clinical disease already, so we do not anticipate there being any problem as regards that being the starting date. Traceability looks like being pretty good. It is not perhaps perfect and we have obviously not got into the nitty-gritty of the process. However, we have investigated it to the point where we are sure that we are offering the European Union a real and effective programme.
The noble Lord made the point about age cohorts being spread over several farms. Indeed, they may be. It is no more fair, as it were, that a farm loses its BSE-free status because it imports an animal which turns out to have the disease than that a farm keeps a BSE-free status because it happens to have exported all the animals which go down with BSE. That is clearly a matter which will need to be taken into account when we deal with the question of exemptions to which I shall turn in a moment. The noble Lord asked about flying herds. It seems to me that the noble Lord always knows something I do not. I thought that they only occurred in nursery rhymes.
So far as the question of lifting the ban is concerned, that is obviously a question of a quid pro quo. The proposed cull is not something which is, in scientific terms, strictly and absolutely necessary. In many ways it is arguably desirable in order to get BSE out of the herds more quickly but it is not essential for human health. It is therefore something which we are offering the European Union as a quid pro quo for its lifting of the ban and is something to enable it to have the necessary confidence in lifting the ban. It is a matter which we shall be discussing with an open heart and, I must say, after recent discussions with Commissioner Fischler, with great optimism. We have had some very constructive discussions with Commissioner Fischler and we go into the negotiations next week with no feeling that we need to spend time considering what happens if they fail, any more than we need to spend time considering what would happen if the ban were lifted tomorrow, before formal negotiations. We go in to achieve the object we wish to achieve. We are not allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by other thoughts.
Of course, compensation will be required for slaughtering animals under the cull, and it should be full and fair compensation. Exemptions are something we have been discussing with the Commission. This will be a matter to be set out in the negotiations. It may not emerge at absolutely the first stage, but it is clearly at least the second item that we should deal with—those parts of the United Kingdom, those herds in particular, which are free of BSE and demonstrably free of BSE.

1271
Fraud is clearly something we will guard against but since the system is not up and running I cannot point to why it will be fraud-free. We put a very high premium on making sure that we are not cheated in this country.
The noble Lord asked whether the calves from culled cows will be included. That is entirely a matter of speculation at the moment. There is no question of evidence of vertical transmission and, therefore, no reason why they should be included in a scientific sense. As to the percentage of the costs which the European Union would meet, that is entirely a matter for negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about welfare. Of course, that is very high on our list of priorities and must be something we keep in mind at all times. I believe that I have replied to most of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I shall however read Hansard to see whether I need to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that it was important to get rid of animals which have been in contact with animals that have gone down with the disease. That is not the right way of putting it. As far as we know—and we know pretty well—there is no risk of picking up BSE from the neighbouring cow which has it. It is a feed-transmitted disease. It is not therefore a question of contact with another animal; it is a question of whether you have eaten another animal and is entirely to do with whether the animals were sharing rations at that point rather than who their neighbours were.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I referred to contact because an article which appeared this week talked about the possible transference of BSE by hay. There was a photograph of what we all know is the kind of shipment where hay is taken along from one cow to another. It was suggested that such contact could be relevant.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there are all sorts of speculations in science and in the newspapers concerning this disease, about which we do not have perfect knowledge. But what we do have is a great deal of epidemiological evidence from this epidemic which gives us a very clear picture of the fact that it is a feed-borne epidemic and is not spread by other agencies.
Clearly, the cull will be done with all possible expedition, if and when it is agreed upon. Again, I cannot say how fast, but there would no reason to delay it or to slow it down. The noble Lord says that only now are effective measures being proposed. Effective measures were put in place immediately. These are additional measures which are necessary to restore consumer confidence. That is something which can only be established now when we are a decent distance from the panic and can look at things in a stable and rational manner and when consumers have had time to get used to the new information they have been presented with.
As to compensation, we are not in the business of compensation; we are in the business of keeping the industry running. We have put a lot of money into that.
1272
Compensation for losses is not something we are contemplating. There are all sorts of people who have endured, and are enduring, hardship as a result of this epidemic. Our interest is in making sure that the industry gets through it rather than seeking to compensate anyone who might stick his hand up and say that he has been hurt by it.
As to whether we will review matters, I do not believe that the science or information is moving fast enough for us usefully to review things in short order. I am sure that we shall do so in due course, but we do not know enough about the disease and there is not information which is developing fast enough to enable us to believe that an early review would serve any useful purpose.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate when the negotiations on the lifting of the ban are due to take place? On which day will they start, because each day, for obvious economic reasons, is a serious consideration. Secondly, will my noble friend indicate whether if, unhappily, the negotiations for raising the ban are a failure, it will mean rather fewer of the measures that he outlined would be undertaken by the British Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the negotiations, in the sense of discussions with the Commission, are well under way. The Council meets on Monday and the matter will be discussed then. As to the question of which measures would or would not happen if there was not agreement in Council, the measure which would not happen is the cull. The cull is proposed as part of an agreement with the European Union and is not something we would undertake for the protection of our own citizens.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, representations have been made concerning animals between two-and-a-half and three years old, coming either from organic herds or from certain late maturing beef breeds. I would be grateful if the noble Lord can say what consideration has been given to these arguments and whether the Government have made up their mind or when they will make up their mind about them. The noble Lord will appreciate, I am sure, that these animals come from long, intensive systems—extensive systems, as they are called. It would be a great pity if animals in this six months age range were not allowed to be used for human food when, in fact, they are perfectly healthy and perfectly edible. It would possibly save the Government a small sum in compensation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the question of exemptions is very high on our list of priorities. It is something we have been actively discussing with the Commission. We would like to see early movement from the Council. Clearly, there are a number of specialist breeds and a number of particular areas of the country where BSE has had a very low incidence, where there is every reason to expect it should continue to have a very low incidence and where we should be able to put in place a scheme to allow beef from animals over 30 months old to be sold. That is a matter which will require discussion with

1273
the Commission and in Council. I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances other than to say that this is very high on our list of priorities.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is only 14 days since the Leader of the House, in notifying the position so far as the Commission is concerned, said that the Government would examine as a matter of urgency the legality of the steps taken by the Commission in bringing forward the decision it had made? Is he further aware that since that time it has emerged most certainly that the Commission's decision under which the various orders were made is in itself illegal, according to legal opinion? I refer the noble Lord to the recital of the Commission's decision of 27th March in the official journal No. L78, page 47.
I refer also to Article 1 of the same decision which indicates clearly that the Commission has exceeded its powers. Will the noble Lord explain how bringing forward proposals by Her Majesty's Government on this whole matter does anything other than weaken their position legally in the whole affair? Why is it that the Government did not initially decline to accept the decision of the Commission, which is quite illegal?
Nobody wishes to defend any action taken by the Government that would worsen the health position, even though the Commissioner concerned has long since abandoned the health grounds of the original decision. Can the Government explain those matters and say why they cannot adopt such action under their own powers at home to take what steps they like rather than obey cravenly a Commission decision which is illegal in the first instance?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in general, we stay within the law in order that we may encourage other people to do so. At root, laws are all matters of consent, and we are in the European Union as a matter of consent. Therefore, the right way to challenge a decision which we believe to be illegal is to challenge it in the European Court of Justice; and that we are doing.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble friend made it clear that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the new cull policy will make British beef safer. Indeed, I believe that he made it clear that it is intended to re-establish British and European confidence in British beef. Does he really feel that it is justified to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money fighting irrational fears which are due primarily to press hysteria in this country and European schadenfreude? Would it not be better and cheaper to conduct a good PR exercise to show people that British beef is safe? We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. Will the Government consider that course of action before offering this Danegeld?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we have looked extremely carefully at the cost of this
1274
measure. I am sorry to say that we do not have my noble friend's faith in a PR campaign by the British Government in Europe.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, answering my noble friend Lord Carter, the Government said that the cause of BSE-infected cattle is due to problems with feed. Only recently a Member of your Lordships' House reported that he had had a case of BSE in his herd in a calf which was born in 1991. That is almost two years after the feed ban was introduced. Are the Government now admitting that the feed ban was not successful and that there was cross-contamination or malpractice in the feed industry which caused a continuing risk of BSE infection after the ban was implemented by the Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should not refer to it as malpractice. There were certainly imperfections in the feed industry ranging from cross-contamination happening in the feed mills, which is perhaps a matter of sloppy practice, to farmers feeding the wrong sort of feed to the wrong animals.
Clearly, infectious feed existed after the ban. That is why animals have continued to contract the disease. That is the only source we can find for the disease from which the cattle are suffering. Nothing else matches. But since there is no test, it is not possible to pick up a sample of feed and say that the feed is infectious.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of a meat exporting company. If the result of the negotiations is a withdrawal of the ban, how will that affect or change the status of that meat which is now in the hands of exporters and importers in non-third world countries which has been stuck in cold storage since the ban was imposed?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can only answer that question after agreement has been reached.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I declare my interest as a retired farmer. Last night I met a delegation of auctioneers from west Wales. They are truly worried. The Government intend to introduce a new scheme on Monday to kill barren cows. Those auctioneers told me that if the markets are to open next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, more than 2,000 cattle from that part of the world will go to those auction markets. They have received no information from the Welsh Office or from any department as to how to dispose of the stock once it is taken to market.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that distresses me. I shall talk to my colleagues in the Welsh Office to make sure that information is being circulated with all possible speed. My understanding is that the arrangements for the purchase of culled cows will come into effect next week. That is none too soon from the point of view of those farmers who are having to feed the animals.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify how much of the cost of this operation is to be borne by the European Community and how much by this country on a net basis? I ask because it would

1275
appear that the British media, who did so much to stoke up this problem in the first place, have got it into their heads and are constantly saying that the European Community is going to be so generous as to pay some 70 per cent. of the costs of the exercise. My understanding is that an accurate analysis is that it will pay all of 15 per cent. Therefore we shall be left with 85 per cent. of the cost; furthermore, we will be left with 100 per cent. of the cost of any disposal that is involved. Will my noble friend clarify this matter for the House and perhaps for the British media?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the European Union is indeed meeting 70 per cent. of the cost of the programme which has been agreed to date. But we meet 71 per cent. of that 70 per cent. Therefore, the net position is that we are paying 80 per cent. and our partners from the European Union are paying 20 per cent.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.58 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, first, I should like to deal with the fact that this Bill is going through all its stages today in this House. Comment was made on Tuesday and we should be wary of a precedent of this nature.
We are told that there is a great rush, but why is that so? It is because the Government have already announced when the elections are to be held. That seems to me to be putting things completely the wrong way round. The Government should allow both Houses to fulfil their proper function by considering the legislation before they embark on an election as a result of it. I feel that we are being treated in a very off-hand way in being asked to take all stages of the Bill today. That reflects on the duty and precedent of this House to act as a revising Chamber. But that has been done and I suppose we must go ahead and accept it.
The suggestion for an election came from the Ulster Unionists, but we have in mind a proper election based on normal British democratic principles and not the peculiarity which, as far as I know, has no constitutional precedent and which I believe has many flaws. I gather that that view is shared by other parties.
The Bill tries to influence the result of the election. There is a list system. That has been tried in other places. Perhaps we can let that pass. However, to state that the 10 parties which gain the highest number of votes should each be given two extra seats is a somewhat peculiar method of conducting what is meant to be a democratic election. That means, of course, that a party which receives I per cent., or .01 per cent. of the vote, will get two seats if that party is in the tenth highest position. That might be quite easy to attain when one considers the list of parties which are being admitted to this election. I must say that I have never
1276
heard of the No Going Back party before. I do not know whether other noble Lords are familiar with it. I shall not weary the House by reading out the list but it contains all sorts of names of parties which have not seen the light of day previously.
I particularly object to the second party on the list, the British Ulster Unionist Party, which has suddenly sprung up. It may well be inspired by what happened to the Liberal Democrats a while back in an election when a candidate stood as a Literal Democrat and managed to split the vote. I consider that the object of this party being included in the list is to confuse electors in the hope that the unionist vote will be split by some electors voting for this party thinking that it is the normal Ulster Unionist Party. For that reason I have tabled an amendment to delete that party's name.
Another party in the list is the UK Unionist Party. The name of that party's leader is also included in the list. That is not the case with any of the other parties. There should be consistency; either the names of the parties alone are included, or the parties' leaders are included also. However, one should not include the name of a party's leader in some cases but not in others.
As far as I am aware, there is no provision for deposits. Anyone can stand for election without even putting down a £5 note. It has been a long upheld principle of our electoral system that one excludes frivolous candidates by obliging them to put down a deposit. However, that principle seems to have been completely ignored. Nor indeed do I know how many assentors a party or candidate must have to be able to stand for election. It certainly would be a prudent measure to have a substantial number of assentors—say 20 or 30—to sign the nomination paper before the party was considered to have sufficient backing to stand as a legitimate party.
Command Paper 3232 states in its final paragraph,
"Both Governments respectively reaffirm their intention that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in Ireland—North and South—before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation".
I take it that the proper names of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are not used because the Government of the Republic do not recognise the existence of Northern Ireland, and that is why this peculiar terminology of "Ireland North and South" is included. I know that the Republic of Ireland does not recognise the existence of Northern Ireland but it is being asked to take part in deciding how that part of the United Kingdom will be governed in the future. The Republic of Ireland has, of course, recognised Northern Ireland's existence several times in the past. I refer to the tripartite agreement of 1925, of which it was so proud that it registered it with the League of Nations. I refer also to Sunningdale. Nevertheless the Republic still does not make any move to change Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. One might well ask whether the referendum in the Irish Republic will include asking for consent from the voters for the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, which in any event is contrary

1277
to the principles of its membership of the European Union. One member of that Union is not entitled to make territorial claims on another member.
There has been talk about the reinstatement of the ceasefire. It is important that there should be a permanent cessation of violence and that weapons should be handed over. However, one must be careful about terminology and not talk about going back to the recent ceasefire during which, although there were fewer explosions and fewer murders—although there were some—there were still punishment beatings, intimidation and all the Mafia-type organisations. We have to be clear that we shall not just go back to a ceasefire of that nature which is only a partial one, and, if weapons are still kept, it is presumably only a temporary one.
The final paragraph of Command Paper 3232 states that the agreement will be submitted to a referendum in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Does that mean that if an agreement is reached in Northern Ireland between the parties in Northern Ireland the Republican electorate will have a veto? Will it have to be approved by the electorate of the Irish Republic before it is put to this Parliament? Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me on that. Paragraph 4 of the command paper refers to the possibility of a new Anglo-Irish agreement. The previous one has been bad enough and has resulted in enough difficulty of various kinds. We must ensure that if there is a new agreement it is a better and more democratic one than the one we have.
Nevertheless, whatever the imperfections and flaws of this Bill, the Ulster Unionist Party will fight this election. We wish the Government every success in bringing about a situation in which there will be genuine agreement despite all the imperfections of the Bill. I hope that if we get together in the spirit of good will we might be able to achieve that.
5.10 p.m.
The Duke of Abercorn: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, for despite the breakdown of the ceasefire, and the widespread reservations of the political parties towards the proposed negotiations and forum, I remain confident that there is now a real opportunity—possibly the best in a generation—to reach a stable settlement in Northern Ireland and among the people of these islands. Thus, the proposed negotiations and forum could indeed prove both opportune and an important juncture on the journey towards a final settlement.
There is an inevitable feeling of uncertainty, indeed despondence, following the breakdown of the ceasefire. However, there are many internal and external factors which would suggest that Northern Ireland politicians have a real opportunity to reach a stable settlement. Thus, I hope and trust that those who are elected will regard the proceedings as an opportunity and not as a threat.
My guarded optimism lies in the growing realism of the Northern Ireland situation that is being generated both internally and externally. The vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland regardless of cultural
1278
background desire, indeed demand, three criteria: a permanent ceasefire; realistic political dialogue; and a stable settlement. In the context of the western world, those aspirations are both rational and realistic.
Externally, there is a sea change of opinion towards Northern Ireland. I believe that the Irish Republic is now firmly living in the post-Haughey era, for the Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, has time and again demonstrated real sensitivity and understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland. I should like to quote from his Washington speech made last month at an Irish-American dinner. He said:
"Recent opinion polls in Ireland indicate a profound and historic shift in how Irish people approach the problem of Northern Ireland. No longer do they see it as a simple contest between Irish Nationalism and British Imperialism. There are 900,000 Unionists living in Ireland for 12 generations who regard themselves as British, and all the Semtex in the world will not change their minds. Those 900,000 people are the British presence in Ireland. They have been in Ireland for 12 generations".
I believe that this House endorses those sentiments.
Moreover, I believe that the events of the past two years may have altered fundamentally the Irish-American perspective on Northern Ireland and brought an understanding of the hope and aspirations of both communities.
Again, at this critical time, Northern Ireland is extremely fortunate in the total commitment, patience, endurance and competence of the Prime Minister, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Ancram, in their constant quest for a stable settlement, and by placing Northern Ireland firmly at the top of the political agenda, while my noble friend Lady Denton is for ever travelling the world in her endeavours to bring employment, and thus hope, to our country, with very tangible results.
With this background of growing realism and goodwill towards the Province, those elected on 30th May can approach their task with neither the same degree of threat nor of suspicion as in the past.
There are, of course, two fundamental principles which must be accepted as a pre-requisite for a successful settlement when negotiations finally take place: first, that the future of the Union with Great Britain is in no way undermined or eroded; and, secondly, that the Catholic community is no longer perceived to be on the periphery of society in Northern Ireland but has the full opportunity of belonging to, and being, an integral part of society. I am not advocating integration of the two cultures, but integration of opportunity and involvement—nothing more, nothing less.
During the past 25 years, real progress has been achieved in this direction, and I have witnessed numerous incidents of the by-product of equality of treatment.
My concern for the retention of the Union is not based on a selfish, cultural or traditional basis, but on the conviction that it is in the best interests of the great majority of the population. Indeed, recent surveys and polls have shown time and again that that strong desire has received growing support in all parts of the community. In fact unionism (with a small "u") is year by year finding broader and more concrete support.

1279
While there will never be a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland unless the long-standing fears and suspicions of the unionists are treated seriously, sensitively and with understanding, I must remind those, like myself, who support the Union that British citizenship is not only a birthright, but also involves responsibility. It is similar to any other form of inheritance. It can be preserved for future generations or only too easily squandered.
Again, we in Northern Ireland are not the only part of the United Kingdom where it is the clear responsibility of the majority to accommodate the feelings and aspirations of the minority. Moreover, one or two analysts indicate that by the year 2040 approximately, the two communities will be of the same population. Thus the future of the Province will not be determined on crude cultural arithmetic, but on the quality of life, tolerance, opportunity and, above all, on political maturity.
Therefore, there is a real danger of squandering our future if we persist with the politics of division which are totally redundant in today's climate and which will undoubtedly alienate the next generation, and again play directly into the hands of terrorism and its equally evil propaganda.
This community, which has suffered so much for so long through the futility of gun politics, now desperately needs political vision and courage from the two communities which have already demonstrated so effectively their remarkable physical and moral courage during the past 25 years. Thus, despite the complexity of this Bill, I fully support its aspirations and objectives.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I wish the Bill well in the tradition of bipartisanship which was first developed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, a quarter of a century ago. He played a major part in bringing in all the political parties and involving us in information which would not normally be readily available. I do so with all the qualifications given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. If there are issues about which we disagree, it is our job to make them clear.
Unlike the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, I hold no great hope for the immediate future. I hope that I am wrong. The negotiations may not begin. The talks may break down. There is no easy road. I sometimes think that we do harm to ourselves by wishing for too much instead of taking matters slowly. When something occurs which looks like a breakdown, we feel that all is lost. It is not lost. It is that we have hoped for too much. All the emotion that is expressed for peace in Northern Ireland sometimes seems to augur well for the future, but such emotion rarely translates itself into new political movement.
There is much criticism of the politicians in Northern Ireland, in which I play no part. They are much closer to their electorate than Members of Parliament are on this side of the water, and certainly
1280
closer than are most noble Lords. Northern Ireland is a divided society—although I have no doubt that that is changing. So would a united Ireland be a divided society, born out of a civil war? All the time that I was engaged with Northern Ireland affairs, I was concerned to make sure that another real civil war did not break out in Northern Ireland. If the British Army were not there, there is the danger that a civil war would occur very quickly. The British Army has played a pivotal role in Northern Ireland in keeping the peace in those areas where the RUC, in those days at any rate, was unable to go.
My aim is to raise some of the issues that concern me. I was about to say, very pitifully, "To what effect? Who would take any notice?" Then I saw the former Secretary of State sitting on the Bench opposite and the Minister of State. You could not wish for two better people to listen to whatever arguments are put forward. I take this opportunity to say that in the past two or three years (as Secretaries of State have done before with their Ministers) they have played a major role in bringing the process along in the hope all the time that something would come out of the discussions taking place. It has been done very well. I do not say that in any patronising fashion.
I have met the IRA twice. I can remember only one thing about the meeting in England. One chap said he was the "Attorney-General" of the IRA. When we had finished talking he said: "You are worse than Whitelaw", so I did not get very far. The next time, we met in Phoenix Park, Dublin. I had read enough history to know that being in Phoenix Park at night did not augur very well. My officials held running talks with the IRA during a ceasefire. I presume that my papers on those talks, which are locked up somewhere, ought to be available to the existing Government. I do not suggest that they will contribute to any success, but at least we have been through the rounds before and the account is there.
To turn to the mode of elections, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I am not worried that they are not based on STV. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, introduced STV, and I played a marginal part in Opposition. The noble Lord was right. For obvious reasons, we need a different system now for a situation that is temporary, to enable small parties to take part and, mainly, to bring the Protestant paramilitaries into the game, as they do not do well in elections. If the process succeeds, a great deal of legislation will be required in the other place and in this Chamber. We shall then have to put our minds to achieving legislation that will stand the test of time.
I note that "delegates" are to be elected. I have pondered what that means. Members of Parliament and ourselves are certainly not delegates. They will not be Members of Parliament or members of a legislative assembly which is what, technically, the old Stormont was. Do the nominating representatives of the parties need to be members of the forum? Can anybody be a nominating representative? On the long list of parties that have been thrown up, there is a "Labour" party. It has nothing to do with the Labour Party. The "Conservative Party" does have something to do with

1281
the Conservative Party, whatever it is. But does the nominating representative of a party have to be a member of the forum?
I should like to spend a few minutes on the forum itself. In 1975, I set up a convention, which met twice. I had the good sense—often I did not have good sense—to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, to be the chairman, with the permission of the Lord Chancellor. He played a major part in keeping that convention on the right road for the greater part of a year. Very few others could have done that. I am sure that he is not offering to do it again! "Any old chairman" would not be able to do it. When the time comes to choose a chairman, it cannot be anybody. The matter will have to be given very careful thought.
Clause 3(3) states:
"the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1".
I understand that sometimes the representatives will not be meeting. I suggest it will be very difficult to keep them out of Castle Buildings. They may not be meeting formally, but they will be there. Radio and television will be there. It will make Palace Green across the way (as was until a few weeks ago) look like a tea party compared to what will happen. They will all be there. The press lobby will be there on the steps of Castle Buildings or Stormont. There will be chit-chat on chat shows on BBC and ITV and Radio Telefís Éireann. Everybody will be talking. They will all claim that they know what is going on. I look forward to that forum. I shall set aside time every night to watch what goes on.
I am glad that a forum is being set up; but it will not be like the appointed forum in Dublin. It will be something on its own. It will be interesting to watch. No responsibilities, and no administrative functions! People can say what they like. In my time, and that of the noble Viscount, a list was held by the Press Association in the other place called the "BF list". It was a list of Members who would quote on anything. They would stand up on any subject at all. It did not matter whether they knew anything about it. You could ring them up in the middle of the night and they would give a quote on any matter from Abyssinia to Croatia—on any matter at all. Nothing was too much for them. I suggest that the forum that we are to have will be rather similar. I wish the Government the very best of luck in dealing with it. It will need a very good chairman to keep the forum in hand.
To turn to the matter of salary, I note that it will be in the form of an "allowance". In other words, it will be rather like the allowance paid to Members of this place: it will be paid when members turn up. For the convention, we paid a salary. When the first convention was ended—it was later recalled—there were grumbles that the pay had stopped. Although they were not Members of Parliament, they claimed travelling allowances as if they were Members of Parliament. When we decided to end it, because the end had come, the Irish Government made representations. They said, "Keep them going. Pay them. It is better to have them talking up at Stormont than wandering around Northern Ireland". So, for a matter of weeks, until the Treasury
1282
got rather cross, we paid people for doing precious little. It was in a good cause: it was to keep people both quiet and talking! I wish the Government well with the forum.
As for the referendum, I have just one question: who will draw up the question? That will present a real difficulty. I offer a paper, a few pages in a recent issue of The House Magazine, by Professor Norton, of Hull. He examined the arguments for and against a referendum. He made the point that there is a difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. I note that he gives the result of the plebiscite, the Border poll, in which my noble friend played a part in 1971, which was set up by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I seem to remember that my noble friend abstained. The SDLP did not play any part. The result was quite clear: "Yes", 600,000; "No", 6,000; and the rest did not turn up. So you never know what will happen in a referendum.
As to the negotiations, I do not know. All I can say is that when the discussions were taking place in the ceasefire of 1975, everybody in Belfast seemed to think that they had been at the negotiations. All sorts of comments appeared in the local papers. People stated that they had said this, that and the other when they were nowhere near the discussions. The imagination runs riot. There will be difficulty in regard to the negotiations. Indeed, those negotiations were with officials, who were under strict control as to what they should say. Sometimes in negotiations one has to think the impossible.
I did not like the TV programme last night to which the noble Lord referred. It was one-sided. What I did not like was that two Ministers who left the Irish Government a year ago revealed what had taken place in the discussions. They revealed what the Prime Minister had said and his attitude of mind. There is a warning there for those who take part in the negotiations: they should be careful what they say, since within a year or two it will all be out in the open. One dare not say, "Perhaps we could go in this direction", because in 18 months' time the story will be that that is the direction in which one wanted to go. True negotiations mean thinking the impossible. The British Government will have to watch the situation very carefully.
I want to make only one point on the decommissioning of weapons. At Hammersmith Bridge last night 30 lbs of Semtex were found. That was a far bigger bomb than the one in Docklands. If it had gone off, it would have blown the bridge to smithereens. What does the IRA have to do to put itself out of the democratic process? We have not reached the 30th yet. That question applies to other groups in Northern Ireland as well. The decommissioning will be extremely difficult and we will need all the help we can get from the American Government.
I am concerned about the party list—for one reason: in 1968 the Government of the time, of which I was a junior Minister, decided that prospective candidates in elections could put the names of their parties on the ballot paper. When we came to translate it into action, the chairman of the Conservative Party, Dick Sharples, came to see me. He said, "I have a problem. The

1283
Conservative Party does not exist. There is no such thing as the Conservative Party. There is the National Union; there is this, that and the other and there are the constituency parties". In the end, we had to stop our idea of registration and let all parties use their own nomenclature because if it had gone wrong we would have had to go to the courts. That is the reason we went in that direction and not in the direction of registration.
When I look at the list available now, I see all sorts of trouble ahead. I hope our lawyers are looking carefully at what will happen after the elections. There have been a number of cases, one of which affected the Liberals recently, and there could be a good many more. However, I hope all goes well.
My extract from the documents also states that the,
"Taoiseach confirmed that all-party negotiations will be convened on Monday 10 June 1996 following intensive consultations with the relevant political parties and the completion of a broadly acceptable elective process. Following consultation with the political parties this paper sets out the best judgement of the two Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules for the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of all-party negotiations".
I wish them well. But it is not going to be easy and it is better to fear that they all might fail than to pretend that there is a great chance of success; there is not.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Baroness had to say in her introduction of the Bill. She added important information that was new to us.
I welcome this Bill in that it is the necessary and important introduction to all-party talks which are to commence on 10th June, which is not far away. After many years of talking about talks it is very good news that they will commence at last and I earnestly hope that the talks will lead to growing confidence and mutual trust, which in turn can lead to an understanding of how the communities in Northern Ireland can live together in peace and reasonable harmony.
As to the Bill itself, I do not want to say very much. The procedures and rules for the election to the forum are confused and complicated. They have been described as a dog's breakfast but I would hesitate before offering the canine equivalent to my dog.
New rules never before used in an election have been devised. We have to vote for a party whereas we are accustomed to voting for people whom we know. The major parties will have no name attached and yet the smallest, which few people have ever heard of, will have a name attached. I heard on the way into the Chamber that an amendment was accepted in the other place which will allow Mr. Hume's name to be attached to the SDLP, but that Dr. Paisley's name was not to be attached to his party. I hope that that is untrue. If it is so, it will cause unnecessary trouble and much alarm.
The smallest parties will be entitled to submit candidates in each of the 18 constituencies without even being asked for a deposit. Apart from complicating the voting paper, the postage and printing will be a substantial cost to government. I hope that all the
1284
complexity and confusion will not deter people from voting. A low poll would fail to indicate the true measure of support for the leading parties and that, after all, is the object of the exercise.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in what he had to say in encouraging the Government to publicise this election and do their utmost to see that there is a high percentage poll. That is extremely important.
There is universal agreement in all parties that the forum should not have any statutory or legislative powers. But why try to write it off as a body of no significance? Much could come from their deliberations if carefully handled. And to delay even a meeting until after the negotiations have commenced is presumably a sop to Sinn Fein which has said that it will not sit in the forum because there will be a unionist majority.
In the passage of this Bill in another place it was made clear by the Government that amendments of significance would not be accepted. That is doubtless possible because of the bipartisan approach, which is to be welcomed. There is not much we can do about the Bill in this House as we have undertaken to complete all stages today. This unseemly speed is required to meet the set date of 10th June. That date was set by the Government, no doubt pressurised by Dublin in the vain hope that it would encourage another ceasefire and avoid the threat of further bombing. We should recognise that the haste with this Bill is due to the threat of terrorism.
I find myself more alarmed and more concerned after reading Command Paper 3232, which sets out the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations. It shows how far the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have gone to accept what is, in effect, partnership with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to decide on the future arrangements for Northern Ireland. For the majority who support the Union that is not acceptable. We would expect our Government to do whatever is necessary in support of their sovereign territory.
I believe it is worthwhile to consider for a moment what shape the talks might take. The Government, quite properly, have done their utmost to ensure that all parties with a significant backing will take part in the talks. Special efforts have been made to persuade Sinn Fein to take part and concession after concession has been made in an effort to bring it in. I regret to say that it is the view of almost everyone in Northern Ireland who takes an interest in these affairs that violence has been proved to pay. That is most unfortunate. I hope that no more concessions are made that will give that appearance.
I had thought to spend a few moments considering the possible ways in which the talks might develop. But the bomb under Hammersmith Bridge last night set the scene. Thirty pounds of Semtex in the capital of the United Kingdom: how can the IRA declare an acceptable ceasefire before the talks and let Sinn Fein in on them? I fear that that is that as regards Sinn Fein and the IRA making any acceptable moves. The enormity of such an attempt is quite mind boggling.

1285
It will make it extremely difficult, if we have continuing violence on this scale, for the participants and negotiators in the talks to settle down in the atmosphere which will be necessary to look seriously at the future of Northern Ireland. We require some peace in the community and with high tension it will be difficult. Nevertheless, I trust that the negotiations will be a success. However, if the IRA carries on with the scale of violence of which we had an example last night, I trust that the Government, together with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, will seriously and in a determined manner set about dealing with the IRA. We cannot permit, and no community should have to suffer, the effects of terrorism as we have done in Northern Ireland for 25 years. Serious and determined efforts must be made to take them out if they should carry on.
Nothing I have said in this Bill prevents me from wishing it well and also wishing all those involved a successful outcome from the talks which will follow.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is axiomatic that noble Lords who do not live in Northern Ireland cannot speak with the same authority in Northern Ireland debates as those who do. Nonetheless, as a Northern Ireland layman, as perhaps I can describe myself, I welcome this Bill, strange—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn,—though I find certain parts of it. It can hardly be called an example of the Government's step-by-step approach to policy in Northern Ireland. Rather, it is micron by micron—and thank heavens, say I.
The history of the relationship between governments in London and the politicians in Northern Ireland over the first 17 years or so of direct rule has been damned by both rush and imposition. Not so over the last few years. This Government have done something that is totally praiseworthy in my book. They have learnt from the mistakes of their predecessors that unless you get the Province's population on side there will be anger and resentment, foot dragging and non-co-operation. This Bill, though, is just the opposite. It is all about getting people on to the same side. It provides, first, for elections to a body whose sole role, as I understand it, is to enter into negotiations for a political settlement in Northern Ireland—the end of which my noble friend Lady Denton spoke.
Secondly, it provides for those who are elected to that body to go on into a forum with wider drawing power—I believe it will, for example, meet in public—which is to be a deliberative body considering anything that the negotiating body asks it to consider. Presumably it is also permitted to consider items on its own initiative. I hope my noble friend will tell us the kind of subjects the Government expect it to cover in its stated objective of promoting dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland. It is clear that it is to debate and disseminate messages. What will they be, I wonder? I am also disposed to ponder the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, of keeping the parties both quiet and talking.
1286
I find this a politically brave Bill. Although as a result of their talks with the individual parties so far the Government probably know what cannot happen, I do not believe that the Government can possibly know what will happen—either as a result of discussions in the negotiating body or in the deliberations of the forum.
Much has been heard both in this House today and in another place of the method of election to the negotiating body. I too, as I said, find it strange. Of course it is not ideal. It is peculiar to Northern Ireland, decided upon as a result of two factors. The first is the Government's desire for the electorate to have the opportunity to vote for all the recognisable political parties involved, however small they may be. The second is that in discussions the Government have had to settle for second best—the highest common factor of the wishes of the parties in the Province. At one point it looked as though the fledgling Conservative Party in Northern Ireland was not to be on the list. We now find it in Part II of Schedule 1. That omission would have been a glaring error. Of course there was a reason—not a very good one, but a reason nonetheless—for excluding it, and that was that the Government which, of course, at this juncture are a Conservative government and are a party to the negotiations, could represent their views. My short time in the Province taught me some time ago that the people of Northern Ireland just would not believe it, however true it was. There is a history of lack of confidence and a depth of mistrust of governments in Whitehall however much the work of individual Ministers in the Province is appreciated. This appreciation, by the way, is very rarely shown while they are in office. It only becomes apparent after they have left Northern Ireland.
That said, I am delighted that the Government have come to the right decision. But it is not that which has excited so much comment. It is the method of election. Just now we heard it described as a dog's breakfast by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke; and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, thought the method chosen inadequate. No one in this Chamber would disagree with them. In a perfect world we would all have a totally different form of PR. But alas, we do not live in a perfect world. All we can hope for is what I have called the highest common factor, and that is precisely what we have in the Bill.
I described this Bill as politically brave. There is another reason why it is so. There is a history in the island of Ireland of something that I do not recall ever happening this side of the water, though no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong. It is this. It is not unknown for people to be elected to a political body with the express intention of never appearing, never taking their seat. Although the Bill minimises the likelihood of this happening, simply because of proportional representation, it does not, it cannot, rule it out completely. If that happens there will be views left unstated at the negotiating table and any form of final agreement at that table would be very difficult indeed to sell to the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, you must try, and the only way that has a chance is a

1287
referendum—a long-standing promise of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—the legislative appearance of which I welcome unreservedly.
Lastly, there is, I am afraid, a much more likely, a much more real reason for people being elected and then not turning up at this particular negotiating table. The Bill states quite clearly that any party on the list, and therefore any individual on the slate, presumably proposed for the elections by the party leaders—whom the Bill, for some obscure reason, calls nominating representatives—can be elected. As of this moment, however, it is by no means clear that they will automatically go on from there to the negotiating table. That is because Clause 3 provides, in essence, that the Secretary of State will veto their attendance if they do not sign up to democratic principles and the renunciation of violence. We all know what this means. Sinn Fein in particular, and the loyalist parties with links to paramilitaries cannot be at the negotiations unless they sign up to those very basic tenets.
Recent history has shown us that they are all capable of doing so. The IRA's 17 month ceasefire proved to the world that that was so. The tragedy of the Canary Wharf bombing that brought it to an end was not only that two people were killed and millions of pounds' worth of damage done to property, horrific though that undoubtedly is, but that Sinn Fein,—the IRA—have not learnt the political lessons that I referred to too long ago: namely, that you cannot rush things in Northern Ireland, especially political development.
The negotiations will take place with or without Sinn Fein. Unless that party signs up at the very beginning, the outcome shows very little sign of being acceptable in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein must know that. I read Martin McGuinness's comments rather differently from the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is my view that if a ceasefire comes it will come with very little, if any, forewarning. I hope and pray that Sinn Fein really wants a political settlement in the Province and that it will declare a new and unequivocal ceasefire, notwithstanding last night's bomb.
The Government are bravely pursuing a course which is beset with uncertainty. I am sure in my own mind that this is the right way forward in the circumstances. I wish both the Bill and them God speed.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I think I must be constitutionally distrustful of authority and leaders. One of the purposes of my contribution today is to try and play a positive role and be supportive where I think it is warranted. I would like to say at this Second Reading debate a few words on the timing, the bipartisanship and the broad thrust of the Bill.
On the timing, we are, in fact, considering this Bill at a great rush. Those of your Lordships who, I am sure, are assiduous with your paperwork will have struggled to read through Hansard of the other place to get a flavour of the debate and the detail considered there in preparation for today. To have less than 24 hours to consider that, formulate amendments and so on is not
1288
easy. Some of us have done our best. However, in considering the debates of the other place, I was reassured on two counts. First, there was considerable debate; and, secondly, a number of amendments were accepted by the Government.
I now turn to the bipartisan approach adopted by the Official Opposition with regard to the Government's handling of what is generally termed the Northern Ireland peace process. On the one hand, it provides great strength in terms of the ability of the Government to say there is no strong body of opinion with a different attitude to theirs and therefore there is no point in waiting for a change of government. However, it also carries risks in the sense that the normal procedures operating in Parliament of the Official Opposition challenging the Government and requiring the Government to argue their position strongly and to win those arguments are not apparent. As a result, the responsibility on Back-Benchers becomes more important. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and myself fall into the category of those wanting to look closely at the Government's proposals and wishing to put forward sensible amendments which are of positive support to the Government rather than being unfriendly.
It would appear that we are asked to engage in two contradictory operations. On the one hand, we are setting up an electoral system designed to ensure that small political parties achieve some electoral legitimacy. On the other hand, a hurdle is thrown up in Clause 2(3), which refers to the Command Paper. The one saving grace is that the responsibility for determining whether that hurdle has been surmounted is in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can only trust in his good judgment to ensure that all the players at the negotiating table who need to be there are allowed to be there.
There are a number of matters of detail to which I have tabled amendments. It is probably better to leave those for the Committee stage. However, I would raise one specific issue with of the Minister. Can the Government confirm that they will be receptive to amendments if the case is made for them and that they will ensure there is adequate time for scrutiny in this place so that, if necessary, should the wording need to be changed, amendments can be brought forward at Report stage or Third Reading? Will there be a window of opportunity in which to take the Bill back to the other place should it be amended in this place without running into the constraints of time required to get the Bill through to ensure that the electoral process can be undertaken? I am confident that the Government will be able to give that assurance.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I had thought that I was rising to speak as an ordinary person from Northern Ireland. As my noble friend said that she has never found an ordinary person and failed to elaborate on that point, I think that we in Northern Ireland must think that we are extraordinary and probably of above average intelligence and ability. I shall leave that for now. Perhaps my noble friend would like to explain her point later.

1289
In rising to support the Bill, I, too, would add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of it, justifying the system which will be used to elect the forum. I accept that the reasons for the Government choosing this system are as equally justified as they would have been for any other biased and weighted system. Because of the required result of returning a forum that does not reflect accurately the voting pattern of the electorate, any system—be it a list or otherwise—incorporating a bias would be open to criticism. Therefore, the Government have achieved something in that everyone is equally unhappy. Perhaps that is the best way under the circumstances. I mean that sincerely.
I shall not go over all the comments that have been made about the number of parties and so on, but I should like to add just a couple of points. The party list is very confusing, as we have heard. When the list is drawn up on the ballot paper, perhaps the existing recognised parties should be listed in alphabetical order at the top of it so that people can more easily find the party for which they would normally vote and then, should they decide that they do not wish to do that, they can see whether they can find some other configuration on the following sheet or in the file presented. That would be helpful even though our intelligence is not in doubt.
I support the feelings about deposits. Deposits ensure serious commitment. If there is any worry about the parties not having enough money—the parties we are concerned about are the pro-terrorist parties—noble Lords should rest assured that the IRA has raised plenty of money in America. As I understand it, that money can be used for that kind of thing. It may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the loyalists produced a quick £1 million the other day. So perhaps it would not be wrong to demand a considerable deposit.
I am inclined to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in respect of decommissioning. However, looking a little closer at it and taking it one stage further, if it is agreed in the early stages that there should be decommissioning, where is the legislation to enable it to occur? Even if it were to be done by order, it would take some time. I suggest that if, in the negotiations, we get to the point of decommissioning, it should happen immediately. Even an order would take some time to prepare. It could be done by an Act with everything left out except for the date that it starts. It is not frivolous to say that at the moment we are not allowed on main roads with a loaded shotgun. We are going to have to look at allowing people to drive down the main road with everything from machine guns to rocket launchers. Legislation must be there or else people will be committing a criminal act against the firearms legislation as it currently stands. That is an important point.
I am not quite sure what is happening about forensic testing. I know that terrorists do not want it. It is generally accepted that forensic testing should not go as far as linking an individual with a weapon. Forensic testing is now such that that can be done a very long time after someone has handled a weapon. However, in the verification of decommissioning, can we not have forensic testing to reassure ourselves which weapons
1290
were used in shootings? We would then know the proportion that has been handed in. We shall not know whether we have all the weapons that were in store and had never been used, but at least someone can sit down and say, "Listen, you have told us that you handed them in, but you have not handed in the weapon for this and that". That is perfectly feasible. We are not talking about linking a weapon to an individual. I would like to see a move on that or at least some reassurance.
The aim of the election to the forum is to get responsible people to stand. We are not electing MPs, county councillors, leading Orangemen or, for that matter, leading members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. We are trying to elect negotiators whom I hope will be intelligent, working people. But the Government have not yet said what the commitment is for the forum or, indeed, for the negotiators. When will the forum sit? We have some idea when the negotiating team will sit, but how often will it sit and where, and how much will its members be paid? We have already heard something about that from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Will they get holidays?
The people of Northern Ireland have no idea what the Government will be asking the delegates to do, so how can we ask people who are doing responsible jobs to be prepared to sign up to be elected to something that might require one day in a month, five days a week or whatever? I simply do not understand why the Government will not come clean and tell us what is required of that forum once it first sits. I understand that it may be for some time. People must know—and they have a right to know. I am quite sure that noble Lords will agree that they cannot give a commitment without knowing more. Incidentally, on that score, there are now a couple of groups of people who have never been interested in politics until now. They are younger, business people who realise that—although they may not want to be actively involved—politics and decisions taken in Westminster and elsewhere do affect their businesses, not from the point of view of the border with the south of Ireland, but on the world stage. They are becoming more interested. Unless the Government move on this, they are not going to gain any advantage whatsoever from that.
I do not want to labour the point as regards a ceasefire, but I must support those who say that it must be absolute and so on. Turning to that and to the six principles of the Mitchell Report, I know that many people in Northern Ireland want to know at what stage and at what minute that should take place. Is it when they are going through the door that they have to hold up their hand and swear to those principles? Are they to sign a sheet of paper? Do they sit down and someone asks them questions, or do they just mumble "Yes", which I suggest would not be enough? I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned the first two days for decommissioning to be addressed. There will not be two days. That matter should be addressed at a given point and then everybody will be aware of it. The Government must tell the average person in Northern Ireland who would like to know that.

1291
This Bill will work. It will produce a forum. There is no doubt about it. But the next stage of the negotiations may be a little more difficult. We have heard about some of the possible results, but I want to refer to one of them: let us say that Sinn Fein and the IRA call a permanent ceasefire. That would perhaps be a miracle, but it would be a most amazing and wonderful thing if they did, and that would be a complete success. However, there may be no ceasefire and then Sinn Fein and the IRA will not be included. Sadly, we shall then be open to continued terrorism.
The last alternative about which I wish to warn the Government is the worst scenario of all. It is that Sinn Fein and the IRA achieve what they are now running around to achieve like chickens trying to get out of a hutch. They are trying to find a way of ensuring that the unionists will be right. Many people here will accept that they will be right. They hope that the unionists will find that they cannot go to the talks because something has been given by the Government. I am not asking for reassurance because they have already said it.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are trying to find a way in which the Government will either dilute the Mitchell principles or say that the ceasefire is fine if they wake up at eight o'clock on the morning of the 10th and it is there. If they can do that, the only people at the gates for those talks will be the IRA and Sinn Fein. They will then have a PR coup like the one they had immediately after the ceasefire had broken down when they turned up at the gates of Stormont with television cameras everywhere. But no one in the Government or in the NIO had the wit to realise that that was one of the options open to the IRA. To be honest, the matter was very incompetently handled. I should like some reassurance from the Minister that this time they are thinking about that possible scenario because that is the worst of all possibilities. Nobody minds Sinn Fein/IRA being there if they give all the necessary reassurances, but do we want it splashed all over the world's papers that they have got there, but that the unionists and the peaceful people of the SDLP refuse to sit down with them because something has occurred somewhere? The Government should do a bit of lateral thinking beforehand.
Before I sit down, I should like to make a very quick comment about last night's bomb at Hammersmith, which I find rather troubling. This morning I heard on the radio that only the detonator had gone off. I ask my noble friend the Minister why this information is in the public domain. I simply do not understand. Are we providing an instructional-type of debriefing for the terrorists? In Northern Ireland, in similar circumstances, that information is highly confidential, if not secret. Such information must not be announced. I am not suggesting that they have done this, but if people within the police or ATO staff are giving information to the press, they should cease to do so; and if they are not talking, there must be a problem with the operation of the incident control. The cordon is too narrow and the cameras are watching the situation with their big lenses. One should not forget that terrorist sympathisers are
1292
nearly always there. They are watching what is going on so that they can catch the ATO, or whoever, the next time round.
This is very important. Whatever the reason for this, it is thoroughly bad practice and nearing incompetence. It can only lead to a greater chance of death and injury the next time round. Will my noble friend convey this message through the right channels? This is not the first time, because we have heard something similar as regards another bomb. It is absolutely vital. No family which loses a member in a subsequent bombing will thank this lapse of security on someone's part, albeit that it is the Government's responsibility.
I sincerely hope that this Bill will be the enabling legislation for a peaceful conclusion to such issues. I know it may be difficult to perceive, but we all live in hope.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am very conscious this evening that there are two ex-Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, fought so fearlessly and valiantly to bring about an executive in Northern Ireland. I shall continue to believe to my dying day that that was the best political hope of my lifetime. He brought the executive into being against a great deal of opposition. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, unfortunately, had to sign the documents which brought about its demise.
Now we are engaged in another exercise to see if it is possible to bring about political change in Northern Ireland. Again, I am conscious of every election since I first became interested in politics. Even before that, when the Northern Ireland state was set up, the mode of election was the single transferable vote (STV). The Unionist party, which came into being in 1922 at Stormont, was frightened that the Catholic minority was too big—it was 35 per cent.—and that it might become bigger. The electoral system was changed.
As the years passed boundaries were subject to gerrymandering and rigging. Local government votes were denied to people on the ground that they did not pay rates or have property in certain areas. That was the one big factor that led to the beginning of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. Anyone who can remember those days will recall the signs that all of us carried—I carried them—saying "One man, one vote". That became a great rallying cry.
Against the wishes of many in his own party, my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, who was then Home Secretary, introduced another mode of election. We reverted to the single transferable vote for European elections. It was not accepted in the United Kingdom but it was for elections in Northern Ireland.
Over the past 50 years there has been a continual change in modes of election. Without wishing to criticise the Government, the mode that has been thought up for the forum is the most bizarre I have seen in my political life. Anyone who listened to or read the reports of the proceedings in the House of Commons on Monday and Tuesday of this week will be in no doubt

1293
of the massive confusion among Members of Parliament and, consequently, the electors of Northern Ireland. It may be for the best of reasons that the Government have sought to bring a forum into being. However, to bring in a forum and to say that from it will emerge men and women of integrity who will concentrate on bringing about peace in Northern Ireland is totally unrealistic. Those elected to the forum will have been elected on party tickets. The SDLP will have its members, the Official Unionists will have theirs, and so on. The personnel have not changed. I would have thought it better to stick to the STV system in which the names of the candidates are put on the ballot paper.
The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. They are able to detect who is a moderate, who is engaged in the search for peace, who is engaged in the search for party political advantage, and who is engaged in the politics of superiority over political opponents. As it is, people will go in and cast one vote. The leaders of the parties involved in the election, most of whom are in another part of this building, will nominate as their delegates to the negotiating process those who will agree with them. Within every party—the SDLP, the Official Unionist party, the DUP and so on—there are different categories of personnel. Within the ranks of my former party there are very green nationalists who under no circumstances will begin to understand—nor do they want to understand—the views of the Official Unionists or the Protestant population of Northern Ireland. There are others within that party who are more considerate and who, like me, will go out of their way to reach an accommodation with the majority population in Northern Ireland.
In the past two days we have heard an awful lot about the nomenclature of political parties. When the SDLP was formed I had great difficulty arriving at the name, Social Democratic and Labour Party. Two people, myself and Paddy Devlin, wanted it to be a labour party. Others, led by John Hume, did not want any name that contained "labour" or "socialist", but they wanted a socialist democratic party. There were four of them and two of us. That was how the name SDLP was arrived at. I was interested to sit in the Gallery of the other place to hear John Hume and his colleagues demand that SDLP be put on the ballot paper.
This is not the best way for people in Northern Ireland to vote for a party. I believe that there is a big responsibility on the Government to talk to party leaders to ensure that the best people are at the beginning of the search for peace and not those seeking their own party political ends. Elections in Northern Ireland can be lethal. Many people have been killed and injured during the course of elections since 1922. This is not the best way to bring about a forum that can contribute to the search for peace.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees has today demonstrated that there can be a good deal of humour in Northern Ireland, allied to all the tragedy. One of the most humorous matters I have come across is the list of parties in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read the list. The political parties seeking seats in the forum are the Communist Party of Ireland, the Conservative Party, the Democratic Left, the
1294
Democratic Partnership, the Democratic Unionist—DUP, the Green Party, Independent Chambers, the Independent Democratic Unionist Party, Independent Kerr, Independent McCaffrey, Independent McGrath, Independent McMullan, Independent Sinclair, Independent Templeton and Labour. I do not know what kind of Labour Party that is. The next one is the Natural Law Party. If your Lordships have 10 minutes to spare I suggest a reading of the Official Report to see what happened in the other place on Tuesday. I refer to the speech of Mr. Peter Robinson, Member of Parliament for East Belfast. I refer to the derisory way in which he was able to take apart the Natural Law Party which was engaged in yogic flying. That is certainly a criterion for getting into the forum in Northern Ireland!
The next party on the list is the No Going Back Party. I understand that that is a misprint; it should be the No Going Forward Party. The remainder are the Northern Ireland Party (NIP)—whatever that is—the Northern Ireland Womens' Coalition, the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney, the Ulster Christian Democrat Party, the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP), Ulster Independence, Ulster's Independent Voice, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and the Workers' Party. Does anyone seriously believe that that list of parties can contribute in any way to bringing peace to Northern Ireland? I am reminded that there are two others on the list, the Alliance Party and the British Ulster Unionist Party.
I have fought many elections in Northern Ireland. When you fill in your nomination paper and hand it to the returning officer he will query it. If he thinks that there is something wrong with it he will not accept it and you will not be part of the election. I have a quote from a speech by the Secretary of State. He was asked how all of the names of the parties got into the schedule. He said that they had written to him and told him that they were political parties. How naïve is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to believe that. Is he absolutely stupid to accept a list of names of parties which were non-existent before it was announced that they had to be political parties? He is either absolutely stupid or very naïve. I very much hope that it is the latter. If I were living in a constituency in Northern Ireland I would not wish to be represented by the Natural Law Party or any of the other loony tunes which will be involved in the election contest. The Government should have consulted those people who were really intent on bringing about peace rather than accept this list of names.
There is a serious aspect. The DUP, led by Dr. Ian Paisley, has been in existence in Northern Ireland for many years. I totally disagreed for many years, and will continue to disagree, with Dr. Paisley's assessment of what is right for Northern Ireland. But all parties in Northern Ireland—I have quoted some of them—who believe in the link with England have to have "Unionist" in their names.
That is the one thing they have in common. We have the Progressive Unionist Party, the popular Unionists

1295
and the independent Unionists. They have one thing in common. The unionists determine that they give their allegiance to the maintenance of the link with Britain.
What I am about to say to the Minister is very serious. The Protestants in Northern Ireland—the loyalists—do not vote for gunmen. The whole history of Northern Ireland shows that the loyalist population does not vote for murderers or convicted criminals. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is not the same of the nationalist population. Time and time again, the nationalist population has voted for released terrorists, whether or not they have been murderers. It votes for people who have been sentenced for terrorist or criminal acts. The Protestant population does not do that.
Two new political parties have emerged over the past one or two years. They are the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party. They have within their ranks men who have been convicted of murder and serious terrorist crimes. One of them is a Mr. John White who is the spokesman for the Progressive Unionist Party. He killed my close friend, Senator Paddy Wilson. He has served his time in prison. He has now made a breakthrough. He has his briefcase and is taken by the hand into the Northern Ireland Office. I bitterly resent that. But the Northern Ireland Office seems to be pulling out every stop in the business to get people like him elected as delegates. It has done everything it can. In fact the Secretary of State said, "Let us see what happens. The purpose of this is to secure that those who will not get a large vote by reason of small but significant support will not be excluded from participation." Those people will not get votes from the loyalist population. But the Secretary of State wants to get them into the negotiating chamber. That is a very dangerous road to travel.
I attended the other place the other day. I have just read out the name of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. We had some trouble getting that name at the inception of the party. That is the way the party was listed. But the SDLP said that that was not enough. It wanted the initials SDLP included on the ballot paper. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Cooke said. I shall explain to him what happened.
The ballot paper was to show the Social Democratic and Labour Party. But the party wanted the initials SDLP added. It fought its corner ferociously at the other end of the building. The Minister of State, Lord Ancram, agreed to accept an amendment and include the initials SDLP on the ballot paper. But the DUP (the Democratic Unionist Party), for quite obvious reasons, wanted the name of its leader on the ballot paper to differentiate it from one of the fringe loyalist parties called the UDP (the Ulster Democratic Paper). There was a danger that votes could be cast the wrong way. But the Minister fiercely resisted putting Ian Paisley's name on the ballot paper. The name of Robert McCartney of the United Kingdom Unionist Party is on the ballot paper. It is only fair, as the Minister agreed to have the SDLP and Robert McCartney on the ballot paper and in order to dissipate the confusion that could exist with UDPs, DUPs and all the other parties with Unionist in the title, to have Ian Paisley's name on the ballot paper. That is only right.
1296
The Secretary of State should have another look at these bogus parties to make sure that they are not included in any election material. It is said that the top 10 parties will have extra delegates. There is a loyalist called David Ervine who may get a seat in a Province-wide vote in Northern Ireland. I have seen him on television. He speaks a great deal of sense. I wish that he had been in politics many years ago.
I disagree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, about the bomb found at Hammersmith Bridge yesterday. The police and the Government were right to let the public in this country know what would have happened if that 30 pounds of semtex had caught. It would have blown the bridge and everywhere in the vicinity to smithereens. Just think of the carnage that would have brought to that part of London! I believe that it was the IRA and Sinn Fein saying, "We don't want anything to do with your assembly." It is either that or Sinn Fein did not know, once again, that the IRA was going to create such havoc and murder.
The personnel who take part in the forum will be all-important. That has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees who knows Northern Ireland. Those elected to the forum must be given something to do. You cannot take them there on one day and say, "We'll come back in a fortnight's time." The very fact that they will be elected on 30th May but will not meet until a month after the negotiations have been taken place is, in a way, pushing them aside and saying, "Well, we have got you here, but we are not going to listen to what you've got to say." My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was right when he said that those people will not take it lightly. They will not go away; they will be in through the gates of Stormont; they will insist on using the catering facilities in Stormont. For some, whom I know, the catering facilities will include the bar. The phones will be running red hot from the bar in Stormont to all their favourite journalists so that they can leak stories to them. I have experience of that. Some people may remember the famous Northern Ireland journalist, W. D. Flackes. He was famous because everyone leaked stories to him. I used to leak stories to John Wallace of the Belfast Telegraph. If it came to leaking stories here, I would leaked stories to Dessie McCartan. We all have our favourite journalists to whom we can leak stories. That will happen in Northern Ireland unless we are sure what duties will be given to the forum and how they will be handled.
I cannot say that I welcome the Bill. The Minister knows that the Bill will leave this House as it came in. She will not accept any amendments. She can kick it through without the help of the Minister of State, as happened to her colleague in another place. She can do it all herself, because in half an hour we shall have someone making a speech who will apologise for detaining the House at a late hour. It becomes a late hour here at about 10 minutes to seven in the evening. The Bill will go through the House as it is. I can but wish it well. The Government should have consulted more before they thought of this bizarre and disastrous form of elections. I only hope that we emerge from the process an awful lot better than I think we will.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after that rich dose of realism, I hardly dare proceed, but I regard the Bill as the necessary gateway to the all-party talks as well as to the forum which, as my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, will be flexible, and will allow a wide range of people to say what they think. It is the result of the hard work, courage and unvarying commitment of the Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned, including my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield. We should not, however, attempt to fudge the difficulties.
It is well that Sinn Fein has recognised that it cannot afford, in the US context, to refuse to take part in the elections. It is fortunate also that the hard facts of the ballot box will probably demonstrate that Sinn Fein is, and has always been, a minority party—as it happens, both in North and South—whose power and credibility rest on the support of a small group of unelected and faceless men with guns and semtex. They should not be allowed to speak for those Nationalists in Northern Ireland—and they are the majority in that group—who are prepared, given the experience of the past months, to fight their corner for the democratic process alone, and, as the framework document said,
"enjoy the right to aspire to a sovereign united Ireland achieved by peaceful means and through agreement".
I emphasise that because I believe that we must be ready to stand firm if and when the IRA does make a tactical, not a strategic, decision to declare a ceasefire on the eve of the talks. Sinn Fein/IRA must not then be allowed to enter the talks on that basis alone: it must be required to sign up unequivocally to the renunciation of violence, the acceptance of democratic decisions democratically arrived at, and the discussion of the modalities of decommissioning early in the process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that we should certainly be ready with some concrete modalities to discuss.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, put the position on the talks admirably. I entirely support everything that he said. Martin McGuinness is quoted in The Times today as saying on the BBC's Northern Ireland "Newsline" on 24th April that the ceasefire of August 1994 had never been permanent. It was, he said,
"a complete cessation which could have been made permanent only through dialogue between the Government and all political parties".
As Sinn Fein/IRA also described the Unionists' majority vote in Northern Ireland as a Unionist veto and will accept no vetoes, no preconditions, it is clear enough that it will be essential for us to insist on the conditions of participation set out in the Ground Rules.
At present it seems that Sinn Fein/IRA's preferred tactic could well be, after sending some of their favourite messages in the form of bombs, to destabilise the talks. They can do that by calling another cessation, followed by Sinn Fein refusing to make the necessary commitments to qualify to join the talks. Both governments will then be blamed for excluding them. On the other hand, if the two governments attempted to admit them anyway on the grounds that the talks would be meaningless without them, the Unionists and, indeed,
1298
all in Northern Ireland, including many Nationalists who are not ready to negotiate with a violent minority, would be justified in boycotting the talks. Then they would be blamed for frustrating the peaceful aspirations of Sinn Fein/IRA.
Meanwhile, the "Dispatches" programme on television last night, to which reference has already been made, has made its own contribution to the destabilisation process. There were always parts of the framework document which could be considered weighted in favour of a united Ireland, or, at the very least, of the weakening of Northern Ireland's links with the UK. It is not reassuring, as the programme claimed with supporting interviews from the ineffable Albert Reynolds—the Willy Claes of Dublin—and other Irish personalities involved, that the key parts of the framework document were written by Gerry Adams, John Hume and Charles Haughey and, of course, Martin McGuinness and that this interesting quartet (and Albert Reynolds) actually negotiated the ceasefire with the IRA.
It is interesting that Albert Reynolds managed to condemn HMG for presuming to have undisclosed talks with the IRA while claiming all the credit for his own equally secret proceedings. It is to say the least unusual for someone purporting to be a responsible statesman to show parts of the text of letters he received from another on very delicate matters of state on television, and can hardly promote a climate of trust for the future. No doubt that was part of the intention.
Fortunately, the present Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, is a very different man as the unremitting attacks on him by Gerry Adams have confirmed, quite apart from his own recognition that the Unionists, too, are,
"a part of the Irish nation".
That, incidentally, is also a quotation from David O'Connell. It will be vital for Mr. Bruton to be seen to maintain his open-minded approach, as there are serious and disturbing ambiguities in the Ground Rules; for example, paragraphs 23 and 24, which make me uneasy. It is unfortunate that nothing is ever heard now about the original Dublin commitment to propose the abandonment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, which lay claim to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has its own special rich and valuable identity. I deeply deprecate any formula on consensus, for instance, which may open the way to giving Dublin an effective veto in Northern Ireland affairs, and notably on its wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
It may be argued, if and when the IRA moves, that the statesmanlike thing is to be flexible and, therefore, to call Sinn Fein/IRA into the talks on the basis of another cessation of violence alone, without commitment to the Mitchell principles. That way lies danger. Not only will the Unionists and the Loyalist paramilitaries feel betrayed and boycott the talks, so that in the efforts to placate the minority we could have lost the peaceful majority, but we shall also devalue the whole process and people will cease to believe in it. No one respects appeasement.

1299
We are in a position of relative strength if we can keep our nerve, but part of that strength must consist in recognising that Sinn Fein/IRA want something which they know quite well they can never secure by political negotiation—a United Ireland on their terms and the denial of the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own future. Hence their interest, as they are not prepared to compromise and get a little less, is to describe a majority vote as a veto, and to destabilise the political process, whether through a political phase of struggle (the achievement of international respectability which they successfully won in the months after the ceasefire) or through the violence which is their preferred mode of operation.
The IRA sharks have so far swum successfully and comfortably in a warm nationalist sea. Let us hope that they will now be left gasping on the shore as the Nationalists abandon them in favour of using the democratic process. Our policy must be to listen to, and act with, those Nationalists, not Sinn Fein/IRA. I believe too, finally, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was right to urge that we must be seen to make any reasonable concession, such as a move for Patrick Kelly. But would it not be reasonable to couple that with a public requirement on Sinn Fein/IRA to tell the families of those whom they murdered where their bodies lie? They have obdurately refused to do so thus far. Last of all, I feel that the Government may be in need of a seriously good public relations person.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have often stood at this Dispatch Box during the past two years and said how grateful I was for the commitment of noble Lords to the progress of peace in Northern Ireland. I repeat that today with great sincerity because I believe that the speeches we have heard this afternoon indicate how much people are concerned that we should go forward. Of course, there has been much emphasis on the difficulties. I can assure the House that the Government do not underestimate them for one minute. However, noble Lords have given us their best wishes in working against possibly impossible odds and having to produce miracles. I thank all speakers in that respect.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, a late hour for Northern Ireland business; indeed, it is an exceptionally early hour. I am delighted that, on this occasion, there have been more than the usual number of noble Lords in the Chamber for the discussion of Northern Ireland. That is much appreciated. I shall try to answer all the matters raised. But, obviously, we shall return to some when discussing amendments. As always, I shall ensure that I follow up any points.
I should perhaps explain to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that no amendment or suggestion from this House is ever ignored. I can assure the noble Lord that there is every opportunity on this occasion to send an amended Bill back to the other place. Indeed, it would have been extremely out of order for there to be anything else but that possibility.
1300
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, opened the debate and I should like to thank him, as ever, for his assistance and for the bipartisan approach which helps us in working towards a peaceful process. I hope that the House appreciates that the Government take every possible opportunity to consult with the party opposite, to discuss matters with noble Lords and to inform them on all occasions. I should confirm that the bipartisan approach of the Opposition Benches has never been seen on this side of the House as slavish. We appreciate their commitment to building a future for Northern Ireland.
I should like to confirm loudly and clearly that the forum will not meet before the negotiators meet and it will be entirely deliberative. The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Williams, are both well versed in the opening stage of negotiations and the role of the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and the proposals for decommissioning. I should like to take this opportunity to point out that the Mitchell principles also include an end to punishment beatings, and that is something which must always be remembered and honoured.
The noble Lords also mentioned the prior need for a restored ceasefire. The Bill makes clear that the Secretary of State will not invite to the negotiations any party which has been successful in the elections but which does not meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Command Paper. In the case of Sinn Fein, that means that there has to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. The two Governments are agreed on this point and will decide on whether the requirement has been met in the light of all the circumstances if and when the IRA makes an announcement.
There is a further agreement between the Governments on the arrangements for the beginning of negotiations. This is also set out in the Command Paper and is vitally important. When negotiations start, every participating party will need to make clear its total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence as set out in paragraph 20 of the Mitchell Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked what would happen if there should be a change of mind. I assure him that, were there to be a change of mind on commitment to Mitchell, whichever party did that would be out and no longer part of the negotiations. It is an absolutely essential commitment.
All parties will also be required at that stage to address the Mitchell proposals for decommissioning. It is quite clear that progress on this issue will be crucial to the success of the negotiations, and there will be consultation with the participants as to how this process will be managed. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, there are alternatives here and the Government will be considering carefully now how to proceed. What is absolutely clear is that the substantial agenda of work on the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning cannot be ducked or left to the end of the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked whether there will be a new Mitchell Commission. I would remind him that the Government accepted the

1301
recommendation in paragraph 40 of the Mitchell Report that there should be an independent commission acceptable to all the parties to oversee the decommissioning process. The precise arrangements for that will be addressed in the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also raised the matter of Mr. Kelly. That is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I shall make certain that his attention is drawn to the concerns of the noble Lord. I share wholeheartedly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that if this opportunity now offered in Northern Ireland is missed it may he a very long time before we can bring hope and vision back to the agenda.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his valued support for the Bill and for all the work he does in Northern Ireland. We believe that the White House helpers he identified are playing a very important part now. The message we were getting in Washington a month ago that there is no place for people who use violence gets stronger and stronger, and we must be very grateful for that friendship, which is obviously going to be of value.
The noble Lord raised the question of fraud in elections. Unfortunately, the Northern Ireland saying "Vote early and vote often" is not always a matter of humour. I assure him that we are aware of the great need for intense scrutiny in this area and we shall ensure that that happens. The questions of identity and the requirement to prove it are already in the hands of the electors.
Both noble Lords drew attention to the report of the scrutiny committee. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 is a precedent, and that is understood by the parties and people in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly Act also enables an order to set the franchise for elections. The Bill provides for this part of the exercise by order subject to affirmative resolution. I stress that the power is strictly time limited, ending in May 1999. I doubt that we would disagree that this is not the most desirable way in which to legislate in any circumstances, but there are very special circumstances in Northern Ireland and we try to accelerate the fulfilment of a hope as much as possible.
We were asked about making sure that people vote in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's electoral registration is the highest in the United Kingdom, running routinely in excess of 90 per cent., according to the Chief Electoral Officer's statistics. This very high figure is probably due to two reasons. First, Northern Ireland's electoral registration process does not depend on a postal return; instead, the completed forms are collected by personal canvassers at each household. Secondly, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to undertake a process of continuous registration. As the election in Northern Ireland has been so widely publicised over the last couple of months—sometimes in support, sometimes against—I believe that all those who are eligible and who would wish to vote have had ample opportunity to arrange matters. However, we will most certainly continue to focus resources on making sure that those votes are used.
1302
The Northern Ireland Office has already issued a leaflet to Northern Ireland's 590,000 households, which is to be delivered by the Post Office during this week and next. This alerts the electorate to those who are eligible to vote in the 30th May elections and the possible need to apply for a postal or proxy vote. It also reminds people of the need to produce their identity document. Shortly before election day, we will undertake a second leaflet drop to all households, which will reiterate eligibility to vote, explain how to vote on this occasion, mention how the vote will work and repeat the need for a specified identity document. Additionally, there will be an advertising campaign in the media. Details of that are being worked on at the moment. As both noble Lords are frequent visitors to the Province, they will have noticed, I am sure, that the Northern Ireland Office is not unfamiliar with television as an advertising medium.
The timetable for the publication of the Bill was very compressed. It is important that we keep this process moving. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough, asked about holidays. People take their own holidays; we do not set holiday timetables in many instances. It was important that we moved before the summer and, in the case of Northern Ireland, before certain conspicuous dates in July. Therefore, we introduced the Bill as fast as we could. It was also the result of intense consultation with the Northern Ireland parties. I apologise to the noble Lords who found that the timetable put them under pressure. We published a draft Bill as soon as we were able and we sent it, together with the Command Paper, to all those parties named in the schedule. We appreciate that we sometimes ask more of noble Lords than we should, but we hope that it is recognised that it is in relation to a cause with which we are all concerned.
There has been some discussion, although perhaps not as intense as that in another place, of the form of parties' names on the list. A great deal of consultation took place. A paper published on 1st April set out the form which the Government proposed to adopt. Many parties, including the DUP, responded. The schedule adopts a style which the parties indicated they wanted.
It is true that the DUP suggested that the names of party leaders should also appear. That view was not supported by other parties. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that that included the Ulster Unionist Party; it did not make that request. We are trying to achieve, with some difficulty, a sense of consensus. We shall not be able to please everybody. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough will understand the sense of things being extraordinary in Northern Ireland. He will recognise that sometimes government success depends on upsetting everybody. However, we shall work hard to make progress.
Noble Lords expressed concern about decommissioning. There will be legislation which we are working hard to draft. There are obviously problems on which we wish to consult but we shall bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, also gave his good wishes, and I thank him for that. I assure him yet again that there is no intention whatever, and never will be, of

1303
treating this House in an offhand way. I find that totally impossible to accept. But we have had to ask for help and support.
The system of election has been used in many countries. We looked at the case for assentors but that is not really made out. It creates an additional process which would be time-consuming and which would hit hardest the smaller parties which obviously have less-practised party support systems.
I hope the House will recognise that we are trying to create a body which will be as representative as possible. Sometimes it may look as though that is not the case, but I hope that it may prove to be different. It will indeed prove to be different from what has happened in the past, and I hope that that will be the way forward.
I was grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for his optimistic view, which I share. I do not believe that you can put back in the bottle that which got out in the 18 months of ceasefire. So many people recognised that there is an alternative and more attractive way of life. Messages went out to the world on the economic value of that. I believe that we can build and make progress but it will be difficult. However, it is achievable.
I thank my noble friend for his tribute to my colleagues who have worked tirelessly and who have offered consultation on all occasions. The Taoiseach, John Bruton, has made it absolutely clear that violence has no part in the future. Again, that is extremely helpful in getting across to people for whom the Hammersmith incident would indicate that they have deaf ears that there can be no doubt that that message is sent from all quarters. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred to information about that incident. I shall bring my noble friend's comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It is important that the message should be conveyed that this was no small calling card but a major tragedy from which we were all extremely fortunate to escape.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I fully appreciate that, but I felt that too much information was revealed as to why it failed.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clarification. It is extremely sad that those who live in Northern Ireland understand all too well the dangers of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, mentioned the extremely practical issues we face. He knows well the capacity of Northern Ireland politicians to brief on every possible subject. We are well aware that this seems to be the decade of the leak. We shall take great care to ensure that there is confidentiality where such confidentiality is needed to make progress.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that the names will be displayed clearly for people to see when they are voting. That is extremely important. The need for speed does not demonstrate that we have moved without thinking or caring about particular interests. We have moved quickly in order to keep progress going and to
1304
build on all that has happened. We must try to ensure that the efforts towards progress made by so many people are not wasted.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, queried the regional list. The Government believe that it is vital that the negotiations to begin on 10th June should be as representative as possible. The electorate must be given full opportunity to have its voice heard. The negotiations and provisions for constituency and regional lists recognise the importance that we place on the process being as representative as possible.
Provisions for regional delegates are included in the Bill in order to recognise the fact that some parties may secure a reasonably high degree of support in a small number of constituencies but have insufficient votes to gain a seat at that level. Alternatively, a party may receive a modicum of support across Northern Ireland as a whole and yet may not be rewarded with any constituency seat. The provision enabling the election of regional delegates rewards the fact that support for that party is evident. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that we should not seek to exclude the wishes of the voters, the people out there. The people who will finally choose those who are to take part in the negotiations are the people of Northern Ireland and not the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked about nominated representatives. They do not have to be elected delegates. Their role begins before the election. They could be party officials, if the party wished. In most cases, it will be the party leader but that is a matter of choice for the parties themselves.
The Government will frame a referendum question—a question on the outcome of the negotiations—and it seems sensible to consult with other participants in the process. The question would be included in an order which would be subject to affirmative resolution in your Lordships' House and in another place.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that the two governments have made clear that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic before it is submitted to the respective parliaments. We find it inconceivable that an outcome achieving broad agreement in Northern Ireland would be rejected by a referendum in the Republic of Ireland. It is worth reminding the House that in the joint declaration, the Taoiseach referred to Northern Ireland at a number of points. It is wrong to suggest that that is not the case. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked about detailed arrangements for the forum. These are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The first meeting of the forum will be at a time decided by the Secretary of State which will be after the start of negotiations and within four weeks from the election date. The Secretary of State has said that he expects the first meeting to occur well within that period. Thereafter the forum will determine its own times for meetings, save that it will not meet when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, that would not be appropriate because negotiations are intended to take place.
In respect of publicity for the forum, it is certainly the Government's intention that the deliberations of the forum should be accessible to members of the public.

1305
The whole purpose of the forum is to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. We hope that it will serve to promote wider public debate. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he would support the idea of the forum holding hearings at various centres throughout Northern Ireland to facilitate public access and input. My right honourable friend will be discussing with the parties the practical options for broadcasting.
In respect of pay, my right honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to the parties last week to set out our preliminary thinking. We expect to pay allowances to delegates for attendance at either a forum or for the purpose of the negotiations, and travel and subsistence allowance, including for support staff, and research grants. We have invited comments on what would be the appropriate level of research grant to make available to the parties. This would all be in line with the payments made to the parties in the previous talks in 1991 and 1992.
My noble friend also referred to the need to recognise that much progress has been made in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, as always, brings information—and, for me, education—to any debate in this House. I do not believe that the Government could have consulted more. We have consulted non-stop day and night. He had only to look at the pure weariness of my colleagues on occasions to see that that was so. The noble Lord recognised that it is easy to joke about the list of parties. I assume that that was not a subtle filibuster. I stress again that we wish it to be all-inclusive. I was surprised that the noble Lord did not hesitate when he read out the name of the Northern Ireland Womens Coalition. That was a fairly unique name to come across.
I stress that the people who will elect the parties will be the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Park properly drew attention to the rights of the peaceful people of Northern Ireland. I assure the House that the Government recognise that. The Government believe that the elective process can build confidence. If horses had been prepared to come to water before without an election, there would not have been an election. We are trying to find a way forward. Not only does the elective process build confidence; it also provides a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. It is the gateway to peace and the chance of achieving a lasting settlement. I hope that noble Lords will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she can assist as regards the specific question I asked about the Reverend Paisley's position. My understanding is that the Secretary of State in another place said that the Government would reconsider the description of Mr. Paisley's party. I do not hold a brief for Mr. Paisley or for his party except that they are entitled to even-handed treatment. Further, is the Minister able to indicate, in response to the question that I asked—the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked a question along the same lines—that precise
1306
arrangements relating to parallel decommissioning will be available for consideration by the parties before 10th June? If I may say so without presumption, we share the view that that may be critical to the question of whether Sinn Fein will be in a position—a ceasefire having been called—to join in the negotiations.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that he would consult on the question of names on the list, in particular at the request of the DUP. I assure the noble Lord that that occurred in another place. It was discovered that there was not a consensus among the parties and that other parties did not wish it. The matter was put to a vote and a decision was made. As I said, the question of bringing forward decommissioning will be discussed with all parties. I do not have precise information as regards the timetable but I shall make sure that the noble Lord receives it as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 23rd April), House resolved into Committee.
[THE VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The negotiations]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 1:

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill

  Clause 2
  1 Page I, line 23, leave out ("nominated for that party")
  The noble Lord said: Before I launch into this first amendment in the Committee stage I wish to thank the Government or the usual channels—I am not sure who arranges these things—for agreeing to a revision of the list of groupings of amendments. That was helpful and I believe that it will be helpful also to other Members of the Committee who have submitted amendments.
  This first amendment arose from a difficulty that I had—it may be just a personal difficulty of mine which is not shared by anyone else—in understanding Clause 2(4). The subsection contains a three-line sentence with no commas. Perhaps it was because I read it late at night when my mental faculties were not at their highest that it took me a few rereadings of that sentence to understand its meaning. Although most Bills that we consider in this Chamber are probably of interest only to lawyers, we need to recognise the need for Bills to be understandable to the layman also. I should prefer it if the amended version of the subsection were to state, "The nominating representative of a party may, from time to time, substitute, for any member of the team, another delegate returned for that party in accordance with Schedule 1".
  I have introduced the commas in my speech because I had some difficulty with the Clerks in that what I initially sought to do was to insert commas to break up the sentence and give it a greater ease of understanding.

  1307
  However, they seemed disinclined to accede to my wishes in that respect. In my deliberations on this subsection, I discovered that there was a superfluity of words in that the original subsection—if I may so describe it—stated,
  "for any member of the team nominated for that party".
  One of the difficulties is that that provision implies that a nominating representative might have some influence over another team. It is surely the Government's intention that the nominating representative would have an influence only over his or her own team and not some other team. Therefore, the reference to the "nominated for that party" is superfluous.
  By agreeing that the section is tautological, if I may so describe it, I hope that the Government will acknowledge that the subsection is imperfectly drafted. I accept that it is not a life and death issue. This is the first amendment in Committee and it might be useful to have the Government's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: Although I would not have put as many commas in the provision as did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I agree with the general thrust of his amendment. It seems to me that the words to which he objects and are superfluous and that the subsection would be more easily understood without them.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord's amendment bears on Clause 2(4) of the Bill. That subsection provides that, after the initial entry to negotiations, a nominating representative may change the members of his party's team in the negotiations. In the words of the Bill, a nominating representative of a party may,
  "substitute for any member of the team nominated for that party another delegate returned for that party".
  The amendment would omit the words, "nominated for that party".
  Having considered the amendment, we take the view that it would make the subsection less clear and possibly ambiguous. It would no longer be clear which team the nominating representative would be entitled to change, and it would therefore accelerate the confusion that concerns the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Logically, there is only one, which is that of his own party, but at best the subsection, as the noble Lord would amend it, would become less easy to understand; and at worst there may be scope for needless dispute. I believe that there will be a large amount of dispute during the negotiations and we would not like to encourage more. We believe that the purpose of the Bill is best accomplished by the drafting as it stands. Having heard our reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that response. I recognise that it is a matter of interpretation. As I said, it is not a life and death matter. I eventually understood the sense of the subsection. On the basis of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Referendums]:
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 2:

  Clause 4
  2 Page 2, leave out line 22, and insert—
  ("() that the persons entitled to vote shall be those who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local election in a district electoral area in Northern Ireland.")
  The noble Lord said: This is a rather more substantive amendment. Clause 4 provides the procedures for referendums. In the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State would effectively have the power to determine who would be entitled to vote in that referendum. A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which identified this section of the Bill as needing to be drawn to the attention of this Chamber on the basis that in other electoral law the definition of those enfranchised for the election was included in primary legislation.
  The amendment seeks to define the franchise for the referendum in exactly the same way as for the election of delegates for parties to the forum, on the basis that we are having an election to determine the forum. From that basis the negotiating teams will be drawn. It seems logical to me, and I hope to the Government, that the persons who were involved in the initial election on 30th May should be those who would vote in a referendum.
  With that explanation, I hope that the Government will regard the amendment as a useful improvement to the Bill and one which satisfies the concerns of Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I may have misunderstood. However, if the amendment were to be accepted, might it not give the right to vote to citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are temporarily resident in the North, and to citizens of other European Union countries because they are allowed to vote in local elections throughout the EU? I do not know whether that is one of the purposes of the amendment. It seems a possibility. I may have got it wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister, and from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on that point.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly points out, there are dangers in this matter. The noble Lord's amendment raises a point which was discussed fully in another place, following which a similar amendment was withdrawn. Apart from the general desire for consistency with the 1973 Act, it is possible that referendums held under Clause 4 arising from negotiations could affect different groups of people in Northern Ireland or different parts of the Province in different ways. In those circumstances, it is conceivable that it might be thought desirable to seek the views of

  1309
  those groups of people resident in those areas rather than the views of all the people of Northern Ireland. If the amendment were accepted, the measure would lose that element of potential flexibility.
  We are working for much of the time in uncharted waters. In all the circumstances, I stress that the Committee can be confident that the delegated power will not be abused. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that assurance.
  Lord Monkswell: I am a little concerned. From what the Minister says, it appears that there could be referendums in parts of Northern Ireland rather than a referendum for the whole of Northern Ireland. I believe that this is the first time that that has been suggested. I may not be familiar with all the ins and outs of the negotiating stances that have taken place as regards Northern Ireland. However, I gather from the debates in another place that there has been no such reference. I understand, too, that a similar amendment to my amendment was not tabled there, but I may be mistaken.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, one of the problems is that we have a number of different franchises for different circumstances. There are local elections, parliamentary elections and European elections. It is not always easy to determine who is enfranchised for which. In parliamentary elections Members of your Lordships' House, Anglican clergy, and a range of other individuals are disenfranchised. One of the difficulties is that there is no consolidation of all the various electoral Acts and Representation of the People Acts so we cannot easily examine all the various and different options that are extant and the different disqualifications.
  Apart from the sense of having a continuity of electorate—that is, the same electorate for the referendum as for the forum delegates—it is my understanding that the electorate for local elections is the most widely drawn of all the electorates that could be constructed under the various electoral laws, and that therefore lends it an enhanced legitimacy.
  I am placed in a rather difficult position. The Minister effectively introduced a new angle to the whole situation by suggesting that there might be discrete referendums encompassing only a part of Northern Ireland. I think the only way—
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may be able to help him. It was not my intention to confuse the matter. I confirm that there was fairly extensive discussion on the issue in another place, although that is not the answer in regard to any examination that might be undertaken in this Chamber. I stress that the clause was drafted to ensure the maximum amount of flexibility. If there are to be negotiations and people are to be elected by those in Northern Ireland, it is important that their views should be taken into account and, where at all possible, acted upon. Flexibility was built in to allow for that. There was no intention of any abuse of power.
  I hope that my earlier remarks assured the noble Lord that not only do we have a very high registration of voters in Northern Ireland, but we also make every
  1310
  possible effort to ensure that those involved and who have a right to vote know about an election and are encouraged to vote in it. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept those assurances.
  Lord Monkswell: I accept the Minister's assurance that there is no attempt to frustrate the will of the people of Northern Ireland, if I may put it like that.
  As I said, I find myself in some difficulty. I hesitated to think in these terms when I was asked earlier whether I should bring forward any amendments on Report. I said that I would not since I did not think it would be necessary. I shall have to consider the Minister's remarks. However, on the basis of the assurances that she has given, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 3:
  3 Page 2, leave out lines 23 to 25
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may also consider Amendment No. 6, which is virtually identical and merely relates to a different part of the Bill.
  The amendment seeks to delete sub-paragraph (c) of Clause 4(3) relating to the conduct of the referendum; namely, that the Secretary of State, if it appears to him to be expedient, should apply,
  "with or without modifications, any enactment (and in particular any enactment relating to elections) or any provision made under an enactment".
  That power, which the Secretary of State may use in determining an election, is fairly widely drawn. It is another curious situation. As I said, the same power is tied to the conduct of elections for the Forum.
  I recognise that the power would be used subject to an order coming before both Houses of Parliament and therefore be subject to affirmative procedure. However, given that we do not normally have the ability to amend such orders, I seek reassurance from the Minister that in the event it will be used circumspectly by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for explaining his amendment and also the relevance of Amendment No. 6 to his discussion. I assure him that my answers to him on this amendment are not given casually. In the Northern Ireland Office we have lived with this Bill for many weeks. We have indulged in a comprehensive period of analysis.
  I assure him, first, that any affirmative order, although it cannot be amended, can be rejected by this House. It is very usual practice in Northern Ireland to publish orders in draft form so that everybody can have their views well and truly considered. I also give him an absolute commitment that the Secretary of State would not contemplate abusing the situation at all. We are trying to move a process forward. If these amendments were accepted, considerable duplication would be necessary in terms of cost and complexity. I hope that the noble Lord will not ask me for that.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. One thing I would request; namely, that an

  1311
  early draft should be circulated to interested parties as soon as possible. Obviously, the time constraints are very short. With the Minister's reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 4:
  4 Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() The Secretary of State shall invite Members of the House of Commons, returned for Parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain, to signify their answers to the question put in the referendum on the same day as the referendum is put to the people in Northern Ireland.")
  The noble Lord said: While in relation to this Bill we are considering only the question of referendums in Northern Ireland—and, as we now know, referendums in possibly only part of Northern Ireland—we are also aware, although it could never appear in United Kingdom legislation, that there are likely to be referendums in the Republic of Ireland as well. They may be linked or separate. However, if they are linked, that is a mechanism for determining the attitude and views of the people in both the North and the South of the island of Ireland on the question that will be put in the referendum.
  The population of Great Britain (that is, the United Kingdom less Northern Ireland) would also be interested in, and have an interest in, the determination of what happens in Northern Ireland and the relationship between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. It would be politic to enable them to make their views known on the question of the referendum.
  One way of doing that would be to have a referendum in Great Britain. That might hold some attractions. The problem is that it would be quite costly and I am not sure it would find favour with the population of Great Britain. One way in which we can determine the views of the population of Great Britain is by asking their duly elected Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State would send the Members of Parliament a referendum ballot paper with a stamped return envelope asking them to respond to the text of the referendum: "Vote yes, no or abstain", in the same way as the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  I tabled the amendment as a suggestion that may be useful, not only in involving the people of Great Britain in the affairs of the whole of these islands, but also in ensuring that there would not be a politically partisan view. Each Member of Parliament would be expected to represent his constituents and not to vote on a party basis. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord's amendment raises an interesting point. However, I doubt that another place would welcome this Chamber telling its Members how they should register their views on any question put to the people of Northern Ireland under this clause.
  I must stress that Members will have an opportunity to debate the order directing any referendum. Any implementation of agreement reached in the talks and endorsed in a referendum would almost certainly require
  1312
  primary legislation at Westminster. That would give Members of both this House and another place an opportunity to make their views known. I must stress that it is the determination of this Government to ensure that the future of the people of Northern Ireland is chosen by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, in considering the opportunities for debate in another place in due process of the negotiations, the noble Lord will feel that that is sufficient and withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I recognised that this amendment was a bit of a flyer. I felt that it would be useful to run it up the flagpole and see if it waved. It has waved. I leave it there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 ["Nominating representative" of a party]:
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 5:

  Clause 5
  5 Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("time") to second ("the") in line 33 and insert ("has been notified by the party to be")
  The noble Lord said: The result of agreeing Amendment No. 5 would be that Clause 5(1) would read, "In this Act 'nominating representative' in relation to a party means the person who at any time has been notified by the party to be the most appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for the purposes of this Act".
  During its passage through the other place the Secretary of State advised the House of Commons that the reason for the use of the words "nominating representative" was to accommodate the fact that some parties may have a leader who would be the natural person to be the nominating representative, while other parties may not and may wish to ensure that somebody else was in the category of a nominating representative. The other provision that appears in the original Clause 5(1) is that the Secretary of State has to choose who he thinks the leader of the party is, or otherwise.
  The amendment seeks to make it a decision for the parties to determine who would be the nominating representative rather than for the Secretary of State to decide. At the same time, it would ensure that the nominating representative was not considered to be the leader of the party, although he could be. The amendment therefore effectively enshrines two factors. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I find myself supporting the amendment. It seems to me that subsection (1) of Clause 5 as drafted gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State. It is a little exaggeration to say that the formula as drafted is more evocative of the powers wielded by a 19th century colonial governor than one would expect to find in a democracy at the tail end of the 20th century. There may be a good reason for that and perhaps I have misinterpreted the position. No doubt the noble Baroness will explain why the formula is as it is.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We have not seen any controversy in this element. We are not intending

  1313
  that that choice should be made entirely by the Northern Ireland Office or Her Majesty's Government. We shall be guided in identifying nominating representatives by the wishes of the party. We have already consulted on the question in the consultation paper of 1st April. A list of those we propose to identify appears in the Notes on Clauses which is available in the Printed Paper Office. If the parties wish to propose different names, they are welcome to do so.
  I fear that the amendment is defective because it lacks certainty and may well lead to delay in the preparation of lists and nominations of teams. It may not readily be possible to pinpoint the legal entity corresponding to a party nor a person to speak with authority on its behalf. That is why the Secretary of State is involved: to permit the quick and unambiguous identification of such a person.
  As we are acting in maximum consultation with the parties, we do not see that the problems that are feared will arise. I must therefore reject the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it. As I explained, consultation has already taken place and the parties involved are not unhappy.
  Lord Monkswell: The Minister gives a certain amount of reassurance. But the main reason for my not pushing the amendment is again the time factor and the fact that these matters must be up and running fairly quickly.
  There is a risk of letters getting lost in the post and being passed from one party member to another until they finally arrive on somebody's desk and are replied to. I suspect that initially the Secretary of State must pick the person he contacts and writes to. However, that raises a problem in the sense that, historically, we have not tended to recognise parties in legislative form or registration form. Parties may be constituted in various different ways.
  Bearing in mind that this is the first electoral process that has occurred in this country that requires the election of parties rather than individuals, it may be something that the powers that be need to consider for the future. There may be a need for some mechanism for identifying parties and their structures and the responsible person to deal with them. However, that is a bit of a digression, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [The elections]:
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 7:
  7 Page 5, line 4, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 9 because they both bear on the same problem. I am sorry to come crashing in to the otherwise unbroken sequence of
  1314
  amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I shall try to be brief and return to his sequence as soon as possible.
  The object of the amendment is very simple. At present, the Bill requires the regional list to contain between two and 10 names with at least two not on a constituency list. Of course, this creates problems for those parties, the larger parties on that long and improbable list which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, read out at Second Reading. It creates problems for the larger parties who hope to gain significant constituency representation, especially, if I may say so, those parties which have democratic procedures for selecting their candidates. Here, I want to draw particular attention to the plight of the Alliance Party, which, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, has played a notable role so far and will do so in the future, because all the five largest parties will hope to obtain 10 or more constituency delegates. How then are they to determine which to include on the regional list but not on the constituency list? The two overlap. All the parties will want to field their best candidates in a constituency in order to maximise their vote. I fear there is a danger of two second-rate candidates on the regional list, which is not what any of us want.
  These amendments taken together allow the nominated representative—which, of course, we all know, means the party leader, as recognised by the Secretary of State—to put forward a larger but still restricted list of names at nomination time and then to decide which to appoint after seeing who is directly elected.
  This is not in any way meant—and I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate this—to be a partisan amendment. I know it is a point, if not the amendment, on which there is some sympathy in the Northern Ireland office. I do hope she will able to respond to it in that spirit. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I have no comments to make about Amendment No. 7 but I should just like to say something about Amendment No. 9.
  On the face of it, it would seem to give too much power to the party bosses at the expense of the freedom of choice of the individual voter. I fully concede that I am absolutely no expert on PR but, as I understand it, one of the advantages of the list system is that the voter can pick and choose between individuals, and, if you are a Conservative, you can opt for a Eurosceptic or a Euroenthusiast candidate if you feel so inclined. If you are a Liberal Democrat, you can choose between Liberal Democrat candidates and so on and so forth. If Amendment No. 9 were to be accepted that choice could not be exercised.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I would, first of all, endorse the noble Lord, Lord Holme's, view that the Alliance Party has played a very significant role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I am sure will continue to do so.
  I have some nervousness in accepting his view that there might not be sufficiently talented and good people in the party for it to be able to nominate names not

  1315
  on the election list. I believe that there are times and opportunities when people who would not wish to participate in elections but have value to bring to the process would come forward.
  I am not sure how leaving out 10 and adding a possible further 10 names to a regional list works on this matter. We have to ensure that all material is displayed at the polling station. I know that this has been looked at carefully on previous occasions and I understand in part the reasons for which it is advocated. But we do believe that the matters are well aired. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his intervention. If he will bear with me, the next amendment speaks very precisely to his anxiety to create the maximum voter choice. I thank the noble Baroness for her assurances and for her kind words about the Alliance Party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 8:
  8 Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("cast") to end of line 43 and insert ("preferentially among the candidates named on the party list to produce five delegates per constituency.
  (2) Counting shall be conducted by the single transferable vote system to produce five delegates for each constituency.")
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to use the single transferable vote instead of the list system in the 18 five-member constituencies that have been drawn up in the schedule to the Bill. I think the affection of these Benches for the single transferable vote system is so widely known that I need not embarrass the Committee by rehearsing it all over again.
  I should like to give three very straightforward reasons why this would have been a very much better system for the Government to have chosen. The first is, as was said earlier in the Second Reading debate, that the single transferable vote system is now the normative system for voting in Northern Ireland. It is only Westminster elections that are not conducted by the single transferable vote. Local elections, European elections are conducted in this way and, when there was the assembly, that was the way in which the elections were conducted. It is extremely familiar to the people of Northern Ireland. They can see the connection between their vote preferentially cast and the outcome. It gives a greater degree of ownership and participation. I think the onus is on the Government to show why they want to deviate from that well-established and practical norm.
  Secondly, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about a highest common factor choice of electoral system. I wonder whether we have not ended up with a lowest common denominator system rather than an HCF, because, as I understand it, the mere fact that Northern Ireland has been divided into
  1316
  18 five-member constituencies for the basic election is because it was originally intended to have the single transferable vote. Five members is the right number for an STV system, whereas a list system can have a very much larger constituency.
  I think I am right in saying that it was relatively late in the process, as part of the horse-trading between the parties, that the decision was made to abandon the normal STV system for this list system. The reason it was abandoned was because it was thought that it would be more favoured by the SDLP. I personally find that extremely curious, because the electoral system of the Republic of Ireland, to which the SDLP is anxious, with all possible speed, to affiliate itself, is STV and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the SDLP, which wants to be part of the Irish Republic, where for many years people have voted by STV, would be the party that did not want to have STV for these elections. And, in the event, of course, the production of this compromise electoral system, which has been fairly generally condemned, did not meet with any enthusiasm from the SDLP.
  Much as I admire what the Government have done in terms of persistence, I defy the noble Baroness to tell me that the reason the SDLP has now decided to join in the elections is that it got its favourite electoral system, so in fact the Government, if they had stuck to their guns, could have had STV all along.
  The third reason why it would have been better—I put it in the past tense because we all know the Government are not going to change now—to have STV is the very reason so eloquently given by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Fitt, at Second Reading.
  The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, put it extremely well. STV allows the voters to take control—a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just made. The voters can look down the list within the constituency and say, "That person is an obdurate, obstinate hawk who is never going to contribute to the peace process, and therefore I do not choose to vote for such a person. I choose to vote for a member of the same party who is actually going to move the peace process forward". You get the connection between the voting and the movement forward of the peace process. As it is, it is a donkey vote. You have to vote for the party and the party itself is more likely to be guided by like-minded people than it is to put forward a balanced ticket of hawks and doves in order to give the electorate a choice. I say with all respect to the noble Baroness that the Government have missed an opportunity to ensure greater levels of voter participation and a greater push forward for the peace process. I beg to move.
  Lord McConnell: I support the amendment. I do not intend to go into detail, but it is much more satisfactory

  1317
  to vote for people and not just for lists. It is a much more human thing to do. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I would favour this system more as it is much more voter-friendly. The voter himself or herself feels that he or she will achieve something.
  Lord Monkswell: I rise to suggest a different interpretation of what might happen from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The individuals selected might be the strongest hawks and be elected on a ticket of, "I shall defend your particular community". The risk of that is that one might end up with negotiating teams that would be completely intransigent. The only advantage of having the party elected rather than electing individuals is that it enables the parties to be flexible after the election. We recognise from our knowledge of history in Northern Ireland that individuals tend to be very inflexible when it comes to negotiations. However, if the negotiating body is the party rather than the individual, it is possible for some flexibility to come into the situation.
  Lord Hylton: I wish to support the amendment and to indicate my personal preference for a strong connection between voting and the names of individual candidates.
  Baroness Seear: The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that he favoured the list system, but he gave as his reason for favouring it that it would apply to STV. If he meant the list system, would he care to correct it because it was so nice to have his support?
  Viscount Brookeborough: If we were to be given the option, which we are not, I would perhaps have favoured a transferable vote.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the eloquence with which he put his case. I would suggest that he has had many years of practice. Under more normal circumstances, Northern Ireland must be a joy to him and to his party.
  I can assure the noble Lord that it is not the Government's intention to stick to their guns in any circumstances whatever. I can assure Members of the Committee that there was immense consideration of the options and that options such as the single transferable vote were not rejected lightly. That was taken very seriously as an option and the views of the parties were listened to. I hope that the noble Lord is not seriously looking for me to express the reasons for the SDLP's feelings in this area. After the comprehensive consultation process with parties, in which we were looking to build consensus, we had to establish an election process which we believed would allow matters to be move forward. There was no consensus. In the absence of that, Her Majesty's Government devised an electoral system that took into account the representations made by some parties for a new type of election based on party lists while retaining elements of constituency politics as requested by others whom we consulted.
  1318
  I can assure the noble Lord that the method was chosen to try to ensure that the forum represents the views of a broad spectrum of the electorate. I understand his feelings. I appreciate the way it was put, but I wish to assure him that for the voter it is important that the election is simple.
  I hope the noble Lord appreciates that in this instance the Government had a very difficult task. We hope we have a process which will at least allow things to move forward. I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her warm sympathy, which I very much appreciate, and I thank those noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—who supported the amendment. The noble Baroness will have found herself slightly lonely in the company of the noble Lord. Lord Monkswell, who seemed not to like the amendment on the rather curious grounds that it would give individuals all too much power and that they were rather unreliable. There we are; that's democracy, isn't it? I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 10:
  10 Page 6, line 15, leave out ("(however formulated)")
  The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: Rested from the fray, I come back. Paragraph 17(b) of the schedule refers to disqualifications. The Bill suggests that a person may be disqualified if,
  "he is authorised to be detained on the ground (however formulated) that he is suffering from mental illness".
  My amendment seeks to delete the words "however formulated". It struck me that it is a very wide definition. I am fairly confident that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is a mechanism for enabling disqualification for mental illness to be derived from a number of different health Acts or representation of the people Acts which may have different definitions and different criteria. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I have nothing to say on this amendment except that it seems to be quite a reasonable one. I rise because my Amendment No. 11 has been grouped with Amendment No. 10. I am not happy about that and I wish to indicate that I want to decouple my amendment from Amendment No. 10.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for clarifying that point, but I had assumed that that would be the case.
  I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that he has the answer to his amendment. It is a drafting point. We intend the disqualification to catch all those who may in various ways possibly be detained on grounds of mental illness. It covers a whole range because the question can cover many legislative processes. We think that the alternative formulation may lead to uncertainties which we so very much wish to

  1319
  avoid. The provision is drafted in this way because of the range of legislation which the schedule needs to cover. I hope that clarifies that the noble Lord was right in the first place.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that very reassuring answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 11:
  11 Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("person") to end of line 23
  The noble Lord said: A few moments ago I opposed Amendment No. 9 moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches because I had interpreted it as giving too much power to party bosses at the expense of the individual voter. It seems that I misinterpreted the purposes of the amendment and for that I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Holme. However, the words that this amendment seeks to delete decidedly give too much power to party bosses at the expense not of individual voters but this time at the expense of individual delegates. Apart from anything else, it may well have undemocratic consequences.
  Perhaps I may explain. I must tread carefully, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has re-entered the Chamber, and I am very glad that he has done so. I am not in full possession of the facts, but I was told only yesterday—I have not had a chance to go into the matter in great depth—that at the time of the Hume-Adams negotiations rather more than three years ago, the—how shall I put it?—less green members of the SDLP, Dr. Joe Hendron and Mr. Seamus Mallon, had reached a surprising degree of agreement with the moderate unionists. But that agreement was vetoed by the SDLP leader, Mr. John Hume, even though it is possible—and one cannot be certain—that the views of Mr. Mallon and Dr. Hendron at that time represented the views of the majority of the SDLP members.
  Another way of looking at it is this: if elections to the Westminster Parliament were governed by the same rules as this Bill provides, neither the honourable Member for Stratford-Upon-Avon, Mr. Alan Howarth nor the honourable Member for West Devon, Emma Nicholson, would still be in the House of Commons. There could be no by-elections to fill their places and both would have had to resign. That shows up the rather extreme nature of the way in which this part of the Bill is drafted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for explaining the purpose of his amendment and for the example he gave to prove, in his view, that this is not the right way to proceed. I remind the noble Lord that this is an election of parties and not of individuals. The rules that he associates with individuals do not necessarily apply in this instance. It does not seem unreasonable that someone who has sought to be elected under a party banner should be aware of the consequences of acting in a manner which is perceived to threaten party discipline. When electing
  1320
  a party voters should have the right to expect the views for which they voted to be represented on their behalf. If a candidate from a party list decided unilaterally that he or she would not, after all, follow the views of the people who elected him or her, it seems only right and proper that the nominating representative should retain the ability to remove that individual from the party's list of delegates.
  I am sure that your Lordships would have some sympathy for the party leaders who found, to their dismay, that the candidates they chose decided unilaterally to adopt a point of view at odds with the rest of the party. It is not a view that can be unknown in many places. We do not envisage that there will ever be a need for nominating representatives to exercise this right, but we believe it is right that it should be there in the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Monson: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the reasoning behind the rather unique formula contained in the Bill. I am partly convinced, but not wholly so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 12:
  12 Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38
  The noble Lord said: This is my final probing amendment. It is to remove paragraph 20 from Schedule 1. That states,
  "Where a party ceases to exist, any persons on its lists who are delegates or members of a team nominated under section 2(2) or (4) shall cease to be so".
  That sounds fairly logical except when one asks how to define, "party ceases to exist". One of the difficulties of this sort of ad hoc legislative situation is that we are basing a whole edifice on parties, elections to parties, taking negotiating teams from parties and all the rest of it. But we have no basis of definitions or structures nor the legal framework as to how a party starts or what its entity is during its lifetime. We do not know how its members are related to each other. How does one define when a party dies? It is one of those curious anomalies. I do not know whether the Minister has an answer or whether the parliamentary draftsman threw this in as a sort of longstop in case it was needed. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I once again find myself in some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He may be interested to know that this amendment is identical to one tabled in another place by the honourable Member for North Down, Robert McCartney. I am sure he will agree that he finds himself in good company. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: This is a unique system. There were many amendments in another place and there are quite a few here. I doubt whether the noble Lord's amendment is compatible with the concept of the party list system of election. That is what we have brought forward and what the Bill is about. The voters will have made a choice for a party. If it ceases to exist

  1321
  I believe it is wholly appropriate that those elected as its delegates cease to play a part in the negotiations and the forum. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I find that response not entirely satisfactory. My own understanding and the explanations given during the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and my noble friend Lord Fitt about how the previous assemblies worked, give me some confidence that perhaps the Government have got it right, but I am not sure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, can contribute?
  Lord Fitt: I feel compelled to support the noble Lord on this matter. It goes back again to my questioning of the list system. I am only taking what I say from Hansard and what the Secretary of State said and what the noble Baroness has said here. The Secretary of State called for parties to fight the election for the forum. He received letters and representations were made by certain parties saying "We are a political party". Many of them no one had ever heard of. I am certain that the noble Baroness did not refer to it in her Second Reading speech, but I have serious doubts about the Women's Co-Operation Party, or something like that. That would certainly cause problems in Northern Ireland.
  On what basis did the Secretary of State and his officials in the Northern Ireland Office accept the bona fides that these were actually parties? If we knew that then we would know what criteria were used to accept them and what criteria were going to be used to reject them.
  There was the case in Northern Ireland of the now deceased Jim Kilfedder who was the MP for North Down for many years. He had his disagreements with the Official Unionist Party. He then left that party and for about three or four weeks he called himself the Progressive Unionist Party in North Down, which he represented. Then someone said, "There is already a Progressive Unionist Party on the Shankill Road". So there was a quick turnabout and he then called himself the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. So it became known as the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. Subsequently, local elections took place and two of Jim Kilfedder's friends fought the election on a Popular Unionist Party ticket. They were elected. When Jim Kilfedder died he took his party with him. However, there are still two Popular Unionist Party members sitting on Bangor or Newtonards Borough Council. How can the Secretary of State say that that party no longer exists when there are two members of the Popular Unionist Party nominated by Jim Kilfedder? I believe that some kind of understandable criterion should be used.
  I know that the noble Baroness cannot answer all the questions that are posed here today. However, how did the Secretary of State accept all those parties in the first place? If somebody can say how he accepted them, we may know how to reject them.
  Lord Monkswell: The contribution of my noble friend Lord Fitt is revealing. It raises some of the difficulties that the Secretary of State will no doubt face,
  1322
  on the basis that some people may be elected against one of the parties listed in the Bill, turn up, but make virtually no contribution to any discussion or negotiations. They will simply take advantage of the allowances, the free telephones that have been mentioned and various other matters. It is quite reasonable that the Secretary of State should have power to say to such a person that he believes that the party has ceased to exist and therefore he will not receive his allowances, and so forth. On the basis of that understanding as to the way it may work, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord McConnell Lord McConnell moved Amendment No. 13:
  13 Page 6, leave out line 42
  The noble Lord said: I can best illustrate the purpose of the amendment by referring to an experience suffered by the Liberal Democratic Party. In an election a candidate called himself a literal democrat and succeeded in splitting the vote. In the list of parties a new creature called the British Ulster Unionist Party has sprung up. That is second on the list. The normal Ulster Unionist Party is near the bottom of the list. The purpose of the amendment is to omit reference to "British Ulster Unionist Party". I submit that it is just put in as a method of splitting the proper Unionist vote. It copies Mr. Literal Democrat, who did the same thing to our friends in the other place. I beg to move.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: As a member of the Front Bench of a party that has one less MEP than it should have, I feel bound to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Monson: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has made out a powerful case for some alteration. The trouble is that if his amendment is accepted as it stands it would mean that the individuals who wish to stand as British Ulster Unionists would be disfranchised. As I understand the rather peculiar rules that govern all the stages of a Bill being taken on the same day, theoretically the noble Lord is entitled to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. If that is so, I suggest that a possible remedy for the almost certain deception which he fears is that the word "Independent" should be inserted either before or after the word "British". That would get round all of the problems, while not disfranchising individuals who wished to stand under this party banner.
  Lord Fitt: It is quite possible that on nomination day all of the names that I have read out this afternoon will disappear. They will probably have sobered up in the meantime and will not be putting in nomination papers. Referring to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, if nobody turns up to put in a nomination paper under the heading British Ulster Unionist party it will perhaps avoid that particular difficulty. It would then become the Ulster Unionist Party. One would simply be doing away with the British

  1323
  Ulster Unionist Party, which does not exist now and will hardly exist on nomination day. It is almost certain that on nomination day half or perhaps three-quarters of those parties mentioned today will no longer exist.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for explaining the reason for moving this amendment. It seeks to remove from the schedule of participating parties one of those parties which seeks inclusion in the elective process.
  There may be a perception among noble Lords that people who wish to join the political process and who have not participated in the political process before, or who have participated in earlier days and have been away from it for some time, may now wish to return. I believe it is wrong to assume that some of those people do not have a serious wish to take part in shaping the future of Northern Ireland. We have always sought an inclusive process in this election. The party concerned responded to the consultation paper sent out by my right honourable friend on 1st April within the timescale set out in that paper. Therefore, there are no grounds to seek the removal of that party's name from the schedule. I believe that it would be contrary to our desire for an inclusive process to do so. Should no one materialise on the day, obviously it would be impossible—even in Northern Ireland—to vote for no one. But I believe that, if new people wish to participate in the political process of shaping the future, that is something the Government wish to see. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment having heard the reason why it is not possible for the Government to accept it.
  Lord Monson: I have no idea what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, wishes to do. I ask the noble Baroness whether it is theoretically possible to table a manuscript amendment at the next stage, should the noble Lord wish to do so. If so, is it possible to insert the word "Independent" without the consent of the leaders, such as they are, of the party concerned? That may not be possible, in which case there is no point in trying to table such an amendment.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It is possible to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. The party is nominated with its title, and that is the title of the party. I should have to consult on whether or not that was possible. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, would receive advice as to that.
  Lord McConnell: If I were to do that, would the Minister accept an amendment to the effect that the word "Independent" should be included?
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the Member on the Front Bench on this occasion, if an amendment brought forward at Report stage were acceptable from the point of view of drafting—
  Baroness Seear: Surely, the only way to deal with this matter is to move that the whole name of the party should be removed. We cannot interfere with the name
  1324
  that the party has given itself. We can move that that party be eliminated from the list, but we cannot play around with the name that the party has chosen to have.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness who has just spoken is right; otherwise, it is possible for me to put down a manuscript amendment in respect of any of these parties that inserts the word "obnoxious" or indeed "admirable". It simply is not suitable.
  Lord Monkswell: Curiously, we can do this.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: No.
  Lord Monkswell: We are referring here to a list of names which has at the top the heading "The Parties". We have before us a public Bill. We in Parliament can change any of the words of that Bill however we like. We do not have any prior legislation that defines a party and the legitimacy of a party name being sacrosanct. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is entirely in order. It is possible for us to do it. That should be the logical reason why the Government should resist the amendment. We must accept that, were we to do such a thing, it would be in order.
  I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a technical question about the consultation process relating to the advice of the Secretary of State with regard to parties within Northern Ireland. Would I be right in thinking that only one signature was required on the response? Presumably there was a standard form: "This is the name of the party. This is the address of the party. I am a responsible officer of the party", and then a signature. Or was more than one signature required, or no signature at all? If we had that information, we might be able to move forward more quickly.
  Obviously, if two or three signatures were required, that would suggest that the party was bona fide even though it might be small. If only one signature was required, that would suggest that an individual could have described himself as a party, filled in the form and sent it back. That would alter the Committee's view about the legislation, and its integrity or otherwise.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We seem to be dealing with difficulties which are more perceived than real. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The party about which we are talking has its own name which it is not for this place to amend. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, to bring forward a manuscript amendment on Report. However, I suggest, as I did earlier, that he take advice on the formulation of an amendment which will achieve what he wishes. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the party has a serious intention of participating in the Northern Ireland political scene. The Government accept that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord McConnell: In view of the speed with which these proceedings are going through this place, there is little time for me or anyone else to seek advice before

  1325
  the next stage which will be in a few minutes' time. I am left with no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, particularly at this late hour.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [The forum]:
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 14:

  Schedule 2
  14 Page 7, line 37, after ("time") insert ("and place")
  The noble Lord said: I trust that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 15 and manuscript Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may find it inappropriate for there to be amendments to the Bill today. I suspect that he finds manuscript amendments even more inappropriate. That is one of the reasons why I am wrapping them altogether. Be that as it may, I have to disagree with him. It is the duty of Members of this place to probe the Government, and to do all in their power to guard against the dangers that they see in their proposed legislative action.
  I turn now to the amendments. It is clear from Schedule 2 that meetings of the forum will be at a time to be decided by the Secretary of State. However, we know little about the place. My amendments are designed, first, to probe where that place might be. It must be somewhere big enough to hold the delegates, the public and the press, because we have heard that this is a widely representative body. I should be unhappy about Castle Buildings or the Parliament Buildings at Stormont. They are not merely too small; they have unhappy memories for many of the people of Northern Ireland. It is also likely that the forum will want to move from place to place to disseminate the negotiating body's views to the widest possible audience. Indeed, we had intimations of that earlier today. It may also wish to have sub-committees meeting in various parts of the Province.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State will have to provide those venues in the same way as he provides the staff and other facilities. It is equally clear that the members of the forum will have ideas of their own about where they wish to meet. So Amendment No. 15 provides for agreement between the forum and the Secretary of State as to where that should be.
  In his role as facilitator, the Secretary of State should bend over backwards to accede to the wishes of the chairman of the forum in that respect. If I can persuade my noble friend to give a commitment that that will happen, I shall not need to pursue any of these amendments. I do not have to remind the Committee that although we all hope that meetings of the forum will be held in safe and secure surroundings, we must guard against the opposite. It is not unknown for meetings in Northern Ireland to have to be moved at short notice. They are cancelled only as a last resort.
  I thought originally that there was a lacuna in the Bill, and that the Secretary of State was not empowered to choose the place of the meetings. However, it was pointed out to me that the last paragraph of Schedule 2 did just what I feared it did not; namely, allow the Secretary of
  1326
  State to provide the place or places. However, nowhere in the schedule does it say that he must consult the chairman of the forum. It is that assurance that I am seeking from my noble friend. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward these amendments. We are at one with the spirit of them. We agree that the place where the forum meets should not be fixed once and for all. But, as my noble friend has identified, paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 provides for that situation. It clearly gives authority for the forum's main base to move.
  As was made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, final decisions are still to be reached on where that base should be. Because of the unfortunate fire in Parliament Buildings they are not a possibility. Castle Buildings in Belfast is a strong contender, but the Secretary of State has undertaken that there will be consultation.
  The Secretary of State indicated also that he was ready to contemplate the possibility of the forum, or, perhaps more probably, its committees, venturing away from that base; for example, to conduct hearings. It would be his duty to see that premises were provided elsewhere.
  Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would delete references to the Secretary of State providing the facilities, but we believe it appropriate that the responsibility should rest with him. There is a question of accountability for resources here, which I am sure my noble friend well understands. I repeat that we shall consult fully on these matters. I hope that that reassures my noble friend about the concerns that his amendments raise.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend. At this late hour I shall not argue with her about what my final manuscript amendment means, but I am afraid that she and her advisers have it slightly wrong, because the Secretary of State would continue to have the authority to provide and pay for all those things that she has just described. Be that as it may, I am grateful for the assurance on consultation for which I asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 16:
  16 Page 8, line 27, leave out ("75 per cent. of those voting") and insert ("80 per cent. of those voting or 80 representatives, whichever is the lower")
  The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I shall be brief, but this is an important point. The memorandum circulated by the Government on 21st March in association with the Prime Minister's Statement in the other place stated that decision-making in
  "the Forum will be required to proceed by broad consensus".
  It is commonly accepted by Members of this place, most commentators, and certainly most unionist politicians that there can be no return to majority rule.

  1327
  The ground rules for the all-party negotiations provide for decision making on the grounds of consensus:
  "Unanimity [will be] within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland".
  Surely that reason should apply a fortiori in the forum. In a nutshell, the problem is that the forum will reflect the status of the parties. We must assume that the majority, as has been the case for a long time in Northern Ireland, will tend to belong to the unionist community and the minority to the nationalist community. In the case of this body, that would be somewhat compounded by the additional 20 seats for the 10 largest parties of which only two can properly be described as nationalist. Therefore, the proportion of seats gained by the SDLP and Sinn Fein will fall somewhere short of the proportion of the electorate who vote for them. We could have a situation where 30 per cent. or less of the seats in the forum go to nationalist parties.
  If Sinn Fein boycotts, as at present seems likely, or walks out of the forum, is it not possible that the SDLP will have too few seats as enunciated in the Bill at present to form the sort of blocking minority which is essential to maintain the consensus between the two communities? Therefore, although this may seem a rather narrow matter of marginal adjustment of numbers, it bears on the whole essential basis of progress in Northern Ireland, for which the forum surely must be symbolic, that the two communities themselves must be in a state of consensual agreement on something as important as the election of the chairman. I believe that it is an important concern if the process is to commend itself to the Government of Ireland and to the nationalist community. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the amendment when she replies. I beg to move.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: If we were talking about any more than a deliberative body, I would be forced to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. However, looking at paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, it is clear that what we are talking about is either,
  "the election or removal of a chairman or the adoption or alteration of rules of procedure".
  We are not actually talking about any substantive discussions which may or may not lead to a vote. If we were talking about that, then, yes, I would most certainly agree with the noble Lord.
  Lord Fitt: We have been told both here and in the other place that the forum will be a gathering of people which is predestined to bring about a sort of consensus. I did not interrupt the Minister earlier when she was being very laudatory about the forum in Dublin. Any attempt to equate that forum in Dublin and the one in Northern Ireland is totally innocuous. I say that because the Dublin forum was not elected; its members were appointed. It was a nationalist forum because very few
  1328
  unionists attended and they did not have votes. However, when they eventually came to a conclusion, Sinn Fein was unable to agree in that atmosphere.
  As regard the situation just outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, it is highly likely that Sinn Fein will not attend the forum. In fact, I believe that the bomb under Hammersmith Bridge will determine that it will not be there. Again, that may bring about a situation where the SDLP may also not be present. Indeed, we may have a re-run of the 1982 rolling assembly of Jim Prior when Sinn Finn was first elected in the aftermath of the death of the 10 hunger strikers. Sinn Fein said then, "We are not going there", and, then, the SDLP said the same.
  It is possible, should Sinn Fein determine not to go, that the SDLP may not feel inclined to do so on its own. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is only right that some criteria should be brought about to ensure that the deliberations of the forum are truly representative of a body that is determined to bring about consensus in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Monkswell: This is probably the last debate in today's deliberations. I must admit that I am rather concerned about the tenor of it in the sense that the formulation of the amendment seems to pre-suppose that there will be an antagonism between the unionists and the republican communities in Northern Ireland for ever and ever, and that we must find some mechanism to ensure that the majority does not oppress the minority. Surely we should be aiming our sights a little higher. If that is the basis on which the last debate on this Bill is conducted, I really despair.
  When she responds to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to engender some hope, enthusiasm and belief that the situation that has pertained in Northern Ireland—namely, the schism between the two groups in the community—should be ended. It is to be hoped that we can build a better future where everyone, not just within Northern Ireland but also those living north and south of the border and in Ireland and Great Britain, can live in peace together and work together to secure a better future for all of us.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We are talking about a matter of considerable importance in the Bill. Indeed, the arrangements were extensively debated in another place. I believe that the Bill, especially as amended in the other place, represents a proper balance in a very sensitive area. Perhaps I may explain why.
  The amendment would substitute a threshold of the lower of 80 per cent., or 80 members. Eighty members would equate to a little under 73 per cent. if all 110 voted, but the smaller numbers would quickly become a higher threshold than the Bill at present requires. Of course, we hope that people will participate, but the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is right to say that we must always recognise the fact that that is their choice, not our rule.
  We have said that we see the forum operating by broad consensus. That was made very clear in the debates in another place. It is particularly crucial as

  1329
  respects the rules of procedure. The voting threshold set in the Bill is important here. A numerical threshold cannot of itself, however, be a guarantee of such broad consensus in all circumstances unless it is set at a very high level. In that case a reasonable measure of consensus across representatives of the two communities might fail to meet the threshold. We have to legislate for realism.
  Because such a numerical threshold is not a guarantee of broad consensus we have added other safeguards. The Secretary of State must, under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, approve rules of procedure that the forum puts forward. By an amendment put forward in another place by the Official Opposition, which became paragraph 3(4) of the schedule, in exercising his function of approving such rules as well as putting forward the set by which the forum is to operate at the start, the Secretary of State is required to make every effort to secure that the rules facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that that explanation illustrates to the noble Lord that we are not unaware of the difficulties in this area. We have tried to take every possible means to ensure that the forum will operate to the benefit of all. I cannot agree with my noble friend that it is not important, because the election of the chairman is important. As the provisions were amended in another place, I do not believe, with enormous respect, that the noble Lord's amendment would necessarily be an improvement.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his qualified support. I agree with the noble Baroness. In a closely contested and potentially difficult atmosphere the appointment of a chairman is really quite important. As one very often finds in all sorts of spheres—not just in Northern Ireland—it is potentially significant. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is a voice for what is the minority community in Northern Ireland, which will be particularly sensitive to the need to get the consensus to which the noble Baroness referred. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, of course all of us want a Northern Ireland in which there is no antagonism, but we would not be here and we would not be spending this time and taking this care if there were not antagonism there. There is antagonism; there is a history of antagonism. That is what we all have to deal with as intelligently as we can.
  I shall withdraw the amendment in a moment. I know that the Government are sensitive to what I have been talking about. They will have to be— will have to continue to be so all the way through this process on this particular point. For the nationalist community, North and South, it is of desperate importance that the balance should be right. Before I withdraw the amendment, as the Report stage may prove to be relatively short and formal, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness very much for her care and courtesy throughout the past five hours. It is always a pleasure to be working with her and never more so than today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

Anglo Caribbean Relations
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of their relations with the countries of the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin this debate by offering my very warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Chalker for coming here this evening and agreeing to reply to the debate. May I say, too, that there is one person on this occasion whom we shall all miss, and that is the late Lord Pitt, who was such an authority on the Caribbean.
There is always a danger that the Caribbean will be forgotten in the midst of huge world problems. Indeed, I fear that there are some in Whitehall who regard Britain's involvement in the Caribbean as a matter of diminishing importance. I do not believe this is the case, and I feel sure that my noble friend Baroness Chalker shares this view. After all, the islands were once called "the jewel in the crown". The Caribbean has a population of 35 million. British exports amount to £1 billion per year. British investments total at least £12 billion per year. There are five dependent territories. There is great concern about drug trafficking and money laundering. There is the role of the Commonwealth in much of the region. There is the slow emergence of a significant new economic opportunity in Cuba and, of course, there are a substantial number of people of Caribbean descent living in this country.
Finally, I am bound to say from my own experience in government that it is the problems of small states, particularly islands, which, if not addressed, come back to haunt governments. I think of the Falklands conflict, I think of Grenada and, more recently I think of Montserrat.
This evening I should like to touch upon two issues which illustrate those problems. The first is trade and the second is Cuba. The Caribbean is no stranger to trade wars. Much of its history has been dominated by battles for supremacy between European countries or between Europe and the United States.
We find today that the prospect of a serious confrontation between the European Union and the United States is looming in respect of the Caribbean over the issue of bananas. Those of us who know this part of the world know that bananas are vital to the economies of the small Caribbean states.
The fact is that Caribbean bananas make up 5 per cent. of the European market and it seems contrary to the interests of all that there should be a dispute over this percentage. The latest development in the seemingly endless dispute is that the United States is likely to

1331
demand a full GATT panel under World Trade Organisations rules to challenge the EU's 1993 single European regime for bananas. Any decision reached will be by majority vote and will be mandatory. At the heart of the argument are major US corporations which trade the bananas of the appellants, Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, plus Costa Rica.
For the Caribbean banana producers, this is the worst of all possible worlds. It raises serious questions about what the Eastern Caribbean in particular may expect in the future. If the United States and some European states appear determined to end prematurely the small advantages these islands have in the European market, what hope have they of negotiating transitional arrangements in the proposed free trade area of the Americas or when Lomé IV ends?
Some years ago, that very remarkable Prime Minister of Dominica, Dame Eugenia Charles, was reported to have asked Sir Leon Brittan, then the EC External Trade Commissioner, and Mr. Peter Sutherland, then the GATT Director General, why they were trying to destroy her country. "If we cannot export bananas", she is alleged to have told them, "then we will export drugs". Both were said to have been quite shocked by her directness.
It takes little imagination to see that, without bananas and until tourism is properly integrated with agriculture, the obvious alternative cash crop is marijuana, soon followed by the trans-shipment of hard drugs. Experience has shown that this is usually followed by a rise in local crime as those involved are paid off in narcotics. This of course leads to the general disintegration and total destabilisation of the country as a whole.
I find it quite extraordinary that some member states of the EU and the US are not prepared to recognise this. It will be one of the direct consequences of their present approach to the banana and other problems in the Caribbean. It is odder still as France, Britain and other European nations have responded positively to requests from the US to develop closer co-operation in the Caribbean on narcotics interdiction and money laundering. These are all issues which, I am pleased to say, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was able to raise during his recent visit to the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just to underline that particular point, only yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Myers on behalf of the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association and I should like to read briefly two paragraphs from it. He says:
"As you may know, on 24 April, the day preceding your question, the USA and its co-complainants will be asking the Disputes Settlement Board at Geneva to appoint a panel into their complaint against the EU banana regime. Even if this request is successfully opposed on that day, they will obtain a panel, as of right, at the second time of asking, probably in early May.
You may not be aware, however, of the breach of faith involved in this request. The then USTR, Mickey Kantor, in response to pressure from Congressional members of the Black Caucus and pressure from the Caribbean embassies in Washington, offered to hold informal talks with all interested parties to see if an amicable solution could be found. He said that so long as those talks
1332
continued, the US would not request a panel, provided that the EU participated and a schedule of meetings was established and progress made.
In the event these talks were held, at Kantor's insistence, on 9 April in Miami. All interested parties attended, including the EU. There was a very good exchange on the problems, but when the complainants were invited to suggest possible changes to meet their concerns, they refused to do so. They simply announced that they would be requesting a panel. It later transpired that this had been their intention all along, in order to meet the deadline for requests to be tabled for the April meeting of the Disputes Board".
That is a very dispiriting saga.
If, under US pressure, the European banana regime collapses precipitately and fully reciprocal trade is forced on small and fragile economies, then the cost to the Caribbean, to the US and to Europe will be far greater than US officials, allowing policy to be driven by banana multinationals in an election year, can imagine. Small gains in a trade war might seem attractive in the short term, but free trade at any price in these particular circumstances cannot be right.
I turn now to the whole question of open markets. That issue is one of the most taxing problems facing those at the European Commission, the WTO and the US Administration—how to design policies which recognise the difficulties that free trade will cause for some of the world's smallest states.
Different institutions have taken different approaches but in general terms, the debate in Brussels, Geneva and Washington centres on how and when full trade reciprocity can be achieved in any new European, Caribbean or hemispheric trade arrangement. In other words, how can all barriers and tariffs that currently regulate and restrict trade between larger and smaller and richer and poorer nations be removed?
In the case of Brazil or Chile or even Jamaica or Trinidad, those questions are complex but can be resolved through technical concepts known as phasing or variable geometry that recognise that small Caribbean nations in particular need different treatment from those of South America. But even those ideas cannot deal with the fundamental problem of whether small nations in the Eastern Caribbean, like Dominica, can ever have the ability to compete and survive in a fully free trade environment.
I turn now to Cuba. That is a country in which I have taken a special and continuing interest and it is a country which I hope very much that I shall be able to visit again later this year. In March, President Clinton signed legislation that seeks to create a secondary boycott on third nations that trade legally with Cuba. That legislation—Helms/Burton—seeks to impose US law on British and other companies and individuals investing in or trading with Cuba through creating wholly new offences recognised only in US law. It attempts to do so through the denial of visas, through information gathering on the activities of UK companies operating in Cuba and through other actions that are contrary to international law. The Bill, which is extra-territorial in effect, sets a dangerous precedent for similar actions in future by the United States and other parts of the world.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are engaged bilaterally and with our partners in the EU and with the NAFTA partners to attempt to have the United

1333
States Administration exercise what little room it has for discretion in this matter. But last Monday I held a meeting of the steering group for the Cuba initiative. Our two-hour meeting, which brought together officials and senior company representatives involved in Cuba, concentrated solely on the threat posed by the Helms/Burton legislation to British interests and the nature of the British Government's response.
By the end of the meeting, it is fair to say that almost all the companies present remained concerned that the British Government were still not making known their concerns to the US in a public and robust way. I am sorry to say that members were left with a number of questions to which there are still no answers. It would be helpful to be quite clear which Minister at the DTI is responsible for co-ordinating the political response and what public steps, apart from engaging in quiet diplomacy by officials, Ministers are proposing to take to make known to the US Administration Britain's very real concerns.
I do not believe that it is enough to suggest that, because companies have invested in Cuba and in the US, they must choose which investment is more important because US law suggests that. As was made clear to officials, prosecution for alleged traffic and/or visa denial under that law goes well beyond the hundreds of millions of dollars which companies stand to lose. For example, it will challenge British companies' ability to continue to participate in eastern Europe reconstruction or their ability to maintain significant influence in global commodity markets. In short, there are serious political ramifications which should be of much greater concern than they are. British business deserves to see the strongest possible political response.
Before concluding, I should like to touch briefly on two points. The first is the debate beginning in Brussels within the European Commission about what will follow Lomé IV. It is clear already that member states and the Commission are developing radically new ideas based on special support for particular ACP regions such as the Caribbean on advanced forms of partnership and in all probability, the attenuation of most preferences once Lomé IV expires.
I should like to mention also the increasing importance that the British private sector is placing on developing with the ODA partnership schemes in the Caribbean region. The particularly difficult situation that has arisen in Montserrat as a result of the volcanic activity offers companies with a long-term interest in the Caribbean and the British Government the opportunity to develop creative new ideas aimed at assisting the reconstruction of the island.
There are other issues which time does not allow me to discuss this evening. I conclude by saying again how grateful I am to my noble friend for coming here this evening to respond to the debate. I have introduced it because I still believe that Britain has a great interest in the Caribbean and whose interests should not be forgotten in the course of everything else.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Glenconner: My Lords, I thank heartily the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and congratulate her on
1334
her fine sense of timing in calling this debate. Not having the width of the noble Baroness's knowledge, I can speak only about those small territories in the eastern Caribbean—the Windward Islands. I begin by reminding your Lordships of some of the more pleasing aspects of that relationship. Those small, sturdy, sunny island nations have long remained loyal, courteous, cheerful and optimistic. Everyone will agree that to meet and do business with them is always a pleasure. If they have a fault, I think they are too trusting and too reliant on those very agreeable characteristics. In the changing and chilling economic situation in the world, they have found themselves confronted by people who do not share that nature and who are ready to take advantage of them.
Such a meeting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, took place in Miami on 9th April this year. Miami is a beautiful city and full of excellent qualities, but it is also subject to vice and scams. I do not know whether the West Indian delegates were wise to venture there, although they would have appreciated the warm climate and their hotel rooms. What came as a rude shock to them was that at the meeting—which had been convened by a US trade representative and was chaired by a US trade representative—they were immediately asked what suggestions they had to alter the preferential system that presently protects them. Of course they had no such suggestions to make. They were then told, "As you have no suggestions to make, there is nothing further to be said and we shall apply immediately to the WTO in Geneva for a panel." That, we believe, took place yesterday.
The Americans have been successful in downsizing their economy. I suppose, like many people, they want everyone else to share that experience; so downsizing it is to be. However, when the blanket shrinks and father says, "Turn" and we all turn but the blanket is smaller the little ones get left out and are not so much downsized as downcast and, ultimately, down and out. The consequences are alarming. The Americans were able, in the process of downsizing, to find 8 million jobs but no one will find a job for anyone in the West Indies when they are downsized because there are for them no alternatives.
Arising out of that is the whole question of drugs. Everyone is aware that the Caribbean is awash with drugs. However, I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the vast majority of people, certainly in the Windward Islands, are sensible about drugs. There are two streams of drugs. There are the international drugs which pass through and of which few people are aware, and where the Americans can be of help with the DEA, and there are the local drugs which are mostly in the hands of the riff and the raff. Most people are not affected by those either. However, that would not be the case if their main livelihood was denied them.
A local policeman of my acquaintance owns a share in a motorised canoe. This is a typical story. He went out to sea with others and they came upon many floating packages. They brought them back to shore and of course they contained millions of dollars worth of crack. I believe that the policeman showed a great deal of constraint. He told me that he only took 100,000 dollars

1335
worth. When I asked him why he had only taken that amount, he said it was because he was a policeman. He realised that he should only take the amount that he believed was due to him. Although he could have taken much more, he did not. I believe there is still an attitude of some responsibility which would disappear completely if there was no alternative livelihood for the people there.
The only alternatives that are practical at this stage will come as a result of education because the higher the level of education that the youth there can attain, the less likely they are to be vulnerable to the drugs trade. It is difficult to achieve educational goals among a population many of whom are still illiterate. It occurred to me that an avenue worth following might be to provide education through videos because people who cannot read or write cannot be taught from books. That is relevant to adult education. One must remember that it is the mothers in the West Indies who educate.
The public libraries throughout the Caribbean have been of great assistance in the past but I wonder whether they could also provide videos. People will watch a video. A tremendous amount of work needs to be done to educate the older people, and consequently the younger people, not only as regards reading and writing but in educating them about the different forms of tourist activity and hospitality they can offer. One should remember that tourism will not replace the banana trade. The only people who really benefit from tourists are those who are young and attractive with a good set of teeth; they can smile at the tourists. The older people will merely be fodder for the tourists' cameras, as will the small children. They will not benefit substantially from the tourist business.
It is all very well to say, "We'll rely on tourism". Tourism will not reach the people in the valleys and the hills and those who sell bananas every week. It will not reach those who cannot grow products to be sold outside the country.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I urge Her Majesty's Government to do whatever they can to delay or to postpone this threat from America. Governments in the Caribbean have recently invested £20 million of their precious money in the distribution of bananas to England. If those people have until the year 2002, I believe they will survive and, with Her Majesty's Government's help, which has been much appreciated and for which they are very grateful, I believe that that survival can be achieved.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, how sad it is that Lord Pitt is not with us this evening. He would be the first to acknowledge, however, that the mantle of the Caribbean, with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could not be in safer hands.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister might be encouraged to consider another Peer with Caribbean antecedents, and the stature and commitment of Lord Pitt, joining us. I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to make certain that Lady Pitt receives a copy of Hansard on this debate.
1336
The other regret I have is that this Question is being asked in this Chamber. It is the American political scene, in failing to understand the issues of the Caribbean even though next door neighbours, with whom we should be debating. Cuba—the noble Baroness rightly addressed the issue—is a case in point. Why cannot the United States even listen to its NAFTA partners? Canada has taken a strong and principled stance against the extra-territorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Bill. I understand that there is taking place in Washington today NAFTA consultations on its implementation. Although speaking for myself, I believe that all those who have supported the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on his various Questions on Cuba, would appreciate the Minister writing to tell us more about today's meeting if she feels able.
The Caribbean is facing a precarious future. For example, debt burden is the pressing need of the developing world, but the gravity is as well illustrated in the Caribbean as elsewhere. Overall debt in the anglophone Caribbean stands at 10 billion US dollars. Jamaica owes 4 billion dollars, with Guyana and Trinidad owing 2 billion dollars each. A staggering 70 per cent. of government revenues in Guyana is currently required to service repayments—a seemingly bottomless pit of despair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stressed the need for the debt quagmire to be turned from talk into action. Mere rescheduling is not a solution but a postponement of the critical problem. The Naples criteria highlighted the problem of multilateral debt; and what can and must be done with the multilateral agencies.
The IMF and the World Bank have the resources. Their constitutions should be changed and those bodies instructed to use those resources. However, relief should come only with structural adjustment conditionality. Can the Minister give us the latest news from the finance ministers meeting in Washington? For example, what will be the criteria for the selection of candidates; and which countries will be eligible from the Caribbean? It would be useful to hear something about those matters this evening although I do not wish to usurp the Question on these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which is set down for next week.
Sustainable solutions will come only from economic development by competing. But competitiveness thrives only on a level playing field. The bedrock of future regional economic prosperity is tourism, data and financial services, with agricultural diversification. The Caribbean wants to, and eventually must, diversify. But despite best efforts there are as yet no products which have been found to provide the level of income and employment needed to sustain further economic development.
The governments of the Caribbean have been implementing, short, medium and long-term socio-economic development programmes based on the reasonable assumption that their exports, and the revenue and jobs derived, would have access to the European market and preferential access through the Lomé Convention until at least 2002.

1337
It is unfortunate that the United States is prepared to place the economies of the Caribbean in jeopardy just to satisfy the market ambitions of one of its companies, albeit a politically powerful one—Chiquita. I wish to add my voice to the powerful arguments put by the noble Baroness. It is determined to undermine the Lomé Convention, after which the United States then expects the European Union to pick up the aid tab that is the result of its cavalier approach. No bananas are grown by Chiquita within the United States. Chiquita offers no trade benefits to the United States, and does not protect one job.
Sir Leon Brittan, our Commissioner in Brussels, has stood firm in the past. The United States should reconsider and withdraw its proposal for a WTO panel to undertake a judicial review of the regime. I note that the Commission refused the request yesterday, but the next meeting of the Disputes Settlement Body will be on 8th May, and without doubt it will consider the request at that time. An affirmation this evening of continued support by the Government would be helpful. I hope the Minister will feel able to give such an affirmation.
The United States might do well to remember that it they constantly warn the Caribbean to toe the line on international issues and support it in voting strategy at the United Nations. I sometimes wonder whether a development arm of the WTO, performing with authority as it does in relation to trade, might consider and implement development solutions with equal authority.
But what of development assistance? Future emphasis in the Caribbean should be on regional infrastructure, even at the cost of diminishing bilateral assistance. Sea and air transport links are badly needed. Without them, regional intra-trade is severely hampered.
Time does not permit me to comment in depth on such issues as Haiti. I believe that the United States and others are withdrawing too quickly. The World Bank and the IMF are calling for the immediate privatisation of utilities. That is right as a long-term policy, but impractical in the short term.
Additionally, the need for the Caribbean to form closer links with Central and South America is important. I see an important role for Belize in this regard; but the outstanding territorial claim by Guatemala should not be allowed to stand in the way.
More needs to be done to increase surveillance to halt the distribution of drugs, including greater access to satellite and AWACS. The coastguards in many of the islands do not have the sophisticated equipment to respond with the speed necessary to apprehend drug smugglers.
I end, however, on a positive note. There is no reason why the Caribbean region as a whole should not continue its development as one of the most stable regions in the world, with the steadfast help of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and, it is to be hoped, with a more proactive interest on the part of the United States.
1338
I should feel uncomfortable if I did not specifically mention Canada. It does so much in the region, as it does within the Commonwealth. Caribbean countries welcome close ties with Canada, as a possible counterweight to their own ties with the United States. In that context, Canada is helping to transform the Organisation of American States into a hemispheric rather than a US-dominated institution.
But more importantly, Britain can be justly proud of the part that it has played in that progress, not only in terms of economics and trade, but also because of the political and social institutions that have been established and nurtured.
9.17 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Young has raised this subject again. It is an important one. Both she and my noble friend Lady Chalker will be delighted to hear that I propose to resist the temptation to speak about bananas—a subject on which I have spoken on a number of occasions. With great self-discipline, I have decided to take a different line.
I want to follow up one important point made by my noble friend Lady Young. It concerns Cuba. On 13th March this year I asked a Starred Question concerning the Helms-Burton Act. It resulted in a number of supplementaries which produced almost unanimous support from all parties for the idea that Her Majesty's Government should be making the strongest possible representations in Washington. In replying, will my noble friend say what representations have been made, and whether they have had any tangible effect?
There is a tendency, which has emerged quite clearly this evening, to equate the Caribbean with the anglophone islands. That is quite understandable, as the islands have very serious problems, as was illustrated by all who spoke. But the Caribbean embraces more than the islands. The area is a sea of importance surrounded by a landmass, much of which is part of Latin America.
I want to extend the debate to mention one specific area of that region; namely, Central America, which we discuss very little but which has important Caribbean ramifications. By "Central America" I mean the Republics of Guatemala, Honduras, E1 Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and now particularly Belize, which is very much part of the area and is playing a crucial part.
That area comprises seven countries and 30 million people. It occupies a landmass around double that of the United Kingdom. During the decades of the 1960s and 1970s it experienced a turbulent time. Now they all enjoy democratic elected governments, relative peace and stability. They are all pursuing policies of economic liberalisation, tariff reduction and modernisation of both state and infrastructure. As a whole the region has a GDP which is growing at around 4 per cent. annually. There are stable currencies and inflation is only around 10 per cent. Those are impressive figures.
During the decade of the 1960s there was an ambitious project to create a common market. However, it failed and the process of integration is now restarting

1339
on much more practical lines. The intention is to try to create a Central American community of states. I am glad to say that that is already beginning to happen and Belize already has observer status in the group. Obviously the region, like many other parts of Latin America, would like to join NAFTA. A more likely first stage will be involvement in the new Association of Caribbean States.
Trade is not quite so significant as the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young. But UK exports, which are a low percentage regrettably, have risen in the past six years from £100 million to £180 million. Central American countries represent the fifth largest trading partner within Latin America. Over and above the trade aspect we have considerable investment there. There are many major UK companies and corporations which have been established in the region for a long time. In passing perhaps I might mention that in 1960 I was the manager in the start-up of Shell in E1 Salvador, to give an example of a company which is now operating in all the countries. It is therefore a vigorous area which is growing in prosperity.
The area has a good solid track record with the IADB and the World Bank, and indeed the CDC operates in all the countries except in Panama. It has investments in agro-industry, tourism and utilities. There are tremendous opportunities in those countries.
It is particularly gratifying that in all the countries we now have British embassies. They are small and they are trade oriented. I thank my noble friend for ensuring that we recently reopened the embassy in the Dominican Republic. It was a sad day when we closed it—my noble friend Lady Young will remember that day. In my view it should never have happened, but it did; it is now open again. Those small embassies, however small they may be, provide an official British presence. That is extremely important in the creation of the good relations which exist everywhere. Foreign Office representatives in those countries do a marvellous job.
Finally, my noble friend may be aware that next month the London-based Central American-British Chamber of Commerce will be inaugurated. It is a totally private initiative, designed to provide a one-stop shop in London for both the UK and Central American traders and investors. It is therefore a two-way endeavour which will create an even closer mutual understanding between this country and the countries of Central America. It has been formed with encouragement from the DTI, FCO, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, CBI and indeed the Central American ambassadors here in London. It will have sponsorship from the very same firms and organisations which have investment in the area.
I feel sure that my noble friend will wish this endeavour God speed and every success. It does seem to me to be a very important initiative, and I hope she will be able to mention it at the end of the debate.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am aware of trespassing on the relatively short time available to your
1340
Lordships in this timed debate. I wish to speak in the gap briefly to raise the question of Montserrat.
I should make it clear why I do so. My secretary, whom I count a good friend, comes from Montserrat and has family there. I am aware, from her recent dealings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the issue of a British dependent territory and what that might mean at a period of crisis. In fact, in the case of Montserrat, it is a crisis which has been bubbling along for months. The volcano which has been threatening to erupt has caused the evacuation of a number of the residents of Montserrat on more than one occasion.
In raising the issue perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask the Minister some brief questions. The hurricane season will soon draw near. What information will be given to the people of Montserrat who are now in temporary accommodation in the north of the island—many of whom are living in shelters—about their future in those shelters. I am concerned not only about their living conditions but also the general circumstances. As it has been put to me, how are they to be occupied?
I include the question of schooling. I understand now that as the schools are being used for accommodation, only fifth and sixth formers are being educated—those who have imminent exams.
Secondly, given that the north of the island is overcrowded with people living in temporary shelters, can the Minister give an assurance that the shelters will be made reasonably comfortable and sufficiently robust to withstand the onslaught of the hurricane season?
Thirdly, what views do Her Majesty's Government have and what plans do they have for assisting with evacuation, if that proves to be necessary, as there is increasing concern that it may—and to where?
Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lift immigration and work permit restrictions, but only in the case, as I understand it, of those who have the means to come to this country and who are sponsored so that they have accommodation here? I raise this issue knowing that those people are the very people whose presence on the island, as leaders of their community, may be the most necessary.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this far-ranging debate. However, I feel it is important that I start my speech by drawing attention to legislation that is yet to pass through this House, the Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Bill could have an extremely detrimental impact on Britain's relations with the Caribbean.
Clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces a new criminal offence of employing someone with no legal right to work. This will undoubtedly increase the discrimination in employment against black and ethnic minority workers as employers will not want the burden of checking immigration status and risking potential penalties if they make a mistake.
Black workers already face discrimination in the labour market. TUC research, based on the Labour Force Survey published in October 1995, shows that

1341
more than half of all Afro-Caribbean men aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in the spring of 1994. Sixty per cent. of Afro-Caribbean workers classified as unemployed by the spring of 1994 had been unemployed for over one year compared to 44 per cent. of white workers. I urge the Government to reconsider that clause of the Bill as it will have a direct impact on those of Afro-Caribbean origin.
I turn to an issue raised by all noble Lords except the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who showed rare self-discipline. That is the issue of bananas. The banana trade has been covered by a number of debates in the past and is still the subject of an increasingly bitter transatlantic dispute. The banana regime came into effect in January 1993 and is designed to assist producers of bananas and to ensure that the Community honours its obligations to African, Caribbean and Pacific states embodied in the Lomé Convention.
One must realise the importance of the banana trade to the Caribbean and the lack of viable alternative economic activities. Unlike many alternative crops, bananas can recover to full productive capacity after just nine months if hit by one of the region's frequent hurricanes. The banana industry provides employment for approximately half of the working population; it is suited to family production and accounts for more than half of export earnings. Moreover, production is largely under conditions which guarantee employees minimum social standards.
Efforts are being made to diversify agriculture in the Windward Islands to reduce the reliance on bananas. However, alternatives are not easy to find and it is essential that the region's banana industry is supported and made more efficient. The EU is trying to ensure the long-term economic stability of the Caribbean. I urge the British Government to support it in its attempt to do that.
The regime is facing complaints from Latin American banana producing countries and American multinationals which wish to export bananas from those countries to the EU. At the Uruguay Round of GATT talks a framework agreement was reached with Latin American countries reducing the tariff and increasing the annual quota from those countries from 2 million to 2.2 million tonnes. In September 1994 Chiquita, an American company with interests in Latin America, petitioned the US trade representative to seek redress for its trade interests affected by the banana regime. That led to consultations at the World Trade Organisation with the EU.
In February 1996, the US, together with a number of Latin American countries, made a fresh request to the World Trade Organisation. In addition to statements of position by either side, a series of questions were exchanged. If no resolution is reached after 60 days, as seems likely, the complainant is entitled to ask that the matter be referred to the World Trade Organisation disputes settlement body. The European Union is likely to oppose that on the ground that the questions asked during the consultation period have not yet been answered by the parties involved.
1342
Greater access to Europe for Latin American bananas would destroy an industry. The preoccupation of the US with expanding the European Union market share of certain US firms could be damaging to the region's economic survival. Furthermore, official statistics show that imports of dollar bananas, primarily by US companies, have actually maintained and even increased their share of the European Union market since the new banana regime was introduced. One way that the British Government could help is by assisting the EU in giving a robust defence of the regime at the World Trade Organisation. I assume that this is the course of action the Government will take.
The other issue I should like to discuss is Cuba, which has been raised by many noble Lords. I know the situation in Cuba is very close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am grateful for the work she does in promoting better trading relations between Britain and Cuba. That is good for Britain and should in the long-term promote greater openness in Cuba.
The signing of the Helms-Burton Bill by President Clinton on 12th March has rightly been condemned by much of the international community, including Britain, Canada and Mexico, the United States' two partners in NAFTA, the European Union, Russia, China, the Caribbean community and the Rio group of Latin American countries. Of particular concern are the extra-territorial provisions of the Bill which extend US law to third countries. Such legislation is surely not compatible with the United States' international obligations. It certainly does not comply with the spirit of international free trade. What representations are the Government making individually, and with its EU partners, to the World Trade Organisation concerning this matter?
The potential implications of this legislation for British companies, which have a substantial and increasing interest in Cuba, are grave. I hope the Minister will assure us that the Government will do everything in their power to protect the legitimate rights of British businesss to trade with, and invest in, Cuba. I hope that in August the American president will exercise his right of veto over the provisions which give US nationals a right of action against third parties in the US courts. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that this will happen, this being an election year with the presidential race distinctly under way.
I would also like to ask why Britain has repeatedly failed to join with most of its European partners, and indeed with the vast majority of the international community, in condemning the United States' embargo of Cuba in the United Nations General Assembly. If, as the Government claim, they oppose the blockade, why will they not stand with the rest of the world in sending a clear message to the United States Government that their position on Cuba is not acceptable? Will the Government resolve to make such a stand when the resolution comes before the UN in November? The experience of many countries in Africa which have undergone transition to the democratic process was significantly eased by economic liberalisation, especially in the area of trade. It would be unfortunate

1343
if the American actions weakened Cuba significantly at a time when there is much agreement that political change cannot be far away.
A worrying development, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glenconner, which affects not only the Caribbean region but other areas of the world, but especially that region at the moment, has been the increase in drug-trafficking, drug-use and drug-related violence. This threatens political and social stability in the Caribbean and increases the flow of drugs to Britain. We welcome the co-operation that is taking place on the issue. In May, a conference is to be held in Barbados sponsored by the European Union and the UN drugs control programme. In addition to such multilateral efforts, I particularly welcome the initiative launched by the ODA to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and to support health and education programmes to reduce drug use in the region.
An area of particular imminent plight in the region is the issue of Montserrat. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already discussed the issue in considerable detail, I shall not cover it, but I would like to commend the work done by people on the ground at the centre of the crisis who can be at particular risk. I echo the questions asked about what action the British Government are taking, and the delayed action that seems to have been taken, over the situation there.
I would like to conclude on two points. The first is to ask the Government what action they are taking on the edge of the Caribbean in Guyana. It is a small country, one of the most indebted nations in South America. Can the Minister give any indication of special initiatives that they are undertaking there?
The Caribbean is not an area that is out of the public eye; indeed, there is the work done by World Aware to promote education in developing countries. It has produced videos which are centered on St. Lucia. I was gratified to learn that it has been estimated that 1.5 million primary school children already have intimate knowledge of areas of the Caribbean. By raising this issue again I hope that they will have more.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having cogently introduced this debate tonight. On those rare occasions when I find myself in total agreement with her it is impossible to find a stronger ally. I wish that I could have this experience more often. I fear that all I can do tonight is to underline the strength of the arguments that she put so well.
I also warmly endorse the remarks made by various noble Lords who have said how much they miss Lord Pitt. His death leaves an irreplaceable gap in any deliberations in this House on the Caribbean. It is impossible to fill that gap completely, but I hope that we shall try to make it good before too long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, should make no apology for her intervention in the gap. The way in which she brought spontaneity of human concern in the
1344
midst of our wider deliberations was an example of this House at its very best. I believe that we should all take seriously the concerns that she has expressed.
Economic development in the Caribbean has been very uneven in recent years. According to the World Bank, the Caribbean and Latin America together have experienced a fall of some 0.1 per cent. per annum in per capita gross national product between 1980 and 1993. But individual countries have fared worse; for example, in Trinidad and Tobago per capita GNP fell by 2.8 per cent. in the same period.
Despite those economic difficulties, some indicators have improved. According to UNICEF, infant mortality in the region has decreased dramatically. In Jamaica it fell from 58 to 10 per 1,000 births between 1960 and 1994, yet some 80 per cent. of Jamaica's rural population still live below the absolute poverty line.
What has been the UK response? While the US cut its aid to the region by about 90 per cent. in the 10 years to 1994, from 226 million US dollars to 24 million US dollars, UK aid has remained relatively stable. However, the region will now be hit severely by the recently announced United Kingdom cuts. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report indicates that by the end of the century Britain's aid to the Caribbean is already planned to fall by between 20 and 25 per cent. The recent fundamental expenditure review of ODA puts an even more disturbing questionmark over future levels of aid, recommending that the Caribbean should not be a targeted priority.
Even the less poor Caribbean countries—Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago—rank among the world's most heavily indebted. While their total debts may appear to be quite small—at 4 billion US dollars and 2 billion US dollars respectively—over 1,500 US dollars is owed for every one of their citizens. Both countries spend over 20 per cent. of their export earnings on debt servicing. Action has been taken to restructure and write off their debt, but it seems that Jamaica still owes the ODA over £50 million, making it one of its largest remaining debtors.
Furthermore, as we have heard clearly tonight, the economies of the Caribbean are often dependent on the export of one or two primary commodities. That dependency makes them highly sensitive to changes in the global market; for example, in the case of St. Lucia about 98 per cent. of exports to the UK consist of vegetables and fruit, particularly bananas. The introduction of the single European market has put product prices under pressure. At the same time, the US and various Latin America countries claim that the European Union's banana regime violates international trade rules because it discriminates in favour of ACP producers at the expense of Latin America. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has told us, despite what was taken by the Caribbean as the US indicating in good faith that the matter could be resolved amicably, the US has dismayed the Caribbean by lodging formal complaints with the World Trade Organisation.
Winston Graham, a banana farmer in the Windward Islands, has put it very well:

1345
"We are told that the world has changed, that because of GATT there must be a free market in bananas. But the market should not be so free that it can destroy people's lives".
And that is precisely what is at stake, together with whole economies, the social fabric and potentially the political stability of those small democracies.
In the longer term, there is a fatalistic tendency to assume that the need for special arrangements for Caribbean bananas will inevitably end at the latest when the present regime expires in 2002.
The Caribbean is determined to do all in its power to narrow the competitive gap with Latin America, but the physical circumstances of the Caribbean—the size of farms, the nature of the terrain, exposure to natural disasters, and other factors—make it impossible for it to compete on equal terms with the vast, flat plantations of Latin America and the highly integrated operations of the multi-national companies which dominate much of the marketing and production there.
The Caribbean Banana Exporters Association argues:
"This situation will not have changed by 2002. Nor is aid an acceptable alternative to trade: while diversification is feasible only as a supplement to bananas, not in substitution; for it could not provide comparable income or employment, or generate sufficient volume to secure the necessary shipping service for the islands".
That is all a sorry state of affairs in countries to which we have such close ties and in which the kith and kin of so many UK citizens live. It is an even more deplorable situation when we look at the Caribbean in an historical context: the whole story of slavery and of the colonial insistence on moving their economies to what has proved to be such a vulnerable dependency on a limited range of exports.
Our responsibilities are clearly heavy. It is therefore essential that we hear convincing evidence from the Minister on how the Government propose, both bilaterally and with the EU as a whole, to fight for those friends at risk. How do the Government reconcile the harsh recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review of ODA with the need for support for diversification and the building of alternative, viable economies? For whatever the traders in their fearful exasperation may say, diversification and alternatives must surely be found and supported if we are to guarantee long-term well being.
We must never be so ignorant as to lump the Caribbean together. While successful regional co-operation is essential, for any of us who has been privileged to visit these islands their individual characteristics, qualities and needs are what strike the outsider most. In view of our special responsibilities, we should really find the time to review the relationship with each individually.
Sufficient time is not available tonight, so let me briefly mention three current (Caribbean) concerns. I turn first to Haiti. Following the restoration of democracy after former President Carter's inspired initiative, those brave people face daunting challenges in every sector. As the Catholic Institute for International Relations and others have reminded us, the transition from dictatorship to democracy is complicated by extreme poverty, environmental devastation, tottering infrastructure and the legacy of 200 years of
1346
authoritarian rule. If we and other advocates of the cause of democracy are not to go down as hollow windbags, there is an urgent need to reinforce what President Aristide has modestly described as a
"move from misery to poverty with dignity."
That will have to include support for the rule of law and the reform of the judiciary; the provision of the new national police, free from old army influences, with the resources necessary to protect citizens everywhere; the development of democratic political parties and the institutional capacity for the operation of democracy and of representative government; and, together with NGOs, the strengthening of civil society—grass root organizations—the lifeblood of a stable democracy.
The second is the Dominican Republic—adjacent to Cuba, with both the Dominican Republic and Cuba having an obvious mutual interest for their development in economic and social co-operation based on sound democratic systems. The genuinely democratic presidential elections provided for in the pact brokered by the US and witnessed by NGOs and representatives of the international community will shortly take place. It is important for the international community to give all possible support to ensure that those elections are truly transparent. And if democracy is to stabilise, there is a desperate need for community-based development projects to combat the grim reality in which 60 per cent. of the population still live below the poverty line.
I turn thirdly to Cuba, to which significant reference has been made. Following the recent aircraft incident, the question has inevitably been raised as to whether the US did nor did not over-react. It is significant that the Catholic bishops in Cuba—normally critics of the regime—have expressed anxiety at the hardening of US policy. What seems to be clear is that the impact of the embargo upon the Cuban economy has seriously aggravated human suffering. There are many who argue with conviction that this has been counter-productive by, in effect, so far uniting Cubans, including those critical of the government, against what is portrayed as a foreign aggressor. Indeed, some suggest that the US hard line plays into the hands of hardline elements of the Cuban state who seek to blame all economic woes on the United States rather than addressing the serious structural issues which are the result of disastrous internal political dogmatism.
I do, of course, recognise that the UK Government have distanced themselves from the US position and have indicated their unhappiness with the US embargo and their opposition to the more extreme notion that the US should impose sanctions on those trading with Cuba. I also recognise that ODA has a small bilateral aid programme in Cuba and that our ambassador there has initiated a number of small areas of mutual co-operation with the Cuban Government. As I interpret it, the UK Government are keen to avoid economic collapse and rapid, perhaps violent, political change in Cuba for fear of a destabilising effect in the whole region and the massive exodus of Cuban boat people who might well head for British Commonwealth countries or other dependencies—for Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and elsewhere.

1347
I hope that the Minister will tonight give specific information on the action the government are taking in respect of Haiti and the Dominican Republic and clarify their position on Cuba.
Drugs are a big factor in the Caribbean, with all the associated and lamentable corruption that surrounds the trafficking. Ugly elements in the Caribbean play a significant part in the wider international trade. However, unless Caribbean nations have a sound economic base and a reasonable expectation that they can in time develop diversified and competitive economies, no amount of special anti-drug co-operation will overcome the financial attraction to some individuals of an involvement with drug trafficking. The law of the market alone is, after all, amoral.
I have been concerned by reports of a recent article in the specialist US foreign affairs magazine, the National Interest, in which the former US Assistant Secretary of State, Elliot Abrams, is said to have argued—I hope I quote accurately—that,
"the Caribbean may well be best off accepting and trying to regularise American interventions in exchange for certain economic and trade benefits".
I gather he asked:
"Could American control of national security affairs not co-exist with local control over all other matters, at least in the small islands?"
Provocative thinking indeed. I hope that the Minister will leave us in no shred of doubt about the resolute determination of the United Kingdom Government that the idea of such a new hegemony, coming as it does from the Republican right, shall not be allowed to go unchallenged.
On these Benches we recognise the increasing global interdependence as fundamental to the reality of life for us all. We therefore advocate maximum possible international co-operation between nations large and small. But that is something rather different from what the reports of Mr. Abrams' remarks seem to suggest. We need, and hope we will have tonight, the reassurance of the UK Government that the ideas attributed to Mr. Abrams in no way reflect their own.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have listened to tonight's debate with great interest. Like other speakers, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on introducing the debate and more especially on all the work that she does to assist Britain's relations with the Caribbean, and to help develop a relationship specifically with Cuba. My noble friend has worked unceasingly for that. I should like to join my noble friend and other noble Lords in lamenting the absence tonight of a very dear friend, Lord Pitt. I learned a great deal from David Pitt over many years. I know that we really need someone in his mould for the future.
This has been a very short debate, but most varied in content, and I found myself thinking that this is just as difficult to wind up as any European Union debate. It is
1348
actually very important for the Caribbean: nobody who has spoken is in any doubt about that and nobody who reads our debate will be in any doubt.
As my noble friend Lady Young said, the Foreign Secretary's visit to Barbados and Jamaica early in April underlined Britain's continuing interest in the stability and prosperity of the Caribbean. While we may have relations with many other parts of the world and particularly with our big neighbour, the United States, we have a very fundamental relationship with the Caribbean. It is particularly important at a time when the Caribbean faces such very great change. I assure your Lordships that Britain is not about to abandon its long-established obligations to the region and, whatever Mr. Abrams may have said, which I have not previously read, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that that does not form part of our view.
At the beginning of this debate perhaps I may say a word in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about Montserrat. It is a very particular problem with which the Overseas Development Administration has been dealing right the way through from last summer. The volcanic activity is now at its most dangerous level since the crisis began. There is no doubt about that. The scientists are unsure about what may happen next, but what they are confident of is that the north of the island is safe from the effects of a major eruption. I spent some time this afternoon with the Governor of Montserrat, who is here to advise us. He told me a lot more about what is going on.
Certainly, the population from the southern part of the island, including the capital Plymouth, who were evacuated to the safe northern area on 3rd April, are safe and well there. We know that their conditions are not ideal. There is no employment for them, there is no recreation for them. However, they are safe, and the safety and the well-being of those people has been and will remain our overriding concern. We have spent nearly £4 million of emergency aid since August of last year, mostly on the scientific monitoring, but also on the evacuation requirements. I have a very experienced, full-time officer on the island who, with the help of some British forces who are out there, is master-minding the whole scenario of what might have to be done in the event of certain types of eruption.
We do have contingency plans for off-island evacuation, should that prove necessary. We are in touch with all the neighbouring islands and we have been discussing an improvement of the conditions in the north, because we are only too well aware that the hurricane season is upon us. This is something we are used to each year. The contingency plans are in place, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not in any way leave a stone unturned to help the people of Montserrat. At a time when they really do need our very best help, they will get it.
I turn from Montserrat to Haiti, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned at the end of his remarks. Together with our other European Union partners, we are one of the major donors in Haiti. The European Mission there has been strengthened and, through the European Union, we are involved in providing assistance to help to improve the judiciary.

1349
There is obviously an onus on the people of Haiti to work to maintain and secure a stable democracy, but we hope that, with the election of the new president, good progress is going to be made there and we continue to work away at what is a continuing problem until the island has really reached greater stability than has so far been possible.
I turn to what I consider was a justified anger about the United States' apparently selfish attitudes towards the trading aspirations of the Caribbean islands. I do not believe that I can sum it up any better than that. All those who have been involved with the Caribbean over the years know how important the trade in bananas has been to the islands. The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, mentioned the Windward Islands in that regard. We all know, too, that there has been a need for those islands to diversify their crops. British aid has been spent on helping them to do that. But we are now faced with a new situation, partly as a result of the much stronger trading patterns that take place between large trading blocs.
Of course, Britain trades significantly with the Caribbean and we hope this trade will grow. But even the Caribbean's trade with us or our trade with the Caribbean cannot make up for the imposition which is apparent in the activities of some in trading with the US. As a matter of record I should say that British exports to the insular Caribbean were £1.1 billion in 1995 and the net book value of British investment in the wider Caribbean is estimated at more than £2.5 billion and has been increasing in many different fields. Therefore, Britain is actually investing in the Caribbean as well as exporting to it. But there is also a growing Caribbean investment in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we know that the Caribbean is a good trading partner. That is why I mentioned those figures because it is important to underline how seriously we must take the Caribbean as a trading partner.
On his recent visit to the area, the Foreign Secretary told the Commonwealth Caribbean that it could count on the UK for support in developing its post-Lomé IV relationship in a way which is sensitive to the needs of the Caribbean. As for development assistance, in 1995 we approved a five-year strategy for the independent Caribbean which envisaged over that period a graduation from UK bilateral assistance to a number of the richer islands. But that does not mean that we are abandoning those who need help either in terms of investment through aid or in terms of supporting them in their trading relations.
It is extremely important to keep that in clear perspective. We shall defend the rights of the Caribbean under Lomé. We know that Lomé grants generous trade preferences for the exports of bananas, rum and sugar. But they are of particular importance to the Caribbean. That Lomé system is a useful mechanism which marshals the substantial sums of European aid going into the region. We intend to continue working for and with the Caribbean islands at this very difficult time of change. But as my noble friend Lady Young said, many of their leaders realise that at this time of change, they also have to achieve change.
1350
That is why I said some moments ago that the Caribbean cannot ignore the importance of restructuring and improving its banana industry along the lines suggested by the ODA-sponsored Cargill Report. I believe that if the Caribbean does so, the banana industry can and will retain its place in the Community market.
At the moment I believe that it is right that we should encourage the Caribbean to continue the restructuring and improvement process in the banana industry. While I understand the concerns of all those who mentioned Chiquita, it is not for me to comment on commercial matters. However, I understand very fully what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others have said.
I am glad to note that the price of bananas has risen recently. That should increase the returns to the Caribbean producers. But in the longer term, those returns will depend on the success of restructuring the industry, as I mentioned some moments ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about our aid flows to the Caribbean. In the last complete year, 1994–95, they totalled some £38 million, excluding the investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of some £57 million. I can assure the noble Lord that this figure is not likely to decrease significantly over the next two or three years. The Caribbean will also benefit from significant European Union aid. We are being extremely careful at targeting our aid and in making sure that it works to help the Caribbean islands improve their trading situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, spoke about changes in the Caribbean. I have heard comments of this nature from other people outside your Lordships' House. The change that frightens people most as regards the Caribbean concerns the growth in drugs. My noble friend Lady Young spoke of that too. Drugs pose the greatest threat—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We will all have found what she has just said immensely reassuring for the immediate future. However, I hope that she will have time to say a few words about the implications of the fundamental expenditure review for the longer term future.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seems to believe there is some ghost around called the fundamental expenditure review. I can assure him that the plans I have just spoken about with regard to the next two or three years have been drawn up in the light of the FER. I do not think that tonight is the time to go into that in greater detail. However, I am absolutely sure that we have to be careful and specific as regards targeting; and that we are already doing with the Caribbean. That is why I can talk about aid flows with considerable confidence.
Other speakers in the debate have been rightly concerned about the depth of the problems which drugs trafficking, money laundering and related crime pose for the Caribbean. We attach great importance to the fight against drugs because unless we do more to help the Caribbean islands fight that plague, the situation will

1351
become disastrous for the younger generation. The European Union Caribbean drugs initiative was jointly launched by the Prime Minister and President Chirac in September last year after Mr. Major's meeting with Owen Arthur, the Prime Minister of Barbados. We now have a European Commission-led team of experts who produced a draft with a number of proposals for action. That is being considered at the UN International Drugs Control Programme meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados on 15th to 17th May, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. Britain has contributed about two-thirds of the budget for the meeting. The aim is to agree an effective European Union/Caribbean action programme to combat drugs. The programme will be financed by the European Union countries, Canada, the US and by the United Nations control programme.
We are doing probably as much as any single country to help the fight against drugs in the islands and around the islands. We are considering new opportunities to help but the initiative I have mentioned will be a valuable and fruitful one. In addition we are providing bilateral and multilateral assistance for the anti-narcotics efforts of the Caribbean countries. We provided almost £2 million for 1995–96. We have a memorandum of understanding between the British Government and the seven member countries of the regional security system. This MOU will provide for a 10-man British military advisory training team to give advice, training and assistance to regional security forces, particularly in the fight against drugs. We also provide assistance through the West Indies guardship which works closely to combat drug trafficking.
I have concentrated on the Commonwealth Caribbean but I must comment on the all-important situation in Cuba and say, rather in passing but nonetheless sincerely, to my noble friend Lord Montgomery how much we welcome the proposal to establish the new Central American Chamber of Commerce in London, and how important we believe this will be for our Central American friends and for British trade with Central America.
I should like to move to the vexed question of the Helms-Burton legislation. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lady Young that many of the Government's Ministers, including DTI Ministers, have raised the UK's concern about Helms-Burton when they have met their US counterparts. I did so myself. We shall continue to press the US Administration to mitigate the effects of the legislation on UK companies and on UK trading interests.
1352
I can certainly tell my noble friend that at the CARITAG seminar at the DTI on 2nd May, my friend from another place, Mr. Ian Taylor, will be speaking and will make a very firm commitment as regards how we are taking forward the work against the Helms-Burton legislation. I am delighted that my noble friend will be chairing that meeting.
The extra-territorial provisions of Helms-Burton could give rise to conflict with international law. We have lobbied hard over several months against this legislation prior to its enactment. We have delivered notes of Britain's own views. We have worked with our partners in the European Union. Last Monday at the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union we expressed our deep concern at the legislation and invited experts to draw up all WTO and other options regarding our action in defence of European Union rights and interests, and as regards the way in which the Lomé countries, the Caribbean countries, are affected. We are considering the possibility of countermeasures as well, which I hope will help.
A number of other issues were raised in some detail. It is not possible to discuss them all tonight. However, I should like to say how strongly we believe it is right to try to build up trade with countries with whom we have not always had the closest of relations. I refer in particular to Cuba. We want to develop the relationship with Cuba on a political and an economic level both on our own account and on the part of our partners in the European Union. The reason I say that firmly, whatever the behaviour of Cuba, is that I believe that active involvement with a country like Cuba, rather than isolation, is the best way to encourage and achieve reform. When the Madrid European Council concluded that dialogue and co-operation should be continued with Cuba, that attitude was criticised in some quarters. However, we believe it to be absolutely right.
We have had a very interesting, although rather short, debate tonight. I hope that it will serve to say to all our friends in the Caribbean that we care about their development; we care about helping them to develop their trade; and we certainly care very much about the interventions of other countries which seem to impede their progress. That is why we are working, not on our own but with many other countries, to try to protect them and to give them the chance to develop so that they can stand as countries proud of their own inheritance and of their own abilities.
I am very pleased that our dependent territories in the Caribbean, as well as our friends on the mainland of central America, can be absolutely confident in Britain's support for them. I thank my noble friend very much for launching this debate tonight.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Works of Art: Transfer Abroad
  Works of Art: Transfer Abroad
  Woodland Improvement
  Woodland Improvement
  Ashford International Station: Continental Rolling Stock
  Ashford International Station: Continental Rolling Stock
  London Taxi Fares and Fees
  London Taxi Fares and Fees
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Medicines: Dosage Directions and Ingredient Labelling
  Medicines: Dosage Directions and Ingredient Labelling
  Children Act 1989 and Asylum Seekers
  Children Act 1989 and Asylum Seekers
  Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
  Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
  Housing Benefit: Payment in Arrears
  Housing Benefit: Payment in Arrears
  The Prison Ombudsman
  The Prison Ombudsman
  Prison Service Female Establishment Policy
  Prison Service Female Establishment Policy
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Mandatory Penalties: Deterrent Effect
  Mandatory Penalties: Deterrent Effect
  Murder and Manslaughter by Children
  Murder and Manslaughter by Children
  Fisheries Council, 22nd April
  Fisheries Council, 22nd April